The Savage Weather Warrior mystery continues ....

[MCMXI]

After installing a beautiful McGowen 1:9 barrel to replace the 1:11.5 twist factory barrel on a Weather Warrior, I decided to order a TPS one-piece 20MOA aluminum base to use with Seekins aluminum rings and a Zeiss Conquest scope. Here's where the plot thickens, Savage actions with round front and round rear are supposed to have the same O.D. front and rear i.e. the top of the receiver is in the same plane. It turns out that the front of the Weather Warrior action is 1/16" lower than the rear!!! This came as a huge surprise to TPS when I called their tech department this morning. They're looking into this as I type. IF Savage changed their action dimensions, they didn't tell anyone else about it. Currently, all one-piece and two-piece rings designed for Savage 10 through 16 work on the assumption that the top of the receiver is level from front to back.

Here's a photo of the TPS base on the Weather Warrior action. The rear screws are lightly snugged down ...notice how far off the front of the base is from the receiver!

 

[JDGray]

Wow.....That blows!! The port reliefs in the rail dont match the port opening either Can you imagine the poor scope that gets tightened up with a two piece base set up in that rifle, buy a person not paying attention to what their doing

 

[rodensouth]

No doubt JD, I'm afraid I might have been the schmuck that snugged them down and had a nice little rainbow to set my scope on!

 

[NCsmitty]

I'm guessing that you did check the TPS with a straight edge to assure that there is no warp in the mount?



NCsmitty

 

[MCMXI]

I'm guessing that you did check the TPS with a straight edge to assure that there is no warp in the mount?

I checked the TPS mount and it's as straight as it can be. The Savage action is also true, but the front of the receiver is 1/16" below the rear of the receiver. This has TPS in a serious state of confusion. They make and sell mounts to the general public and have no idea when Savage changed the receiver on the 10 through 16 rifles (if this is the case) since they weren't notified. They should know what's going on tomorrow. I sent a bunch of photos to TPS to help them in their discussion with Savage.

rodensouth, don't feel too bad. I didn't notice the discrepancy until I used some Wheeler Engineering alignment bars with Seekins rings mounted and torqued to spec. Here's how far off the bars were!!!

My first thought was ***!! I typically need to do some lapping but not THAT much. I removed the rings and put a straight edge on top of the rail and my second thought was WFT!!

I assumed that TPS had screwed up on the rail so I took it off and then checked the Savage action. I soon realized that the front and rear of the action are at different heights. TPS doesn't know if I somehow got a "one off" action or if Savage has changed the whole line. This is a big deal to TPS and might be a big deal to other base and ring manufacturers. For instance, the Talley one-piece rings I bought and mounted originally on the Savage don't have any built in compensation for the front and rear of the receiver being at different elevations. No wonder I had to lap the poo out of them. I figured that Talley rings suck, but it looks like it wasn't their fault after all.

 

[JDGray]

I just realized, that base isn't 20moa untill you go and smash the front down good n tight!!

rodensouth, you would have seen your scope teetering on the rings(I hope)

It takes me so long to post a reply, that 1858 snuck one in.......

 

[MCMXI]

Wow.....That blows!! The port reliefs in the rail dont match the port opening either Can you imagine the poor scope that gets tightened up with a two piece base set up in that rifle, buy a person not paying attention to what their doing

Luckily I didn't get that far, and didn't ruin a nice set of Seekins rings either. As for the rail not matching the ejection port, the rail has a recoil lug built in so that may explain the front being off. But basically, that's just aesthetics and not something that would bother me. Overall, the TPS base is a very well made piece.

 

[JDGray]

1858,

Was gonna ask if you fired this rifle with a different set up, and how it sighted in? But it looks like you did. I'd give Savage a ring, with an earfull to the warranty department!!

 

[JDGray]

You could always bed the base, but it might become a 40moa base, and your scope might not bottom out that far to get a 100yrd zero.

 

[MCMXI]

Was gonna ask if you fired this rifle with a different set up, and how it sighted in? But it looks like you did. I'd give Savage a ring, with an earfull to the warranty department!!

At this point, I'm going to let TPS discuss the receiver with the Savage engineers. Clearly, my receiver is different, the question for TPS (and for me) is whether or not this is by design or an anomaly. We'll see tomorrow. As for the base, a 1/16" thick spacer shaped to the receiver and the base would work fine. Savage has a target action and the TPS folks were wondering if I had one of those. I don't think I do.

 

[JDGray]

Yeah, the target action has a third action screw hole, you would have noticed. Plus the accublade is red on the targets..... Keep us informed, and sorry for the bad luck!

 

[Bird Dog II]

It is a less expensive rifle, but I bought a Savage Edge this fall that required a shim (fabricated from a razor blade) to get the height matched up (using two piece Weaver Grand Slam bases). On top of that, I had to use Millet dual windage adjustable rings to get the scope aligned. I was about 3 inches away from having enough windage on the scope at 50 yds with standard Grand Slam rings. It was very frustrating. After getting it all lined out, I epoxied the whole works so that I never have to worry about bases or rings slipping. The scope can still be removed, but nothing else is moving without using a micro torch to break the golf shafting epoxy loose. I wouldn't do that on a higher dollar gun. Savage needs to re-look QC on their scope mounting alignment it seems.

 

[R.W.Dale]

1858. Is it possible that you twisted or bent the action while removing the bbl?

I've not done it and I'm not accusing you but I have heard that it's possible to twist the rear of the action in relation to the front if care isn't taken.

 

[MCMXI]

1858. Is it possible that you twisted or bent the action while removing the bbl?

I don't think so. The horizontal alignment of the rings, base and action is close to perfect. The photo above of the alignment bars is the side view, the top view is shown below. You can see that the alignment is very good ... and I imagine that a twisted action wouldn't have good alignment. Basically, the front of the receiver is 1/16" lower. The only questions are whether or not this is how all the new ones are, and if so, why did Savage make the change? Also, if they did make a change, why didn't they share this information with the industry and particularly with companies making rings and bases for Savage actions?

Another thing to consider is that if the action were twisted, the bolt would probably be harder to open and close and it's not.

 

[MCMXI]

The most annoying part in all of this is that I REALLY wanted to shoot some groups with this rifle this weekend. I have regular IPSC and F-Class matches so my time to work up loads is quite limited. It'll eventually get sorted out, but anyone thinking of buying a Weather Warrior had better follow this thread closely. It's possible that there aren't any rings or bases for us yet. I haven't checked Savage's website to see if they offer "special" products for the Weather Warrior but will do that now.

 

[Skylerbone]

FWIW Talley makes some of the best rings available at any price. Sorry to hear about your dilema.

 

[NCsmitty]

With everything duly noted and the different factions contacted about the problems, I know that I would like to condition the rifle so that I could send some rounds downrange. A simple .060" aluminum shim should allow you to tentatively secure the mount and rings and check center for the scope, and then go shooting.

Perhaps you prefer to wait on that, but I cannot see a downside unless it's time management to go shooting.
Good luck!



NCsmitty

 

[Bird Dog II]

With everything duly noted and the different factions contacted about the problems, I know that I would like to condition the rifle so that I could send some rounds downrange. A simple .060" aluminum shim should allow you to tentatively secure the mount and rings and check center for the scope, and then go shooting.

That is basically what I have to do with the Savage Edge on the elevation mis-alignment. The windage mis-alignment was more of a headache.

I think Savage needs to outsource their receivers to Ruger In fact, if we could have a Savage barrel, Ruger receiver and mounting system, and Model 70 trigger, we might get the perfect rifle.

 

[MCMXI]

A simple .060" aluminum shim should allow you to tentatively secure the mount and rings and check center for the scope, and then go shooting.

Yes, that's still a possibility. I could throw on a Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40mm which is currently in a GG&G mount on my FAL. I don't want to lap the Seekins rings until I have the base that will stay with the rifle indefinitely.

I think Savage needs to outsource their receivers to Ruger

It's not a case of Savage not being able to build a good receiver ... they can and do. They made a change and now we need to know how extensive that change was. Which models and/or from what serial number on ... this would be helpful. Normally when selecting one-piece or two-pieces bases, all you need is the model number e.g. 10, 110, 16, 116 and whether or not its a round/round or round/flat receiver. However, if Savage has made sweeping changes across numerous model lines, you'll now need to know if you have a receiver that is straight across the top or "offset" for want of a better description.

 

[smokey262]

If the front was 1/16" lower than the rear by design, wouldn't one expect that the diameter was smaller on the front? Your receiver appears to show straight sides, thus the diameter should be the same front and rear.

I suspect that the top front was either ground too small during a hand finishing operation or your action is warped or bent

 

[Buzzard]

1858, do pardon me if this sounds like a question from an idiot, but have you tried turning the base the other way 'round?

 

[MCMXI]

I suspect that the top front was either ground too small during a hand finishing operation or your action is warped or bent

I found a photo of the rifle taken when I first bought it i.e. LONG before I swapped the barrel. I'll replace the photo below with a higher resolution one when I get home, but clearly the front of the receiver is NOT the same height as the rear. Look at the clearance between the red line parallel to the top of the rear of the receiver and compare it to the clearance between the line above the front of the receiver. The gap is parallel so I doubt this is a grinding error.

1858, do pardon me if this sounds like a question from an idiot, but have you tried turning the base the other way 'round?

The base isn't reversible but thanks for the idea.

I can't believe that this hasn't come up before. How many Weather Warriors has Savage sold? How many people have bought one or two-piece bases for them? How many scopes are being bent into submission?

 

[Coal Dragger]

So much for Savage quality then.

 

[Trent]

In all honesty, that looks like a manufacturing glitch than a purposed design. I'm wondering what order they do their metalwork on the receivers... it would seem that they'd need to cut the outside diameter before cutting the ejection port. They could technically bore it out before or after, although it would make more sense to bore it _after_ cutting the outside diameter.

What I'm getting at is if the metal had stress at the beginning, the heat generated by boring, cutting the ejection port and feeding port, tapping, etc, could have caused the entire receiver to change shape. This could affect the shape of the outer receiver while still having the inner action true.

Here's another question - if you extend the plane that the back of the receiver makes how does this relate to the barrel? Is the barrel parallel to action?

 

[MCMXI]

if you extend the plane that the back of the receiver makes how does this relate to the barrel? Is the barrel parallel to action?

This would be hard to measure since the factory barrel and the new barrel are both tapered, and even if they weren't, a barrel can sag a few thousandths due to it's weight. I uploaded a better photo showing that the rear and front of the receiver are both parallel to the red line but have a different offset.

So much for Savage quality then.

If the action is as Savage designed it, then this issue isn't about quality. It's about informing others of the change and not screwing your customer base. It may be months before TPS or others can roll out one-piece bases or even two-piece bases that will work with the Weather Warrior.