Reply With QuoteI bought it 2 years ago, so probably not worth it. Though I know they count on it.
i feel bad for ya. that is unfortunate. the "experts" at these shops should be qualified. However, the more interaction I have with them, the more I realize they know very little. I wouldn't allow any retail employee to install anything on a firearm I own or am purchasing. the store that botched it up should fix any and all problems, but I am betting they blame the consumer....good luck.
I bought it 2 years ago, so probably not worth it. Though I know they count on it.
Take a straight edge across each end of the receiver. If you have an older round rear 116 its possible that the receiver was machined incorrectly. i.e. both front and rear of the receiver will be out of plane. Straight edge across should show discrepancy if one exists.
Something about this seems incorrect, "If you have an older flat back...." maybe?Originally Posted by RustyShackle
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
Thanks. But already figured out the front and rear bases are different heights.
Nope, there were a batch of 'older' 116's that had the receivers machined out of plane(round front and rear). I had a scope failure on a 116 and then put its replacement in burris sig rings. Later I was going to install a single piece base and that's when I noticed the issue. Savage took good care of me!
Last edited by RustyShackle; 10-29-2016 at 12:14 PM. Reason: typo
It is either 06 or 09, bought used, but looked up serial number. Both front and rear are round.
well the time frame is correct to be in the run that had issues. If I could post pics here I would post pics of what mine looked like. Easiest way to determine if there are any issues is to place a flat edge on the rear portion of the receiver. See if it aligns with the front or if the is a gap, or possibly it intersects the front of the receiver.
do you have to use a url to post pics here, or can I embed them?
Can you explain "out of plain" ? I invision out of concentricity where the axis of the barrel threads and bolt raceway are not aligned with the OD axis when I read that but I'm not sure.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
I bought new bases today. After I mount I will use alignment rods to see if there is an issue. The bases Cabelas used did not match. Then shimmed inside rings. Possible gn has issues, and they were trying to work through them. Pissed me off they didn't tell me they used shims. Even if they didn't realize mix matched bases, they should have told me.
The guy didn't like savages, maybe he just figured that is the way they are. Not overly happy myself the way a Leupold fits on them, no room to slide scope back.
So each of the respective receiver ends(front and rear) were not in the same geometrical plane. They were however parallel with each other, just a couple degrees ‘off’.
The link below I believe was a similar issue to what I had going on.
http://www.thehighroad.org/index.php...tinues.559442/
https://www.shootersforum.com/gunsmi...nt-issues.html
Hopefully linking this isn't taboo...
That is why I mentioned a one piece base. It lets you move the scope further back. I have also cut the stock to help me get closer to the scope.
Rusty The only time I have seen anything similar is when a junior Savagesmith try's to remove the barrel by holding the action through the loading and ejection ports. That would cause a twist as well. Fred and a couple of others have posted on this. I am sure one gets by the inspectors every now and then
Seems to me the stock would pull much of this out when tightening. There would probably be a "spring" feeling as you tighten the action. One end would be more prominent. This would be the litmus a test to confirm the issue being described. If you look at a lot of savage actions you often see where the actions where run through something like a centerless grinder/polisher/sander to clean up the OD. The marks I have seen remind me of the part dwelling for whatever reason and the abrasive gouging spots in the OD.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
New bases on. Checked with alignment rods, and everything looks good.
Holding the front bases against each other, they look the same. But the new one has deeper concave, causing it to it to sit lower on the rifle.
I am going to email Leupold, the numbers and ask what they should be for, explain what happened. Maybe get them to send me correct match. Would have saved $25 if I did this in the summer, instead of 2 weeks before hunting season. But I start thinking about new scopes right before hunting season.
First time using alignment rods. Will set rectile up with plum bob. Be interesting to see close it is.
Yes, it was a bizarre find. The odd part is that the straight edge was perfect along the bottom of the receiver so somebody got a little overly ambitious or something when machining. Savage replaced the rifle and was more than fair about the whole thing. It did take them a considerable amount of time to get it replaced, but I’m sure they are made in batches and I was just in between runs.
Berserker, glad to hear things were figured out!
I've got the original scope back on. The new one is sighted, and ready for deer hunting. Not touching it. But if I don't add the shims, the last guy did, and it works, out, then I know I am good. Plus looking at the alignment rods makes me feel better. Hopefully I had them balanced good last time. Just got them this week. I did noticed they can tilt a little. But they are heavy, and tip if you go to fire.
I miked the bases too. The fronts are different.
I wanted to go to one piece, but they only had one in short action, locally.
Members who have read this thread in the last 1 days: 0
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks