Having read a lot of reports on the Savage Mark II FV SR being quite accurate, I purchased one. I am very happy with its accuracy. I knew going in that the stock has been a downside by all reports. Still, I cannot understand why they couldn't have designed a mold producing a stock with more conventional dimensions. Filling a more voluminous mold with a handful more pellets would cost them, what, five bucks? But, since the rifle is accurate as is, the skimpy stock is just barely adequate. Is that the criteria by which a manufacturer must be competitive?

I had a fail to extract. 5 failures out of 50 is a 10% fail rate. Hopefully, that will be worked out eventually.

Actioning the next round created an impact jamming several times that not only sprained a magazine lip, it also undid one of the side retaining mortises. That resulted in the magazine no longer keeping hold of rounds. Once returned home, I fixed the sprained, un-hooked side plate by re-peening the mortise (I guess that's what to call it) and tweaked the lip and all is well again, but it aroused my curiosity...

The Savage magazine steel seemed a tad thin and weak. I measured the thickness of my circa 1950 Marlin 80DL magazine. It is constructed in the same fashion as the Savage mag and is of .034" thick steel. The Savage mag is .025" thick. That's 36 percent thinner than the Marlin of 65 years ago (which also has a very nice walnut stock of ample proportion). As far as I can tell, .22LR ammo has not changed component dimensions, still needs a minimum of spring pressure beneath the follower, and reducing the strength of a device designed to accommodate the mechanics (which includes occasional malfunctions) is counter-productive.