eklarsen
Well-Known Member
Not too bad for being chambered with a chisel.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
New Rifle. Utterly horrific chamber...UPDATED 4/19/20
- Thread starter entoptics
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Memberberries
Well-Known Member
You spent $250 less than msrp, take that money to a gunsmith to get it chambered then you will have a great rifle. Savage barrels don't have a reputation for being as good as their actions so wear it out and go custom on the next barrel.
codyadams
Well-Known Member
I would just get another prefit barrel and have it screwed on. Then your gtg
I read your post and reflect back on my first and last two savage experiences. First a new high country in 7-08. When I got to the range the factory ammo chambered a little stiff. I should have stopped there. I touched it off and then I realized something was amiss. It was short chambered and my factory ammo had been jammed into the rifling..what a kick and I had to tap the bolt open. I have a great dealer who immediately replaced it. The new one, ok, shoots good groups out of a 'gravel road' finish in the barrel. I will be doing a remage.
The second was a 224 Valkyrie. The new barrel is on order. Enough said, just use their actions in the future.
The second was a 224 Valkyrie. The new barrel is on order. Enough said, just use their actions in the future.
entoptics
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2018
- Messages
- 882
Me thinks you may have missed the point(s)...
1) It shoots (at least before I sent it back) slightly worse or equal to several OEM rifles I own or work with.
2) The action, bolt, and stock are worth more than $400. Barrel? Not so much...
3) I thought I made it pretty clear that "Savage won't touch it"...As in they sent me a defunct rifle three times...
4) Why would I be content with "chamber honing" on a flagship factory rifle. And besides. They're gonna "polish" it.
5) My luck doesn't appear to be good.
Last edited:
My dad and I bought matching long range hunters in 7mm mag the same day. Mine shoots great. His shoots 3" groups with factory ammo, but get this, it shoots the groups 16" left 8" down of where I boresight it. I've never even been off paper boresighting. So ya, 50/50 for savage is pretty bad. I won't buy another.
entoptics
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2018
- Messages
- 882
I normally consider your posts with high regard...
"Just spend half again what you already spent, and you're gtg!"
And frankly, "have it screwed on"...?!?!
I've got the friggin tools and skill to install a prefit Savage again!
Seriously?!?! Come on man. Give me some love...
codyadams
Well-Known Member
Not downplaying your experience in any manner, Savage raked you over the coals big time, I know the point of this whole thing isn't to spend more money and be "gtg" on a rifle that by all rights should have been from the factory. Heck, by all rights the $250 Axis rigs shouldn't even have the issues your dealing with. If they are going to the effort to make a rifle, at bare minimum at least make it function properly. I was trying to add sarcasm/humor to the sitiuation, not making a pointed statement, so I apologize for not making that more clear, I realize it was somewhat clouded.I normally consider your posts with high regard...
"Just spend half again what you already spent, and you're gtg!"
And frankly, "have it screwed on"...?!?!
I've got the friggin tools and skill to install a prefit Savage again!
Seriously?!?! Come on man. Give me some love...
I posted while playing cards with the family and didn't put much thought into it, just kind of laughed in disgust at the whole situation, then had a conversation with my cousin about how not to buy savages (or nearly any other high production factory bolt rifle) for anything but an action. Out of 5 that I have recently dealt with, I'm fairly certain two of them have screwed up throats and another had a dinged up chamber from the factory that physically couldn'tchamber a round, and that is just the savages, have a few experiences with Remington as well. The ones with the suspicious throats, it is very hard to find a solid reading on the lands, and when you do, if you chamber a round it leaves scratches on one side of the bullet, almost as if one land comes further down towards the chamber (as I have seen on other factory savages). I need to purchase a bore scope to confirm, but it seems somewhat obvious. So these $550 rifles will need a minimum of another $350 just to be accurate consistent rifles, when the chamber is reamed off center, I doubt it's possible to just push a reamer in to clean it up.
The one with the dinged up throat that wouldn't even chamber a round was an axis that I paid $250 for, and instead of sending it back to the factory, I paid my smith to ream and finish the chamber properly, about $60. In principle, savage should have fixed it free of charge. If it was a more expensive rifle like yours, I likely would have gone the same route as you, to much dismay obviously. But being it was a cheaper model, and I had very little faith in them fixing a rifle that they sent out like that in the first place, I just had my smith do it.
I suppose the point of all this should be, if you buy a savage, just plan on either buying a new barrel for it or having your smith fix your new rifle to get it in proper functioning order, reguardless of which tier it is in savages line up. Pretty ridiculous that is a consideration.
I am currently working on a friends remington 700 BDL 7mm rem mag that was built in 1974, and it's amazing!! Upon bolt lift, I can hear and feel solid defined functioning, the primary extraction works flawlessly, timing is right, and feeding is smooth as butter. Pretty sad, that almost 50 years later with much better technology, I have to send the same brand new action off to LRI to have the timing advanced and primary extraction fixed because in this day and age Remington can't consistently make an action that is capable of EXTRACTING a round. That isn't even taking into account the chamber issues that Remington has that mirror your Savage.
Again, my comment wasn't meant as a directive or a quick fix, it was in jest, as the products that make it out both Remington and Savage doors these days (maybe others) are past the point of out of spec, and to the point of flat laughable.
"Buy with the intent of fixing".
shinbone
Well-Known Member
Considering the cost of a borescopes now-a-days, I would say a borescope should be a required item when buying a new factory rifle. And, I would borescope any and all barrels before handing over my money for a new rifle.
I learned the above the hard way: In the last 2 years, I received two new rifles, each from a different well-recognized maker. Each rifle was a top-of-the-line model, priced above $1500, where the maker bragged about match-grade barrels, yada, yada. Unfortunately, I waited until I got home to scope the bores, and the borescope inspection showed each rifle had a crooked throat. By that I mean the reamer to cut the throat was run into the bore at an angle to the bore axis creating a ridge on one side of chamber where the throat transitioned to the leade. It also created a chamber where on one side of the supposed throat, the rifling extended all the way to the case mouth.
Fortunately, I discovered the problem before firing the rifles. Meaning, the companies couldn't try to BS me that I had somehow messed up the rifles when I shot them. I was able to take photos using the bore scope and included the images in my emails to each company. One company fought me tooth and nail, but finally relented and replaced the barrel after about 3 months. The second company, the now-defunct Montana Rifle Company, immediately took the rifle back, replaced the barrel, and had it back to me within 2 weeks. Very good customer service by MRC in that instance. The borescope images were a godsend to making my case each time.
Without a borescope, I would have happily shot both rifles, spent hours and $$$ trying to work up a load, and they never would have shot well, and I would have never known why, and by that time it would have been too late to return the rifles to the manufacturer.
Those -edited- (and I think almost all the big manufacturers have done this to a certain extent) have intentionally relied on the average shooter's inability to visually inspect a bore for too long. The business model was to cut corners on the bore because the owner would never see it. Those days are thankfully over, if a person chooses to buy a borescope.
JMHO
I learned the above the hard way: In the last 2 years, I received two new rifles, each from a different well-recognized maker. Each rifle was a top-of-the-line model, priced above $1500, where the maker bragged about match-grade barrels, yada, yada. Unfortunately, I waited until I got home to scope the bores, and the borescope inspection showed each rifle had a crooked throat. By that I mean the reamer to cut the throat was run into the bore at an angle to the bore axis creating a ridge on one side of chamber where the throat transitioned to the leade. It also created a chamber where on one side of the supposed throat, the rifling extended all the way to the case mouth.
Fortunately, I discovered the problem before firing the rifles. Meaning, the companies couldn't try to BS me that I had somehow messed up the rifles when I shot them. I was able to take photos using the bore scope and included the images in my emails to each company. One company fought me tooth and nail, but finally relented and replaced the barrel after about 3 months. The second company, the now-defunct Montana Rifle Company, immediately took the rifle back, replaced the barrel, and had it back to me within 2 weeks. Very good customer service by MRC in that instance. The borescope images were a godsend to making my case each time.
Without a borescope, I would have happily shot both rifles, spent hours and $$$ trying to work up a load, and they never would have shot well, and I would have never known why, and by that time it would have been too late to return the rifles to the manufacturer.
Those -edited- (and I think almost all the big manufacturers have done this to a certain extent) have intentionally relied on the average shooter's inability to visually inspect a bore for too long. The business model was to cut corners on the bore because the owner would never see it. Those days are thankfully over, if a person chooses to buy a borescope.
JMHO
Last edited:
Time is money ! I would've re-barreled it before arguing with customer service . But hey to each their own
25WSM
Well-Known Member
I would have just polished the chamber real quick and got on to shooting. Chances are it's going to shoot fine.
Shep
Shep
don't want to be argumentative and I know you're annoyed with them, but they are in the right in terms of the quote you provided does clearly state that handloads will void the warranty. The conditions are A, B, C, or D will void the warranty. The full text of D is "ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL/ NONCOMMERCIAL AMMUNITION NOT MANUFACTURED TO SAAMI (SPORTING ARMS AND AMMUNITION MANUFACTURERS' INSTITUTE, INC.) / ANSI (AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE) SPECIFICATIONS". That part is not a qualifier or add on to A,B,C but rather its own condition. You were using handloads, B in my example, so that alone could allow them to void the warranty.
All that said, this is really crappy customer service and sorry to hear it.
Buck3
Well-Known Member
It's a savage. I dont think they have ever been known for fit and finish. Flagship or not it's still made on the assembly line with the same machines that make all of the rest of the guns they make.
I bought one and will never own another. It was accurate, but ugly.
How does it shoot?
I would shoot it, and go from there.
I bought one and will never own another. It was accurate, but ugly.
How does it shoot?
I would shoot it, and go from there.
I am having trouble grasping how reloads caused the poor finish in the chamber? It really editd by admin when they tell you some bs that makes no sense......or doesn't and I am just to dumb to understand?
Last edited by a moderator:
