This is something new to me. The "Floating Bolt Head" that is. What do you guys think of this concept? How about the newer Savage rifles vs. the older ones? They've always had a great reputation for accuracy, but is the good even better? Wanting a .260 myself. In something a little heavier in weight than my Model 7 I shoot now in .243. Not by too much though. Nothing wrong with the .243, I'm more interested in just the newer Savage rifles in general really. And like many others out there, there's just somethin sexy about the .260

Trex,

I only own one Savage which was a recent purchase so I have no brand loyalty. I bought a Police Carbine in 223 and I love it. I was contemplating a Remington but decided to give the Savage a try after hearing all the Savage worshippers spread their propaganda.

All I can say is they were right. The Savage just works great and the $600 PC I bought has great fit and finish. It's hand's down my most accurate rife and shoots everything I feed it very well.

IIRC The floating bolthead was designed in to the Savage 110 in the mid 60's so it's been around for a long time.

quote:

Originally posted by Trex:
And like many others out there, there's just somethin sexy about the .260

yes it's shaped like a suppository or minuture dilldo. roger

I bought my first Savage in 2000(pre-Accutrigger). Since then five others have found their way to my house. The latest was a 12fv,22-250(with accutrigger).The accuracy for all six is the same, spot-on. Personally, I don't care for the Accutrigger; it doesn't "fit my finger".
All of my Savage/Stevens rifles wear the SSS
Competition trigger.IMHO it is the best Savage/
Stevens aftermarket trigger out there.
GOOD LUCK and GOOD SHOOTING!!!

SMLE.

Floating bolt head??

That is a marketing invention long after the original 110 was designed. The original design was intended to provide an easy to manufacture bolt. I think Savage was always a resource limited cash strapped company and the 110 design was intended to be easy to manufacture with a minimum investment in hard tooling.

I would prefer that the parts were made to a level of precision that a floating bolt head is of no advantage. However I do not think the design is half bad. If the Savage design had decent bottom metal and an easier bolt lift it would probably replace the Rem 700 as the basic modular rifle action.

quote:

Originally posted by tin can:
SMLE.

Not quite the same, the SMLE bolt head was not locking. The Savage and the newer Marlin X7 floating bolt heads are the locking components. Concept is good as in reality most fixed bolts do not lock up perfectly square hence the reason for lapping in the locking lugs if blueprinting the action. Whether this is really of any great benefit is debatable, some seem to think so.

Shilen liked it well enough that they copied the idea on their "new" action along with the same barrel nut. It must be a pretty good concept. I think it does help to provide a square platform on which the cartridge sits when the bolt is closed.

Lapping the lugs for the most part is a waste of time. Unless the receiver has a fitted bolt the rear of the bolt kicks up and unloads the upper lug. Savage's bolt head eliminates this. It ain't pretty, but it works.
Butch

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

quote:

Originally posted by tin can:
SMLE.

Not quite the same, the SMLE bolt head was not locking. The Savage and the newer Marlin X7 floating bolt heads are the locking components. Concept is good as in reality most fixed bolts do not lock up perfectly square hence the reason for lapping in the locking lugs if blueprinting the action. Whether this is really of any great benefit is debatable, some seem to think so.

Your input is appreciated; aren't "Borden Bumps", etc., means to the same end, having the lugs lying square? I seem to recall Calfee having a long thread at Benchrest covering bolt/lug squareness as result of the sear/trigger surfaces.

To the SMLE, I believe there are three different depths of bolt heads, to be interchanged to compensate for headspace.

(edited)

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
Lapping the lugs for the most part is a waste of time. Unless the receiver has a fitted bolt the rear of the bolt kicks up and unloads the upper lug. Savage's bolt head eliminates this. It ain't pretty, but it works.
Butch

I should read 'em all first- there's my answer.

I like the new Marlin XL/XS-7 series better than the Savage 110 series and think that if Marlin got off their collective butts, they could take the entry-level CF bolt action market niche away from Savage/Stevens in short order.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by 260remguy:
I like the new Marlin XL/XS-7 series better than the Savage 110 series and think that if Marlin got off their collective butts, they could take the entry-level CF bolt action market niche away from Savage/Stevens in short order.

Jeff

Couldn't agree more Jeff. I've just recently purchased a Marlin XS7 in 7mm08 to replace a Rem 700 in same calibre that my son now calls his. For the price the Marlin is a nice looker and shooter. Was not fussed on the blind magazine at first but it does stiffen the plastic stock and the rounds pop out easily enough into hand without having to chamber each one.

Like the bolt shroud (even though plastic) far better than the ugly Savage/Stevens one and the Marlin does have a proper checkered pattern not like the Rems and other plastic stocks.

An all round great knock about hunting rifle IMO.

quote:

I think Savage was always a resource limited cash strapped company and the 110 design was intended to be easy to manufacture with a minimum investment in hard tooling.

According to the guy who actually designed the M110C, "There could be no skimping on the cost or strength of the materials for safety and durability reasons, so the savings or reductions had to come out of labor. Simpler shapes to polish, quicker assembly, etc. All resulted in the desired goals being met."

Too the name "M-110" came from the retail cost of the rifle in 1957 - $109.95.


.