Savage Mark II - To thumbhole or not to thumbhole...
- Thread starter krausb
- Start date
07blackwater
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Port Coquitlam, BC
Make sure you buy a scope with an adjustable objective. With a .22 it's important IMHO.
You're going to be shooting between 50 and 100 yards usually and if I don't set my AO to the right yardage I really see a difference.
With a hunting rifle you don't really notice it but when you're drilling the same hole you sure do.
Have fun!
The most reasonably priced scope I could find with an adjustable objective was the Bushnell trophy series. They're under $200. Decent scope too.
If you want to get fancy the next jump is to about $400, but all in I figured $900 was a bit much for a .22 if you're not competing.
I'm into mine for about $650 plus tax and it's worth every penny and cheap to shoot to boot.
You're going to be shooting between 50 and 100 yards usually and if I don't set my AO to the right yardage I really see a difference.
With a hunting rifle you don't really notice it but when you're drilling the same hole you sure do.
Have fun!
The most reasonably priced scope I could find with an adjustable objective was the Bushnell trophy series. They're under $200. Decent scope too.
If you want to get fancy the next jump is to about $400, but all in I figured $900 was a bit much for a .22 if you're not competing.
I'm into mine for about $650 plus tax and it's worth every penny and cheap to shoot to boot.
Thanks for the tip! I was trying to decide between an AO scope or a rimfire specific one that is parallaxed for 50m... I guess the downside to a non-AO rimfire scope really shows up when you are taking longer shots out to 100m or so?
Not to throw a wrench into your plans, but I got a thumbhole-stocked Savage .17 HMR for groundhog shooting and sold it after 2 outings. What felt comfortable in the store (holding offhand w/o a scope on it) was an ENTIRELY different story once I had a scope and bipod on it. Reasons?
1.Offhand shots pretty much impossible with the weight of the gun, Harris bipod and scope
2.I have big hands (that swell in the heat) so the fit went from OK to tight
3.Thumbhole stocks, when your hands are big, don't allow you to change your grip at all, your hand "plugs into" it inline with the stock. Fine offhand because (I think) your elbow is lower than the bottom of the butt. Prone, I found it forces your elbow outward to compensate...kind of forcing the wrist to an uncomfortable 90 degree angle. I'm 6' 1" tall, so maybe the length of my arms is/was a factor.
4.Fat cheeks~my mother thinks they're cute, but the high cheek weld on those stocks worked against me, and it was difficult to comfortably look through the scope. Just couldn't get my cheek/eye low enough. 4" high rings might have solved that, I sold the rifle instead.
That's the bad news. The good news, that .17 HMR really was a tack driver...wish I could shoot my new CZ as well. (practice req.) I just bought a 93FV (.22WMR) with the shi**y black stock and you know what? I really dig that for some reason. I'm a big guy, but my backpacking days taught me to fight the urge to carry unnecessary weight whenever possible. I'm thrilled with that rifle, but the CZ is a finer-looking specimen I suppose.
Good luck with whatever you end-up getting.
1.Offhand shots pretty much impossible with the weight of the gun, Harris bipod and scope
2.I have big hands (that swell in the heat) so the fit went from OK to tight
3.Thumbhole stocks, when your hands are big, don't allow you to change your grip at all, your hand "plugs into" it inline with the stock. Fine offhand because (I think) your elbow is lower than the bottom of the butt. Prone, I found it forces your elbow outward to compensate...kind of forcing the wrist to an uncomfortable 90 degree angle. I'm 6' 1" tall, so maybe the length of my arms is/was a factor.
4.Fat cheeks~my mother thinks they're cute, but the high cheek weld on those stocks worked against me, and it was difficult to comfortably look through the scope. Just couldn't get my cheek/eye low enough. 4" high rings might have solved that, I sold the rifle instead.
That's the bad news. The good news, that .17 HMR really was a tack driver...wish I could shoot my new CZ as well. (practice req.) I just bought a 93FV (.22WMR) with the shi**y black stock and you know what? I really dig that for some reason. I'm a big guy, but my backpacking days taught me to fight the urge to carry unnecessary weight whenever possible. I'm thrilled with that rifle, but the CZ is a finer-looking specimen I suppose.
Good luck with whatever you end-up getting.
07blackwater
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Port Coquitlam, BC
krausb said:
I find past 100 yards it doesn't matter so much. It's between 25 and 100 it does, and big time.
The Bushnell I have is adjustable from 15 yards to infinity. It's marked 10, 20, 30, 50, 75, 100, 200, 400, infinity.
Like I said before with a .22 it's between 25 and 100 you're concerned about. I looked at a lot of scopes and for the money this is the way to go unless you have stupid amounts of money. I don't
.You don't want the set objective on a rifle like this, spend the extra $50 or so and you won't be disappointed.
Last edited:
07blackwater
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Port Coquitlam, BC
This is true, I wouldn't buy one to hunt with unless it's from a bench (I'm a hunter) but for plinking at the range and such there's no better rifle.
It's pretty heavy although I don't find the stock unwieldy, in fact, now that I'm used to it it's very comfortable.
Here's the scope I use http://www.bushnell.com/products/scopes/riflescopes/trophy-xlt/
The 4-12X40 muti X. Use the drop down menu. My buddy got the DOA and loves it too but I prefer the muli-X.
07blackwater
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Port Coquitlam, BC
It's really funny you said that because I said exactly the same thing to my buddy who was thinking about getting one.
I find past 100 yards it doesn't matter so much. It's between 25 and 100 it does, and big time.
The Bushnell I have is adjustable from 15 yards to infinity. It's marked 10, 20, 30, 50, 75, 100, 200, 400, infinity.
Like I said before with a .22 it's between 25 and 100 you're concerned about. I looked at a lot of scopes and for the money this is the way to go unless you have stupid amounts of money. I don't
You don't want the set objective on a rifle like this, spend the extra $50 or so and you won't be disappointed.
Thanks very much for the advice! I think I definitely want an AO scope and most of the one I'm looking at seem to be 4-12x40. The Bushnell seems to be about the right price and I trust Bushnell quality. Tasco has some varmint/target scopes with AO that are all around a hundred bucks... but I'm not sure how much I trust Tasco to deliver...
Vortex has a nice 4-12x40 in their Diamondback line that looks awesome, but it is $359 as WS!
I'm not sure that I want to spend that much.... SO Bushnell will probably be the one I end up going with.
07blackwater
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Port Coquitlam, BC
... it is $359 as WS!
There were quite a few I looked at before getting the Bushnell and, as you're finding out, the price jump is huge.
I'm more than satisfied with the one I got. Have fun!
I put a Bushnell Legend 5X15X40 on my CZ T.H. 455. The mildots work great on 15X for longer shots, its AO and very clear sharp glass for the price (under $200). They are discontinued now but still available at discounted rates in a few places if you look around. Almost every review of the scope heaps praise on it.
