I kinda disagree with the whole "one can't be better thing, because its all fit". while it may be true, that doesn't mean a rifle can't be produced with more quality and produced as a better shooter.

Hey, whats a better car, a geo metro or a ferrari? even if your 6'7 and fat, youd still say ferrari, even though you could never fit in one. Why would you say ferrari? Because it looks better? not necessarily. youd say so because the highest function of a car is driving, including handeling, speed, breaking power. Which car drives better? the ferrari!

anywho, I greatly dislike remingtons because they are just sooooo average. nothing awsome about em, nothing bad about em, just average. kinda boring.

Where with savage, they are more innovative, inventing new triggers for example, and creating "one of the most accurate guns out of the box" possible for that price range. They have strengths and weaknesses. Weakness would probably be the look and the worse quality stocks. The strengths i guess could be said to be the accuracy and price.

Remington=average. no real big strengths other than customization, which i don't understand why someone would buy a rifle just to customize it, when they could buy all the parts they need and build it from scratch.

But, now think about this, what would you say the most important quality of a gun would be....

Prettyness? no
effiency at killing animals with less of a degree of error (regarless of how small of a difference there is,)- yes!


so, if this gun is on average more accurate out of the box, I would say it is better than the average remington. If accuracy in killing game animals is its highest function, then the savage is better at the highest function.

my vote goes to savage!