Savage 1920

[WalnutBill22]

I know this may be plowing old ground, but I just acquired a Savage 1920/26 in 250/3000, and I wanted to learn as much as I could about its history. In a thread by Dave Anderson, he states that the M1920 was at first designed to be a possible US military rifle. Mr. Anderson seems quite knowledgeable about the background of this fine rifle. However, I must say that I am curious about why Savage would hope to compete with the 1903 Springfield, since the Springfield already had a 17 year head start and a pretty good track record. The actions appear to be very similar with, of course the Savage being shorter. He does state that there were some prototypes made in 30-06, that obviously would have required a longer action. So, again I'm wondering what, it any, advantage would the Savage have had over the Springfield?
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[tmd47762]

I have one in 250-3000 as well. It seems the military contract story is a bit unclear. It’s built as a short Mauser action and can take any Mauser-based stripper clip too. A nice feel but the trigger is very 1920 by modern standards

[44 AMP]

was at first designed to be a possible US military rifle.

This is a fairly common assumption, particularly looking back from 100 years later, and, its one of those things that is sort of true, and isn't true at the same time.

Like a lot of things its a combination of facts and assumptions, and we don't have well documented comments from the designers to clarify it.

One common assumption is that since it was made to take a stripper clip, it must have been made with the idea of military use in mind. Today, well,, that's just common sense, right? nobody but the military uses stripper clips...

But in the 1920s, that wasn't the case. Once can find strictly civilian rifles made to use stripper clips, Remington semi autos, among them. Remember at that time, the stripper clip was a fairly new (to the civilian market), and convenient way to carry 5nds and rapidly reload. Lots of people who had never known of them before were introduced to stripper clips through military service in WW I, and found them a worthwhile thing.

Optics were rare, optics mounted over the receiver even more so, and factory rifles of the era were not drilled and tapped for them. At that time, a stripper clip slot was an advantage, and hurt nothing if you decided not to use it.

Another point to consider, is "competing" with the 1903 Springfield. Again, I think this is a more modern idea that has taken hold. It seems logical, because of the "military feature" of the stripper clip, but think about it.
One can only "compete" when the customer is shopping. When the Savage 1920 was built, the customer (the Army) wasn't seriously shopping.

Sure, there is always the "when the time comes, what will we replace our service rifle with"? thing going on, but that's quite different than "we are replacing our rifle, submit candidates.." THAT didn't happen until many years after the Savage 1920 was made.

There's a difference between the designer building a rifle for sport and possible military use, and the marketing guys saying "heck yes if we can get the Army to buy these, we'll sell them as many as they want".

The .300 Savage can essentially duplicate the GI .30-06 performance, so its possible the Army might have given a bolt gun that takes strippers and essentially matches 06 performance a second look...except that by the time they were looking, it was years later, and the semi auto was a strong contender by then.

I think the Savage was made so that it might be considered by the military, but wasn't made with that idea being its prime objective.

[Dave Anderson]

For background on the development of the Savage 1920 a good source is the book: "The Bolt Action: A Design Analysis" Volume 2, by Stuart Otteson. In the chapter on the 1920 he writes:

"Ironically, the Model 1920 started out life in .30-06. Even though Savage ads boasted that it was no “warbaby reborn,” it was in fact originally a prototype service arm which Savage hoped would be chosen to augment the relatively limited supply of M 1903 Springfield rifles available to US. forces. The project got under way shortly after the outbreak of hostilities in Europe, and several pilot rifles were built at Savage’s Utica, N.Y., plant for evaluation."

The rifle was designed under the direction of Charles Nelson who was the chief designer for Savage in the era. Nelson was granted patents on aspects of the design in 1916. The U.S. military chose not to use the design and instead used the British-designed Enfield to augment the 1903.

The number of prototypes made by Savage is not known but was likely no more than 10 or 20. A Savage collector has said Savage chambered a couple of these for the .303 British and 7x57 cartridges in hopes of attracting military sales in Britain and South America respectively. They didn't seem to pursue these sales very aggressively but then it didn't cost them much either.

In the Otteson book there is a photograph on page 21 of one of the military prototype models next to a 1920.

After WW I ended Savage felt there would be a market for a bolt-action sporting rifle, a reasonable assumption since there were millions of young Americans who had trained with bolt-actions in the armed forces. Savage took their prototype military design, shortened it by 1 1/4 inches and chambered it for their two short cartridges, the .250-3000 and the newly designed .300 Savage. It was introduced as the model 1920 and first announced in the summer of 1920.

Except for the shortened length the model 1920 retains the dimensions originally used for the .30-'06 cartridge and was considered a very strong action. It even retains the stripper clip guide even though Savage never marketed its ammunition in stripper clips. Probably Savage didn't think it was worth retooling just to eliminate the guide.

Despite its many good qualities the 1920 was not very successful. Possibly this was due to the cartridges for which it was chambered. Those who wanted these cartridges were happy to get them in the Savage 99 rifle. It appears that those who wanted bolt-action rifles also wanted the .30-'06 cartridge, as in the Remington and Winchester bolt action sporters introduced in the 1920s.

I looked over many 1920s over the years before finally finding one in excellent condition at a price I felt like paying. I got a factory letter on it indicating it was made in September 1920. It has the Lyman 54 bolt sleeve rear sight, and a Marble filler plate in the barrel slot where the original sight was. The Lyman 54 sights were made for no other rifle than the 1920/26, they are hard to find and expensive.

I found a few five-shot clips made for loading 7.62 NATO cartridges in FN-FAL magazines. They work well enough with the Savage rifle. Not really needed of course, but it is fun to drop a loaded clip in the guide and load the magazine with one press of the thumb - especially if a young hunter is watching, as most have never heard of, much less seen, stripper clips being used.

My rifle will be 100 years old this September and I hope to take it out in November and use it on a whitetail deer hunt.

[WalnutBill22]

Thanks for the responses. I was able to obtain a copy of the Bolt Action by Otteson (highly recommended), and as Dave said he did explain the situation quite well, but it just seems a little odd that Savage would design a new rifle to supplement the M1903 when they just could have offered to make the M1903 or the Enfield.
Like you Dave, I have been wanting to find a good M1920 for a long while and finally found a very nice one in 250-3000. It's one of the later models with the Lyman 54 sight. The trigger leaves a lot to be desired, but I'm getting used to it. Overall weight is a bit over seven pounds, so it's not quite as handy as the earlier version, but it's very well-balanced, and I found a really good load for it using Varget powder and the Speer 87 gr Hot-Cor.
I'm very pleased with the quality of fit and finish of this fine rifle.

[Jim Watson]

There was a lot of work going on in those days. Winchester had a series of bolt action rifles they said they would really rather make than Pattern 14 and 1917 Enfields, but were not accepted.

[OldManMontgomery]

Just as trivia and to reinforce a couple of the comments made, the 7.62x51mm NATO round (known commercially as the .308 Winchester) is 'spiritually' closer to the .300 Savage than the obvious shortened .30-06 cartridge.

Also, the Model 54 Winchester bolt rifle had stripper clip guides machined into the receiver (about the same place as military rifles). Yes, it is handy. Both to carry in pocket or pouch and to use.

[ThomasT]

I had to look them up to see what they looked like. Nice looking rifle stocked for open sight use. I remember reading early Savage 99s were rifled with a slow twist (1/14) to shoot the 87gr bullets and wouldn't stabilized bullets much heavier and that later they were given a faster twist in this chambering to handle heavier bullets like 120gr.

What twist does your rifle have? I checked a couple of Speer manuals and they don't even show the savage 20 in 250-3000. Only the 99 and that one with a 1/10 twist.

[WalnutBill22]

I think all Savage M1920s in 250-3000 came with a 1:14 twist, and I'm pretty sure all the early M99s did as well. So far, I have only tried the Speer 87 gr HotCor, and it shoots them quite well. I just got some 100 gr. HotCor and I am anxious to try them. From what I understand, about 100 gr. is the heaviest bullet that the 1:14 twist will stabilize. Since deer would be the biggest game I will use this rifle for, that should be fine.
I think the .300 Savage was indeed the prototype for the .308 (7.62 Nato), but I guess the military wanted a longer neck. They are ballistically very similar.

[Jim Watson]

I have read that SA and Winchester were also looking at the 7.5 French as a well proportioned cartridge.