Savage 110 / Remington 700 ADL
- Thread starter Arizonagunrunner
- Start date
- Status
I'd call that a Franken rifle, not a "custom."
I'll concede that the 114 is pretty nice for a Savage but it's just one model in an ocean of matte black, hardwood and synthetic... Plus it still has that same long, homely looking receiver and an ugly barrel nut… On the 114 “Classic” Savage should have turned a shoulder on the barrel and screwed it on without the nut and it would have improved appearances. But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and as I said previously, buyers tastes have changed....
Kachok
Member
I like the barrel nut, it does not visually offend me and it gives me the most precise headspacing possible.
Nothing wrong with making your own custom, the Mauser guys have done that forever. I am going to "Franken rifle" my 270 WSM, it is one of the very few Savage bolt actions I have ever seen that has the iron sights on it, no rifle looks right with iron and plastic so I am going to give it a checkered walnut stock.
Yeah for every attractive 114 you see out there you are going to find 50 "ugly" black on black budget guns like mine, but the ugly ones shoot great too even with that crappy plastic stock.
Nothing wrong with making your own custom, the Mauser guys have done that forever. I am going to "Franken rifle" my 270 WSM, it is one of the very few Savage bolt actions I have ever seen that has the iron sights on it, no rifle looks right with iron and plastic so I am going to give it a checkered walnut stock.
Yeah for every attractive 114 you see out there you are going to find 50 "ugly" black on black budget guns like mine, but the ugly ones shoot great too even with that crappy plastic stock.
Ash
Member
Changing a barrel makes it a frankenrifle? Egads, then every man what changed a barrel, or paid to have one changed, on this forum owns nothing more than a frankenrifle?
The receiver is homely? It's a tubular steel receiver...just like the Remington. The front ring is, well, round. The rear is, well, round. You wish the bolt stuck out more in the back? The nut is just a feature of the rifle, one that allows for more consistent chambering than a Remington has, but also allows the owner to rebarrel at home. It also allows the owner to fine-tune headspace to tailor a certain load to the rifle. These are things not easily done on the Remington, indeed not practical even to pay for in the case of the latter.
Bedding is identical when it comes to either action. The Savage trigger can more safely be adjusted down. If you want a short action, you can get one.
Also, the sea of homely basic Savages does not affect the truth that you can get a nice one without any trouble. All it really does is run the risk of offending the aesthetics of a casual observer not inclined to purchase one. The man who wants a nicely-finished version merely has to select a nice one - it's not hard.
Bush, you prefer the Remington. Great. It is a fine action with many followers and a huge amount of aftermarket support. Some of the best sniper rifles were based on its action in the past. You'd have many good reasons to pick a Remington.
There are many good reasons to pick a Savage, too, and it really boils down, as these kinds of things often do, to a Ford or Chevy preference. As a man who has owned them both, the reality has always been the C1500, regardless of flavor, is equal to the F150.
I prefer Mossberg centerfire rifles from the 1960's and 1970's. My choices, the 800 and 810 (plus their derivatives) is not the common one at all, and my Mossberg has the same barrel/shoulder design as your Remington. I don't actually own a barrel-nut rifle - though I have owned two Savages in the past. I like the four locking lugs, sliding safety, blued finish with iron sights, hinged floorplate, and walnut stock you get with most Mossberg. The fact that Mossberg only made these models for 15 years or so had nothing to do with their quality - they are outstanding rifles and better than a Savage in my opinion - but they were pushed by a shotgun manufacturer that lacked the centerfire rep of Winchester, Remington, Savage, or Interarms. Even so, I'm happy with mine. I prefer mine. I consider mine a better, stronger design than either a Remington or a Savage. All mine have either Redfield or Burris mounts from the 70's, Leupold rings, and either Nikon Monarch or Burris Fullfield II scopes.
Yet I can see the qualities of either the Savage or Remington at the same time. A man cannot possibly go wrong with either a Remington or a Savage. The argument is better spent on what glass to purchase.
Frankly, considering the Savage is cheaper, I recommend the Savage and take the money saved and invest that directly into good glass as that will actually be more important. The extra $80-$150 you invest into glass - and so keeping the prices the same between the rifles - means you will end up with a better shooting combination with the Savage.
The receiver is homely? It's a tubular steel receiver...just like the Remington. The front ring is, well, round. The rear is, well, round. You wish the bolt stuck out more in the back? The nut is just a feature of the rifle, one that allows for more consistent chambering than a Remington has, but also allows the owner to rebarrel at home. It also allows the owner to fine-tune headspace to tailor a certain load to the rifle. These are things not easily done on the Remington, indeed not practical even to pay for in the case of the latter.
Bedding is identical when it comes to either action. The Savage trigger can more safely be adjusted down. If you want a short action, you can get one.
Also, the sea of homely basic Savages does not affect the truth that you can get a nice one without any trouble. All it really does is run the risk of offending the aesthetics of a casual observer not inclined to purchase one. The man who wants a nicely-finished version merely has to select a nice one - it's not hard.
Bush, you prefer the Remington. Great. It is a fine action with many followers and a huge amount of aftermarket support. Some of the best sniper rifles were based on its action in the past. You'd have many good reasons to pick a Remington.
There are many good reasons to pick a Savage, too, and it really boils down, as these kinds of things often do, to a Ford or Chevy preference. As a man who has owned them both, the reality has always been the C1500, regardless of flavor, is equal to the F150.
I prefer Mossberg centerfire rifles from the 1960's and 1970's. My choices, the 800 and 810 (plus their derivatives) is not the common one at all, and my Mossberg has the same barrel/shoulder design as your Remington. I don't actually own a barrel-nut rifle - though I have owned two Savages in the past. I like the four locking lugs, sliding safety, blued finish with iron sights, hinged floorplate, and walnut stock you get with most Mossberg. The fact that Mossberg only made these models for 15 years or so had nothing to do with their quality - they are outstanding rifles and better than a Savage in my opinion - but they were pushed by a shotgun manufacturer that lacked the centerfire rep of Winchester, Remington, Savage, or Interarms. Even so, I'm happy with mine. I prefer mine. I consider mine a better, stronger design than either a Remington or a Savage. All mine have either Redfield or Burris mounts from the 70's, Leupold rings, and either Nikon Monarch or Burris Fullfield II scopes.
Yet I can see the qualities of either the Savage or Remington at the same time. A man cannot possibly go wrong with either a Remington or a Savage. The argument is better spent on what glass to purchase.
Frankly, considering the Savage is cheaper, I recommend the Savage and take the money saved and invest that directly into good glass as that will actually be more important. The extra $80-$150 you invest into glass - and so keeping the prices the same between the rifles - means you will end up with a better shooting combination with the Savage.
My point was that changing the barrel and the stock does not make a true "custom" rifle. If it does then every bubba-butchered, "sporterized," milsurp sitting in the pawn shelf rack is really a "custom" rifle too.... Kachoc claimed that the ability to swap barrels and stocks on the Savage eliminates any need for a custom shop. Don't take my comments out of their context and infer that they are broader in scope. Being a Franken rifle isn't necessarily a bad thing but it isn't a custom rifle either.
As I said before, they are both tube stock, but Remington machines off the excess and shapes it a bit so it doesn’t look like a plain tube....
I said it was "nice for a Savage." It also doesn't change the fact that a Savage 11X series with a nicely checkered walnut stock is very atypical.
I'm not just here waving Remington's "Big Green" flag. I don't like or dislike a gun simply because it’s brand X and not brand Y, certainly not in this case. As I said before, I have owned several Savage bolt actions and still own one. I'm also a long time Savage 99 owner and admirer. I think the 99 is the best rifle the company ever made and one of the best lever guns ever. But the OP asked for opinions about the Remington 700 versus the Savage 110. In my opinion, the Savage 110 is over priced and the Remington 700 is a better rifle.
I think the ability to swap barrels is OK but over-rated. It's really a cost cutting feature, an indication of a budget gun. I could put a barrel on a 700 with a locking collar or barrel nut in the same fashion as the Savage if I choose to do so but I don't want to look at the barrel nut so I don't. Marlin (a.k.a Remington or Remlin) uses a barrel nut on the Marlin X7 because it's less expensive to build that way.
I simply think the Remington is a better rifle, as well as better looking. Do I think the Remington is the best looking action out there? No, I think there are better looking actions, the Winchester model 70 being one. But that isn't what the OP asked. Some people also make a big deal out of the Savage Accu-trigger. The Remington 700, unlike the Savage, has had a fully adjustable trigger since it's inception.
Last edited:
Kachok
Member
While the Remington trigger is adjustable it is nowhere near as nice as the Accutrigger, Savages trigger break cleaner then my X-Mark Pro ever did, that said my X-Mark was a respectable trigger and I would in no way feel handicapped hunting with it within real world hunting ranges.
Do Remingtons look better then Savages in general? There was a time I thought so too, but then all the crappy synthetic ADLs, SPSs and the ghastly 770 hit the market. Now if you were to compare rifles from the 70s 80s and 90s Yeah I will concede that one without a fight, Remingtons just did look better.
Do Remingtons look better then Savages in general? There was a time I thought so too, but then all the crappy synthetic ADLs, SPSs and the ghastly 770 hit the market. Now if you were to compare rifles from the 70s 80s and 90s Yeah I will concede that one without a fight, Remingtons just did look better.
Ash
Member
Savage triggers have been adjustable - only in the 1980's did they reduce options due to the legal environment at the time. I had a pre-accutrigger 110FP with an adjustable trigger.
In any case, I can have a Savage for less money every bit as well-made as any Remington. Period. I can also rebarrel it with a traditional barrel with locking shoulder. The nut is cost-saving, but the side affect is considerably more consistent chamber dimensions. All other things are absolutely equal. What it boils down to is a case of aesthetics.
Quite simply, you like the way the Remington looks better than the Savage. That is a good enough opinion. Quality of build is exactly the same on rifles of the same level of fit and finish.
In any case, I can have a Savage for less money every bit as well-made as any Remington. Period. I can also rebarrel it with a traditional barrel with locking shoulder. The nut is cost-saving, but the side affect is considerably more consistent chamber dimensions. All other things are absolutely equal. What it boils down to is a case of aesthetics.
Quite simply, you like the way the Remington looks better than the Savage. That is a good enough opinion. Quality of build is exactly the same on rifles of the same level of fit and finish.
I much prefer Savages and in general out of the various Savages and Remingtons I've shot, I've gotten better accuracy out of the Savages. That said, if I was going to go with a Remington it would be an older one. I wouldn't even consider a new one. I still prefer current day Savages to older Remingtons, but I do like older Remingtons.
Kachok
Member
Alot of the pros and cons of each are subjective stuff, but when you boil it all down to today I would not touch another (new) Remington firearm until they completely revamp their QC department, while Savages are as good as they have ever been. I want another Remington rifle, but you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be one of these new ones with the bolt handle falling off, or unable to chamber a round , or any of the countless other issues that I have seen personally. Think I might go searching the pawn shops or gun shows for an ol 600 Mohawk or 700 BDL from the 70 or 80s back then they were top of their game.
CountryUgly
Member
I've been a Savage shooter for a long time... Most accurate rifle for the money for sure... but I did recently acquire a Remington 700 (first ever) and I was disappointed in its accuracy to start with but it has improved as I've got more familiar with it and it's broken in a little..
savanahsdad
Member
if you were to walk in to my gun room and knew nothing about guns ,you would walk out thinking Savage is a a bolt-gun , Renington is a pump-action ,Ruger is an auto-loader and Marlin is a lever-gun , for the most part.
I do love my Savage Mod24 O/U's I never liked the Rem. bolt guns ,always felt the Savage was better looking, better built , nicer triger (note: I hate the acutrigers, I remove them ) the safty on a Savage feels better , and they just point better , my next pick would be a Win 70. and then a Tika or Sako,
I have a mod 111 , a mod 110 , a mod 11 , and a mod 16 , for many years Savage only made one action, it had to work for long belted mags , down to short actions like a 243win , and it did work (dose work) this helped keep the cost down , and this is the first time I've heard any one say that long action made them look ugly ? I thought the ugly came in when they started putting cheep stocks on them for mass-box-store sales , but didn't Ruger and Rem do the same ? cheep stocks and bead-blast flat black
I do love my Savage Mod24 O/U's I never liked the Rem. bolt guns ,always felt the Savage was better looking, better built , nicer triger (note: I hate the acutrigers, I remove them ) the safty on a Savage feels better , and they just point better , my next pick would be a Win 70. and then a Tika or Sako,
I have a mod 111 , a mod 110 , a mod 11 , and a mod 16 , for many years Savage only made one action, it had to work for long belted mags , down to short actions like a 243win , and it did work (dose work) this helped keep the cost down , and this is the first time I've heard any one say that long action made them look ugly ? I thought the ugly came in when they started putting cheep stocks on them for mass-box-store sales , but didn't Ruger and Rem do the same ? cheep stocks and bead-blast flat black
My 25-06 Savage setting next to me has a 24" barrel.
I've had both Savages and Remingtons. My first priority is accuracy. If I want beauty I'll buy another Browning.
I've only had one Savage that didn't please me and a simple barrel swap fixed that. On the other hand any Remington that wasn't up to snuff , found a new home, usually at a financial loss.
- Status