After reading a great write up on the thumbhole version of this rifle, I had to add a bit. I have had one of these cheaper versions for over a year now and have shot enough rimfires to know when I've found a dud. The only reason this rifle is still in my collection is because it was a gift from the wife. I had gotten rid of my other rifles (Buckmark, Marlin 880SQ and 60SS) during a rough financial time and she felt this was the closest I would ever find to my beloved 880. I was intrigued with the accutrigger and ready to see what this rifle would do on the range.


Well, I hated the trigger. It was absolutely the worst I've ever had on a .22. I hoped to be able to adjust it, but it went down to about 2 1/2# and stopped. It had more creep than me stalking a deer, and just begged to be yanked off. Alas, no dice there as funds wouldn't allow it. So I went to work on it myself. After hours of thinking how I could reduce the resistance of the adjustable spring I came down to cutting it and stretching it to achieve a tolerable pull.

Then I turned my attention to the bolt. I could do nothing here, but I have never seen such a sloppy finish on one before. Were they hand chiseled? I might try to clean it up later with bit of polish and a wire wheel, but I shouldn't have to.

I tried to imagine the stock was OK, but I couldn't. It was an insult to even think of this as an accurate piece when you're holding it. Maybe I am just spoiled, but would it have hurt to put a good bit of material for you to grip? I hope to get one of the thumbhole stocks soon and see if that feels any better. Maybe it will change the "persona" of the rifle from a Cricket to a full sized firearm.
I have also been fighting a constant battle with rust on this piece. I don't baby my firearms, yet they aren't abused either. I have had no difficulties with any of my other firearms and they get treated no better (actually I have to care less for them to keep them nice)
Now for the range. Oh boy. I shot it the same way I shoot everything else. Clean barrel at the beginning of every group, rested by bipod and rear rest. Range for this particular firing was 50yds (I prefer rimfires at 75 as my zero is usually there, but everyone else does 50 so I'll play along). I was trying out different types of ammo as I had finally shot off all the rounds my family had bought for me. I disregarded the farthest shot of 5 as a fouler/flier. Over all I was happy, but not overly enthused at the pattern. At that range every group should be a clover, but I might expect too much. I was pleasantly surprised to find that this gun liked the same round as my last bolt .22 the T-22, a difficult to find, but very reasonable round for any use of a .22. Sorry the pic is upside down.

Just so you know, I did finally take this hunting and it did its job on the rodent population. I trust it to hit, but I used to be able to call a head shot not just a hit. I really wanted to like this rifle, but right now I would trade for an 880SQ in a heartbeat.
Again this is an opinion based on one rifle. Flame it if you choose, but it is the truth as far as I have been shown by the gun.

the savage tupperware stocks just plane suck. You either got a bad rifle, which is of course possible, or you don't like it and don't want to, also possible. but less likely, or you need to try better ammo.

Here are some groups
All at 50 yards. 100% stock

CCI Standard velocity, 9 rounds. The top hole is not part of the group, it's a Blazer used to sight it in, and that is two rounds of Blazer anyway.



These are all CCI subsonic HP's, 5, 5, and ten rounds. Again that weird hole is not part of the group, you can tell by it's lack of lead on the hole

I appreciate you telling it like it is and I'm sure there are others that feel the same way.

To add to this post, I had the Mako Shark which was a Mark II with a custom stock on it.
The finish of the bolt actually had very rough tool marks on it and the action had the smoothness of silk on sandpaper.
The stock design for this rifle as well as the main one was so poorly thought out that the rifle cannot be cleaned without removing the rifle from the stock.
The rifle constantly jammed and the trigger would lock itself up so that the few times it actually fed I could not shoot the rifle.

This has been the experience of a number of people....enough so as to say that it was not a matter of "getting a bad rifle" but rather getting the normal fair.
If someone has a Mark II that functions 100% of the time and has a smooth action, then you have the bad gun or it had been heavily worked over by a pro.

Savage does not know how to make a .22.

As a side note....it was darn accurate using match ammo. It hit where I pointed it....that is when it could actually shoot.

Were that MkII mine I would do the following:

1) NOT clean it between groups. I seldom clean the bores of my .22's, ever. Only if I feel that some foreign matter might have gotten in there.


2) I would find a scope that allows lower mounting. That scope is way too high off the comb for accurate shot to shot eye placement... at least it would be so for me.

Then I'd hit the range again with a wide assortment of ammo. My 2-cents worth.~AMMOe

And Remington can't make a shotgun because the one I had would not eject anything, and I had bought it new.

Savage has great customer service, they go out of their way to make sure the product is as it should be.

And I can't stand the Mako, it's just stinking ugly and very not user friendly

If it shoots poorly and the trigger sucks I can understand complaining about it, I would.

As far as the fit and finish, rough bolt, etc...these things are easily checked out at the time of purchase and that's pretty much what $169 buys.

I am a CZ believer because of issues that you describe and it's not just Savage that has problems. I'll spend a little more up front to get a better built rifle. My CZs have yet to disappoint me.