[DigMe]

I know that in the past Savage had a reputation for so-so to just plain crappy rifles. They have a much better reputation now and I'm just wondering what year it changed? I'm asking because I talked to a guy today who's selling a Savage .30-06 with wood stock (unfortunately I didn't get the model number) and Leupold 3x9 scope for $400. The rifle has never been shot but it's 4 years old.

brad cook

[AK103K]

I had a Savage 110 "S" silhouette rifle back in the late 70's that always worked fine, had a nice trigger out of the box, and was a very accurate rifle. When were they crappy?

[DigMe]

When were they crappy?

That's what I'm asking.

brad cook

[AK103K]

I never had one that was. I have a Scout now that will shoot under an inch at 100 yards with my reloads and it also had a great trigger out of the box. I know some dont like the synthetic stocks on them and a few other complaints, but mine have always been very good shooters and I never had any trouble with them. I think a lot of the bitching is just snobbery and people who spent to much on another name and it doesnt shoot as well. :)

[TechBrute]

I wasn't aware they ever made sub-standard rifles. Their actions are fairly robust, and some people find them to be superior to Remington's. Every manufaturer goes through times that aren't as good as others.

Where did you get the impression that they had a bad rep?

[Cosmoline]

Around 1899.

[LynnMassGuy]

Reasonably priced doesn't equal crappy.

[DigMe]

I know that reasonably priced does not equal crappy and yadda yadda. I wasn't making any assumptions based on price. I'm just going based on some comments that I've read here when I did a search. Unfortunately I can't figure out what the search was and now I can't find it but I promise you I read that here from a couple of people.

I just did a new search and found this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40604) though which seems to answer the question more or less.

New question though - when did Savage start putting the Accutrigger on their rifles?

brad cook

[Hoploholic]

IMO, the Savage is both crappy and standard setting. What makes the Savage is the robustness of the receiver design and the best factory barrel out there. There fire control groups and stocks are POS. I am never happy with bone stock firearm, so I have no problem throwing a new stock and trigger into the mix.

[Jim K]

The early Model 110's (the basis for all later Savage CF bolt guns) were pretty awful. Accuracy was not bad, but the trigger pulls were terrible and the whole action was not only rough but sloppy. The stocks were not bad for feel, if you closed your eyes and didn't look at them.

I am not sure which Savage ownership (there have been several) made the decision, but at some point, they decided to drop most of the rest of the line and concentrate on improving that one action. They did a good job, and the Accutrigger (which is usually misunderstood) is another step in that direction. At the same time, they improved the barrel, stock and bedding, all of which make a previous "ugly duckling" into something that if not actually a swan, is at least a tremendous improvement. Some of the basic problems still exist, but the price advantage makes up for them.

Jim

[rbernie]

Let's face it - Savage has always been the Chevy of rifles. That doesn't mean that they're crappy, it just means that they're not a Lexus - they're a Chevy. They don't have the smoothest and most refined bolt throw, they don't have the deepest and darkest bluing, and their stocks are never anything to write home about. But they are almost ALWAYS rugged and reasonably-to-very accurate rifles that will last a very long time and drop game with monotonous regularity if you do your part.

So - are you a Chevy kinda guy or a Lexus kinda guy? There's no harm in either - ya just have to figure out your priorities.

[DigMe]

I'm more of a Nissan/Toyota reliability kinda guy.

brad cook

[rbernie]

I'm more of a Nissan/Toyota reliability kinda guy. I guess that would make you a Rem700 or maybe even a Tikka shooter. :)

Me? I like old BMW sport-touring motorcycles and other such things that are designed for generalization and longevity rather than specialization and high-speed/low-drag. My primary centerfile rifles are, therefore, a sporterized 1895 Spanish Mauser, a sporterized 1944 Enfield Mk4No1, and a sporterized SKS (much like Gewehr98's recent posting).

But before I hijack the thread - my favorite Savage was (no surprise) a 99C in 308. I traded it for some HVAC work to my house in a fit of stupidity, and haven't found another one like it since. It wasn't the prettiest (for a lever action, it looked like a pregnant guppy when compared to a Win94 or a Marlin) but like the Chevy that it was, it was a heckova hot rod and strong as all get-out.

[DigMe]

Seems like the Tikkas are a little more costly than the budget rifles that I've been looking at though.

brad cook

[rbernie]

Tikka = Nissan. Savage = Chevy. :)

[carp killer]

Don't say anything about old Savages. They are sleepers of the gun collecting world!

[goon]

Around 1899.

Huh?
I can't speak for that. It was many many moons before I was born. But I can tell you that the 99 that my grandfather bought in when he was 16 (around 1923 or so) has never given anyone any problems. The stock has some deep gouges and even a repair (an idiot dropped it) and there is no finish on it, but it is still just as tight as any new rifle I have ever handled.
Same with the one that my dad bought in the '60's.
I have owned two Savages, a scout and a 10FP. Both were accurate and reliable.
I am even thinking about getting another Savage (probably an 11 in 308) if the plan with the AIA Enfield doesn't work out.

FWIW, I would trust a Savage over a Remington any day.

[Sunray]

"...in the past Savage had a reputation for so-so to just plain crappy rifles..." No offense, but Savage has always made top quality rifles. Somebody BS'd you.

[DigMe]

Somebody BS'd you.

Well if so then it was a couple of somebodies and it was on this board. I just wish I could find that thread.

brad cook

[Don Buckbee]

When Ron Coburn took over the helm.
Don

[Chuck Dye]

My experience with Savage rifles is limited to four Model 99s built between roughly 1930 and 1960. Crappy? (Sorry Grammaw!) Cheap? Junk? Gee! I really would love to see your data!

[SirPorl]

I have no experience with Savage Centerfires but I like my .17hmr by them. It good quality and a great price.

SirPorl

[Onmilo]

Huck Finn and Jim Keenan got it exactly right.
Savage started to improve the overall quality of the bolt action rifles they produce when they realized they eliminated the finest and most popular rifle in their line, the Savage 99 lever action.
No premier product = no sales = out of business.

[DigMe]

Cheap? Junk?

Where the hell did that come from? You're the first person in this thread that's typed the words "cheap" and "junk."

Everyone... I'm sorry if I was told some wrong info by some THR folks. Get over it and don't put anymore words in my mouth, please.

Again, I never said that "reasonably priced equals crappy" and I never said that Savages are or were "cheap junk." In fact I'm interested in buying one...that's why I started the thread.

brad cook

[TODD3465]

I never owned one but there have been a few not so poplular models out there.

Something in a bolt comes to mind that was NOT a 110 action and had a cheesey extractor ...chambere in .222 and maybe .223? \

Plus they did have some spotty QC during their reorganization period in the mid 80's I believe.

One friend of mine had a .223 varmint model that had a rough barrel that lapping barely helped. Would group good for a bit then started getting flyers so he had it rebarreled.

[JohnBT]

A number of folks didn't like the previous Savage trigger. The designer wrote an article for Precision Shooting not too long ago and said that it did what it was supposed to do - have a 3 to 10 pound pull.

John

[Detritus]

two things made savage go to the level they are now, and both were mentioned above.

first they dropped the 99 lever from the line. i am told, but have no confirmation of, this was due to the, then owners not wanting to fork over the bucks for a new set of machinery as the then existing setup was getting worn out.
this of course left the company with ONLY the M-110 based CFs and the canadian built rimfire line (yep all them rimfires come from north of the border). as mentioned sales dropped.

second savage changed ownership. the NEW owners believed/beleive that the way to make a firearms company grow is to produce a good rifle at a good price. these are the folks who started the incremental changes that we've been seeing in the past few years, i.e. accu-trigger, dropping the scout (they should have kept it) and various other lower sales items to facilitate focus on the "core models" and making them better.

maybe in a few more years we'll see the models that were dropped brought back in limited production. or maybe even a return of the 99 using CNC production techniques.

[pm2790]

To address your specific situation- A four year old rifle. The button rifled barrels tend to be uniformly good, with consistent accuracy. Wood stock may need to be bedded/free floated. Shoot first and see if this needs to be done. Synthetic stocks tend toward 'floppy'. Sometimes can affect accuracy. Again, try it first. Trigger will not be Accu-Trigger (Introduced 2003). Depending on the model of Leupold scope, you are getting the rifle for $150 to $250. Sounds like a decent deal.

[Jim K]

Hi, Todd3465,

The rifle you are thinking about was the probably the Model 340, an inexpensive bolt action made from 1950-1985. It was fairly successful in terms of sales, but was never more than an low-level economy rifle for hunters who could not afford or did not appreciate quality guns. There were a couple of other Savage CF bolt actions pre-WWII, notably the Savage 1920 and the Model 40. Both are quite rare today and the 1920 has a decent collector value.

The Savage 99 was dropped for the same reason so many other good rifles fell by the wayside - it was machined out of solid steel and simply cost more to make than it could possibly sell for. As for quality, the 99 suffered a bit toward the end, but quality was never really bad. The old guns were, like most guns of the 1900-1940 era, made like watches.

Jim

[DigMe]

Hey, thanks pm2790! That's very helpful!

brad cook