1966 ad for Savage 340-V

Great ad kjohn.
Mr. H. was a big fan of these in 30-30's.
He just couldn't pass one up if the price was appropriate.

Make sure folks to read the fine print on the scope.
 
In 1966, I earned about 14 dollars per day. That means this rifle would cost roughly one week's pay. Today, doing the same job, I would earn around 200 dollars per day. The 340 was cheaper than the 110. Who would want to spend a thousand dollars for a Savage 110?
I think the 225 would be on the edge of being too much for the single locking lug of the 340 Savage. I would want to load it to 223 levels.
 
I actually saw one of those 340 Savages in 225 Winchester about 15 years ago. An older gent was
harassing the crows when they landed in his apple tree, lol.

I have a 225 Winchester....it is a bit of a hybrid, but shoots "lights out" and is not an ugly duckling.

It is built on a Savage Model 11 action, the barrel is a Remington 40X take off, originally chambered
in 220 Swift. The stock is the Savage Synthetic "Varmint" version with the wide fore end.
The Accutrigger is long gone, since I dislike the system.

Guntech put it together for me, and it is a dandy rifle. Any coyote inside of 450 yards is in deep
trouble when that 55 grain Ballistic Tip heads his way. It shoots ½ moa consistently with at least
4 loads using 50 - 55 grain bullets. Even Factory ammo I have is sub moa. Dave.
 
I've owned 3 340V in .225 . Just sold one in June on CGN . The 2 that I shot were accurate . I've also owned a Model 71 Cooey in .225 .

I'm down to one .225 , it's a rechambered. 223 #1B that is very accurate. Thank you Sir.

Neat cartridge, not many are aware of its existance.

Brass is tough to find, I'll never wear out what I have

357
 
Leeper said:
In 1966, I earned about 14 dollars per day. That means this rifle would cost roughly one week's pay. Today, doing the same job, I would earn around 200 dollars per day. The 340 was cheaper than the 110. Who would want to spend a thousand dollars for a Savage 110?
Click to expand...

In '66, min. wage would buy you 10 loaves of bread. Today's min. wage will only buy you 5 loaves of bread. $76.50 was a great deal! Just depends on how you compare apples to oranges.
 
trebor2880 said:
In '66, min. wage would buy you 10 loaves of bread. Today's min. wage will only buy you 5 loaves of bread. $76.50 was a great deal! Just depends on how you compare apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how much bread minimum wage would buy. The fact remains, you would have to work for a week at a pretty good-paying job to buy this rifle (note the fine print stating prices are higher in Canada BTW). For another days work, you could buy a Remington 700ADL which is a vastly better rifle. The 340 was an economy rifle but we paid quite a bit, even for economy stuff, back then. By a mere five years later, wages had nearly doubled and rifle prices had not kept pace. So it was, in 1971, Ruger 77's were 165 bucks and you could find them for 125. Four days pay. Remington 788's were under a hundred bucks. Three days. Just putting things in perspective.
I think the 225 was a pretty good cartridge but it had an uphill battle in competing with the 22-250 which was better in most every way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom