Most accurate rifle they have ever tested!!
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
Outdoor Life doesn't exactly equate to "experts at benchrest shooting" to me.
Joined
·
352 Posts
Joined
·
8,873 Posts
I read the article and was very impressed. My Savage shoots great, so I can believe their claims.
Joined
·
257 Posts
Rifle accuracy
.
I have three Savage Mark IIs. When I saw that Savage was making the Mark II with an accutrigger, I bought a FV. I then found a sale priced BV, and recently bought a used BTVS for about half price.
The FV and BV were new. Both shot about the same, minute of Gopher out to about 125 yards. I found the FV a bit light, with a bit too much drop in the stock for me. The BV was about a pound heavier, but the stock was better shaped. The accuracy of both was more than adequate for me.
The BTVS was in good shape, not abused, but not cleaned either. Too many people think that you do not need to clean .22s, especially the stainless ones. It took several patches wet with a cleaner before they came out clean from the barrel. The first 7 or 8 came out quite dirty, with slivers of lead. The bolt and mechanism were dirty and were cleaned and lightly oiled.
I fired it with several brands of ammo. For me, the BTVS is slightly more accurate than the other two. It is on a par with my Remington 513-S Sporter, and the Remington was derived from the 513 target rifle. It weighs 7 1/2 pounds, about a pound heavier than the BV and a pound and a half heavier than the FV. It is possibe that the heavier weight allows steadier holding.
That said, accuracy is a highly speculative subject. It is also influenced by personal preferences of Manufacturers. What works for one person may not work for another. Ammunition, weather, light conditions, body build, holding techniques, and other factors have to be considered. A target rifle should place its rounds close together consistently. This is why they cost more. A hunting rifle should place its first round (or maybe the second one) out of a cold barrel on target.
One rifle is hardly a good analysis of the Model. If you make 100,000 rifles and have a 99.9% quality control, then you still have 100 rifles with problems. If you pay multi bucks for a rifle, then you expect performance. The Mark II rifles are mass produced rifles at a moderate price for everyone's pocketbook. As such, they adequately do the job for which they are intended. You can get some real tack drivers in the lower priced bracket, but then too, you can get some real dogs.
I bought a Remington 513-S in 1958 for $42. That was about a weeks pay in those days. It shot as good as the average target rifle of the period, and I would shoot it against any sporting rifle made today (a weeks pay today is about $600, so that includes any of the rifles in that range), without feeling handicapped.
.
.
I have three Savage Mark IIs. When I saw that Savage was making the Mark II with an accutrigger, I bought a FV. I then found a sale priced BV, and recently bought a used BTVS for about half price.
The FV and BV were new. Both shot about the same, minute of Gopher out to about 125 yards. I found the FV a bit light, with a bit too much drop in the stock for me. The BV was about a pound heavier, but the stock was better shaped. The accuracy of both was more than adequate for me.
The BTVS was in good shape, not abused, but not cleaned either. Too many people think that you do not need to clean .22s, especially the stainless ones. It took several patches wet with a cleaner before they came out clean from the barrel. The first 7 or 8 came out quite dirty, with slivers of lead. The bolt and mechanism were dirty and were cleaned and lightly oiled.
I fired it with several brands of ammo. For me, the BTVS is slightly more accurate than the other two. It is on a par with my Remington 513-S Sporter, and the Remington was derived from the 513 target rifle. It weighs 7 1/2 pounds, about a pound heavier than the BV and a pound and a half heavier than the FV. It is possibe that the heavier weight allows steadier holding.
That said, accuracy is a highly speculative subject. It is also influenced by personal preferences of Manufacturers. What works for one person may not work for another. Ammunition, weather, light conditions, body build, holding techniques, and other factors have to be considered. A target rifle should place its rounds close together consistently. This is why they cost more. A hunting rifle should place its first round (or maybe the second one) out of a cold barrel on target.
One rifle is hardly a good analysis of the Model. If you make 100,000 rifles and have a 99.9% quality control, then you still have 100 rifles with problems. If you pay multi bucks for a rifle, then you expect performance. The Mark II rifles are mass produced rifles at a moderate price for everyone's pocketbook. As such, they adequately do the job for which they are intended. You can get some real tack drivers in the lower priced bracket, but then too, you can get some real dogs.
I bought a Remington 513-S in 1958 for $42. That was about a weeks pay in those days. It shot as good as the average target rifle of the period, and I would shoot it against any sporting rifle made today (a weeks pay today is about $600, so that includes any of the rifles in that range), without feeling handicapped.
.
Joined
·
23,674 Posts
My thoughts exactly, and much better stated. I would have just said, "those boys need to get out more."
I got a copy of the magazine (June/July Outdoor Life), and read the article. It is very brief, but just a few more details:
- Gun was shot in a 50 yard test tunnel, so no wind
- The first four 5 shot groups after sight in were reported at 0.191, 0.202, 0.263, and 0.260", for an average of 0.229"
- Ammo was said to be Remington/Eley EPS Match, and an old lot of CCI Green Tag
- The best group size of 0.109" was shot by Sam Arnett, who is said to be an award winning benchrest shooter. It appears to be with the Eley EPS Match, but is not clear.
- They do say it was the most accurate rimfire ever tested, "including some high dollar rifles of exalted European origin".
- Of the 10 centerfire and rimfire guns tested it was placed first, with the Cooper M52 second.
- The Ruger Charger rimfire placed 3rd last
- The Ruger M77 Hawkeye, and Mossberg 464 had the largest 100 group size at 2.255" and 2.306"
Interestingly they complained about the trigger pull of the Savage at 3lb 8 oz... Strange that someone did not show them how to adjust it. Should have been able to get about 1 lb less than that without modification.
Ron
- Gun was shot in a 50 yard test tunnel, so no wind
- The first four 5 shot groups after sight in were reported at 0.191, 0.202, 0.263, and 0.260", for an average of 0.229"
- Ammo was said to be Remington/Eley EPS Match, and an old lot of CCI Green Tag
- The best group size of 0.109" was shot by Sam Arnett, who is said to be an award winning benchrest shooter. It appears to be with the Eley EPS Match, but is not clear.
- They do say it was the most accurate rimfire ever tested, "including some high dollar rifles of exalted European origin".
- Of the 10 centerfire and rimfire guns tested it was placed first, with the Cooper M52 second.
- The Ruger Charger rimfire placed 3rd last
- The Ruger M77 Hawkeye, and Mossberg 464 had the largest 100 group size at 2.255" and 2.306"
Interestingly they complained about the trigger pull of the Savage at 3lb 8 oz... Strange that someone did not show them how to adjust it. Should have been able to get about 1 lb less than that without modification.
Ron
Joined
·
2,592 Posts
if you really want to know about guns, ammo, scopes, shooting accurizing then check out the forums from one coast to the other. these are the people that shoot and hunt, how can you make a living being a writer when you get lobbied all the time. and then be objective enough for your personal use say what you shoot. you wouldn't get too many freebies if you told it like it is.
Joined
·
11,245 Posts
These gunwriters really grab my butt. they are the cause of live or die on so many guns ,ammo etc, it isn't funny anymore .So many believe anything they read in these rags.40 yrs ago we had wrtiers that were real shooters and had a feel for what they were writing .today it's not unlike the ownership of the gun companies .they are no longer owned buy shooting families but investers,totally ignorant of firearms. Even the 2"+ on the mossberg 464 which isn't a rimfire but the 3030 is much worse than test I've read else where. Makes me wonder if i should renew my sub.
--JMJ--
--JMJ--
Joined
·
665 Posts
If thats the case we should all sell our crap and go buy one :Blasting_
They rated them for Workmanship, Performance, Price/Value, and then came up with an overall rating. Here is the list from top to bottom based on overall rating, and the best group size they got at 100 yards, except for the rimfires which were at 50:
Savage Mark II BTVS - 0.109" (50Y)
Cooper M52 - 0.626"
Browning X-Bolt - 0.828"
Remington M700 VTR - 0.835"
Sako A7 - 0.873"
Savage M93 - 0.942"
Ruger M77 Hawkeye - 2.255"
Ruger Charger - 0.546" (50Y)
Remington R-15 - 0.660
Mossberg 464 - 2.306"
Intersting that they rated the Savage M93 in with the centerfires as it is a .17 HMR. Pretty decent group for 100 yards on it. It was downgraded in the rating for looks. It was the Camo package version with camo paint that they said looked like had been poured on it covering everything. It also should be noted that the 100 shooting was outdoors and winds were and issue.
Hope that helps,
Ron
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Join the discussion
