The Savage Weather Warrior mystery continues ....

[NCsmitty]

These are my options:

* Buy a new smooth barrel nut, reinstall the factory barrel and send the rifle back to Savage at my cost
* Revert to using the Talley rings that I'd lapped the **** out of
* Take a file to the back of the receiver and round it to match the front of the receiver then finish with fine emery paper
* Grind the rear of the TPS mount so that it fits the receiver
* Use a stainless steel spacer under the front of the TPS one-piece base

1858, I would do nothing to alter the original receiver until you get some concrete information about this rifle.
It would be sensible to either alter the TPS mount or add the spacer and shoot the rifle until you decide what needs to be done.

I do not believe in out of spec "anomalies" from a reputable company like Savage. It has been my experience that those receivers that may be out of spec, end up in the scrap barrel, not passed down to consumers.
The possibility exists that it is an old style action with the front ring converted to blend into the new style barrel nut. The company should have information if they did have transitions like that.
I understand your frustration, but it's a fairly easy fix to get you operational for now.



NCsmitty

 

[MCMXI]

I understand your frustration, but it's a fairly easy fix to get you operational for now.

Agreed. I'll either make up a spacer or use the Talley rings until I decide how to proceed. I'll try emailing Savage with the photos and see if they have anything intelligent to say about it. I sent all of these photos to TPS in the hope that they'd have a direct line to the Savage engineers. We'll see.

 

[unklechuckles19]

I guess I've got to jump into this and throw a monkey wrench in it all. I have a Model 16 Weather Warrior in .308 and have used it for 2 years now with two piece scope mounts and a Burris Fullfield II scope. I've been reading along on this thread since it started, and I decided to wait until after deer season ended here in PA to take things apart and check.

I took the scope and rings off today and with the best measurement I could take with my yard stick (only thing straight I could find that was sturdy to measure the gap) MY IS THE SAME AS 1858's. Mine Appears to also be higher in the rear, than in the front. I couldn't get any pictures as all I had to measure the straight edge was a yard stick and couldn't manage to manipulate my hands and arms enough to hold it on the action straight and take a picture at the same time haha. I will however grab a smaller steel straight edge tomorrow at work, and hopefully take a few pictures to prove it's higher in the rear than the front.

I'm not sure the exact date of manufacture on my rifle, butI bought it from Cabelas in Hamburg PA in August of 2009 I believe. The first 3 numbers of the serial # are 918xxx. When I purchased the rifle, an employee at Cabelas mounted the rings and scope and bore-sighted everything for me. It only took about 5 shots to get the rifle to group on the bull and it held zero for me since then. I even knocked the rifle over from an upright position, directly onto the scope on the last day of deer season last year and it's been dead on for me. The scope being mounted off camber didn't seem to have any adverse effects on the way the scope performed, but I just had to check my rifle out for 1858's sanity, and my own curiosity. I don't see a point in having my scope off camber putting undue stress on it, so it'll stay off now until I see how I can fix this.

I'm starting to believe this is something Savage changed and did not inform anyone. I'm glad this came about, I'm very interested to see what Savage tech's have to say.

 

[SSN Vet]

major bummer....

I purchased an American Classic last fall and am sooooooooo lucky that I mine was old inventory (had been in the Gun Shop for ~2 years) with the 1 in 9 barrel and old style receiver.

FWIW, i put a one piece Leupold standard base with Burris rings on it and then laide a 6" stub of 1" dia. TPG shaft in the "cradle" and everything was dead flat. I had previously lightly lapped the rings for a 1" std. base on a Marlin 336 and they didn't appear to need any add'l work.

I'd send it back to Savage and after if they determine that the issue is their fault, I'd raise a stink untill they reimbursed me. They should make it right, and if they don't, they should reap some bad press for it.

 

[HKGuns]

Not sure I follow the thinking that this is a Savage issue. Sure, they should have informed the scope base MFG's it had changed, however, I would simply try to find a proper base for the rifle as is....assuming one exists, which could definitely be an issue.

 

[unklechuckles19]

HKGuns, I believe finding a base that fits is one issue, but I also feel that Savage changing something like this with out telling any of the other base mfg.'s is also an issue.

I love my rifle, don't get me wrong but I do think that a new machining process, if this is what it turns out to be (all things point to this) I believe they should tell the base mfg.'s what they are doing so proper bases can be produced for these rifles.

I'm looking forward to hear what the Savage Tech's tell 1858. I might give Savage a call tomorrow and see what they have to say to me.

 

[jpwilly]

^^^ Mines off too. I haven't called Savage CS, should I join in the frey?

The reason I haven't called is I've read multiple times that when mounting a one piece base that you should check for these irregularities by securing one end and then the other end to see which end, if any, has a gap and then no stress bed the offending side. That's exactly what I did with mine.

When I had one piece weaver bases, weaver steel rings, and a scope I hadn't noticed because I don't have alignment and lapping tools. I didn't seem to have an issue when it was set up this way. Accuracy didn't seem to suffer and the scope doesn't appear to be damaged.

 

[SAUMHUNTER79]

Little off topic here Saum, But #1- The Remington trigger has YET to be PROVEN by anyone. No one has EVER demonstrated that the trigger has a problem. All accidents that have resulted in death or injury have been from UNSAFE FIREARM HANDLING! Not a single reputable individual has ever been able to repeat the trigger failing to function as intended in ANY test. This is a media crap storm that was generated by the anti's and people are falling for it.

No I do not work for Savage, I am an American citizen and feel that the people in this country should SUPPORT our country and start spending our dollars HERE rather than every other country out there.

I do not see Savage not doing 1858 right. I am sure they will make it right by him as they have every other customer so far.

Well guess what Freedomfighter, my dad's 1974 M700 BDL discharged on him when he took the safety off one time and I was standing next to him, his fingers were not inside the triggerguard whatsoever, and when I took it in to the gunsmith, he knew exactly what went wrong, there is a part on the top of the trigger that sticks when it gets really cold or when when it gets wet causing accidental discharge, it's been known about for years, and when most gunsmiths do a trigger job on 700s they usually JB weld it into place, I don't care if you believe me, just know that you've been warned if you own one. You probably won't have problems unless you hunt in really cold or rainy conditions. Remington could fix this by making the top of the trigger one solid piece or by designing a piece that fits better and can't get stuck or misaligned. I've spoken with three different gunsmiths about this and they were all well aware of this flaw in design.

 

[SAUMHUNTER79]

That is exactly what I was told by Savage's highly-knowledgeable tech support staff Flintknapper, so if that info's wrong, that's where I got it, and repeated it here, verbatim.

 

[Skylerbone]

SAUM, here is not the place to discuss the Remington. Let's give the OP our attention so that all of us may gain some insight into the issue at hand. Savage Weather Warrior is the topic, I'm following as a potential buyer for a gift though I have no Savages currently (unless you count my kids).

I must also confess to loving a good mystery but the suspense is killing me! Who done it and when will they confess?

 

[SAUMHUNTER79]

Sorry, you're right, I was just replying to Freedomfighter but I did bring it up, I too am a potential Savage buyer, depending on how they remedy this problem.

 

[Coal Dragger]

What on earth would posses the people at Savage to make the front receiver ring smaller/shorter than the rear? It seems that not only would it involve extra machine time to do this, but that there is also no advantage to it in any way from a mechanical standpoint. Not to mention the hassle it places on their customers who are now stuck with rifles that are hard to mount optics to.

 

[jmr40]

Lots of rifles use thicker bases on the rear. That is just the way the rifles are made. I have no idea about Savage, but my Winchesters, Rugers, and Interarms rifles are all that way.

 

[Flintknapper]

SAUMHUNTER79 wrote:

That is exactly what I was told by Savage's highly-knowledgeable tech support staff Flintknapper, so if that info's wrong, that's where I got it, and repeated it here, verbatim

I understand....and I hope you didn't think my post was in anyway an effort to discredit your report. I was only trying to correct the mis-information...(regardless of the source).

Thank you, for the clarification and your participation in the thread.

Flint.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

What on earth would posses the people at Savage to make the front receiver ring smaller/shorter than the rear? It seems that not only would it involve extra machine time to do this, but that there is also no advantage to it in any way from a mechanical standpoint. Not to mention the hassle it places on their customers who are now stuck with rifles that are hard to mount optics to.

I like the way Ruger solved this issue by machining bases into the receiver. One of the best ideas in rifle manufacturing.


Coal, like jmr40 stated, many rifle have been made this way. For what reason I really have no clue other than maybe something to do with added strength in the rear of the receiver for recoil issues. With todays metals I really see no reason for it myself. It is a retarded design to say the least.

1858, I will see if I can get in touch with a few friends I have at Savage and attempt to get to the bottom of it for you if you have had no word by tomorrow. From your posts I believe I have all the info I need to get a definite answer as to weather or not it is indeed a design or a goof up.

 

[MCMXI]

1858, I will see if I can get in touch with a few friends I have at Savage and attempt to get to the bottom of it for you if you have had no word by tomorrow. From your posts I believe I have all the info I need to get a definite answer as to weather or not it is indeed a design or a goof up.

Thanks. I was going to email a bunch of photos to Savage today but they're not accepting email. TPS still hasn't contacted me and neither has Scott Null. I'll call Scott and TPS tomorrow but if you can help get a straight answer it'd be greatly appreciated. I'm sure that others here would like to know what's going on. Anyone thinking of buying a Weather Warrior needs to realize that a one-piece base isn't available (that I'm aware of) and integral rings/bases (e.g. Talley) or two-pieces bases with rings may damage the scope without a SERIOUS amount of lapping. At the very least, accuracy may suffer if the scope isn't supported properly. This only applies to actions that have different heights front and back.

but I just had to check my rifle out for 1858's sanity, and my own curiosity

I meant to thank you sooner for doing this ... it means a lot and it DEFINITELY helped my sanity.

Thanks to everyone for getting back on topic. I have three Remington 700 rifles and have managed to avoid mentioning them up to this point. This discussion should focus on the Weather Warrior only.

 

[jmr40]

I'm guessing here. But the front of the receiver is where the lugs on the bolt engage. Many rifles are thicker on the front to make room for the lugs. The thickness is not needed on the rear and machining them smaller could be done to reduce weight. Thus requiring thicker bases on the rear.

That is truly just a guess. I'd never really thought about it before. Just know that on many rifles the bases are much different on the front than rear.

 

[Coal Dragger]

Jmr, and Freedom,

I am well aware that there are quite a few rifles with a lower receiver height in the rear of the receiver. Pretty much any Mauser action or derivative is built this way, with the larger front ring adding strength to the chamber and locking area of the firearm. Back in the days of receiver mounted iron sights, and stripper clip guides the lower height in the rear was a functional advantage (along with the cutout in the side of the receiver on a military Mauser).

All that said arranging the receiver in such a way that the front ring is smaller (and weaker) than the rear ring when lockup is achieved at the front of the action is just stupid. If this was done solely for cosmetic reasons, then I will count myself as pretty much speechless at the level of idiocy in this design.

 

[Maverick223]

Lots of rifles use thicker bases on the rear. That is just the way the rifles are made. I have no idea about Savage, but my Winchesters, Rugers, and Interarms rifles are all that way.

+1, I have some that are the same, and honestly it makes perfect sense from a engineering standpoint (not so much from a aesthetics standpoint)...now why they would be thicker in the rear (assuming the bolt was front locking...which includes most all modern bolt rifles) I haven't a clue.

I wonder if these rifles were built on the older "flat-back" action that were yet to be contoured for the flat base and bolt release. Perhaps they had a few hundred that they wanted to "recycle" and just forgot one little machining step...to contour the rear of the receiver. Whatever the case, I wish you luck with Savage's explanation and the solution that they put forth to remediate your problem.

As far as Savage being at fault...I don't believe they did anything wrong in a design change, but not telling the companies making the mounting products for their rifle is a problem and to be honest an outright stupid decision. They don't provide sights for most of their rifles (including this one), and to the best of my knowledge make no mounts for any either, so if the aftermarket mounts do not work satisfactorily folks will begin to blame the rifle manufacturer...and to an extent I believe they are right to do so.

 

[SAUMHUNTER79]

SAUMHUNTER79 wrote:



I understand....and I hope you didn't think my post was in anyway an effort to discredit your report. I was only trying to correct the mis-information...(regardless of the source).

Thank you, for the clarification and your participation in the thread.

Flint.

No problem, I didn't think you did, but I was literally typing while I was on the phone with Savage, I was just trying to help 1858 out to no avail.

 

[Skylerbone]

Perhaps everyone could gather up their WWs and calipers to do a little measuring with this down time. I'd be interested in whether the rear was beefed up or the front (more likely) was slimmed down. Also if both versions are the same OAL (SA to SA, LA to LA).

Just curious how different they all are and whether or not the oddball ones were merely trimmed at the top. Couldn't hurt to post for reference, especially when Savage finally replies. Maybe TPS could agree to do a short run of bases for all you guys with an authorization from Savage to make things right???

 

[Maverick223]

Skyler, I don't own one so I can't measure to be sure, but from the photos it appears that the rear is larger and the front is the same or similar in diameter.

 

[MCMXI]

Freedom_fighter_in_IL, I just got off the phone with Scott Null of SavageGunsmithing.com ... what a great guy ... and funny too!! Anyway, he said that in his opinion, this is an error by Savage and that he's going to call Savage. His recommendation was to use a good steel straight edge and some feeler gauges to measure the gap between the top of the receiver (front) and the straight edge. He then said to call Ken Farrell and order a custom one-piece RTS base with additional 0.XXX" forward bridge where the 0.XXX" is the offset between the top of the receiver and the straight edge.

I tried calling TPS but no answer. They're probably under a gag order from Savage!!

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

Good deal. It would probably be easier to do it that way rather than go through all the BS of having to take your barrel off and all that jazz then send it in. Ken makes some really good custom bases. I have 3 of them. Scott is a great guy and always willing to help out fellow gun enthusiasts. If you ever want a really good barrel mated mated to a Savage action he is, in my own humble opinion, one of the best in the business. Little on the salty side but well worth the money. As far as I am concerned, he knows more than 99% of the people that actually work for Savage.

I am still on the actual problem. I put a call in to one of my engineer friends at Savage but he is on vacation for the holidays. Ill get a hold of one of the smiths tomorrow.

 

[unklechuckles19]

Wonderful. So now we get to drop $120 on bases. Thanks for the progress report 1858. I haven't had a chance to try to get ahold of Savage as I've been busy with work. I wish someone at Savage would "man up" and just tell us what's going on. Did they change the specs or is it a machining "error". I love this gun, but I'm loosing respect for Savage the longer this rolls on. I can't understand why, if they did infect change the specs of the actions, why they didn't tell anyone who makes scope bases for their rifles?

I will say, I had a scope mounted on my gun and have hunted with it for two years. I've killed two nice bucks with it and shot quite a few rounds at paper. It's stayed dead on for two years since I first Zero'd it, and has shot some pretty impressive (at least to me) groups in my first round of handload's.

Say I don't change bases and remount my scope with the current setup I've got (Warne Rings and 2 piece bases), What ill effects will this have on my scope over time?