Savage 110 Scout At The Range (Finally)

D

DPris

Member Emeritus
Yesterday, finally.

Package deal from a Vista contact: rifle, scope, rings, 5 different Federal .308 loads (two 165s, three 150s).

Off the bench at 100 yards, 3-5 MPH winds, 95 degrees, scout scope dialed to lowest setting, it was probably a 1.5-inch average for three-shot groups, with one load putting three shots inside an inch.

Respectable for a utility rifle.
Easy shooter, the brake & soft rubber recoil pad make a difference.

Still think the mag latch spring should be stronger, and if I were keeping the gun I'd have it replaced.
Would also shorten the latch lever.
It held during shooting, but got accidentally nudged at one point.
Less stick-out & more spring pressure indicated.

I probably would keep the gun, if it had a flush mag, or a blind mag bottom metal.
I dislike large mags sticking out at the natural balance point for carry on foot.

Otherwise, with adjustable stock length & comb, a good buy.
Much more gun than their first two attempts.
Denis
 
As I also have a Savage scout, I am curious if you found this an issue:
When using the 10rd mag, mine latched thoroughly, but could be rocked backwards a tad. If it was rocked backwards, the bolt would catch on the back of the feed lips and prevent the bolt from being pushed forward. Did you also see this?
 
I didn't encounter it in use, but deliberately trying to duplicate it I can push up & back on the mag to cause the bolt to be slightly blocked by the mag.

It doesn't catch the bolt entirely, I can still run the bolt forward, but I have to use some effort to override the mag.

I wouldn't see that as being much of an issue in firing, unless you were resting the rifle on the mag to shoot it.

Were you?
How did you notice that?

There's definitely some play in the mag, but it hangs low enough when not pressured by anything to cycle without resistance.
Denis
 
You had to ask....Hang on, lemme see if I can find the box.
Uh....Bushnell Trophy 2-7x 36mm Multi-X Scout 8-Inch Eye Relief.
Denis
 
Having given this some more thought, I'll explain why.

When I use a scope in accuracy testing, normally I do it at a 100-yard range, on the same sized black bulls, with the lowest power setting.

If a standard X-plex reticle, I center the crosshairs in the middle of the black bull, and do my best to hold still enough to keep it there.

The quality of a given optic is more important in the field than it is at the range, for me.

The clarity of the image at distance, and the brightness of the image (light transmission), are more important in allowing me to SEE the entire picture on whatever I'm looking for or at, in the field.


Since at the range I only have to see a contrasting black dot of known standard size against a white background, at a standard distance, I don't think I could have shot any tighter with $3000 glass than I did with the Bushnell, in that setting.

Clarity & light transmission were both fine there.
Trying to differentiate between a buck & a doe in brush at 400 yards, you might want something better.
Or, for general use to 300 yards on a general-purpose rifle, the Bushnell could be just fine. :)
Denis
 
sort of

Well, technically a "scout scope" will have intermediate eye relief, and a pistol scope will have "long eye relief......IER versus LER. Some pistol scopes will work forward of the magazine mounted in "scout" fashion, and I suppose there are some IER's that will work as pistol scopes. .....maybe.

I have two Burris 2-7x scopes, one sold and labeled as a scoutscope, the other is definitely sold/labeled as a handgun scope. The pistol scope works fine at the IER distance. I could loose the ballisti-plex crosshairs on both of them for a standard duplex, and not be disappointed.

One issue I have had with IER scopes is seeing the crosshairs in low light. I fixed that in a Leupold 2.75x Scout by having a chunky German #1 reticle installed. You can see that thing way past most legal shooting hours. I test it against my deer 3D archery target from our porch....the German #1 is easier to see than all my cross hair scopes.

But the 2.75x Leupold did not allow counting points on deer management clubs and state lands so managed, and I felt it handicapped shooting groups and measuring accuracy provided with different loads. The switch to the variables adds some longer range versatility to my early Savage scout. The other 2-7x is on a Garand. I hunted them last season and was not overly disapppointed in the evenings as light waned. I felt more confident on ROW's and longish food plots with more X power too.

Ready for this........the 2.75X with the German #1 went on an AK!!!!!! Old man Klashnikov, and Garand are rolling in their graves.
 
Scout Scopes - variable v. fixed power

But the 2.75x Leupold did not allow counting points on deer management clubs and state lands so managed, and I felt it handicapped shooting groups and measuring accuracy provided with different loads. The switch to the variables adds some longer range versatility to my early Savage scout. The other 2-7x is on a Garand. I hunted them last season and was not overly disapppointed in the evenings as light waned. I felt more confident on ROW's and longish food plots with more X power too.
Click to expand...

You know, as much as I tried to like a variable scout scope, I always shot better with a fixed power SS that was zero-ed for a specific range - say, 2" high at 100yds.

The three fixed-power SSs I have experience with: 2.5 Leupy; 2.75 Burris: 4x Weaver.

Currently, I have the Burris on two Mini-G Scouts, and the Weaver is on a Mossberg Scout. Sold the Leupy. Nothing wrong with it, I just seemed to shoot better with the others. All the scopes are mounted in low Leupy QRWs.
 
Last edited:
agree, sort of

Once I put the #1 in the 2.75x Leupold, I thought I was sold on the rig. I zeroed just as you describe, 2" high at 100 and lived with it. I hunted it a good bit, killed a few deer with it, and it conformed to the low power theory as proposed initially with the Scoutscope concept. The 2.75x Leupold is lighter than the 2-7x Burris, and I can mount it lower as well. I really was not dissatisfied. I actually put a 2-7x on the Savage, and pulled it off to put on the Garand, and went back to the fixed 2.75x Leupold on the Savage. I've posted positively on that rig here on several occasions. As I said, I liked the rig.

I ran up on a killer deal on the second Burris 2-7x and decided I would try it again on the Savage. I'm not sold on it yet, but the higher magnification seems a plus in open areas and I believe I could pick deer/targets farther out more distinctly. With the bigger bells on the Burris, I think at lower power, (2.75-4/5x) it is a tad brighter than the Leupold in dim light. The Burris Ballistiplex is no way as visible as the German #1 in the Leupold.

The Leupold on the AK is a hoot,and I shoot that clunker better than ever with the scoutscope, but what I probably need to do is get second set of detach rings for the Leupold and set the 2.75x back on it, and get a quality dot for the AK.
 
Had a pair of Tasco binocs at work years ago, bought when I couldn't afford a real pair.

Every time I needed to use 'em I had to bend 'em back into alignment, which would hold till I needed 'em again.

Last day of work, clearing out the company car, they went into the garbage. :)
Different people selling them now, but the impression lingers on.
Denis
 
DPris said:
I didn't encounter it in use, but deliberately trying to duplicate it I can push up & back on the mag to cause the bolt to be slightly blocked by the mag.

It doesn't catch the bolt entirely, I can still run the bolt forward, but I have to use some effort to override the mag.

I wouldn't see that as being much of an issue in firing, unless you were resting the rifle on the mag to shoot it.

Were you?
How did you notice that?

There's definitely some play in the mag, but it hangs low enough when not pressured by anything to cycle without resistance.
Denis
Click to expand...
Yes, I found that it would completely block the bolt from moving forward.
I found it by making sure the magazine was as far in as it could be as I thought it would fall out otherwise.
I'm glad to hear yours isn't as large of an issue.

On the subject of scopes, I'm running the Leatherwood 2-7 and I like it so far, but the rings came loose the first time shooting it and I retightened with lock tight/a good torque wrench, but haven't gotten back to the range yet. I like the ability to zoom, but I think I might like a fixed power in certian situations. Need another scope to give it a try, though.
 
I've always used a fixed Scout on previous Savage Scouts, and I think in an adjustable Scout scope I'd probably keep it on a low setting.

I'm way too old to do the both-eyes-open trick, but I'd leave this one on its lowest setting anyway.
Lose too much field of view cranking it up, slows down target acquisition.

I can lay the rifle on the kitchen table resting entirely on the mag & still run the bolt.
I can feel it meet the mag, but with a little effort it overrides.

I wouldn't ordinarily be resting the rifle on its magazine, and it's not a bolt-stopper in this sample if I did, so it may be a minor issue varying from either mag to mag or rifle to rifle.
Denis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top