Savage’s New Model 110 Hog Hunter

JWT was tromping out in Texas hill country last night popping piggies with a .44 1858 Colt black powder revolver. Quite a challenge which we understand he was more than up to. If he’d been looking for an easier go of it, a good choice might have been Savage’s new Model 110 Hog Hunter. He’d have his choice of .223, .308 or hide-busting .338 Federal. Here’s Savage’s press release . . .

WESTFIELD, Massachusetts – April 30, 2018 – Savage’s hard-hitting new Model 110 Hog Hunter is as tough and versatile as the animals it’s built to bring down. Shipments of these firearms are currently being delivered to dealers.

Length-of-pull is easily customized to fit any shooter for comfort and consistency, and the user-adjustable AccuTrigger provides a light, crisp pull. The rifle is built on Savage’s time-tested 110 platform but with a modern design and improved ergonomics.

A rugged synthetic stock holds the 20-inch, medium contour, carbon steel barrel, which features iron sights and is threaded for a suppressor. Its oversize bolt handle allows for fast followup shots, and the detachable box magazine never catches on brush in the tangled thickets where hogs love to hide.

Features & Benefits
• Adjustable length-of-pull
• User-adjustable AccuTrigger
• New Model 110 design and ergonomics
• Detachable box magazine
• Threaded barrel
• Adjustable iron sights
• Rugged olive drab synthetic stock
• 20-inch medium contour barrel
• Oversize bolt handle

Part No. / Description / MSRP
57018 / 223 Rem., 20-inch barrel / $594
57019 / 308 Win., 20-inch barrel / $594
57020 / 338 Federal, 20-inch barrel / $594

Savage is a brand of Vista Outdoor Inc., an outdoor sports and recreation company. To learn more about Savage, visit www.savagearms.com.

comments

  1. avatar anonymoose says:

    1858 Colt? You mean an 1851 Colt in .44 or an 1858 Remington?

    Also, needs moar .358 Winchester.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Neither. 1860 McCullough Colt.

      https://www.google.com/amp/www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/03/jon-wayne-taylor/gun-review-cimarron-mccolloch-colt-revolver/amp/?espv=1

      Shot 6 pigs, only recovered 2. Getting used to the “belly hold” at speed was a challene. At the ranges I was shooting at, I needed to aim at their feet to punch them through the shoulder.

    2. avatar Randy says:

      The Colt Navy, which was first produced in 1851, was .36 cal. The first .44 cal. was the Colt Army which was introduced in 1860.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        But sadly, you can buy clones of the ’51 of ’61 in .44.

        1. avatar Randy says:

          I know the Italian replica 1860 Army’s were .44 cal., but was unaware that any replica Navies were anything other than .36 cal.

    3. avatar jwtaylor says:

      1860 Colt. You’ll have to excuse Dan, as I’m the one that told him it was in 1858. Hopefully you’ll excuse me, as I was punch drunk on pig blood at the time.
      Shot 6, recovered two.

  2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Act now and you can not only buy the rifle but the whole damn company!

  3. avatar TroutsBane says:

    Those iron sights look terrible.

    1. avatar Wood says:

      +1

      Looks like the same awful Marbles disco ball brass bead front sight I promptly evicted from my Marlins. That rear is going to snag and snap off too. I love iron sights on rifles, but those need a bench grinder and some flat black rustoleum.

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Suppressor height sights for use with larger 338 cans. Smart. Ugly, but smart.

  4. avatar Matt says:

    It is refreshing seeing iron sights on a rifle

  5. avatar Antoua says:

    Why the rounds capacity isn’t worth mentioning in this review?
    Yes it has “Detachable box magazine” but the article nowhere mentions that it takes only 4+1 rds in the mag, not a good point in my book.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Antoua,

      The down side to its magazine: it only holds four rounds. The up side to its magazine, there is no annoying magazine sticking down that snags on stuff or digs into your should when you carry the rifle on a sling.

    2. avatar Warlocc says:

      Massachusetts.

      Too many bullets, and they wouldn’t be allowed to sell it.

  6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Who would want to use .223 Remington for hog hunting??? That is woefully underpowered unless you are going strictly for head shots.

    And then if you jump up to .308 Winchester, that short 20-inch barrel reduces muzzle velocity about, what, 150 fps meaning the common 150 grain bullets would exit the barrel at about 2,700 fps? (I suppose that is okay if you are limited to 150 yards or so — or shooting small hogs.) And the heavy bullets that I imagine a lot of people would want for shooting hogs would exit even slower, maybe as low as 2,500 fps with a 180 grain bullet???

    I suppose it all depends on the size of the hogs that you plan to encounter. If you are only running into 150 pound hogs, that short barrel in .308 is fine. If there are 500+ pound monster hogs, I would want that rifle chambered in .338 Federal.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Personally I think you’re selling the .308 from a 20″ barrel a little short, but even without the extra 50fps you’re looking at .44 magnum power at 500 yards. Not that I’m not a fan of the .338, but if you can’t bring down a hog with a .308 Lord help us all.

    2. avatar Wood says:

      Nah. .45-70 and 520 grain cast.

    3. avatar PROUD chicano says:

      What are you talking about man? I successfully and legally hunt white tail (small in my area).

    4. avatar jwtaylor says:

      The 5.56, with a 64gr soft point round or heavier, is just fine. I’ve killed, in any reasonable estimate, 1,000 pigs in my life. One was over 400lbs. One. (It field dressed to 390.) It took up my entire truck bed, every inch of it. Last year I killed over 200. Maybe 4 of those was over 150lbs. In reality, the vast majority of pigs shot are under 200lb, most I’d say are under 100lbs. Earlier this year I took 39 pigs in one rainy day using a .45ACP. None were over 75lbs.

      1. avatar ironicatbest says:

        You have way to much fun JW, I’ve gotta move to Texas, even if yah all do talk funny down thar. And thats coming someone born and raised in Arkansas. LOL

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        jwtaylor,

        I did not realize that the overwhelming majority of wild/feral hogs were so small. If almost all of them are under 150 pounds, then .223 Remington with the right bullet (such as a 64 grain soft point like you stated) would be fine.

        Of course .223 Remington would kill just about any hog of any size eventually — which isn’t much consolation if you want to recover the animal close to where you shot it or if the hog is charging you! In those instances I want something that has a greater likelihood of dropping the hog in its tracks which calls for a larger caliber. Otherwise, for simple population control, .223 Remington is a fine choice.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “I did not realize that the overwhelming majority of wild/feral hogs were so small.”

          1 momma sow with a dozen or more little ones that will grow up to tear more stuff up.

          Haven’t yet gone on a night hunt. If I did, I’d be tempted to focus on the little ones, for vermin control. Well, one for momma and the rest for the newly-orphaned.

          On that rifle – It wouldn’t have been a problem to chamber it in .300 BLK, and that works well suppressed on piggies…

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          You would be well forgiven for not knowing that most of the pigs are small. That’s because only the big pigs get the stories and because people usually grossly overestimate the size of the pigs they’ve killed. People tell me all the time about the 250 lb hog they killed, which is usually a hundred pound pig.

      3. avatar Gunr says:

        Under 75 pounds you say?
        With pigs like that, you can just cut the legs and head off, and fry them up like sausage.

  7. avatar Clay-in-UT says:

    Can we call it a Hogg hunter?

    1. avatar PROUD chicano says:

      Ha!

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Only if it’s full semi-automatic.

    3. avatar Armed Partisan says:

      Beat me to it. 😉

  8. avatar Hoodlum says:

    Damn shame it probably won’t be done in left handed versions

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Savage is pretty good about coming out with lefty versions not long after the introduction of a new rifle.

      1. avatar Hoodlum says:

        The original one was never released in a lefty version so I doubt this one will be as well

  9. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Well to me that looks like a damn fine firearm for $600 and Iron sights to boot, that’s a rarity. Eat your heart out Cooper Scout. Now WTF on the short barrel? Most on here see nothing wrong with an 11.5 inch barrel on an AR but your saying it won’t work on a Bolt Action? Personally to me 22 inch barrels are about as short as I want in .308 but besides the noise and slight velocity loss I see nothing wrong with 20 inches , and if I’m busting my way thru wait a minutes that short barrel would be nice. Me. I would shy away from the .338 Federal tho it’s hard enuff to feed my Weatherby .300, I’m sticking with the well known calibers from now on.

    1. avatar Robb says:

      “wait a minutes”

      LOL!

      I”m gonna borrow that.

      1. avatar Piller says:

        In the South, we have wait a minute vines. They are tough and thorny. When you get into them, you must wait a minute while you untangle yourself. It isn’t a term. It is a vine.

  10. avatar James Wilson says:

    Hm…seems like an interesting (and cheap) way to mess around with 338 Federal.

    I like odd cartridges.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email