Savage MK II BTVS scope info (and more) needed!

[basicblur]

Since all my guns are black, I figured it's time for something a little fancier! Looks like I'll get a Savage MK II BTVS before the $25 rebate ends 12-31-14.

Currently plan on getting a silver scope (probably Nikon) with silver rings, and would like any info you folks have:
1. The Nikon's have 40mm / 42mm objectives - anybody know what height rings it will take to clear the barrel?
2. Anybody out there have quality silver rings (prefer steel) that match the Nikon scope finish? Folks tell me if you go all silver (SS barrel, silver scope, silver rings) you often end up with three different shades of silver, which doesn't look very good.

I just bought a Savage MK II FV-SR - got one of the Boyds Varmint Hunter black stocks to put on it, but haven't done so yet. I've got a Nikon P-Rimfire 2-7x32 Matte BDC 150 on the FV-SR mounted with Leupold low rings - based on how much clearance I have with this setup (the FV-SR has a rail which adds height), I'm guessing I'm going to need at least medium, and maybe high scope rings with a 40mm/ 42mm objective scope.

Any info from someone familiar with any of the above info much appreciated!

A few more things I'm mulling over (feel free to chime in with helpful info):
1. I plan on getting the barrel threaded for a silencer.
2. Trying to decide if / how much length to cut off the barrel? Would probably like to shorten it since it will be used with a silencer). I know of one fellow with the same rifle that had the barrel cut / threaded - he says now he wishes he'd had the barrel cut to 16".
3. Still trying to decide on caliber - probably going with 22 since it will see more use due to ammo cost. Wanted something with a little more range with this type gun / scope, but 17 HMR ammo prices would probably relegate it to a safe queen after setting it up. At the moment, I don't hunt / pest control, so I'd probably get more use out of the 22 - darn if a lot of videos I see of folks using the 17 HMR for pest control couldn't have taken the same shot with a 22?

I had thought about the Savage B-Mag in 17 WSM (after reading about the cartridge), and adding a Boyd's Stock, but I know someone that purchased one of the first B-Mag's out and said it was a complete piece of junk. Said the bolt fit / function was very sloppy, the stock sucks (although a Boyds would take care of that), 100-yard groups were terrible, and both his original and replacement magazines would only load properly if you aimed the gun at the ground.

I'm also a little leery of the 17 WSM since it's so new - don't know if it will grow in popularity or disappear down the road?

 

[bman940]

silver finish mount

I have used these mounts on my silver finished Nikon scopes.
Great price and 1 inch med. will work just fine for you.

http://www.opticsplanet.com/warne-medium-maxima-scope-rings-w-silver-finish-26487.html

 

[tuj]

I have a Savage MKII. It sucks. Won't shoot better than 0.7" groups at 50 yards. Even after I bedded it, new stock, recrowned it, used top-notch ammo, still sucked.

Get the CZ instead. Much better investment.

Remember, only accurate guns are interesting.

BTW, if you are interested in 17, go with HMR instead of WSM. The HMR is plentiful, there are multiple manufacturers to pick from, and the factory ammo aside from Winchester is all made by CCI and is good quality. My Savage 17HMR will shoot 0.4MOA at 100 yards from a bipod.

 

[basicblur]

I have a Savage MKII. It sucks.

Yours sounds like the exception to the rule?

Based on a few local owners (of various flavors), and what I've been able to dig up on the 'Net, the FV-SR sounds like an accurate little shooter at a bargain price, although most folks on the 'Net seem to add a Boyds Stock (as did the local owners).

I have yet to install my Boyds Stock on my FV-SR, and it has yet to be fired, so I guess I'll find out in my case after the holidays.

 

[tuj]

The Savage is OK. Yes, most of the examples are pretty good. But they are not as good as CZ's. Still I did a lot of work on my Savage trying to get it to shoot and I know a thing or two about rimfires and what makes them tick (2nd in TX state competition in smallbore benchrest in 2012).

If you are really more about the suppressor, then sure, get the Savage. If you care more about accuracy, get the CZ.

I can't tell, if you already *have* the Savage, then check out DIP's products for modifying it. Their bottom metal is a good piece, as is their scope mount. If you decide to cut the barrel, make sure you have it properly crowned. I would also lap the barrel.

Lastly, the Savage seems to be fairly sensitive to the action screw torques. Get a proper torque-setting screwdriver and experiment.

 

[basicblur]

If you are really more about the suppressor, then sure, get the Savage.

I got the FV-SR since I have a couple of 22 silencers - got the dealer down to $239, and with the $25 Savage rebate, that's getting pretty close to $200 for a silencer-ready gun!
'Course, if it ain't accurate, it ain't worth having - at this point I'm strictly going on 'Net reviews and a few local folks.

I can't tell, if you already *have* the Savage, then check out DIP's products for modifying it. Their bottom metal is a good piece, as is their scope mount. If you decide to cut the barrel, make sure you have it properly crowned. I would also lap the barrel.

I already have the FV-SR, along with the DIP products - just haven't installed yet. I plan on purchasing the BTVS before the end of the month, when the Savage rebates expire.

Lastly, the Savage seems to be fairly sensitive to the action screw torques. Get a proper torque-setting screwdriver and experiment.

I just got a Wheeler FAT Wrench.

 

[tuj]

Ok, well at least feed it well.

These are the ammos that I find to be good in most 22lr:

Wolf MT
SK Rifle Match
Eley Target (yellow box)
RWS Rifle

If you really want to test out your rig....

Eley Match (black box, try different speeds/lots)
Eley Tenex (red box, same advice)
RWS R50
Federal Gold Medal Ultra-match (UM22)
Lapua Center-X

Those are the ammos I use for benchrest competition.

 

[basicblur]

Those are the ammos I use for benchrest competition.

Too pricey for me!

Hey, I'm a pragmatist trying to shoot on a budget - I shoot mostly Federal bulk pack stuff, although I have had to shell out a little more lately for CCI Standard Velocity for shooting with the silencer.

Actually, I have a relative that's a gunsmith at a local shop, and those boyz are all into benchrest, although not 22.

I've always been more of a SD shooter - if the groups are tight, I speed up.

The FV-SR and BTVS will be my first forays into the benchrest type of rifles / shooting.

 

[tuj]

once you start down the accuracy road....you don't stop until you get results like this:

 

[Yorkshire shooter]

Cz

Hi there,I have a CZ 455 varmint in 17 HMR and it will take anything up to a fox at 150yds , up to 130 yds no hold over hornady Vmax 17grn great bit of kit
Great fun gun too ,cheers Gary

 

[Cee Zee]

I have a Savage MKII. It sucks. Won't shoot better than 0.7" groups at 50 yards. Even after I bedded it, new stock, recrowned it, used top-notch ammo, still sucked.

Get the CZ instead. Much better investment.

My MkIIBTW shoots MORE accurate than my CZ 453. I pillar bedded it because the action screws tend to crush the wood if you tighten them more than 15 inch/lbs and they won't stay tight if you don't get above that level. So some work behind the wood made mine hold at least 20 inch/lbs which is as high as I have gone because it doesn't need to go higher. I've won a few contests myself BTW. I shot this group with my Savage. It's not quite as good as the one tuj posted but he's using a custom built bench rifle I believe. And I've actually shot 4 shot groups that were better than this group. I ran out of ammo on one group after 4 shots which all looked like one hole. I couldn't even measure it to be bigger than a single bullet hole. CZ's are better built rifles for sure. But for accuracy sometimes the Savages can be better. I've seen lots of people say the same. Anyway here's my group.

This is another group I shot with the Savage where I nearly had a perfect group. The last shot was the one that drifted a little I guess the pressure got to me that time. I measured the first 4 shots though just to see. Too bad the last one didn't find the same hole.

These aren't every day groups of course but I've shot a whole bunch of really good groups with that rifle. If it's going right it will shoot extremely well.

 

[BCRider]

Cee Zee, I've bot a BTV that I'm looking to do something to make the action sit more solidly and stable in the stock. Could you share some information or pictures of the process you used please?

 

[basicblur]

Between these four, which would you experienced folks recommend for the BTVS?
1. Nikon PROSTAFF 3-9x40 Silver BDC
2. Nikon PROSTAFF 5 2.5-10X40 Silver BDC
3. Nikon PROSTAFF 5 3.5-14X40 Silver BDC
4. Nikon MONARCH 3 2.5-10x42 Silver BDC

A number of folks tell me to go BIG (high power), but looking thru those over 10x scopes really freaks me out! As an old AR shooter, fixed 4x is the greatest magnification I used until getting a few Nikon 2-7x Rimfire Scopes in the last few years (mounted on a 15-22 and Beretta ARX-160).

I keep trying to talk myself into something like the 3.5-14 scope, but just shouldering a few at Dick's this evening, anything over 10 to 12x is so darn critical AFA eye position, I'm having a tough time talking myself into anything more powerful than 10x.
I also wear glasses, which may make getting proper eye position a little tougher?

'Course, if you have some other recommendations (but I do want silver) within a reasonable price range, I'd be interested in those also. I just used Nikon as a baseline, as I do have a few, and am familiar with the BDC reticle.

Actually, I prefer FFP reticles, which really seems to freak out the guys at the gun shop!

 

[dsm]

Mine shoots really well. I have a Weaver V16 mounted in Burris Zee rings.

 

[Cee Zee]

Personally I wouldn't use a BDC reticle. They block your view of what you're trying to shoot. You don't really need long range markers for a rimfire rifle anyway. You might get something with a slight set of marks for distances but I prefer the smallest reticle that will work for what I want to use the rifle to do. A FFP reticle would be great IMO. I have a 3-9X40 ProStaff on my MkII currently but at times I've used a Weaver T-36 with a target reticle on it. Talk about strong. But for target shooting it's what you need. I use my CZ for target shooting now (it's less temperamental than my Savage). The truth is the Savage is best for that but I don't need 2 rimfires set up for target shooting and I've been thinking about moving the Weaver back to the Savage.

The scope power you should get depends greatly on what you want the rifle to do. I will go ahead and say that a thumbhole stock is not great for hunting squirrels. They're slow to aim and don't work well aiming up into a tree. And yes I know it takes a really good spot to shoot up into a tree but I live in a rural part of the world.

If you want to hunt I'd go with a less powerful scope. The more you care about target shooting the more power you should have in your scope (to a point of course).

Could you share some information or pictures of the process you used please?

It really boils down to putting metal behind the wood where the action screws go in. It's thin wood and with nothing behind it the wood will give. I basically ran a series of washers and a flange behind the wood and around the action screw up to the nut where it screws in.

Here's what the cutout looked like when I started. Notice it isn't very thick where the screws go through and there's nothing behind the wood to hold it in place. And the lip where the bottom metal sits is not very wide. Too much torque on the action screws will make the soft wood of the Boyd's stock start to give in toward the cut out area where the screw goes through.



I wanted to put this flange in so that the washer part could rest against the wood and the flange would be the start of my pillar bedding. I had to cut the side off so it would fit between the mag hole and the end of the cutout. I cut the side of the flange off with a Dremel and a cutoff wheel. I used a vise to hold it while I cut it.



I had to make the hole bigger where the flange went through the wood but I left as much wood as possible to keep as much strength as possible. Again I used the Dremel and a sanding cylinder to widen the hole for the flange.



This is how the flange went in place. It spread the tension out over a larger area and I used a few washers between the top of the flange and the nut where the action screw attaches.



I was able to just use several washers on the back action screw but it isn't as important to good shooting anyway. Just a slight bit of extra torque was good enough for it. But the front needed to be strong. Now I can tighten down against the flange and the washers all the way up to the nut. It's like a solid piece of steel all the way from the back of the bottom metal to the nut now. It's very strong and so far the wood hasn't been hurt (it's been done for several years now). The wood itself doesn't hold any torque at all now. It just keeps the pillars lined up and that's about it. It's all metal going up to the nut where the action screw attaches.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.

I always meant to find a small metal pipe to replace the washers. It would look better but it really wouldn't work better. I can keep a lock washer in the line now too which keeps the tension from backing off even better. This is pretty much the short version of the work I did. I have more photos and I could show the washers and how they line up but it's pretty obvious actually.

This bit of work made a big difference in the accuracy of this rifle. Before I had to check the torque time after time and if it worked loose it would affect where my shot would hit. It took me a good long while to figure out why the rifle would shoot great for a while then suddenly start shooting all over the place. This fixed it completely. Heck I even sent the rifle back to the factory to try to find out what the problem was and they couldn't find anything. But now it stays consistent because it can accept enough torque to hold the action screws in place and there's no sudden loss of control of the way the stock fits on the receiver. I used to even get times when the barrel would be sitting against the stock instead of floating. This fixed all of that.

 

[basicblur]

Personally I wouldn't use a BDC reticle. They block your view of what you're trying to shoot.

Hmm...one of the (few) reasons I like the BDC reticle is I think you can see what you're shooting better with the open circles of Nikon's reticle.

You don't really need long range markers for a rimfire rifle anyway.

Yeah, I know, but I have experimented with 'em on my P-Rimfire / 15-22 combo, and with a little experimenting / notes, they can prove useful!?
I actually have the same P-Rimfire with the NikoPlex reticle - it came with two sets of turrets, depending on whether you're shooting standard or high velocity 22's. Midway had the NikoPlex on sale last year for $109 delivered - I couldn't turn that down!

A FFP reticle would be great IMO.

Do folks look at you funny when you talk like that? I know they do to me!
From what I understand, FFP reticles are / have been popular in Europe, but may finally be starting to catch on (albeit it slowly) in the States?
I only have one - the Bushnell Throw Down PCL on one of my big AR's.

The scope power you should get depends greatly on what you want the rifle to do. I will go ahead and say that a thumbhole stock is not great for hunting squirrels. They're slow to aim and don't work well aiming up into a tree. And yes I know it takes a really good spot to shoot up into a tree but I live in a rural part of the world.

If you want to hunt I'd go with a less powerful scope. The more you care about target shooting the more power you should have in your scope (to a point of course).

Thanks - that's a little food for thought.
I live in the city, and don't hunt / shoot pests, although I'm leaning toward something less than the 14x Nikon.

Well, I did shoot a few pests last summer - a buddy just bought a farm with a 5 acre pond, and he had plenty of muskrats. Got he and his wife hooked on shooting them with his 15-22 / TRS25 combo as they were damaging his dam.
I did bag one swimming at around 75 yards with my Colt M4 Carbine (22LR) with Trijicon SRS red dot. My buddy kept trying to get me to use his ATV as a rest, but I figured I wasn't going to hit him, so I'd just give it a whirl offhand.
Imagine my surprise (and my buddy's) when I nailed him - I put the red dot at the top of his head, and I'm assuming he must have looked right at me as I shot. Half of his head was gone, and we could see no sign of entry from the opposite side, so I assume I hit him head on or from the rear?

When I hit him, my buddy's jaw hit the ground, and he seemed incredulous, stating "YOU HIT HIM".
Actually, my jaw hit the ground also, but I picked it up before my buddy could see, and I got to strut around asking "Who da man"?

 

[Cee Zee]

Well, I did shoot a few pests last summer - a buddy just bought a farm with a 5 acre pond, and he had plenty of muskrats.

That's the kind of shooting that a thumb hole stock is great for. And doncha love it when a plan comes together like that. Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. Maybe there was some luck involved but there had to be some skill involved too or you would have missed by a mile unless it was just one of those close your eyes "shot in the dark" type things but they are very rare.

Yeah people do think my reticle choices are weird. You should see the looks I get when people look through my Weaver scopes with the target reticles. They try to tell me there isn't a reticle there at all because they are very thin. Forget using them in low light. But they are for target shooting. Anything else is just hit or miss. If there's light you can see to shoot but my Nikon scopes shoot in far less light because the reticle is much heavier. I'm just not big on anything that blocks what I'm looking at. A friend once explained to me that you can't shoot what you can't see. Considering how good of a shooter he is I took his word for it. He's a world class shooter that has set a bunch of records so I tend to listen to him.

 

[basicblur]

Maybe there was some luck involved but there had to be some skill involved too...

I'm going with the skill line!

I did a lot of hunting (more just pestering 'em) when I was young, but it was with crappy BB guns and then a CO2 rifle - shooting that slow, cheap stuff did teach me a thing or two about Kentucky Windage and bullet drop.

 

[Cee Zee]

I did a lot of hunting (more just pestering 'em) when I was young, but it was with crappy BB guns and then a CO2 rifle - shooting that slow, cheap stuff did teach me a thing or two about Kentucky Windage and bullet drop.

Hey you might be my brother. We all got started that way. But none of them live in Virginia I guess. Still I had my first BB gun when I was 5 and I'm sure I scared a lot of birds with it. My brother lucked out and got a Daisy that would shoot like a centerfire rifle when it came to accuracy. The rest of us were lucky to hit a tin can at ten paces. I have one now though that actually shoots pretty good. My BIL found it in an apartment when he was the head maintenance guy and he gave it to my son who abandoned it when he moved out. I still find use for it once in a while. It shoots hard and accurate. But it still isn't as accurate as the Daisy my brother had. One of the brothers from a family that was our best friends when we were kids still has that Daisy. I think I'm going to tell him it's my turn to keep it a while. I think he's had it about 50 years. I think it's someone else's turn by now surely. Even by the rules we lived by as kids (older and bigger is always right and it's always their turn) he couldn't argue with that. I was the youngest one so maybe it's "finally" my turn.

 

[ford8nr]

Well, I did shoot a few pests last summer - a buddy just bought a farm with a 5 acre pond, and he had plenty of muskrats.

Becareful of ricochettes off the water. You WILL get bullet skip.

 

[Cee Zee]

Becareful of ricochettes off the water. You WILL get bullet skip.

That's almost certain to happen. But I assumed he knew not to fire in the direction of anything he didn't want to hit. But yeah we do need to be aware that bullets and water are like bullets and steel. The bullets just bounce off most of the time.

 

[ford8nr]

I figured (hoped) he knew that, but as a RSO I've seen all kinds of things and heard all kinds of explanations.

 

[basicblur]

I figured (hoped) he knew that...

Yup - we made allowances for bullets skipping, although I think my buddy was a bit surprised.

When I shoot suppressed at the local range, some of those ricochets off the edge of steel targets sound darn scary when they go whizzing off to who knows where?

I'm assuming they're more scary sounding than they really are - I'm guessing the whizzing sound is the bullet tumbling, etc - that should really limit the distance they travel.

 

[tuj]

I started out with a Mueller APV which is 4.5-16x variable. It turned out that 16x was not enough magnification from the bench for me. I then upgraded to Mueller's 8-32x target scope with side focus (which is a nice feature).

We shoot benchrest at 50 yards with 36x fixed power scopes. I would not recommend that, but it should show you that higher magnification = more accuracy most of the time. You can go higher than 36x; I have looked at a 45x on the line but it had too much mirage even at 50 yards on a calm cool day.

Overall you want the highest magnification you can hold steady. This means get a variable and start to work with it. Off-hand in 3p shooting, the best I can do is about 8x, then my wobble gets me. I know other 3p shooters who use up to 16x.

 

[tuj]

My MkIIBTW shoots MORE accurate than my CZ 453

Pretty impressive groups CeeZee. I think my feeling on Savage are mixed. I have a 93R17 that is very accurate but my MKII was not at all. I think CZ probably has the edge on quality control as I have shot a number of different CZ's (452, 455's) and they are all consistently "good". Not great mind you, but very good.