Funny how the Savage is "not proven" as the 110 was introduced 4 years before the 700 (1958 for the Savage, 1962 for the 700). Now, arguably, the 721 which the 700 evolved from is the older design, appearing in 1948, but in any case, with the 110 design being almost 50 years old, calling it unproven is silly. Also, there is nothing in the design of either rifle that can justify calling the Remington the rifle with the most potential. That implies that with money, a Remington can be made better than any Savage. That doesn't float. They are both tubular steel receivers with a seperate recoil lug wedged between the barrel and the action. Bedding will be identical for the two. The bolts are both forward-locking with dual opposed lugs.
Indeed, even the barrel lock up can be the same. There is nothing in this world that says the Savage 110 must use the barrel nut. A traditional shoulder as on the Remington can easily be used on the Savage. For that matter, a locking-nut design can be used on the Remington (have to inlet a stock, of course).
But, in my opinion, the Savage can be better tuned to a specific load than the Remington. Head space can be adjusted with the barrel to an exact load used by the shooter. That cannot be easily done by the Remington.
In any case, I think I would take the Savage over the Remington because the Savage has a superior gas baffle system over the Remington, is easier to fully customize at home (no gunsmithing on it at all), is capable of perfecting head space adjustments, and there are some very high-quality stocks for the Savage just like the Remington. The fact that the greater variety of after-market parts is meaningless if the best parts are available for both rifles.
Ash
