Is there any appreciable diference in accuracy based on what stock the SAVAGE mk11 comes in?The laminates look good-especially the thumbhole version,but are they any more accurate then the basic composite stock? What advantage ,if any,are there to the diferant stocks-apart from esthetics?
savage mk11 stock selection
- Thread starter ratherbefishin
- Start date
Savage Mark II stocks
When Savage came out with the Accu-trigger on the Mark II rifle, I just had to have one. I have always been a fan of good, adjustable triggers.
I wanted a heavy barrel .22 for hunting Gophers. I shoot about 7-8000 rounds a year at them. The heavier barrel tends to make a rifle more accurate because it dampens the vibration of the bullet when fired. Heating, in a .22 rifle is not a major factor, but I have got it warm quite a few times, when in a target rich environment.
The first one I bought was a heavy barrel Mark II FV model with the composite stock. It was accurate, but the heavy barrel, for my tastes, tended to make the balance of the rifle quite muzzle heavy.
A local gun shop gave me a deal on a Mark II BV. This is the model with a laminate stock of conventional design. While heavier, the basic rifle barrel and mechanism is the same as the FV. The accuracy was the same, maybe a slight bit better, but the stock fit me better and balanced much better.
Then, the gun shop had a Mark II BVSS, laminate thumbhole stock model in the used gun rack for a good price. I bought it, cleaned the barrel, and now use it for my varmint hunting of Gophers. While the stock takes a slight getting used to, it seems that a steadier hold can be made with it. The laminated wood should resist warping, which is it's primary purpose.
As far as accuracy goes, the stainless steel barrel and laminated thumbhole stock seems to be better. Weight is more, but for the type of shooting I do, that is not a factor. My hunting partner, after seeing what my rifle would do, ordered the same model. We regularly make +100 yard shots on a Gopher. He states that this is one of his "never sell while I am alive" rifles.
When Savage came out with the Accu-trigger on the Mark II rifle, I just had to have one. I have always been a fan of good, adjustable triggers.
I wanted a heavy barrel .22 for hunting Gophers. I shoot about 7-8000 rounds a year at them. The heavier barrel tends to make a rifle more accurate because it dampens the vibration of the bullet when fired. Heating, in a .22 rifle is not a major factor, but I have got it warm quite a few times, when in a target rich environment.
The first one I bought was a heavy barrel Mark II FV model with the composite stock. It was accurate, but the heavy barrel, for my tastes, tended to make the balance of the rifle quite muzzle heavy.
A local gun shop gave me a deal on a Mark II BV. This is the model with a laminate stock of conventional design. While heavier, the basic rifle barrel and mechanism is the same as the FV. The accuracy was the same, maybe a slight bit better, but the stock fit me better and balanced much better.
Then, the gun shop had a Mark II BVSS, laminate thumbhole stock model in the used gun rack for a good price. I bought it, cleaned the barrel, and now use it for my varmint hunting of Gophers. While the stock takes a slight getting used to, it seems that a steadier hold can be made with it. The laminated wood should resist warping, which is it's primary purpose.
As far as accuracy goes, the stainless steel barrel and laminated thumbhole stock seems to be better. Weight is more, but for the type of shooting I do, that is not a factor. My hunting partner, after seeing what my rifle would do, ordered the same model. We regularly make +100 yard shots on a Gopher. He states that this is one of his "never sell while I am alive" rifles.
I don't do enough shooting to heat up the barrel-as far as accuracy is concerned-is there any real advantage to the heavy barrel?[I recall MARLIN dropped the #7000 presumably because it didn't offer any appreciable increase in accuracy over the #795 or #60]
with Boyds offering laminate thumbhole stocks on sale for around $79-I'm wondering if you would be ahead just to get the basic model and restock it yourself
with Boyds offering laminate thumbhole stocks on sale for around $79-I'm wondering if you would be ahead just to get the basic model and restock it yourself
You may want to check the Boyd's site but I believe most if not all the stocks for the Mark II are for heavy barrel rifles. You can still use the pencil barrels but it may look odd. One other thing to consider is that the plastic stock Mark II's (such as FV) come with plastic trigger guard and mag surround so in order to put it in a laminate stock, you need to order new (metal) bottom metal.
My understanding is the BV, BTVS, etc come with metal bottom from factory.
My understanding is the BV, BTVS, etc come with metal bottom from factory.
Savage Mark II
In reply to the cheek weld on the plastic stock, yes, for me it was a bit low. The laminated stocks were better for this. Also, the trigger guard is a separate piece, not molded into the stock.
I have .22 calibre Mark IIs. The number of Gophers I shoot, the .17 cost would be excessive. When I want to play with a .17, I have a Marlin in .17HM2 that is quite accurate, and the ammo costs about half of the .17HMR. I find that Federal bulk 525 packs works as well as anything else in the BVSS.
A heavier barrel generally will give you a bit more accuracy than a light one. The mass of the barrel tends to dampen the vibrations that occur when you fire a bullet, giving less fluctuation in the cycle. Heavier barrels seem to allow more accurate shooting as it takes a bit more momentum to get them moving.
You have not said where you are, and what is the main intention for your Mark II rifle. This also has a bit of a bearing on options such as stocks and calibre. It also depends upon what level of accuracy you expect or need.
If it is for plinking or general use, the .22 is the way to go. I think I would opt for a heavier barrel, but the standard one would do. If I were going to use it for walking the fields, and stalking those Ontario Woodchucks, then I would probably go with the .17 HMR, again in the heavy barrel. The barrel weight difference between the two are not that much, but a bit of increased accuracy never hurts. In this hunting case, the cost factor of ammo is not so much a problem, because it might only be 10 rounds or so a day. However, out on the Prairies, where you can sit for half an hour or so, firing continuously, the .22 is better for cost. I have three magazines for my rifle when hunting Gophers, and many times I have emptied all three during a hot and fast session with targets everywhere.
You should go to a gun shop that handles the Savage Mark II, look at and feel all three models, then buy the one that fits you. As far as accuracy goes, my Mark II BVSS will shoot right up there with my Remington 513S Sporter, but my Kimber Government Model 82 will outshoot it slightly.
In reply to the cheek weld on the plastic stock, yes, for me it was a bit low. The laminated stocks were better for this. Also, the trigger guard is a separate piece, not molded into the stock.
I have .22 calibre Mark IIs. The number of Gophers I shoot, the .17 cost would be excessive. When I want to play with a .17, I have a Marlin in .17HM2 that is quite accurate, and the ammo costs about half of the .17HMR. I find that Federal bulk 525 packs works as well as anything else in the BVSS.
A heavier barrel generally will give you a bit more accuracy than a light one. The mass of the barrel tends to dampen the vibrations that occur when you fire a bullet, giving less fluctuation in the cycle. Heavier barrels seem to allow more accurate shooting as it takes a bit more momentum to get them moving.
You have not said where you are, and what is the main intention for your Mark II rifle. This also has a bit of a bearing on options such as stocks and calibre. It also depends upon what level of accuracy you expect or need.
If it is for plinking or general use, the .22 is the way to go. I think I would opt for a heavier barrel, but the standard one would do. If I were going to use it for walking the fields, and stalking those Ontario Woodchucks, then I would probably go with the .17 HMR, again in the heavy barrel. The barrel weight difference between the two are not that much, but a bit of increased accuracy never hurts. In this hunting case, the cost factor of ammo is not so much a problem, because it might only be 10 rounds or so a day. However, out on the Prairies, where you can sit for half an hour or so, firing continuously, the .22 is better for cost. I have three magazines for my rifle when hunting Gophers, and many times I have emptied all three during a hot and fast session with targets everywhere.
You should go to a gun shop that handles the Savage Mark II, look at and feel all three models, then buy the one that fits you. As far as accuracy goes, my Mark II BVSS will shoot right up there with my Remington 513S Sporter, but my Kimber Government Model 82 will outshoot it slightly.
I don't know that there would be a difference in mechanical accuracy of the rifle, but a more robust, rigid stock makes it easier to hold consistently and not affect POI.
Case in point is my 12FV in 22-250. It has the original Savage stock and it is pretty flimsy. I have to be very careful how I hold it while using a rest or groups will open up. I find wood stocked rifles are less sensitive to this due to the stiffer stocks.
Mark
Case in point is my 12FV in 22-250. It has the original Savage stock and it is pretty flimsy. I have to be very careful how I hold it while using a rest or groups will open up. I find wood stocked rifles are less sensitive to this due to the stiffer stocks.
Mark
I don't know about the composite stock, but I have a laminate stocked BV and BVTSS. It's hard to directly compare accuracy since I use the BV for offhand 50 yd work and the other for 100 yd bench shooting. However, they are both very accurate. Probably as good as anything you can get in that price range and maybe better.
The thumbhole stock of the BVTSS has quite a high comb. I find it works perfectly for bench. The reach to the trigger is just a trifle long. You may want to pay attention to that next time you handle one.
The comb on the BV is lower. Some might find it OK as is, but I strapped on an Accu-Riser. This gives me a better cheek weld and therefore more stability for offhand shooting.
Both of them are fairly heavy, the BVTSS more so. If I had to carry one of them around for long I'd pick the BV. For more stationary work the BVTSS is excellent.
The thumbhole stock of the BVTSS has quite a high comb. I find it works perfectly for bench. The reach to the trigger is just a trifle long. You may want to pay attention to that next time you handle one.
The comb on the BV is lower. Some might find it OK as is, but I strapped on an Accu-Riser. This gives me a better cheek weld and therefore more stability for offhand shooting.
Both of them are fairly heavy, the BVTSS more so. If I had to carry one of them around for long I'd pick the BV. For more stationary work the BVTSS is excellent.
