Sniper Country Duty Roster collective wisdom

Rifles - Remington and Savage, good and bad points:

does anyone know if the savage 110fp/.308 hold it own vs. the remington 700.
fredericksburg, va USA - Monday, January 04, 1999 at 23:02:29 (EST) 

BUBBA... Only if you are comparing them as clubs, they're about equal (the Savage may have an edge...), but if you're comparing them as long range rifles, the Rem has it hands down
Pablito <>
USA - Monday, January 04, 1999 at 23:26:32 (EST) 
RE: Savage vs. Remington

Triggers: Savage sucks...End of Statement. Even with the adjustability, it is difficult to get a Savage trigger close to a Remington that is properly adjusted.

Barrels: They vary in both guns. So far, one of the best shooting guns that I have shot was a 110FP in 7 Rem. Mag. 3/4 inches at 200!

But, I have found both brands to be very individualistic. Each individual gun has a different personality. I have shot good Savages, and bad ones. Same with the Remington.

Bruce Braxton <>
College Park P.D., GA USA - Tuesday, January 05, 1999 at 17:09:06 (EST) 

I've been reading the Remington/Savage posts and decided to add the results of some testing over the holidays. The Savage was a short action Tatical in .223, new out of the box, and the PSS was very slightly used .223. 30 shots using three powders and a 52 gr Seirra match averaged .61 in the Savage and 20 shots averaged .53 in the PSS.
(Try dividing the accuracy difference into the price difference?)The Savage was cleaned between groups and 1 fouling shot fired. Accuracy wise the Savage is hard to beat for the money,IF you're looking only for an everyday gun with good accuracy. The accuracy difference alone alone was nominal and at least partially the result of the heavy trigger in the Savage. Workmanship, trigger, after market stuff, etc. all favor Remington. So it seems to me that if you want to shoot it "as is" the Tactical is a good buy and you could put the money in the scope. If you want to add on, customize, etc. (basic issue gun nut) consider the PSS and the extra cost. The .300 Win Mag Tactical we tested also shot very well and averaged around an inch with hunting bullets and a shooter shooting his first magnum. The conclusion was "they ain't elegant or fancy but they will shoot!" Woe be it to the prairie dog, elk, or bad guy in the cross hairs if the shooter does his part. We all have our priorities, perspectives, and budgets, but the Tacticals seem to be a good option.

Barry Chance <>
Longmont, CO USA - Tuesday, January 05, 1999 at 18:52:30 (EST) 

To: Barry Chance

I agree on most of the points you make regarding Savage rifles.

When I ordered my 112FV .223 I did so because the rifle was very affordable,reasonably accurate, and because I wanted a faster twist rate (Savage has 1/9 twist) than what other manufactures were offering (example,Remington has 1/12 twist) so that I can shoot heavier .224 cal bullet weights.

You are correct that the Remington has the advantage when it comes to overall selection when it comes to aftermarket products.However,this situation is changing.More and more suppliers are producing aftermarket goodies for the Savages and the prices are comparable to what you would pay for other rifles such as Remington.

I certainly wouldn't buy a Savage with the intention on upgrading the overall rifle to the quality of a PSS.Heck,I'd just buy a PSS and be done with it even if it didn't have the twist rate I wanted.

But on the other hand if I was interested in building a rifle with the intention on customizing it I would personally would want to start out with the most economical barrel/action that was of acceptable accuracy potential.In other words, I wouldn't buy a PSS over a Savage to do this.Unless of course I wanted a Remington in the first place (been there, done that) in which case I'd probably buy a Varmint Special with laminate stock.

Just some food for thought.

Jeff Babineau <>
Truro, N.S. Canada - Wednesday, January 06, 1999 at 11:04:23 (EST) 

Barry Chance,

A most excellence post dude!


I believe the bretheren is interested in first round accuracy w/o fouling shots. If you discount the first round fired, you're only fooling yourself. What is most often called a Cold Barrel Shot and it can't be "Bogus" in the real world.

What was the deviation from the intended point of impact for Remington vs. Savage?

Maybe a repeat test without cleaning the barrel between strings, or fouling shots could provide more most excellent enlightenment to all of us.

Shoot what you got, and shoot it (precisely) lots.

tHAwING-oUT cItY, bY-gAWd USA - Thursday, January 07, 1999 at 09:37:16 (EST) 

Thanks, you're correct first round shots are essential. Unfortunately, I was breaking in the barrel and haven't got around to really understanding this rifle yet. The one round fouling shots were after cleaning and all on a different target and grouped well. I didn't transpose them over the test targets to see where they actually grouped as far as first round zero. I will do that on my next range visit. My first round zeros tend to vary a lot from rifle to rifle. My 40x's are very consistent. One interesting thing which I didn't realize until too late is when I retested some loads another day I didn't have the same zero!(?) I don't think it was the wind or mirage because it was fairly calm and only 100yds. So now I have two things to check out, first shot zero, and the ability to maintain it day to day. Damn, if I just didn't have this real job that interfered with the important stuff.
Barry Chance <>
Longmont, Co USA - Thursday, January 07, 1999 at 11:39:53 (EST) 
Concerning your first round zero question, here's what happened. Used Black Hills Match,(52gr)it was quite windy, not enough rounds to be statistically significant, only one load, etc., but here you go. Savage Tact. clean/cold barrel, 1.6" above point of aim (POA),.8" left, group size, .75; Fouled/cold barrel 1.7" above POA, .75" left, size .58"; 5 shot group from fouled barrel 1.9 above POA, .6L, size .58" . It was so windy the ducks and geese were grounded and I should have waited for a better day. However, I was sure you were anxiously awaiting this data, as inconclusive as it may be. The PSS performed in a similar manner, two groups at .57 and one cold/fouled group at .65. Group placement was quite consistant.


Barry Chance < >
Longmont, Co USA - Monday, January 11, 1999 at 11:10:09 (EST) 

Back to Hot Tips & Cold Shots