I'm interested in what was going on at Savage in this time frame. Curious industry-wide why 1964 was the big year for change, but especially at Savage from 1959-1964. I've got some 1964 rifles with different checkering styles. One 1964 308 DL still has the Chicopee Falls barrel. Must have been interesting times 1959-1965.

Probably not in a good way, but I wish I could be a fly on the wall.

Look at what was going on in the whole country a that time, the times they were a changin'! Maybe the gun manufacturers were already preparing for the gun control act, and all the new regulations that would effect their manufacturing. The president was assassinated, Russia was going to drop a bomb on our heads..., I'd probably retire and move too! ...come to think of it, maybe it's time to retire and move..

Inflation was starting to creep into the picture, the production machinery was antiquated and the pool of skilled labor needed to produce guns that required had fitting and finishing was rapidly shrinking. All those factors were combining at the time and were the driving forces behind the changes that came about. Many of the firearm designs of the time would be cost prohibitive to produce even with today's modern CNC equipment.

Interesting. During that time Winchester certainly took a plunge but Remington stepped up their game with the 700. And as far as I know there is no such thing as a pre-64 Marlin. I don't know that much about Savage's production history during that time but they do seem to have been spotty. I see the 99C less as a reaction to "hard times" and more as an attempt to keep the rifle topical with other popular clip fed guns of the time. The rest of the country's manufacturing seemed to be be going "great guns" during the late 50s to mid 60s.

1964? It's roughly when the bean counters started running the corporations in America and the bottom line and shareholder profits became most important to businesses.

In the gun world, the Remington 700s were intentionally designed for simplicity of manufacturing and thereby profitability. Those early 5 digit, 20" barrelled 700 carbines are awesome in my books.

The Savages of the mid-late 50s were some of the best I seen, especially the Model "Fs" in 243, 250, 300, 308 and even 358. After that? Well...

Those Fs have always been some of my favorites.

Beatlemania. That's what did it.

That and the bad boys of rock - the Stones!

I have a 1964 vintage 99 E in 300 Savage with 20" barrel I bought here from 300Jimmy as a barreled action. It has the old style trigger and no cartridge counter window. A friend has an earlier 99 E in 308 (1962) which has the new style trigger. I just go lucky with the old style trigger, which I much prefer. I guess Savage was using up whatever they had lying around back then.

Actually now that I think about it, what really hastened the demise of appreciation of quality and loss of respect for what our elders accomplished, in our culture, was when we stopped watching Captain Kangaroo.

Ron Coburn told me that Savage had to go to stamped checkering because they couldn't hire enough people to do hand checkering without messing up a lot of stocks. The factory couldn't afford to throw out those messed up stocks. A lot of the other changes also appeared to be a cost thing. David

Makes sense, David. I do have to wonder though, how they managed to incorporate hand checkering during all those years previously in a cost effective manner. Checkering in the big gun companies was historically the province of women who I bet didn't have those skills before applying for the job and as such needed an expensive learning curve. I've seen factory pics (I don't recall the factory) of long benches of frowsy looking babes situated in front of big clear windows bathing them in sunlight. I wonder too if it was a good paying job that was rarely abandoned once acquired- leading to them staying on forever. When checkering on factory guns became commonplace in the 20's-30's I can see the companies scrambling to hire and train a legion of young checkerers who then stayed at it until they just couldn't drag themselves into work anymore which would've been, by then, the late 50's early 60's. Recruiting and training the next generation was avoided by employing machines instead.

Roy, I think your observations are spot on. David

The majority of rod wrapping during the days of bamboo was done by women who were often paid on the amount of work that they completed. This seems to have gone away when the major rod makers (Heddon, Montegue, South Bend, Phillipson, Wright and McGill/Granger, Horrocks Ibbotson, etc...) switched to fiberglass in the 1950s. Maybe there was a parallel with women stock carvers in the 1950s and 60s.

I've told this little anecdote before, so bear with me.

My dad was born in 1918. He used to say that sometime in his lifetime, companies (in general) switched from charging what was considered a fair markup for their product and services, to charging whatever they could get. I would sure like to know more about that particular paradigm shift in American corporate thinking.

There's a movie called The Hudsucker Proxy, a spoof on American industry in the 1950's, which has a scene where a whole department of bean counters are calculating what a hula hoop should cost. After much number crunching by a sea of people on calculators, they came up with .79 each for a 20 cent profit. When it was brought to the head bean counter, he looked at the number, shook his head no, and they added a 1 in front of the decimal, making it $1.79. Shaking his head in approval, the project moved forward.

I suspect there's an element of truth to what my dad said. Bean counters are ruining the world!!! or at least the Savages...

Wonder if unionization had anything to do with it. Going from being paid per part made that passed QA, to being paid hourly? And probably more high quality jobs that pulled skilled workers away, or at least raised their salaries to a level that made hand made items unaffordable.

Thanks Rory, I find all of that interesting.

Addendum: Given the era, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the checkering women were paid less than if the job were occupied by men. That may have contributed toward the cost per gun effectiveness too.

I doubt that unionization had much to do with piece work versus hourly rate. As a veteran of managing union shops (United Steelworkers) I can state that piece work burgeoned under those conditions. In fact, a strong union could make the piece work system thrive- it gave them infinite grounds for negotiations. God, the horror stories I could tell...

Thanks for that, was just taking a wild guess. Guessing it's more that rising wages across the nation just didn't allow the man-hours to be dedicated to fine detail work and still have a product that could be sold at a profit for the company. Still a problem today.

There's a movie called The Hudsucker Proxy, a spoof on American industry in the 1950's, which has a scene where a whole department of bean counters are calculating what a hula hoop should cost. After much number crunching by a sea of people on calculators, they came up with .79 each for a 20 cent profit. When it was brought to the head bean counter, he looked at the number, shook his head no, and they added a 1 in front of the decimal, making it $1.79...[/quote]

True story: years ago the Little Golden Books sold for 25 cents and were going broke. A hired consultant told them to increase the price to 29 cents; after that they sold like hot cakes.

As per discovery during anti-trust trials, Microsoft came up with a price tag of $45 for it's Windows upgrades in the 90's that would allow MicroSoft to make a reasonable profit. Bill Gates laughed and raised the price to $95 - said what are they going to do? They have to buy it.

I'm sure the "bean counters" are needed for determining the cost of production and the amount of profit needed to keep the company going. I don't hold that against anyone. There also a psychological factor in setting a price point. If some things are priced to low they seem to get no respect and go nowhere. To high and they go nowhere too. Just right and it seems to work. And then there's damn greed - which I think drives way too much these days. And its the damn greed factor that may have started to become more common practice by the late 60s. But then again, greed is not an alien subject to the history of our country and to mankind in general. You just have to watch out for the bastards and your pocket book!

For what it's worth, I've got a Harrington & Richardson single-shot shotgun. This is one of the 'fancy' singles with a full length matted rib, checkering and pistol grip cap, dating, I think from sometime during the inter-war years. When I first acquired it, I thought there was something weird about the checkering, the panels seemed "fuzzy" or something. I finally realized there was no border around the panels of checkering. The grooves just ended beyond the last perpendicular cut. Mostly pretty even, though, with very few over-runs. Must have taken some practice.

I've always wondered why the gun makers didn't/couldn't think up a reason to sell guns with uncheckered stocks as some kind advantage. I've never really found uncheckered stocks that much of a disadvantage (if any) in actual use.

I have never worked in a consumer product industry (unless you count nine months in a chewing gum factory) but I was involved in "bean counting" for a machine tool company for thirty-nine years. When I started, in 1966, the company was transitioning from hand operated and small hydraulic sheet metal equipment to numerically controlled sheet and plate fabricating. For the entire time I was there, I was involved in cost accounting for machines up to a million dollars. In 1968, we started a beam punching line, that developed into a large handling system, with punches, cold saws, and fit up stations. Some of these were as much as several hundred feet of conveyors, saws, loaders, and unloader/rackers. If you were in the beam and angle business, you pretty much bought our equipment or were getting along on the ornamental iron business, When that line faded out, we were ready with computer operated punch/plasma machines, that were extremely productive. The last thirty-five years I was there, we never had a losing year, and some years were unbelievably profitable. The reason for the company's success was to always have a new product that made the customer a lot of money. You have to provide a satisfactory product, at a price that makes sense to the customer. Firearms manufacturers are like any other business; they cannot price themselves above what the market will bear. Aesthetics, utility, and price are not always compatible.

By the way, all us bean counters, retired or active, resent that appellation, and due to our profession, we have wide acquaintance within the IRS. Refer to us as bean counters once too often, and we will drop a dime on you!

I certainly am not looking to have a dime dropped on me today. Whatever that means it sounds ominous, especially coming from a bean counter.

through the 50's i was so enamored with lever guns(hold over from my red rider) that nothing else except trapdoor springfields existed. around 1960 all my buds started to laugh at me for not having a bolt gun with a scope. by 1964 you could buy a 94 winchester used for around 75-150. most of the gun writers around then were pimping the current mostest hot bolt gun and the attitudes of people changed enough it hurt the companies building levers i think. jmho

that and bean counters!

I got a whole role of dimes. Remember, an IRS audit that results in nothing is a lot like a colonoscopy.

I think I had one of those once. I don't remember which one, but I'm pretty sure there were no dimes involved. Definitely not a dropped one.

The thing is, most bean counters have no better idea how many beans are in the jar than we do.

You know we're only kidding you! Right?


Right?

I hope you don't get a dime dropped on you for that. Keep a piggybank handy, just in case.

That's ok, Roy. I'm invisible. Besides, the IRS is a swell bunch of bean counters.

It was all lost......

Due to the utter disregard......

For the lost potential of the 6.5 - 40 P - krag.

I don't know anything about Winchesters. They must have cut out a few machining operations on the 94's to save money post 64 huh? Seems like a removable magazine 99 would also save money over the internal rotary style. Wonder what happened to the stocks that they buggered up the checkering on? 1959/60 99E's?

The immediate post-64 Winchester 94 is notorious for being made out of what some call "mystery metal." They do not take a re-blue without turning purple. Seems to me I heard somewhere that Winchester had to plate the receivers so they would take the original factory blue. The plating obviously comes off with polishing. I think a lot of things like that happened in their factory at that time. The 99Cs may have been an attempt to save some bucks, but clip fed guns were more popular (the Remington 740/742, 760 and 788, and the Winchester 88 and 100 to name a few) at that time and it may have been Savage's attempt at "keeping up with the neighbors."

I just went down and checked, I thought my 308 DL was a 64. 25S, so I guess it's a 65, Joe.

Post-64 Winchester M94 receivers were sintered metal....

I'm not familiar with that. What's sintered metal?

Per Wikipedia, "Sintering is the process of compacting and forming a solid mass of material by heat or pressure without melting it to the point of liquefaction".

You mean like clay?

Think 'particle board' only with metal fragments.

That sounds so appealing doesn't it? Isn't that how Leupold is making their two piece bases now?

Leupold? Weaver maybe?

No, they've got a bit of a problem with (at least some of) the Leupolds cracking. Someone can chime in with details.

So that must have been a big step away from traditional forging methods.

Is it true, or only my ripening imagination, that the 110 series was conceived to compete with the Remington 721-722-700 bolt guns using similar technology? (If so, it worked. If not, it worked anyway.).

I'e always looked at the 110 as Savage's direct response the the manufacturing and marketing efforts of the 721/722/700 series.

The steel particles are heated welding-hot then mashed together.

Are there benefits to this over starting with a molten steel - which is my take on traditional forging methods.

That was always my take on them.

I suppose I'm the last Savage aficionado standing who doesn't care a whit for the 110 series. Sorry. I know they are strong, well made, accurate rifles but they just don't do anything for me. Perhaps it's been the way the bolt stops dead behind the handle with no bolt sleeve, leaving it look unfinished. Silly, or silly me.

I kind of wished Art had incorporated a visible hammer in the 1899 too. (Kidding!!)

Pffffffffffffffffttt!!!

$’s