[quote author=hightechredneck board[/quote]
No. I will admit that I'm just going by what people who own both a Savage, and an SMI are posting on the boards. I want to believe that they are correct, because I am already regretting the fact that I sold one of my Savage's instead of having Ron rebarrel it when I am purchasing a barrel from him anyway, but I think that you saw my post about that on one of the other boards.[/quote]
Folks seemed to get unglued and irrational when the word "accuracy" comes up, and then the show begins. Again and again. You mentioned SMI has been building smokeless muzzleloaders for twenty years. How many hundreds of people do you personally know that have shot one for twenty years? Okay, ten years? Five years? I'll wait for your massive list.
SMI is a reliable outfit, and I've heard nothing but good things about their service, quality, etc. If there is an accuracy guarantee-- I don't know what it is, or an "average accuracy," I've not seen data on that.
There is a huge danger in "one incident reporting," whether rifle, pistol scope, shotgun, or certainly bullets and ammo. Statistically, one person's personal experiences are meaningless. Ten people's personal experiences are meaningless. 9 million deer are killed every year in North America, and who can claim knowledge of how 5% of those deer were taken? 1%? 1/10th of of 1%? And on it goes.
You've seen the endless, specious debates about the "best" scopes, the "best" bullets, the best propellants, etc., much less the best or better muzzleloaders. The only thing that should be clear to folks is that it isn't clear at all, otherwise we would
all be shooting the same thing. That is not remotely the case.
It gets even worse when we attempt to talk of "averages," and present theory as fact. How good of a shot is the average hunter? Okay, now offhand? What specific range is the average deer taken at, and what is the average distance traveled? We will never, ever know-- hunters are no better than fisherman when it comes to total recall. I could write a book on what is "reported" to have happened, and what videotape
shows happened. Maybe I will.
One of the few true things is that every gun is an individual, a personal little mystery to be tuned and tweaked by the owner who wishes to get the most out of it. It does not stop us from being deliriously curious about what the other guy is shooting, though, however unrelated that may be to what our gun likes or dislikes. Most of us will not accept the individual part at all, and want effortless quick fix answers to things that take effort. That seems to suit most of us quite nicely, as long as it is someone else's effort-- not our own.
Savage 10ML-II's are capable of 1-1/2" 100 yard accuracy out of the box.
Savage publishes it, promises it, and if a new 10ML-II will not do that for you if you follow the rules and work up a load using recommended loads-- all anyone has to do is send it to Savage, and they will be HAPPY to range test it for you. The number of people that would rather complain about it than invest the lousy $14 required to confirm or disprove their perception is amazing. Savage supplies the labor powder, and bullets to confirm a rifle for you.
What happens the vast majority of the time is the 10ML-II owner gets a confirmed 100 yard test target back that shows a 3 shot 100 yard group ranging from .550 to 1.3 inches with
no load work up, just the standard Savage test load of 42 gr. N110 pushing a .452 250 gr. Hornady XTP in a short black MMP sabot, or SR4759 pushing the same bullet. At 14 cents a piece, XTP's are in no way match grade bullets-- but that is what they do, again and again and again.
As my own torture test, I ran well over 3500 rounds through one 10ML-II over 18 months. With the load it liked the best, it shot 1-1/2" @ 200 yards
after those 3500 rounds. Savage tore it apart and inspected it from muzzle to buttplate; there was normal wear so very minor, it passed all new gun specifications including air gaging of the barrel. It went to the range test, and did 1.3" with the std. Savage load.
I'm NOT that good of a shot, no Camp Perry Championships for me, and of course any machine rest can outshoot me! It is just that I found the load that
this individual gun liked the best.
Though not needed AT ALL, I had Savage rebarrel my 10ML-II for me. It went to the Savage range-- and grouped 1.2 in. @ 100 yards. The gun now shoots 1.2" @ 220 yards with the load it likes the best-- A TOTALLY DIFFERENT powder, sabot, and bullet from the barrel that was on it before.
All of this does have the folks at Savage a bit puzzled-- the 10ML-II is a muzzleloading hunting weapon, that is its design and mission. As is, Savage promises you 1-1/2 inch 100 yard accuracy, compared to 2-1/2" promised by Knight, and nothing at all promised or guaranteed by Thompson including the Encore, a far more expensive rifle than the Savage 10ML-II.
Your Savage may shoot 3/4 MOA, it may shoot 1-1/4 MOA if we do our part. There is no basis to call this relevant in big game hunting-- people don't miss their animals by a 1/2 inch, 3/4 inch, or 1 inch: they miss them by a mile. The 10ML-II, as a new owner in Alaska put it, far more accurate than it needs to be.
My longtime friend, Dave Metcalf, could care less about hunting. He's a great gunsmith, great shot, and he loves to shoot. His Savage single shot heavy barrel varmint rifle shoots .070" 5 shot groups, that's 70 thousands of one inch with his best handloads-- less than 1/3 of the bullet diameter. That's crazy good, screaming accuracy, all with a factory Savage barrel.
But, let's not kid ourselves. The 10ML-II is no bench rest gun, no dedicated paper puncher-- though some fancy it as that. That's anybody's choice. Those seeking to shave thousandths off their group sizes start with Hart, Schneider, or Kreiger barrels that cost more cash as unmachined blanks than an entire Accu-Triggered, Williams sighted 10ML-II rifle costs brand new. As is, the 10ML-II has more accuracy than most hunters can use-- at least more than I can use.
Sure, it is as powerful as any factory muzzleloader available today. That may well be the initial appeal or allure for a lot of folks. But that alone is not what makes it standout over time, at least in my opinion-- deer still don't care how fast you miss them.
The low recoil for velocity, the zero immediate maintenance, the great trigger and sub 1.6 ms locktime, the super-low cost per shot, the ability to watch your bullet hit its target . . . that is what endures, and what makes muzzleloading more fun for me.
It is the natural step up in muzzleloading for those who just like to hunt, and is there for all the same reasons the .30-30 nee .30WCF was initially released as a smokeless powder powered cartridge, not 30 grains of blackpowder pushing a .30 caliber bullet as its designation would lead you to believe back in the day, as it was originally planned to be. It proved to be a great idea in 1895, and it is a great idea today.
People don't always want what they claim to want, fewer yet are willing to pay for it. We "claim" to want the best in accuracy, but most of use fail to do the obvious in order to find it-- weighing and sorting bullets and sabots by weight, etc. Most muzzleloaders cannot be bothered to chronograph their own loads. Not a big dig, as few shotgunners or centerfire hunters can be bothered to chrono loads, either.
I think a 1/4 MOA either way on a big game muzzleloading rifle is meaningless on a hunt, but the only person you really need to satisfy is yourself-- whatever that entails.
A casual assessment about "better accuracy" on the average really means nothing, particularly when you don't even have one example of the gun you are claiming to be more accurate. It is as far away from clinical data as can be had.
Sloppy 
I am done whining now.
