Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors savage 340

Going to look at two 340's over the next week. I know very little about these guns---can anyone school me on value , pitfalls ,etc. I appreciate any and all responses .Rodney

Not pretty guns, but usually are far more accurate than you would expect.

What caliber are they? 30-30 wouldn't interest me but anything else might be worth a drive.

Got one in 30-30 from my grandpa when I was 12, shot many deer with it. Calhoun is right not the best looking gun but shoots very well. I picked up a westernfield 712, very similar to the 340 built by savage in 222 rem, also very accurate. I spent 200 on the 222, think I did ok, it hadn't seen much use. Have seen a few in new shape for around 375-400. I haven't had any issues with either.

have had 15 -20 of them over the years. they are kind of like the 788 remington, very under rated.
222 rem and 22 hornet are my favorite's but if you find a 30-30 with an original magazine its good to go. some 30-30's for some reason kick like a Missouri Mule. never figured out that but figured they had under bored bores. never slugged a kicker just got rid of it.
have a 222, a 22 hornet and a 30-30 right now.
i pick them up for 225-275 but see some go for slightly more.

The 340 was always meant to be an economy rifle, likely aimed at the guy who didn't have much to spend but didn't want to take his chances on a used firearm. So don't pay too much for them. Having said that, I agree that they are under rated. I'd look for an early walnut stocked 340. As said above the .222 would be interesting and a 30-30 could make a good little cast bullet shooter. Best of luck.

I have worked with and on two of these rifles, both in 222 Remington caliber. In my opinion they are junk. The triggers suck, and the rear receiver ring is split to accomodate the bolt handle, which means the scope mount must be a side mouted affair. Accuracy was only fair on one, and bad on the other. I wouldn't waste my money on one of these.

I wouldn't say they're under rated, I would say they're rated right about where they should be. We've had them in our family- .22Hornet, .222, and .30-30. They killed a lot of stuff but weren't what I would call particularly accurate. I tried to make my dad's .30-30 shoot with cast bullets and got nowhere with it. Savage would've been better off bringing out a cheap grade 99 carbine in .30-30 IMO.

Our .222 would never group better than 2" at 100, no matter what factory ammo we fed it. (Dad never loaded for it.) It soon went away.

Like S99VG said, my dad bought his new in 1956 when he couldn't afford the new 99 EG or the new Winchester M70 sitting in the rack next to it, both of which he wanted so bad he could taste them. The 340 was a necessary disappointment to him the whole time he used it.

As for "under bored bores", I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you're saying they had smaller than nominal bores in them and thus recoiled more, I doubt seriously that you would notice the tiny increase generated by such. Besides, Savage QC was pretty decent back then and I doubt would've countenanced undersize bores getting out the door. Best look for another reason for encountering "hard kicking" 340's!

The Savage 340 series were chambered in 22 Hornet, 222, 223, 225, and 30-30. I've owned at least one of each over the years and for a few years in the early 1990's I made most of my "gun money" by buying Savage 340s, mostly 30-30s, and selling them to a pawn/gun shop in WI.