Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

[Creature]

I will refrain from voicing my opinion of Savage rifles as it might contaminate the results I intend to get from this thread.

I would appreciate it if you didn't respond with "because Savage sucks," or "Savage is best affordable rifle" type comments. I want hard technical arguments to make your point.

Lets be adults and not turn this into a war. If you've bought a Savage and it shoots great, awesome! Unless that pertains directly to MIL/LEO's use of the rifle then please refrain. Thank you.

Why doesn't MIL/LEO use(for the most part) Savage rifles? Please opine.

 

[yelton66]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

I think it has to do with DOD not liking new contracts. Case in point with all the field reviews against the 9mm, why did the Army renew its contract with Berretta. Answer: because it's familiar.
Rem 700 and Springer 14s are familiar in mil long range. Only flaw in my argument is the Barrett.

 

[BoilerUP]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

Because the Remington 700 is obviously a superior design in every possible way.
.
.
.
Seriously though...I'd surmise institutional momentum from the military and a desire in the LE community to use the same type of equipment the military uses.

Honestly, after using the M700 for decades, I'd bet Uncle Sam has it pretty much perfected for his intended uses and there's zero reason or incentive to make a change.

 

[Graham]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

I've seen some LE using Savage rifles. They are not as common as Remington, but you do see them.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

Personally, I can't really come up with a justification for that, but I might be able to come up with some reasons.

I think the first one is that the USGI adoption process is burdened with institutional inertia/bias.

In my own experience I can recall to some really weird practices that perpetuate simply on the basis of entrenched traditions. Nobody can remember why, therefore nobody will deviate.

Close on its heels is the immensely complicated, burdensome, and inflexible testing and adoption process itself.

I might also suspect that companies like Savage are simply disinclined to wander in front of that particular bullseye.

As for LE adoption, I'm not at all certain that this has not happened. I would suggest that litigation/liability does not favor innovation, and could be fueling institutional inertia/bias.

Greg

 

[Captain Moroni]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

Maybe its because Savage has to change things every other year. The local PD SWAT uses both Remington and Savage.

 

[317millhand]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

Im curious if savage rifles could pass military testing. Sure they are proven to be accurate, but look and feel cheap to me.

 

[Beef82]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

I read an article once about a unit in the Phillipine military having selected them as a sniper rifle. Which means nothing other than that they may and likely do try for contracts atleast when an existing rifle fufills the requirment.
Sniper rifles are a very small part of the US military's small arms program, and until recently what they've used has rarely changed. There have been few innovations in the world of bolt actions to really warrant the hassles of changing a formula that has worked, all the Savage really offers is barrels that don't need a machine shop to change, but if roundcount and/or accuracy degradation is tracked there shouldn't be allot of suprise barrel changes required anyway.

 

[The Surgeons Ghost]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

As far as military, Surgeon was just awarded a contract to build and provide rifles for select groups with in the military. I know Surgeon isn't in the topic of discussion but I am just using this to provide an example. I don't necessarily believe it has anything to do with Savage, Remington, or what ever the gun might be, as it does whith who the contract is awarded to. That being said. My nephew is going through MARSOC training at Frt Bragg. According to him, the teams are allowed to pick and design their own rifle. Now does this mean the Snipers as well? I don't know. But what I am being told is, since this group is a selection process, I think it may apply to this group as well. Maybe some members here that have more experience and knowledge with the Teams could shed some light on this.

As for Law Enforcement, I agree with a few other members here. Here in our county our sheriffs office allow their snipers to pick and design their own rifle. Does this happen every where? Probably not.

Personally I feel that it is not a Remington or Savage issue, at least not now. Maybe it was earlier on. But I think with examples like Surgeon Rifles and their contract, things have changed.

I know we have some members here on the Hide that have experience with this very issue, both on the military side, the LE side, and sometimes both. Maybe they will come on in here and shed some light on this topic.

Anyway, great topic !

 

[Twitch2120]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

surgeon is part of freedom group now arent they? i suspect there are strings pulled in some pretty fancy offices between companies with lots of money and those willing to take it.

 

[Creature]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 317millhand</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Im curious if savage rifles could pass military testing.</div></div>

I would be wondering the same. It would also be interesting to know what the testing criteria would be. If anyone had insight or info regarding this I would appreciate hearing it.

 

[JB02]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: trailbound</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it has to do with DOD not liking new contracts. </div></div>
At the risk of highjacking this thread, I don't believe this point is true. While I can't speak for LEO, sustainment costs contribute to 60% or more of the total lifecycle cost in DOD acquisition systems. Having multiple platforms to sustain not only makes sustainment more expensive, but it frustrates operators as well as they encounter obsolescence issues with parts that are no longer supported by the supply system. Writing new contracts has nothing to do with this, as contracts are frequently changed and renegotiated as government requirements change. Perhaps you you meant to say is that a government purchasing program has less risk if it is contracting goods or services from a proven vendor.

 

[The Surgeons Ghost]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Creature</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 317millhand</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Im curious if savage rifles could pass military testing.</div></div>

I would be wondering the same. It would also be interesting to know what the testing criteria would be. If anyone had insight or info regarding this I would appreciate hearing it. </div></div>

Do you mean as a company or the action itself? The action its self? No. Neither could Remington on the basis of a stock system like you or I could get off of a shelf. Not sure if this is what you are referring to or not. Now could the action qualify as being worthy to be built off of by the LE and Military armorers? Yes, I believe so.

I think you need to consider that what it would cost to re- tool a LE or Military armorer so that they can change over to another platform and, does the benefit of changing over warrant the cost of that re-tooling? Lets not forget about re-training for maintenance issues for the men and women that use the system,that most agencies and military would require. Since I don't believe there is any real advantage over a Remington or a Savage, I would say the answer is, No. Since the decision was made before I was knee high to a grass-hopper to go with Remington, in the case of military, this is what would have to take place. Re-tooling & Retraining, that is.

 

[Creature]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The_Surgeon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Creature</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 317millhand</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Im curious if savage rifles could pass military testing.</div></div>

I would be wondering the same. It would also be interesting to know what the testing criteria would be. If anyone had insight or info regarding this I would appreciate hearing it. </div></div>

Do you mean as a company or the action itself? The action its self? No. Neither could Remington on the basis of a stock system like you or I could get off of a shelf.
</div></div>

I'm more trying to gauge the weak/strong points of Savage rifles, specifically.

I'm interested to know what process the military used to determine a rifle's capability to perform accurately under varying conditions.

Also IIRC a lot of custom actions have been derived from the Remington 700 action. Of course they're beefed up a bunch with tighter tolerances and custom features. I haven't seen any custom actions derived from Savage...

 

[Creature]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DFOOSKING</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If LEOs could run mini-14's in the past....I see no reason why a Savage couldn't be.

</div></div>

I was mainly referring to major city SWAT snipers, not small town departments. I'm sure there's a department somewhere using mosin nagants for their sniper rifles. That doesn't much make the case for Savage.

 

[HoytFlinger]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: trailbound</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it has to do with DOD not liking new contracts. Case in point with all the field reviews against the 9mm, why did the Army renew its contract with Berretta. Answer: because it's familiar.
Rem 700 and Springer 14s are familiar in mil long range. Only flaw in my argument is the Barrett. </div></div>

There is a lot that comes along with the adoption of a new weapon system. Need, LCSM costs, and so on. Funding is the big one these days. Today, 30 Sep, is the first time in 15 years that I did not have to work on the last day of the fiscal year. Budgets are getting extremely limited. A KO not having to work on 30 Sep is definite proof of that.

 

[JB02]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Creature</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 317millhand</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Im curious if savage rifles could pass military testing.</div></div>

I would be wondering the same. It would also be interesting to know what the testing criteria would be. If anyone had insight or info regarding this I would appreciate hearing it. </div></div>

You won't (likely) find it posted here as it would probably be in violation of non-disclosure agreements.

Here's a brief summary of how this works:
- Warfighter (e.g., US Army G-8) says because of x, y, and z, we need to acquire new rifles for our warriors that have these capabilities
- Warfighter tells PEO Soldier to buy new rifles having these "key performance parameters" (KPPs) (think of these as the minimum specifications that are postulated to satisfy the requirement)
- PEO Soldier conducts market research to determine if industry already can provide a solution that meets or exceeds the KPPs (in the case of a rifle, almost certainly)
- PEO Soldier can decide to buy based on lowest price or best value. In any event, it will announce a "Request for Proposal" (RFP) to build so many rifles having such and such specifications within such and such a time frame.
- Companies submit their proprietary info (specs, unit cost, other data as specified by the RFP) to PEO Soldier for consideration
- A contract review board considers the bids. Depending on the contracting strategy, and the dollar value of the acquisition, either a single candidate is selected or several vendors are selected for the next gate
- Vendors present prototypes, which are subject to inspection by an independent test and evaluation team. This testing usually includes "live fire"
- If the contract dollar value is high enough, a low rate initial production run is performed so that the vendor's quality and manufacturing process can be vetted by an independent government entity
- At this point, the review board will consider the price, test performance, and manufacturing capability/capacity and award the contract to one of the candidate vendors (assuming PEO Soldier and the resource sponsor are willing to enter full rate production)

As I said, that's only a summary, and there are a gazillion caveats I neglected to mention; things like lifecycle support analysis and numerous other studies are part of the process (the number of reviews and studies is commensurate with the dollar value of the acquisition program). This is the reason why military systems cost so much; you have to get it right and fully vet a system if lives will be on the line or you have to sustain this system for many years.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume that Remington, Savage, and Surgeon can all build a rifle that will meet or exceed the key performance parameters demanded by the warfighter. I hope you can see from my explanation of the process above that it takes much more than being able to build a rifle to win a government contract. The vendor must also show that it can produce the "best value" as well, and deliver within the time frame specified by the contract. It is very probable that the reason Remington was chosen was that it was the vendor that could provide rifles meeting the requirements within the contract's constrains (such as "produce an indefinite amount of rifles to be delivered within an indefinite time period"). Some company's manufacturing processes simply are not agile enough to accommodate the relatively whimsical demands of the military, especially to its rigid military specifications.

The real reasons are not likely to be disclosed because doing so would reveal 1) key government weapon system requirements, 2) proprietary test data, and 3) proprietary cost data.

 

[fdkay]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

Years ago, when Savage's LE platforms were more limited and you had a choice between their tupperware stock or the choate varmint stock, I spoke to a local Sheriff that was purchasing a Savage varmint rifle (.223) for his departments use.

When I attended the basic sniper /observer course 2.5 years ago, there were 2 savages on the line. Mine was one.

I have since moved on to a remington 5r. The savage performed VERY well (10PC) and I had no issues with it whatsoever.

Just like many things, for better or worse, many departments use the 700 because that is what the military uses. Remington has also targeted LE with specific packages (700P with Leupold 3.5-10 SWS).

Many of the larger departments with bigger budgets are going to the AI AE.

 

[Beef82]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The_Surgeon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Creature</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 317millhand</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Im curious if savage rifles could pass military testing.</div></div>

I would be wondering the same. It would also be interesting to know what the testing criteria would be. If anyone had insight or info regarding this I would appreciate hearing it. </div></div>

Do you mean as a company or the action itself? The action its self? No. Neither could Remington on the basis of a stock system like you or I could get off of a shelf. Not sure if this is what you are referring to or not. Now could the action qualify as being worthy to be built off of by the LE and Military armorers? Yes, I believe so.

I think you need to consider that what it would cost to re- tool a LE or Military armorer so that they can change over to another platform and, does the benefit of changing over warrant the cost of that re-tooling? Lets not forget about re-training for maintenance issues for the men and women that use the system,that most agencies and military would require. Since I don't believe there is any real advantage over a Remington or a Savage, I would say the answer is, No. Since the decision was made before I was knee high to a grass-hopper to go with Remington, in the case of military, this is what would have to take place. Re-tooling & Retraining, that is. </div></div>

Hate to be argumentitive and off topic but you or I can buy an M24 SWS from any Remington LE dealer, all it requires is an ungodly sum of money, for a fancy barrel, mediocre stock and non-x-mark trigger, nothing special about the action and the Army does not re-work them, the Marines do for the M40. I may be mistaken but I understand the contract for the M24 also included major maintenance to be done by Remington. Now of course there's a contract with Remington to reconfiguring some of them into the xm2010 which may allow some actual M24 service weapons to get into the public's hands.

 

[LanceS4803]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

I haven't seen this mentioned:
Has Savage SOUGHT the military market? Have they entered any rifles in trials?
It is a huge undertaking and not every company wants to put themselves through this. From oversight of their accounting system, logistics, corporate officers, not to mention QA.

 

[USMC mustang]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

The Marine Corps has been using the 700 action since the mid-60s, the Army adopted the M24 in the late 80s (about the same time that Savage was filing for bankruptcy). Why would the military have even considered the Savage over the Remington? Remington had a well-deserved reputation for making an accurate rifle, particularly the 40x, prior to the military's adoption of 700 action based rifles. While Savage has a reputation for producing accurate rifles these days, I don't know that that was the case when the military made the decisions they did.

 

[dmpowder]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LanceS4803</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't seen this mentioned:
Has Savage SOUGHT the military market? Have they entered any rifles in trials?
It is a huge undertaking and not every company wants to put themselves through this. From oversight of their accounting system, logistics, corporate officers, not to mention QA. </div></div>

+1

I for one am glad Savage isn't being used. Keeps them more in touch with their customers! Look at how many different models you can get through them as compared to any other company. Everything from your very first inexpensive rifle to a full blown comp rig! Remington can't say the same!

 

[The Surgeons Ghost]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LCDR JGB</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Creature</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 317millhand</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Im curious if savage rifles could pass military testing.</div></div>

I would be wondering the same. It would also be interesting to know what the testing criteria would be. If anyone had insight or info regarding this I would appreciate hearing it. </div></div>

You won't (likely) find it posted here as it would probably be in violation of non-disclosure agreements.

Here's a brief summary of how this works:
- Warfighter (e.g., US Army G-8) says because of x, y, and z, we need to acquire new rifles for our warriors that have these capabilities
- Warfighter tells PEO Soldier to buy new rifles having these "key performance parameters" (KPPs) (think of these as the minimum specifications that are postulated to satisfy the requirement)
- PEO Soldier conducts market research to determine if industry already can provide a solution that meets or exceeds the KPPs (in the case of a rifle, almost certainly)
- PEO Soldier can decide to buy based on lowest price or best value. In any event, it will announce a "Request for Proposal" (RFP) to build so many rifles having such and such specifications within such and such a time frame.
- Companies submit their proprietary info (specs, unit cost, other data as specified by the RFP) to PEO Soldier for consideration
- A contract review board considers the bids. Depending on the contracting strategy, and the dollar value of the acquisition, either a single candidate is selected or several vendors are selected for the next gate
- Vendors present prototypes, which are subject to inspection by an independent test and evaluation team. This testing usually includes "live fire"
- If the contract dollar value is high enough, a low rate initial production run is performed so that the vendor's quality and manufacturing process can be vetted by an independent government entity
- At this point, the review board will consider the price, test performance, and manufacturing capability/capacity and award the contract to one of the candidate vendors (assuming PEO Soldier and the resource sponsor are willing to enter full rate production)

As I said, that's only a summary, and there are a gazillion caveats I neglected to mention; things like lifecycle support analysis and numerous other studies are part of the process (the number of reviews and studies is commensurate with the dollar value of the acquisition program). This is the reason why military systems cost so much; you have to get it right and fully vet a system if lives will be on the line or you have to sustain this system for many years.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume that Remington, Savage, and Surgeon can all build a rifle that will meet or exceed the key performance parameters demanded by the warfighter. I hope you can see from my explanation of the process above that it takes much more than being able to build a rifle to win a government contract. The vendor must also show that it can produce the "best value" as well, and deliver within the time frame specified by the contract. It is very probable that the reason Remington was chosen was that it was the vendor that could provide rifles meeting the requirements within the contract's constrains (such as "produce an indefinite amount of rifles to be delivered within an indefinite time period"). Some company's manufacturing processes simply are not agile enough to accommodate the relatively whimsical demands of the military, especially to its rigid military specifications.

The real reasons are not likely to be disclosed because doing so would reveal 1) key government weapon system requirements, 2) proprietary test data, and 3) proprietary cost data. </div></div>

I think this gentleman hit the nail on the head. The only thing that I would like to add is the "Politics" that are also involved in the process.

Well said! +1

 

[The Surgeons Ghost]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmpowder</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LanceS4803</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't seen this mentioned:
Has Savage SOUGHT the military market? Have they entered any rifles in trials?
It is a huge undertaking and not every company wants to put themselves through this. From oversight of their accounting system, logistics, corporate officers, not to mention QA. </div></div>

+1

I for one am glad Savage isn't being used. Keeps them more in touch with their customers! Look at how many different models you can get through them as compared to any other company. Everything from your very first inexpensive rifle to a full blown comp rig! Remington can't say the same! </div></div>

I think Remington can say the same thing. Of course, like Savage, Remington doesn't show those higher end rifles on their "Remington 700 Rifles" link of their main web page.

They are offered...

Just not on www.remington.com

 

[coug]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

It could also mean savage would have to make a remington foot print action. To satisfy the spec.

 

[Ring]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've seen some LE using Savage rifles. They are not as common as Remington, but you do see them.</div></div>

this...

have been a hard core savage guy since the 90's, and now building a 700 i can say this...

the ejection on savage sucks... ive had and built 6 guns over the years,, most of them have ejection issues

as for as for extraction, nothing beats the big claw on the m70

 

[Northland]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

One of the LE sniper courses I attended a guy had a Savage. He showed up with it brand new in the box and the scope wasn't even mounted. The instructor mounted it and the rifle had problems. Feeding issues I believe. The instructor said he wasn't going to allow Savage rifles to his classes anymore because 90% of them had issues.

That is just what he had said, I have no proof to support it

 

[BoilerUP]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Northland</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One of the LE sniper courses I attended a guy had a Savage. He showed up with it brand new in the box and the scope wasn't even mounted.</div></div>

Now that's just stupid...

 

[bassani]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

savages dont cost enough money....you know the government has to overpay for everything

 

[gathumper]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

I can't tell you how many LE sniper competitions that I have shot in, and have seen a butt load of Savages walk through the doors. I've never seen one shoot horribly or have any problems that other rifles don't. Matter of fact there was a guy that shot in the Sarasota SWAT competition that shot with a Savage and won a new scope for his department, and his department bought the Savage, not the shooter!

 

[hdbiker1]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Maelek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">savages <span style="color: #FF0000">dont cost enough money</span>....you know the government has to overpay for everything </div></div>

I'm sure quite a few dealers could fix that.

 

[JByrd]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

Savage rifles are so deadly accurate ,they dont want to take a chance of loseing one in the field and it falling into enemy hands and ending the world as we know it today.

 

[Flyingbullseye]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

I for one regret having sold my savage in favor of my now R700. Untrued with a McGowen barrel the savage shot better groups than my now trued 700 with a Rock Barrel. Same caliber. The Savage never had extraction or feeding issues where before my smith fixed and smoothed all the problem the remington did. The real big downside to the savage is the bolt lift, as its very clunky and much harder than the 700. I'm going to sell the 700 later this autumn and put the money towards a Big Horn action and have the best of both worlds. The floating bolt head of the savage and the smoothness of the 700.

 

[jorefice]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: procovert45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Savage rifles are so deadly accurate ,they dont want to take a chance of loseing one in the field and it falling into enemy hands and ending the world as we know it today.</div></div>

Good one!

 

[JB02]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Maelek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">savages dont cost enough money....you know the government has to overpay for everything</div></div>

Gov't doesn't "overpay." Things like rigid military specifications, random spot checks and audits on a vendor's quality control system, prototype demonstrations, field certifications, life cycle support, and the list goes on. You need people, facilities, organizations, and processes to implement and execute all of these requirements.

None of that is free.

 

[Blackhawk41]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

I've seen police on the indian reservations use savages in 300 winmag. I know its ironic but its true, I did the scope set up for one of them.

 

[RobertB]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

I have some savages. while I don;t have one that won't shoot I don't have one that won;t break either. Mine are just as accurate as my remmys but I bet they're not as tough as em either. I don't know what kind of abuse they "need" to take but with the bolt head I'm sure failure is closer with it than others. Mine have never caused problems but I'm sure if I wanted to induce problems I could. Not bashing savage at all. I'm fond of mine and they are SCARY accurate. I can't say enough how accurate they are but if I had the choice on what to carry to battle I'm sorry to say that savage wouldn't be in my top 3.

 

[coug]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

Everyone would carry surgeon or bighorn if they had the choice. Savage and remington are of the same quality. You can buy cheap one and nice ones. The army bought the M24 with the intended rifle to be in service for a very long time. That's why they used a long action for a. 308. This was so they can upgrade the same action to a different rifle.

 

[Arbiter]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

As previously said, the institutional inertia of the 700 is a difficult thing for anyone to overcome. Savage as a precision rifle company has only truly come into its own over the past twenty years, while Remington has the advantage of time and market presence. While there have been some changes made to the 700 over the past few decades, on the whole parts compatibility has enabled a robust aftermarket to develop. I can say from first-hand knowledge that Savage's repeated engineering changes have caused accessory manufacturers to choose not to support the platform, or to prioritize it below other products.

And while the accuracy of a Savage isn't likely to be called into question, the reliability and durability might occasionally be a problem. Not often, and nothing dramatic, but enough to indicate that Savage may still need to work out some kinks here and there.

In another 20 years we may be having an entirely different discussion...about whether or not Remington will ever regain the LE market from Savage, AI, and LaRue.

 

[346ci]

Re: Why hasn't Mil/LEO ever used Savage rifles?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Twitch2120</div><div class="ubbcode-body">surgeon is part of freedom group now arent they? i suspect there are strings pulled in some pretty fancy offices between companies with lots of money and those willing to take it. </div></div>

Someone please confirm Surgeon didn't sell out to those shit bags...