What would you ask Savage to improve?

[LabRat2k3]

So if I don't agree with you I just haven't seen or held enough quality rifles right ::)
If I want a light weight Savage I'll just get a model 11 lightweight hunter. Savage has built a reputation for building accurate rifles so there is just no proof that a barrelnut or floating bolt head have a negative impact on accuracy. They may not make a rifle any more accurate but they sure don't hurt.

[nsaqam]

The Savage LWH is IMO exactly how NOT to do a LW.

Short barrel, laminate stock with slots in it, lightening cuts on the receiver, extensive fluting and so forth.

I prefer at least a 22" barrel, fiber/Kevlar stock, and an action designed from the outset to be a LW rifle.

Have you ever carried a Kimber for a few days? Or a 1920?

I thought for many many years that an 8.5 or 9 lbs. rifle was perfectly satisfactory until I got my Kimber.
After carrying this sub 6.5 lbs rifle (all up, fully loaded) it will be very hard to enjoy carrying 9 lbs again.
my 7.8 lbs 700 KS even became expendable and I loved that rifle. Until the Kimber arrived that is.
The LW rifle market is expanding and new companies are joining the fray. Forbes comes to mind. Savage could have a piece of that market if they desired to do so but the LWH just isn't going to cut it with the LW crowd.

[keeki]

i'd like for Savage and all other gunmakers to quit charging extra money for a gun with a heavy barrel, it takes less time and less tooling than a sporter barrel.
As far as the other on going discussion that Savage should copy an 84 kimber....why would they? I've had, shot, and lugged around more than one 84 and I cant seem to find anything they trump on a lightweight hunter. Most Kimbers I've shot will shoot somewhere in the 1" range as will the
savage (savage usually does a little better than the kimbers). They both weigh about the same ( around 6.5lbs). Both have adjustable triggers. The only real trump I can see is that the Savage is about 400 less. Truth is that no matter what Savage does to their rifles, if you pay the same for a Savage as you do for a Kimber in a rifle intended and aimed at the same goal everyone is still gonna say "for that kinda money, you could've bought a Kimber".
To me a rifle is intended to carry, shoot, and hit what your aiming at and if I can do it better for 400 less, thats what I'm gonna do. Savage may not have the prestige or be as photogenic as Kimber, but I didnt think it was a beauty pageant.

[nsaqam]

IMO most Savage stocks are ergonomically unsuited to ME. As is their balance.

Can't think of one I lifted and said "this feels perfect".

Every Kimber I've hefted balanced and felt perfectly designed for me.

Before you tell me to get a Kimber, they don't make LH rifles because they are making so many RH rifles that they don't have the capacity to add a lefty line.
The original Kimber of Oregon did make a lefty and I found one in 6x47 and paid too much for it. The minute I lifted it I knew I found my rifle. After a bit of use I decided that it was a bargain at $1000.

[jsthntn247]

1. Fix Ejection Issues
2. Produce better stock, something similar to a Medalist or at least a Duramaxx.
3. Quit messing with the damn barrel nut, action spacings and bolt release locations. quit, quit, quit, quit, quit, quit, quit, quit.
4. Better quality control on tapping the scope base holes centered on the action, I have several with this problem. its a PIA

P.S. did I mention quit messing with the action spacing and bolt release locations. quit, quit, quit, quit, quit,

[hotbrass]

I think they should just sell barreled actions. I dont own a centerfire rifle of any manufacture that has an original factory stock, except a few AR-15s.

[keeki]

Im not gonna tell you to get a kimber,lol. I'd rather tell you to buy a savage and have a stockmaker custom build you a stock that fits you perfectly. You would then probably have your favorite rifle.

[nsaqam]

I have a nutless PacNor #2 SS 26" 280AI barrel on my old 111 action (my first brand new rifle and first lefty 25-30 years ago) and it sits in a McMillan Savage Classic stock with standard fill so I have a high quality rifle with a top tier barrel and stock.
I loved this rifle and was perfectly happy carrying it. Until I got the Kimber that is.

I still love the Savage, it holds a special place in my heart, but now it only gets used when I'm not going to be walking more than a hundred yard.

No, I believe that I'll never be too excited about an 8 lbs rifle again.
For the LR stuff 10-12 lbs is better and for everything else sub 7 lbs is great with 6 lbs being better.

[ellobo]

Good heavens, and I thought I vented too much about Boyds stocks. Like many I cant afford a Kimber. Whatever game I shoot doesnt care what rifle was used. I am 75 and I carry an 8.5 lb .35 Whelen around all day with no fatigue. Makes me wonder what the younger generation has been doing that they cant handle an 8.5 lb rifle. For three yrs I carried a 9 lb M1 around. Must have made me musclebound.

El Lobo

[rusty815]

Good heavens, and I thought I vented too much about Boyds stocks. Like many I cant afford a Kimber. Whatever game I shoot doesnt care what rifle was used. I am 75 and I carry an 8.5 lb .35 Whelen around all day with no fatigue. Makes me wonder what the younger generation has been doing that they cant handle an 8.5 lb rifle. For three yrs I carried a 9 lb M1 around. Must have made me musclebound.

El Lobo


My savage weights a total of 10lbs and I have no problem carrying it. Before I got my savage I carried around a 6.5lbs rifle (ruger lightweight), even though it is more pleseant, I would rather have my savage tack driver that I have complete faith in, I can walk just as many miles with the savage as with the ruger.

I'm not going to be like the keeki, I am going to recommend you get a kimber and lose a savage, it seems you dislike just about every aspect of a savage and the only reason you keep one is for "sentimental" value.

[nsaqam]

Kimber won't make me a lefty because they're selling more RH rifles than they can produce and don't have the capacity.
That should tell you something about the market for a superb LW rifle.

There are several things about Savages I don't like and if you're honest with yourself there are things you don't like about Savage.

How many people heap praise on the IM stock?
How about the ejector issue?
The bottom bolt release garners plenty of criticism.
So do the rough barrels.

I support Savage because since 1958 Savage has supported we lefties. That means something to me but they are far from perfect.

[rusty815]

I was honest, I posted on page two of this thread about what I would like to see from Savage (kill off the axis brand and bring back the stevens, make a stevens left hand rifle, and fix the obnoxiously heavy bolt lift). It just seems to me that you dislike almost every aspect of the Savage (don't care for a floating bolthead/barrel nut, dont like the way they build lightweight rifles, dont like their weight, their ergonomics, don't like the balance, don't seem to like their modern offerings very much as you want them to go back to their vintage stuff) I'm just trying to get you to be honest with yourself, why do you buy savage rifles other than them supporting us lefties? What made me buy a savage rifle, other than it being lefty (my local gunshop had plenty of lefty guns to choose from, such as remmy's, tikka's, etc.), is that they offered so many great features that i found the other rifles were lacking, and it was in my new favorite caliber.

[nsaqam]

Never said I didn't like the floating bolthead. Merely said that the floating bolthead doesn't compensate for misalignment of the locking lug abutments as is often claimed. You're right that I hate the barrel nut, always have but I'd use one if I didn't have the capability to thread and chamber barrels in my basement but I do. Once fitted a shouldered barrel can be swapped out with no gauges required so for me I see no advantage to the barrel nut.

I'd love to see a new high quality 99 from Savage and I'd say that many
Folks here feel the same.
I don't want Savage to make a 1920 like they did in the 20's but would like to see something from them in the spirit of the original LW bolt gun, the 1920 but with modern ergos, and features.
IMO a modern 1920 would outsell the LWH 10 to 1 even if it were 50% more expensive.

Many of you swap barrels and stocks onto your Savage to make it suit your needs better.

[rusty815]

You're points are valid, a lot of us do change our stocks and barrels on our savage rifles, I'm going to switch out my stock once my stockade stick comes in, and if you have the ability to change barrels that don't have barrel nuts, then a barrel but won't mean anything to you, my point about that was you don't need gunsmithing experience to change a barrel, and it doesn't affect accuracy.

I should have explained the benefits of a floating bolthead better. First, allowing both lugs to contact the receiver more consistently better distributes the recoil on the lugs, thus you can use the same bolt for an incredibly wide range of calibre. It also makes changing calibers easier since you only need to change the bolt head as opposed to replacing the entire bolt. Lastly it allows for the rounds to better align with the barrel, which is what contributes to savage rifles being so accurate, and holds this alignment before, during and after the round is fired, again contributing to savages accuracy. I would throw out the remington msr and bighorn remington clone action as prime examples of high end rifles and actions that use the floating bolthead due to its benefits, I sure as heck can't think of a drawback to the floating bolthead.

I too would like to see the 99 offered again, I would buy one if it was, but to me a stevens left hand rifle is more important, there aren't many affordible left hand rifles, if any at all.

[nsaqam]

I'd like to be able to buy a LH Stevens for $300 solely for the action and the non-accutrigger.

They don't put the AT on the Stevens do they?

[rusty815]

nope, they do not, not like I'd care since I would just switch out the trigger for a rifle basix anyway, but I would do the same as you, buy the stevens solely for the action, It sure as heck is cheaper than buying a savage action by itself (about $400 last i checked) and is the same.

[nsaqam]

Speaking of expensive LH rifles, have you lefties looked at the money folks are getting for their LH m70's?

Insane money, especially for the SS models.

I lucked into a local SS LH M70 cheap this past Spring and while I liked the rifle a bunch when I saw what they were bringing on GB I had to trip it on GB.

$1800 with a Zeiss 3-9x40 Conquest, the original wood stock and a McMillan stock.
I think I paid $650 for it with a 4.5-14x40 Leupold Vari-XIII. traded the Leupy straight across for the Conquest making it basically free.
I trip rifles often but never at such a profit, it's usually a loss for me!

We lefties have Savage, Remington, and Ruger actions to choose from and that ain't a lot unless one would accept a Tikka T3 too. I won't. there are others but they are few and far between.

Sorry about going off post here guys.

[efm77]

I could be wrong but I think you can get a Montana Rifleman in a left handed action. It's basically a copy of the model 70 action with a few improvements. Maybe you should look into it. I don't see Savage making a Mauser style controlled round feed action anytime soon. I don't consider a $1000 rifle a high end rifle either but to me it ain't cheap either. Of course since you have the machines to make a shouldered barrel and headspace it you could get a left handed Savage, make a barrel exactly the way you want it, and buy a stock exactly like you want and voila! You have the rifle you wanted. I have nothing against the Kimber and don't think their "high end" in the same sense as a custom job but I can't afford as many of them as I can Savages so we obviously just have a difference of opinion and that's fine. That's why there are different makes and models out there because nobody likes the exact same thing. Now as for the '99, they could probably get Ruger to cast the actions for them and that would save a lot of money there that maybe would make it affordable enough.

[efm77]

Case in point in the difference in opinion between folks. nsaqam likes lightweight rifles, I don't. The weight doesn't bother me. Are there times I wish I had a lighter rifle? Maybe. But I'll take the weight for being able to shoot it better. I can't shoot the lightweight rifles as well because to me they're too whippy and harder for me to steady. If you're a better marksman than me fine. I don't get much time to practice anymore so it's easier for me to shoot a heavier rifle accurately. I haven't weighed it since I put the new scope on it but my 116 300 win mag probably weighs 13-14lbs. And guess what? I carry it! Probably wouldn't carry it in the Rockies but here in the Appalachians it works fine for me except when I'm hunting in the thick woods. Then I get one of my shorter rifles. Not because of weight but because of length.

[nsaqam]

Yes MRC has introduced a new lineup of what they call Production Rifles and they sell for around $1000.
Heavy though.

I talked to them several times and just about pulled the trigger but then this LH Kimber of Oregon came up on GB and I simply had to have it as I had never seen one before.

The Kimber came to me partially inletted in an out of the mold stock and did not have a functioning safety but the seller wasn't aware of that. With the help of some good folks over on 24hcf who provided pics of their K of O triggers/safety and I was able to turn a connecting strut from the thumbwheel to the trigger block and it turned out perfectly. I told the seller about all this and he was great. Sent me a little money back for my time and we called it a good transaction.

I'm no marksman, consistently MOA or slightly better is all I can claim.