Finished my vintage 110 (7x57) rebuild

[want2ride]

That's part of it, but I attribute most of it to the well worn follower in the blind magazine. You just don't get that kind of smooth feeding from a DBM setup.

My 7x57 rounds literally leap into the chamber on their own. It's crazy. I don't think I've ever had any rifle that's fed smoother than this one.
I have a round back long range hunter (was a 7mm rem mag) that i changed to a 7x57 and it feeds perfect every time, but i did swap the mag box, spring and follower to new ones. It is just perfect, like it was made to run a 7x57.

[Mr.Snerdly]

Why is it that some people say a Savage shoots very well but they are ugly? I think they look as good as any other rifle.

[Newtosavage]

Why is it that some people say a Savage shoots very well but they are ugly? I think they look as good as any other rifle.

I think these old original 110's look as good as any other rifle. But they did get pretty plain and pretty ugly after that. I think the "fat" rear end of the bolt assembly does Savage no favors as it really chunks up the lines of the rifle. The barrel nut was a turn-off for a lot of people too, which is why I think Savage finally went to the smooth nut (and then every other company followed with their budget minded rifles).

Savage was probably one of the first to go to "hardwood" stocks vs. walnut and that was pretty early.

But when you combine the original flat-back action with the original barrel (with the rear sight swell) and the original hand-checkered walnut stock, to me at least, they are every bit as good looking as the Remingtons and Winchesters of their day in my opinion. That's a big reason I had to buy this rifle the day I found it. It sure didn't hurt that I got it for under $300. :D After having this stock for a while, I would probably pay close to that just for this stock alone. Savage has never since made stocks as good as this one in my opinion.

[PhilC]

The pre-66 110 was, IMHO, manufactured to higher standards than later models, and to me, my 1985 110 doesn't hold a candle to my 1957, it is that much better.

Not to sidetrack Newtosavage's topic, but according to forum member MadDog, #71 is the oldest 110 in his registry, can see it here (https://www.savageshooters.com/showthread.php?55031-Old-110-with-4-digit-serial-number).

[Newtosavage]

The pre-66 110 was, IMHO, manufactured to higher standards than later models, and to me, my 1985 110 doesn't hold a candle to my 1957, it is that much better.

Not to sidetrack Newtosavage's topic, but according to forum member MadDog, #71 is the oldest 110 in his registry, can see it here (https://www.savageshooters.com/showthread.php?55031-Old-110-with-4-digit-serial-number).

Very impressive rifle there. Thanks for posting that!

I had no idea I was getting the early "MC" version (monte carlo stock) when I bought that old rifle, but I'm sure glad I did. That stock puts my eye in a great position for the scope. If I had come across a non-MC version, I am certain I would have bought it too, and I would have set it up for iron sights, probably with a vintage rear peep, and enjoyed using it that way.

I imagine that as light as these early 110's are, a non-MC version with a steel butt plate fired with only iron sights would have been very "spirited" in a 30-06 indeed. Mine, even with the added weight of the MC stock and recoil pad, still weighs less than 7 1/2 lbs with the scope. So I suspect those early non-MC's with iron sights were in the 6 1/4 lb. range. Loaded with 180 grain '06 rounds, I'm sure those steel butt plates were responsible for more than one black and blue shoulder.

[Newtosavage]

One of the main reasons I invested in this rifle was how light and well balanced it is. That walnut stock, even with the raised cheek piece and recoil pad, is only 29 ounces. The whole package came out to just 7 lbs. 3 oz. with the scope and the balance point is right under the recoil lug which makes it feel even lighter in the hand.

So far, everyone who has picked up this rifle has commented how light and well balanced it is. I guess people see walnut and think heavy. But it sure isn't.

[Stumpkiller]

Unrelated firearm - but to your point about walnut. This smoothbore has a flame walnut full-length stock and a 42" 16 gauge barrel. Weighs exactly 7 pounds!

8006

[Newtosavage]

Nice rifle! I think Walnut was chosen - among other reasons - because of it's light weight, relatively speaking. It always surprises me how light it is compared to modern plastic stocks.


Unrelated firearm - but to your point about walnut. This smoothbore has a flame walnut full-length stock and a 42" 16 gauge barrel. Weighs exactly 7 pounds!

8006

[want2ride]

Wonderful looking gun! I just love that 7x57!