How many have any experience with the Savage. It seems like a viable option compared to the Montana. Great caliber selection. How is the accuracy?

I'm sure the accuracy is perfectly adequate but IMO, having handled both rifles, the Savage isn't even remotely in the same league as the Kimber.
I dislike the short barrel, the wood stock with holes in it, the lightening cuts on the receiver, and the balance.

At ~$800 the Savage is not much less expensive than a Montana either.

$800 for a Savage!!!!!!! Makes me think there giving the Montana's away.

This little guy did not care if it was a Kimber or not. Not a pretty rifle, but it is practical for me....I bought it used(less than a box of shells through it) for well under the $800.
This rifle is plenty accurate enough as well, right at !' at 100 yards with factory ammo. Never had a Kimber and they are a beautiful rifle, but I do love the Savages, so probably won't own a Kimber.

The guys I know that brag salvage "only" mention the accuracy. Guess its all they got going for them....well that and the accu-trigger.

$800 for a Salvage? Wow, what's this world coming to? I swear it was 10 years ago you could have got one new in a plastic box for like $200.

Savages work. Wouldnt pay $800 for one but they do make a good shooting gun. Being a lefty I like the tang safety. Havent tried the lightweight hunter as I rarely run blue/wood. If Savage offered the gun in SS with syn stock Id try it.

As it is I prefer the kimber and have two in the safe.

Plenty of options out there and depends on what you want the gun for. A Howa 1500 is a lot of gun for the money.

They aren't pretty, but they do work. I happen to like the blue and wood, I just am not fond of this one's stock. However, I willing to overlook it at as it plenty accurate enough for me.

I ain't a rifle loony, just a loony......

I have been doing a lot of looking for a lightweight rifle. The Savage offers a lot but I just can't bring myself to put down the bones for one!!!

As of now I see a Sako Finnlite in the safe !!!

I see that you can get the LWH for $700 on GB.

Functionally, probably not much actual difference. Doubt would you get, or not get, an animal because you were using one or the other.

Savage just needs to lower the price and lose the weirdness of the stock.

This thread got me looking, I don't see what is weird about the Savage stock on my distributers website. I will say they shouldn't be anywhere near $800 street price.

Savages are generally accurate, but they are Savages. Those Kimbers sure are sweet, even though the ones I had were nothing to brag about in the accuracy department.

Enlighten me please, with photos. http://www.internetguncatalog.com/igc/pics/Large/70999.jpg

KC

I got mine for $650, shot ten times and a Nikon Monarch 3-9x40. Not too bad. Will upgrade the scope next year. They can be had if you watch real close.

The underside of the forend has slots cut all the way through.

That's weird.

Never said it wasn't wierd and wish they were filled in, but....I just like my Savages. They kill stuff dead....

Kimber sucks Balls....

Savage Rules....

No, I'm not pissed that Savage offers Lefties and Kimber doesn't, why do you ask?

Jim, my post was intended for Boltactionman as he stated that he didn't see what was weird about the stock.

I like Savages too. I'm building a LW LH long action 6-284 with a #2 Rock nutless and an EDGE right now.
Like 99's too but I'm thinking the Featherweight would please me more than the heavy ones I've always used.

if you hold these two rifles and compare them, you will see where the cost difference comes from. If you shoot these two rifles side by side, it may not be so obvious.

I do like Savages, but I can't warm up to the LW hunter. doesn't look right to me and doesn't feel right in the hands. I'd much prefer a Merican Classic

Everyone's going to role with their own prejudices on this one. I've tested the Savage LWH, in .308, and found it to be as predictably accurate as you would expect. I own one Montana, in .308, that was one of the most finicky rifles I've ever NOT sold down the road, and that's only because I eventually found a load it likes.

Since my personal bias has always placed accuracy first, looks second... there may yet be a change.

Oooo Boy,
Well they almost had it.

KC

Accuracy is the most important to me. You?

I'll take a 1 MOA rifle which fits, functions and balances well over a 1/4 MOA rifle which is heavy, ill balanced, and clunky every single time.

To paraphrase:

Accuracy is only skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone.

I'll take an accurate, attractive rifle all day long over an accurate, ugly rifle. The solution....keep buying attractive rifles until you find one that is also accurate.

I like the Savage. Ive held a few of them and would really like one in 250 Savage. Just can't see paying what they are asking. I have a 50 year old Husqvarna lightweight that is just as light and i paid $400 for it. Would take it over the Savage and Kimber

I'll take the 1/4 MOA, all day, every day. I guess i don't think they are "that" ugly. I damn sure don't think a Montana is attractive either. JMO

Ken,
I knew that. Still don't like the stock and I love my 99's as well,(which I will still carry most of the time) but oh these LWHs are easy to carry.

Added:
A person should buy/shoot/carry whatever the heck he wants. Makes no difference to me, it is whatever floats your boat. Just so one continues to buy/shoot/carry.

My pretty Remingtons wish they could shoot as well as the ugly Savages! The Savages I have won't win any beauty contests, but they will make 1-ragged hole at 100-yards every time at the range. My G1 Ti is a 1+" rifle at best no matter how I try to get it to shoot like the ugly guns. I will buy all Savages going forward. The Kinber is a a pretty rifle though and I cannot speek to their accuracy.

I may have a savage or 2 or 3 I'd trade you for that g1 ti.

Well that's one way to look at it...now if you're living in the real world like a lot of us are, you are probably better off getting a rifle you can reasonably expect to have a good degree of accuracy from to start with. Just buying more pretty rifles until you find one that shoots is beyond a lot of guy's(myself included) budgets.

Or even a 1.5 MOA rifle that feels good! Ive been lucky i guess as my 84l 30-06 shoots an inch with TTSX factory loads and my 84m 338 fed is getting 3/4" with 185gr TSX factory loads. Ive got a new 84l 25-06 im shooting for the first time next week.
I agree with nsaqam 100%. Id rather have a nice handling rifle that might not shoot as well as a tack driver that doesn't feel good in my hands. Heck even a 2 MOA rifle is sufficient for most big game under 300 yards.

There are a bunch of accurate, nice handling,and good looking rifles out there.You just have to be willing to pay the price.Anything less will just cost you again later,when you aren't happy.

Actually,that sounds a lot like looking for a wife.