Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Savage weather warrior(116 FCSS) vs Ruger M77( RBZ)

Hi guys need help deciding on which of these rifles to get in 300 win mag.The weather warrior(116 FCSS) comes with the bedding block and great accuracy(as i have heard)but the ruger model M77RBZ with the laminate stock comes with rings and is $100 cheaper then the savage but would need bedding and barrel float im suggesting,so any input would be great by the guys who have them in these calibres,i will be getting one of these 2 rifles as they fit into my budget so just need some help on which way to go(choosing stainless as they will be wet weather guns if required)
cheers
aussie270wsm

I had both rifles but in 30/06. The Savage required bedding the lug and tang after floating the tang area. It shot very well, no groups were over 1". The Ruger required floating the barrel and bedding the action. Once this was done groups are .5"-1" with loads it likes.


I still own the Ruger, sold the Savage. Never had a single problem with the Savage I just did not need 2 guns in the same caliber that shot nearly the same groups.

The Ruger is control round feed, doesn't matter to most but I like it.

Floating a barrel on a Ruger take about 10mins and is free if you do it yourself. Bedding one is very easy to do and cheap if you do it yourself.


I think either would fit the bill for you. I am a Ruger fan though.

I am not familiar with the Savage, but know the Ruger. The Ruger is very heavy - too heavy to really be a stalking rifle. Ruger's site says 8.5lb. Savage site says 7.1lb. Thats a big diference.
Personally, i would buy a Vanguard S2 over these rifles, as i think it offers much better value for money. If i was going to spend more, i would go up to the Sako A7, which is only $150 more than the Savage. The X-bolt composite stalker is only a little more, too. Both are significantly better rifles.

But i am not talking about the stainless models, i'm talking blued steel. I don't believe there is any reason for SS rifles in Australia - at least not currently. I have used rifles that are nearly a hundred years old, some that have served in a couple of world wars and servived the mud of the western front and the mud of New Guinea (or survived the Russian front), that haven't rusted with just a bit of occassional cleaning. You most certainly don't need stainless for a bit of rain! And CrMo steel still retains significant strength advantages over any of the stainless steels currently used in rifle manufacture. New Zealand - you could perhaps argue for stainless. Although given the potential for exposure to very cold temperatures if you are climbing high, i personally would still avoid stainless (stainless losses strength with extreme cold, which can lead to shattering behaviour in the event of failure - this has occurred in Alaska and Scandanavia). Buy quality over marketing and gimmicks any day, would be my advice.

If i already had a 270WSM, why wouldn't you go to the 300WSM?

I'll take a Savage over a Ruger if for no other reason than the safety. Much prefer the 3 position tang safety on the Savage. I've owned several Savages over the past 30 years and they've always been accurate, dependable rifles for me.

Buy the Ruger and shoot it. You just may find that it does't need bedding. If it does, the 100 you save will do it. End result will be a fine rifle the will handle any foul weather or grime you will throw it's way.

I've got several Rugers and have never had to bed any. Never could get excited about a Savage.

i have several rugers and several savages. like em all. i prefer the ergos on the ruger, and they seem to be built with more attention to detail. on the other hand, i have taken all of my rugers to a gunsmith, none of the savages. the savages seem to shoot well out of the box, and the accu-trigger is much better than the 5-6 lb trigger that the rugers have all come with (i do not have a ruger with the newish LC6 trigger, it might be better).

it will probably come down to personal preference. for a sporter-weight rifle, i'm usually quite pleased with CONSISTENT 5 shot groups at 100 yds that are in the 1.5" to 2.0" range. i think either the savage or the ruger will accomplish that.

also, someone mentioned weight. that's definitely something to think about, and i'd actually handle both rifles and compare the ergos before making a decision. for a .300 mag, i'd actually PREFER a heavier rifle ... in my experience rifle weight is about the best way to control recoil (good recoil pad is a close 2nd). but you might want something lighter for carrying.

I had a pre accu trigger 116 weather warrior in 300Win. Mag. , no accu-stock either . I bought it for $250.00 and it hadn't had a box of shells thru it . I sent it out for MagNaPorting and was unpacking it in front of a couple of customers . One of them just fell head over heels in love with it at first sight , he left with it ! He tells me it shoots great , way better than his old .300 , which kicked like a Mule he said . I'm a big fan of MagNaPort , invisible and effective !

In my experience, the Savage (a Stevens 200 .270 in my case)will probably shoot better out of the box. (The 200 needed a trigger job) The Ruger (Mine is a KM77 mk II in .30-06) can shoot very well after some break-in and maybe a little tuning.

But I also consider resale of rifles- Savages are often thought of as cheap rifles, while I think the Ruger is less so. If one of these 2 does not work out, and you choose to sell it, you'll lose less on the Ruger. If the Ruger costs less, I think it's the better value.

Have a weather warrior myself in 308. It's one of the only rifles I use anymore. It's beautiful to me and shoots tight rounds at 100 yards even with me shooting it. I have a few savage rifles and have been pleased with most.

Savage for me,, although I'm not an accutrigger fan,,,,

I own both, but there ain't no way I'd pay 100 MORE for a savage than a Ruger.

Ruger all the way. The inaccuracy is primarily an internet rumor, at least for the five I've had. Never bedded or floated a single one of them.

Owning both, I like the Ruger for aesthetics, but for function and recommendation, I'd suggest the Savage...

lighter, and a whole lot more accurate right out of the box than the Ruger...

The Savage, for function?