who makes a accurate quality 22 bolt action

[Excelsior]

Only problem with a savage is the quality control. In the 22 matches we used to have at apts there is always someone with a savage in every match having some kind of problem with the bolt getting stuck, firing ping not working, magazine not dropping etc.

I wouldn't trust it in any kind of tournament environment.

I have never witnessed that. Not ever.

[Excelsior]

I don't know about the what the "real experts" at RFC say but I do know what I've seen at the 22 matches that I hosted over the past three years and that is that the varmint versions of the Savage Mark II are one o the most accurate out of he box 22 rifles I've ever seen for their price, hands down. I would even venture to say that they are bullet splitting accurate and I have quite a few witnesses on that.

Amen!

[Timberwolf]

I guess we could put the Sav v CZ to a test just to see. I have a bone stock MkII BTVS if someone has a similar CZ - say 1/4" dots at 50 yards = 20 dots, one shot per dot from the bench using bipod and rear bag.

And I wouldn't really classify my Sav as a target rifle - its bloodied way too many squirrels

[Mike A]

I have a Savage 93 "Classic" with the Accutrigger. It really IS a classic; looks like a big game rifle. I put a 2x7 scope on it and have used it for a ground squirrel/jackrabbit/crow killer for two years. Have a look at one. Not a target rifle, but shoots better than most people can shoot it. And it is beautiful, unlike the MKII series.

[Excelsior]

I guess we could put the Sav v CZ to a test just to see. I have a bone stock MkII BTVS if someone has a similar CZ - say 1/4" dots at 50 yards = 20 dots, one shot per dot from the bench using bipod and rear bag.

And I wouldn't really classify my Sav as a target rifle - its bloodied way too many squirrels

That would be awesome. If I had a CZ I would try to compete via posted scanned targets...

[Excelsior]

Only problem with a savage is the quality control. In the 22 matches we used to have at apts there is always someone with a savage in every match having some kind of problem with the bolt getting stuck, firing ping not working, magazine not dropping etc.

I wouldn't trust it in any kind of tournament environment.

I have been thinking about this and I have to call "malarkey."

I don't think Savage 22's have "quality control" problems based on visual inspections and actual use. They are simple firearms and they are fairly rock solid. Nothing esoteric about them.

You comment "there is always someone with a savage in every match having some kind of problem with the bolt getting stuck, firing ping not working, magazine not dropping etc." just doesn't ring true.

[Flyingpootang]

Since this is turning into a Savage vs CZ debate I'll throw my .02 into it. I found a thread on RFC where someone was trying to decide between a MKII and a 452 which was posted in the Savage forum. Before reading it I was expecting to hear a lot of CZ bashing, but I was surprised with a majority of the post saying out of the box the Savage has the slightly better trigger, the accuracy was about the same, the Savage was more finiky with ammo, while the CZ got amazing results with bulk ammo, and the CZ was better machined and all around build was better. The Savage was defintly cheaper and the extra mags are about 1/2 the price of a CZ. There is a vids on YouTube with a Marine shooting a 452, iron sights, over 250 yards and hitting a 6" target every time. There are also a few others with a scoped 452 hitting targets further away. The down side of the

[Excelsior]

Since this is turning into a Savage vs CZ debate I'll throw my .02 into it. I found a thread on RFC where someone was trying to decide between a MKII and a 452 which was posted in the Savage forum. Before reading it I was expecting to hear a lot of CZ bashing, but I was surprised with a majority of the post saying out of the box the Savage has the slightly better trigger, the accuracy was about the same, the Savage was more finiky with ammo, while the CZ got amazing results with bulk ammo, and the CZ was better machined and all around build was better. The Savage was defintly cheaper and the extra mags are about 1/2 the price of a CZ. There is a vids on YouTube with a Marine shooting a 452, iron sights, over 250 yards and hitting a 6" target every time. There are also a few others with a scoped 452 hitting targets further away. The down side of the

How so? Did someone actually get hold of a set of prints for both rifles and mic-out sample for each?

[rojocorsa]

I like this one. Not gonna lie.

[dwh100]

They will out-shoot the vaunted CZs, ...

They'll still out-shoot a CZ and they are still cheaper...

In terms of pure accuracy I suspect a sub-$200.00 Savage would compete head-on with CZs costing twice as much.

Sounds like your just a Savage fanboy. First they will...., then you suspect..... What's next? Will you guess? Will you bet a penny? Got any proof to back up your claims? Fanboys need facts not hunches.

CZs and Savages are both fine shooting rifles! I've shot both and liked both, but I pefered the CZ. In the examples I shot the CZ was more consistent, and a tiny bit more accurate. Plus the fit and finish on the CZ are nicer IMHO.

[only10x]

both suck.
Get an Anschutz 54.18 or 1712

[Excelsior]

Sounds like your just a Savage fanboy. First they will...., then you suspect..... What's next? Will you guess? Will you bet a penny? Got any proof to back up your claims? Fanboys need facts not hunches.

CZs and Savages are both fine shooting rifles! I've shot both and liked both, but I pefered the CZ. In the examples I shot the CZ was more consistent, and a tiny bit more accurate. Plus the fit and finish on the CZ are nicer IMHO.

I don't have a horse in this race. While I have shot both CZ and Savage .22's, my tastes run towards Remingtons. My most accurate .22 is an old CMP 541X. With the rough dunked-in-boiled linseed oil finish and Williams sights, it will easily out-shoot either the CZ or the Savage.

That said the Savage is impossible to beat it accuracy and low price are paramount concerns. The comments about Savage's "quality control" is simply nonsense from those who covet their CZs.

[Flyingpootang]

How so? Did someone actually get hold of a set of prints for both rifles and mic-out sample for each?

First off I'm sure Savages are great rifles, but the people making the comparisons are owners of both, so "a set of prints" aren't required. Secondly try not to be so critical if someone doesn't agree with your views by quoting every differing opinion other then your own. I couldn't say one was better than the other since I don't on a Savage, but only post on my research findings and my own experience. Here are one of the many existing post from RFC inside of the Savage forum: http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums...d.php?t=391919

Just so you don't have to reply to my post in a quote I'm sure there are other threads stating how stellar Savages are and how they're individually blessed by the Gun Gods themselves

[Excelsior]

First off I'm sure Savages are great rifles, but the people making the comparisons are owners of both, so "a set of prints" aren't required. Secondly try not to be so critical if someone doesn't agree with your views by quoting every differing opinion other then your own. I couldn't say one was better than the other since I don't on a Savage, but only post on my research findings and my own experience. Here are one of the many existing post from RFC inside of the Savage forum: http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums...d.php?t=391919

Just so you don't have to reply to my post in a quote I'm sure there are other threads stating how stellar Savages are and how they're individually blessed by the Gun Gods themselves

What "research findings?" You think posters on RFC are authorities? My only question was just what the hell does "the CZ was better machined and all around build was better" actually mean?

Was the CZ closer in tolerance to its actual design? Did you and the RFC brain-trust actually measure a set? Did the CZ design specify a surface finish that was more to your liking based on a visual inspection? Just what does your quote mean?

People seem to make (and repeat) comments that have absolutely no basis in fact. Your "the CZ was better machined and all around build was better" seems to be one of those. When I asked what it actually meant I was meant with hyperbole that was meant to obfuscate rather than answer the question.

[Flyingpootang]

What "research findings?" You think posters on RFC are authorities? My only question was just what the hell does "the CZ was better machined and all around build was better" actually mean?

Was the CZ closer in tolerance to its actual design? Did you and the RFC brain-trust actually measure a set? Did the CZ design specify a surface finish that was more to your liking based on a visual inspection? Just what does your quote mean?

People seem to make (and repeat) comments that have absolutely no basis in fact. Your "the CZ was better machined and all around build was better" seems to be one of those. When I asked what it actually meant I was meant with hyperbole that was meant to obfuscate rather than answer the question.

I'm sorry every thing you have/own is way better than everyone else and since your expertise is so renowned all over the world we (the common folk) will forever live in your shadow. Maybe you should be the only one to post and we should just sit back anxiously await your words of wisdom.