I’m looking to do a budget precision build and I am looking at two different flavors of Savage 110s, the Tactical and the Trail Hunter, but I’m not sure which to do, both seem to have advantages and disadvantages.
The Trail Hunter has a heavier barrel, and I like that, and I like the jeweling they did on the bolt, I know it doesn’t really do anything, but I like the look. But it does not take useful magazines (I define useful has 5 rounds and up, and typically AICS, if Mauser could do a 5 round magazine in the 19th century I will accept nothing less in the 21st century), the stock is non adjustable and kind of cheap looking, and I would need to add a scope rail and a different bolt handle. It is also $200 cheaper.
The Tactical has the right scope rail and bolt handle out of the box and takes real magazines, and the stock is adjustable (sort of) and I think the barrel is 2 inches longer, however it is also a thinner barrel, which I don't like, but it’s fluted and I like fluted. But it does not have the jeweled bolt and I really don’t like skinny hunting profile barrels, fluted or not, and while it’s decently accurate the reviews I have seen are not as glowing about it’s accuracy as they are with the Trail Hunter. It is also $200 more.
In the case of the Trail hunter I would have to get a chassis, the included stock is very flimsy and does not take real magazines and it is not adjustable. The Tactical has a much better stock and is set up for real magazines and it can be adjusted but I hate that style of adjustment, it seems very very old fashioned to me and can’t be done on the fly, ARs have had adjustable stocks for decades now and the modern ones are available with cheek risers too and for not much money, how is it that bolt guns seem to almost all be so behind and adjustable stocks cost more than most entry level rifles? Ultimately it would probably be replaced with a chassis too but it could wait a while, while the Trail Hunter I would consider unusable without it
(Magazines).
TLDR version:
Trail Hunter: $200 cheaper but needs about $100 in upgrades plus a chassis because the stock/magazines are horrible. Really good barrel though. Pretty bolt.
Tactical: More expensive but ready to use out of the box, and has a less crappy stock, I would still want a chassis but it could wait a bit. But the barrel is not as good and the bolt is ugly.
Basically I think the Trail Hunter is the better barreled action, but that’s all that it is, the stock is garbage, but the Tactical is usable out of the box but has a questionable barrel. The Trail Hunter is $200 cheaper but that comes down to only $100 cheaper after adding the scope rail and changing the bolt handle.
So which would you pick and why?
The Trail Hunter has a heavier barrel, and I like that, and I like the jeweling they did on the bolt, I know it doesn’t really do anything, but I like the look. But it does not take useful magazines (I define useful has 5 rounds and up, and typically AICS, if Mauser could do a 5 round magazine in the 19th century I will accept nothing less in the 21st century), the stock is non adjustable and kind of cheap looking, and I would need to add a scope rail and a different bolt handle. It is also $200 cheaper.
The Tactical has the right scope rail and bolt handle out of the box and takes real magazines, and the stock is adjustable (sort of) and I think the barrel is 2 inches longer, however it is also a thinner barrel, which I don't like, but it’s fluted and I like fluted. But it does not have the jeweled bolt and I really don’t like skinny hunting profile barrels, fluted or not, and while it’s decently accurate the reviews I have seen are not as glowing about it’s accuracy as they are with the Trail Hunter. It is also $200 more.
In the case of the Trail hunter I would have to get a chassis, the included stock is very flimsy and does not take real magazines and it is not adjustable. The Tactical has a much better stock and is set up for real magazines and it can be adjusted but I hate that style of adjustment, it seems very very old fashioned to me and can’t be done on the fly, ARs have had adjustable stocks for decades now and the modern ones are available with cheek risers too and for not much money, how is it that bolt guns seem to almost all be so behind and adjustable stocks cost more than most entry level rifles? Ultimately it would probably be replaced with a chassis too but it could wait a while, while the Trail Hunter I would consider unusable without it
(Magazines).
TLDR version:
Trail Hunter: $200 cheaper but needs about $100 in upgrades plus a chassis because the stock/magazines are horrible. Really good barrel though. Pretty bolt.
Tactical: More expensive but ready to use out of the box, and has a less crappy stock, I would still want a chassis but it could wait a bit. But the barrel is not as good and the bolt is ugly.
Basically I think the Trail Hunter is the better barreled action, but that’s all that it is, the stock is garbage, but the Tactical is usable out of the box but has a questionable barrel. The Trail Hunter is $200 cheaper but that comes down to only $100 cheaper after adding the scope rail and changing the bolt handle.
So which would you pick and why?
