Outdoor Life's "Gun Test 2008" results

[GunTech]

If accuracy is your only measure of quality, then the Savage does quite well - no denying the fact. The again, you can bed a first class barreled action in a 2x4 and have an accurate rifle.

Buy and shoot what you like. You don't have to defend your choice to me - just yourself.

As far as precision of measurement, you can't have a measurement more precise that your least precise data point. Just because you calculator can go to 32 places to the right of the decimal doesn't mean that's an accurate figure.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

 

[Shadowangel]

There is a needle in every haystack when it concerns manufactured goods. They found one in their testing. One sample of that haystack, however, does not mean every strand of hay is like the one tested. Why aren't top shooters in the Olymics and other international games using the Savage Mark II?

I bought a Savage 93R17 BV (with Accu) to compare with my other .17 HMRs. It is in the lower half of the precision list.

You're being a hypocrite. You're stating that because this rifle was amazingly accurate, it was completely a fluke and you can't judge all of them based on it. Meanwhile, you bought one that was inaccurate, and are..... judging all of them based on it. Hmm.

 

[jacobhh]

When the famous .009 group was shot it was exrayed and the negative
blown up so that the fractures in the paper could be measured then calculated
from the 500 times enlargement out to 5 decimals and since it was
a single group it was rounded off to 3 decimals.When the actual group was
measured on a 60 power traveling microscope it measured .224. which was
the diameter of one of the bullets .If they had not measured it by blowing
up the negative the world record would have been .000 and could never have
been broken so it would have retired that record.

OK, I am impressed with the extent McMillan etc. have gone to
in order to measure the distance between two holes in paper.
What confuses me is then why were they unable to differentiate
between a .224" diameter hole and a .233" hole. How far must the
eclipse separate before you can measure two distinct holes in a
five shot group with a target micrometer. Apparently at least .01".
The rest is a bunch of math in order to come up with a winner from
a large number of random groups in excess of .01". Don't get me
wrong I think anything less than .1" is super.

 

[hksw]

You're being a hypocrite. You're stating that because this rifle was amazingly accurate, it was completely a fluke and you can't judge all of them based on it. Meanwhile, you bought one that was inaccurate, and are..... judging all of them based on it. Hmm.

Not at all. The results I obtained from my sample first hand are the results I obtained. Not saying they (the results) are good or bad or are the prime representative of what the model from that manufacturer will do. The article (and OP), though is implying their groups are representative of that line of guns. However, judging by the results from a greater population (on rimfire central) does seem to indicate that the over all Mark II performance isn't too much to crow about. Good value for the performance. Beat out and Anschütz regularly? Hardly.