Savage MKII F / G VS. Marlin 25 (925) Sporter Barrel Showdown Part 1
This test put the legendary Savage MKII F / G models against the Marlin model 25 (now known as the model 925). As the Marlin has had some Aesthetic changes between the model 25 and 925, the receiver and barrel remain mostly unchanged, which will be mentioned several times. The only ones I can actually range test were the Savage MKII F (synthetic stock) and the Marlin 25, but feel confident enough that the changes put into the "new" Marlin 925 aren't significant enough to say it's not a 25 as far as the receiver and barrel are concerned.
MKII when new, before modifications were made to it.
Marlin mdl 25 (now 925) only modifications are the grip tape
Both the Savage MKII models are listed with a 21” barrel, and a 39.5” overall length. The wooden stocked G model is listed at 5.5lbs, the synthetic F at 5lbs. The wooden G model lists for $233.00, the synthetic F lists at $207.00 (both with accutrigger). Both come with a 10 round magazine.
Both the Marlin 925 models are listed with a 22” barrel, and a 41” overall length. The wooden stocked 925 model is listed at 5.5 lbs, the synthetic 925R also at 5.5 lbs. (I think this to be a typo, as customarily the synthetic should weigh less). The wooden 925 model lists for $220.00, the synthetic 925R lists at $213.00 (both with T900 trigger). Both come with a 7 round magazine.
The prices listed are MSRP's, you can probably find them for less, but I posted the MSRP's for general price comparison purposes.
Both of the Savage and Marlin models tested are the more basic of the two manufactures. The MKII F is the non accutrigger model, and the Marlin 25 is a pre T900 trigger. Since I’ve had the MKII, I have lessened the stock trigger pull to 2lbs 12 oz, and the Marlin remains at the factory 6lb 5oz pull. I do not have an accutrigger or a T900 trigger to play with here, so I can’t give an honest opinion of the “special triggered models” of either. From the factory of the non special triggered models, the Savage was 6lbs, 6 oz., the Marlin again at 6lbs, 5oz. – if you like lighter trigger weights (and who doesn’t) neither of these basic models offer it, and are basically a dead heat in the trigger pull area. The Marlin mdl 25 I had used has a ridged trigger, which was more pleasing.
The other difference in the test is that the MKII F used has a synthetic stock, while the Marlin tested has a wooden one. Cropping pictures from the manufacturer’s website, shows a MKII F (top) and a Marlin 925R (bottom), both having synthetic stocks.
You can plainly see that the Marlin 925 synthetic stock has a higher comb than the Savage, providing a better eye alignment / cheek weld than the Savage when using a telescopic sight – advantage Marlin. If staying with open sights, the lower comb on the MKII gives better alignment and cheek weld getting closer to the plane of the sights – advantage Savage. Speaking of open sights, both the Savage and the Marlin models come with them, with the Marlin’s front sight more visually pleasing and easier to remove / replace if you wish with screws. The rear sight on the 925 is super as it folds down to allow an optic on top, and is much easier to adjust for elevation. The Savage's front sight is VERY tightly dovetailed in, and of a very minimal design. So while the MKII’s comb offers better alignment and comfort, the sights on the Marlin seem to be of better Quality – advantage is up to your preference, my opinion on a dedicated open sighted rifle is the stock with the lower comb, which is the Savage synthetic stocked MKII F. If it came down to a wooden stocked model being dedicated to the open sights it came with, I like the Marlin 25 and 925's more.
When it comes to the wooden stocked versions of both, the combs are almost identical - tie (see below, MKII on top, 925 on bottom). The Savage provides checkering, the Marlin does not on some years of manufacturing – if you like a better gripping surface, advantage Savage if you can’t find a Marlin with the checkering.
I took a visit to the local firearms store that stocked both manufacturers. Amazingly they had all four models at the same time. After handling the four, at least in my opinion, the Marlin, both wooden and synthetic, had a little more “meat” on the stock in the forend and in the rear gripping areas, with just a hint more of a palm swell than the savage. There also seemed to be slight gripping angles between the two, with the Marlin feeling more natural - the feel and appearance of the both the wooden and synthetic stocks of the Marlin were better, again, at least in my opinion – advantage Marlin. One note: The synthetic stock on the MKII seemed to have more “freefloatiness” than the MKII wooden and both Marlin synthetic and wood. Besides the longer barrel of the Marlin, it seemed that both on the model 25 at home and the 925’s barrel (in the sporter / regular taper version), they were heavier (thicker / fatter) than the MKII’s sporter / regular tapered barrel. I did not bring my calipers to the store as I didn’t think I’d need them, but there diffenately was a difference. The model 25 sporter barrel at home was .620 at the muzzle and .763 where it met the stock. The MKII was .575 at the muzzle and .680 where it met the stock. As it’s well documented that a heavier barrel performs better than a thinner one, this may be advantage Marlin. We’ll see when they are shot.
The receiver mounting to either types of stock on the MKII puts the mounting bolts connected to the receiver, which is generally a better setup if you wish to bed the action, or truly freefloat the barrel. The Marlin 25 only had one mounting bolt to the rear of the receiver, with the front nestled in the wood stock itself. The Marlin’s 925 front mounting bolt is actually attached to the barrel itself, via a threaded “socket” dovetailed into the barrel. Although this will not allow for a true freefloat of the barrel, it can be used as a sort of a barrel tuning adjustment by either tightening or loosening the mounting bolt. With this in mind, I can’t form an opinion on which style of mounting would be better other than on the wood stocked models, temperature and humidity changes will cause contraction and expansion in the wood, and would be problemsome to adjust the Marlin’s front mounting bolt for the conditions – but I’m leaning towards Savage’s mounting system.
Both Savage’s and Marlins receivers are round, with the Marlin’s receiver both on the 25 and 925’s models having a thicker metal. On top of the receiver, the Savage MKIIs are drilled and tapped for scope bases, no dove tailed grooves. On the Marlin 25 tested, the receiver has only the dove tailed grooves. The newer Marlin 925 has BOTH the grooved and drilled / tapped receiver. While I do prefer the use of “regular” scope bases, the 925 offers the option of using either styled scope rings. The Savage receiver has a “holes” to either side of the receiver. I am not sure what the purpose is, I can only assume to vent out any gas in order to protect the bolt, but again I’m not sure of their purpose. The Marlin 25 does not have these "holes" on the sides, but the newer 925 has one on the "non bolt handled" side of the receiver. The Savage’s receiver also has a gap between the receiver and where the barrel meets it. I believe this is so they can use the same receiver for the heavy barrelled versions. The Marlin does not have this. In my opinion, the lack of the “gap” plus the thicker metal on the receiver makes me believe that the Marlin’s receiver is sturdier. Of course I don’t know the grade of metal used in either, but after more inspection, this is my conclusion, I could be dead wrong. See below photos, the top is MKII with two toothpicks easily placed in that gap, the bottom Marlin 25 (925). Note also the different thickness in the recivers themselves.
*****THE USE OF ILLUSTRATIONS MAKES ME HAVE TO PUT IT INTO 3 PARTS, ON TO PART 2*****
MKII F/G vs. Marlin 25/925 sporter barrel showdown - Part 2
This test put the legendary Savage MKII F / G models against the Marlin model 25 (now known as the model 925). As the Marlin has had some Aesthetic changes between the model 25 and 925, the receiver and barrel remain mostly unchanged, which will be mentioned several times. The only ones I can actually range test were the Savage MKII F (synthetic stock) and the Marlin 25, but feel confident enough that the changes put into the "new" Marlin 925 aren't significant enough to say it's not a 25 as far as the receiver and barrel are concerned.
MKII when new, before modifications were made to it.
Marlin mdl 25 (now 925) only modifications are the grip tape
Both the Savage MKII models are listed with a 21” barrel, and a 39.5” overall length. The wooden stocked G model is listed at 5.5lbs, the synthetic F at 5lbs. The wooden G model lists for $233.00, the synthetic F lists at $207.00 (both with accutrigger). Both come with a 10 round magazine.
Both the Marlin 925 models are listed with a 22” barrel, and a 41” overall length. The wooden stocked 925 model is listed at 5.5 lbs, the synthetic 925R also at 5.5 lbs. (I think this to be a typo, as customarily the synthetic should weigh less). The wooden 925 model lists for $220.00, the synthetic 925R lists at $213.00 (both with T900 trigger). Both come with a 7 round magazine.
The prices listed are MSRP's, you can probably find them for less, but I posted the MSRP's for general price comparison purposes.
Both of the Savage and Marlin models tested are the more basic of the two manufactures. The MKII F is the non accutrigger model, and the Marlin 25 is a pre T900 trigger. Since I’ve had the MKII, I have lessened the stock trigger pull to 2lbs 12 oz, and the Marlin remains at the factory 6lb 5oz pull. I do not have an accutrigger or a T900 trigger to play with here, so I can’t give an honest opinion of the “special triggered models” of either. From the factory of the non special triggered models, the Savage was 6lbs, 6 oz., the Marlin again at 6lbs, 5oz. – if you like lighter trigger weights (and who doesn’t) neither of these basic models offer it, and are basically a dead heat in the trigger pull area. The Marlin mdl 25 I had used has a ridged trigger, which was more pleasing.
The other difference in the test is that the MKII F used has a synthetic stock, while the Marlin tested has a wooden one. Cropping pictures from the manufacturer’s website, shows a MKII F (top) and a Marlin 925R (bottom), both having synthetic stocks.
You can plainly see that the Marlin 925 synthetic stock has a higher comb than the Savage, providing a better eye alignment / cheek weld than the Savage when using a telescopic sight – advantage Marlin. If staying with open sights, the lower comb on the MKII gives better alignment and cheek weld getting closer to the plane of the sights – advantage Savage. Speaking of open sights, both the Savage and the Marlin models come with them, with the Marlin’s front sight more visually pleasing and easier to remove / replace if you wish with screws. The rear sight on the 925 is super as it folds down to allow an optic on top, and is much easier to adjust for elevation. The Savage's front sight is VERY tightly dovetailed in, and of a very minimal design. So while the MKII’s comb offers better alignment and comfort, the sights on the Marlin seem to be of better Quality – advantage is up to your preference, my opinion on a dedicated open sighted rifle is the stock with the lower comb, which is the Savage synthetic stocked MKII F. If it came down to a wooden stocked model being dedicated to the open sights it came with, I like the Marlin 25 and 925's more.
When it comes to the wooden stocked versions of both, the combs are almost identical - tie (see below, MKII on top, 925 on bottom). The Savage provides checkering, the Marlin does not on some years of manufacturing – if you like a better gripping surface, advantage Savage if you can’t find a Marlin with the checkering.
I took a visit to the local firearms store that stocked both manufacturers. Amazingly they had all four models at the same time. After handling the four, at least in my opinion, the Marlin, both wooden and synthetic, had a little more “meat” on the stock in the forend and in the rear gripping areas, with just a hint more of a palm swell than the savage. There also seemed to be slight gripping angles between the two, with the Marlin feeling more natural - the feel and appearance of the both the wooden and synthetic stocks of the Marlin were better, again, at least in my opinion – advantage Marlin. One note: The synthetic stock on the MKII seemed to have more “freefloatiness” than the MKII wooden and both Marlin synthetic and wood. Besides the longer barrel of the Marlin, it seemed that both on the model 25 at home and the 925’s barrel (in the sporter / regular taper version), they were heavier (thicker / fatter) than the MKII’s sporter / regular tapered barrel. I did not bring my calipers to the store as I didn’t think I’d need them, but there diffenately was a difference. The model 25 sporter barrel at home was .620 at the muzzle and .763 where it met the stock. The MKII was .575 at the muzzle and .680 where it met the stock. As it’s well documented that a heavier barrel performs better than a thinner one, this may be advantage Marlin. We’ll see when they are shot.
The receiver mounting to either types of stock on the MKII puts the mounting bolts connected to the receiver, which is generally a better setup if you wish to bed the action, or truly freefloat the barrel. The Marlin 25 only had one mounting bolt to the rear of the receiver, with the front nestled in the wood stock itself. The Marlin’s 925 front mounting bolt is actually attached to the barrel itself, via a threaded “socket” dovetailed into the barrel. Although this will not allow for a true freefloat of the barrel, it can be used as a sort of a barrel tuning adjustment by either tightening or loosening the mounting bolt. With this in mind, I can’t form an opinion on which style of mounting would be better other than on the wood stocked models, temperature and humidity changes will cause contraction and expansion in the wood, and would be problemsome to adjust the Marlin’s front mounting bolt for the conditions – but I’m leaning towards Savage’s mounting system.
Both Savage’s and Marlins receivers are round, with the Marlin’s receiver both on the 25 and 925’s models having a thicker metal. On top of the receiver, the Savage MKIIs are drilled and tapped for scope bases, no dove tailed grooves. On the Marlin 25 tested, the receiver has only the dove tailed grooves. The newer Marlin 925 has BOTH the grooved and drilled / tapped receiver. While I do prefer the use of “regular” scope bases, the 925 offers the option of using either styled scope rings. The Savage receiver has a “holes” to either side of the receiver. I am not sure what the purpose is, I can only assume to vent out any gas in order to protect the bolt, but again I’m not sure of their purpose. The Marlin 25 does not have these "holes" on the sides, but the newer 925 has one on the "non bolt handled" side of the receiver. The Savage’s receiver also has a gap between the receiver and where the barrel meets it. I believe this is so they can use the same receiver for the heavy barrelled versions. The Marlin does not have this. In my opinion, the lack of the “gap” plus the thicker metal on the receiver makes me believe that the Marlin’s receiver is sturdier. Of course I don’t know the grade of metal used in either, but after more inspection, this is my conclusion, I could be dead wrong. See below photos, the top is MKII with two toothpicks easily placed in that gap, the bottom Marlin 25 (925). Note also the different thickness in the recivers themselves.
*****THE USE OF ILLUSTRATIONS MAKES ME HAVE TO PUT IT INTO 3 PARTS, ON TO PART 2*****
MKII F/G vs. Marlin 25/925 sporter barrel showdown - Part 2
