will Savage Arms ever make a boomer?

bearkilr said:
Well I guess I fall into the latter category. All my rifles get used and none are there for appearance. All my bolt rifles have utilitarian synthetic stocks.
Of all the guns I've had, the failures are as follows:

-Winchester M70- action bolt crossthreaded from factory
-TC Encore- severe accuracy issues and hammer fails to strike firing pin
-Stevens 200- Extractor comes apart with spring and ball falling out
-Savage 110- Cross pin which holds firing pin/bolt head in place breaks in half

These are the only two Savage centerfire rifles I've owned and both have failed. I would therefore hardly classify them as reliable. Accurate and cheap has been my experience.

For a reliable, reasonably priced rifle in 40 cal., I would look no further than a Ruger Alaskan in 416 Ruger.
Click to expand...

Ruger? Dam, how can you stand to hunt with such a cheap ugly rifle? :p

I've owned several Savages, never had a mechanical failure. I've sent 2 ruger rifles back for factory warranty repair. Which BTW isn't a big enough sampling to make any definitive statistical analysis for either Savage or Ruger, obviously. If you want to define cheap, look up "investment casting". ;)
 
bearkilr said:
.....
-Stevens 200- Extractor comes apart with spring and ball falling out
-Savage 110- Cross pin which holds firing pin/bolt head in place breaks in half

These are the only two Savage centerfire rifles I've owned and both have failed. I would therefore hardly classify them as reliable. Accurate and cheap has been my experience.

......
Click to expand...

bearkilr,

Appreciate your observations and opinion here.

I have owned a lot of rifles over the past 50 years, a few worth more than a thousand, many worth hundreds. Quite a few of them have been made by Savage. My first centerfire bolt action was a Savage 110 in 270 Winchester, that Charlie Parkinson (What a great guy and gun shop!) sold me while I was attending UWO (What a great university!) in London, Ontario.

Since they were introduced I have owned, hunted and otherwise used at least a dozen Stevens 200s, from 223 to 300 Win Mag. Still have a couple. The only failure I have seen was a stuck ejector. I am interested in the circumstances that led to your extractor failure experience.

I have never before heard of a Savage bolt head retaining pin breaking. Obviously it is possible, as it happened in your situation, but would really like to hear what led to that.

Thanks,
Ted
 
jethunter said:
Ruger? Dam, how can you stand to hunt with such a cheap ugly rifle? :p

I've owned several Savages, never had a mechanical failure. I've sent 2 ruger rifles back for factory warranty repair. Which BTW isn't a big enough sampling to make any definitive statistical analysis for either Savage or Ruger, obviously. If you want to define cheap, look up "investment casting". ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not a metallurgist but have done quite a bit of online research in regard to cast vs. forged, mostly in regard to 1911 handgun frames. The consensus seems to be, among experts, that if done properly, there is no difference in strength. The only consistent difference seems to be that cast parts are heavier. A poor quality forged steel is no better than a poor quality cast steel. Ruger has been doing investment casting longer than most any firearms manufacturer, I would think they have it figured out. I've also never heard of a Ruger action breaking, cracking or failing.
FWIW, many of Savage's parts are metal stampings and MIM.
 
Why not? said:
bearkilr,

Appreciate your observations and opinion here.

I have owned a lot of rifles over the past 50 years, a few worth more than a thousand, many worth hundreds. Quite a few of them have been made by Savage. My first centerfire bolt action was a Savage 110 in 270 Winchester, that Charlie Parkinson (What a great guy and gun shop!) sold me while I was attending UWO (What a great university!) in London, Ontario.

Since they were introduced I have owned, hunted and otherwise used at least a dozen Stevens 200s, from 223 to 300 Win Mag. Still have a couple. The only failure I have seen was a stuck ejector. I am interested in the circumstances that led to your extractor failure experience.

I have never before heard of a Savage bolt head retaining pin breaking. Obviously it is possible, as it happened in your situation, but would really like to hear what led to that.

Thanks,
Ted
Click to expand...

The extractor failure happened immediately after purchasing the gun. I was actually in the hotel room fiddling with the Stevens, took the bolt out and the parts literally fell onto the carpet. I managed to find all of them and took them back with the rifle to the gun store( SIR in Winnipeg at that time). They exchanged the rifle as I had just bought it a few hours earlier. This was a 243, one of the first Stevens 200's, perhaps they had some lemons. I remember them being on sale for $299. I've had no issues with the replacement I received, but haven't fired it much either. The whole experience left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth.
The 110 failure was on one of those combo deals, FCXP or something similar. 30-06, it came with a cheap Tasco or Simmons boresighted, detachable mag.
I had probably put about 100 rounds through it when I was cleaning it at home and one side of the pin literally fell into my lap. I ordered a new pin, assembled it and gave the gun to a neighbour as a "truck rifle".

While I realize this may not mean all Savages are junk, my track record is 0 for 2, so I really can't recommend them. It certainly appears others have better luck. That said, since they are bargain guns, I do believe manufacturers of rifles costing more may very well use better quality parts.

I also forgot to add that I did have one other issue with a rather expensive rifle, a Sauer 80. The trigger mechanism had to be replaced, sometimes it would not #### on cycling the bolt. This was with the factory set trigger, I did find out that this was a defective part in some rifles. I replaced it with a standard trigger.
 
Now, girls. You're both pretty. Let's get back on topic here. I'm a Savage fan myself, and I own a short action for which I have seven barrels in various calibres. My next big project is to buy a long action and get barrels in .416 Taylor and 9.3 x 64mm Brennekke. If those aren't boomers, I don't know what are. I just wish they would make a magnum-length action so we can play with the full-length cartidges like .375 HH and up. I think a savage in .300 HH would be a hoot.
 
Erik, my friend, the Savages are already magnum length, as per my first post in this thread.

As well, River Rat had bill Leeper rechamber a standard 200 in 7mm Rem Mag to 7 STW, and it works just fine.

You need to pay attention to us girls. ;)

Ted
 
Why not? said:
Erik, my friend, the Savages are already magnum length, as per my first post in this thread.

As well, River Rat had bill Leeper rechamber a standard 200 in 7mm Rem Mag to 7 STW, and it works just fine.

You need to pay attention to us girls. ;)

Ted
Click to expand...

What alterations need to be made? I assume you'd need to source a magnum-length magazine and follower, and possibly a replacement bolt stop?
 
bearkilr said:
I'm not a metallurgist but have done quite a bit of online research in regard to cast vs. forged, mostly in regard to 1911 handgun frames. The consensus seems to be, among experts, that if done properly, there is no difference in strength. The only consistent difference seems to be that cast parts are heavier. A poor quality forged steel is no better than a poor quality cast steel. Ruger has been doing investment casting longer than most any firearms manufacturer, I would think they have it figured out. I've also never heard of a Ruger action breaking, cracking or failing.
FWIW, many of Savage's parts are metal stampings and MIM.
Click to expand...

I don't believe i said investment casting was necessarily less strong than forged metal actions. You must have imagined it.

What I meant to point out was that Ruger does investment casting because it's CHEAP. Ruger rifles are designed and built to be cheap-cheap, which seemed to be your major complaint on the savage rifles so i wanted to bring that anomaly to your attention. There's nothing wrong with rugers for the most part. The .416 ruger cartridge is very interesting if you like high pressure big bores.
 
jethunter said:
I don't believe i said investment casting was necessarily less strong than forged metal actions. You must have imagined it.

What I meant to point out was that Ruger does investment casting because it's CHEAP. Ruger rifles are designed and built to be cheap-cheap, which seemed to be your major complaint on the savage rifles so i wanted to bring that anomaly to your attention. There's nothing wrong with rugers for the most part. The .416 ruger cartridge is very interesting if you like high pressure big bores.
Click to expand...

Never suggested Rugers were expensive firearms, just better quality than Savage.
Granted, the Ruger "canoe paddle" stock would have been better suited to a Savage. :D
Perhaps Ruger should stencil the eagle logo and name on the bolt to make it more appealing for the Savage aficionados.

Admittedly,some of the new Hawkeye's are lacking in the finish department a bit, but it seems to be the trend for manufacturers to use what they call a more "durable" matte finish, be it Teflon,parkerizing,Dura-Coat,etc. I call it cost cutting and even the most expensive rifle makers are using it.
I have a few older M77's that would rival top tier rifles in the bluing department.
 
I dont' really care what the price of a rifle is- if it's good value and a reliable rifle, I'll buy it. (Within reason, as I don't drop $20K on rifles)

Savage isn't at the bottom of my list as a hunting rifle, but it's close. The ones I've used have always been a bit finicky and weren't 100% reliable. There are better rifles (such as Ruger) for not much more money.

I'm not completely against Savage, though. They make affordable rifles that the average hunter can get good accuracy from, and most guys don't get far from a truck or a cabin, so the reliability isn't as much of an issue.

I've got a target model Savage on order right now, and i think that for this application, it's a great value and should be a good performer.
 
Well it seems to be a Ruger versus Savage thread now. Well I will give my two cents then.

Ruger's are a easy to manufacture "improved mauser" (not my words). They are strong, presentable, reliable, and have a great track record in the field. They are unfortunately inaccurate by most accounts.

Savage's are reliable, utilitarian, and have an accuracy per dollar ratio that not many can argue with.

I have bought Savages and I've sold Savages. I still have a target action 22-250 and a beautiful 99 in 308 which I will never sell. But if I were to build a big bore classic rifle and had to pic between the two actions I'd take the Ruger only because its a control feed and has a more classic appearance. With that being said I'd be willing to spend hundreds of dollars getting it to shoot the way that Savage would right out of the box.

Both are cheap rifles and neither one is better than the other. Just different
 
OldSavage said:
Ruger's are a easy to manufacture "improved mauser" (not my words). They are strong, presentable, reliable, and have a great track record in the field. They are unfortunately inaccurate by most accounts.

With that being said I'd be willing to spend hundreds of dollars getting it to shoot the way that Savage would right out of the box.
Click to expand...

I guess you have never owned a Ruger hunting rifle? Because Rugers are very accurate rifles. They had some trouble about 3 decades ago with outsourced barrels, but that was solved...well, decades ago.

Both are cheap rifles and neither one is better than the other. Just different
Click to expand...

For a hunting rifle, the Ruger is far better, because they are more reliable, based on my experiences.
 
bearkilr said:
Never suggested Rugers were expensive firearms, just better quality than Savage.
Granted, the Ruger "canoe paddle" stock would have been better suited to a Savage. :D
Perhaps Ruger should stencil the eagle logo and name on the bolt to make it more appealing for the Savage aficionados.

Admittedly,some of the new Hawkeye's are lacking in the finish department a bit, but it seems to be the trend for manufacturers to use what they call a more "durable" matte finish, be it Teflon,parkerizing,Dura-Coat,etc. I call it cost cutting and even the most expensive rifle makers are using it.
I have a few older M77's that would rival top tier rifles in the bluing department.
Click to expand...

I'm not really a big savage fan either but i think they're decent rifles. Ruger is ok too but usually need some help to bring out their accuracy potential.

I like the rugers but i hated their junk triggers for years. Learned to figure the cost of a trigger job or an aftermarket trigger into the cost, which made the ruger into a good shooter most of the time. The out-of-the box ruger triggers didn't do much for accuracy.

I did stop buying rugers for quite a while when they started promoting magazine capacity limits which just coincidentally were 10 rounds in a pistol and 5 in autoloader rifles.

The most accurate factory rifle i ever owned was an early 77/22 that i bought new about 1985. After the requisite trip to a gunsmith to fix the typical (f**king horrible) ruger trigger it turned into a fantastic shooter and i gave it to my dad for his b'day. Of all the rifles i ever traded or gave away, that is the one that i miss the most even though it went to a good home. So I'll agree there are some good rugers around.
 
I have indeed not owned a Ruger but shoot with enough Ruger guys to know that they can be tack drivers but not out of the box.

Hey, don't get me wrong I love Ruger's but I would never buy one, open the box, and start hunting with it. Years of Savages has left me wanting better accuracy, and better triggers. Other than that the ruger is more rugged (by apperance anyway) and a much more presentable rifle.
 
OldSavage said:
I have indeed not owned a Ruger but shoot with enough Ruger guys to know that they can be tack drivers but not out of the box.

Hey, don't get me wrong I love Ruger's but I would never buy one, open the box, and start hunting with it. Years of Savages has left me wanting better accuracy, and better triggers. Other than that the ruger is more rugged (by apperance anyway) and a much more presentable rifle.
Click to expand...

Gate put it very well, Rugers, ages ago, had some crappy barrels, that era has been dead longer than a bunch of the younger members of this forum have been alive but like all things commercial, stigma sticks with people who don't own them.

I build guns, and more recently, have been building nearly the entire gun, in the machined from steel way not the assembled parts way (still an amateur, but struggling to improve :p ). I didn't gain my fondness and appreciation for Ruger and Winchester M70's (CRF, not push feed) until after I started really working with rifles. Five to ten years ago, I owned Savage, Stevens, Remington, H&R etc etc and thought they were decent. It's when I started working with steel and stocks I started ditching them, and Savage and Stevens were among the first to go.

I used to shoot long range quite a bit, I actually came up with the idea for the first Summerland long range shoot and Jerry (mystic) made it happen. I was into the Rems and Savages then, but in the end, discovered they're leaned on for LR shooting not because they're any more accurate than any other gun, but because they're easier to work on, and cheaper. They are mass produced, made to be cheap yet functional guns, the M700 and Savage that is. The Ruger and Winchesters, are mass produced, made to sell on quality guns- especially Ruger. Quality and durability was literally Bill Ruger's mantra, his religion almost.

Now, going full circle back to the accuracy bit, the most accurate factory rifle I've ever owned, box stock, is a Ruger M77 Mk II, still have it. Literally a bughole gun, and I haven't changed a thing on it, its trigger spring kit I ordered is still sitting on my desk. I've owned hundreds of guns, and haven't noticed any appreciable difference between Savages, Remingtons, Winchesters, or new model Rugers- except in quality. Most of what you read is internet hokus pokus with regards to accuracy. A lot of BS and a lot of "Friends say...".

Finally, are we in the Precision Rifles Forum, or the Hunting and Sporting Arms forum? Is shooting 1/4" tighter (even if my stock Ruger beats your stock Savage) going to make any freaking difference to us??! No! We get so caught up in the silliest concerns. If we want to get into precision rifles, and been there done that bought the expensive t shirt, I don't want anything to do with the hunting arms discussed here. But we're talking hunting, and for hunting, what's more important bulletproof reliable and accurate or a much less solid offering, potentially minutely more accurate but likely not? There's zero argument, even among savage owners, what's tougher a Ruger or a Savage. If you don't like the trigger (which has also been good for some time now), a $6 spring kit postage paid will fix that even on the Mk II, which actually had a good trigger design.

Thanks for letting me vent... :redface:
 
Just to add to that, Ardent, I well remember when three inches at 100 yd was considered acceptable hunting accuracy. Gun writers even took that position, and if you had a rifle that shot inch and a half you really had something. A one inch rifle? You wouldn't consider selling it, even for a moment.

That was 40-50 years ago, we went hunting with those three inch guns and filled our freezers. We canned a lot of meat back then, too. :)

Ted
 
prosper said:
What alterations need to be made? I assume you'd need to source a magnum-length magazine and follower, and possibly a replacement bolt stop?
Click to expand...

Bill simply cut the mag in the middle, and soldered some sheet stock in to get the correct length. Never actually looked at the bolt stop, Erik, but my guess would be he just shortened it. There was no alteration to the receiver ring at all.

The rifle retained its original excellent accuracy, and gained about 150 fps with 160 gr bullets.

Ted
 
Why not? said:
Just to add to that, Ardent, I well remember when three inches at 100 yd was considered acceptable hunting accuracy. Gun writers even took that position, and if you had a rifle that shot inch and a half you really had something. A one inch rifle? You wouldn't consider selling it, even for a moment.

That was 40-50 years ago, we went hunting with those three inch guns and filled our freezers. We canned a lot of meat back then, too. :)

Ted
Click to expand...
Yes Ted, but it is well known that back then the game was much, much larger and would move much, much slower. That and your eye sight, like mine, was
much, much better.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom