Savage model 1920 - Page 2

**Mike Irwin** · August 3, 2018, 05:44 AM

You're the one who was holding out the patent date of 1916 as some sort of proof that Savage was pursuing military contracts with the development of what would become the Model 1920.

Or do these two statements have no relation to each other?

"The Savage bolt action wasn't designed after WW I, it was designed in 1915 at a time when military arms were in great demand, and every major arms manufacturer naturally wanted a piece of the market.

If you need written proof, it is stamped on the barrel of the model 1920 rifles, as the first patent date listed is March 28, 1916."

I never claimed that my statement "Generally it's said that the Model 1920 was the first bolt action to be designed and offered specifically as a sporting rifle (I should have added in the United States to that, but I didn't).

That's not a claim for proof -- that's hearsay, which is more than adequately elaborated by the preface of "Generally it is claimed..."

""The Savage Model 1920 was the first bolt action sporting rifle to be offered to the hunting public by a major arms company. Yup, the first!"

That's the statement, there were no qualifiers included. Just a flat claim that is flat-out wrong and frankly not worthy of debate. Not to mention tedious and boring. Mike, maybe you should just declare victory and close. the thread"

If you go back to the origin of that quote in this thread, you'll note that that wasn't my quote.

But, in any event, since you don't have any indication that Savage developed the 1920 specifically for military service in mind, your claims are moot.

By the way, in looking into this more last night, Phil Sharpe claims in The Rifle in America that the Winchester Model 54 was actually the first bolt action specifically designed for sporting use.

His write up on the Model 1920/20 makes no indication either way.

"Mike, maybe you should just declare victory and close the thread..."

Maybe you should drop the gigantic case of ass that you're developing. Instead of getting your feels all hurt, maybe you should concentrate on the discussion at hand. If you can't do that, back out of the discussion.

Dave Anderson · August 3, 2018, 10:09 AM

No, I'm not worried about getting my "feels hurt", I just hate seeing errors go unchallenged, to the detriment of generations yet unborn. We have to think of the children.

I see we have reached the stage of arguing what the definition of "is" is, as I predicted earlier. Just as the personal attacks are not unexpected.

"...since you don't have any indication that Savage developed the 1920 specifically for military service in mind, your claims are moot."

See Stuart Otteson's book "The Bolt Action", Volume 2, Chapter 2. I mentioned it twice already. Maybe the third time will be lucky. To say in effect, "I refuse to acknowledge any information you provide, therefore you didn't provide any information" is hardly an argument.

"... maybe you should concentrate on the discussion at hand. If you can't do that, back out of the discussion." Good advice, maybe you should take it. Generally it is said the one who wants to shut down an opposing view is the one with the "feels hurt".

**Mike Irwin** · August 3, 2018, 11:32 AM

Otterson's book gives no indication that the Model 1920 was developed for military contracts first, or was retrofitted after development of a sporting arm started.

In other words, there's still 0 proof that back up your assessment.

Nelson's original 1916 patent application for what would become the Model 1920 offers no insight into the matter other than one of time reference -- it's likely that his work on the design had started months, if not years, before the patent was filed in August of 1916.

"Just as the personal attacks are not unexpect"

You can point to no instance of my attacking you personally in this unless you believe discussion of, and disagreement, with your contents to be a personal attack.

So, once again, and last chance....

"The Savage bolt-action was designed in the hope of getting military contracts"

That's your definitive statement. You made it, own it, prove it, and stop trying to divert the conversation with false complaints about personal attacks.

Al Norris · August 3, 2018, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Anderson

Just as the personal attacks are not unexpected.

Personal Attacks?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

Maybe you should drop the gigantic case of ass that you're developing.

I can see where Mike's statement, above, might be construed as such.

However, in any spirited debate, things are often said by one side, that are misinterpreted by the other side. Particularly when said debate is conducted by two strong personalities.

The current debating point appears to be from a link posted by McShooty. Certainly nothing said directly from within this thread.

Debating a point that was never made "in-house", to the point where we are now taking the piss on each others Cheerios, brings the thread woefully off topic.

Closed.

August 3, 2018, 05:44 AM	#26
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,380	You're the one who was holding out the patent date of 1916 as some sort of proof that Savage was pursuing military contracts with the development of what would become the Model 1920. Or do these two statements have no relation to each other? "The Savage bolt action wasn't designed after WW I, it was designed in 1915 at a time when military arms were in great demand, and every major arms manufacturer naturally wanted a piece of the market. If you need written proof, it is stamped on the barrel of the model 1920 rifles, as the first patent date listed is March 28, 1916." I never claimed that my statement "Generally it's said that the Model 1920 was the first bolt action to be designed and offered specifically as a sporting rifle (I should have added in the United States to that, but I didn't). That's not a claim for proof -- that's hearsay, which is more than adequately elaborated by the preface of "Generally it is claimed..." ""The Savage Model 1920 was the first bolt action sporting rifle to be offered to the hunting public by a major arms company. Yup, the first!" That's the statement, there were no qualifiers included. Just a flat claim that is flat-out wrong and frankly not worthy of debate. Not to mention tedious and boring. Mike, maybe you should just declare victory and close. the thread" If you go back to the origin of that quote in this thread, you'll note that that wasn't my quote. But, in any event, since you don't have any indication that Savage developed the 1920 specifically for military service in mind, your claims are moot. By the way, in looking into this more last night, Phil Sharpe claims in The Rifle in America that the Winchester Model 54 was actually the first bolt action specifically designed for sporting use. His write up on the Model 1920/20 makes no indication either way. "Mike, maybe you should just declare victory and close the thread..." Maybe you should drop the gigantic case of ass that you're developing. Instead of getting your feels all hurt, maybe you should concentrate on the discussion at hand. If you can't do that, back out of the discussion. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

August 3, 2018, 10:09 AM	#27
Dave Anderson Senior Member Join Date: March 4, 2011 Posts: 313	No, I'm not worried about getting my "feels hurt", I just hate seeing errors go unchallenged, to the detriment of generations yet unborn. We have to think of the children. I see we have reached the stage of arguing what the definition of "is" is, as I predicted earlier. Just as the personal attacks are not unexpected. "...since you don't have any indication that Savage developed the 1920 specifically for military service in mind, your claims are moot." See Stuart Otteson's book "The Bolt Action", Volume 2, Chapter 2. I mentioned it twice already. Maybe the third time will be lucky. To say in effect, "I refuse to acknowledge any information you provide, therefore you didn't provide any information" is hardly an argument. "... maybe you should concentrate on the discussion at hand. If you can't do that, back out of the discussion." Good advice, maybe you should take it. Generally it is said the one who wants to shut down an opposing view is the one with the "feels hurt". __________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/DavesGunVideos/videos

August 3, 2018, 11:32 AM	#28
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,380	Otterson's book gives no indication that the Model 1920 was developed for military contracts first, or was retrofitted after development of a sporting arm started. In other words, there's still 0 proof that back up your assessment. Nelson's original 1916 patent application for what would become the Model 1920 offers no insight into the matter other than one of time reference -- it's likely that his work on the design had started months, if not years, before the patent was filed in August of 1916. "Just as the personal attacks are not unexpect" You can point to no instance of my attacking you personally in this unless you believe discussion of, and disagreement, with your contents to be a personal attack. So, once again, and last chance.... "The Savage bolt-action was designed in the hope of getting military contracts" That's your definitive statement. You made it, own it, prove it, and stop trying to divert the conversation with false complaints about personal attacks. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.