Vanguard VS Mark V

notenough

Regular
Rating - 99.3%
139   1   0
I've been trying to find more information on the main difference betwwen these two rifles. I'm looking at one in 257 Wby Mag. I know the Mark V has a 26" barrel, 54 degree bolt lift, 9 locking lugs etc. but what I would like to know is does it share the same synthetic stock as the vanguard? Any one handle both of these rifles?

Ideally I would also like one in SS. I've seen a few in the exchange forum but I'm just looking to see if the difference in price is worth it.
 
The Fibermark has a much nicer stock, but is (was) a bit heavier. I've had a Mark V in both Synthetic and Fibermark and the latter was much nicer imo. It felt far more "solid".
 
Fibermark

That I would have expected as the Fibermark uses a pillar bedded fiberglass stock with a Pachmayr recoil pad. The Mark V synthetic and Vanguard synthetic both have what is listed as a lightweight injection molded stock. I know the difference in price is about $200+ from the Mark V synthetic and the Mark V Fibermark. I'm guessing your paying for the better stock.
 
The Synthetic version feels much cheaper. Both were in .257 Wby and if I were to spend the extra money for the Mk V I'd certainly go for the Fibermark. But that is the question I guess, is it work 2x as much as a Vanguard? I like the 26" barrel, but it is a tough call.
 
Why Not

What would make you choose to think the Mark V was not a step up in quality? I would at least think the fit and finish is better.

I would like to think of it as the Sako and Tikka, similar (yes I know it's a far stretch) guns but one has more fit and finish than the other.
 
What would make you choose to think the Mark V was not a step up in quality? I would at least think the fit and finish is better.

I didn't find the fit and finish any better on the Mark Vs.And the accuracy was better with the Howa made rifles.
 
That I would have expected as the Fibermark uses a pillar bedded fiberglass stock with a Pachmayr recoil pad. The Mark V synthetic and Vanguard synthetic both have what is listed as a lightweight injection molded stock. I know the difference in price is about $200+ from the Mark V synthetic and the Mark V Fibermark. I'm guessing your paying for the better stock.

I've got both a Mark V and a Vanguard in synthetic. Those two stocks are absolutely the same in every way except inletting for the different actions. Makes you wonder why one's $1500 and the other's $500.
 
I can only comment on the Vanguard as I had one, but is now gone. It was one of the most accurate rifles I have ever owned. The trigger was probably the downside but not a major one. I am now looking at getting a 25-06 instead , a little easier to find ammo for, aswell as brass is cheaper.
 
The SUB MOA has way better stock then the regular vanguards.Just FYI Ed Weatherby shoots a Vanguard Sub Moa as his hunting rifle not the mark v,and he owns the company.
 
The Vanguard is just plain a hot deal as far as rifles go. Yeah, the stock is cheap, but it's pretty stiff (at least mine are) compared to, say, a Tikka or Savage. And they shoot amazingly well, Howa is very consistent which is why Weatherby gets such good yields with respect to rifles meeting the 1.5"@100yrds claim. They aren't the smoothest working rifles out there but they were never designed to be. They work, and you'll never feel bad for kicking the crap out of it.

My Vanguards are wonderfully accurate, and both of them have nicely crisp triggers, right in the 3 pound range with no perceptible creep. Great guns.

My Mk. V is noticeably smoother in the action with a "glass rod" trigger, the inletting is better as is the overall fit and finish, and it's crazy accurate (half MOA as long as I can bear to shoot a .300 Wby off a bench). But, it's a $2000 Accumark. I could buy 2 Sub-MOA Vanguards or 4 regular synthetic beaters for the same cost and not feel bad for getting them a little wet.
 
Back
Top Bottom