I just don't understand Savage. For a company with such a great history of making quality, unique, and accurate guns...they also seem to have a penchant for flubbing things and misreading the market BADLY.
This gun is ugly, true. But that isn't really even the worst of it. It has separated barrels, which as others have pointed out, are very difficult to regulate...UNLESS you've properly bedded them, and even then it's tough. And you KNOW they aren't properly bedded at THAT price point.
What's worse is, they ALREADY know better, because they've been there before! Starting with the Stevens .22/410 that ran from 1939-1949, it was a fantastic well made gun. Great wood, ans fully seemed barrels from breech to muzzle.
Then in 1950 Savage decided to re-brand it as the Savage 24, dropping the Stevens designation, but essentially keeping the gun the same. The only real issue the guns had was with the side-of-the-receiver barrel selector, which had a knack for breaking. But they fixed that in 1964 with the introduction of the hammer-top selector, and things remained pretty much the same until 1972. I consider those 1960's guns to be the best, because they retain the best of two qualities: fully seemed barrels, and hammer-top barrel selectors.
I own two from that era: a 1965 J-DL and a 1969 J-DL. Both are beutiful, both straight shooters, and both in what I believe is the best combination they offered -- .22lr over 20 ga.
But starting in '72 they wanted to cut back on costs, and that's when they started producing them with separated barrels. At first they were soldered at the end (BAD), and then they were clamped at the end (SUPER BAD!!). Both were prone to shoot sideways.
This is the Savage 24 that MOST people know, because those are the years they produced the most. About the only cool thing they did during that time was make a Camper's Companion model that featured a shorter barrel, and was meant to be super compact for throwing in the car, backpack, whatever.
Then in the 90's they came out with the 23F, which was a whole new gun with the same stupid separated barrels, but made of Rynite (cheap synthetic). They offered some new caliber combos (.308 / 12 ga, for instance), but they were ugly and still didn't shoot straight. Oh, and they were far heavier than those early guns like mine, that weigh around 6 1/2 lbs.
Now, getting to the crux of my point, these guns have been SOUGHT AFTER for a long time! Guys go on Gunbroker and pay $600-$900 for them in "good" condition...even MORE if very good. There is a whole subculture of small game hunters who will tell you it's the single greatest small game gun ever made -- me among them.
So given the opportunity to own a newer model, with updated sights, and maybe some new caliber combinations, BELIEVE me when I say people would gladly pay $1,000 for a quality new Savage combo. so HOW is it that the geniuses at Savage decided to instead come out with this junky little bargain priced job? How do I know it's junk?? $400?? Puh-LEEZE.
You get what you pay for.
It's pretty sad, really, because they have an opportunity to re-open a door that really they and they ALONE )including Stevens) kicked open for so many years. I realize the 24 was always an everyman's gun. But way back when, they offered QUALITY for the everyman's price. Now they're just offering the price.
Opportunity lost.
