Printable View
How does the standard barrel model compare, accuracy wise, to the heavy barrel models. I need to replace my aging semi auto Glenfield, and am tired of unjamming the semi's. I want a bolt gun, but not sure I want to lug around the extra weight of the heavy barrel.
The heavy barrel guns actually only weighs one pound more than an equivalent sporter barrel rifle. For example the MkII F weighs 5 pounds while the MkII FV weighs 6 pounds. I know that extra pound can make a difference especially when you're trying to shoot off hand. The other stocks add weight to the rifle too. The BV weighs 6.5 pounds. Still they aren't extremely heavy.
Both barrels will be accurate. The main advantage of a bull barrel is how it handles heat. If you're shooting a lot of varmints you'll appreciate the extra metal. If you're chasing tree rats you might wish you had a lighter rifle. The bull barrel should allow you to shoot slightly better because it stabilizes those nervous twitches more because of the extra weight. But there won't be a huge difference there.
Yea I know all that in theory, was wondering if anyone had both and whether there was any factual difference in accuracy. Mine will be for tree rats and CA ground squirrels. At the most 2 or 3 quick shots, then long breaks.
I have had both standard weight MK II's and currently am puting together a MKII TR (started as a MK II FV, and bought a Boyds Tacticool stock). In any case the heavy barrel MK II's shot about 25% - 50% more accurately than the standard weight barrels with the same ammo. This is off of a solid bench, not field positions which I shot about the same with both guns.
I believe the main reason for this was the added stability that the weight of the heavy barrel provided.
Regards,
Rob
Rob,
Thanks. The stability factor makes sense and as King Ghidora pointed out one more pound probably won't kill me.
comparison of the model F "regular" and BV "heavy barrel":
http://savageshooters.com/SavageForu...html#msg253716
heavy barrel is more consistant all around, not only to disapate heat, but in controlling the harmonics / barrel whip. the balance of the rifle is "off" more with the heavy barrel as the weight is forward due to the barrel. but for consistancy, the heavy barrel is the way to go.
I have both extremes in the Mk II line:
1. Mk II GL - blue, birch wood stock, sporter weight barrel.
2. Mk II BTVLS - stainless steel, laminated thumbhole stock, heavy barrel.
Both of these are Accutrigger rifles and both are fitted with good quality scopes.
(Note the "L" in both models means left handed because I am.)
The BTVLS shoots tighter and more consistant groupswith any and all brands of ammunition. At 25 yards and under, the difference isn't dramatic but gets significant at 50 yards. If the extra weight and cost aren't big issues, I'd definitely go with a heavier barrel version.
Edit: I just weighed them both. The Mk II GL with a 2-7x32 Nikon Prostaff scope is 7 pounds even and the BTVLS with a Bushnell 4-12x40 Elite 3200 scope is 8 pounds 14 oz., so the difference is almost 2 pounds. However, the BTVLS is the heaviest of all of the Mk II variations so heavy barrel rifles with less massive stocks (and a smaller scope) would be lighter. I was limited by needing a left-handed action but you may not be.
I also, am left handed, and appreciate the feedback and weight info. I am not a fan of thumbhole, except maybe at the bench, so I would save a small amount of weight.
I wonder if I could get Savage to custom make a left handed Mark II BV. I like the laminated stock, but would settle for plain old wood. Anyone have an idea how much extra they charge?