View Full Version : 1895 Savage question

November 24, 2010, 11:35 PM
I was admiring a friends Savage 1895 last weekend. It was his fathers rifle.
It is stamped 30-30.
So this is my question,
On the barrel the calibre stamping has been filed and re-stamped 30-30,
but the 30 is original, then the -3 is stamped where there is a flat from filing and then the 0 at the end is original stamping and spaced almost perfect and there are no other markings close to these markings.
(black = original stamping, red = re-stamp) 30-30
He had never noticed this before.
I am at a loss as to what the original stamping would/could have been. The barrel is marked 1895 and looks to be original to these untrained eyes.
Sorry for not having any pictures.

November 25, 2010, 02:15 AM
The Savage 1895 rifle was originally chambered for 303 Savage. It sounds like someone set the barrel back, rechambered to 30-30, and restamped the barrel for the new chambering.

Savage also produced Model 1899 rifles in 30-30 after about 1920.

Mike Irwin
November 25, 2010, 09:04 AM
The Model 1895 was only ever commercially offered in .303 Savage. It was VERY close dimensionally (and performance wise) to the .30-30, so someone probably just wanted the more common cartridge.

It's a pity that it's been rechambered, as Savage 1895s are not common guns and are bringing considerable prices these days.

November 25, 2010, 10:23 AM
Thanks for the information.
I will have to take another look at the stamping as the last "0" sure looked to be original. I could very well have mistaken that.
This is a well used rifle and worth more to the owner as a sentimental treasure of his long deceased father than any collector could afford. He carries it on occasion just for the old golden memories just like how I would want my grandchildren to use my old guns in the future.

November 25, 2010, 02:43 PM
It's very likely that scorch is correct with regard to setting the bbl back. But by doing that it would effect the fore end escutcheon location with relation to the screw hole in the fore end.

Probably should have a smith do a chamber cast.

November 26, 2010, 12:22 AM
Well, to do the job right, you would need to set the barrel back, but the 303 Savage and 30-30 Winchester are so very close dimensionally that it may have been rechambered just by running a 30-30 reamer into it. This would move the shoulder forward and give a longer neck as needed, but the chamber would be oversized and the base of the fired cartridges would be bulged. But if the original owner was not reloading, it is a moot point, so it's possible it was not set back.

December 14, 2010, 04:18 PM
Savage also produced Model 1899 rifles in 30-30 after about 1920.

The 30-30 1899 was made way before 1920. I personally looked at one from approx 1907, but I passed on it. I would think they came out with their version not long after Winchester only because the 1894 was, at the time, their biggest competitor.

Also, near 1920 IIRC, the 1899 was given the name "99" to commemorate the introduction of the 250 savage aka 250-3000 which was very advanced for its time.

I too think that the gun was rechambered from a 303, provided that it is definitely an 1895. 1895s are somewhat rare today, its a shame if it is one for sure. 1895s are very similiar to 1899s.

December 15, 2010, 06:27 PM
They were offered in 30-30 certainly by 1905 if that year's catalogue is to be believed.

If the SN is under 10,000 the rifle is likely a 1895.

The 250-3000 was introduced by Savage with the Model 1899 250-3000 in 1914.

Savage officially changed the 1899 to 99 in 1918 according to Doug Murray in his book. Many rifles continued to be marked with the 1899 designation for years afterward. I have a 99 E from 1922 marked as 1899.

James K
December 15, 2010, 08:05 PM
Just a general note that many gun companies, including Winchester, initially used the date of introduction as the model number. That was fine for the first year, since the customer felt he was getting the latest and greatest. But after while that model number looked older and older and the customer didn't want an old gun, he wanted something new.

So the companies began to drop the first two numbers, hoping that the prospective buyer would not realize he was buying something from the last century, then began to use meaningless numbers that would not proclaim the product's obsolescence. "Model 1894" tells everyone the design dates from before the automobile; "Model 700" says nothing about the age of the design.


December 17, 2010, 10:35 AM
"Model 700" says nothing about the age of the design.

How can you be sure?

James K
December 17, 2010, 03:18 PM
Hmmm? 700 CE/AD? 700 BCE? 700 AH? Don't think so, but I am always open to new information.


Jim Watson
December 17, 2010, 05:14 PM
I always figured Remington was trying to say "Our model 700 is 10 times as good as the other guys' model 70."

December 17, 2010, 11:04 PM
I always figured Remington was trying to say "Our model 700 is 10 times as good as the other guys' model 70."

I will accept a written apology for defamation of character for each of my pre 64 model 70s. Afterall, what did they do to you for you to tell such an outright lie?

Mike Irwin
December 20, 2010, 09:05 AM
The only problem with that request is that Model 70s don't have any character...


James K
December 20, 2010, 10:02 PM
I always thought that Remington might have been "inspired" by the Winchester "70" and figured if "70" was good, "700" was better.

But actually, the model number was/is part of a scheme where "5" indicates a rimfire, "6" a center fire carbine style, and "7" a center fire rifle. The first "7" was the 720, which, like its predecessors the Model 30 series, was built on WWI surplus Model 1917 Enfield actions. Then came the 721/722 with brand new actions.