The Savage Weather Warrior mystery continues ....

[Norrick]

if you want to shoot it bad you could use some burris signature zee rings with a two piece base. Use the offsets accordingly to correct the difference in height, or use the standard 0 inserts and you already have a +who knows how many MOA base.

 

[JDGray]

1858,
Not a word about special bases over on Savage shooters. Think you got a "special production"

 

[R.W.Dale]

Just curious what are the diameters of the two receiver rings?

ETA I Just remembered something that didn't click in my brain till just now, Your rifle differs from your older models as the bolt release has been completely redesigned and moved from the side of the receiver

 

[MrOldLude]

So much for Savage quality then.

Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I heard of Chevy that had a wheel fall off it once. That's why I no longer buy Chevy's.

-----------------------------

I'd love to hear what Savage has to say about this.

 

[roadchoad]

Caveat: Only savage I own is a .22...

Have you calipered the width of the action at both front and rear? It stands to reason that if the width of the cylindrical action is the same then the height should mathematically be the same.

I also wonder if the issue is the rear is too high, not that the front is too low...

Have you shot this rifle?

 

[Uncle Mike]

I think you have a 'bent' receiver, turn the receiver over and put a straight edge to it... if the rear is all of a sudden a 1/16" smaller than the front, it's bent.

A common problem when doing a barrel swap, especially if the correct fixtures and tools were used to remove and install the barrel. Not saying 'you' did this, just saying.

Bet that factory barrel nut was stupid gorilla tight, was it not?

 

[R.W.Dale]

I think you have a 'bent' receiver, turn the receiver over and put a straight edge to it... if the rear is all of a sudden a 1/16" smaller than the front, it's bent.

A common problem when doing a barrel swap, especially if the correct fixtures and tools were used to remove and install the barrel. Not saying 'you' did this, just saying.

Bet that factory barrel nut was stupid gorilla tight, was it not?

I'm not so sure about that

I've been looking at pics of other savages with the same bolt release such as the classic and by golly it looks like the rear reciever ring is taller on those too.

 

[MCMXI]

Just curious what are the diameters of the two receiver rings?

Front and back widths are basically the same at 1.340" but this doesn't mean that the front and rear are (or should be) the same height. The receiver blends nicely into the new smooth barrel nut so maybe the top of the front of the receiver was ground for aesthetic reasons.

I've been looking at pics of other savages with the same bolt release such as the classic and by golly it looks like the rear reciever ring is taller on those too.

EXACTLY!! I've been doing the same thing and there's no doubt that the front of the receiver on newer models is lower than the rear. Leupold lists different bases for the AccuTrigger model ... this may be a clue that something is afoot.

I think you have a 'bent' receiver, turn the receiver over and put a straight edge to it... if the rear is all of a sudden a 1/16" smaller than the front, it's bent.

I really don't know how you can be of that opinion based on the photo I posted above of the NEW rifle as it came from Savage. The top of the receiver front and back are PARALLEL with the red line so how the heck would the front and rear of the receiver remain parallel but offset if the receiver was bent? That'd be a neat trick!! In addition, the bolt glides into the front of the receiver effortlessly ... how is that possible if the receiver is bent? You work in a gunshop right ... perhaps you could place a straight edge on some of the Weather Warriors and get back to me.

TPS contacted me this morning and their still trying to get hold of an engineer at Savage.

 

[Skylerbone]

Bravo to TPS for keeping abreast of things and you in the loop. Too bad Savage dropped the ball but I would agree this is NOT a Q.C. issue but rather likely uses some base already manufactured but not listed as compatible, yet.

 

[JDGray]

Leupold lists different bases for the AccuTrigger model ... this may be a clue that something is afoot.

I believe the accutrigger models all have the current round back reciever. If Savage did this on purpose on the Weather Warriors, we would have heard about it by now, you would think.

 

[MCMXI]

TPS couldn't get hold of anyone at Savage today but I just talked to Andrew in CS and he couldn't help. I explained the issue but the gunsmiths and engineers have left for the day so he's going to talk with them and call me back tomorrow. I'll report back once I hear from them.

 

[SAUMHUNTER79]

Glad I noticed this thread, I was going to buy my nephew one, I'll be patiently awaiting the conclusion of this situation, thanks for sharing.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

SAUMHUNTER79, this really is not a problem as long as you KNOW about it before you try to mount the base and scope. It is really a very simple fix until the scope base makers can resolve weather or not it is a change in the manufacture of the Weather Warrior. Simply shim the front of the base and that is problem solved. That is IF the new ones are actually all different or if this is an anomaly. Easy to check, just put a straight edge on the receiver. If it is different then you know to shim the base. If not then all clear The PROBLEM would stem from not noticing it then tightening the base then tightening the SCOPE. OOPS bent scope tube

 

[jpwilly]

My rifle is the same...bedded the front of the EGW scope mount to fix.

 

[MCMXI]

this really is not a problem as long as you KNOW about it before you try to mount the base and scope.

I wonder how many don't know ... I didn't when I mounted a scope using Talley one-piece rings. Like I mentioned earlier, I lapped the crap out of the rings with the assumption that the rings were rubbish but this saved my $500 Zeiss scope from being damaged. I didn't realize that the front was lower because the rings from Talley (and ALL Savage 10 through 16 rings ) are interchangeable front to back so I never checked.

I'm going to make up a stainless steel spacer/shim approximately 1/16" thick, shape it (roll it) to fit the front of the receiver, drill two holes for the front base screws and then mount the TPS base just as NCsmitty suggested.

So does anyone here still think that I have a bent receiver after posts from Bird Dog II and jpwilly?

 

[Trent]

It's doubtful it's a mistake now, that's for sure. One is an anomaly, several, not so much.

Have you called Savage and pointedly asked them about it? I can see a LOT of scopes getting ruined over this, if people aren't made aware of it.

 

[Coal Dragger]

If not a mistake still a remarkably crappy design.

 

[SAUMHUNTER79]

Either way I'm not really diggin' it, because it doesn't really make sense, nor is it a desireable feature, I'd much rather have a level reciever to mount a scope on.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

1858, sent you a PM with the number of one of the best Savage guys in the business. He is expecting your call. Just tell him you are the one with the Weather Warrior with the out of alignment receiver and he will know what you are talking about.

According to him this is an anomaly probably from a bad tooling run that got missed. It happens.

 

[jpwilly]

If it is a goof up they've been goofing up an awful lot of rifles.

 

[MCMXI]

Freedom_fighter_in_IL, thanks for the help ... just waiting on a call back from Savage.

If it is a goof up they've been goofing up an awful lot of rifles.

I'm of the opinion that it has something to do with the new smooth barrel nut and aesthetics. Heck, the new barrel nut is all about aesthetics rather than function. It's as if someone at Savage decided that the front of receiver should blend into the recoil lug and barrel nut. Just a guess ... but take a look at the previous version and notice how the receiver doesn't blend into the barrel nut.

 

[NELSONs02]

So i'm picking up my 10fcp TONIGHT and just saw this thread.

If my cheap EGW base doesn't fit on it I'm going to be pretty upset.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

Yes I kind of agree 1858. Savage WAS getting into the groove with accuracy and reliability but I see here in the past year or 2 they are starting to fall for the "pretty rifle" syndrome. Honestly, I could care less how a rifle looks (to a point of course) as long as it is accurate and reliable. They should get back to what was making them one of the top rifle manufacturers in America and forget about all the pretty crap. Function over aesthetics ANYTIME for me.

But in their defense, jpwilly, a few rifles out of THOUSANDS is not a bad track record in actuality. Look at Remington, Winchester, Smith and Wesson, and Ruger, and all the problems THEY have been having over the past 5 years and compare their track record to Savage's. You would be surprised at the over all statistics in quality control.

 

[MCMXI]

OK ... I called Savage again this morning since they didn't call me back as agreed. They want me to send the rifle back to them but they won't pay for shipping. Andrew in CS says that he spoke with a gunsmith there who said that the receiver should be level across the front and rear of the receiver.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL, I'm going to pull the action/barrel out of the stock and call your contact to give him the numbers he requested.

Uncle Mike, you're involved in selling Savage rifles ... so did you put a straight edge across the top of any Weather Warriors?

All in all, a really lousy experience thus far.

 

[SAUMHUNTER79]

Ok, just got off the phone w/Savage tech support, and they said the older Weather Warriors did have a reciever that was lower in the front than the rear, the current Weather Warriors have a level reciever. They recommend using the Weaver 6146 for a one-piece base on the older rifle. Sounds like you have an older Weather Warrior, they also told me the rear of the reciever is round, while the front is flat on the older series, I don't know why the hell they thought that was a good idea, but I'm sure there was some reason for it. I hope that helps.