Hey guys,

I am just considering a new project to re-barrel a shot-out and neglected Savage 99 .22 HiPower to either .38/55 or .375Win but am having problems deciding between the two calibres. I am leaning towards .38/55 as there doesn't seem to be much between them ballistically, when shot from a Savage 99, and the components seem to be a little more available.

However, if anyone has some important considerations, when comparing the two cartridges, I would love to hear your views.

Pressure is a bit higher in the .375Win but if the receiver was used for 300Sav also it may be ok.

If you go .38-55, make sure to use a .375 barrel and that the chamber is cut with a .395-.400 dia at the cartridge mouth. The SAAMI spec .38-55 chamber is way to small to use groove diameter bullets. (but they won't fix it, I've tried.)

Other than that its an either or thing.

(If you want more info on the .38-55 chamber thing PM me.)

Savage made a few 375 wins in a 99. So pressure would not be an issue. I would go with the 375 winchester because it is set up to run with .375 diameter bullets. The 38-55 guys say that you need a .377 for best accuracy in the 38-55. There are few .377 diameter bullets compared to .375 diameter.

I found myself reading this thread because mention of the Savage 99 caught my eye. I do hope that some people who read do know that the Savage 99's first chambered cartridge was the 30-30 - also the first smokeless cartridge. The 38-55 was a black powder cartridge -one of those cartridges that the 30-30 wiped out. In my youth, farmers used the 38-55 to kill foxes -at less than 40 yards. Oh, you'll tell me how it has been souped up as a smokeless? Please. It was not a particularly good cartridge for any purpose in its day and trying to resuscitate a corpse rarely works. Why not leave your 99 to what it was chambered for and let it go at that?

I think Rusty Marlin pretty much covered it in his response.

I'd also suggest using a 375 diam bbl and chamber for the long 38/55 brass made by Starline. In a 99 you may be able to load to a longer LOA too.

If you use a fast twist (1 in 12"), like the 375 Win did, in a 99 you should have a really powerful cartridge and be able to use pointy bullets like a 235 Speer.

You biggest headache will be locating or fabricating a 38/55 magazine rotor.

Joe

quote:

Why not leave your 99 to what it was chambered for and let it go at that?

Thanks for the suggestion and, if this was a rifle in reasonable, or even average, condition then I would do exactly that. However, as I said at the start, it is a shot out and neglected .22 Hipower. It has no collectors value and is not usable as it is.

I have thought about restoring it to .22 Hipower, but components and barrel blanks are hard to find here and it would still just be another Bubba'd 99, so I might as well make it a calibre that I can use and for which components are easier to come by.

BwanaBob:

My apologies for jumping the gun and assuming that your 99 was chambered in 30-30 . I don't know why I assumed that - I guess because the mention of a 38-55 made me assume that your 99 was an octagonal barrel,straight grip and curved butt plate 99 -{kind of the same era} The 22 Hi-Power was something of a curiosity in my youth (and I'm 79). It really wasn't particularly well thought of -I don't recall just why - although cartridges like the 22 Hornet and 218 Bee certainly had established good reputations and so the 22 Hi-Power just didn't stand much chance in such company. (I feel guilty rapping a cartridge I never fired and hasten to say I'm speaking from local countryside "info") Yeah, I can see getting the smoothness of the 99's action united with a 38-55. I wish you good luck with your efforts.

The major problem with the conversion to another caliber is finding the parts like the rotor and several other small parts as they are getting scarce plus the price of a gunsmith trying to refit everything to work.
Barrels for the 22 Savage show up from time to time on the auction sights or with people that specialize in Savage 99 parts.

srt:

Your post reminded me of the very real gunsmithing difficulties involved. You're right - who the heck has sufficiently sized rotors for a conversion to 38-55? In fact, was the 99 ever chambered for 38-55? ( I rather strongly doubt it since its first cartridge, the 30-30 smokeless was meant to replace any black powder cartridge) Very good post -and I would suggest, a strong warning that the difficulties of rechambering go beyond rebarrelling -or even resizing a chamber boring when it comes to the 99. (Srt - Could we persuade him to rechamber to 250-3000, a truly great cartridge in the 99 -as far as I'm concerned. I yield to your expertise. I'm a hopeless Savage 99 devotee in any event)

I have an original 99 in 38-55, so yes, it was definitely chambered in that cartridge. - dan

They are fine rifles, I have way too many myself.
The parts and the labor are the main obstacle to the conversion. The bolt would probably need to be changed also. It could be changed over to a 30/30 or a 25/35, but finding the rotors would be very difficult if not impossible. I bought a Savage 99 that someone had butchered in a conversion from 303 Savage to 308 which ruined the rotor and the barrel and luckily I found the parts need to return it to original.
Good luck.

dan belisle:

After reading your post, I was confident that I could demolish it. After googling, I find that, instead, it's me who is demolished. To my amazement, Savage, did, indeed, continue the 99 in 38-55 chambering. I apologize to all posters for my too confident assertions about the 99's chambering of former black powder calibers.

Gerry not only black powder cartridges but it was also chambered for the 375win now to me thats a truly intriguing combination....

fgulla:

Your post really intrigued me -because while I had heard of the 375 Win. (in a vague, "out there" sense) I had never had any experience with the cartridge. You sent me to Google -where I learned exactly what you mean.I always felt that Savage was pretty good with real smokeless cartridges -starting with the 30-30 and going on to some really good cartridges in the woods like the 300 Savage and, yes, the 250-3000 (100 gr. only for deer and nothing bigger) Yes, I now agree that chambering 99 for the 375 Win. was "intriguing" -to use your word. Based on my newfound knowledge of the 375 Win. and after reading comments about it ranging from columnists to shooters,would "appallingly ill advised" be too strong?

I am just considering a new project to re-barrel a shot-out and neglected Savage 99 .22 HiPower to either .38/55 or .375Win

Doesn't the 99 rotor need modification due to change in case dimensions?

I was told so years ago, though I have not changed calibres in a 99--

I have worked with the M/S; in which the rotor is specifically machined to each particular cartridge and must be modified to change calibre.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerrypeters375:
fgulla:

Your post really intrigued me -because while I had heard of the 375 Win. (in a vague, "out there" sense) I had never had any experience with the cartridge. You sent me to Google -where I learned exactly what you mean.I always felt that Savage was pretty good with real smokeless cartridges -starting with the 30-30 )

Just for info, the 1899 Savage was not chambered for the .30-30 cartridge when first introduced. The original chambering was for the .303 Savage cartridge.

The .30-30 was added in the year 1900.

In 1903, the .25-35, .32-40, and the .38-55 were also added.

The .250-3000 was added in 1913, and the .25-35 was dropped at the same time.

You might look at doing a 375/284...all the information is in "Accurizing the Factory Rifle" by M.L. McPherson...Section 19, Gunsmith Specific Alterations Part III.

This conversion is DEFINITELY a large step above the two you mentioned.

I have an OLD switch barrel 99 300 Sav I keep thinking about, but always too many projects still to do.

You could also do a 416/284 and get another step up on the bullet size/weight. I like that one much better/

I have an article on file where a 22Savage Hi-Power was converted to 30/30 with the addition of a new Ruger stainless 308Win barrel (shortened and rechambered) and it reads as if it took place with no other modifications.

Perhaps a 30/30 is in order?
Cheers...
Con

Alberta Canuck:

THanks for the history lesson on caliber loadings for the 99. (that's not sarcasm. I mean it as information gained) The 30-30 was the premium cartridge that wiped out black powder cartridges. I never meant to intimate that the 30-30 was the very first 99 loading. I only meant to say that the 30-30 was the cartridge that spelled the end of many black powder cartridges -hence I said "first". (BTW, as a matter of history - my father was a pioneer engineer on the construction of the Panama Canal {and was there even before the Panamanians revolted against Colombia} His father sent a Savage 99 in 30-30 down to him - and I killed a white tail with it at age 18 some 44 years later. Yeah, I'm sentimental about the 99!

You're welcome, Gerry. I wasn't trying to put down what you said...just providing info for those who might not know, so nobody went off telling their buddies the first round ever chambered in the '99 was the .30-30.

I figured you likely knew, as you used the term "smokeless" in your sentence, but didn't know how many others might not understand.....

Best wishes,

No worries Gerry. Not a lot of difference between the 38-55 and 375, although I would buy a 99 in 375 in a heartbeat as a primo brush gun. The fact that I can use pointed bullets in it always seemed a plus to me over the Win 94. - dan

Thanks for all of the info and comments, guys, but this project is on hold for the moment because the purchase of the Savage 99, that this project was all about, is now in doubt because the seller is dragging this feet.

I'll have to start looking for another rifle to play with.


---------------------------------------------

Of the two choices definitely .375; it's a really fun cartridge. I had a Marlin M375 that was pretty much an ideal whitetail gun. Cheers.

dan belisle:

I read your last post and realized that I had never thought much about the idea of the "pointed" cartridge in a lever action magazine -until your mention of the Win.94. Certainly I can see the hazard of such cartridges in an "in line" magazine. Let me ask you something. Is it really a worrisome hazard? I hasten to say that I would think it was -if I had ever been considering use of a Win.94 or use of anything but round nose cartridges in a lever action that didn't have a rotary magazine. I really would like to read your thoughts (and, of course, anyone else's)

Savage 99
Winchester 1895
Sako Finnwolf
Browning BLR
Winchester 88

All are action/magazine designs that easily accommodate pointed projectiles.

In others -tube magazine- rifles-

LeverEvolution Hornady FTX bullets in .308, .338, .358, .452,.458 .500, (and probably some I missed) have polymer tips, are designed to overcome the -point to primer --risk.

DuggaBoye:

Appreciated reading your comments about pointed bullets in a lever action. Since I am long retired from active shooting (and not keeping up with developments as I guess I should) I want to ask you about something. You mention "polymer tips" as taking care of the hazard. Could you elaborate a bit for my benefit? (since I just don't know what a polymer tip is)

Resembling the old Bronze Point Remington and later the Accu-Tip Nosler--EXCEPT--
the pointed insert is a compressible (soft but resilient) polymer.

As such it compresses and expands during recoil or other pressure acting as a plasticized shock absorbed between the loaded rounds in a tubular magazine.

Thereby preventing detonation without the need for a spiral tube to keep the points of the primers ,as in the older Remington pumps (14 & 141).

Here:
http://www.hornady.com/story.php?s=198

http://www.rifleshootermag.com...ition/market_111505/

DuggaBoye:

I should have explained to you that I am the guy for whom written instructions on how to change a light bulb were wriiten for. I think you are telling me that a polymer tip reacts -right in the magazine- to the recoil of the firing cartridge by somehow (in a chemical reaction)becoming "softer" and thus, not being pushed forward as a "hard" object with any force enough to strike a primer ahead of it ? Please bear with me. I respect your knowledge (that's why I asked you in the first place) - I just never realized the subject was so technically involved. Many thanks for a reply again.

Think of it as a rubber type shock absorber (except made of plastic {polymer})
It returns to original shape (pointed) after a shock( compression)

Still, like the old Bronze Point, at a higher velocity, (designed impact speed range) it drives back into the cavity below- to expand the projectile.

So it protects the primer ahead of it in the tubular mag, and allows a streamlined profile in flight.

DuggaBoye:

Many thanks for furnishing this technical illiterate with an explanation that he could understand.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerrypeters375:
I found myself reading this thread because mention of the Savage 99 caught my eye. I do hope that some people who read do know that the Savage 99's first chambered cartridge was the 30-30 - also the first smokeless cartridge. The 38-55 was a black powder cartridge -one of those cartridges that the 30-30 wiped out. In my youth, farmers used the 38-55 to kill foxes -at less than 40 yards. Oh, you'll tell me how it has been souped up as a smokeless? Please. It was not a particularly good cartridge for any purpose in its day and trying to resuscitate a corpse rarely works. Why not leave your 99 to what it was chambered for and let it go at that?

Well, it's already been pointed out that the first 99 chambering was .303 Savage not .30-30, but I'll add that the first smokeless powder cartridge was NOT the .30-30 but the French 8mm Lebel, nor was it the first American smokeless cartridge, the .30-40 (.30 US) preceded it by a couple of years. The .30-30 is commonly called the first American smokeless sporting cartridge.

Finally, the .38-55 loaded for modern rifles, such as the Marlin is SUBSTANTIALLY better than the .30-30 as a close range cartridge it has more energy, more weight, and about .07 more diameter. What's not to like? In short, it is at least as much better than the .30-30 than the .308 is than the .243. Anyone who thinks the .38-55 is somehow a lesser cartridge than the .30-30 is simply wrong unless you're trying to stretch the .30-30 into a long range round. Yeah, right.

The only real drawback to the .38-55 is the lack of a good bullet selection. One of my favorite deer/hog rounds. It will really rock them, especially compared to the .30-30.

Always interesting to hear from a desk hunter. Gee, somehow,everybody overlooked the superiority of the 38-55 to the 30-30. (I have actually lived to see someone putting himself so far out on a limb as to rate the 38-55 better than the 30-30) Ever travel in Central America where the only center fire cartridge was the "treinta-treinta"? Ever read where the 30-30 had killed more deer in North America than all other center fire cartridges combined -and that was well into the 20th Century? You sound like just what Fred Barnes remarked in "Cartridges of the World" about 32 Win. Special advocates. "It's a fine cartridge if you don't believe that smokeless powder is here to stay".

I'm surprised at the bickering over the .30-30 vs. the .38-55. Both are good cartridges.

The .30-30 was the better seller, for a variety of reasons (one being less recoil in guns of the same weight). Another was, in the days of lead hunting bullets, that you could make a lot more 165 grain .30" lead bullets than 255 grain .379" bullets from a pound of lead. When a person generally needed to carry his supplies on a horse or on foot, and money was scarce, that was important too.

Back in "the day", the .30-30 was actually viewed as a "long range", "high-velocity" cartridge compared to many of the CIVILIAN ones it replaced. Those two sales points were just as effective for it then as they are for .300 Magnums today, and both were strongly used in ads.

There were circumstances, though, where the .38-55 was very popular...think moose hunters (and guides) in the Maine woods, for instance. Rightly or wrongly, many experienced hunters of LARGE deer preferred the .38's larger (heavier) bullets. The .38-55 was considered a dense "north" woods, large game "thumper", and was advertised and sold as such.

The .38-55 was also generally felt to be more accurate. It was a pretty popular "schuetzen" cartridge, which the .30-30 wasn't. The .38-55 was dethroned in that venue by the .32-40, which still pretty much outnumbers the .30-30 among top shooters in that game.

Still, if anyone prefers one over the other, that doesn't make him foolish. I will glady accept all the Savage 99's anyone cares to sell me for $100 each, regardless of chambering. I think I can find a useful place for any of them.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerrypeters375:
Always interesting to hear from a desk hunter. Gee, somehow,everybody overlooked the superiority of the 38-55 to the 30-30. (I have actually lived to see someone putting himself so far out on a limb as to rate the 38-55 better than the 30-30) Ever travel in Central America where the only center fire cartridge was the "treinta-treinta"? Ever read where the 30-30 had killed more deer in North America than all other center fire cartridges combined -and that was well into the 20th Century? You sound like just what Fred Barnes remarked in "Cartridges of the World" about 32 Win. Special advocates. "It's a fine cartridge if you don't believe that smokeless powder is here to stay".

Let's see, your initial post had EVERY major fact wrong proving you have no idea of WTF you're talking about and the best you can do is call me a desk hunter. LOL. Yep, I kill anywhere from 5 to 25 deer every year, not to mention Africa (but only 5 times to 4 countries so far), sometimes South and Central America for birds or fish, and a dozen hogs or so.....I'm a desk hunter alright. When was the last time you killed anything? I also have killed 8 wild hogs in less than 10 seconds with the poor old .38-55 in a Marlin, I'm amazed they fell over dead. As Alberta Canuck said, "The .38-55 was considered a dense "north" woods, large game "thumper", and was advertised and sold as such." No kidding or put another way, to say the .30-30 is a superior killer to the .38-55 is simply put, stone cold stupid. If you could still shoot anything but your aging mouth I'd invite you to shoot your vaunted .30-30 against my poor old .38-55s and see how we do, but I realize talk is all you have left, so I'll leave it at that.

Wow, you must feel better now. One of life's lessons is: Never fight an old man because if you win, your're a bully and everyone will dispise you but, if you loose your're a whimp and will be laughed at.

Self defense, I didn't make this personal, he did. Age is no excuse. However, to answer your question, I feel much better since I KNOW the .38-55 in modern loadings is a fine round and superior to the .30-30 at the ranges it's intended for, and I'm not going to stand by and have some moron who probably has never shot one, misinform other people.

Despise away, I'm not running for office.

Gatogordo:

Since you have never hunted in Central America or in South America (and I have)and. so far as appears, you never hunted in Africa either (and I have) -and since you have no recent hunting experience within the past 20 years - just where did you acquire this vast experience with the 38-55 - or is your "expertise" out of surfing the internet? I don't mind disagreement with me but calling me a "moron" does not exactly prove your argument. (Some of us who know elementary Spanish might wonder why you have a user name that translates to "fat cat" -unless it demonstrates a fat slob who waits around each day to be fed)

Joe Dean:

Too bad you don't have the ordinary guts to tell us where you are from. It would say a lot about you. My friend, old age will catch up with you one day and those snappy wisecracks about age won't look so good then. Take my word for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerrypeters375:
Gatogordo:

Since you have never hunted in Central America or in South America (and I have)and. so far as appears, you never hunted in Africa either (and I have) -and since you have no recent hunting experience within the past 20 years - just where did you acquire this vast experience with the 38-55 - or is your "expertise" out of surfing the internet? I don't mind disagreement with me but calling me a "moron" does not exactly prove your argument. (Some of us who know elementary Spanish might wonder why you have a user name that translates to "fat cat" -unless it demonstrates a fat slob who waits around each day to be fed)

Calling you something is one thing, but you continually prove that you really are a moron. Try reading my above post if your attention span lasts that long. I've hunted birds and/or fished in Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil and been to Afric hunting 5 times, latest was twice last year (2008). Last time I hunted anything was deer this morning. Just got back from unsuccessfully searching for a giant hog a friend of mine either missed or didn't kill quick enough on my ranch Sunday. I've seen him before he was HUUGE, I'd say 400 at the very least. Here's some more elementary Spanish for you, chingate, hijo de puta que pario. Dementia doesn't hurt, you don't even know it.