While composing some ads and preparing to pack up some sold rifles, I realized that I had an easy opportunity to do a quick side-by-side comparison of three somewhat comparable rifles. Might be of use to someone who is looking at a lightweight hunting rifle in the budget category.
The guns in question are a Ruger American Ranch AR-magazine rifle in .223, a Remington 783 heavy-barrel in .223, and a Savage Lightweight Hunter in .6.5 Creedmoor, shown here top to bottom. The Ruger and the Remington are very similar guns, both of which in .223 would make terrific coyote rigs; the Savage would be perfect as a dual-purpose coyote/deer gun.
View attachment 394025
The Ruger seems to be very highly thought of by owners, and it is a sweet little rifle in a lot of ways. Like most newer designs, it has a goofy little floppy tab on its trigger that is supposed to make it safer and more shootable...and it does exactly that. Right out of the box the trigger has a nice crisp pull of about 3 pounds, no noticeable creep, no grittiness, very little overtravel and...best of all...a very consistent feel from one trigger squeeze to the next. Some folks might prefer a tad less pull weight, but my intended use for this rifle ther coyotes, and a lot of that hunting is done in extreme cold weather where numb fingers and/or gloves make this trigger feel just right. The trigger guard is molded integrally with the stock, and could benefit from a wee bit more space inside; it's a standard-sized guard which works fine for most purposes but a bit more space would have been appreciated. The synthetic stock has good ergonomics, although the AR mag jutting down from the bottom interferes with a comfortable one-handed carry. Standard metal swivel studs, a Pic rail for scope mounting and a threaded 16.25-inch barrel with thread protector are supplied with the rifle. My bathroom scale says that the empty, un-scoped rifle weighs 6 pounds even.
The Remington 783 is a bit heavier, coming in at 7 pounds. It's somewhat thicker 16.5-inch barrel seems to be the main source of this extra mass; it's also threaded and comes with a protector. It uses a proprietary Remington magazine, very nicely made with a metal body/release clip and a plastic baseplate; the mag sits flush with the bottom of the stock an makes for a very comfortable carry. It has a separate trigger guard screwed to the stock, synthetic but very substantial and solid in feel, and its fairly non-traditional angular shape seems to allow a bit more room inside for fat fingers. The Remington trigger also uses an actuating tab and is perhaps slightly crisper than the Ruger, although the difference is very small. The synthetic stock has...well, I can't call any molded plastic stock "classy", so I'll just say that the Rem stock feels slightly less cheap than the Ruger's. The bolt knob on the 783 is delightful; a nice big round knob, without any checkering, knurling or other adornment, easy and comfortable to grasp or palm while cycling. The recoil pad on the Rem has a softer, squishier consistency that might be more effective in reducing recoil in a larger chambering than the Ruger's somewhat harder pad. The most irritating feature on the 783, to me, is the molded-in swivel attachment points on the stock; a small thing, agreed, but they just bug me. They will probably last forever, but any load-bearing plastic on a cold-weather rifle makes me leery.
Both rifles feed, fire, extract and eject without any hiccups. The Remington has a noticeably smoother-cycling bolt than the Ruger, but neither of these guns has what I would call a smooth action and will require some practice and some extensive dry-firing to smooth out their actions. The Ruger's bolt has a bit more lateral wobble when open than the Rem's, but not enough to promote binding. It's biggest idiosyncrasy is the last-round hold-open caused by the AR mag. It's very reminiscent of a surplus Mauser, requiring the follower to be pressed down slightly to close the bolt on an empty mag. Metal finish is markedly superior on tbe 783; it is a much finer, cleaner and smoother finish than the fairly rough Ruger.
Overall, in most details, the Rem is the superior rifle. The Ruger's two advantages IMHO are the use of AR mags (which, to me, are much less useful than most people seem to think) and its one-pound weight advantage.
I added the Savage into the mix because...well, it's another lightweight hunting rifle with a synthetic stock, and it happened to be right there in the safe next to these other two, so...why not? Unlike the .223's which I have only recently grabbed up to play with and then to sell, the Savage Lightweight Hunter is a rifle I picked up over a year ago and have done a fair bit of shooting with. This is not the current 110 Lightweight with the carbon-fibre-wrapped barrel that Savage is currently flogging at an exhorbitant price; rather, it is the older model 16 gun. It has a short-action stainless-steel receiver with lightening cuts all over it, a fluted bolt, a full 20-inch barrel in pencil profile, a synthetic stock and a proprietary flush-fitting magazine...and it comes in on my scale at 5.2 pounds! Gripes? Okay; the retaining clip on the detachable magazine seems to be plastic. That's it; otherwise, it's the perfect budget ultra-lightweight hunting rifle.
A quick comment about accuracy: the two .223's are both short-term residents in my safe (one is already sold) and so have only been fed a small number of rounds, almost all factory. I bought them to try them out, plain and simple. Both rifles seem to be capable of 1.25- 1.5 MOA groups with no tweaking or playing around; I'm certain that MOA is within reach if one were to bother working up a load for either of them or even to merely try out a bunch of factory loads to find "the one". The Savage, like almost all Savages in my experience, is a shooter (and a keeper!). I have a handload which will do sub-MOA consistently, if firing is done at a slow pace with lots of barrel-cooling time; this is fine, as it's a pure hunting rifle which won't need extended rapid strings in the field. There are also a couple of more target-oriented factory loads that match this performance, but this isn't a target gun; it requires extra focus to hold a gun this light in weight and the slightest lapse in concentration or consistency shows up in widening groups.
The guns in question are a Ruger American Ranch AR-magazine rifle in .223, a Remington 783 heavy-barrel in .223, and a Savage Lightweight Hunter in .6.5 Creedmoor, shown here top to bottom. The Ruger and the Remington are very similar guns, both of which in .223 would make terrific coyote rigs; the Savage would be perfect as a dual-purpose coyote/deer gun.
View attachment 394025
The Ruger seems to be very highly thought of by owners, and it is a sweet little rifle in a lot of ways. Like most newer designs, it has a goofy little floppy tab on its trigger that is supposed to make it safer and more shootable...and it does exactly that. Right out of the box the trigger has a nice crisp pull of about 3 pounds, no noticeable creep, no grittiness, very little overtravel and...best of all...a very consistent feel from one trigger squeeze to the next. Some folks might prefer a tad less pull weight, but my intended use for this rifle ther coyotes, and a lot of that hunting is done in extreme cold weather where numb fingers and/or gloves make this trigger feel just right. The trigger guard is molded integrally with the stock, and could benefit from a wee bit more space inside; it's a standard-sized guard which works fine for most purposes but a bit more space would have been appreciated. The synthetic stock has good ergonomics, although the AR mag jutting down from the bottom interferes with a comfortable one-handed carry. Standard metal swivel studs, a Pic rail for scope mounting and a threaded 16.25-inch barrel with thread protector are supplied with the rifle. My bathroom scale says that the empty, un-scoped rifle weighs 6 pounds even.
The Remington 783 is a bit heavier, coming in at 7 pounds. It's somewhat thicker 16.5-inch barrel seems to be the main source of this extra mass; it's also threaded and comes with a protector. It uses a proprietary Remington magazine, very nicely made with a metal body/release clip and a plastic baseplate; the mag sits flush with the bottom of the stock an makes for a very comfortable carry. It has a separate trigger guard screwed to the stock, synthetic but very substantial and solid in feel, and its fairly non-traditional angular shape seems to allow a bit more room inside for fat fingers. The Remington trigger also uses an actuating tab and is perhaps slightly crisper than the Ruger, although the difference is very small. The synthetic stock has...well, I can't call any molded plastic stock "classy", so I'll just say that the Rem stock feels slightly less cheap than the Ruger's. The bolt knob on the 783 is delightful; a nice big round knob, without any checkering, knurling or other adornment, easy and comfortable to grasp or palm while cycling. The recoil pad on the Rem has a softer, squishier consistency that might be more effective in reducing recoil in a larger chambering than the Ruger's somewhat harder pad. The most irritating feature on the 783, to me, is the molded-in swivel attachment points on the stock; a small thing, agreed, but they just bug me. They will probably last forever, but any load-bearing plastic on a cold-weather rifle makes me leery.
Both rifles feed, fire, extract and eject without any hiccups. The Remington has a noticeably smoother-cycling bolt than the Ruger, but neither of these guns has what I would call a smooth action and will require some practice and some extensive dry-firing to smooth out their actions. The Ruger's bolt has a bit more lateral wobble when open than the Rem's, but not enough to promote binding. It's biggest idiosyncrasy is the last-round hold-open caused by the AR mag. It's very reminiscent of a surplus Mauser, requiring the follower to be pressed down slightly to close the bolt on an empty mag. Metal finish is markedly superior on tbe 783; it is a much finer, cleaner and smoother finish than the fairly rough Ruger.
Overall, in most details, the Rem is the superior rifle. The Ruger's two advantages IMHO are the use of AR mags (which, to me, are much less useful than most people seem to think) and its one-pound weight advantage.
I added the Savage into the mix because...well, it's another lightweight hunting rifle with a synthetic stock, and it happened to be right there in the safe next to these other two, so...why not? Unlike the .223's which I have only recently grabbed up to play with and then to sell, the Savage Lightweight Hunter is a rifle I picked up over a year ago and have done a fair bit of shooting with. This is not the current 110 Lightweight with the carbon-fibre-wrapped barrel that Savage is currently flogging at an exhorbitant price; rather, it is the older model 16 gun. It has a short-action stainless-steel receiver with lightening cuts all over it, a fluted bolt, a full 20-inch barrel in pencil profile, a synthetic stock and a proprietary flush-fitting magazine...and it comes in on my scale at 5.2 pounds! Gripes? Okay; the retaining clip on the detachable magazine seems to be plastic. That's it; otherwise, it's the perfect budget ultra-lightweight hunting rifle.
A quick comment about accuracy: the two .223's are both short-term residents in my safe (one is already sold) and so have only been fed a small number of rounds, almost all factory. I bought them to try them out, plain and simple. Both rifles seem to be capable of 1.25- 1.5 MOA groups with no tweaking or playing around; I'm certain that MOA is within reach if one were to bother working up a load for either of them or even to merely try out a bunch of factory loads to find "the one". The Savage, like almost all Savages in my experience, is a shooter (and a keeper!). I have a handload which will do sub-MOA consistently, if firing is done at a slow pace with lots of barrel-cooling time; this is fine, as it's a pure hunting rifle which won't need extended rapid strings in the field. There are also a couple of more target-oriented factory loads that match this performance, but this isn't a target gun; it requires extra focus to hold a gun this light in weight and the slightest lapse in concentration or consistency shows up in widening groups.
Last edited:
