I assumed (ass-U-Me-d) I had a 303 Savage

[earlmck]

A few days ago CBinNH posted a link to 303 Savage Ammo being sold by Grafs. This jogged the memory banks here, I remembered I had purchased such a 99 Savage a few years ago in some "deal I couldn't refuse" because it was missing a rear sight. I just stuck it in a closet to "do something with later". You know how that goes...

Then last spring I got looking for 30 Remington brass. Found some and in the process saw 303 Savage brass listed also at a semi-reasonable price. So I had purchased the brass.

This morning I dug out the rifle -- "let's see if it chambers this new brass OK, just for a start" -- you know how that goes.
So yes, it chambers and ejects, but seems a little less than smooth. And somewhere I have come to understand from past reading that the 303 Savage is a normal .308 bore, but maybe Savage loaded 'em with .311 bullets initially? I'm still not sure about that; thought maybe I'd slug my barrel. You know how that goes...

I thought I'd start by tapping a .313 cast bullet into the muzzle a bit. Whoa! That muzzle sure looks big for a 30 cal. And the bullet drops plumb through! Same for a .321 bullet for a 32 Special. Hmmm. Dig out .358 bullets that I load in the 35 Rem. They look like a fit! So lets see if it chambers a 35 Rem cartridge. Yep, my good old 303 Savage has somewhere along the line been rebored and rechambered for 35 Remington without benefit of changing the marking on the barrel. Now 35 Remington is one of my favorite cartridges, so I can't say I am badly disappointed. But I was looking forward to working up some loads with LVR powder in the 303 Savage. Also makes that "good deal" look a little less good. If I'd known the true chambering didn't match the barrel stamp I'm sure I could have got the rifle quite a bit cheaper yet. Life's little moments! You know how that goes...

[FWiedner]

At least you didn't pull it out of the closet, grab the first box of ammo you put hands on, go the range, and turn it into a smoking tale of caution.

I think we may all have had at least one "What the heck" that we picked up for a song in our closet at some time. Good on you for finally inspecting it thoroughly.

A Savage 99 in 35 Remington?

Sounds like Christmas came early at Earl's house.

[1894c]

That's amazing...I love your phrase "You know how that goes... "--yeah there are times in life that...you know how that goes...really fits--thank you for the post

[3leggedturtle]

Thats pretty good. You didnt happen to try a .35 Winchester case in it did you ? Cuz you jus never know, since they didnt mark it. That will be a fun rifle, all the 303's I've handled have been really light. Bet the .35 hole makes it even lighter and handier feeling

[Old Savage]

Perfect!

[iceman]

A model 99 in 35 rem sounds just great!!. Maybe a chamber cast is in need, it could also be 358 win. Maybe the barrel is marked under the forearm have you looked?

[Bill in Oregon]

Earl: I feel your pain. Nothing wrong with a .35, but that .303 Savage is a sweet number, especially when you can find 190-grain slugs for it ...

[damienph]

A Savage 99 in 35 Remington?

Sounds like Christmas came early at Earl's house.

That would be a welcome surprise! A great chambering in a great rifle.

At least it isn't some obscure wildcat.

[86er]

Could it be a .358 Win? It would also chamber a 35 Rem but would ruin the brass upon firing. BTW, if it is indeed a 35 Rem and it works I'd like to be the first potential buyer in line should you decide to sell it!

[jnyork]

I think I would do a chamber cast of that just to make absolutely sure before firing it.

[airedaleman]

A few thoughts...
As we all know, the 99's magazine rotor is quite caliber specific. Will the mystery "303" accept and feed 35 Remington cartridges? Also, aren't the actions on the early guns are too short to handle cartridges (like the .358) based on the .308 case?
I guess a chamber cast would end speculation.

[jlchucker]

I once had a newer version of a 99F Savage in 308 Win. Didn't those rifles come in 358 Win as well? Mine, as I recall, was a model made sometime in the late 1950's or early 1960's, and it had the safety on the tang, instead of the earlier versions with the safety on the trigger guard. A 99 in 358 Win would be a really nice find .

I wonder about the 35 Remington conclusion, though, after reading this thread. While the 308 Win, 243 Win, and 358 Win are all based upon the same case, and have the same head dimensions, the body and head of the 35 Remington cartridge is slightly different. Check the Lyman Reloading manual and compare the case dimensions for each caliber and you'll see some differences. If someone converted a 99 to 35 Rem, it might involve bolt machining on the square Savage bolt along with chamber and bore work--an expensive proposition. When Winchester was manufacturing the 88, it came in 243, 208, and 358 versions, and all were Winchester-developed cartridges. You Savage guys might know for sure, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Savage offered the 99 in 358 Winchester.

[Ben_Rumson]

I find this post very interesting and hope Earl does indeed have a 99 converted to 35 Rem., that would be cool ...Had thoughts along that line myself..
. My guess Earl, is it’s more likely a 303 to 35 caliber conversion... Because mainly it would be simplest and less expensive to accomplish because the 303 would only need the barrel and dies punched out to handle 35 cal.. By the looks of the 303 rotor, it looks like it might handle a case neck .025” on a side larger in OD without alteration.
The 303 is rimmed where the 35 Rem. is rimless, there would be extractor fit disparity to overcome between the two, probably a 300 Sav. extractor could be fitted to a 303 bolt to make the 35 Rem. work ...Secondly the 303 is longer by about .095” which would mean the Savage barrel would have to be set back to get the 35 Rem. to headspace on it’s short little shoulder. More than likely one would have to modify and use a 300 Sav. rotor in place of the 303 rotor.

I seriously doubt it’s been converted to a 358 because their rotors are too different to work in a vintage of 99 originally calibered for 303 Sav. as can been seen in the pic below. Plus the action metallurgy would be all wrong for the high intensity 358 in a 303 Savage 99

[earlmck]

Lots of good thoughts from you fellow levergunners. Thanks! But before I came in and read your good thoughts I had just gone out to the boonies and touched off a modest-loaded 35 Remington round. I was certain it was chambered for 35 Rem because you can see the fit pretty good when you drop a loaded round into the chamber. Yep, all normal.

Here are a couple pics of this "discovery". I believe this is an 1899 H model? 20" bbl. made in 1909 or 1910 from the 97,000s serial number. Tips the scale at 7 1/4 lbs. The ammo in the second picture is picked out of what I have sitting on the shelf, loaded for my other 35 Rems: 210 grain cast round-nose, 180 grain cast flat nose, 180 gr. Hornady Spitzer, 200 grain Hornady round-nose. These all load into the magazine just fine and feed/chamber fine. The little dial that shows how many rounds are in the magazine, however, doesn't give the correct info with the 35 Rem used instead of the 303 Savage it was made for. In fact I can almost get a sixth cartridge in the magazine. And with one round in the magazine you see mostly "0" rather than "1".

Before the "fire test" I had slugged the barrel (by firing an unsized cast bullet into some rags using 1.5 grains green dot) -- it's .358. Looks like a pretty decent bore. Kinda' hard to get too upset about this turn of events. I hadn't bought 303 Savage dies yet, but I did get a bag of brass from Grafs. I've been known to think having a batch of brass like that demanded that I find a rifle to go with it. Maybe I better just make somebody a good deal in 303 Sav brass: I've been kinda' bad already this year. And I can see I'll need to pony up for Mr. Marble's tang sight

Sav30335rifle.jpg

Sav30335ammo.jpg

I find this post very interesting and hope Earl does indeed have a 99 converted to 35 Rem., that would be cool ...Had thoughts along that line myself..

Yeah Ben, wish I could find out more about this, such as who was the rifleman who knew what he wanted and who the gunsmith is (was?) who knew how to make this go together. But this was auctioned off at an estate sale some 6 or 7 years ago so that tells you my chances of finding out the good info. But obviously somebody put up a bit of money to make this conversion happen. And he must have been really buddy-buddy with the gunsmith to keep him from putting "35 Rem" over top the "303 Sav".

[iceman]

Glad to hear it shoots 35 rem fine. That sure would make a heck of a deer/black bear thick cover thumper. I'm sure that if you ever wanted to sell it you would have no problem finding a buyer here. Have fun.

[Ben_Rumson]

That’s great Earl!... How do the fired cases look?.. How does the rotor compare to the pics I posted?
No telling what the rifle started out as.. Maybe the guy did the work himself and left it marked as 303... The barrel has a pretty meaty profile... Could be an indication of a shortened barrel... Does the front sight look factory? More pics maybe?

[earlmck]

Continuing with the saga of the 35 Savage...
I took a few rounds out and ran them through the chronograph. 180 grain cast with 8 grains of Unique did 1140 fps. 200 grain cast R.N. with 17 grains 5744 did 1710fps; 200 grain factory did 2100 fps; 180 grain Hornady with 46 grains LVR did 2350 fps.
These are right in line with what I would expect from the Remington Model 14 that tends to give the lower velocity levels out of my collection (accumulation?) of 35 Remington rifles.

In the pic of the fired cases, the case on the left was the low velocity casty which usually comes out kinda' smoked up. So this must be a pretty nice chamber to keep the case from getting real smoked in the low pressure load. All extracted fine, no high pressure signs.

SavFired.jpg

The normal 35 Remington chamber has virtually no throat: rifling starts right at the end of the chamber. Jacketed bullets intended for the 35 Remington are shaped with this in mind, having a bore-riding nose portion. In my "discovery" Savage there is about .08" of throat. Not a lot but it is just enough that I'll be able to have the grease-grooves of my nice 180 grain LBT pistol bullet remain inside the case neck. The gas check, however, will still protrude into the powder chamber.

The barrel has a pretty meaty profile... Could be an indication of a shortened barrel... Does the front sight look factory? More pics maybe?

Definitely a good stout barrel profile, Ben. I can't see any evidence of shortening, but if done when the gun was new and crowned the same was as factory, maybe you wouldn't see any evidence? Here is a pic of the muzzle and front sight -- I don't have any 99s of this vintage to compare to.

SavBbl.jpg

SavMuzzle.jpg

Out of curiosity I made a few dummy rounds of 303 Savage using the new cases. These seem to go just fine into the magazine, but will not chamber from the magazine. Looks to me like the rotor may not have needed any altering but the cartridge guides were changed out and 303 will no longer get past these guides.

[Old Savage]

I say you have a very interesting piece there and potentially very useful.

[Griff]

Kewl! That you found out before something got fouled up! Wonder if a previous owner got fed up trying shoot 303s out of it?

I'd say your situation fits in my "Don't believe everything you read" file!

(hint: my trailer is about 13'4")

[Ben_Rumson]

Earl, Thanks again for posting about this custom 99. I’ve had a bit of fun digging up some info on this interesting little rifle of yours...I’m positive what you have here is a rifle, or at least a receiver from a Saddle Ring Carbine known as the Model F. which has had it’s saddle ring removed. The pics below show why I think so. According to Murray’s book “THE NINETY- NINE”, Savage produced the F in the s/n range 19,000 – 200,000 which yours falls within, all had 20 inch barrels. The last Model Fs produced came with Schnabel fore arm. The F was replaced by the Model H in 1920 which did not have the saddle ring. It appears among the other customizing changes the previous owner made, he also replaced the carbine butt stock with a shotgun style butt stock from some other model Savage rifle. I don’t know what the correct muzzle diameter would be to prove the barrel on your rifle is a true factory carbine barrel, or if it’s another Savage barrel cut down to 20 inches. After looking at the few F model pics online I found, your rifle’s barrel profile looks close and had the same markings under the barrel address, but the front sights differ. However the book notes that optional front & rear sights could be furnished from the factory. Cool rifle.. Should be even cooler with that tang sight...

[earlmck]

I’m positive what you have here is a rifle, or at least a receiver from a Saddle Ring Carbine known as the Model F. which has had it’s saddle ring removed. The pics below show why I think so.

Dang, I think you nailed it, Ben. So that's what that funny little red plug and steel plug beside it are: the remains of the old saddle ring. Thanks a whole bunch for your observations. Until this fellow came along my oldest 99 was a 50's era 300 Savage, so there is nothing in my stable to directly compare with. And looking at the barrel, the 300 Savage (with 24" bbl) mikes .640 at the 20" point while the "discovery" mikes .690 at the 20" muzzle. Quite beefy. And my book (Jay Kimmel "Savage & Stevens Arms") shows that by 1929 they advertised the Model H carbine at 6.5 lbs where this one weighs 7.25 lbs even with that extra metal taken out boring it to .35.

I've been studying on this thing, trying to figure out just what the 'smith did to make it work with 35 Rem. You're going to think I'm nuts, but I think all he did was replace the extractor. He might have ground a bit off the bottom edge of the "automatic cutoff", but I can't see why he'd have needed to do that and it is probably just a little rough there from the factory. No, I think the old 303s would still work just fine through the action except that the deeper-biting extractor interferes both with feeding and ejection. I am pretty sure the brass carrier is original and unaltered: it still handles the 303s just fine. I'd thought he had replaced the cartridge guide, but studying on it I think the guide would still work fine with the original 303s and so is probably the original.

And I'm afraid the fellow who had the work done may never have got to fire it. If he fired it he used cast bullets, 'cause I got 0, zip, nada for copper jacket residue when I cleaned the barrel. That has never happened to me before with a used gun. They usually take anywhere from 3 to 6 treatments with the foaming bore cleaner to get all the jacket wash out, and the least bit of jacket material is easy to see because it shows up as blue stain on the patch. All I got out of this barrel was some sort of brown grease, sort of a "cosmoline lite", leaving me a bright, shiny (new?) barrel. As you can see from the pictures, that is the only thing on this old babe that looks new.

I'd say your situation fits in my "Don't believe everything you read" file!

Just "outhouse luck" on my part, I suspect. And did you see that sign before you backed her in there, Griff?

[Ben_Rumson]

That's great news about the bore condition Earl!...Do you suppose it was relined or maybe sleeved and rebored?
As I have mentioned previously I've been thinking on a 35 Rem 99 for a while now... Can you do me a favor and see if your (or anyone else for that matter) 300 Savage 99 will handle 35 Rem carts you have and let me know..Here's a pic of the action on mine. It is the later type made after the 308 Win was introduced.

[earlmck]

That's great news about the bore condition Earl!...Do you suppose it was relined or maybe sleeved and rebored?
As I have mentioned previously I've been thinking on a 35 Rem 99 for a while now... Can you do me a favor and see if your (or anyone else for that matter) 300 Savage 99 will handle 35 Rem carts you have and let me know..Here's a pic of the action on mine. It is the later type made after the 308 Win was introduced.

There would have been no need for any sleeving or lining, Ben, because everything about the 35 Remington is larger than the 303 except for the rim, and that apparently was handled with just a new extractor. No, this is just rebored and rechambered, so must have gone to a real barrel man who does that sort of thing.

And I tried 35 Rems in my 300 Savage. Something about the cartridge carrier doesn't quite like them: I can get 3 in with a little bit of a fight, but that's all it'll take. It does, however, act like it would feed them back out and chamber them in good order. And I think extraction would be OK if they were coming out of a chamber they actually fit in; in my trial the extractor didn't always hold them to the ejection stage. So maybe if you got a 303 carrier for your 300 rifle, the conversion to 35 Rem might work?

Maybe I better send you this one to play with to get the bug out of your system! I've only got 4 others already and have to keep a cheat-sheet as to which gun likes which ammo. Pert-neer more stress than this old fanny burp can handle already.
(Now how do you suppose 6pt-Sika manages with all those different 444s?)

[Ben_Rumson]

Thanks Earl for going the extra mile and checking it out... Interesting result..... Senior moment for me on the reline question... Just typed what popped into my mind.. I’ve spent too much time comparing 35 Rem to 300 Sav dimensions, which do indicate a reline situation....
Lol, I think you better go ahead and hang onto that “Discovery” Model 99 you got there and wring out that nice barrel... Hearing you’ve got other 99s tells me you’ll probably want to field test the 35 a bit after load work up, and hopefully make meat with it...I’ve got a little project in the works for my 99 to complete before I make anymore changes ... Maybe by then you’ll have a range or field report that may influence my thoughts on the subject ... Thanks again