The Norinco's bolt guns should be comming back around pretty soon,,at 1/3 the price of these savage,,i dont see why a guy needs to spends this much on a rifle made to shoot the cheapest surplus ammo out there,,,LOL..the Norinco is about $300.00,,so easy to justify..
A lightweight carbine length rifle...the Savage Model 10 Scout 7.62x39
- Thread starter Wolverine Supplies Sales
- Start date
Seems like an answer for a badly thought out question.
Too much money for something to burn decades old inconsistent Cold War commie surplus in, provided it even works (the axis doesn't like milsurp .223)
And for new commercial or reloaded ammo, a .308 is more versatile in every way.
I don't understand the answer.
Too much money for something to burn decades old inconsistent Cold War commie surplus in, provided it even works (the axis doesn't like milsurp .223)
And for new commercial or reloaded ammo, a .308 is more versatile in every way.
I don't understand the answer.
Yeah but they hardly shoot better then an sks so what they point?
I hear that the savage has a .308 bore. It can't be to good shooting steel jacketed steel core surplus that's too big for the bore.
It'd be nice to get a cheaper 7.62x39 bolt gun purposely made to shoot surplus ammo( stronger firing pin spring and maybe even chrome line barrel ) and it still be noticeably more accurate then an sks/vz58.
- Location
- Look over your shoulder
7.62x39 is a pretty decent bush and hunting cartridge, and tends to be very accurate out of a bolt gun. Cheap milsurp ammo for a semi auto, sure but I don't think that a lot of people that would be a driving force behind getting a bolt gun, there are a lot of folks who load these with good bullets or buy good hunting ammo and take a lot of game with that cartridge.
^^^This^^^
I'm curious as to why some here are saying the 7.62x39mm is old and antiquated but then turn around and endorse the 7.62x51mm as somehow "newer". Considering there's less than 10 years difference in the military adoption of both cartridges I think the comments are moot point. There's no question that they are different and that the NATO cartridge is more powerful. There's no real comparison between them.
If we were to all adopt this way of thinking, there'd be no need to have any .22 cal. centerfire cartridge other than a .220 Swift because, as we all know, it's far more powerful than the .22-250 or the .223 Rem., correct?
I don't see the x39mm any different than I do any other cartridge. If your circumstances dictate that you're better served by one cartridge over the other, then that's the one you go with. It's not an all or nothing proposition. This whole notion that the only merit to owning a rifle in x39mm is to shoot surplus ammo is ridiculous. I see the availability of surplus ammo as a side benefit, not the primary reason for owning one.
I wonder how many people who dis the x39mm here in this thread just happen to own rifles in the "ancient & inadequate" .30-30 Winchester? Both of these cartridges and the .300 Blackout are close to each other in terms of ballistics.
I can see Savage fans liking this particular rifle but my personal preference would be for the CZ 527 or the Ruger M77 if they ever bring the x39mm back into production.
I agree with Headdamage--if I didn't already have a Ruger MK II and a Mini-mauser in 7.62 x 39 I would get one of the savages. I have also had a couple of the Ruger Hawkeyes but didn't care for the stock dimensions on them. Cheap surplus is one reason to own a bolt gun in the chambering but the other is cast bullets which bring the cost of shooting down to where it is economical to practice as much as you can handle.
Cheap practice in a rifle that is exactly the same as the 308 you already own. Same trigger, bolt throw, scope, etc.
Even at $400 more than a Norc, that's less than a case of surplus 308. At $200 per 1400 of 7.62x39, you can still shoot a lot more for less if you burn 1000s of rounds of practice per year.
Though personally, I'd like to see Savage release a Scout in 22.
Bought it off the EE from one of the members.
Lol, I apreciate the reply. That could have been a 100$ mistake
