Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by n8dawg6
i guess the advantage to my RSI is that ive never chrono’d it. so when i kill stuff with it i dont know how slow the bullet was going. i actually tend to think a 20” barrel is about ideal for the cartridge in terms of portability vs performance. the 24” 700 classic is definitely overkill on barrel length, although its noticeably less barky than the RSI.

always thought savage should have chambered their lightweight hunter in the 250 savage, back when they still made a blued walnut model.


I've had a 77 RSI IN 250-3000 since they came out in 1984. I've never had any trouble killing whitetails or coyotes with it, but think that the 77 RSIs would have had better balance with a 20" barrel than with the 18.5" barrel design that Ruger decided on.

I like everything about the Winchester/USRA 70 Lightweight Carbines that were made in 1986/1987 except for their 1-14" ROT. I restocked one of mine with a featherweight style stock as a means by which to upgrade the aesthetics, now it looks sort of like an updated version of the Savage 1920.

I never really cared for the 77 RL/RLS design. If I wanted a short handy Ruger 77, I preferred the shorter, handier, 77 RSI style.

definitely agree on the RSI barrel length. ive always had an eye out for one of the winchester carbines for a reasonable price. figure i could shoot 87 g hot cors out of it, at least.

re: the 1920, savage had a thingy on their instagram showcasing a very nice example. they opened the post up for questions and i asked what the equivalent of the 1920 would be in their current lineup. the response was NOTHING, haha

Uber Demanding Rifle Aficionado