Shorty Stevens 300F and 305F Scope Mounting and Accuracy Review UPDATED

Contact savage directly.
(413) 568-7001 for parts and service (please have your serial number and credit card available)
Or (800) 370-0708
Or "https://store.savagearms.com/magazines-misc-parts-1/magazine-box-mk-ii-series-10-shot.html"
 
Hi 3screwsloose,

These little rifles are really cool. :)

How do you find the 22 Mag version for muzzle blast? It's probably not bad, huh?

Jeff/1911.
 
muzzle blast

Jeff, in shooting from a bench for all of my testing, I noticed a slightly heavier recoil than the .22 (300F) but didn`t notice any real muzzle blast issues. Now, if I was shooting in a dim environment, with someone videotaping from the side to view the muzzle blast, and not wearing proper ear protection etc. I might have noticed a muzzle blast issue. With the handiness of the short rifles, and the accuracy they show, I may leave my 305 in the stock form without a scope and put a compact 4X Leupold on my 300F -wooden stocked-accutrigger installed. The .22LR is going to get more woods time than the .22 mag anyways but I don`t see either of them being sold in the near future. They are just too darn cool.
 
3screwsloose said:
Jeff, in shooting from a bench for all of my testing, I noticed a slightly heavier recoil than the .22 (300F) but didn`t notice any real muzzle blast issues. Now, if I was shooting in a dim environment, with someone videotaping from the side to view the muzzle blast, and not wearing proper ear protection etc. I might have noticed a muzzle blast issue. With the handiness of the short rifles, and the accuracy they show, I may leave my 305 in the stock form without a scope and put a compact 4X Leupold on my 300F -wooden stocked-accutrigger installed. The .22LR is going to get more woods time than the .22 mag anyways but I don`t see either of them being sold in the near future. They are just too darn cool.
Click to expand...

Thanks. :) I think they're really cool too. I'm just trying to decide which one to buy first...likely the .22LR version.
 
3screwsloose said:
Jeff, in shooting from a bench for all of my testing, I noticed a slightly heavier recoil than the .22 (300F) but didn`t notice any real muzzle blast issues. Now, if I was shooting in a dim environment, with someone videotaping from the side to view the muzzle blast, and not wearing proper ear protection etc. I might have noticed a muzzle blast issue. With the handiness of the short rifles, and the accuracy they show, I may leave my 305 in the stock form without a scope and put a compact 4X Leupold on my 300F -wooden stocked-accutrigger installed. The .22LR is going to get more woods time than the .22 mag anyways but I don`t see either of them being sold in the near future. They are just too darn cool.
Click to expand...

3sL,

I guess I was wondering if the 22 Magnum was objectionable when fired in the open without any muffs on - as in a hunting situation.

Jeff.
 
mmatt said:
No, I don't have a headspace gauge for rimfire. Didn't even know they existed. I've often wondered about weighing the individual rounds and sorting them by weight to see if they were any more accurate that way, but I don't have access to a precision scale so I guess that experiment will have to wait.

I can tell you that my shorty simply loves the Winchester bulk pack stuff (333/555 boxes). I was out this afternoon and absolutely nailed a rock (about 6" diameter), dead centre at 115ish yards. Then I did it again at about 50 yards, this time the rock was barely 2" across. This is standing, offhand with open sights. For being so short, it sure is surprising the hell outta me. I may just have to break down and scope it to see what it can really do.
Click to expand...

A few years back, Gun Digest had an article where the author ran some tests of weighed and measured 22 LR vs. out-of-the-box, and if i recall, they found no practical difference with the run-of-the-mill ammo. I don't think they tested match ammo, though. Maybe someone else on the forum could find the article and fill us in on the results. (The original book is at my son's in Mississauga, so I can't look it up).
 
mmatt said:
My only problem now is finding a gun case that the gun doesn't "swim" in. It just looks funny being so short in a regular length gun case.
Click to expand...

WSS has 'tactical' gun cases which are just what you're looking for. They're short. I believe they're designed for folding or telescoping stocked guns. They've very short.

Yes, they take the same mags as the Savage MkII rifles. I don't know off hand where to get any though. Try some of the site sponsors at the top.
Click to expand...

WSS has them. $10.
 
I would remove those bases and put the correct ones on if I were you. I don't know where you got your info from but 12 24 68 are not the correct bases. Your first clue is that you had to cut the screws :doh:

The correct bases for this receiver (savage Mark 2 receiver) are 15, 16, 43, 45. I've personally used both the 15 and 16s with absolutely no need to cut the screws. Those bases look pretty silly, I'm sorry to say!
 
wrong screws

They aren`t the wrong parts, they are just not the ones listed by Savage. There is a whole other website just devoted to rimfire shooting from south of the border. They have a wealth of knowledge about these things. You may wish to google ``rimfire central`` to find out more about the options with bases and the heights of those bases. There is a ``sticky`` posted at the top of the Savage-marked forum. The 43 bases didn`t fit the receiver of my mark 2 or my model 93 very well, a set of 12 did fit well, the 68 also fit perfectly. OR, just buy the ones from Savage and be done with it. I have since replaced my higher 68 with the blued steel factory ones from Savage. As for looking silly, thanks for your opinion.
 
I'm familiar with the site. Having to grind off your screws to make it works is nonsense. Why on earth would anyone want bases that sit so high? It's total nonsense...

The bases which are designed to work with this receiver work 100% perfectly. Why would you approach a job with a list of bases which don't? It's just ridiculous...

I've personally installed a few of the 15s and 16s. They're perfect for the job.

edit: those aren't JUST the recommended numbers from Savage, they're also the number said to work by Weaver. The other ones do not work...except with modification. But...why?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom