Oddball 111

I bought a Model 111 used from Cabelas. F423XXX in 7 mm Remington magnum, after my military discount & some coupons I had, I only have 180$ in it. I bought it just to get the action for a custom build. What's odd about it is it has integral Weaver scope mounts & what appears to be an integral recoil lug. The receiver threads even continue into the recoil lug. Anyone know anything about these? Should I find a normal long action to build on or use this? I'm planning on building a 32" barreled 7mm Weatherby in a chassis. Just a long range toy, no competition or hunting planned for it.

On your Savage 111, the recoil lug is a separate piece that lies between the receiver face and the barrel nut and is removable. If it is an F series the rear of the receiver should be flat? The "integral weaver scope mounts" were probably added by a previous owner....Your 111 is not really an "oddball" just an older model.

The recoil lug & the mounts are not separate pieces on this 111. They are integral to the receiver. The rear of the receiver is a Weaver mount. Not flat. The barrel threads even continue into the recoil lug. It's as if you welded the recoil lug onto the end of the receiver, but it appears to have been made this way from the factory.

Post some photos up

I'd love too, but I'm new here & it says I'm not allowed to post attachments. Even if I was, it'd have to simple. I'm no computer whiz. I can take photos on my phone, but no idea how to put em on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M9Powell

The recoil lug & the mounts are not separate pieces on this 111. They are integral to the receiver. The rear of the receiver is a Weaver mount. Not flat. The barrel threads even continue into the recoil lug. It's as if you welded the recoil lug onto the end of the receiver, but it appears to have been made this way from the factory.

---

You are right. It is an oddball.

On the scope mounts, I like the fact they will never come loose, but I think the 20 MOA rail I use on my other Savages should stiffen the receiver, this 1 won't be as stiff. I'm not sure what to think of the integral recoil lug? It looks just like any other factory savage recoil lug except for its threaded. More barrel thread engagement I suppose is not a bad thing & this might minutely add too reciever stiffness? I suppose if I want too add a thicker aftermarket recoil lug I could have this 1 machined off or just leave it & add the aftermarket 1 in front of it?

That was made in 1988-89, and the receiver is investment cast with the features you describe. This was a cost cutting attempt in Savages darkest days, and was a period of some of the worst quality control that the company ever experienced. For a builder, I would pass on it.

It seems to have held up rather well as a 7mm Remington magnum. Can you give me a more technical reason not too use it? What method are other Savage receivers made by? Seems to be a rather substantial chunk of steel. I can't find any QC problems with it. All Savage 110 series are a cost cutting attempt. As I recall that's where 110 comes from. Made to sell for 110$. Certainly not as elegant as a pre-64 Model 70, but they normally are accurate & durable. All Rugers are castings. Wonder who did the casting? Ruger? I'm no mettulurgist & most of my experience with cast vs forged is with crankshafts. A cast crank will crack easier than a forged crank. I don't think any 110 receiver is forged though, are they? They appear to be cut from tubing. Cast steel might be superior to tubing. A rifle receiver won't have anything like the stress of a crankshaft though. I'd think the only area to get a lot of stress would be the ring with the locking lug recesses in it. These appear to be in good shape despite having a well worn 7mm magnum factory barrel taken off.

Savage actions (except these investment cast oddballs) have always been machined from solid steel bar stock. Nothing wrong with cast receivers - as you noted Ruger's been using them for decades, but Ruger also holds much better QC than Savage did at the time these odd ducks were made. Simply put, if they were any good Savage would have stuck with the process as it's much less labor and time intensive to investment cast them than it is to machine them, plus it's a lot cheaper.

Was the quality control problems something that Savage released to the public or was it a matter of getting too many fail their own quality control? In other words Savage gets 1000 receivers from their supplier & 75 fail their QC checks? If it's the latter 1 might assume the 1s that were actually sold were OK. They could have discontinued them due too needing too much machining. The savings from using a casting would hinge on needing very little machining. If you have too do much machining, just as,well use the tubular stock, which in itself is not as good as a forging. In any event this rifle was sold & it fired hundreds maybe thousands of 7 mm mag rds & was still humming when I disassembled it. The cast construction doesn't concern me as much as the lack of stiffness due too no mount bridging the ejection port. The built in recoil lug might actually be better. And those cast in weaver mounts are never gonna come loose. If they are soo bad, why hase'nt Savage recalled them.

I once saw a Finnish sniper rifle built on a Mosin action that had a sleeve installed around the barrel just in front of the action simular too the sleeve that contains the rear sight on a Mauser. This sleeve had 2 bosses that were threaded for the action screws. It was glass bedded at this boss & the receiver itself was floated as was the rest of the barrel. Such an arrangement takes receiver stiffness out of the equation for accuracy. I might possibly do something simular with this action?

Thanks for all the replies. I know quite a bit more about my oddball savage now.