General Factory Rifle Opinions

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Big_Sloppy75

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
46
Recently I have been saving all my cash and been looking to buy a new rifle, as any good American should. I hope it isn't too ignorant to ask, but what is your general experience/preferences in factory rifles, if any. Lately I've really been reading into Savage, and I am hard-pressed to find many complaints people have. I really want a solid paper puncher, but I like to hunt big game too, so weight is also a concern. All types of shooters please offer any wisdom!
 
Last edited:
I'm a fan of Savage, but I also appreciate any well made rifle. I'll tell you the major complaints people have about Savage: They're heavier than comparable rifles and they're not exactly beauty queens. But they are usually exceptionally accurate, especially when compared to rifles of similar cost.

You'll probably get a lot more informed opinion if you can give us an idea what you intend to do with the rifle, as form usually follows function. Many rifles are purpose built and you'll be unhappy (usually) with a rifle unsuitable for the use you intend. For example, a fifteen pound benchrest rifle is hardly a good choice for elk hunting. Also, a seven pound .338 Winchester Magnum is too much gun for coyote. You get the idea.
 
For several years, one of my biggest considerations is the trigger. I spent too much money on trigger work. Savage has their Accutriger. I have 3 of them.
 
I also love the Accu-Trigger. It just feels right. Honestly, I've overlooked CZ. I'll check them out
 
I've got the perfect rifle for you. Well, maybe not, only you can decide that. But I'll give you my opinion.

A .308 bolt action will fill your need well. Accuracy is generally good from any of the reputable makers. Look at some you might not have heard about, too. Tikka and Sako have been putting out some very nice rifles for decent prices lately. Of course Savage, Ruger, Remington, etc. are all still available.

The .308 can be thought of as a short action rifle that will do 80% or more of what a .30-"06 will do in a long action rifle. This saves you length and weight. Not a lot of either one, but a little. It will cleanly take game from coyotes to deer to black bear. Brown bear or the really big herbivores (elk, moose, etc.) need bullets heavier than the .308 can reliably stabilize or deliver with high enough velocity and low enough chamber pressure. If you plan to hunt them, the .308 isn't your ticket.
 
My thoughts on Savage are there's nothing Ruger doesn't make that isn't better for just a bit more money.

Savage has it's place being the lowest price newly manufactured bolt action rifles on the market, but I think what you get with a Ruger is worth the extra cost.
 
If I were in the market for a new rifle I would be looking primarily at Ruger and CZ.
 
this will probably angry some, but id avoid remington at all costs, everything they or freedom group or cerberus company owns has turned to crap.. savage i like a lot though, so easy to work on yourself too
 
And I was just going to suggest any older Remington 700. There are a large variety of them made over the years.

The only issue they have had is the trigger, which is prone to malfunction due to owners overlubricating it with the wrong stuff which causes parts to stick to each other. That has nothing to do with the quality of the barrel and bolt, which have been selected for use in the American military as the platform to build sniper rifles - used since Vietnam.

No, they aren't crap and those who complain about it are only noting some recent issues. Many own them, they aren't flooding the market at a discount to get rid of them, and even more are not sending them in for new triggers. not that many bothered to change them out for a Timney or other in the first place. If the trigger is at issue a newer precision one for paper would be in order anyway.

Keep them in mind and worry about the bore and overall condition, which is far more important. Buying New! may not be the best choice, and a 700 from ten to fifteen years back isn't junk.

Haters are going to hate.
 
A common misconception of Savage rifles is that are more accurate than other brands. That is not my observation. Many years ago all guns were basically built by hand and very careful machining and hand fitting was required to build an accurate rifle. Savage was the first to develop a design that could be built by far less skilled workers and still give the same accuracy and at a much reduced cost.

With traditional rifle designs any errors in machining or assembly resulted in an inaccurate rifle. Due to the Savage design you almost never get one that is a poor shooting rifle. But never any better than anything else as long as the others were properly built. I think it was fair to say several years ago that you'd be much less likely to find a poor shooting Savage than a poor shooting rifle made by anyone else.

But most manufacturers today are using modern CNC machines to manufacture rifles and they are now building rifles that are just accurate as any Savage ever was. They are building a much better looking rifles and selling comparable rifles for less than Savage is. Savage is no longer the value leader, although other than being butt-ugly I can't find any real negatives to them.
 
Big Sloppy;

Based on some experience over the years, I'd suggest you look at both CZ and Tikka. And, for the versatility, I'd also suggest the .30-06. If weight is a major consideration, the CZ550 will weigh more than the Tikka T-3. If recoil is paramount, then the heftier CZ would tend to mitigate that. Between the two, accuracy will depend on the individual gun I'd think. Either can be outstandingly accurate, but that has several variables. Doing all the ammo testing with nothing but factory ammo can be rather expensive if you want to shoot the widest range of options available. Handloading allows you to: vary the ammunition to suit the gun, control the amount of ammo needed to determine if the load suits, but is somewhat expensive for start-up costs.

The CZ550 will have an internal magazine in most cases I believe. The Tikka has detachable magazines. Both methods have their fans and detractors. I've used both methods & really don't care, both work well. Tikka offers a wider range of models than CZ, including stainless variants and those with rather nice wood stocks. I'll suggest going to both manufacturer's websites and taking the time for a good look around both of them.

900F
 
I'm with meanmrmustard, tikka in .308. You can go to a 6.5 creedmoor if your heart so desires after shooting the .308 for a bit, but the .308 has plenty of killing power for anything in the lower 48. People around here still give their kids .243's for their first guns to hunt elk with. A .308 will do just fine ;)
 
Truth tellers statement is insane. Ruger uses cast actions and can't be as strong as a machined one... and the only ruger I have found to be accurate are their rimfires... I am savage all the way! I have 3...
 
farmerboy78 said:
Ruger uses cast actions and can't be as strong as a machined one...
Click to expand...

Not this again... That's total hogwash, a well done casting can be just as strong as a machined part. Ruger does excellent castings, their recievers are way stronger than they need to be.

As for the OP, I'd second a Tikka T3, probably in .308, much nicer action than the Savage, usually just as accurate.
 
Gtscotty said:
Not this again... That's total hogwash, a well done casting can be just as strong as a machined part. Ruger does excellent castings, their recievers are way stronger than they need to be.

As for the OP, I'd second a Tikka T3, probably in .308, much nicer action than the Savage, usually just as accurate.
Click to expand...
I think the "cast receivers are weak" myth comes, at least in part, from the cast National Ordnance 1903 receivers that were prone to failure. There are some other early cast receivers that had similar issues, but I can't remember them off the top of my head.

Matt
 
A cast receiver isn't as strong as a forged one. But they are NEVER made "just good enough". Suppose a forged receiver is three times as strong as it needs to be. Does that mean that a cast receiver is only twice as strong as it needs to be? Moot point.

I'm not a Ruger follower, but I'm not going to bash them for a perfectly legitimate manufacturing process.
 
1911 guy said:
A cast receiver isn't as strong as a forged one. But they are NEVER made "just good enough". Suppose a forged receiver is three times as strong as it needs to be. Does that mean that a cast receiver is only twice as strong as it needs to be? Moot point.

I'm not a Ruger follower, but I'm not going to bash them for a perfectly legitimate manufacturing process.
Click to expand...

Well put. Don't throw out Ruger even though they use cast parts. Ruger is well known for cast parts that exceed requirements.

Get a Tikka 308.
 
farmerboy78 said:
Truth tellers statement is insane. Ruger uses cast actions and can't be as strong as a machined one... and the only ruger I have found to be accurate are their rimfires... I am savage all the way! I have 3...
Click to expand...
Oh, we got a Savage fanboy indahouse.

Ruger uses machined, hardened steel vee blocks to bed the barrel to the stock and is very precise. Savage uses shrouds, which is not as strong. This is just one of the things Ruger does better for a little more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top