Lightweight Varminter-T in .223

[Ed Gordon]

Found one today new for a good price. Get to pick it up tomorrow. Laminated thumbhole stock and heavy barrel. Bolt was very smooth and it seemed to fit me well. Anyone else have one of these and hopefully have good stuff to say about it?
Not really familiar with the Savage centerfire models so is there any reason I should have looked at another model? I plan to use it from a bench rest so to me this looked like an ideal package. Read a few posts about issues with this model so hope I picked well. Of course read a lot of posts about Bmag issues and mine has been perfect so far.

[plinkin]

Found one today new for a good price. Get to pick it up tomorrow. Laminated thumbhole stock and heavy barrel. Bolt was very smooth and it seemed to fit me well. Anyone else have one of these and hopefully have good stuff to say about it?
Not really familiar with the Savage centerfire models so is there any reason I should have looked at another model? I plan to use it from a bench rest so to me this looked like an ideal package. Read a few posts about issues with this model so hope I picked well. Of course read a lot of posts about Bmag issues and mine has been perfect so far.

My B/Mag was perfect too. I hope my next one is also. I have 3 model 25s. .204, .17H & .22H. I haven't fired the 22. The issue I had the most with the .204 was it shot very high. I honestly didn't think I was going to get it to come down. It had increased bolt cocking effort that Savage says is normal which I do not believe it is but it works better now approaching 40 rounds fired. It is very accurate. You can't baby the bolt when feeding a round. If feels nicer now than when new a year ago.

The 17H is a T Hole and it feeds iffy and has high bolt effort. Worst thing was at 50 yards it was shooting 18" right of center...EIGHTEEN INCHES I said.

I had read here that shooting very high and very left/right was common and the easy fix was to install an EGW 1 piece base. I bought one for the 17H and it still shot about 6" right but it worked out faster.

When I bought the last M25 T Hole 22H I bought 2 M25 bases, one for the .204, it was just going to be a given whether it needed it or not. I do believe the .204 needs it.

I would suggest doing so for you too.

Is yours high gloss finishon the metal or satin matte finish like the B.Mag?

[Ed Gordon]

The barrel is a nice gloss blued like the old S&W revolvers - almost black looking. I'll get a scope on it and see how she does tomorrow.

[plinkin]

The barrel is a nice gloss blued like the old S&W revolvers - almost black looking. I'll get a scope on it and see how she does tomorrow.
If your barrel is still the high gloss it was build before January. According to Andrew in Savage Customer service they made a running change in January 2013 and there was also something done about the bolt cocking effort but he was tight lipped about it.

[Ed Gordon]

Hmmm, not sure if a pre 2013 is a good thing or not. The rifle sure is good looking though. I ran the bolt (on an empty chamber) in the store and didn't notice any resistance or roughness. I'll know by this time tomorrow. Are they discontinuing the model 25? The store had it marked down a lot and I asked what was up - they said they are not going to carry that model anymore.

[plinkin]

Hmmm, not sure if a pre 2013 is a good thing or not. The rifle sure is good looking though. I ran the bolt (on an empty chamber) in the store and didn't notice any resistance or roughness. I'll know by this time tomorrow. Are they discontinuing the model 25? The store had it marked down a lot and I asked what was up - they said they are not going to carry that model anymore.

I do not believe they are discontinuing the M25. I have a feeling it costs less to satin matte finish it like the do the B.Mag, the Walking Varminter and now many other rifles. From what I have read some guys are not happy with this finish as sometimes it is so rough that using a cloth on it will leave lint all over the rifle. My B.Mag was not that way.

I special ordered my 2nd 22 Hornet, the M25, and I fully expected to get the matte finish and boy was I happy I didn't. Now all 3 25's match and so does the M40.

[Ed Gordon]

Update! - Picked up rifle, Redfield Battlefield scope and sprung for Leupold scope rings. Most I ever paid for rings but they worked out nice.
Had a box of 55gr. Winchester softpoint ammo and several boxes of Russian steel cased FMJ. I started using the FMJ to sight in the scope and like many posts I've read talked about....I couldn't move the bolt back to eject the case after firing. I had to use a cleaning rod and tap the case back to eject. Not a very good thing. The good news is the Winchester functioned without any problems. Took me about ten rounds to get sighted in at 100 yards. Shot the last ten with good results.

I really like the thumbhole stock and the rifle seems to be a very good shooter. Talked with the salesperson when I picked it up and they said it had been in the store since August 2011 and that is why they discounted it. So I don't know if Savage quality was better, worse or the same back then but that is what I got. The scope is pretty neat with uncovered turrets that are calibrated for 55gr .223 bullets. Scope also came with a .308 elevation turret that can be swapped out. Have a Redfield on my Bmag and am a fan of these reasonably priced scopes.

So I am planning on getting a hundred rounds of Winchester FMJ and a box or two of the softpoint for varmints. Then see how she does at 140 yards. I guess I'll pay the Russian ammo forward to my buddy with an AR.

Plinkin - tnx for the info. and good feedback on the model 25's.

[plinkin]

You're welcome, enjoy.

[RichJ]

I have a model 25 thumbhole in .223, the only problem I had with extraction was with Russian lacquered steel case ammo. Fired one round had to tap it out via a wooden dowel rod down the barrel, gave the rest of the box to my SIL. Other than that it's been flawless maybe 300 rounds through it so far. Worst ammo accuracy wise has been Federal American Eagle, I'd call it a pattern rather than a group.

Rich