I just put the motion picture, "The Lost Battalion," on pause because the American 308th of the 77th Division has just successfully attacked the first German trench line. During the attack even when soldiers were slithering from shell crater to shell crater, no one was shooting from the prone. Americans have "dug in" with entrenching shovels, and no one will have taken or will take a prone shooting position.

When the War Department began its search for a replacement for the 1873 Springfield rifle series, Arthur Savage submitted a hammerless lever action eight-shot (plus one in the chamber) design that ultimately became the original version Savage Model 99 rifle, the one with the multiple use side safety. As far as I can determine, this is the only lever action that has primary extraction - occurring when its breech bolt is forced down at its rear to unlock for extraction and insertion of cartridges. While this primary extraction is less than that of turn bolt actions, circa 1890, how much is really needed? Anticipating that revising what would [probably??] have become a rifle chambered for 300 Savage equivalent cartridge to include a packet-charging Mannlicher-Schönauer or Krag rotary magazine plus other adjustments for more nearly trouble free manufacture, the action would be exceptionally well sealed from mud and debris, ambidextrous, quicker for repetitive firing, and safer from ammunition defects than any other submitted action.

The only inherent "defect" - the trait that caused its rejection - is that its lever action would be difficult to use from the prone position. I have never seen a soldier take a prone position except when shooting for record on the target range.

Unless the "teething" problems that must be dealt with during development of any military rifle were unsolvable and disqualifying, such a rifle would achieve a significant military advantage over any of the bolt action infantry rifles in use before the bolt action killing semiautomatic M1 Garand of 1936 - that had "teething" problems of its own for five years after acceptance.

When dealing with uncle sugar;remember that he occasinally makes a right decision (1911 .45;any Browning designs,et al) but left to their own devices can usually screw up a wet dream

The Mod 99 is a very nice lever rifle but in action I'd far rather have a Mauser, Springfield, or Lee Enfield bolt gun. Much easier to tear down and clean and far more tolerant of mud and sand. The lever action is quick but it likely would not beat out a good Lee Enfield for sustained fire and, yes, the lever will get in the way. While it made a superb hunters rifle I really don't see it as a superior choice for a military weapon

Jerry:

At the time of that first smokeless rifle selection, the 1898 Mauser and Springfield didn't exist - so these preferences were unavailable. The SMLE that became No. I Mk. III was still the Lee Metford, not the one used in World War I - another choice that really wasn't. Since we agree that the SMLE was the most satisfactory bolt action military rifle, I [also] am mystified that it was not selected for our infantry rifle.

Regarding ease of maintenance, what became the 99 never had an opportunity to be developed as a military weapon - think about the exceptionally unpleasant development cycle from Fairchild AR-15 to an M-16 that worked well, albeit with significantly more routine maintenance than M1 Garand or M-14.

Ability to tolerate crud - I don't know how the 1892/95 Savage compared with bolt actions tested. The 99 is well sealed, but again, I am unaware of any crud tolerance testing. And the 99 is not the Savage lever action submitted. Rather it was the 92/95 version.

Regarding rapidity of shots, the only instance of which I'm aware where a mass of bolt action infantry exhibiting rapid fire was the professional British Army in the opening months of World War I who delayed the German army's right wing long enough for the French army to counter attack at the Marne, moving an army from the Paris area by use of taxicabs. That professional British army disappeared as a result of their defense.

Excluding that instance, I question whether a citizen army - that's what the United States would and did use to fight their four wars of the twentieth century (World Wars I and II, Korean "Police Action," and Vietnam) - would be trained well enough to shoot, keeping rifle shouldered while cycling the action. Notice how few hunters manipulate their bolt action rifle from their shoulder. Having typed that, I am confident that rapidity of fire would be among the criteria of the War Department's selection committee.

Still awful hard to beat a 98.One helluva fine piece of engineering + you can break the bolt assembly down by hand,not to mention the safety features for the "common soldier" who was always right handed (ALL Germans are).Try firing a 98 left handed + you'll see what I mean.As we all know,our 03 SPGFLD design was stolen from the Mauser 95 when we were using the Krag in Cuba. Damned if we did'nt have to pay damages to Mauser as well.