Armory Sponsor
Posted: 6/28/2010 12:09:33 PM EDT
|
Can someone explain to me why a Savage two piece bolt is potentially more accurate coming from the factory than a Mauser style bolt? I have seen tihs statement made in several places on the net.
I understand about lapping a mauser style using dykem blue and lapping compounds to get full lug contact, but not why this does not apply to a Savage two piece? I have not had one in my hand, so the answer may be obvious to anyone who has. Is there any reason to lap a two piece bolt or does it not require lapping because of it's design? |
| Not typical 2 lug bolt is more accurate than the other if the lugs are not square with the lug recess in the reciever. Lapping any bolt lugs can improve accuracy by increasing surface contact and squarness. the only way to assure squareness though is to true and blueprint the action and bolt by machining them. granted, manufacturing tolerances are miles ahead of what they used to be, but they are still operationg on a production bases, and that means stuff still slips through. but a savage bolt is no more accurate than a remington, winchester or mauser type, so long as everything is done correctly. besides, more than just the bolt lugs and face are subceptable to fine accuracy. the machining of the barrel threads, chamber, crown, the bedding of the stock, all comes into play for overall good accuracy. |
|
Thanks, I appreciate your input but I know all that and have done most of it myself.
I have been researching doing a build on a Savage/Stevens action and have come across several articles that mention that it is not necessary to true the action on a Savage due to the bolt design. That is the part I haven't been able to figure out. |
|
Shorter lock time. The Mausers have a comparitively longer lock time than just about all of the modern bolt guns.
The shorter time between trigger release and bang means potentially better accuracy due to movement, flinch, poor trigger squeeze, etc. Just about all of the modern rifle makers claim to have a bolt that is better or potentially more accurate than the Mauser bolt that they are an improvement of. MLG |
|
Quoted:
Shorter lock time. The Mausers have a comparitively longer lock time than just about all of the modern bolt guns. The shorter time between trigger release and bang means potentially better accuracy due to movement, flinch, poor trigger squeeze, etc. Just about all of the modern rifle makers claim to have a bolt that is better or potentially more accurate than the Mauser bolt that they are an improvement of. MLG How is improved lock time related to a floating bolt head? |
|
The bolt is self aligning without the extra step of lapping the lugs. The floating bolt head allows both lugs to engage even if the centerline of the bolt body is not square.
Ah Ha! I knew somebody would have the answer. . .But what does lapping have to do with alignment? It is for better contact between bolt lugs and receiver is it not? Misaligned with a perfect mating surface is still misalinged. Truing the receiver is what yoiu do for better alignment with the barrel. |
|
A completely trued action includes working the all the parts over so they either align with the centerline of the action and bore, or they are perpendicular.
Lapped lugs get both lugs in contact. This supports the case in the chamber better with both lugs reacting the load; it's not perfect, but it's way better than only one lug in contact. I looked at a Model 700 action two weeks ago that had zero lug contact on one side. 150 grit compound was needed to get material moving. How the gun shot before the barrel was pulled I can't say, it wasn't my rifle. |
|
Quoted:
The bolt is self aligning
Along which axis does the bolt self align? If you lap the lugs then dont you change the self aligning feature by modifying the bearing surfaces? Does anybody really understand how this thing works...l   The bolt head is self aligning on the locking lugs. The bolt body aligns however it ends up in the action raceway. Get a rifle and look at the assembly. |
|
The bolt head is self aligning on the locking lugs. The bolt body aligns however it ends up in the action raceway.
Thanks for the info on the bolt. That makes sense with the pictures I have seen of it. Get a rifle and look at the assembly.
Wish it was that easy. I live on an island north of Seattle. Not exactly a gun store on every corner or I wouldn't have asked the question here....Sheesh, I thought this was a forum for exchange of info 
|
|
Quoted:
The bolt head is self aligning on the locking lugs. The bolt body aligns however it ends up in the action raceway.
Thanks for the info on the bolt. That makes sense with the pictures I have seen of it. Get a rifle and look at the assembly.
Wish it was that easy. I live on an island north of Seattle. Not exactly a gun store on every corner or I wouldn't have asked the question here....Sheesh, I thought this was a forum for exchange of info That last bit is information. If you look at one of the rifles, the assembly and function of the floating bolt head is clear, so it's a suggestion about one method for understanding the assembly. Your attitude that comes through in your preceding posts has a hint of trolling as you resist the information you were given, but maybe the problem is caused by your lack of familiarity with some basics steps used to improve the accuracy of rifles in general, Savage or not. |
|
That last bit is information. If you look at one of the rifles, the assembly and function of the floating bolt head is clear, so it's a suggestion about one method for understanding the assembly. Your attitude that comes through in your preceding posts has a hint of trolling as you resist the information you were given, but maybe the problem is caused by your lack of familiarity with some basics steps used to improve the accuracy of rifles in general, Savage or not.
That's quite a statement form a total stranger who offerred only minimal informaion. Since you took the trouble to try to make me feel stupid, allow me to do the same for you. Your attitude that comes through in your preceding posts has a hint of trolling A forum is for the exchange of information from those who have it to those who don't. Not everyone has the same options or access to firearms they wish to research (or did you miss the part about where I live?).. Asking questions about UNCLEAR OR INCOMPLETE explanations to gain a better understanding is not trolling. It is called DISCUSSION !. Maybe you should have discussions only with yourself since you seem to be too put out to answer follow on questions. you resist the information you were given If you can't get imfromation accross clearly then you should expect more questions. but maybe the problem is caused by your lack of familiarity with some basics steps used to improve the accuracy of rifles in general Interesting that you can judge the skill of a man by the questions he has s hasked. Not that it will matter to you but I have taken gunsmithing classes on both handguns and rifle and have peerformed pistol action jobs, have converted a 93 mauser in 7mm to a .308 sporter including making any neccessary parts as well as the stocking and bedding and bluing of the rifle. Currently I am accurizing (as much as possible) an A2 style bull barrel AR15 and making maple furniture for it as well. I also shoot .22 benchrest. Although I am not a licensed gunsmith, no do I claim to be, but I do have ths skills to perform the actions (in question by you). So keep your own stupid attitudes to yourself, I can get the information from others better suited to the task of explaining a particular maunfacturers approch to rifle design. |
| Take a look at the rifles compared thread in the precision rifles forum here in the armory, you may find some pictures of a savage that will help you, as well as seeing many other actions also. A bunch of effort went into that thread to fill it with as much info as possible. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Shorter lock time. The Mausers have a comparitively longer lock time than just about all of the modern bolt guns. The shorter time between trigger release and bang means potentially better accuracy due to movement, flinch, poor trigger squeeze, etc. Just about all of the modern rifle makers claim to have a bolt that is better or potentially more accurate than the Mauser bolt that they are an improvement of. MLG How is improved lock time related to a floating bolt head? Sorry for no reply, been off line. The two are not related in any way. The floating head is a modification to ease manufacturing. it enables them to produce a rifle with slightly looser tolerences that is cheaper to build & is still self adjusting/aligning enough to be accurate/reliable. The shorter lock time is the accuracy factor of modern bolts over the 120 year old Mauser design with it's massive striker that has to be accelerated. This includes the new Savage design. Their claim is exactly the same claim that all other modern bolt action rifle makers make & can't be denied. "Our bolt is potentially more accurate than a Mauser bolt." The physics of the claim can't be ignored & the key word is "potentially". The floating bolt head claim/advertisement is mostly hype to help them sell rifles. Nor is the floating bolt head concept a new one. Its been done in both, rear locking/stationary bolt heads and front locking/rotating bolt heads. What they have done is make a rifle where perfect alignment between bolt, receiver and barrel are not as critical as it is in other rifles. Its a mass production engineering solution to a very expensive & time consuming manufacturing process. The end result is a rifle that is easier & cheaper to produce. Yet still perform as well as other rifles. The technical word is propaganda. Aka, creative advertisement. MLG |
|
There are gunsmiths , mine included , that are converting 700 Rems to use a Savage floating bolt head .
The fact that the head is uninfluenced by the alignment of the rest of the bolt ( like an AR's floating bolt), helps further contribute to squareness and perpendicularity with the chamber . Splitting hairs on an already blueprinted receiver ? Maybe.........but it's worth something to some smiths in search of that little 'extra bit' of accuracy. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Shorter lock time. The Mausers have a comparitively longer lock time than just about all of the modern bolt guns. The shorter time between trigger release and bang means potentially better accuracy due to movement, flinch, poor trigger squeeze, etc. Just about all of the modern rifle makers claim to have a bolt that is better or potentially more accurate than the Mauser bolt that they are an improvement of. MLG How is improved lock time related to a floating bolt head? Sorry for no reply, been off line. The two are not related in any way. The floating head is a modification to ease manufacturing. it enables them to produce a rifle with slightly looser tolerences that is cheaper to build & is still self adjusting/aligning enough to be accurate/reliable. The shorter lock time is the accuracy factor of modern bolts over the 120 year old Mauser design with it's massive striker that has to be accelerated. This includes the new Savage design. Their claim is exactly the same claim that all other modern bolt action rifle makers make & can't be denied. "Our bolt is potentially more accurate than a Mauser bolt." The physics of the claim can't be ignored & the key word is "potentially". The floating bolt head claim/advertisement is mostly hype to help them sell rifles. Nor is the floating bolt head concept a new one. Its been done in both, rear locking/stationary bolt heads and front locking/rotating bolt heads. What they have done is make a rifle where perfect alignment between bolt, receiver and barrel are not as critical as it is in other rifles. Its a mass production engineering solution to a very expensive & time consuming manufacturing process. The end result is a rifle that is easier & cheaper to produce. Yet still perform as well as other rifles. The technical word is propaganda. Aka, creative advertisement. MLG You make it sound like a good thing in red, but overall post has a "bad" connotation to it? which one you talkin bout, Willis? |
|
Quoted:
You make it sound like a good thing in red, but overall post has a "bad" connotation to it? which one you talkin bout, Willis? Both.(this IS ARFcom after all) It was a cost cutting measure that has the benefit of being (all else being equal) more accurate than the conventional 1 piece style. |
|
Sorry for no reply, been off line. The two are not related in any way. The floating head is a modification to ease manufacturing. it enables them to produce a rifle with slightly looser tolerences that is cheaper to build & is still self adjusting/aligning enough to be accurate/reliable. The shorter lock time is the accuracy factor of modern bolts over the 120 year old Mauser design with it's massive striker that has to be accelerated. This includes the new Savage design. Their claim is exactly the same claim that all other modern bolt action rifle makers make & can't be denied. "Our bolt is potentially more accurate than a Mauser bolt." The physics of the claim can't be ignored & the key word is "potentially". The floating bolt head claim/advertisement is mostly hype to help them sell rifles. Nor is the floating bolt head concept a new one. Its been done in both, rear locking/stationary bolt heads and front locking/rotating bolt heads. What they have done is make a rifle where perfect alignment between bolt, receiver and barrel are not as critical as it is in other rifles. Its a mass production engineering solution to a very expensive & time consuming manufacturing process. The end result is a rifle that is easier & cheaper to produce. Yet still perform as well as other rifles. The technical word is propaganda. Aka, creative advertisement. MLG You make it sound like a good thing in red, but overall post has a "bad" connotation to it? which one you talkin bout, Willis?[/quote] Don't be confused. My comments are not very positive at all. I'm simply not impressed and it has been done before. Several times and in several different ways. The system is what it is, an engineering solution to a manufacturing problem. It allows them to produce (at a fraction of the cost) an arm that performs as well as a more expensive, carefully made one. For some people, this is ideal. For others, not so great. I personally don't like it but I am more into carefully made custom rifles. Not mass produced rifles. The problem Savage's new bolt solves is due to rifles being mass produced with as little as possible care to precision & fit that they can get away with. This is an industry wide issue that we, the shooters, have let them get away with for about 40 years because we want "cheap" rifles. On the positive side, the people at Savage are trying to fix the quality problem with their new bolt. They acknowledge that fit & precision are a massive factor in a good quality rifle and have implemented a feature known to cancel out poor fit between receiver/bolt/chamber. On the negative side, just not the way I personally would like to see it done. But I am fully aware that if they did build it the way I like, there is no way Joe Average would buy it due to the cost. There simply is no big market for true precision, carefully lapped & honed, custom made rifles. As far as it being propaganda, Do you think it would be good advertisement to say "The fit in our rifle is so sloppy & out of alignment that we had to articulate the bolt to make it shoot acceptably."? or, Make it sound better by saying "Our new bolt is an improvement over what we have been doing for the last 40 years."? or, Our new, improved, bolt is "potentially" more accurate than a Mauser style bolt. All three statements are true but only one of them is good advertising. I am confident that we will see other arms makers adopting this design for the exact same reason Savage implemented it. Manufacturing cost vs. end result vs. what the consumer is willing to pay. I personally would still like to see more care & fit going back into rifles, MLG |
|
Quoted:
Sorry for no reply, been off line. The two are not related in any way. The floating head is a modification to ease manufacturing. it enables them to produce a rifle with slightly looser tolerences that is cheaper to build & is still self adjusting/aligning enough to be accurate/reliable. The shorter lock time is the accuracy factor of modern bolts over the 120 year old Mauser design with it's massive striker that has to be accelerated. This includes the new Savage design. Their claim is exactly the same claim that all other modern bolt action rifle makers make & can't be denied. "Our bolt is potentially more accurate than a Mauser bolt." The physics of the claim can't be ignored & the key word is "potentially". The floating bolt head claim/advertisement is mostly hype to help them sell rifles. Nor is the floating bolt head concept a new one. Its been done in both, rear locking/stationary bolt heads and front locking/rotating bolt heads. What they have done is make a rifle where perfect alignment between bolt, receiver and barrel are not as critical as it is in other rifles. Its a mass production engineering solution to a very expensive & time consuming manufacturing process. The end result is a rifle that is easier & cheaper to produce. Yet still perform as well as other rifles. The technical word is propaganda. Aka, creative advertisement. MLG You make it sound like a good thing in red, but overall post has a "bad" connotation to it? which one you talkin bout, Willis?] Don't be confused. My comments are not very positive at all. I'm simply not impressed and it has been done before. Several times and in several different ways. The system is what it is, an engineering solution to a manufacturing problem. It allows them to produce (at a fraction of the cost) an arm that performs as well as a more expensive, carefully made one. For some people, this is ideal. For others, not so great. I personally don't like it but I am more into carefully made custom rifles. Not mass produced rifles. The problem Savage's new bolt solves is due to rifles being mass produced with as little as possible care to precision & fit that they can get away with. This is an industry wide issue that we, the shooters, have let them get away with for about 40 years because we want "cheap" rifles. On the positive side, the people at Savage are trying to fix the quality problem with their new bolt. They acknowledge that fit & precision are a massive factor in a good quality rifle and have implemented a feature known to cancel out poor fit between receiver/bolt/chamber. On the negative side, just not the way I personally would like to see it done. But I am fully aware that if they did build it the way I like, there is no way Joe Average would buy it due to the cost. There simply is no big market for true precision, carefully lapped & honed, custom made rifles. As far as it being propaganda, Do you think it would be good advertisement to say "The fit in our rifle is so sloppy & out of alignment that we had to articulate the bolt to make it shoot acceptably."? or, Make it sound better by saying "Our new bolt is an improvement over what we have been doing for the last 40 years."? or, Our new, improved, bolt is "potentially" more accurate than a Mauser style bolt. All three statements are true but only one of them is good advertising. I am confident that we will see other arms makers adopting this design for the exact same reason Savage implemented it. Manufacturing cost vs. end result vs. what the consumer is willing to pay. I personally would still like to see more care & fit going back into rifles, MLG Funny, as I read what you've written I think "bah, a good rifle is one that shoots, if you can't engineering the manufacturing into it you don't have a good design in the first place". Then I go home and look at my Savage and completely agree with you. What a pile of junk that manages to shoot well. They've taken all the craftsmanship out of good results, and it shows. Oh well, I can't afford craftsmanship AND five kids, so I'll shoot a Savage for the time being. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry for no reply, been off line. The two are not related in any way. The floating head is a modification to ease manufacturing. it enables them to produce a rifle with slightly looser tolerences that is cheaper to build & is still self adjusting/aligning enough to be accurate/reliable. The shorter lock time is the accuracy factor of modern bolts over the 120 year old Mauser design with it's massive striker that has to be accelerated. This includes the new Savage design. Their claim is exactly the same claim that all other modern bolt action rifle makers make & can't be denied. "Our bolt is potentially more accurate than a Mauser bolt." The physics of the claim can't be ignored & the key word is "potentially". The floating bolt head claim/advertisement is mostly hype to help them sell rifles. Nor is the floating bolt head concept a new one. Its been done in both, rear locking/stationary bolt heads and front locking/rotating bolt heads. What they have done is make a rifle where perfect alignment between bolt, receiver and barrel are not as critical as it is in other rifles. Its a mass production engineering solution to a very expensive & time consuming manufacturing process. The end result is a rifle that is easier & cheaper to produce. Yet still perform as well as other rifles. The technical word is propaganda. Aka, creative advertisement. MLG You make it sound like a good thing in red, but overall post has a "bad" connotation to it? which one you talkin bout, Willis?] Don't be confused. My comments are not very positive at all. I'm simply not impressed and it has been done before. Several times and in several different ways. The system is what it is, an engineering solution to a manufacturing problem. It allows them to produce (at a fraction of the cost) an arm that performs as well as a more expensive, carefully made one. For some people, this is ideal. For others, not so great. I personally don't like it but I am more into carefully made custom rifles. Not mass produced rifles. The problem Savage's new bolt solves is due to rifles being mass produced with as little as possible care to precision & fit that they can get away with. This is an industry wide issue that we, the shooters, have let them get away with for about 40 years because we want "cheap" rifles. On the positive side, the people at Savage are trying to fix the quality problem with their new bolt. They acknowledge that fit & precision are a massive factor in a good quality rifle and have implemented a feature known to cancel out poor fit between receiver/bolt/chamber. On the negative side, just not the way I personally would like to see it done. But I am fully aware that if they did build it the way I like, there is no way Joe Average would buy it due to the cost. There simply is no big market for true precision, carefully lapped & honed, custom made rifles. As far as it being propaganda, Do you think it would be good advertisement to say "The fit in our rifle is so sloppy & out of alignment that we had to articulate the bolt to make it shoot acceptably."? or, Make it sound better by saying "Our new bolt is an improvement over what we have been doing for the last 40 years."? or, Our new, improved, bolt is "potentially" more accurate than a Mauser style bolt. All three statements are true but only one of them is good advertising. I am confident that we will see other arms makers adopting this design for the exact same reason Savage implemented it. Manufacturing cost vs. end result vs. what the consumer is willing to pay. I personally would still like to see more care & fit going back into rifles, MLG Funny, as I read what you've written I think "bah, a good rifle is one that shoots, if you can't engineering the manufacturing into it you don't have a good design in the first place". Then I go home and look at my Savage and completely agree with you. What a pile of junk that manages to shoot well. They've taken all the craftsmanship out of good results, and it shows. Oh well, I can't afford craftsmanship AND five kids, so I'll shoot a Savage for the time being. Good enough is good enough. Savage rifles are very good, and I can tell you that Bob Greenleaf didn't design those bolts that way to save money, although that wasn't completely ignored in the design, either. I wonder if MLG has any manufacturing background. |
|
Good enough is good enough. Savage rifles are very good, and I can tell you that Bob Greenleaf didn't design those bolts that way to save money, although that wasn't completely ignored in the design, either.
I wonder if MLG has any manufacturing background. Ah, lively debate! The spice of life! ( "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries"  )
AeroE, yes I do, from the floor in a production machine shop to middle management in construction. And countless detours along the way. Some people see this concept as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Others see it another way. I'm simply one of the others. I build my own Mausers. Hours & hours of truing up the reciever, lapping bolts, carefully truing up barrel mating faces, etc, etc. Followed by hours & hours of stock work. There is no way any mass production arms company can do all of that stuff and stay in business in today's market. They would go bust in a matter of weeks after selling only one or two rifles. Even Mauser had to sacrifice precision for production and I have yet to see one that had perfect bolt fit. They even had to over torque the barrel to get it mated to the receiver because the manufacturing tolerances were so loose. To put it plainly, most of them were crap even though they had the potential to be wonderful. I do not know Mr. Greenleaf, but I can comprehend and appreciate his situation. He had to take something that already existed, as manufactured, with the current process, and make it better within a set of given parameters. Without making it prohibitly more expensive or complicated. His solution is elegant to his particular situation. He took an existing product that had just ok performance but cost half the price of the other brands and boosted its performance to at least as good as the others (if not better), while still keeping the cost down. That is not as easy to do as it is to say and I am confident that when he started, he had a long list of things he could not do or even say. His trigger and stock mounting method are better than what he started with too. I don't belittle his efforts. He has improved the Savage rifle while keeping it affordable for a very large percentage of shooters. What I am saying is that, IN MY OPINION, a floating (articulating) bolt head is not the greatest thing ever. Nor is it entirely new. It is a patch for a less than perfect manufacturing process & no attention to detail. You mentioned that you've seen Remington 700s where only one locking lug contacted the the receiver. Why? Because Remington cut corners in the manufacturing process during the evolution of the M30 action to today's product. Why? To keep costs down & mass producability up for the current American market. Why? Because they would go bust if they didn't. Basic good business sense even if i don't appreciate the end product or find it acceptable for my specific wants/needs. Once again, the Savage bolt it is what it is. For some its a blessing. To others its a symptom. But, I do comprehend how & why it came to be. Opinions do vary and mine is most likely the extreme opposite of the majority. But if we all liked the same thing, guns would be pretty damn boreing. Come to think of it, for the last 40 years, Rem-ches-ger-avages have been pretty damn boreing. MLG |
|
Quoted:
Good enough is good enough. Savage rifles are very good, and I can tell you that Bob Greenleaf didn't design those bolts that way to save money, although that wasn't completely ignored in the design, either.
I wonder if MLG has any manufacturing background. Ah, lively debate! The spice of life! ( "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries" )
AeroE, yes I do, from the floor in a production machine shop to middle management in construction. And countless detours along the way. Some people see this concept as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Others see it another way. I'm simply one of the others. I build my own Mausers. Hours & hours of truing up the reciever, lapping bolts, carefully truing up barrel mating faces, etc, etc. Followed by hours & hours of stock work. There is no way any mass production arms company can do all of that stuff and stay in business in today's market. They would go bust in a matter of weeks after selling only one or two rifles. Even Mauser had to sacrifice precision for production and I have yet to see one that had perfect bolt fit. They even had to over torque the barrel to get it mated to the receiver because the manufacturing tolerances were so loose. To put it plainly, most of them were crap even though they had the potential to be wonderful. I do not know Mr. Greenleaf, but I can comprehend and appreciate his situation. He had to take something that already existed, as manufactured, with the current process, and make it better within a set of given parameters. Without making it prohibitly more expensive or complicated. His solution is elegant to his particular situation. He took an existing product that had just ok performance but cost half the price of the other brands and boosted its performance to at least as good as the others (if not better), while still keeping the cost down. That is not as easy to do as it is to say and I am confident that when he started, he had a long list of things he could not do or even say. His trigger and stock mounting method are better than what he started with too. I don't belittle his efforts. He has improved the Savage rifle while keeping it affordable for a very large percentage of shooters. What I am saying is that, IN MY OPINION, a floating (articulating) bolt head is not the greatest thing ever. Nor is it entirely new. It is a patch for a less than perfect manufacturing process & no attention to detail. You mentioned that you've seen Remington 700s where only one locking lug contacted the the receiver. Why? Because Remington cut corners in the manufacturing process during the evolution of the M30 action to today's product. Why? To keep costs down & mass producability up for the current American market. Why? Because they would go bust if they didn't. Basic good business sense even if i don't appreciate the end product or find it acceptable for my specific wants/needs. Once again, the Savage bolt it is what it is. For some its a blessing. To others its a symptom. But, I do comprehend how & why it came to be. Opinions do vary and mine is most likely the extreme opposite of the majority. But if we all liked the same thing, guns would be pretty damn boreing. Come to think of it, for the last 40 years, Rem-ches-ger-avages have been pretty damn boreing. MLG Greenleaf didn't rework the existing bolt design. He's the original designer. The Savage two piece bolt has been around a while. Whether the floating bolt head is a recent idea is not relevent - look at the length of time Paul Mauser's two lug bolt, along with its other features such as gas handling, has been with us; tain't new, either. So, here's my perspective on this bolt design. It's an excellent design feature for making sure both lugs have some contact, without taking extraordinary steps during manufacturing. It's a feature with synergy, in which one feature yields an different excellent outcome. As for cutting corners on cost, the Savage bolt is the wrong approach due to the cost of touch labor which exceeds the value of the raw materials and finished detail parts. You like Mausers. I like really fine, accurate rifles, and I don't care about their lineage. |
|
Quoted:
You like Mausers. I like really fine, accurate rifles, and I don't care about their lineage. I think that's the root of my problem too, I'm sentimental about my guns. I carry a 1911 but not because I think it's the best combat (or even carry) weapon around. My favorite elk rifle (just sold) was a Ruger #1 because it was very classy, but it didn't shoot really well and it has obvious limitations. When I look at the Savage on one hand I see a platform that I can build a very good shooting long-range rig from for a very limited amount of money and save a lot of time and headache as well. I see design features that meet a lot of the functional goals, such as being able to easily and quickly change barrels, no need for extensive action truing and lapping and plenty of aftermarket available. But it's a cheap feeling bolt that bugs me when it's in my hands, like closing a car door on a peice of crap car- you can tell it's crap because it doesn't feel solid andthunk shut like you imagine a bank vault to sound. The trigger is primarily made of stamped metal. The safety looks and acts like an afterthought. Factory non-Accustocks are flimsy and rotten and barrels are average. Finish looks OK for the most part. The good stuff (not Remington, although they don't feel as cheap as the Savage) just exudes craftsmanship and quality. Nothing can replace nice walnut stocks and blued steel and a 120 year old design. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You like Mausers. I like really fine, accurate rifles, and I don't care about their lineage. I think that's the root of my problem too, I'm sentimental about my guns. I carry a 1911 but not because I think it's the best combat (or even carry) weapon around. My favorite elk rifle (just sold) was a Ruger #1 because it was very classy, but it didn't shoot really well and it has obvious limitations. When I look at the Savage on one hand I see a platform that I can build a very good shooting long-range rig from for a very limited amount of money and save a lot of time and headache as well. I see design features that meet a lot of the functional goals, such as being able to easily and quickly change barrels, no need for extensive action truing and lapping and plenty of aftermarket available. But it's a cheap feeling bolt that bugs me when it's in my hands, like closing a car door on a peice of crap car- you can tell it's crap because it doesn't feel solid andthunk shut like you imagine a bank vault to sound. The trigger is primarily made of stamped metal. The safety looks and acts like an afterthought. Factory non-Accustocks are flimsy and rotten and barrels are average. Finish looks OK for the most part. The good stuff (not Remington, although they don't feel as cheap as the Savage) just exudes craftsmanship and quality. Nothing can replace nice walnut stocks and blued steel and a 120 year old design. Gentlemen, please don't get me wrong, I'm not simply knocking Savage Arms in particular just to be knocking Savage. I am dis-satisfied with all of the modern mass production arms makers & what the consumer has allowed (if not forced) them to do. Take any one of them and compare a rifle made in the 50s or early 60s to one made recently. The overall degeneration of quality in my lifetime is shameful. That Savage recognizes this and is trying to make corrections in their product IS a plus. Just not in the way that I would like to see. I like craftsmanship & pride in a product. I also acknowledge that they simply can not build something that the consumer won't buy or afford. The fact is that quality costs money & very few of us can afford a brand new Holland & Holland that costs as much as a house. I know that I can't afford one & that is why I take satisfaction in building my own. Just for me, the way I like. My own single favorite rifle is not one that I built, its a 1941 Savage 99 in near mint condition. An absolute work of art that is a joy to shoot and I consider myself lucky that it ended up in my collection. A 70 year old rifle that any klutz can pick it up & shoot a one inch group. A gun that gives the shooter total confidence. Many people have shot it & offered me more than I paid for it. I also have a 99 from the early 70s, it shoots almost as good but looks like a cheap peice of junk. Toward the end of the 99's run, they got even worse. Looked awful & didn't shoot well at all. They got so bad that Savage could not sell any of them at all, at any price. The essance of crap. I also have older Remingtons & Winchesters that are equally well made with attention to detail ... excellent rifles. Infact, the very rifles that built the companies' respective reputations. i would hate to be the company that tries to build a reputation with the rifles that are being made these days because it would not be easy. But, its not Remington's, or Winchester's or Ruger's or Savage's or Weatherby's or Marlin's fault, they have only been making what their sales tell them to make. MLG |
|
Here's a rifle that will satisfy your desires. I'm going to post this link in its own thread starting at page 1.
http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/760101804/m/3761057511/p/4 |
|
Greenleaf didn't rework the existing bolt design. He's the original designer. The Savage two piece bolt has been around a while. Whether the floating bolt head is a recent idea is not relevent - look at the length of time Paul Mauser's two lug bolt, along with its other features such as gas handling, has been with us; tain't new, either. Bob Greenleaf IS NOT the original designer of the Savage 110! The rifle was designed by Nicolas Brewer for Savage right before his death in the late 1950's. The first four Savage 110 patents (including the bolt design) were assigned to Brewer's estate. Bob Greenleaf was asked to design a detachable magazine in 1964 and ultimately retooled the action, resulting in the 2nd generation actions. Frank Terrell, another Savage emplyee designed and patented the Savage 110 bolt travel guide in 1973. The source of my information is The Bolt Action, Volume 2 by Stuart Otteson. |
Armory Sponsor