Problems with BA 110 Lapua - are these old issues, nonexistent with current models?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siuco

1) From what I read, most problems are from years ago, on extraction problems, bedding problems, the need to polish the chamber, etc.

2) Are these irrelevant now with a 2015(?) build?
3) Mine shoots .4 MOA, has never had an ejection failure.
4) After finally finding that "Perfect Recipe"with any firearm, how many of you, when you can't find the same powder or projectile (due to lack of supply), try to match bullet speed (fps) versus doing the whole ladder testing and seating depth all over again with the different components?

1) That bit of info likely came from a "newer to Savage" enthusiast. The truth is that Savages have NEVER had very good QC, and that continues today. The difference is in your perspective. For those of us who have been building, shooting, and modding many many Savage's over several decades, we know this. The point isn't that their isn't a better mouse trap out there, there are MANY. The point is that there has been a system that can be a great foundation, and get worked on without piles of very expensive special equipment.
2) Again, savage has always had poor QC, now they belong to a Defense Contractors who doesn't care about private citizens. Yes they still currently have real dogs at times.
3) Glad to hear it, those make the others tolerable.
4) This is a real open-ended question, because it REALLY depends on some specifics; but here goes.

I'm an unabashed "made in the USA" kinda guy. The only powder I've bought in about a decade is made in the only Non-Gubment powder plant left in the USA. The Defense Contractors name is General Dynamics. So for you, that means any ball powder re-sold by Hodgdon, regardless of the brand name on the bottle. Those powders have never been hard to find. The next bit is dealing with an honest company. Some companies tell you they don't have a discontinued list, until the truth gets leaked by a distributor. Then they try and sell "just the tip" line to people, when their own data shows that info to be complete hogwash, and a herring. I'm not trying to say do or don't do business with anyone in particular. What I am saying is that if you keep getting some a line of... Maybe stop doing business with those companies and send a meaningful message.
Beyond that, the reloading community(us) are the waste market, and ALWAYS have been. It's when people don't know/forget that that they find a soap box to jump up and down on.

For me, I change bullets for my target shooting quite frequently, but rarely if ever chase seating depths for loads. I've never found any bullet that couldn't be made to shoot, from a 32nd worth of jump. Despite the constant nonsense being reiterated about "pressure signs", that tells you essentially nothing about ACTUAL pressures; velocity does. With a similar construction and weight, the differing bullets shoot essentially identically when given the same amount of jump to lands. A note in your loading manual will keep handy any minor optic adjustment to switch zero back and forth.
This is the 30,000ft view mind you, but fits the point well I think.

As an example for you about pressures and jump.
Back when the long range world exploded with "new magic" surrounding the FlatLine bullets, we did some actual pressure tests. The OAL was naturally different, but the jump to lands identical, with the same components and lots tested, with the identical charge of powder. A lot of bearing surface on a ProHunter, Vs. Super-magical FlatLines. It was claimed that due to the inner awesomeness and low bearing surface, you can push the FL faster with no increase of pressure "signs". Technically true, but "Signs" have NEVER been an accurate reporter of pressure. It is a really bad bit of info that shouldn't keep getting repeated.
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j8...ps3pazhbys.png
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j8...pst4w0ukh1.png