thelefthand
Marksman
- Jun 8, 2008
- 225
- 43
The Savage ML could handle smokeless powder because their barrels were proofed to the appropriate pressure. At that time, most ML barrel makers did not proof there barrels at all. BP pressures are low enough that they didn't need to be.
As far as the lawsuit goes, it was bogus. The "writer" in question was a greedy snake. When the rifle became popular, he wanted a bigger piece of the pie. Savage had paid him according to their contract, and terminated their relationship with him.
There are LOTS of Savage rifles that blew up. The ALL had a ramrod in the barrel at the time. If anyone has a Savage ML10-II that they don't want because they feel that the design is unsafe, I'll be happy to take it off your hands for you at a "reasonable" price.
As far as the lawsuit goes, it was bogus. The "writer" in question was a greedy snake. When the rifle became popular, he wanted a bigger piece of the pie. Savage had paid him according to their contract, and terminated their relationship with him.
There are LOTS of Savage rifles that blew up. The ALL had a ramrod in the barrel at the time. If anyone has a Savage ML10-II that they don't want because they feel that the design is unsafe, I'll be happy to take it off your hands for you at a "reasonable" price.
I gave $280 for mine when I ordered it, and another $200 for the aftermarket thumbhole stock. Been filling the freezer with it for almost 2 decades. Most of those years I used it exclusively once Firearms season started. I named it Mjolnir because a 300 gr projectile running over 2400 fps with almost 4000 ft lbs of KE will smite pretty much anything, including your shoulder....
