Savage Axis II XP in 308 - Is It the Scope, The Gun...or Me?

thegazelle

thegazelle

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Super GunNutz
Rating - 100%
63   0   0
Location
Ontario
Picked up a Savage Axis II XP in 308 last week, brand new. Came with a relatively cheap Bushnell Banner 3-9x40 scope. Savage claims the scope is bore sighted and zeroed from the factory.

Took it to my club yesterday with about 40 rounds of cheap S&B .308 surplus. I didn't expect amazing performance, just a fun hour of target shooting and trying a new relatively inexpensive gun. I have other 308 rifles which are much better quality, but I bought this one as just a fun plinker.

I was surprised at 50 yards, I was not able to hit paper at all. Looked through my spotting scope and I can't tell what it hit. Well, so much for factory bore sighted scope.

A buddy came over and removed the bolt and we tried to bore sight it that way. Got what we thought was close enough, and then we tried some shots. Didn't hit paper.

So we moved to the 25 yard and set up a series of targets to take up a bit more real estate on the target board. He went to bore sight it and then made some adjustments.

Even at 25 yards, he didn't hit paper.

This is highly unusual. Maybe it was the ammo, but I have never seen ammo so bad that you can't even hit paper. Next time we are going to get a full sized target covering the entire target board and then laser bore sight it at the club and see how it goes.

I am doubtful that it is the scope. And I am doubtful it is the shooter, since neither him nor I were able to hit paper.

I have since read (last night) that one of the major shortcomings of the AXIS II XP is the cheap stock, and that while advertised as free floating, it does move around quite a bit and when shooting the barrel does touch the stock (or vice versa) and can cause accuracy issues.

The action screws are nice and tight, so if it is a stock problem, it's not due to loose screws.

Curious as to see others' experiences with this firearm. Perhaps I was naive to think that when Savage said the scope was zeroed from the factory, that I would at least be able to hit paper.
 
Most likely loose rings or bases. I cant tell you how many of those pkg rifles I've taken down and found loose bases...if not the bases its most likely scope. The rings and scope on those pkg rifles are pretty much worthless.. sometimes they work ok for a time, others break/ malfunction from the get go. My experience with the axis is they are very accurate rifles. Cheap and ugly but accurate. Not saying it's not possible that the rifle itself is not the issue but I'd bet money on the bases, rings , or scope.
 
I take off the scope, check the mounts, & retry it. Next step would be to run it with a different scope.

----------
NAA.
 
Thanks for the comments.

It is interesting...I did check to see if all mount and ring screws were tight. They were.

The one thing I noticed is that with the rings, the one side has the ring mounts tightened so they are almost touching, if not touching. The other side has a fairly noticeable gap on both rings. That seems to indicate to me that they were all tightened on one side before the other side, which is weird, because even I, as a dumb numbnutz, knows to tighten all 4 screws evenly, alternating between them. Can this throw off the scope by that much?

It is unfathomable for me to understand how the factory can do this.

Regardless, I am going to take the whole thing apart and start from scratch.
 
I've seen a fair number of budget guns whose barrels were visibly misaligned with the receiver. Sight down the bare receiver and see the tip of the barrel way off to one side or the other. Whenever I mount a scope I check for this, and then after the bases and/or bottom of the rings are installed I sight down them again to make sure the end of the barrel is centered where it should be.

Honestly, I think this is less common today than it was 15 or 20 years ago, but it still happens from time to time. I have also come across a couple of bolt action rifles that had the scope mounting screws drilled in a nice straight line that didn't even begin to coincide with the axis of the receiver top, i.e. the four holes formed a line pointing off to the side. Let's not forget the H&R singleshot in .45-70 that had the barrel with a visible "wow" in it; if you doubted your own eyes, as I did, all you had to do to confirm your suspicion was to try to look down the bore as though boresighting it. It looked like you were driving through a tunnel that curved to the right.

All of those guns could be made to shoot okay, but their idiosyncrasies needed to be addressed.

I'm not a fan of the Leupold/Redfield STD-style scope rings and bases, but they do come in handy in cases like this because they allow a certain amount of windage adjustment while being mounted, to compensate for these misalignments.
 
Is a bit interesting what you describe - that NO holes showed up at 25 yards. Is as if that scope pointing off entirely different compass co-ordinate than is that barrel. I have had scopes die inside - but would see at least one hole in one place - then another in a different place - stuff was moving. Is as if you describe never having that scope and that barrel pointing in the same direction.

In my garage, I have mounted many scopes - then go out to a shooting spot several miles away with my portable shooting table and portable target stand - so usually my version of "bore sighting" is done here - peer down that rifled bore and get the unit lined up at a tree knot or whatever perhaps 25 yards away - then adjust that scope's cross hairs to be same place - I use perhaps 18" x 18" cardboard as "target" on the target stand - set a vertical line (with a level) and then a cross mark - my aiming point - I have never had a hole NOT show up on that cardboard. - I have had one in particular outfit "walk" subsequent rounds completely off the cardboard, though.
 
Well - The question begs, did your buddy manage to actually get the rifle bore sighted at any distance? If he managed to get the rifle accurately bore sighted at 25y, then you should be on paper, and likely close to the bullseye. If the scope/mounts were wonky, you would lose boresight between shots.
Otherwise, a bad crown would throw the shots off boresight.
 
Thanks everyone. I am going to reinstall the scope on the rings at home, and then laser bore sight it at home, laser bore sight it at the club at 25 yards, and then if I can find another scope in time, I will bring that and mount that.

If the cheap Bushnell scope had given up the ghost, well, it would be annoying, but it is cheap. I seem to recall Bushnell has a lifetime warranty on their optics, but I could be wrong.

I have heard the rings may be problematic; again, I am not smart enough to connect how the rings even when tightened, would adversely affect performance. I use mostly red dots, and the scopes I have used have been mostly for my .22s and Leupolds which work great. My precision rifle has a Primary Arms scope which has been superb. I suppose instead of buying another scope I can try to mount a red dot on it if I am desperate enough. I have been able to successfully mount optics on rifles, but I will concede in this case, I assumed/trusted what came factory standard would work. Seeing as how one side of rings clamped down is almost touching while the other side has a fairly large gap on both rings would tell me there's somethin uneven here. If that is what it turns out to be, then taking everything apart would have been worth it. As such, it won't hurt since it's not like performance can get any worse.

I shall try the tip of receiver to barrel thing alignment.

My slight disappointment is in the fact that this scope came from the factory along with the rifle, as a package, pre mounted and pre zeroed - or so Savage claims. I do get it that in transit, with shipping, things can get knocked off. I guess that is the part of the fun with going budget - trying to determine which budget item is causing the issue. I also need to remind myself, I am not going to get competition quality with a $99.00 equivalent scope.
 
cosmic said:
Well - The question begs, did your buddy manage to actually get the rifle bore sighted at any distance? If he managed to get the rifle accurately bore sighted at 25y, then you should be on paper, and likely close to the bullseye. If the scope/mounts were wonky, you would lose boresight between shots.
Otherwise, a bad crown would throw the shots off boresight.
Click to expand...

All he told me afterwards (I was chatting with another fella down the line) was "no point wasting any more ammo today, I will bring in a laser bore sighter and a full size roll up target to cover the whole target board next week". Another fella was telling me that this is not uncommon with Savage scope/rifle combos.
 
Well - Laser boresighters can cause their own grief. I have found them to be much less accurate than the eyeball method. Suggest you confirm any laser work your eyes.
 
cosmic said:
Well - Laser boresighters can cause their own grief. I have found them to be much less accurate than the eyeball method. Suggest you confirm any laser work your eyes.
Click to expand...

Sounds good. My friend wasn't able to get it sighted at 50 or 25. I think by that time I was ready to pack it up for the day and he came and said he'd like to look at it to try to get it working, so I left it with him and chatted with some other club members while packing up the rest of my stuff.

Appreciate the suggestion and advice. I have heard laser bore sighters can cause a false sense of security, particular with the cheaper amazon type ones.
 
Is a thing - perhaps among older guys? - was another CGN guy here having troubles with a new-to-him well used BSA conversion rifle - to eliminate the scope/rings/base thing, he did as I did - used the iron sights - still getting 4" or better groups at 25 yards. And then discovered that the rear sight leaf was loose in that rear sight assembly - so was no joy at all - but illustrates there are some who are confident enough to "check out" a rifle at 25 yards with "just" iron sights.

In the end - as he found, and I confirmed when the thing arrived here - was a perfect (or near perfect) chamber for 270 Win. .270" top of lands to top of lands. But was groove to groove of .282", not the .277" that would be expected. Was discovered, or at least reported to me, by a third "old guy" that at least one version of the original .276 Enfield barrel had .270" land diameter and .282" groove diameter - was if that old barrel had been knocking around in a bin in BSA or Enfield for decades - then mixed up with "real" 270 Win barrels that BSA made for that conversion. We are all presuming that there are at least some BSA 270 Win conversions using M1917 actions that use the correct barrel?

Go here to read that older post on CGN about that 270 Win wanna-be - warning - was about 125 posts - that thing was most definitely a curiosity in what it was doing ... https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1863303-VERY-strange-BSA-problem Perhaps what I found most amazing in that - is a 270 Win - one would normally associate that with longer range shooting - CGN guy says it was well used when he received it - yet shooting circa 5" groups at 25 yards - if it was being used successfully on game, apparently it was not being used as a "long range" gun ...
 
Last edited:
I think I am going to switch out the rings, and get rid of the factory ones. Maybe swap out the two piece base rail too with maybe a single piece. Anyone have some suggestions on decent rings that work with the Axis 2 (and I am going to presume using the same scope...for now)
 
Swapping out the rings and bases sounds like something that could be done - but from your earlier description of symptoms - is no reason to believe the bases or rings are sub-standard - they might turn out to be that way, but not from the information that you have given.

Most of the hunting rifles that I have, are "top loaders" - have to put cartridges into the magazine from the top - so some years ago, I started with two piece bases - to keep that top area over that magazine as clear as possible - may be less of an issue with a detachable magazine loading rifle. But, if top surface of the receiver is mis-ground, if the mounting holes are not drilled straight in line - is about no difference whether two piece bases (installed straight to each other) versus a one piece base. If things wonky on the rifle, a one piece base will not "fix" it - they will simply bend or contort to match to the receiver as the mounting screws are tightened up. Was a thing with picatinny style bases to get more slots available for ultimately mounting your scope - but basically you will use a slot for the front and the back ring, and the rest are for "looks".

Rings, themselves, with a few exceptions, come in pairs - and in various heights - and you will find that each maker has different ideas what is Low, Medium, High or Extra High height - they will be different, one maker to another. If you are using the slotted Weaver or Picatinny-style base, then that is the ring that you need - if you want to use the rotary dovetail style rings, then you will need those bases. When a pair of bases is correct for your rifle - they will form a flat and straight plane on their top surface and on their sides - to each other. All the rings that I am familiar with, are made presuming they will be installed on a flat, straight plane.
 
Potashminer said:
Swapping out the rings and bases sounds like something that could be done - but from your earlier description of symptoms - is no reason to believe the bases or rings are sub-standard - they might turn out to be that way, but not from the information that you have given.

Most of the hunting rifles that I have, are "top loaders" - have to put cartridges into the magazine from the top - so some years ago, I started with two piece bases - to keep that top area over that magazine as clear as possible - may be less of an issue with a detachable magazine loading rifle. But, if top surface of the receiver is mis-ground, if the mounting holes are not drilled straight in line - is about no difference whether two piece bases (installed straight to each other) versus a one piece base. If things wonky on the rifle, a one piece base will not "fix" it - they will simply bend or contort to match to the receiver as the mounting screws are tightened up. Was a thing with picatinny style bases to get more slots available for ultimately mounting your scope - but basically you will use a slot for the front and the back ring, and the rest are for "looks".

Rings, themselves, with a few exceptions, come in pairs - and in various heights - and you will find that each maker has different ideas what is Low, Medium, High or Extra High height - they will be different, one maker to another. If you are using the slotted Weaver or Picatinny-style base, then that is the ring that you need - if you want to use the rotary dovetail style rings, then you will need those bases. When a pair of bases is correct for your rifle - they will form a flat and straight plane on their top surface and on their sides - to each other. All the rings that I am familiar with, are made presuming they will be installed on a flat, straight plane.
Click to expand...

Thanks Potashminer. My savage is not top loading but loads from a 4-round magazine at the bottom.

I figured that in taking the whole thing apart to clean it, and now taking the scope and rings off and the 2 piece base rail off and remounting everything (which I haven't done yet) - I will try it out next time I am at the club before contemplating rings and base replacements.

In looking online, it seems like some people have improved their gun's performance by completely replacing the stock with a "Boyd's" stock. This is apparently a tighter fit with the barreled receiver and there is no play as a result (therefore the free floating barrel will indeed stay free floating and there's no way to pinch the front of the stock and make it touch the barrel). I will also use some better ammo, just to change everything in the equation the second time.

I have owned other Savage products and aside from the Axis II Precision Rifle, the rest of them seem to have the occasional quirk, though they have in general shot fairly accurately, until this one. I am hoping it is fixable and I don't have to end up replacing the scope (which just adds to the original cost of ownership) - if nothing else I will send the scope to Bushnell for warranty.
 
One of these days someone should do a good write up on what to check for in this sort of situation, and then get it stickied. This has to be at least the 3rd "can't hit ####" threads I've seen in a week.

OP sucks that you couldn't get it on paper. I went through that with a 22 the other week and it's frustrating.
 
Maybe I missed it, but...are you saying that not only are you not on paper, but that you aren't even sure where you are hitting at all? So, you might be printing a sub-MOA group that is way off the paper...or you might be creating a 4-foot pattern with the paper somewhere in the center.

I think before you solve the problem, it would be good to at least narrow it down some. Get a big sheet of paper, or a big cardboard box, and shoot at 25 yards to at least see where the holes are. If the group is decent, just way off POA, then perhaps you can use rings with some built-in adjustability to correct. I have seen some cheap-ass rings...i.e. the kind often used for a budget factory combo...that are indeed wonky. Sometimes it can be as simple as reversing the rings front-to-rear, or flip each one around 180 degrees in the same place, to correct this. No, not ideal, certainly not something one does on a high-zoot precision rifle...but you already have everything right there in front of you, so maybe worth a try.

Determine the problem before you start spending money on "let's try this" solutions; there is no point in throwing good money after bad. Nothing worse than a cheap hunting rifle that costs you a fortune in assorted parts, rings, etc., not to mention a ton of wasted ammo, just to get it sighted in.

If you have a .22lr you could perhaps test the scope on that to see if it is capable of being zeroed. Better yet, if the .22 has a Weaver base, you could also try out those suspicious rings on it as well.

You also mentioned that the scope ring screws are tight. When you have the scope/ring assembly removed, make sure you also check the screws holding the bases to the receiver.
 
jjohnwm said:
Maybe I missed it, but...are you saying that not only are you not on paper, but that you aren't even sure where you are hitting at all? So, you might be printing a sub-MOA group that is way off the paper...or you might be creating a 4-foot pattern with the paper somewhere in the center.

I think before you solve the problem, it would be good to at least narrow it down some. Get a big sheet of paper, or a big cardboard box, and shoot at 25 yards to at least see where the holes are. If the group is decent, just way off POA, then perhaps you can use rings with some built-in adjustability to correct. I have seen some cheap-ass rings...i.e. the kind often used for a budget factory combo...that are indeed wonky. Sometimes it can be as simple as reversing the rings front-to-rear, or flip each one around 180 degrees in the same place, to correct this. No, not ideal, certainly not something one does on a high-zoot precision rifle...but you already have everything right there in front of you, so maybe worth a try.

Determine the problem before you start spending money on "let's try this" solutions; there is no point in throwing good money after bad. Nothing worse than a cheap hunting rifle that costs you a fortune in assorted parts, rings, etc., not to mention a ton of wasted ammo, just to get it sighted in.

If you have a .22lr you could perhaps test the scope on that to see if it is capable of being zeroed. Better yet, if the .22 has a Weaver base, you could also try out those suspicious rings on it as well.
Click to expand...

Your understanding is correct, and you make all valid points. And that is the plan for my buddy to bring in a full size sheet next time to cover the back cardboard entirely so we can see if it is even hitting the gigantic piece of cardboard. I had offered to plaster a bunch of small targets on the whole cardboard backing but with only a few minutes left before the range closed, it would have been rather selfish for me to call the line just so I can restaple this just for some rushed shots. He apparently has rolls of full sized paper and we can take our time next time.

And yes, not only did it not hit paper, we didn't know where it hit. There was dirt flying from the back of the berm, but we wouldn't tell what the impact was exactly as we were looking at the targets.

Agree with you regarding re-adjusting everything first. I did take the stock off to clean it and then retorqued the action screws.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions.
 
I dug through my assorted parts box and found two different sets of 1" rings which are for weaver/picatinny type of bases. One is NC Star, the other one is Weaver. May try the NC Star one since it's only one screw on each side of the ring whereas the weaver one is 3 screws on each side. But as others had mentioned, I will re-orient the existing rings both front to back and 180 degree and remount them first before starting to replace stuff.

It is also a good point about putting that scope on one of my working 22s. I may try that should the problem continue to persist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom