Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters What's so bad about a Savage

That's what they do best. But if a rifle will do an inch at 100, it's good enough for me to hunt big game with, and most factory rifles will do an inch.

Savage used to make a budget rifle that shot just as good as the much more expensive competition. Today they make a budget rifle that shoots just as good as the competion, but costs about the same. Often more. Considering the rings come with the guns I can get a stainless Tikka or Ruger cheaper than a stainless Savage. In my experience the Ruger will equal it in accuracy and the Tikka will better it.

I've owned 4 and while they were fine guns with acceptable accuracy they did not do anything my Remingtons, Rugers, Winchesters, ot Tikkas would do. Except look ugly while doing it.

I do not like the extra long actions because they are difficult to mount the type of scopes I prefer. The action protrudes so far above the stock that they remind me of a bolt action SKS.

Basically, there is nothing really wrong with them. They work and shoot well. I used to think they were a good value but recent price increases in the Savage line causes me to believe there are better guns for the money. The one advantage the competion has no answer for is the ability to easily change barrels. This is of no concern to me, but if you like that sort of thing they are the best option.

There is nothing "so bad about a Savage" but...

My only issues with the Savage 110 (inherited - late '80s vintage) 7mm Rem Mag was basically aesthetics. The (non-Accutrigger) had sharp edges, the stock was clubby, the blueing poor, and the long action needed special mounts to fit my 6x42mm Leupold scope because the scope was too short on the rifle. The worst was that with the middle action screw tightened up to any extent the bolt would bind up in the action. The gun shot accurately enough and functioned fine, at least when the action screw was only semi-tightened. Recoil in 7mm Rem Mag got your attention as well.

A similar vintage Winchester push-feed Model 70 Ranger with the birch stock and blind mag was a much finer rifle and incredibly accurate in .270 Win. It was a "cheap" rifle I could love.
I also like Remington 788s (mine is a .222) for cheap rifles - just to show I am not against budget rifles - just some are nicer than others for indefinable reasons. The Savage never floated my boat and the above-mentioned Model 70 replaced it when the chance came and no tears have been shed since.

Savage has made great strides in product-improvement, and if that is what I had, I would take it to Alaska - at least if it didn't exhibit the binding problem I had. They do cost more now, and some models are MUCH nicer than what I had. But fair or not, after my experience the Weatherby Vanguard or Tikka is what I would rather have in that price range.

Gents,

I agree with the man from Kentucky. If Momma is happy with her new Savage then everyone is happy. Savage makes a fine rifle. I'am a Savage nut but I have had a few Rems and a couple Winch's. Key word "had". Wich's mod 70's cost over 1000 bucks and that is per their advertised price,"OUCH". Look around at the prices of everything these days. They are higher,even Remington. No one seems to talk about the times a few years ago when Rem and Winch turn out bad products and had recalls. Remember the Post 1964 Wich's? How about the fact Rem had to move to the deep South to make guns. Wich is selling Browning shotguns with their name on 'em and the mod 94 was junk and no longer made now. Even Winch had to move down South to make rifles. Savage is still up North and making good quality longguns, cause they made changes to their rifle design way back in the 50's to stay in business and keep the cost down. For the money Savage makes a fine rifle. Price a new Rem?

Ok 'nuff said. We each like what we like.

I still agree with the man from Kentucky.

..

Kentucky is in the south

Yes today's Savage rifle is not the same one as 40 yrs...just look at the products they offer....from inexpensive plinkers to the new Classic series with deep blue finish & nice walnut stocks..factory 6BR & 6.5x284 also available in the target series..my first Savage rifle 10 yrs or so ago was a 223 Police FP....plain Jane blue matte steel & Tupperware stock & pre Accue trigger...didn't take much to make it shoot...now ten yrs later I have a safe full of Savage rifles & many with Pac Nor barrels on them from 20 Vartarg to 358 Win...that I assembled myself...thats the beauty of Savage...a quick switch barrel set up with minamal tools...here's my 358 Win on a Savage 16 action w/Accue trigger & 12 twist Pac Nor...Thumper is his name...and I find him rather handsome myself..scope is 4200 1-6 w/Firefly

Interesting, your use of blue and stainless.It looks good.

My M-16 BVSS 308 shoots roughly an inch at 300yards,that's good enough to win our Farky class,if I could shoot that well.That's not even their target model,just a varmit.A hunting Accutrigger backed off and glass bedded.I'm using the first powder I had on hand,IMR-4064,155 A-Maxs and Lee dies.

I find having just one Savage action and three barrels,a little awkward.I need at least one more.

Savage's new fine hinged blued bottom metal,one came with a classic stock I got, is still aways from my Remingtons.

Let's see some five shot groups. Please.

The way I see it, before you bash Savage as "not any better", think back about 15, 20 years.

We have seen big improvements in the entry level rifles of the big three. We have come to expect "three in an inch" as the standard -- where 20 years ago, 2" was considered pretty normal.

The improvement has come because Savage set the bar: first for accuracy, and then for trigger quality. Yes, the big three have gotten better, but Savage forced the issue. They made things better, first. JMO, Dutch.

I guess they work ok, but I can't stand them. I wouldn't call it snobbery though. I also hate A-bolts, but kind of like 788s and really like 722s. But mostly I like 70s and mausers. It's a matter of taste. Furthermore, beyond MOA, shooting tiny groups is way down on my list of priorities for a big-game rifle.

As for asthetics, I prefer a Mauser action first, and then a Remington 7 or 700 second. I've owned a Savage Tactical (308) that shot very well, but I never liked its appearance.

Chrome,

A very attractive set up, IMO.

My only Savage bolt gun is still the 116 Weather Warrior 375 H&H, and it is proving to be a very good choice for what I wanted...a crummy weather/hard thumper that is highly reliable and accurate...THAT WOULDN'T BREAK my ever-decreasing bank. I also have gained a great respect for the Bush 4200 1X6 on it in Warne QDs. The only fault so far...the poorly conceived open sights, as there isn't enough drop in the stock or sufficient height in the sights to get down on them properly.

I really don't understand the fetish regarding gun aesthetics. If I want to see "art," I go to a museum. When I go shooting or hunting, I want the best (i.e., most accurate) tool in my hands, regardless of how it looks. Pretty is as pretty does, and top-notch accuracy for a little money is a lot better in my book than paying a lot for so-so accuracy.

After a gun has gone hunting with me for a while, it probably doesn't look as pretty as it once did, but those marks are representative of experiences, and as long as the gun demonstrates a high-level of precision (as indicated by three-shot groups), it is free to stay with me for a while.

jwp475,

Yes sir, I know Kentucky is in the South.I spent part of my childhood in Kentucky after moving from North Carolina. I did say the Deep South when taking about Winchester and Remington.

We are having some good debates about Savage rifles here though and I thank you for it,sir.

..

I had a fellow at the range tell me he would never speak to me again if I bought a Savage.
From that and reading forums for years, snobbishness is the main reason, but many simply dislike the appearance. The bolt is at the very back end and does not aesthetically please many.
It is seen as the poor man's rifle. Problem is for the detractors, most are super accurate and relaible.
Had I the time, I would buy some just to punch tiny groups.
Yes, at many hunting camps, you and the rifle would be looked down on, unless it was a prairie dog hunt, coyotes, etc.

As far as looks, I have never seen a Remington 700 that appealed to me. I really like the look of Rugers, becaus e the stock profile is just right.

Savages problem in the past was also a stock problem. The shape hit the face and accentuated the recoil experience, which was the sorce of some silike for the product. That is no longer an issue.

My Vanguard is spray painted and ugly as sin. But, it has a game dropping track record to be proud of.