Savage Model 42


PDA






mcmurry
February 10, 2014, 01:26 AM
I wasn't really sure if this belongs in the shotgun or the rifle forum. What's the general take on the Savage model 42? The gun marketed towards youth with either a .22lr or .22wmr on top and a .410 underneath. Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Savage Model 42" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
plumberroy
February 10, 2014, 06:04 AM
I have had one in my hands . I don't think it is worth the asking price

jaguarxk120
February 10, 2014, 08:16 AM
I also looked at one, It's a shame what some gun makers try to sell as guns today.

You are farther ahead to look for a used/pre-owned Model 24, there is a collector following for them.

MikeJackmin
February 10, 2014, 10:01 AM
The old versions of these guns were well-liked, and used ones offered for sale are usually pricey. I have yet to hear anything good about the new version.

rule303
February 10, 2014, 01:27 PM
Savage makes some really nice guns at a fair price, but the 42 isn't one of them IMO.

mcmurry
February 11, 2014, 12:21 AM
Thanks y'all, I thought it might make a decent squirrel/rabbit/snake gun.

Jason_W
February 11, 2014, 06:23 AM
I don't know why they made the 42 as hideous and unpleasant to the touch as they did.

The Chiappia Little Badger and Baikal MP 94 are both much nicer .410/.22s in terms of aesthetics and ergonomics. Haven't fired any of them so I can't speak to their mechanical reliability.

Onmilo
February 11, 2014, 09:50 AM
I have one of the 42s in .22lr .410
I was a bit skeptical about the gun and it took some fiddling with but turns out to be a decent shooter after all.

jaguarxk120
February 11, 2014, 10:18 AM
Mcmurry save your money and buy a nice Model 24 in 22/410.

There's one guy on a forum that signs off with "Life is too short to hunt with a ugly gun."

He is so right, when hunting carrying a gun the you really like make the hunt that more enjoyable.

JSH1
February 12, 2014, 12:15 AM
I've never handled one but I've general read two opinions on them. The people that purchased one like it and recommend it. Then there are the people on internet forums that say they are ugly, cheap and plastic and you should save up for a Model 24. Just remember that 50 years ago the Model 24's that people are going crazy over today were thought of as a plain-Jane utilitarian gun.

mnrivrat
February 12, 2014, 12:30 AM
The market is there for the little combo guns, but not at that price. With modern machinery/manufacturing, and a decent design they should be able to market these for less that $300 at full retail.

No excuse for crappy quality either. With laser alignment the barrels should be able to shoot together well, and with proper design and manufacturing, the lines should be pleasing, and the fit and finish need not be sloppy.

Somebody ought to take those college boy designers and spank them until they learn some practical lessons about guns. Until then, they should stick with designing toasters, and door knobs.

perpster
February 12, 2014, 03:06 AM
The 42 is way overpriced and fugly. Look for a 24 instead.

paintballdude902
February 12, 2014, 07:28 AM
if i was gonna buy a combo gun it would have to be either a .357/20ga or a .30-30/20

i dont have any interest in a .22/.410 and think either of the about would be a great do it all camp gun or survival rifle. id really like a .44 special or .45 colt over 20ga

herrwalther
February 12, 2014, 01:21 PM
My wife is interested in the 42 as a backpack gun if she can't get her hands on her dream pack gun: the M6 Scout. The 42 runs for about 300 in these parts which is the only thing she likes about it over the M6.

rbernie
February 12, 2014, 01:25 PM
Locally, they're selling for $460 or so. That seems high to me for what you get. I also am not sure that I understand the construction of the 22LR breechface; it looked and felt like plastic and showed dry fire peening that I could not see being easily ironed.

savanahsdad
February 12, 2014, 02:02 PM
I've never handled one but I've general ready two opinions on them. The people that purchased one like it and recommend it. Then there are the people on internet forums that say they are ugly, cheap and plastic and you should save up for a Model 24. Just remember that 50 years ago the Model 24's that people are going crazy over today were thought of as a plain-Jane utilitarian gun.
plain-Jane ?.... I have two of them , the 22lr/410 has a case harden receiver checkered for-end and stock with nice dark hard wood , with white spacers under recoil pad and pistol grip cap, , the 22lr/20ga is a bit plain , but even that one has the game-scene stamped on the receiver , love my mod 24's , if you gave me a mod42 I'd sell it and buy a mod 24 ,

so +1 on "life is to short to hunt with an ugly gun "

JSH1
February 12, 2014, 03:24 PM
plain-Jane ?.... I have two of them , the 22lr/410 has a case harden receiver checkered for-end and stock with nice dark hard wood , with white spacers under recoil pad and pistol grip cap, , the 22lr/20ga is a bit plain , but even that one has the game-scene stamped on the receiver , love my mod 24's , if you gave me a mod42 I'd sell it and buy a mod 24

I sounds like you have some nice looking guns. Savage did make some nicely detailed model 24's with checkered walnut stocks and such. However, it is my understanding that the volume models where the "field grade" and camper models that had plain "walnut finished" stocks. I would have a very difficult time walking through the thickets hunting with your deluxe model 24. On the other hand I wouldn't give a second thought to doing that with a Model 42 with a synthetic stock. I purchase guns for utility not looks and think $300 is a fair price for the Model 42. Of course I have a H&R single shot so I already hunt with an "ugly" gun.

Onmilo
February 12, 2014, 07:01 PM
Some folks buy guns to shoot and some folks buy guns because they look pretty,,,
The 42 shoots better than any of several older 24s I have shot over the years.
The two M6 guns I owned were atrocious in comparison.

JSH1
February 12, 2014, 10:28 PM
Some folks buy guns to shoot and some folks buy guns because they look pretty,,,
Very true and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For some people nothing but metal and wood will do. I like the look of nice wood stocks but appreciate the practicality of synthetics.

I like the Model 42 but I'm looking for a 22LR over 20 gauge.

Onmilo
February 12, 2014, 11:25 PM
Word I keep hearing is Savage has plans in works for the 42 in .22/20 guage.

LemmyCaution
February 13, 2014, 03:09 PM
Word I keep hearing is Savage has plans in works for the 42 in .22/20 guage.


Make it .357mag/20ga or .30wcf/20ga, and I'm curious. Make the synthetic stock less incongruously 'aerodynamic' (read: butt ugly) and I'm interested.

Or, screw it, just give me a plain old model 24 in the above calibers.

JSH1
February 14, 2014, 12:01 AM
The Baikal MP 94 is available in additional combinations.

http://eaacorp.com/portfolio-item/mp94-series-combo-shotgunrifle/

Onmilo
February 14, 2014, 12:50 PM
The Baikals are nice guns.
Problem is they also weigh more than they need to.
My Savage runs just at five pounds and the Baikals are one and a half to two pounds heavier.
Centerfires are even heavier.

jaguarxk120
February 14, 2014, 05:48 PM
We are talking about the Savage 42, but Baikals do offer a O/U that's a 30-06/12 gauge. That makes one heck of a stalking gun.

Onmilo
February 14, 2014, 07:48 PM
Baikal offers the O/u in 12 or 16 guage and 7.62X54 as well as 9.3X54, both excellent cartridges for the platform.
Unfortunately EAA does not import these calibers

jaguarxk120
February 14, 2014, 08:05 PM
The Savage Model 24 in 22/410 gauge is still one of the best small game gun around.

DM~
February 14, 2014, 10:22 PM
Waay too many people worry about how they look, INSTEAD of how well they are regulated! I've had 4 or 5 24's and not one was "properly" regulated! I don't care how good they "look", if i have to aim over there to hit over here, it's no good to me!

I've looked at the new models, they do look cheap, but are they regulated properly??? Only time will tell that, if they are regulated like the 24's, i have no use for one at all!

DM

JSH1
February 14, 2014, 11:46 PM
The Baikals are nice guns. Problem is they also weigh more than they need to. My Savage runs just at five pounds and the Baikals are one and a half to two pounds heavier. Centerfires are even heavier.

That is one of the nice things about the synthetic stock on the Model 42. Plastic is lighter than wood.

I've looked at the new models, they do look cheap, but are they regulated properly???

The reviews that I have read say both barrels shoot to the same point of aim.

Onmilo
February 15, 2014, 04:12 AM
The barrels were NOT regulated to the same point of aim/ point of impact on my Savage 42 but the fix was easy enough.
The shotgun barrel was spot on with the factory regulated sights and the .22 barrel hit way too high at the same distance.
The fix was to deepen the rear sight notch until I brought the .22 barrel into regulation with the front sight aligned to the bottom of the sight notch.
I set my sights to poa/poi at 35 Meters since this distance is about maximum for the .410 and with the factory setting of the sights, the .410 center patterned well from 5 yards to that golden 35 meters.

You can set the rimfire sight notch depth to any distance desired by the old tried and true shoot and file method but I long ago learned a .22 regulated to 35 meters and accurate enough will keep all shots within a squirrels body cavity from 10 yards to 60 yards which is about as far out as I am willing to shoot with iron sights.

Now I simply align the front sight to the top of the rear sight notch for the shot barrel and settle the front "Bead" into the bottom of the rear sight notch when shooting the rimfire barrel.
A simple and easy fix.

Bibbyman
February 15, 2014, 09:12 AM
If money was no object and I felt I needed a foul weather gun to take trapping, hiking, or something, I'd consider it. I have an old 24 20g/22 that I wouldn't trade for as many of the 42s I could pack off.

FSJeeper
February 16, 2014, 04:06 PM
I had an old 24 growing up. While I have fond memories of it, I do remember it not being a tack driver and the trigger was remarkably bad. As someone mentioned before, these were low budget utility guns and were not highly valued in the day. I remember these being routinely $100 guns at gun shows and were trade material often. 25 years ago or so I traded mine off for a Swedish 94 Carbine and now have wished I had kept the 24 for its utility value. Actually, I wish more I had kept the 94.

While looking for a 24 at the gun show today in Houston, everything was around $500 and one was $750. Absolutely fricking ridiculous prices for something I do not think comes close to those used prices. I was thinking I would buy at $200-$250 max.

Saw the Savage 42 in both 22 mag and 22lr with .410 and snapped up the 22 lr version for $350.

Got it home and started messing with it messing with it and have come to the following conclusions:

1. It is lighter and handier than I remember the 24 ever being.
2. Trigger is much better.
3. The mechanism is more basic than the 24, which in itself is not a bad thing for a survival type gun, but the quality is definitely less as well as the fit and finish of the action.
4. The sights are complete crap and in my opinion Savage should recall all of the 42's and provide basic steel sites at least like the 24 used to have to avoid a massive class action lawsuit for the biggest POS gun site engineering mistake in the history of firearms.

I am going to come up with a solution for the sites and then start putting this thing through the paces and see what it can do.

If you enjoyed reading about "Savage Model 42" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!