In this corner the Savage Scout, In this corner, the Ruger Frontier.

[danweasel]

I have a question that I'm sure someone will jump on me for asking but hell, I read something that made sense the other day on here. Why not get the most current up to date answer to your question?

Anyways, If someone doesn't tell me which is better, a Savage Scout or a Ruger Frontier (both new, and both about $550) then I am seriously going to flip out! As far as background on this, I have pretty much made up my mind on a scout type rifle. I know all about the purists "these are not scout rifles" arguments and whatnot. The thing is, this is what I can afford and it is also my first rifle. I like the idea of the long eye relief because I really like shooting the holo/red dot style optics on some peoples M4s. I will be mounting a 2.5x scope immediately i suppose. I am going with .308 due to availiblity and I like it's size/power as far as having just onerifle goes.

In a semi-related question, what else would I need to buy to mount the scope? Or does it come with the stuff?

I really appreciate all the feedback I expect to get (does that sentencemake sense?). I can honestly say that I joined this forum to ask a question about an XD I bought and expected to be my only gun, but the answers I got back were so great I have become a gun enthusiast not just an owner.

Thanks again fellas,

Dan

 

[ECVMatt]

I have the Ruger and love it.

It shoots really well and it light and fast. It comes with two types of mount so you can use the standard Ruger Rings or use a Weaver style base. I think the Savage requires you to supply the rings.

I prefer the Ruger to Savages. I just think they are a more stout rifle. I have had really good luck with many Ruger Rifles. I have had very poor luck with Savages. Lots of folks will chime in on the Savage side though too.

The Savage does come with rifle sights is that is import to you. The Ruger can be modified to take M-14 mags with little alteration, which is kind of cool if you are into that.

I would go to a store and pick both up. See which one fits you the best. That is the one I would get.

 

[danweasel]

Thanks Matt,

I see that you are a memeber of The Ancient and Honorable Order. My good buddy is too, up in Nevada City, CA. Good stuff. Well I appreciate the feedback. Thanks again,

Dan

 

[ArmedBear]

The Ruger is a bit heavier, and the barrel is 4.25" shorter. If you really want the shortest possible barrel, the Ruger has it. If you want better velocity, the Savage does.

The Savage actually is a Scout Rifle, if you care about that sort of BS. It has all the spec's, AFAIK, like the sights and a detachable mag. The Ruger just has a forward-mounted scope. Depends what you want.

The Savage's trigger is pretty nice, it comes with sights and a sling, you could shoot it the day you bought it. I'd venture that it will likely be more accurate, but you never know for sure.

The Ruger comes with rings. It also comes in stainless, for an even higher price. It has a hinged floorplate.

I kinda like the stainless Ruger, but for a really versatile rifle, I might lean towards the Savage.

 

[rbernie]

Ruger seems to be discontinuing the Frontier, and most places right now are selling them for under $500.

I prefer the CRF of the Ruger and have no need for a DM or iron sights. That's why I have two Ruger Frontiers and zero of the Savage Scouts.

 

[ArmedBear]

I've read mixed reviews of the "controlled" round feed of the Ruger and how well it really holds the cartridge. I have not tried it myself.

Have you ever torture-tested yours, rbernie?

 

[nitestocker]

ive owned all types of rifles ruger savage winchester remington and mauser im not sure but i think the ruger has a claw extractor which is good i but the savage is most likley more accurate most savages are very accurate and have nice triggers and lighter plus they come with sights which is a big plus in alaska i would go with 3006 if they make it in that rifle better to reload imho

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Slam Dunk: Get the Savage.

 

[rbernie]

I've read mixed reviews of the "controlled" round feed of the Ruger and how well it really holds the cartridge. I have not tried it myself.
Have you ever torture-tested yours, rbernie?

Depends on your definition.

I have practiced slow and rapid feeding with a Ruger 77 Mk II rifle held vertically, inverted, and at a ninty degree angle to both sides. I have done this with the rifle stationary and while vigorously shaking the rifle. For each orientation, I tried full-stroke feeds and extracts as well as short-stroke partial feeds. In each test, the rifle picked up the top round round in the magazine, fed, and extracted as expected.

This may sound like a strange thing to try, but I was comparing the action of some No4Mk1s, small-ring Mausers, Remmie 700s, and a couple of Rugers a while back and decided that this would be a useful thing to observe. It was a slow weekend, I guess.

Slam Dunk: Get the Savage.

Do you have either, from which you can form a solid opinion, or is this an editorialization based upon paper specs or brand preferences?

 

[ArmedBear]

This may sound like a strange thing to try, but I was comparing the action of some No4Mk1s, small-ring Mausers, Remmie 700s, and a couple of Rugers a while back and decided that this would be a useful thing to observe. It was a slow weekend, I guess

Not a strange thing to do. I tried this with my push-feed hunting boltie before taking it out in the field last fall.

It fed fine except when held upside-down at a 45 degree angle, with the rifle turned so that the ejection side of the action was facing down, or within 45 degrees of down. Then, it dumped the round on the floor.

It does sound like the CRF does something better than a push-feed.

 

[s2brutus]

And why, pray tell, would it matter if your rifle could feed upside down or not?



In my estimation, the more classic Mauser-style extractor of the Ruger is more important for.......

(drum roll please)

EXTRACTION!!!

 

[ArmedBear]

And why, pray tell, would it matter if your rifle could feed upside down or not?

Well, one of the places we were hunting this year -- tough to do after the fires closed most areas to all access -- was at the end of a really steep game trail, near the top of the steep side of a large canyon. We sat against a boulder, with some brush as natural cover. It gave us a good field of view, overlooking a lot of other game trails with a lot of sign. But it was precarious, and we were sitting in weird positions between rocks and brush.

Anyway, I didn't plan to hold the gun upside down, but it could happen, and I wanted to know exactly what odd positions would feed okay, and which ones were not viable.

Here, we don't hunt from stands, with or without HVAC, cable TV and coffee makers. And we're lucky to see a deer. Yes, it is uphill both ways...

WRT extraction, that's not why people worry about CRF. CRF stands for Controlled-Round Feed. Push-feed Remingtons, Weatherbys, etc. have not been known for extraction problems, to the best of my knowledge. Some people prefer the more solid and reliable CRF for feeding.

 

[.38 Special]

I have the Savage, and I have a number of Rugers with the same action as the Frontier.

The Savage has not been very accurate, which makes it unusual in my experience. The biggest problem, IMO, is the outrageously bad stock. From the factory it was pressing against the side of the barrel and when fired would audibly "slap" the barrel. Free floating it made it worse. Eventually I cut it away from the barrel for nearly a quarter of an inch, then hogged out the forend and glassed in a piece of heavy fiberglass fishing rod. This looks like absolute hell but has taken the rifle from 4" groups to 1.5". Still not great, but acceptable, for this type of rifle.

The Savage is, BTW, not a true Scout, according to no less than Jeff Cooper.

I have always had good luck with Ruger, and know that they make reasonably accurate rifles with solid stocks. My only complaint with the Ruger is that the laminated stock weighs more than it should for a Scout rifle. Were I to buy one, I would look into replacing the stock, myself.

I don't think the CRF business is important at all. In my experience a properly tuned rifle feeds reliably whether it's CRF or push feed. An improperly tuned rifle will be unreliable regardless of action type. As for feeding upside down, well, I won't debate the importance of that, but I will mention that most of the rifles in my collection will do it, push feed or not.

My vote goes for the Ruger. I'm a die-hard Savage fan, but I think Ruger makes a better quality rifle in general, which is normally reflected in the price. If the pricetags you're looking at are about the same for the Savage vs. the Ruger, I'd take the Ruger every time.

HTH!

 

[ArmedBear]

What did Cooper say about the Savage Scout?

(Not that it would matter to me in the least when making a purchase decision; I'm just curious...)

I'm looking at the regular Savage for a hunting rifle (Weather Warrior in .308, probably). Are all the synthetic stocks that bad, or do most of them free-float the barrel without issues?

 

[.38 Special]

If memory serves -- I'm pretty sure this was in a "Cooper's corner" column from a long time ago -- he complained that the gun didn't make weight, didn't make length, didn't hold enough ammunition, and had a really crummy trigger.

Honestly, I think Cooper's main issue was simply that it wasn't a Steyr. His tone, IIRC, was a bit sneering. As you note, I think his opinion on the matter was/is only important to the acolytes. The rest of us can judge the rifle on merit.

On the subject of stocks, IMO the Savage synthetic stocks range from barely acceptable to utter garbage. This really lets down what is otherwise a very good rifle, as far as I am concerned. The Savages that I have enjoyed either came with wood stocks or had the factory synthetics replaced soon after purchase. Unfortunately, I never found a replacement for the Scout.

In all seriousness, I would not have bought the Savage had the Ruger been available at the time, at least if the prices had been anywhere near the same. I have no doubt that, with the correct (read: light) aftermarket stock the Ruger will make one of the finest general-purpose rifles available.

 

[Trumpet]

Instead of dumping a fair amount of cash into a platform you haven't really tried yet, do this; buy a Mosin M44 carbine, and mount a scope "scout style" to that. If it works for you, then proceed with the scout plan. If not, take the scope off, keep the M44 (a whopping $65-ish) and buy a conventional short barreled bolt action and call it a day.

 

[AK103K]

I have an early Savage Scout. Like all the other Savage riffles I've owned, its been well beyond reasonably accurate, especially for the type of rifle it is. On numerous occasions, I've fired 1"-1.5", 20 round groups with it at 100 yards, using my reloads, off a bipod. Not that thats what its meant for, but its capable of that kind of accuracy.

I've also owned a number of Ruger rifles, and except for my stock 10/22, none were what I'd call accurate. Every Ruger product I've ever owned came with a crappy trigger that required additional work to be serviceable, and I'm not a trigger sissy either. Most all of them sure were pretty though.

Without hesitation, I'd take the Savage if given the choice. Its not perfect, but then again, rarely is anything.

There are a couple of things Savage could do better....

I know a lot of people seem to bitch about Savages stocks, but other than the recoil pad, my stocks were never an issue. What is annoying, they dont offer a butt plate. I HATE recoil pads and theirs is sticky to boot, so you have to fit your own.

Since it is a "Scout", they could install the third sling point, or at the very least, throw the stud in the box, so you can do it yourself, but they dont.

The B Square scope mount is a little cheesy. It does work, but this would be the only thing I would give to Ruger over it, as theirs is a better set up.

Mine has the detachable mag, which I understand the new ones dont. They did/do only give you one mag with the gun, and you need to by spares if you want one. Again, I've heard complaints that the spares need to be fitted at the factory, but mine was never an issue. It works like the one that came with the gun. I REALLY would like to see them put a stripper bridge, and one that handled Mauser strippers would be even better. I would much prefer the strippers over a mag, and a Scout is set up to use them. Actually, it would be nice if all the major makers offered them.

Here's mine, with is Leupold Scout scope and Galco Ching sling, and a cheap butt cuff.

 

[jmr40]

I've never owned or shot the Ruger Frontier but just sold one of the new Savage Scout Rifles about a month ago. I bought one and used it for a few weeks and found I did not care for the scout concept so I sold it.

The new Savage scout rifles do come with the accutrigger now and uses the new detachable magazine. If you want you can remove the scout rail and peep sight and mount a scope over the receiver. Accuracy with mine was acceptable, around 1-1/2" at 100 yards. With a scope mounted conventionally.

Savage advertises the Scout at 6 1/4 lbs but my scales said 7+ lbs. The old scout used a different magazine and aluminum or plastic bottom metal. The new gun uses steel bottom metal and triggerguard. I'm sure this is why the weight difference. Savage needs to update their website since changing their rifles. This will be seen as a great improvement to many but put the gun overweight for my uses. I don't have a Ruger to actually weigh, but regardless of what the website says they weigh, the Ruger is probably lighter.

AK103K, Reading your comments on the Savage stock I think you would be pleased with the newly designed Savage stock that was on my Scout. Very good recoil pad and better feeling stock than on the old guns.

This is a close call and I will not suggest one over the other, just report what I know. Other than being heavier than I wanted I had no real complaints with the Savage. I like the longer 20" barrel and the full size stock better than the Rugers 16" barrel and short LOP stock. I like that Ruger can be had in stainless and like the Ruger action better.

 

[rbernie]

My triggers have all been acceptable (better than an AR15 USGI trigger but not nearly as good as a tuned Timney), the furniture pretty decent (and nicely fitted), and I give props to Ruger for including both integral rings and a Weaver rail for there forearm scope mount.

This is my 7mm08; I also have a 308 that's its twin. If I had to make do with only one rifle in all the world, it would probably be the 308 version of the Frontier.

I only wish they made them in 358 while they were at it.

 

[ArmedBear]

They make them in .358 now, or at least they claim to.

http://ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdRes...Grey%AE%20Frontier%20Rifle&bct=Yes&type=Rifle

 

[Thefabulousfink]

The Ruger has the benefit of being able to take M-14 mags:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=336733&highlight=ruger+frontier

 

[rbernie]

They make them in .358 now, or at least they claim to.

Man, o man, I've gotta get me one of those!

One final thought on the trigger.

If you're used to bench quality triggers and you spend most of your time shooting from a rest, then the Ruger trigger will undoubtedly disappoint. But if you spend most of your shootin' time in a field-expedient position, then the Ruger trigger is actually your friend; reasonably crisp but not so light as to cause issues when trying to line up an out-of-breath dang-that-thing-is-moving-fast shot for which a carbine-length rifle is so aptly suited.

 

[35 Whelen]

I own neither as I built my Scout Rifle on a Mauser action. But IMHO, the Ruger doesn't even come close to being a Scout. #1 problem is no back-up sights. #2 problem is no detachable magazine. #3 problem (for me personally) is the ridiculously short 16.5" barrel.
And unless Ruger has changed their rifle design in the last few years, they are NOT controlled feed. With a controlled feed type rifle, the cartridge rim is under the bolt claw well before the csrtridge enters the chamber. I own 4 or 5 older Rugers and was dismayed to find that they are not controlled feed after assuming for years they were given the large claw type ectractor.
35W

 

[rbernie]

I own 4 or 5 older Rugers and was dismayed to find that they are not controlled feed after assuming for years they were given the large claw type ectractor.

The tang safety models are not CRF, but the MkII models are.

 

[s2brutus]

WRT extraction, that's not why people worry about CRF. CRF stands for Controlled-Round Feed. Push-feed Remingtons, Weatherbys, etc. have not been known for extraction problems, to the best of my knowledge. Some people prefer the more solid and reliable CRF for feeding.

Yes, I know what CRF stands for, so go talk down to someone else.

The point is, was the - according to some folks - over-large Mauser extractor designed by Mauser primarily for CRF or for more positive extraction?

I contend that foremost on Mauser's mind was more positive extraction, particularly under the stresses of combat, and in consideration of spotty ammo quality and cleanliness. CRF pretty much became a necessity of the design due to the large size of the extractor, not the other way around. Having to slam an extractor of that size over the rim of the round on every feed cycle would be bad on the rifle and the ammo, thus, the aspect of CRF, while a necessary design consideration, was still a secondary consideration owing to the over-large Mauser extractor.

While CRF is an integral part of the design, it is STILL secondary to the purpose of a large, Mauser-style extractor, which is to EXTRACT.