Other than triggers,what is the main difference? Trying to decide between the two.
Printable View
Other than triggers,what is the main difference? Trying to decide between the two.
The Axis uses a "tubular" receiver, cast bolt handle, and is overall a more budget oriented rifle. Kind of tongue in cheek as the original 110 was a "budget" alternative to the Win Model 70.
The Axis II comes with the Accutrigger which is present on most 10/110 rifles. The Axis "1" does not, and is known to be kind of rough, but can be improved, but not to the level of an accutrigger.
Accutriggers are generally an $80-$100 upgrade if you want one later.
Pricewise, the Model 11 typically runs $100-$200 more expensive than the Axis.
Axis stocks are also more cheaply made (think flexible) than the standard non-accustock model 10/110's, but that also makes them slightly lighter
The Axis receiver being "tubular" means that the receiver fully encloses over the top of the action, leaving only an ovoid opening for the ejection of shells. This adds rigidity an allows thinner lighter metal to be used.
Disadvantage is that it is a pain to try and "single load" shells through the opening (but Axis have detachable mags mitigating this somewhat). The advantage is cost and weight. I believe they are about 1/2 lb lighter than an equivalent 10/110 rifle.
(another technical disadvantage is that the axis is not factory made for Magnum calibers)
The axis uses the same barrels (small shank) and barrel nuts as the 10/110 allowing for end user barrel changes and customization.
Accuracy between the 2 is typically on par.
Aftermarket customization is lower for the Axis but still plentiful within the limitations of its design.
Between the two, I would lean toward a model 11 given that often the price difference can be relegated to the upgraded components (accutrigger, better stock, better receiver, better aftermarket). But if the price difference was great, of the axis was cheap enough, I would never say no on account of quality.
The Newer mod 11's are more similar to the Axis than not.
They don't have bottom metal. It's plastic part of the stock.
Magazines are the same as the Axis mags.
Firing pin mechanism is more like the Axis mechanism. At least the Left hand mod 11 my brother has is like that.
I don't like the bottom bolt release or the smooth barrel nut of the Mod 11.
My vote is the SA Model 11
First off I am in the Spring 1898 camp.
A fan of an action an integral lug with the captured lug was a second preference. This is largely an opinion as there is no proof that the lugs on the axis and the Ruger American action give anything up to the other style recoil lugs. IMHO Advantage 10/110
The firing pin was poorly designed in my opinion but now that they have started using the Axis style pin in at least some of the 10/110 actions things are looking up. Even
The Trigger is an issue in part due to the 3:00 cocking piece pin requiring a sear of inexpensive and limiting design...yada yada yada. SSS and Rifle Basix Sav2 trigger offer the best options for the model 10/110. There is nothing that compares for the Axis....Advantage 10/110
Even though there is no study proving an action that is machined closed rather than open on the top there must be some reason the PTA, Axis and M783 plus all the custom actions I am aware of are all machined with action body shrouding the bolt. Advantage Axis..or the PTA/ LRP repeater(also the older BA action).
As far as stocks go there are at least one chassis maker for the Axis and a small handful of other manufacturers that make laminate stocks for it. The 110 has a myriad of options. You need to know what you have though due to the many variations in the inlets for them. Advantage 10/110
Buying a rifle is a personal experience. Usage and purpose should dictate the purchase. Utility or dedicated discipline. What do you see as the purpose for your Savage gun? You can see that my points are geared towards upgrades. Those points I make may be useless to another shooter.
Plenty of information about that subject. Receiver is stiffer, resulting in an increased repeatability to not flex or change the point of impact. Best for applications that are used for bench shooting applicationsQuote:
Originally Posted by Robinhood
The open top action is better suited as a hunting platform, where there is a way to quickly access the loading/ejection port. And the weight savings of less steel to pack around.
No doubt, I could not address every issue and since Spring had I just applied the "I'm in his camp" comment to cover that part. . As far as the action strength goes, I feel the same but have never seen any documentation or "expert" written articles with physics implemented to prove the case. Thanks for the information though.Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyShackle
No worries, Not sure what quantifies an expert in that regard, I could provide you with calculations showing that the receiver would be stronger and more rigid using physics. I can probably find you some reference material on the interwebs but again not sure who or what constitutes an expert? And the funny thing is it still in large doesn't matter! along with the more rigid action you need a more rigid stock to take full advantage of the design feature. And then bbl quality... It's splitting hairs really because statistically you could shoot both platforms(open and closed top) in the exact same conditions and the results would be very marginal. Although marginal differences can be the difference between winning a match and losing. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. Unless a group that is σ 0.01* to 0.05* better means that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinhood
I handled both and looked at them.I decided to go with the 11 since it had the Nikon scope and adjustable trigger.If I had gotten the Axis,I would have had to get a Rifle Basix soon.150.00 difference at my LGS. The 11 shouldered and felt like my Stevens 200.
I am under the impression that the actual construction of the receiver would be the larger determinate. If the enclosed receiver is built with the same quality and thickness metal as the open top receiver, then I am sure that would be the case. However, most manufacturers seem to use it as a means of getting "sufficient" strength with a lighter and also less expensive build.Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyShackle
But as you mention, in all practical respects there are other larger factors of repeatability than the design of the receiver.
***
But to the OP I am glad you were able to get a rifle you liked. As you may know, the Stevens 200 and the Savage 10/110 series rifles are essentially one and the same.
Well, yes, you have to compare apples to apples. I should have a caveat that materials between were identical. And as you’ve noted that they have used it to get to the proper strength. Also there is less machine work involved(in most cases) which gets it to the consumer with a savings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyShackle
Point!