Difference in Savage actions?

[Nowhere Man]

The top action is a Savage target action. The bottom action is a Savage model 12 F-T/R action. Both have target triggers and have large shanks. What's the difference between them other than mounting bolt spacing? And, if that's the only difference, why would Savage do that?

Dave

 

[memilanuk]

The original 4.40 hole spacing evolved from the earlier magazine fed guns. Unfortunately this included a few quirks. Specifically the front action screw hole penetrates the receiver wall forward of the lug abutment, resulting in only a few threads of engagement. At the other end, the rear action screw location is constrained by the Savage trigger and sear arrangement. As a result any attempt at pillar bedding had to involve cutting away half of the pillar for clearance.

The 3.44" hole spacing addressed both issues, and debuted with the 12 Palma & BR models. Eventually it's become the the default configuration for the single shot Target Actions.

 

[284winner]

I thought Savage made 3.4" and 4.4" Target actions. Seems most are 4.4" today but seems I read 3.4" was used for the first target action screw spacing.

 

[memilanuk]

The original ~2006 12 FTR & F-class were 4.40" spacing. The BR & Palma came later.

 

[SBS]

The top action is a Savage target action. The bottom action is a Savage model 12 F-T/R action. Both have target triggers and have large shanks. What's the difference between them other than mounting bolt spacing? And, if that's the only difference, why would Savage do that?

Dave

View attachment 1126450

Just different dates of manufacture. Earlier single shot target actions were 4.4 hole spacing and later ones are 3.44 per the reasons milanuk states. Current single shot target actions should all be 3.44, I believe.

 

[mauser284]

Well there is the problem they are single shots! LOL

Only joking because milanuk hit it out of the park right away!

It does make one wonder how it is so many decades went by with the original design and how no one saw the obvious or cared to change it with a good many things relating to the Savage 110 action and what has come from it. Currently I would love to smack the crap out of Savage for all of the unneeded and counter productive variety they have that only serves to make after market stock selection and bottom metal confusing for the average Joe! On top of it some of it is just really poor engineering real Rube Goldberg stuff.

The single shots I cut them a lot of slack since that clearly was not a priority for them and it is clear that it was not. Most mass production oriented companies are terrible at doing low volume specialty/niche products.

Usually the budget is not there and often things are being done off the books and it shows later on when things take off like hot cakes on Sunday and obvious easy to foresee issues crop up.

It does call into question what the R&D and Engineering department have been like over the years? Having come from Aviation and Automotive some things catch me off-guard at times with some of the obvious over-sites by really small companies with very few manufacturing sites and small volume of total parts and models as compared to the complication one see's in automotive and aviation.

I have often wondered if firearm manufactures even maintain a fully time engineering staff that works every day or if they hire out engineering on an as needed basis? I am used to large scale design and manufacture were armies of engineer's, accounts, designers, laborers, skilled trades are on the clock everyday in many countries were production is always on going and non-stop since factories are global.


Obviously I am only seeing things from a consumer perspective!e I have a manufacturing background but it is not firearm manufacturing. It would be interesting to get the back story on how some of the industries more obvious mistakes not only come to be but why they go so long with out being fixed? It would make for some really interesting stories!

 

[dolek]

Well there is the problem they are single shots! LOL

Only joking because milanuk hit it out of the park right away!

It does make one wonder how it is so many decades went by with the original design and how no one saw the obvious or cared to change it with a good many things relating to the Savage 110 action and what has come from it. Currently I would love to smack the crap out of Savage for all of the unneeded and counter productive variety they have that only serves to make after market stock selection and bottom metal confusing for the average Joe! On top of it some of it is just really poor engineering real Rube Goldberg stuff.

The single shots I cut them a lot of slack since that clearly was not a priority for them and it is clear that it was not. Most mass production oriented companies are terrible at doing low volume specialty/niche products.

Usually the budget is not there and often things are being done off the books and it shows later on when things take off like hot cakes on Sunday and obvious easy to foresee issues crop up.

It does call into question what the R&D and Engineering department have been like over the years? Having come from Aviation and Automotive some things catch me off-guard at times with some of the obvious over-sites by really small companies with very few manufacturing sites and small volume of total parts and models as compared to the complication one see's in automotive and aviation.

I have often wondered if firearm manufactures even maintain a fully time engineering staff that works every day or if they hire out engineering on an as needed basis? I am used to large scale design and manufacture were armies of engineer's, accounts, designers, laborers, skilled trades are on the clock everyday in many countries were production is always on going and non-stop since factories are global.


Obviously I am only seeing things from a consumer perspective!e I have a manufacturing background but it is not firearm manufacturing. It would be interesting to get the back story on how some of the industries more obvious mistakes not only come to be but why they go so long with out being fixed? It would make for some really interesting stories!

Sounds like you have all this figured out,why not start your own firearms manufacturing biz ? You make it sound so easy,I bet anyone can do it.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I've sent an email to Savage asking if they will redrill and tap it for me. Otherwise, I'll look for a local GS to do it for me.

Thank you for the responses,

Dave

 

[SBS]

I've sent an email to Savage asking if they will redrill and tap it for me. Otherwise, I'll look for a local GS to do it for me.

Thank you for the responses,

Dave

Pretty simple to convert it to the 4.4 hole spacing, the back hole is already drilled and simply needs to be tapped. I converted several when they first came out and 3.44 stocks were hard to find. I might suggest that you consider leaving the back hole where it is since it provides a much larger surface to bed and you can get the longer triggerguard from Savage -- it will cover up the original hole in your 4.4 stock (from the bottom) and not too much trouble to drill a new hole in the stock for the rear action screw.

 

[memilanuk]

I might suggest that you consider leaving the back hole where it is since it provides a much larger surface to bed

Does that really even matter when you are bedding the entire bottom of the action?

My experience says 'No'...

 

[SBS]

Well there is the problem they are single shots! LOL

Only joking because milanuk hit it out of the park right away!

It does make one wonder how it is so many decades went by with the original design and how no one saw the obvious or cared to change it with a good many things relating to the Savage 110 action and what has come from it. Currently I would love to smack the crap out of Savage for all of the unneeded and counter productive variety they have that only serves to make after market stock selection and bottom metal confusing for the average Joe! On top of it some of it is just really poor engineering real Rube Goldberg stuff.

The single shots I cut them a lot of slack since that clearly was not a priority for them and it is clear that it was not. Most mass production oriented companies are terrible at doing low volume specialty/niche products.

Usually the budget is not there and often things are being done off the books and it shows later on when things take off like hot cakes on Sunday and obvious easy to foresee issues crop up.

It does call into question what the R&D and Engineering department have been like over the years? Having come from Aviation and Automotive some things catch me off-guard at times with some of the obvious over-sites by really small companies with very few manufacturing sites and small volume of total parts and models as compared to the complication one see's in automotive and aviation.

I have often wondered if firearm manufactures even maintain a fully time engineering staff that works every day or if they hire out engineering on an as needed basis? I am used to large scale design and manufacture were armies of engineer's, accounts, designers, laborers, skilled trades are on the clock everyday in many countries were production is always on going and non-stop since factories are global.


Obviously I am only seeing things from a consumer perspective!e I have a manufacturing background but it is not firearm manufacturing. It would be interesting to get the back story on how some of the industries more obvious mistakes not only come to be but why they go so long with out being fixed? It would make for some really interesting stories!

I too have been vexed by all the different configurations that Savage has used. But, as the single shot target actions evolved out of sporters, I can see the reasons for the changes -- as aggravating as they are. The firearm industry is small; all the companies put together are not as large as one of the automotive or aviation companies -- so you can't expect them to have armies of engineers. I worked for McDonnell Aircraft in the 50's and we had over 5000 people on days alone. I think Savage has come a long way from the company that was sold at bankruptcy auction in the early 90's to the popularity they have now. Affordable factory target rifles to get someone started in shooting was a niche that needed filling. Some 10-12 years ago, Remington 40X target rifles were at $2800 (and climbing) and offered little more than today's Savage target rifles. Not an anti-40X guy either, owned them for many years now.

 

[SBS]

Does that really even matter when you are bedding the entire bottom of the action?

My experience says 'No'...

I think it does when pillar bedding (as you mentioned in your first post).

 

[memilanuk]

If you're doing it right, the pillars should be at or below flush with the bedding. That little bit cut away for the rear pillar is inconsequential compared with the overall bedding surface.

With the OEM unbedded stocks, where the pillars might be flush, below flush or even proud, and even if they are below flush initially (ideally, with that setup) the wood laminate will eventually compress to where they are flush. The rear pillar being full diameter is a little more important in that setup.

YMMV.