Anybody got an idea what fits these?

Malcolm side mount that had 2 holes drilled for it?

Nothing like my Malcolm, I'll see if I have a pic.

This is the 22HP that lettered as being sold to Malcolm. So, I think it's correct.

Only God knows would be my guess.

I feel sorry for that poor gun. Look at those screw heads

They could be for the early stevens long tube telescope. I have a 1902 stevens scope book and they had some scope mounts similar.

I was going to say "we'll ask Mike, he will know".

I just went down and looked at the Noske mount, definite no.

Looked at your's again, and it's similar to the Noske. The Noske on mine has 3 in a row, a little lower. So, if there were improvements made, that might be one?

All the pics in early Savage catalogs look like barrel mounts for the Stevens scopes, but I have no idea what else they might have had besides what was shown in Savage catalogs.

Can’t say I remember what a Noske mount looks like at all.

I don't have a better picture. It's a heavy steel rectangle. The rings slide off and on. It returns to zero every time you take it off.

I'm heading out the door, I'll get a better pic later.

Looks like someone used the G&H mount as a basis for that.

Vice versa, Rory. The Noske came first.

Aha.. thanks for that. Patent for G&H was 1929? I think, how early was the Noske?

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/022823602/publication/US1756603A?q=us1756603

Whats the hole spacing on those Rory? .400"?

Damn near looks like someone had a Lyman 56A laying around and put it on a 99.

3/4" spacing, Joe.

Echo side mount?

Not an echo.

I'm with Joe on this. Holes are too close together for a scope mount. Unless...someone just scabbed an old Weaver side mount on it?

My first thought was somebody attached an early Malcolm or other side mount and then put another hole in to move it forward or back.

But owner says there's no extra holes on the barrel. So.. Stumped here.

If Gene can't figure it out, it's got to be something that was a bastardized POS that was so terrible it came off, never to be revisitied.

My first thought was some kind of rec'r sight.
Can I see a mount plate witness mark??

I think Maddog is on the right track, It could have been for a sight intended for something else, a sight would not require holes in the barrel. It also could be for a Stith mount, they made one for Winchester lever rifles that used narrow hole spacing, but the ones I could find use three holes, but that doesn't mean you have to use all three, again no holes would be need in the barrel. The Malcolm scopes used just one hole that is larger than those.

Here's one for Winchester 94, it's offset to the left though - /itm/Stith-Scope-mount-

Here's another similar - gunauction.com/buy/9862948

Both of these appear to need holes in the barrel, but I think a dovetail mount would work as well.

It's dark downstairs but here's a slightly better pic of the Noske. There is a grove or track in top of the side plate. The mount slides back till the little screw in the front stops it's travel. Then the thumb screw seats in the dimple on top of the side plate. It locks up dead zero every time.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/UM6I74g.jpg?1[/img]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/UM6I74g.jpg?1[/img]

So could you buy a blank G&H base? Does the outine match?

Yes you could buy blank G&H bases (I have one), but who would try to mount all that mass of a G&H mount plus the weight of the scope onto two small screws.

I'm still liking the idea of a turn-of-the-century scope mount- store bought or craftsman built- that utilized the rear sight dovetail for the front mount. (Thinking in terms of external adjustment scopes that were to be found 100+ years ago.)

Did Warner&Swasey make their prismatic scope adaptable to sporting rifles?

Does Stroebel show anything? I only have his sight book.

I just measured a Boone scope mount for a Winchester 1892, guess what, 3/4" c-c.

Kinda far forward for a 2.5X Boone but maybe a 4X Boone?

They are for a Noske little imp scope similar to a boone scope, there is a picture of one mounted on a savage 99 in strobels book, i will try and get a picture posted later today. Looking at it the holes might be to close or not? heres the pic.

Also interesting that Savage had marketing material that called the 1899H .22HP "The Imp".

Here's a picture of a Boone that looks close - -Boone-2X-Vintage-Scope Like MD said the longer 4X might be needed for proper eye relief with that mount position.

Well, I think mystery solved.

Oh, the 1899H 22HP wasn't just called "The Imp", it was "The Imp". You couldn't order an 1899H/Featherweight in 22HP, you had to order "The Imp".

You could order the 1899 Featherweight in 303/25-35/30-30. You could order the 1899 Featherweight Takedown in 303/25-35/30-30. But you could not order either in 22HP.

Had to order The Imp to get the 22HP, though the descriptions do describe it as a featherweight takedown but with a specially tapered barrel? Hmm.. hadn't noticed that before. Guessing they mean the Featherweight barrel is specially tapered, not just the 22HP.

It's a bit nitpicky.. but The Imp was a standalone catalogued model for the duration of it's production (up thru 1920) like the 250-3000 was. Not that any of us have every separated it.. I just call them 1899H's.


Good find on the Noske/Boone mounts! That's something new to me, afaik.

Why would there be Winchester mounts at 3/4" c-c when the hole spacing for receiver sights was .400"?

Or did they use a .750" on some models?