Savage Mark II - To thumbhole or not to thumbhole...

krausb

krausb

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
142   0   1
Location
Calgary Area
I have settled on a heavy barreled Savage Mark II for my next all-round range/plinking/gopher rimfire. I have pretty much narrowed it down to either the BV with a traditional-style laminate stock or, for about a hundred bucks more, the BTVS with stainless action and barrel and a laminated thumbhole stock.

I have never owned a thumbhole, or really shot one before, but I will say that it felt pretty comfortable when I held it at Wholesale Sports today. The trigger was a tad bit of a reach for me, but nothing that I can't deal with... But having never shot one or carried one around, I thought that I would check with you guys and find out what thumbholes are all about. Good? Bad? Awkward to shoot? Or just plain ugly?... (I like the feel but it will take me a while to get used to how they look)

Is a thumbhole stock a decent choice for for general range use and the odd gopher blasting session. I can't see me wanting to carry a 7.5 pound gun around for rabbit hunting, but maybe it might make a good shooter?... :confused:

Thanks for your help, fellas!

Also, I'm leaning towards the Vortex Diamondback 2-7x35 rimfire scope: Nice glass, decent range of magnification and parallax set at 50m, which is ok for most of my shooting. It is priced nicely at $217 (at wholesale) which is right around what I was wanting to pay for a new rimfire scope. Is there anything else that you guys would recommend in that general price range or even a bit higher? I wouldn't mind something with AO and maybe even a bit more magnification... but if I can't find anything that fits the bill, I'll stick with the Vortex.
 
Last edited:
I have a couple with thumbhole stocks.

I found that after a while I forgot that they were even there, which I believe is a good thing. Almost becomes a "natural" feel.

I have one on my target/hunting rifle(Boyd's) and one on a Savage 93(factory)for plinking/gopher/target.They are a bit diferent but I really like both of them.

As for glass, you can check out some of the Bushnell products , I believe the Legend line may be around what you want to spend.
 
I love thumbhole stocks. Very comfortable, and natural-feeling. Though I don't think they're really 'better' than a standard stock. Prettier, for sure. But, if I close my eyes and bring the rifle up to my shoulder, both the standard stock and the thumbhole stock are exactly where they should be. Both balance well.

the thumbhole stock is easier to carry around, especially with a short barrel
 
tacticalII said:
I have a BTVS and would highly recommend it, the grip is excellent and the cheek weld is perfect height. And it's a tack driver at 100yrds.
Click to expand...

That's good to hear! I wondered how the cheek weld was. It felt right in the store, but the gun didn't have a scope mounted on it so I wasn't sure. What are you running for a scope on your BTVS, if you don't mind me asking?
 
This BTVS was my first rimfire rifle. A real gem.

BTVS.jpg
 
have shot the markll bv at local range,nice rifles.looked at a btvs seemed quite bulky compared to the bv.for a bench gun would be good but a lot of our rimfire shoots are standing off hand so i would pick something a little lighter.have you checked out/looked at the savage brj series or bsev series rifles with the spiral fluted barrels.
 
I put a Boyds thumbhole stock[$69,unfinished ] on my marlin 795-very nice,feels right and shoots well.If boyds decides to offer one for the savage,I'd take it
 
I have that same rifle, my first thumbhole stock (rimfire or centerfire). I don't regret the purchase at all. The fit was great, but I have fairly large hands. The weight is manageable, but isn't really meant as a walking around gun. The standard laminated stock is better for that. If you are setting up for a shoot, or using it as a bench gun it is one of the best deals out there. If you need to raise the cheek rest up a bit, consider a cheek pad from Eagle Industries (one of the site sponsors).
 
krausb said:
I have to say, I really did not care for the look of Savage's thumbhole stock but the more of them I see, the more it is starting to grow on me...

What scope are you using on yours?
Click to expand...

It's a cheapy Bushy Banner 3x9 40mm

It's got the composite circle-x reticle that I don't care for but it's workable.

Like others have posted I can get sub-dime sized groupings at 100 yards with this setup. So I'm impressed with it.

As far as Thumbhole vs No thumbhole. I chose Thumbhole because I use this for static shooting prone or off a bench. It works for me that way.
My hands seem to fill out the grip just right so it's probably helping my accuracy and any recoil a .22 can deliver.

I'm thinking of getting a Ruger semi without the thumbhole to do some more dynamic shooting.
 
TarpMan said:
I have that same rifle, my first thumbhole stock (rimfire or centerfire). I don't regret the purchase at all. The fit was great, but I have fairly large hands. The weight is manageable, but isn't really meant as a walking around gun. The standard laminated stock is better for that. If you are setting up for a shoot, or using it as a bench gun it is one of the best deals out there.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%.

I find myself packing this one first now when I go to the range, before looking at the handguns... it's that much fun.
 
I have a Savage BTVS in .17HMR.
This was my first thumbhole stock rifle as well.
I was like you, I picked up the gun and it seemed to fit me very well and my hand basically fell into place into the grip/thumbhole. I also liked the overall look of the gun.
If you find the thumbhole initially fit you well, especially your hand, the first time you picked up the gun, IMO you will only get to like it more.
However, a good friend of mine who has large (fat!) hands/fingers, does not like the fit of the stock as his hand is too cramped.
My .17 Savage is a tack driver.
I really like some of the guns Savage are producing these days, in fact I own two other Savages, their little .22 tactical auto and a 10BA. All of them function very well and are all accurate guns.
As far as glass goes, I removed the silver finished Bushy that came with my BTVS and replaced it with a silver 3 x 9 Zeiss Conquest. As my old eyes like clear/sharp optics!
Another nice thing about the rim fire Savages.............................they are all made in Canada!
 
Length of pull on many of the T.H. stocks is often 1/2-1" shorter than the 14" standard for most rifles, if your large framed you may need to get an extension or a butt pad. Laminates are pretty heavy, if your shooting in some competitions with weight restrictions, a laminate may put you over the top. For shooting off a bench many people find on T.H stocks that your wrist is in the way of the far side rabbit ear of the rear bag if you use one. Rifle might also have to be elevated higher off the bench to accomodate the lower pistol grip position and give your arm a more comfortable position for resting your elbow. Laminates are more stable as far as expansion shrinkage goes and handle higher compressive forces of screws. Because of the grip area being routed out in a "one size fits all" it is imperative that you check this fit to your hand.

I got a CZ 455 with a T.H. a while back and found that it is much more sensitive to differences in your grip, hand position and pressure on the shoulder. Because your trigger hand is positioned lower to the barrel line, you are applying higher counteractive forces to rifle torque when the bullets going down the barrel. This is not an issue as long as your gripremains the same shot to shot. Thumbholes are a bit of a hassle for quick bolt manipulation compared to regular stocks and they also might require a touch more time to get into shooting position if used for hunting. Just my .02 on this...I love T.H stocks now.
 
Whats truly ugly are the hog back European style stocks and the equally fugly schnabbel fore arms...but hey...theres no accounting for taste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom