Savage 10FCM Problem

[Pancho Villa]

Okay, here's the issue.

I have been a Savage fan and buyer for a few years now. Recently I heard of the 10FCM (yeah, yeah, ancient history, but I don't keep up with the news too much.) I had a 11F, and I live in Colorado and like to go hiking along with shooting (which is legal in many places in the state.) Since camping/hiking/shooting is very weight sensitive, I was thrilled at the idea of a substantially lighter rifle (6.25lbs is the list weight on their website) and in scout configuration, no less!

Well, it turns out, that was all wrong. Instead of a rifle that was about 3/4 of a lb less than my current (now sold, to help raise funds for the 10FCM) model Savage, it actually weighs about a half pound to 3/4 of a pound heavier! Actually a full 20%+ heavier than what they list on the website.

So here's the big issue. I have sunk almost $1000 total between transfer fees, shipping, and buying a shiny new Leu scout scope into this rifle, under the premise that it was what Savage said it was. Now I have a rifle thats a much bigger pain to lug around the mountains of Colorado (1.5lbs doesn't sound like a whole lot, but boy! Do you feel it after about the second uphill climb.) I called Savage up and, knowing how GREAT they are with customer service, I was confident that the issue could be resolved without too much issue.

Unfortunately, that was not the case.

I called in, and the customer service rep reiterated about a million times that "weights are approximate." Well, I understand the concept of approximate, but being a full 20-25% off on your weighing is not "approximate." After some searching on her part, she confirmed that the new model rifles, with their new feed system and accustock, do weight 7.5lbs "or so." I think its closer to 7.75lbs from using my fedex weight at work.

Look, I know I must look like a big whiner to a lot of you. "Its 1.5lbs, whats the difference?" Well, to me its a big difference. It certainly would have made the difference between selling half my gun collection (including my 11F and Mark II) to help get the money to buy it and not. But Savage doesn't seem interested in either refudning my purchase or helping me out in any other way.

Does anyone have any idea of something I can do? Anyone at Savage I can talk to about this? As I said, I'm out a lot of money for a rifle it turns out is inferior (for my purposes) to my old 11F in .308. I have no longarm that isn't a single shot .22 that I want to bother taking into the field anymore. And I am not making the kind of money where I can just up and buy another rifle, either - I'm 23, and I have a good job, but not good enough to blow off a $1000 or so investment as a loss.

[VDW]

No chance they will replace the accustock with one of the older stocks? Is that where most of the weight difference is? If not, maybe you can sell it and regain most of your loss, or trade someone with an older model without the Accustock.

I agree that it is crap they list a rifle as 6.25 lbs if it is really 7.5. Most hunting rifles are 7.5 lbs. Someone who is looking for a lightweight packing rifle is looking for a gun around 6.5 lbs. (ie. Tikka lite), and may even pay extra for it.

As a side note, I'm looking for a Savage .308 for my wife, and I was very interested in getting one with the new Accustock. How does the Accustock perform at the range? What is your opinion of it on a hunting rifle?

[Pancho Villa]

Let me give you proper context before I give you my opinion.

I am not a super accurate bench shooter. In fact I'm downright mediocre - bench shooting doesn't interest me enough to put the work into it to get really good. I think I got decent groups off the bench, proving I've got the fundamental down and moved right to field shooting with and without the aid of a rifle sling.

Given that, it is not going to be controversial to say that the accustock aids in accuracy. Savage makes a guarantee that all its rifles (even ones without the accustock) make at least 1.5moa. Thats about the limits of my field shooting, so I'm perfectly satisfied with that. In addition, I think that is being generous on their part and most stock savage rifles, with really good ammo, will shoot closer to 1moa. I think with the accustock its slightly better (say, more consistently close to 1moa or even occasionally below 1moa,) but there IS a cost - weight! How much weight? I don't know, exactly. I have heard that the actual weight gain is as little as 6 ounces - but my Savage Scout is, as I said, 1.25-1.5lbs heavier than it should be. Is all of that from the accustock? I don't know.

Personally, I don't think it makes any difference in terms of practical results in any sort of field shooting. If you are a bench shooter, getting one of the fancy bull barrelled savages with accustock may well make a difference - especially because I hear they perform better when heated up than the old model savage (where the barrel sometimes expanded enough to contact the stock, altering point of impact.)

Until Savage gets its head out of its rear on this topic and updates its website with ACCURATE accounts of how much its stuff weighs, I would say: Don't buy a savage with an accustock unless you can physically handle it and weigh it on a fairly accurate scale. If the extra weight isn't a big deal to you, go for it. For my purposes it was actually a deal breaker.

[Pancho Villa]

Update: I got off the phone with Savage, again. I suggested that they send me a lighter stock. If the weight savings bring the weight down to its proper weight (ie 1.25-1.5lbs lighter) than I will be one happy customer. Am waiting for a callback from one of their reps.

The customer service rep did say, however, that the accustock is about 1lb heavier than the non-accustock counterpart. I don't know how accurate that is - I've gotten a variety of answers from different customer service reps, but this would explain a lot (if not all) of the weight difference.

I think the big problem is that the customer service reps just really aren't "gun people" and don't know what options there could be for helping me out in this case. I will definitely post how much actual weight savings are between non-accustock vs accustock. If an extra lb or so is worth squeezing another 0.25moa out of your Savage (give or take a little bit, as rifles do vary model to model,) then go for it. If not, don't.

[Tristan]

Every pound extra that you lug around up and down the hills is a killer. I lived in the mountains here most of my life, and when I was younger it really didn't bother me so much. Now I've even gone with a 12 oz lighter sack, and you really can feel it after a couple days.
I don't blame you for being upset, as you specifically bought the rifle because of the weight issues. Plain and simple.
As for the new stock, you can modify it to compensate for barrel expansion, and there are other ways to eliminate weight in the stock as well. And you should be able to get a decent price out of the accustock, should you decide to sell it.
But it's just common sense-if you carry 3 things that weigh 2 lbs. each, that's 6 pounds. If you can cut that weight in half, you will save yourself some toil. Period. Not all of us are superman. Used to be, lol.......
[Beer]

[VDW]

I think part of your problem with Savage might be that you have never taken an actual measurement of the weight of the rifle. I think you might have better luck if you were able to tell them, "Your website says it weighs 6.25 lbs, but I weighed mine on an accurate scale and it weighs 7.75 lbs. as it came to me." I think then you should have some leverage, because even though their site says weights are approximate, that goes beyond "approximate", and delves into false advertising. I think if you brought that angle into it, especially if you take it up their chain of command, they would be more likely to help you out. It would be far cheaper to replace your rifle or stock than to get into some sort of FTC or class action lawsuit based on false advertising.

[GunTroll]

Not good for you but I bet some Gunsmith out there could help you. Cut barrel length, hog out material from the stock,etc. I would get another stock first before altering you gun.

Savage sucks IMO even though they are great out of the box shooters. Buy American! Real American.

[VDW]

No, I'm not a benchrest shooter, I am looking for a hunting rifle for my wife. I am a little afraid of getting her a 6.5 lb rifle, when the standard is 7.5 lbs. I think she might have a problem with the recoil on a lighter rifle, though she would definitely like the lighter weight while packing it around. I was curious about the Accustock if it brought the rifle back to 7.5 lbs. I would like to buy a rifle that would double as a shooter I could use at the range very accurately. Plus, every bit of inherent accuracy in the rifle will help out a shooter like my wife who doesn't get a lot of range time. Especially considering the expansion/contraction of the stock & barrel under 4th season field conditions.

[Pancho Villa]

I think part of your problem with Savage might be that you have never taken an actual measurement of the weight of the rifle. I think you might have better luck if you were able to tell them, "Your website says it weighs 6.25 lbs, but I weighed mine on an accurate scale and it weighs 7.75 lbs. as it came to me." I think then you should have some leverage, because even though their site says weights are approximate, that goes beyond "approximate", and delves into false advertising. I think if you brought that angle into it, especially if you take it up their chain of command, they would be more likely to help you out. It would be far cheaper to replace your rifle or stock than to get into some sort of FTC or class action lawsuit based on false advertising.

I do. I work as a shipping manager, actually, so I have access to Fedex's own digital scale.

Rifle weighs 8.5lbs empty with a leu scout scope (0.45lbs) and a sling (<0.3lbs.) Without those two it clocks in right at/around 7.75lbs (varies between 7.7-7.8lbs). When I called Savage they claimed the actual weight was "about" 7.5lbs after I got them to weigh one of their new models. I know the scale has seen heavy use so I can see it being a tenth of a pound or so off but not a quarter of a pound. And besides thats still a lot heavier than they advertise.

As far as recoil goes, I don't think its really relevant. But I am a big, 6'1", 200lb mexican. Another thing to take into account is a heavier rifle might be too heavy to lug around hunting (unless you stand hunt or something) all day.

Personally I want to get my wife a scout in .243 for her hunting rifle. She is a little recoil-shy even from my 11F (fullsized .308.) She's also a big girl herself - almost as tall as me and, while not fat at all, she does have enough meat on her bones to please the eye. And of course the more you like to shoot a rifle the better you'll be with it...

[VDW]

Thanks for the info. We are hunting elk, so while a .243 is legal, it is in my opinion too small a caliber for a beginning hunter/shooter to hunt elk with. I am considering a .270 as well, but from the recoil charts I've seen, the recoil is the same or a little worse than a .308.

I'm pretty sure she won't feel much recoil when hunting (I never do...to busy paying attention to the elk), I don't want her to get recoil shy from shooting at the range. I'm worried that a light rifle might do that to her. She has shot my brother's .308, but it is a heavy rifle 9 or 10 lbs.+ with a big scope, bipod, heavy sniper stock, etc. She had no problem from the bench with recoil, but standing off-hand, she had trouble holding it up. It was just too heavy for her.

[VDW]

Sorry, I got the impression you hadn't actually weighed it. Did you try the false advertising angle? If worse comes to worse, call a lawyer. You might be able to get someone to take the case for free (they get X% of the winnings as well as lawyer's fees if you win). I would hate to go that route, but they really should be a lot closer than 1 lb. on their weight claim. That is a 15+% increase over their claim.

[VDW]

My guess is it wasn't on purpose, per se, they just hadn't updated the weights from last year's specs, as the only thing that changed was the stock, not the model #s. That being said, they should correct their error on the web site immediately and make right their wrongs. IMHO.

[Pancho Villa]

All about shot placement. Badly placed .308 will be just as bad as a badly placed .223. Plenty of deer killed with .223 and .243 where its legal. Just get good ammo and you're good to go, imo. But of course whatever you're comfortable with - there's a reason I prefer .308 myself, of course. But I think .243, with a little bit of prep time, is plenty fine for deer.

[VDW]

No question .243 is good for deer. But with elk it takes much better shot placement. There is more fudge room/knock down power with a .308. It will perform better through bone, cause a larger wound channel, and more secondary trauma than a .243....but enough about that. Didn't mean to hijack the thread.