Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles tell me all about Savage rifles.

I have a couple. One in 223 and one in 308.




The 223 shoots great but isn't the most reliable at feeding rounds.




Just bought this one and haven't really played with it too much yet.

Nothing much of anything shot good. 95 gr nbt. 85 gr partitions, 80 gr ttsx, 95 gr sst... Only thing that would group consistently well was the Barnes. A really good group was .7-.8 and the exact same load the next day would be 1.5...... Just a piss poor excuse of a rifle for the price.

They are kind of klunky. But all I have messed with shoot pretty darn good....but a rem VT will too....also I always had great success with the mod 70 push feeds they are real nice actions and have always shot great.....if you want a cheap accurate beater truck gun the savage is it....if you want to trick out a bolt action start with a good platform....a push feed model 70 can be had cheaper than a savage and you get a good trigger and 3 pos safety and you don't have to look at that hidious barrel nut...

Here’s one I picked up, waiting on rings to arrive.

I've got Savage rifles in 204, 243, 308, 30-06, and 300WSM. They are all shooters, but yes I agree they are not the prettiest rifles in the rack. The tight little groups make it easier to forget about the looks. They are solid rifles and I would recommend them to anyone.

The Savage 110E in .22-250 Dad gave me had about 2000 rounds through it and would still print 5 shots into a 100-yard group you could completely cover with a dime. Daughter #2 was being kind when she called it "homely". But it shot, so I didn't care.

The .243Win FXP3 I picked up used for $295 was going to be a donor for a 6.5-something-or-other until I loaded up some mid-range Hornady 95g SST loads and tried them. Crap, damn thing was under .5MOA. And yeah, its got an ugly synthetic stock. Not going to touch that rifle, need another donor.

I tried Savage and never liked it enough to stick with it. It was accurate but that is it. It looks and feels like crap but they shoot. I have a friend that think it is the best thing since toilet paper but I would not get another one.

I have had two and both had feeding issues from the blind magazine. Maybe they have changed things though. One was a 300mag and the other a 308. In both,the round would prematurely clear the lips causing the round to pop out and not feed.

I would disagree on this statement, at least with my 10 Predator Hunter in 260 Rem. I think it looks great and the ergonomics are very good. The Accustock is nice, just takes a bit of fiddling to put it together properly if taken apart. Very accurate, feeding could be a bit better but it works.

I don't know. I'm on a savage kick lately just for the versatility. I put a 338 fed barrel on a striker, waiting on a 338-06 barrel for a model 110 action I bought cheap, and swapped my buddies 300 WM for 338 WM on his moose rifle. I'm kinda liking that. They seem pretty damn accurate so I can overlook the ugly.

I've owned a couple Savages over the years and while they did shoot very good I just can bring myself to keeping them.

Owning an ugly rifle that shoots well is about the same as being married to an ugly woman who can cook. You still have to get past the ugly part. I never could

When I was a teen, a girl asked me to a party. I said no, and one of her friends asked me why I told her that. I told her friend that I thought the girl was ugly and I didn't date ugly girls. That girl ended up inheriting over a million dollars later on, but her looks never changed. I feel the same way about Savage rifles. I know they supposedly shoot good, but I think they're ugly, and I've never owned one, nor had any desire to.

Years ago, I used to do a little gunsmithing for some of the locals. Mainly minor repair and scope mounting and sighting in. I had several guys bring me their Savage 110's that they'd bought at Walmart with the scope mounted and boresighted, and wanted me to see why the rifle didn't hit the target. I always told them that boresighted only meant that it might shoot close, and was never an indication that it was ready to take hunting. Those rifles were generally accurate enough for deer hunting, without a doubt, but those were the roughest actions I'd ever seen. I'm sure a lot's changed since then, but I'm still not a Savage fan.

Hmmm not sure about that Volvo reference., they are truly one of the worlds greatest POS cars I would say more like Nissan

^^^^^^ This^^^^^^^^ I would stop shooting rifles if that is all that was offered.

AFU - but generally accurate. IMO. And I own ugly rifles, which shoot very well... Right price, i'd buy one.

I'd rather own an ugly rifle that shoots than a beautiful rifle that won't.

I'd put my $295 Savage FXP3 in .243 Win up against many production rifles costing many times that.

I have a Stevens 200 in 22-250 and an Axis II in 223. I put Boyds stocks and metal trigger guards on both of them. Right off the shelf they both shot 1/2" with hand loads with minimal load development (like find a load with Varget, H322 or H335 in the Lee manual, take it to the range and shoot ragged holes). The action on my stevens 200 is nice, the Axis leaves a little to be desired but quite honestly I don't care because of how well it shoots all different kinds of loads. There is a little bit of me that is regretting buying my Weatherby Vanguard S2 in 25-06 and not the hardwood axis but I was hung up on a 24" barrel.

I am always confused about all the Savage hate, every one I have seen has been incredibly accurate and not picky. In the future I would only buy an Axis with the new hardwood stock, that makes them like different rifle. I should state that mine are predator calling rifles so I do not require much in the looks dept. I hated the flimsy stock on the axis and got tired of the camo one that came on my Stevens 200. They both function 100%, shoot 1/2 MOA and now feel solid with the Boyds stocks.

I am glad I can get past the ugly. It has allowed me to come into possession of quite few rifles that are some of the best bargains in the industry. And make no mistake about it, Savage rifles are ugly. Good thing folks don't worry about or can get past their scopes being ugly. If not SWFA wouldn't exist.

I have never really been a huge fan of savage rifles due to the way they have looked and felt for my tastes over the years. That has however slightly changed as I have bought a couple savage 12fv rifles on sale at cabelas recently and they are great shooters. I still struggle with the looks to some extent but work well for what I bought them for.

I own 3 Savage rifles. Two 116 SF WW and one 10ML-II SST/LAM all are impressively accurate by ANY factory rifle standard and the only bad thing I will say of them is they are heavy. My 116's are especially guilty as both are of the blind magazine type and both weigh more than my M700 with DBM in 338wm.

My only complaint with present day Savage rifles and the company in general is due to their ever rising popularity, they are getting IMHO expensive. There was no more compelling selling point to a Savage rifle than they produced a very accurate OOTB rifle for a very reasonable price. They still are producing very accurate rifles, just now, again this is IMHO not as affordable as they once were and quite honestly they are in danger of pricing their product into a class of rifle that will shoot likely as well but be a more attractive rifle. Such as the Tikka t3 Lite. If my choice is a Savage or a for $100 more a T3 Lite, I'm going with the Tikka.

If weight is not an issue in some but not all of their models, you will more than likely be very happy with a Savage rifle.