Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Petzal: The Savage Model 111 Long Range Hunter, Part II

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Gun Nuts
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

April 09, 2010

Petzal: The Savage Model 111 Long Range Hunter, Part II

By David E. Petzal

In the event you missed the first part of this post, click here to catch up.

This is, as its name states, a dedicated gun for long-range precision shooting at critters. It is long (47.5 inches overall, 24-inch #2 contour barrel with a 2-inch muzzle brake on the end) and heavy (8.65 pounds, and with the kind of big scope that belongs on it, will probably go around 10 pounds). All that weight, combined with the muzzle brake, makes the rifle almost recoil-free in 6.5/284. The 111 also comes in .25/06, 7mm Rem Mag, and .300 Win Mag, and there is a short-action version, the Model 11, for smaller rounds.

In case you have a problem getting your eye aligned with whatever colossal tactical scope you mount on the rifle, Savage has provided a Karsten adjustable comb to crank your head up where it should be. The Accu-Trigger on my rifle broke at 3 pounds on the nose, and was unusually well set up even for an Accu-Trigger. The muzzle brake has a collar that can be turned to block the brake’s vent holes and, in effect, shut it off. Don’t do this. With the brake “on,” you get the customary faceful of gas and earsplitting crack, but it also shoots much more accurately, and with the brake “off,” the point of impact shifts, 3 inches on my gun.

This is not a handsome rifle or a paragon of the rifle-maker’s art. It’s consistent with Savage’s philosophy of spending its time and effort on whatever will improve accuracy and not worrying a hell of a lot about looks. If I stuck with the best-shooting load for this rifle I would have a .500-inch gun. If I went to a custom smith with $3,000 I might get a rifle that would do .400, or even .350. Might. For an off-the-shelf factory rifle to shoot the way this one does, and for under $1,000, is nothing short of fantastic.

Comments (40)

Top Rated
All Comments
from NolanOsborne wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

When I set out to buy a rifle, a bolt one specifically, I will without a doubt be buying a savage.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jscottevans wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

If I lived in Prairie Dog country (or if I ever go) this gun sounds like it would (will) be the gun to have. Great product by savage and great article.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Cbass wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

David, thank you for the review. I've had my eye on this rifle for a little while, and any rifle that shoots like that is plenty handsome enough for me. I'm feeling ambivalence between the 7mm and the 6.5/.284. I know the latter is coming on strong, but the reloading components for said cartridge are neither as plentiful nor diverse as the 7. Should I be patient and dump my piggy bank into the 6.5?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

Ho-hum. Parts won't interchange with my Massey, I don't need that comb adjustment knob in my ear or cheek, it does not come in a caliber that fills any particular niche in my arsenal, and it's wrong handed. Just don't trip my trigger.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from dneaster3 wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

The thing I love about Savage is they know what they are, and they don't hide it. They are about accuracy and price first, and that's what they deliver.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

Crm'06 amen on wrong handed!

Dave,

Can't you talk Mr. Coburn into a few more lefty indulgences? He was doing so well in that department...once...

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from JW7MM-08 wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

Mr Petzal, you are making it hard to convince myself to spend the extra on the used Jarrett. It is prettier I guess, but after 8 yrs in the army, I learned pretty goes out the window and practical is what you want. You make this rifle sound like it fell out of heaven!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jscottevans wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

Amen, POWER TO THE SOUTH PAWS!!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from dcrabtrey wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

For all you "other handers" someone recently told me (maybe DEP or another blogger who's cursed to be other handed) that due to their modular build capabilities Savage will pretty much build whatever you want as long as the parts will interchange. The cost should be the same, maybe a small surcharge for having to order it. I would definitely call and ask if I were you.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brian Robinson wrote 4 years 1 week ago

It must be tough job being a gun writer in 2010, having to act excited about plastic excuses for rifles. Personally the rifles of 50 years ago look so much better than they do today. I can't imagine anyone getting excited about handing down there plastic POS rifle it their kids or grandkids? JUST say no to plastic/synthetic/composite or whatever they call rifle stocks now

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brian Robinson wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Maybe I should trade my Mules in some new plastic ATV's while I am at it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Money and accuracy talks-- the rest is all B.S.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from SD_Whitetail_Hntr wrote 4 years 1 week ago

whitefish- As mentioned in the post, this gun might not win any beauty pagents, but it will take the head off a prairie dog if you can see the little guy. Guns of half a century ago do look better, but you couldn't get an off the shelf rifle that shot sub-moa for under $1k. I'm all for the advancements, and if you want a pretty rifle, you can certainly get those today as well. Even withough paying an arm and a leg. That market isn't gone, it's just different and Ol' D.E.P. loves his accurate guns, as do I. This gun will be in my arsenal within 2 years. In either .25-aught or 6.5/284. Long story short, I'm not disagreeing with you, just looking from a different perspective.

Thanks for the story Petzal!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from SD_Whitetail_Hntr wrote 4 years 1 week ago

I should clarify. You probably could get a rifle that shot sub-moa 30 years ago for close to $1k. But $1k 30 years ago is about 5 times that now. Give or Take.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from hengst wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Tnaks for the previous review of the 6.4/284 and a great affordable rifle that it is chambered in. Good stuff for us guys with champagne taste and beer budgets .......................Whitefish..... I will admit that I enjoy seeing a rifle that is also akin to a work of art but like the often quoted Townsend Whelen said."only accurate rifles are interesting". I don't believe there is much mention of pretty rifles being interesting

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tom Govin wrote 4 years 1 week ago

David;
I know you like Savage but you always start off the article stating how ugly they used to be. There was a period , I'm guessing the 60's or early 70s when they made model 70 featherweight knock off. It had a featherweight contour barrel. You know, with the bump for the rear sight dovetail. It was a light, slender lively rifle with a slick action. How they managed to get to then the Louisville slugger school of design I'll never know. You don't see many but they are worth looking for. Fortunately the new ones are pretty nice looking.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Anybody know why ole Clay Cooper hasn't been posting lately?? Did someone make him mad or did the ole buzzard get sick and croak on us?? I miss his knowlegable B.S.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Walt Smith,

I direct your attention to, without editorial comment:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/answers/other/can-somebody-tell-me-why-cla...

Check it out in Answers section.

WAM

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 1 week ago

I have 2 Remington's that will do that. One cost $225 at a gun show and the other $389 at a gun shop in 1989. Neither are fugly !

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from fng wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Im just wondering, any idea when this gun will hit maintstream shelves? with the new scope Im getting (don't groan, WAM, Im allowed to be young, foolish and broke due to excessive optics saving :P) a 6.5-284 would really give me a bit more rage than my 6.5... plus Im kinda partial to the blued heavy barrel/tactical rifle look. Maybe its because Im touched, I don't know.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 1 week ago

I have nothing against good shooting Savage rifles. I am just not fond of the bobbed-off look of the rear of the bolt sans bolt sleeve. I don't even mind the barrel nuts. I just won't shoot with someone using a muzzle brake. But that's just me. I had a .257 Roberts 110 synthetic that was the best shooting rifle I have ever owned. I am still trying to buy it back from the pastor....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 4 years 1 week ago

So Dave, where is your 1st hunt going to be with the 111?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Savage is all about sportsmen and shooting.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from elmer f. wrote 4 years 1 week ago

the looks are not my major concern with this rifle accuracy is. the weight of it concerns me however. that is a lot of weight to be lugging around through the woods, if you are going to go very far at all. that kind of weight belongs on a 375 H&H or 416, not a meger litlle 300 win mag or 6.5/284. i guess that would be acceptable for a target queen, or a varmint rifle, but as a true hunting rifle, at least for me, it would have to go on a serious diet!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 1 week ago

To Ralph: The 111 is going back to Savage after it performs its last job. I still shoot left-handed, and it is still right-handed.

To Elmer F: Savage did not intend that you lug this gun through the woods or up a mountain. It's made for set-up shots where you pick your spot and then shoot at long range.

To Tom Govin: I had one of those (I had one of everything, it seems), but it was still an ugly rifle. What Savage did was put a stock with the lines of a canoe paddle on the same Crackerjack-box barreled action and charge more for it. I bought one in .243, and it was one of the rare Savages that would not shoot worth a damn. We did everything to it, and it was hopeless.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from focusfront wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Dave Petzal;

I made up my mind never to use a muzzle brake the day a guy on the firing line next to me almost blew my hat off with one. He had a Weatherby something. I moved away from him after one shot so I don't know the caliber.

So does this rifle group well without a brake? And does it hold POI?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackdawgz wrote 4 years 1 week ago

I like articles like this.

I have found and followed some excellent suggestions on this blog.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brian Robinson wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Nobody is ever going to say they wish they had bought the pre 2012 savage, these rifles as are most made today will never be classics. These are cheaply made disposable rifles. In 2011 savage will say new and improved from 2010, and in 2013, they will have "improved" again. The great thing about firearms is the good ones are timeless, when you find a pre 64 winchester (or something of similar quality) you have something special, hopefully this ugly, cheap, plastic rifle phase will die off soon.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Some of the pre-64's are really poor shooters by today's standards. They are classic rifles, just like a '56 Chevy is. Nothing more in my opinion. Way over-rated!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ferber wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Most of my rifles are right-handed though I am other-handed. Most were bought before left-handed bolt guns were so available, though I also bought right-hand guns far more recently because I liked them for one reason or another. All my Savages are left-handed but there's no way I'll acquire the new Savage Model 111 long-range Hunter for the same reason Mr. Dave will be sending his back. I know Dave has right-handed bolt guns, but that beastly comb up against a lefty's cheek is worse than my shooting a right-handed Monte Carlo-stocked rifle. My guess is Savage will eventually build the model for left-handed guys.

I have some expensive custom-built rifles that shoot extremely well, indeed. But god bless Savage. Where else can you buy a truly accurate wrong-sided bolt gun so cheaply? They're like the Model 1911 Colt .45ACP in that they just keep shooting regardless of rain, sleet, uh-oh-I-dropped it-on-the-rocks and...you just don't care about the nicks and scratches it acquires via rough handling and/or tedious hunts because it's so CHEAP. We deal with our expensive, beautiful guns differently...I do, anyway.

I'm waiting to hear about some judge offering a sentence choice to a convicted type of either 60 days in the slammer or shooting all day alongside a .30 caliber rifleman with a muzzlebreak. Yesterday, at Markham Park, Fl., after setting up on the bench to shoot a pair of my rifles, settling in and arranging my ammo, my left custom earplug suddenly moved further into my ear; my baseball cap that was loosely perched atop my bean slipped below my eyes, and I could feel my left cheek vibrate at the first shot from a fellow shooter next to me using a muzzle-braked 7 Mag. I asked him to refrain from shooting again until I could pack up and move my gear to a different, far away, firing point.

I have a muzzle-braked, BOSS Browning .30-06 that I just don't shoot anymore. Remove the front-end accoutrements, and like the Savage 111 Mr. Dave described, it tears up point of impact--and maybe accuracy too. Won't shoot it enough to know for sure about the latter).

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from T.W. Davidson wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Mr. P:

Just curious, did you remove the adjustable comb on the Savage so you could fire it without getting your left cheek and face banged up by it? If not, how did you shoot the rifle without getting knocked around by the two big knobs on the right side of the stock?

(Like you, I shoot rifles from my left shoulder.)

In your opinion, is the adjustable comb necessary on the rifle for most shooters to achieve their best accuracy? (As long as I practice regularly, and as long as I use the right loads, I can normally shoot sub-MOA with most of my bolt action rifles, and none of them have adjustable combs.)

Do you know whether there are any aftermarket classic straight comb stocks available for the barreled action so a LH shooter could comfortably fire it? (Or could a person call up Savage and just order a straight comb Accustock for the barreled action? Would Savage do that for its customers [LH or RH] who prefer classic straight comb stocks?) If so, the company would very likely have another buyer in me.

Thank you.

TWD

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 1 week ago

To focusfront: My understanding is that before Savage brought the 111 to market in this form, they tried versions with fluted barrels and plain, and muzzle brake and no muzzle brake, and that the best shooting was found to be with a non-fluted barrel and muzzle brake. This rifle does not shoot nearly as well with the brake in the off position, and the point of impact shifts 3 inches to the left. This is not at all unusual.

To T.W. Davidson: The unsightly knobs unscrew completely from the right side of the stock and screw into corresponding holes on the left side, so it's no problem for a southpaw to shoot the 111. I didn't find it necessary to crank up the comb, but considering some the scopes people are mounting on rifles these days, and how high they have to be, I think it's a good idea.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Zermoid wrote 4 years 1 week ago

To all who lament plastic (fiberglass, Kevlar, composite, whatever) stocks I'd just like to say that if it makes the rifle more accurate and more reliable I wouldn't care if the stock was made from freeze dried Cow Wang.
Pretty is nice, but when the chips are down functional and accurate rules in my book.

I "like" a pretty stock, but "LOVE" an accurate one!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brian Robinson wrote 4 years 1 week ago

My views on hunting, rifles and technology makes me look like an old timer. But in the Rocky Mountains a guy that can hike, climb hills and ride horses could carry an open sighted 30-30 and bring home 4 times more meat than the super sub moa, technology loving, tree stand sitting flatlander. It seems to me that the modern hunter puts far too much importance on the moa than the meat. In our environment the pure rugged simplicty of the pre 64 winchester/mauser beats the modern rifle to death.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brian Robinson wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Hell the savage doesnt even have back up iron sights for those times when you smash your scope to pieces

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 1 week ago

I haven't used my rifle for a crutch, boat paddle, or Hi-Lift jack handle in years, so I have not smashed too many scopes lately! LOL

Too bad we're not all such cast iron studs....

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from chesney14 wrote 4 years 6 days ago

I just ordered this gun. they are hard to find at this time. I also bought the big Bushnell scope that Dave wrote on and I think this combination will be the absolute long range killing and target machine for under two thousand dollars. If I can shoot it as well as the combo was written about I'll be one happy camper.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bone Collector503 wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

does anyone know if the muzzlebreak on this thing is removeable?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jsrn61 wrote 3 years 17 weeks ago

The Pretty rifles I have, have never shot this good after bedding and trigger jobs and lots of range time and load tuning. I also hate to hunt with them because i'm always nicking them up in the safe let alone in the field. I love the LRH it shot right out of the box. I haven't worked up a pet load for it. But the three factory offerings I have used all shot under 3/4 of an inch and two were 1/2 inch groups. I'm buying another in 7mag. I like to look at pretty wood but when i want a rifle to shoot it's gonna be a Savage. The Only other rifles I've ever owned that would shoot this well are AI rifles and cost seven times what i paid for this gun.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Van Warren Kennedy wrote 2 years 38 weeks ago

Dear Savage, if anyone with your company is reading this post, I would like to purchase this rifle after Mr. Petzal is finished testing it. I am a chef by trade, and have at this point in life made the very informed, and hard thought decision to harvest my own non-gmo/feedlot protein. I have been an archer for several years, but I have never fired one of your rifles. However, I have spent four months trying to determine what my deer rifle will be. This series of articles by Mr. Petzal, and the corresponding posts have convinced me that your rifle is it. (Thank you everyone) And, that being the case, as this will be my first deer rifle purchase, if at all possible, I would like it to be this one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from Beekeeper wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

Crm'06 amen on wrong handed!

Dave,

Can't you talk Mr. Coburn into a few more lefty indulgences? He was doing so well in that department...once...

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jscottevans wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

If I lived in Prairie Dog country (or if I ever go) this gun sounds like it would (will) be the gun to have. Great product by savage and great article.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from SD_Whitetail_Hntr wrote 4 years 1 week ago

I should clarify. You probably could get a rifle that shot sub-moa 30 years ago for close to $1k. But $1k 30 years ago is about 5 times that now. Give or Take.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from NolanOsborne wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

When I set out to buy a rifle, a bolt one specifically, I will without a doubt be buying a savage.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Cbass wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

David, thank you for the review. I've had my eye on this rifle for a little while, and any rifle that shoots like that is plenty handsome enough for me. I'm feeling ambivalence between the 7mm and the 6.5/.284. I know the latter is coming on strong, but the reloading components for said cartridge are neither as plentiful nor diverse as the 7. Should I be patient and dump my piggy bank into the 6.5?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

Ho-hum. Parts won't interchange with my Massey, I don't need that comb adjustment knob in my ear or cheek, it does not come in a caliber that fills any particular niche in my arsenal, and it's wrong handed. Just don't trip my trigger.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from dneaster3 wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

The thing I love about Savage is they know what they are, and they don't hide it. They are about accuracy and price first, and that's what they deliver.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JW7MM-08 wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

Mr Petzal, you are making it hard to convince myself to spend the extra on the used Jarrett. It is prettier I guess, but after 8 yrs in the army, I learned pretty goes out the window and practical is what you want. You make this rifle sound like it fell out of heaven!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jscottevans wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

Amen, POWER TO THE SOUTH PAWS!!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from dcrabtrey wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

For all you "other handers" someone recently told me (maybe DEP or another blogger who's cursed to be other handed) that due to their modular build capabilities Savage will pretty much build whatever you want as long as the parts will interchange. The cost should be the same, maybe a small surcharge for having to order it. I would definitely call and ask if I were you.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Money and accuracy talks-- the rest is all B.S.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from SD_Whitetail_Hntr wrote 4 years 1 week ago

whitefish- As mentioned in the post, this gun might not win any beauty pagents, but it will take the head off a prairie dog if you can see the little guy. Guns of half a century ago do look better, but you couldn't get an off the shelf rifle that shot sub-moa for under $1k. I'm all for the advancements, and if you want a pretty rifle, you can certainly get those today as well. Even withough paying an arm and a leg. That market isn't gone, it's just different and Ol' D.E.P. loves his accurate guns, as do I. This gun will be in my arsenal within 2 years. In either .25-aught or 6.5/284. Long story short, I'm not disagreeing with you, just looking from a different perspective.

Thanks for the story Petzal!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hengst wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Tnaks for the previous review of the 6.4/284 and a great affordable rifle that it is chambered in. Good stuff for us guys with champagne taste and beer budgets .......................Whitefish..... I will admit that I enjoy seeing a rifle that is also akin to a work of art but like the often quoted Townsend Whelen said."only accurate rifles are interesting". I don't believe there is much mention of pretty rifles being interesting

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 1 week ago

I have 2 Remington's that will do that. One cost $225 at a gun show and the other $389 at a gun shop in 1989. Neither are fugly !

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Some of the pre-64's are really poor shooters by today's standards. They are classic rifles, just like a '56 Chevy is. Nothing more in my opinion. Way over-rated!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Zermoid wrote 4 years 1 week ago

To all who lament plastic (fiberglass, Kevlar, composite, whatever) stocks I'd just like to say that if it makes the rifle more accurate and more reliable I wouldn't care if the stock was made from freeze dried Cow Wang.
Pretty is nice, but when the chips are down functional and accurate rules in my book.

I "like" a pretty stock, but "LOVE" an accurate one!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 1 week ago

I haven't used my rifle for a crutch, boat paddle, or Hi-Lift jack handle in years, so I have not smashed too many scopes lately! LOL

Too bad we're not all such cast iron studs....

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brian Robinson wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Maybe I should trade my Mules in some new plastic ATV's while I am at it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tom Govin wrote 4 years 1 week ago

David;
I know you like Savage but you always start off the article stating how ugly they used to be. There was a period , I'm guessing the 60's or early 70s when they made model 70 featherweight knock off. It had a featherweight contour barrel. You know, with the bump for the rear sight dovetail. It was a light, slender lively rifle with a slick action. How they managed to get to then the Louisville slugger school of design I'll never know. You don't see many but they are worth looking for. Fortunately the new ones are pretty nice looking.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 1 week ago

I have nothing against good shooting Savage rifles. I am just not fond of the bobbed-off look of the rear of the bolt sans bolt sleeve. I don't even mind the barrel nuts. I just won't shoot with someone using a muzzle brake. But that's just me. I had a .257 Roberts 110 synthetic that was the best shooting rifle I have ever owned. I am still trying to buy it back from the pastor....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Savage is all about sportsmen and shooting.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from elmer f. wrote 4 years 1 week ago

the looks are not my major concern with this rifle accuracy is. the weight of it concerns me however. that is a lot of weight to be lugging around through the woods, if you are going to go very far at all. that kind of weight belongs on a 375 H&H or 416, not a meger litlle 300 win mag or 6.5/284. i guess that would be acceptable for a target queen, or a varmint rifle, but as a true hunting rifle, at least for me, it would have to go on a serious diet!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 1 week ago

To Ralph: The 111 is going back to Savage after it performs its last job. I still shoot left-handed, and it is still right-handed.

To Elmer F: Savage did not intend that you lug this gun through the woods or up a mountain. It's made for set-up shots where you pick your spot and then shoot at long range.

To Tom Govin: I had one of those (I had one of everything, it seems), but it was still an ugly rifle. What Savage did was put a stock with the lines of a canoe paddle on the same Crackerjack-box barreled action and charge more for it. I bought one in .243, and it was one of the rare Savages that would not shoot worth a damn. We did everything to it, and it was hopeless.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from focusfront wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Dave Petzal;

I made up my mind never to use a muzzle brake the day a guy on the firing line next to me almost blew my hat off with one. He had a Weatherby something. I moved away from him after one shot so I don't know the caliber.

So does this rifle group well without a brake? And does it hold POI?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackdawgz wrote 4 years 1 week ago

I like articles like this.

I have found and followed some excellent suggestions on this blog.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brian Robinson wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Nobody is ever going to say they wish they had bought the pre 2012 savage, these rifles as are most made today will never be classics. These are cheaply made disposable rifles. In 2011 savage will say new and improved from 2010, and in 2013, they will have "improved" again. The great thing about firearms is the good ones are timeless, when you find a pre 64 winchester (or something of similar quality) you have something special, hopefully this ugly, cheap, plastic rifle phase will die off soon.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ferber wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Most of my rifles are right-handed though I am other-handed. Most were bought before left-handed bolt guns were so available, though I also bought right-hand guns far more recently because I liked them for one reason or another. All my Savages are left-handed but there's no way I'll acquire the new Savage Model 111 long-range Hunter for the same reason Mr. Dave will be sending his back. I know Dave has right-handed bolt guns, but that beastly comb up against a lefty's cheek is worse than my shooting a right-handed Monte Carlo-stocked rifle. My guess is Savage will eventually build the model for left-handed guys.

I have some expensive custom-built rifles that shoot extremely well, indeed. But god bless Savage. Where else can you buy a truly accurate wrong-sided bolt gun so cheaply? They're like the Model 1911 Colt .45ACP in that they just keep shooting regardless of rain, sleet, uh-oh-I-dropped it-on-the-rocks and...you just don't care about the nicks and scratches it acquires via rough handling and/or tedious hunts because it's so CHEAP. We deal with our expensive, beautiful guns differently...I do, anyway.

I'm waiting to hear about some judge offering a sentence choice to a convicted type of either 60 days in the slammer or shooting all day alongside a .30 caliber rifleman with a muzzlebreak. Yesterday, at Markham Park, Fl., after setting up on the bench to shoot a pair of my rifles, settling in and arranging my ammo, my left custom earplug suddenly moved further into my ear; my baseball cap that was loosely perched atop my bean slipped below my eyes, and I could feel my left cheek vibrate at the first shot from a fellow shooter next to me using a muzzle-braked 7 Mag. I asked him to refrain from shooting again until I could pack up and move my gear to a different, far away, firing point.

I have a muzzle-braked, BOSS Browning .30-06 that I just don't shoot anymore. Remove the front-end accoutrements, and like the Savage 111 Mr. Dave described, it tears up point of impact--and maybe accuracy too. Won't shoot it enough to know for sure about the latter).

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from T.W. Davidson wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Mr. P:

Just curious, did you remove the adjustable comb on the Savage so you could fire it without getting your left cheek and face banged up by it? If not, how did you shoot the rifle without getting knocked around by the two big knobs on the right side of the stock?

(Like you, I shoot rifles from my left shoulder.)

In your opinion, is the adjustable comb necessary on the rifle for most shooters to achieve their best accuracy? (As long as I practice regularly, and as long as I use the right loads, I can normally shoot sub-MOA with most of my bolt action rifles, and none of them have adjustable combs.)

Do you know whether there are any aftermarket classic straight comb stocks available for the barreled action so a LH shooter could comfortably fire it? (Or could a person call up Savage and just order a straight comb Accustock for the barreled action? Would Savage do that for its customers [LH or RH] who prefer classic straight comb stocks?) If so, the company would very likely have another buyer in me.

Thank you.

TWD

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 4 years 1 week ago

To focusfront: My understanding is that before Savage brought the 111 to market in this form, they tried versions with fluted barrels and plain, and muzzle brake and no muzzle brake, and that the best shooting was found to be with a non-fluted barrel and muzzle brake. This rifle does not shoot nearly as well with the brake in the off position, and the point of impact shifts 3 inches to the left. This is not at all unusual.

To T.W. Davidson: The unsightly knobs unscrew completely from the right side of the stock and screw into corresponding holes on the left side, so it's no problem for a southpaw to shoot the 111. I didn't find it necessary to crank up the comb, but considering some the scopes people are mounting on rifles these days, and how high they have to be, I think it's a good idea.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brian Robinson wrote 4 years 1 week ago

It must be tough job being a gun writer in 2010, having to act excited about plastic excuses for rifles. Personally the rifles of 50 years ago look so much better than they do today. I can't imagine anyone getting excited about handing down there plastic POS rifle it their kids or grandkids? JUST say no to plastic/synthetic/composite or whatever they call rifle stocks now

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Anybody know why ole Clay Cooper hasn't been posting lately?? Did someone make him mad or did the ole buzzard get sick and croak on us?? I miss his knowlegable B.S.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Walt Smith,

I direct your attention to, without editorial comment:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/answers/other/can-somebody-tell-me-why-cla...

Check it out in Answers section.

WAM

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from fng wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Im just wondering, any idea when this gun will hit maintstream shelves? with the new scope Im getting (don't groan, WAM, Im allowed to be young, foolish and broke due to excessive optics saving :P) a 6.5-284 would really give me a bit more rage than my 6.5... plus Im kinda partial to the blued heavy barrel/tactical rifle look. Maybe its because Im touched, I don't know.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 4 years 1 week ago

So Dave, where is your 1st hunt going to be with the 111?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brian Robinson wrote 4 years 1 week ago

My views on hunting, rifles and technology makes me look like an old timer. But in the Rocky Mountains a guy that can hike, climb hills and ride horses could carry an open sighted 30-30 and bring home 4 times more meat than the super sub moa, technology loving, tree stand sitting flatlander. It seems to me that the modern hunter puts far too much importance on the moa than the meat. In our environment the pure rugged simplicty of the pre 64 winchester/mauser beats the modern rifle to death.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from chesney14 wrote 4 years 6 days ago

I just ordered this gun. they are hard to find at this time. I also bought the big Bushnell scope that Dave wrote on and I think this combination will be the absolute long range killing and target machine for under two thousand dollars. If I can shoot it as well as the combo was written about I'll be one happy camper.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bone Collector503 wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

does anyone know if the muzzlebreak on this thing is removeable?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jsrn61 wrote 3 years 17 weeks ago

The Pretty rifles I have, have never shot this good after bedding and trigger jobs and lots of range time and load tuning. I also hate to hunt with them because i'm always nicking them up in the safe let alone in the field. I love the LRH it shot right out of the box. I haven't worked up a pet load for it. But the three factory offerings I have used all shot under 3/4 of an inch and two were 1/2 inch groups. I'm buying another in 7mag. I like to look at pretty wood but when i want a rifle to shoot it's gonna be a Savage. The Only other rifles I've ever owned that would shoot this well are AI rifles and cost seven times what i paid for this gun.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Van Warren Kennedy wrote 2 years 38 weeks ago

Dear Savage, if anyone with your company is reading this post, I would like to purchase this rifle after Mr. Petzal is finished testing it. I am a chef by trade, and have at this point in life made the very informed, and hard thought decision to harvest my own non-gmo/feedlot protein. I have been an archer for several years, but I have never fired one of your rifles. However, I have spent four months trying to determine what my deer rifle will be. This series of articles by Mr. Petzal, and the corresponding posts have convinced me that your rifle is it. (Thank you everyone) And, that being the case, as this will be my first deer rifle purchase, if at all possible, I would like it to be this one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brian Robinson wrote 4 years 1 week ago

Hell the savage doesnt even have back up iron sights for those times when you smash your scope to pieces

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment