Any1 removed the 2 springs that savage has recommend to be removed? 1 For the trigger weight and 1 for the lever release? My local gun shop advised me on this only if your gun was 2nd shipment or later…
No idea what springs you’re referring to and haven’t seen anything from savage.
There are 2 (1 inside the other) at the rear of the action, but they make very little difference. In not even civics its related.
I think people are trying to make this something it’s not. Something about lipstick in a pig. It is what it is.
Hi. New to this forum, have had a22r for awhile.5
I have put the a22r trigger group through an xray machine. It looks like this…
Note: inner springs have been removed
There is no chance of turning this into a semi. The hammer will follow the bolt, resulting in no fire.
Trigger and lever springs have an outer and an inner. Remove the inners to lighten stuff up a tiny bit.
Get rid of the trigger shoe.
If you start having misfires, you may have broken a firing pin retainer pin. I did, after about 1500 rounds.
Get Leupold QRW rings if you want to make cleaning easy.
What seems to be worse is that despite the NIOA TV ad saying they had modified all the guns this one has no Sticker indicating it has been and the release is stronger than I remember. So an email to NIOA will follow shortly.
@sungazer there’s an x-ray image above, I snipped a piece (see below)
Take your rifle out of the stock and take a look at the spring rear of the trigger (red arrow).
You will see one of two things:
- Single spring - your gun has been updated.
- Outer and inner spring - your gun has not bee updated (as far as I know).
There’s another spring replacement near the lever, but you won’t know what the new vs original looks like. This is probably the best indication.
Thanks for that @juststarting. But do I need the xray glasses even once the gun is out of the stock. 
Only joking just thought I would write that up there to match the FB type questions.
I really doubt it has been done, from memory it feels heavier than yours used to.
I have put a lot of rounds through mine before, so it could also be that.
So It was surgery day today. As I thought the rifle had not been modified and there was two springs at the back for the trigger pull. I removed the inner smaller spring and then went on the hunt for the release spring.
It was in a pretty obvious place once I found it. Just on the underside of the trigger group behind the lever release. That one was a bit more challenging to remove. I had to take off the two cir-clips and remove the front two pins to be able to get to the underside. It then took me a couple of goes to get it all back together and working smoothly.
The first mag through it was a bit disastrous with lots of missfeeds and jams but after a few mags and a bit of lube from the bullets things started to settle down. Still not ejecting the last round 100% of the time but the others are being flung to kingdom come. A big change from the Annie that just puts them neatly beside you. I think the furthest might have been 3m and into the wind.
The accuracy is pretty good and improving the old cheap scope I have on it may be the limiting factor.
I must have taken that trigger group apart, spring by spring, clip by clip a dozen times. I must say, I’ve never had any issues with mine. And I found that it loves pretty much any ammo. Not ejecting last round is a bit odd, because it’s same-same, maybe try a different brand. I noticed that some ammo that was awesome in bolt action gave me failure to eject time after time (Federal). They seem to be a little wider in diameter than others. Can feel it when loading Alfa. Try a different brand…
There’s another slick you can do as well. I’ll need to review those xrays and show you. But all in all, it’s not the springs you touch. The lever needs to push the bar over the hammer and compress the hammer tension spring for the bolt to come home. There’s zero that can be done there, stopping short of new weaker tension springs, which would probably lighten the lever release but give you failure to fire. What you have now can be slicked a tiny bit more, but all in all that’s it. Enjoy. It’s a really fun gun.
I saw that issue on Ozzie. I tested out the safety release as Ozzie suggested and had no issues. There is a fair bit of creep in the trigger. If NIOA is not just removing the inner spring dou you think they would be fitting a different spring altogether?
I could put it all back and organize for them to do the mods. Then it would be obvious what they are doing, after photographing all the internals.
Doubt it, but who knows.
One thing I did not like the look of was about 1/2cm from muzzle end the bore on the barrel has a nasty mark / cut all the way around the rifling the crown is also pretty ragged. I will post a picture up soon. Having a little bit of an issue recording video / pictures.
I might try a little bit of polishing on this part.
So I sent these photos to NIOA and they agree the bore is unacceptable and they would like to replace the gun.
Not sure just how the logistics are going to go. The GS is not exactly just down the road.
At least they are backing it up. Is the GS expecting this?
Its all information that I literally sent last night and received an email back today. So I really dont know. I have just set them an email Re logistics.
I think the bore scope has just saved me a potential headache and paid for itself.
NIOA cant be faulted they have got onto this quick as and although I dont know how long it will take to resolve at least its going to be a swap over, not an attempt to fix or cut a bit off ect.
So at this stage NIOA are in the good books. Shit can always happen its how and who has to pick it up that sets companies apart.
1 Like
sungazer, here’s my thought on the matter.
Australian consumer law applies to ALL goods purchased, which must be “of merchantable quality”, in other words “fit for purpose”. It even applies to motor vehicles, of which there has been cases where the dealer/vendor have been dragged kicking and screaming to the court where adjudication has found in favour of the aggrieved purchaser. Goods must be Of Merchantable Quality and Fit For Purpose!
In all cases, it is the vendor who has responsibility to make good any deficiencies in the “fit for purpose” umbrella.
The fact that NIOA have agreed that the bore is unacceptable and that they would like to replace it is a great starting position. At least the importer is standing by his product.
Where does that leave you? My take on this is that your GS, the vendor even though not “local”, is the entity with ultimate responsibility. Your claim is against that GS, who fortunately will be supported by NIOA. It should be a simple process to exchange your rifle on a “Like for like” basis (no PTA required, Qld) and the vendor returns the faulty product to NIOA.