Printable View
Looking at either the Savage Mark II TRR-SR or Mark II FV-SR.
I would like to have the longer barrel, but the shorter one would be find as well. I tried out the later and liked it, but was wondering if the extra $$ spend on the TRR-SR would be worth it?
Just wanted to see if anyone has any experience with them and what their opinion was.
I have a std 20" barrel Mark II GL ( I'm a lefty ) and I got a FV-SR as a loaner gun for my guests here at the ranch.
Both are tack drivers, and there is little benefit to the longer barrel.
If your intent is to add a can then you might be using sub-sonic loads - which again the longer barrel may even cause some loads to go over the sound barrier.
At some future date I may look into getting a FV-SR barrel fitted to my Mark II.
I think I paid $195 for my FV-SR from Bud's Guns last New Years Eve.
BTW buy extra 10rnd mags as the FV-SR comes with a 5rnd that I hear is somewhat finicky. I will say the few times I've used the 5rnd its worked fine for me - I just usually use the 10's.
Yeah I have a can to put on it. I have a 20" barrel on my 10/22 and it shot amazing with Remington subsonics at the last prairie dog match.
Im curious if there are any accuracy differences as well between the barrel lengths.
Doesn't a .22 run out of burn at about 13" - and it's just increased drag past that point?
I had my 20" CZ453 threaded at the original 20" and dearly wish in hindsight that I'd had it cut to 16".
We can do that ya know[Muaha]Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
It's likely gonna happen...not like it'd be the first time that barrel was in your shop!Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
The pipe cutter has no prejudice.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
Have two savages both with accutrigger, and love them. I've had great results with the heavy barrel models. I bought a cheap fv and after tightening down the stock and keeping the trigger at there lowest setting have had great results around <1 moa at a hundred yards depending on ammo.I have several thousand round of all types of ammo though the gun and after fouling with a chosen ammo it mine seemed to like mini mags, federal 510, federal champion, and even decent results with remington cyclones. But I'm not shooting out past 100 yards usually. over a 100 I'd defiantly go with sub sonic rounds. Even at closer ranges sub should work better I've just had good results with those prior listed.
I've heard this, too, but don't know if it's true. I suspect it may not be. We're i a smith, I'd take a cheap barrel and cut it back an inch at a time and measure velocities. I'd like to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
merely posts I pulled from other boards:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim K
"Bob Milek wrote an article titled: BARREL LENGTH VS VELOCITY, where he took a number of barrels and guns and cut down the barrels in one inch increments, measuring the velocity loss at each step of the process for a number of centerfires as well as the 22LRs. It's a very interesting article. Here are the velocities recorded for the 22LR starting at 14 inches and going down to 4 inches.
14" = 1,105 fps.
13" = 1,106
12" = 1,110
11" = 1,089
10" = 1,114
..9" = 1,077
..8" = 1,063
..7" = 1,057
..6" = 1,024
..5" = ..959
..4" = ..927 fps."
"
http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums...hortest+barrel
"24-26 in bbls are good/required to attain max-velocity for these 'hyper-velocity' rounds. Otherwise, 16 in or so is good for non-hypervelocity stuff."
"22 LR has burnt up it's powder in the first 4.5", however, it will still gain velocity past that. Anything more than a 20" barrel and you are loosing velocity."
Then someone calls BS on the "all powder is burned up in 4.5 inch" thing.
On the 2nd page there is a graph that may be worth looking at (chamber pressure v. barrel length).
From WikiPedia (fact? fiction? anecdotal? You decide) :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle
"Most .22 Long Rifle powders increase velocity up to about 19 inches (480 mm) of barrel length; the powder used in the Stinger increases velocity up to the longest .22 barrel length tested by the NRA, 26 inches (660 mm)."
I've been thinking about picking up a FV-SR to replace the 93r17 that I sold last summer. It seems like a hell of a deal for the money.
I got the MARKII-FV-SR 22LR about a year ago for my YHM 22 Mite. It is awesome, it shoots really well and the trigger is great. It is way quieter than with my 10-22 and will run any ammo you want.
Sounds like you folks don't know about the Ballistics by the Inch site. Here's the .22 data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim K
O2
+1 on the finicky magazine. I love my MkII, but the magazine design is super weak. A Google search will reveal a bunch of ways to "fix" it, but it seems like it's mostly quality control stuff that should have been fixed at the factory - the follower being made a little incorrectly, the spring being weak, the magazine lips being bent wrong right out of the box, etc.
It seems like most people feel like the stainless versions are a little better, but I don't see any science in that, unless the manufacturing process for them is substantially different. I haven't found any aftermarket magazines for them either.
As far as shooting goes, I love it. I wanted something different from my wife's 10/22, and I got it. I felt like everything nice I got her rifle I would just want for mine, so I got something totally different. Now we can go out plinking all day long and she doesn't have a heart attack at the ammo cost.
The plastic stock is pretty bad. I started with that and then put it in a Boyd's "Tacticool". Much better. I think it's the same stock used on the TRR-SR.