Well I was in the guns stores yesterday and was looking at a few considerations. Either a rifled barrel for the shot gun or a 30-06 rifle. This was a hard decision to make, and I hope I hade the correct one. I hunt in Michigan so we have a shotgun only zone and a rifle and shotgun zone. I hunt in both and already have a smooth bore for the shot gun. Any way’s I chose the rifle after an exhausting day of shopping.
I decided to go with a bolt action over the lever or semi-autos. I figured this was the most accurate choice and one to get me into better shooting habits. Plus I am told they are more reliable (my shot gun pump always seems to give me problems inconveniently at the wrong times). I considered 3 guns in the 30-06 range. They were the Rem 710 (bolt action), Rem. 7400 (semi-auto), and the Savage 111. While the 7400 was a nice solid gun, I was leaning heavily towards a bolt action, so it was basically out of the other two guns.
I tried both of these guns. I was unimpressed by the bolt action of the Rem 710. It seemed so sloppy, it kind of scared me as being a cheaply made gun. That alone kind of made the gun feel cheap. Now the Savage 111 seemed like the bolt was firmer and not as sloppy when extended outward. While the one with the synthetic stock seemed a little looser then one I tried in a other store with a wood stock (assuming it was also a 111 series) it made me more comfortable with the Savage over the Remington. However, the eye relief on the scope seemed to make me have to stain a little more forward then necessary to get the proper field of view which I was under the belief I could slide the scope back a tad.
At the end of the day, I walked out with the Savage 111 even though I went in with the intent on getting a rifle barrel over the rifle for my shotgun.
When I got home, I decided to move my scope back some. After loosening it I noticed it wasn’t sliding back. I pulled it back and realized that their were groves in the scope mount were the screws from the rings go through. This was kind of disappointing and upsetting. Even the scope was at the same spanning of the ring mounts so I couldn’t just slide the scope back any in the ring mounts. I was able to move the whole thing maybe 1/16 of an inch because of the slight bit of play that was left.
Anyways, I was wondering what everyone else’s thoughts were on these guns and such. Is their any comparisons or reviews on the web (especially for the Savage 111). Anyone personal experiences with either one of these two guns would be greatly appreciated. Any info on these guns especially the \savage would also be appreciated. I normally like to learn as much as possible about a product before purchasing, but in this situation I wasn’t afforded that opportunity.
Also, anyone know were I can get trajectory reports and such on this gun? Their site doesn’t tell squat about the gun.

Well, let's see -

There's several ways to solve the scope being too far forward. It sounds like you have a Weaver base and Weaver type rings. Is the base mount one-piece or is it a two-piece mount? If two-piece (one mount on the front of the receiver and the other on the back, with the loading port in between), there's not much we can do - you're captive to the clearance provided between the two.
Only thing in this case is to get a scope that has additional distance between the bell housings and the adjustment turret.

If it's a one piece mount, we can figure out what distance we need to move the scope, where the rings (front or back, don't need to mess with both) would be located on the mount, centerline mark and CAREFULLY file in the needed notches on the base, being sure to match the profile and depth of the existing notches. I've done this on several Weaver mounts successfully, using a small square needle file.

There are rail mounts called Pictinny (sp) that have notches all along the top of the mount. Should be able to find one in the gun shops that have holes to correspond with your Savage.

You can always swap out the mount/rings for a Leupold or Redfield Jr one-piece mount and rings if the spacing would be more condusive for your needs.

Trajectory of your 30-06 using factory ammo is available in most of the yearly produced rifle and ammo books available at news stands or book stores.

Your Savage 110 is bored with 1:10 twist, which stabilizes the 150 gr - 165 gr bullets beautifully. We just had a recent posting by another member shooting factory 150 gr ammo and it was recommended for sighting in to be 2" high at 100 yds for a dead-on hold out to 250 yds. This should be more than sufficient for Michigan type hunting.

BTW, Welcome to the board.

I’m not sure which base it is. It is from the factory this way as their combo set. However, I included a photo so you can get a visual idea as well.
As you can tell, the base mount is a 2 piece with the loading/ejecting port in-between. I am hoping to keep the scope on that came with the rifle for at least this year as money is a little tight. In the future I do plan on upgrading the scope however.
I have heard about offset rings. Anyone else ever hear of these? Gauging by my shot gun and scope, I would like to pull the scope back between ½ to 1 inch for optimum ease of use.
Also you mentioned the Savage 110. This is the Savage 111 (http://www.savagearms.com/111fcxp3.htm) which also has the 1:10 twist. Are these the same gun with just a different magazine style?
Thank you you’re your reply and help along with the warm welcome.

Yes, you have the Weaver style 2 piece mount - not much you can do if you want to keep the present scope, unless as you say, you get the extended mount to either mount on the front (suggested) or rear.

Yes, all Savage rifles in 30-06 chambering have 1:l0 twist bores, according to my reference charts.

Hi, Gamehunter:
Looks like you've got a short tube scope on a long action, and it's not the scope shown on Savages' site either. An offset ring on the front and reversing the rear mount would give you another 1/2", maybe a bit more. (Interruption while I dig the Weaver catalogue out of a 2" high stack of gun rags.) Extension rings are high as the front one needs some bell clearance. Looks like the #49060 Gloss or #49043 matte would do the trick, from here. If that doesn't work, the 49061 Gloss or #49045 Matte Dual Extension might, but it looks like there's room at the rear mount. I think the duals are more expensive.

The other more expensive, but neater and permanent cure is a scope with a longer eye relief. That means Leupold or Simmons Aetec. Both go 4" while yours probably has 3". That also lets you use lower mounts which will likely fit you better. Shortening the stock may also be the answer, but that's depends on your build.

I haven't seen a 710, but I haven't heard much good about them. Savage has a better reputation.

Here's a link to Remington's ballistics charts.
http://www.remington.com/ammo/ballistics/ballistics.htm
You should play with the trajectory calculator in Ballistician's Corner on Beartooth's main site. Click on the top left tab on this page. Another option is the free Point Blank program at http://www.huntingnut.com/pointblank.html

Bye
Jack

Just picked up an old Savage 110 at the last gun show. When they say "long" action, they aren't kidding!!! I think that the scope bases are farther apart on that gun than any other gun I own. So it looks like a big part of the problem is just the way the gun is made. Got spoiled by the integral rings on my Ruger 77s, and the short action of the one Remington that I have. My Model 70 has a one-piece Redfield base so it 'cheats' a little on the ring spacing and has them closer together than they would be with two-piece bases.

Look on the bright side, if you can save up enough money to get a Leupold then you'll never have to worry about the scope whacking you in the face. There are a couple of Leupold models that can be found for less than $200 brand new.

On the Savage 110 I stuck an old used Leupold 4x on it which I picked up at a gun show for probably around $100 or so. The old Leupold 4x scopes have such long tubes that there is still some room to move the scope back, even on the Savage receiver, and of course it has plenty of eye relief as well.

Will shoot it a little and see how it goes. By the way your choice of a .30-06 is a great general-purpose hunting rifle for North America (and pretty much the rest of the world as well) and should serve you well. The standard rate of twist on a .30-06 barrel is 1-10" and should handle bullets from as light as you can find to 220 grains. Mine (Win M70) will shoot everything from 125 to 195gr. with good accuracy, I haven't tried anything either lighter or heavier. Even some cast bullets were just fine.

Wow, thank you all very much.
Jack, you appear to be very correct. It does appear that the scope on the Savage site appears not to be the same one as on my gun. So I decided to take a photo of the gun and do some Photoshop work to it to see how they compared. It even appears to be a different gun all together. And on the one on the Savage site, the scope does come back further then mine does. The two scopes do look strikingly similar however.
The difference between my gun and the gun on the site appears to be the barrel length. Mine appears to have a shorter barrel then what is pictured on the site. And according to the site, this gun comes as either a 270 or the .30-06 which I was aware of and both according to the specs given are the same in over all length and barrel length. This kind of confuses me on why the photo’s differ so greatly.
Also thanks for the info on the scope mounts, I will be looking into this along with calling Savage tomorrow to pick their brain about the discrepancies.
I also noticed some issues with the bolt having some rough surfaces which I will start a new thread to address it in.
I’ll also have to consider the Leupold scope you guys are recommending as the future add on for this gun. I don’t so much mind o much of getting a pricy scoop since I can obviously place it on a different gun in the future.
Again, thank you all for your replies, it’s been a big help.

I have a 30-06 model 700, and I mounted a burris 4x compact on it. Initially, the scope was not long enough for the action. I purchased a set of millet extension rings that fit on the weaver bases...around $30 at dick's sporting goods.
It solved the problem, quite easily. I used both extension rings, facing each other. I think midway sells them, not sure, though. Good luck and good shooting!

Hi, Gamehunter:
That rifle in the ad looks like it has a 24" barrel. Perhaps it's one of the varmint or magnum models. That bolt baffle looks pretty rough. The only Savage I've had apart is an early one, 1950-60's and the baffle was milled and polished.

Most variable scopes lose eye relief as you turn the power up. Not only that, but the usable range decreases too. So you may have 3" at 9 power, with a usable leeway from 2 3/4" to 3 1/4", but have 3 1/2" at 3 power and leeway from 3" to 4 1/2". So try it at 3X. That may get you by until you can find some extension mounts.

I noticed that Savage bore sights the gun at the factory. Changing mounts might put it right off the paper, so check it out at 25 yards before you go long. Dead on at 25 yards should put you 2" high at 100 yards and dead on at 200 with 165 or 180 grain pointed bullets in an `06.

Bye
Jack

I must warn you against Rem 710. This is the worst possible choice you can make.

I tested one couple of years ago along with few other "entry level" rifles of European manuafacture. They were like true custom guns comparing to 710.

What I have against it? I don't care much for esthetics in working rifle but following things can not be tolerated.

1. Working the bolt was Herculean task. My scores on running target were lousy because of that (among other things)

2. Poor mushy trigger.

3. The barrel is supposed to be hardpressed into receiver. It wasn't the case with the rifle I got from importer. When I removed barreled action from the receiver, the barrel simply fell out from the action!. It could be totally removed and was practically fastened only with two screews through the stock.

I asked Remington whether this was all right (I even sent a photographic picture along with my query) but I never got an answer from them. No wonder

4. Accuracy from bench wasn't so bad with some loads (considering loose barrel).

5. The scope held zero thrughout the test (about 100 shots but I didn't like this very thin crosshair, which was almost invisible against darker targets.

710 seems like a good desing idea, very poorly executed. Maybe later production rifles improved but I wouldn't bet on that. You want inexpensive rifle? - get yourself CZ550 or similar and you'll be all right.

Roman

I'll keep it brief and say that the Savage, although it has a few minor warts you'd expect in a gun under $400, is a great gun for the money. I have a 110 in .30-06, and it's been a dream. Shoots .75", and is ruggedly made. For a relatively minor investment in tools, you can buy other barrels and switch them out yourself, without a gunsmith. Barrels can be had for $30-$150, depending on whether they are used or new, and the degree of wear, and this effectively gives you a different rifle for each barrel for a modest investment. Also, as Savages are gaining stature and popularity, the availability fo aftermarket parts for upgrade almosts rivals those available for Rugers and Weatherbys, if not Rems and Wins.

As bewteen the Savage 110 package gun and the 710, I think its no contest. Buy the Savage. It is the best of the poor man's guns.