Ruger or Savage hunting rifle

okiejaco · 12-31-2007, 09:01 PM

I am going to get a new rifle this year and I have narrowed it down to these to rifles. The Ruger is going to run about $560 and the Savage about $460. Is the Ruger worth $100 more. I am getting the 7mm0-08 to use for deer. I only rifle hunt about 8-10 a year. I also have a Ruger 1 in 25-06. I have always like Rugers but not sure if it is worth the extra money. Any and all opinions welcome. Thanks

davs2601 · 12-31-2007, 09:16 PM

I had to make the same decision you did a while back...ruger or savage. Basspro ended up having a sale on a savage 7mm with accutriger for $320.00. I jumped on that deal and I love it. If I hadnt found the savage on sale I probably would have went with the Ruger M77. I picked the Savage up during the fall hunting classic. Have you sot the savage with the accutriger?? If not your more than welcome to put some rounds through mine if you would like. The accutriger is awesome

Retaks · 12-31-2007, 11:41 PM

I had close to the same problem but mine was between a Ruger M77 Hawkeye in 7mm Mag and a Tikka T3 Stainless Lite in 300 WSM. I liked the Tikka better. It just fit me better and i needed the shorter gun for hunting bear in the thick crap around here. Its only about 4in shorter but it makes a difference.

HEAD0001 · 01-01-2008, 12:16 AM

One major advantage to the Ruger is the scope mounting. The rings come with the Ruger, but not with the Savage. IMO scope mounts are very important, and I would not buy cheap mounts, so your cost might be closer if you add in the price of good bases and ring's to your Savage.

I also like the stock's on the Ruger. IMO the stocks on the Savage's are very flimsy(synthetic ones). The laminated Savage stock is nice, but they are more expensive.

Most Savage's out of the box are more accurate than the Ruger's. But accuracy is subjective. I have never met a deer that can tell the difference between an inch or two at 100 yards. And normally accuracy off the bench does not transfer to accuracy in a hunting situation.

The Savage does have a better trigger. And a better trigger does transfer over to a hunting situation.

I like the "feel" of the Ruger, but the Savage is a good rifle. I have not pulled the new Ruger trigger yet. Tom.

RugerM77.270 · 01-01-2008, 09:38 AM

I have a Ruger andI love it but i am also a big Savage fan. What you need to do is handle both and see which one you like best. Both will do you great in the field so no worrys about that. It will a come down to personal preference.

rem 700 · 01-01-2008, 10:18 AM

They're both good rifles. Personally I would go with the Savage.

BigTiny · 01-01-2008, 03:28 PM

Savage

handloader1 · 01-01-2008, 04:31 PM

Ruger. Good luck.

game4lunch · 01-01-2008, 05:06 PM

Some excellent point made! Especially about the scope rings. Not only are they included with the Rugers . . . but you can take the scope off (with rings) and replace it without noticable changes in your sight accuracy. Very excellent design.
My Ruger has been a workhorse for all game and always condider them first when buying a new gun.
I believe the Ruger will retain more of it's re-sale value also. That is very imoprtant.
But I got to ask . . . with a #1 in 25-06, why get another rifle in a similar caliber and balistics? Other than launching a heavier bullet (140 vs. 117), WHY? Maybe go to a .308. Much bigger bullets, plentifull bullet/ammo over the counter, and splendid ballistics. And different enough to not be "like" the 25-06.

The Rifleman · 01-01-2008, 05:21 PM

If price is a factor, then you do not NEED a new rifle.

I have written many posts about how my dad - for a few dollars more, could have bought a new Winchester Rifle back in 1955 - vs. a 721 Remington.

Now the Remington is worth about $350 and the Winchester would have been worth about $1000

The difference in price at the time was probably $20 - or half a weeks pay at Mininum wage back then.