Criticisms of Savage rifles

[lilabner]

I love my 16FSS in .243 but I do have complaints about the Savage bolt guns. First, their magnums should weigh a little more than they do to please me- I shudder to think of a .338 WM weighing a tad over 6 1/2 pounds. Perhaps they could build weight into the stock to provide a 7 1/2 pound rifle for those who would like that feature. There is only so much damage control you can do with a Limbsaver pad and muzzle brakes are not my cup of tea.  My second gripe concerns barrel length. Flat shooting cartridges like the .270 Win. and the 25-06 should be available in a 24 inch barrel to please ballistic freaks like me. Why do they handicap the great 25-06 with a 22 inch barrel in their hunting rifle?  Other makers don't. If the barrel length issue was resolved, my next Savage would be a .270 or 25-06. As it is, I must look at the .270 WSM, which is probably a bit more powerful than I really need. But I am looking, because Savages shoot so well. Check out the review of the Stevens 200 in the current American Rifleman - 3/4 inch groups at 100 yards with full power hunting loads and a 5 pound trigger pull. Mossberg was unfortunate to have the field test of their new bolt gun in the same issue as the Stevens field test. They suffer by comparison.

[Val]

I have a Savage 110FP in 25-06. It has a 24" heavy barrel. I was looking at the Savage 110 with a 22" sporter barrel when I noted that the 110FP with  the 24" heavy barrel only weighed one pound more. I replaced the stock with a Bell and Carlson DuraMax stock and I like the rifle very much. I nailed a nice 3X3 Blacktail with it opening day. It's not a carry rifle but great for setting up before dawn and for the evening. For a carry rifle I have other options.

[lilabner]

I looked at the current lineup a while back and saw a Savage in .25-06 with a longer, heavy barrel. Either a varminter or law enforcement. I may be wrong as it was a while back but as I recall it was 8 1/2 lb. without sights, which is a tad heavy for a mountain rifle with a big variable installed. The 25-06 is a great cartridge but I'd like more bullet for long range elk and caribou.  I'll settle for the 270 WSM, I guess. Looks good on the ballistic tables and the bullet weights should be low enough to keep recoil reasonable.

[Lawdog]

I love my 16FSS in .243 but I do have complaints about the Savage bolt guns. First, their magnums should weigh a little more than they do to please me- I shudder to think of a .338 WM weighing a tad over 6 1/2 pounds. Perhaps they could build weight into the stock to provide a 7 1/2 pound rifle for those who would like that feature. There is only so much damage control you can do with a Limbsaver pad and muzzle brakes are not my cup of tea.  My second gripe concerns barrel length. Flat shooting cartridges like the .270 Win. and the 25-06 should be available in a 24 inch barrel to please ballistic freaks like me. Why do they handicap the great 25-06 with a 22 inch barrel in their hunting rifle?  Other makers don't. If the barrel length issue was resolved, my next Savage would be a .270 or 25-06. As it is, I must look at the .270 WSM, which is probably a bit more powerful than I really need. But I am looking, because Savages shoot so well. Check out the review of the Stevens 200 in the current American Rifleman - 3/4 inch groups at 100 yards with full power hunting loads and a 5 pound trigger pull. Mossberg was unfortunate to have the field test of their new bolt gun in the same issue as the Stevens field test. They suffer by comparison.

Try buying their wood stocked rifles, forget the synthetic stocked ones,  and you'll gain a pound or so.  On magnum calibers to add a bit of useful weight try adding a C&H Research mercury recoil insert.  Puts 11 oz. of recoil absorbing material where it will do the most good.  Lawdog
 

[DirtyHarry]

If you want a heavier gun with a longer barrel, get the 112BVSS. My Savage 112BVSS in 25-06 has a 26" barrel and weighs in at a shade over 10Lbs...

[Slamfire]

Back in the 70s, bean counters seized control of many American corporations and kicked the quality control people out in the snow. Customers started complainin' about sticky, jerky bolt operation, and the gun makers fell in love with bolt guides. Savage's version was machined, not on the locking lug, but on the non rotating baffe\le that follows the them. The slot for this guide was broached the entire length of tha action, threads in the ring included. I've seen pictures of several rifles that came apart along this slot, usually the result of case failure allowing gas into the interior of the receiver. Savage doesn't have a very good gas control system.  :evil:

[Brithunter]

Hi All,

    Duh? Bolt control guides are not new in fact I believe it was a Mauser idea. The model 93 &95 has this feature and they were made in about 1895 or so. Why would the cost counters even consider such a thing when it involves more machining so would cost more?

[UtahMike]

About 6 months ago I decided I wanted a new long range varmint rig, not to expensive, varmint cont., free floating barrel, etc.   I bought the 12FLV a short action in .308win.  After a couple of false starts with with scopes, etc. I finally fitted it with a Farrel 10moa base, Leupold PRW rings, a Leupold 6.5-20x50mm Leupold LRT with the varmint reticle.  After breaking in the barrel and playing around with the crappy factory stock, I ordered a Richards Micro Stock - waited 8 weeks, showed up right-handed, another 8 wks, no thanks, sent it back and ordered a Choate Varmint, fits like a glove.  Also order and installed a SSS bolt handle ( a little longer, I've got arthritis, makes it easier to load a round).  
After sighting it in, by the way the Leupold is great, the first 3 - 3 round groups averaged .41".  The ammo was just the stuff I loaded to break the barrel in, 150gr. Sierra, with a little Varget. no special attention to accuracy loading.  I think I've got the Varmint rig I wanted.  I guess If I had one problem with the rifle is the so called accu-trigger.....  It doesn't go down as far as advertised and has a hard time holding the 2.25#'s it's down to.  Not much of a problem, just an aftermarket trigger.  Granted it isn't a mountain rifle ( about 13#'s), but that's not much to bi*** at for around $450 new.

[rockbilly]

  Bought my first Salvage Friday.  It is used, but in like new condition, it has the scope base and rings.  The gun is a 110 in 7 mm Mag.  It is a nice looking gun, and feels and handles great.  Couldn't pass it up for $175.00.  I am going to get her scoped, zeroed in and if it shoots as good as it looks I may even consider leaving the Sako in the safe opening day. :wink:

[Slamfire]

Hi All,

    Duh? Bolt control guides are not new in fact I believe it was a Mauser idea. The model 93 &95 has this feature and they were made in about 1895 or so. Why would the cost counters even consider such a thing when it involves more machining so would cost more?

Because the bean counters didn't consider the loss of quality machining brought about by their their insistence on cheap, the bolt guides became necessary. Nobody said they were something new, Savage never had them before.  :roll:

[kiwi98j]

I guess If I had one problem with the rifle is the so called accu-trigger.....  It doesn't go down as far as advertised and has a hard time holding the 2.25#'s it's down to.  Not much of a problem, just an aftermarket trigger.  Granted it isn't a mountain rifle ( about 13#'s), but that's not much to bi*** at for around $450 new.

Mike

It may very well be that the trigger return spring supplied in your FV is only adjustable from 21/2 to 6 lbs.  Only the 10/110 LP (Law Enforcement series) and 12/112 BV (Varmint series) have the spring that allows adjustment to 1 1/2lbs.  You can verify which spring you have by looking at the color of the spring - if it is either red or green, you have the heavier spring.

[lilabner]

After doing some web research on the .270 WSM, I withdraw my criticism of Savage for not providing a 24 inch barrel in the .270 Winchester. Speer loading data for the WSM show a starting load for the 130 gr. bullet of 58 gr. 4831 for a MV of 3067 fps. That pretty much duplicates the .270 Winchester. Recoil for that loading is considerably less than for my 30-06 loading for the 150 gr. bullet at 3050 fps. The Speer max. load for 130 gr. bullets in the WSM is 62 gr. of 4831 for 3,226 fps. Recoil calculates at 21 foot pounds for this max. load compared to 24 foot pounds for my 30-06 150 gr. handloads. The starting load is the equivalent of a well stoked .270 Winchester hunting load. If you want .270 Winchester ballistics and recoil, you can duplicate them with the .270 WSM. If you want more downrange energy and flatter trajectory than the .270 Winchester, you can get that with .270 WSM factory ammo or max. handloads. If you can manage the recoil of a lightweight 30-06, you can handle a lightweight .270 WSM with no problem.

[Slamfire]

With a 24" barrel, as was common when the Winchester Model 54 was in production, the standard .270 Winchester round is capable of reaching the original advertised 3140 fps, and Hogdon's latest manual cites 62 grains of H4831 as maximum, just as Old Jack predicted.  :-D

[UtahMike]

Just thought I give a little up date on the 308win.  I took it out to make sure it was still on for the opening to Utah's free for all deer hunt, it and my .270win (Remington 700BDL) 25yrs old.  
I shot two 3 rnd groups for the .308 --  .38" and  .16" (not bad for a "inexpensive"  Savage). and the .270? -- .47" (130gr Sierra BTSP Max load of H-4831), again not bad for 25yr old Rem with a 22" barrel.  Now if I can just find a deer.

[cal sibley]

Hello Slamfire,

Remember the beancounters have our best interest at heart.  They want to be certain that we get the best possible rifle at the most economical price.  I'm fairly certain my last Remington is a result of the bean counters obsession with the bottom line.   Why everyone knows that lawyers and beancounters make far superior rifles to machinists and gunsmiths.  Surely there must be an altar somewhere that we bow down to pay homage to them.  It sure turned me sour on rifles made by many of the US companies.  Sorry to rant, but I'm really ticked off.  Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

[Savage .250]

I own Savages.........never had a problem with, fit...finish or performance.
    These are all older models. Could it be "older" is better?  
   Back in the day guns were made and assembled by craftsmen, today it seems like there`re stamped out on an assembly line.  High end weapons excluded.
    Reading comments in this  forum about problems folks are having leads
    one in that direction....older is better. IMO.
   The only thing you can get today that you couldn`t get yester-year is a wider range of calibers. Choices have gone up quality down.

 " The best part of the hunt is not the harvest but in the experience."

[Slamfire]

Cal,
You needn't apologize to me for ranting, I git a bit upset as well. My only Savage is a pre-64 short action, that I bought when JFK was President-elect. It had plenty of issues of its own, which is what prompted the redesign. However they fixed a couple of things that weren't broke. Back then Savage relied on craftsmen, all processes were performed on single station machines. Nowadays I'm under the impression that they are using better equipment, which makes the job easier, as well as saves money. The Savage action was never the best at handling escaping gases, a title which I believe belongs to the Remington 788.

[rockbilly]

:shock: I finally got the Savage scoped, loaded up a couple of hundred rounds of ammo and went to the range Saturday.  First, the trigger on the 110 is about as smooth as rot gut booze, and that sucker kicks like a young mule.  I can see a few more dollars being spent for an upgrade trigger and better recoil pad.  It was accurate though, I got her down to about 2 inch groups at 125 yards.  I think that may improve with a better trigger.

[myarmor]

An awesome buy at $175 bro  What ammo where you using in the 7mmMag?

[rockbilly]

I was shooting reloads mostly.  I did shoot one box of old Federal factory loads for them brass, they were 139 gr.  My reloads were federal brass. CCI primer, 58 gr of IMR4350 and a 130 Serria BT bullet.

[lilabner]

Looking at the 2005 model line, I notice that the "no sight" option has been dropped on the 11 and 110 hunting rifles. Too bad, as many prefer a clean barrel for their scoped rifles. I also wonder about the Stevens 200 as a marketing decision. Looks to me like Savage will be competing against Savage. We shall see.

[Siskiyou]

Darn Savage rifles anyway!  For years I had been hunting with a Remington 760 and refinished the stock in 1970 with TruOil.  But I wanted a second .270 as a Mountain Rifle.  Adequate power, and a little bit lighter for crawling around in rocks and on steep hillsides.  When I read about the new Savage 110CL I fell in love with it and ordered one.
A price came with the lighter weight.  I added a recoil pad.  I lived at a location at that time that allow a short walk and a safe place to practice.  I fired a lot of 130 grain bullets pushed by 60 grains of H4831.  I later switched to 140 grain bullets in the Savage 110.  In the last 35 years it has prove reliable and accurate.  It functions without a problem, and has a far better safety then any of my Remington bolts.  Depending on the cover I might switch rifles during a season.  If I get lucky early and fill  a tag I normally switch rifles.

I have heard all the compliants about Savage Rifles, and if mine is a sample, I say, bull.  But 35 years is a lot of time to go by.  The period trigger is okay.  Accuracy and dependability are outstanding.  Is it as not pretty as a new Weatherby rifle at less then half the price.  It was the perfect rifle for me to carry on over nighters, when I carried meals, a sleeping bag, a small saw, and meat bags on a packframe into the mountains.

Some of the youngsters are complaining about the 22-inch barrel.  I am not complaining.  According to my Chrony I am getting 3030 fps with a 140 grain Hornaday from my rifle.  I have tested this load at 1900 elevation on hot days and 6000+ feet on moderate days without a problem.  My only complaint is that the deer I have taken with this load have all been at close range.  I can remember back when the Remington 725 came out with a 20-inch barrel. And the standard barrel length for the Remington 700 and Winchester M70 rifles chambered for the .270 Win. and 30-06 where 22-inch.  The pre-war(WWII) rifles and those made before the 70's had 24 inch barrels for standard calibers.  

I could have made another choice.  I could have purchased my Savage 110 in 7MM Remington Mag.  Launching a 150 grain factory load or a 145 grain handload at more then 3000 feet per second out of a 24-inch barrel.  At the price of more recoil.

In theory I am in favor of 24-inch barrels.  If given the option at the time of purchase I would have jumped at a light weight 24-inch barrel Savage.  Would it have made a difference when shooting at game, no.  But theory and practice are not always the same.  I own a 7mm Magnum.  I rarely take it hunting.  I am impressed with how it shots most bullets from 145 grains up.  The 7Mag 145 grain bullets are far more hotter then anything I shot out of my .270's.  But it does not cut the mustard with me.  On "most" any day during deer season depending on the cover, and terrain you will find me carrying the Savage 110CL or a Remginton M760 in .270 Win.  I have a Remington 700 in .270.  It has a very nice Mountain Rifle stock.  It is a good rifle, but I choose the Savage over it.  All three have 22-inch barrels.  I need the benefit of more money for out of State trips, and lots of deer tags.   Delusions!

So what is the problem.  After 35 years of being packed into the woods the stock is looking sad.  A while back I was setting on a hillside looking at the beat-up stock and decided at the end of the season I would strip it and re-finish it with TruOil.  I know that piece of wood will not come out looking like a high grade piece of walnut, but I do not think it is junk.  I checked the gunsmithing forum for advise.  I have used TruOil with good results in the past.  I now have my sandpaper, steelwool, the heat gun, and fresh TruOil.  Rainy days are here so it must be time to do it.

[cal sibley]

This is just one mans opinion, but I suspect there are others out there who share this view.  I remember some Savages from the late '70s and '80s, the 110P and 110PL (left handed) that were very attractive rifles,
a delight to own.  I personally am sick of synthetic stocks and don't believe we're that short of decent walnut.  I think it's just more of this "bottom line" nonsense, and the synthetics are cheaper to produce.  CZ makes several models in two different types of attractive maple, a birds eye and a flame maple that's to die for.  I feel Savage can afford to up their prices a little without dropping any degree of market share, and give is better looking rifles.  I just saw a Savage 114, and that looks like a step in the right direction.  What do you guys think?  Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

[Coyote Hunter]

A lot of people seem the think Savage rifles are crappy, low quality, bottom of the barrel products.  My experience and those of my friends that have had them tell an entirely different story.

Let me address the quality issue first.  Savage rifles are designed to be relatively inexpensive to manufacture.  There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself.  My 110E in .22-250 was a case in point.  The stock was “walnut finished”, but not really walnut – probably birch.  The trigger guard was plastic, which was one of my pet peeves.  The front sight fell off somewhere along the way, not sure how or when.  The metal finish on the barrel and the exterior of the action was rough rather than polished with a deep blue finish.  The trigger needed help but I was able to polish and adjust it.  But that rifle could SHOOT!  Even with its sporter barrel it would often put 4 and 5 shots into a 100-yard group that you could cover with a dime.  The newer Savage rifles are much nicer in the looks department, the Accu-Trigger is very nice, and from all reports they are one of the best out-of-the-box shooters.  

They may still not be a $3000 custom rifle when it comes to looks, but neither are any of my other rifles.  And if a rifle shoots like a dream, I’m pretty forgiving about its other qualities.  If I want a highly polished rifle with a deep blue finish, I’ll look elsewhere.  But if I want a shooter that let’s me continue to make the mortgage payments, Savage will aways get a look.

Then I’ll usually go buy a Ruger anyway, but Savage would often be second on my list.  I am an admitted and unabashed Ruger bigot so that’s quite a compliment to the Savage rifles.

Seriously, if you haven’t checked out the newer Savages, you need to do so.

[coyote 2]

A lot of people seem the think Savage rifles are crappy, low quality, bottom of the barrel products. My experience and those of my friends that have had them tell an entirely different story.

I guess I have to be one of the folk that think I had a crappy Savage -and I am sure it was the gun - a lemon - Savage Model 12 BVSS in a 223. When I first got the rifle I was tickled pink - very nice looking - then to the range with a Weaver V24 scope - best group at 100 yards - 2+- inches. Changed the scope to a Weaver KT15 - Same groups - third scope - Simmons Mag 44 - same group - okay expensive scope now - leopold scope - groups even worsened - I tried three different factory ammo with the rifle - remington / Gold Dot (Federal) and Black Hills. Called a GunSmith in Montana and asked if he could do anything and he said he could do some work to make it shoot better / of course I would be adding $250 to the cost of a new weapon - finally gave in - traded in the weapon. A few days ago - I went back to the gun shop where I traded it and saw it back on the rack - asked the owner if he had sold it - he said yes and this is the third time - he said this is just a bad shooting rifle. He is making money but I guess one of us (ex-owners) should of sent it back to Savage to have it check out. Just a lemon in the making. Was my first Savage and my last. Guess I will just stick to my TC's - never had a bad one.. :lol:

[Siskiyou]

You know that happens with some rifles.  When I bought my Ruger M77 I bought a box of Federal, Winchester, and Remington factory loads and went to the range.  The scope was a 4X Banner.  At a hundred yards the group was all over the place.

I did a quick switch and put the scope on a .270 I had at the range.  No problem with the group.

So after 25-30 rounds I was beat up, and had a rifle I was not happy with.  My next step was to reload the brass with H4831 and 160 grain Speer bullets.  Suddenly I had a rifle that met my expectations.  I have since loaded 145 grain, and 175 grain bullets for the rifle.  I have used three different powders, H4831, H870, and AA8700.  The powder occupys a lot of case space.  And loads are accurate with all three powders.

One of these days I need to fire some other factory loads I have on hand.  Did the new barrel need breaking in, or did the larger grain powder fill more of the case making it burn more efficient?  Or did both breaking in the barrel along with powder changes improve accuracy?

[mjbgalt]

boy i sure hate my savages and the ones my relatives own. not only do these damn things last forever, but they can only shoot about a 1/2" group at 100 yards and besides, they don't cost much so they CAN'T be that good, right?

i am going to go bury mine in the yard, people on the internet can't be wrong about 'em.

-Matt    

[coyote 2]

boy i sure hate my savages and the ones my relatives own. not only do these damn things last forever, but they can only shoot about a 1/2" group at 100 yards and besides, they don't cost much so they CAN'T be that good, right?

I am sure there are many good Savages out there. I did have one that shot verrrry well - 10FP LE1 - 308 - but medical bills forced me to sell it.

What I am saying and did say - there are lemons out there - I do not reload and will not put up with a rifle that does not shoot good groups - I am sure if one of your savages - shot larger than 2" groups - you would either put money in it - to get it to shoot - or get rid of it - I just can not see purchasing a weapon for $500 plus and then having to send it off to a gunsmith to make it shoot..that one should be buried in your back yard....  

[Slamfire]

I guess I have to be one of the folk that think I had a crappy Savage -and I am sure it was the gun - a lemon - Savage Model 12 BVSS in a 223. When I first got the rifle I was tickled pink - very nice looking - then to the range with a Weaver V24 scope - best group at 100 yards - 2+- inches. Changed the scope to a Weaver KT15 - Same groups - third scope - Simmons Mag 44 - same group - okay expensive scope now - leopold scope - groups even worsened - I tried three different factory ammo with the rifle - remington / Gold Dot (Federal) and Black Hills. Called a GunSmith in Montana and asked if he could do anything and he said he could do some work to make it shoot better / of course I would be adding $250 to the cost of a new weapon - finally gave in - traded in the weapon. A few days ago - I went back to the gun shop where I traded it and saw it back on the rack - asked the owner if he had sold it - he said yes and this is the third time - he said this is just a bad shooting rifle. He is making money but I guess one of us (ex-owners) should of sent it back to Savage to have it check out. Just a lemon in the making. Was my first Savage and my last. Guess I will just stick to my TC's - never had a bad one.. :lol:

If a barrel gets kinked at the factory they don't throw it away, they straighten it and put it on a rifle. As the barrel heats up it wants to assume its old position. I had a Remington 788 that always threw the third round out of the group by about 3/4". I tried everything I could think of but it remained the same. Since the first two were in or nearly in the same hole, I just learned to live with it.  :wink:

[mjbgalt]

coyote-

i wasn't being sarcastic toward you or your post, just trying to make the point that not all people who criticize know what theyre talking about. especially on the net, where anyone could say anything with no risks or proof.

i sure as heck would have done just what you did with that gun....woulda been back on the rack by the end of that day.

besides, i am running out of space in my backyard with all these politicians i have been burying.  

-Matt