Go with the Savage and you will not regret it. Savage is at this point in time the most accurate out of the box rifle you can get, especially for the money. And as far as looks goes anything that shoots as well as a Savage doesn�t look all that bad. What do you want a pretty rifle that has so so accuracy or one you can be sure of where the bullet went. Lawdog
Posts: 1254 | Location: Northern California | Registered: 22 December 2002
RobinB: I agree with the guys who are touting the Rugers. I'd go for a stainless/laminated stock. I'd then spend the money to replace the trigger with a Timney, put a good quality scope on it & go hunting. I consistantly get 1" groups with mine using 225 gr. Northforks and Rldr 22. I personally don't know, but have read many posts regarding the need to replace the trigger on Savages and my impression is that Sako's are more expensive. I do know that my Ruger is very reliable and that is one of my main requirements since we go on extended hunting trips of up to 2 weeks at a time. Just something more for you to consider. Good luck, Bear in Fairbanks
Posts: 1544 | Location: Fairbanks, Ak., USA | Registered: 16 March 2002
After months of agonizing, I have narrowed it down to a SS/Synthetic Sako or Savage. I am only buying it for hunting and "plinking" in Alaska. I have no love for SS/Syn, so the rifle would never be considered an heirloom. What are the advantages of the Sako? For the additional +- $700 I could get the better part of a drop-off caribou hunt.
If you don't really care about the rifle, I don't know if I'd want to spend the extra money for the Sako if it's just going to be a "plinker". As you know, the Savage is much cheaper and probably just as accurate.
If owning a savage will make you happy then buy it. I am kind of superficial in that the rifle has to have certain asthetic qualities in addition to its ability to shoot well and, therefore worth the extra cost. To my mind the Savage is not an attractive rifle; however, to some looks are not important as long as it meets their needs. To me it's all pride-of-ownership. Lou
Posts: 3316 | Location: USA | Registered: 15 November 2001
I got stuck on Sako's because the stock design and balance fit me well. That has helped me make a few fast and accurate shots over the years. I beat the crap out of my S/S 300WM and it has held up nicely. That said, Caribou meat tastes better than plastic or stainless steel. JCN I also like the Sako triggers, and the Optilock scope mounts are hell for stout.
Posts: 7158 | Location: Snake River | Registered: 02 February 2004
I find aesthetics of a rifle very important. However, I find the Savage and Sako equally ugly. I am considering the two from a totally practical point of view. Mechanically, what is the advantage of the one over the other?
By "plinking", I mean that I will be shooting the rifle at the range as well as hunting. Not for any particular reason, I just enjoy shooting and reloading.
The only true advantage I can think of in the Sako, is the feeling of QUALITY. The way the bolt feels when you work it, how well parts fit etc. Is that important to you, is that worth an extra $700? Only you can decide that. I like my Sako rifles, but choices like that are very personal. Good luck with the Alaska adventure! - mike
Posts: 6653 | Location: Switzerland | Registered: 11 March 2002
Lets see trigger,scopemounts, fieldstrippable bolt, one piece floorplate, and one of the best designed synthetic stocks as well as a glare free SS finish. If you shop wisely you can get them in the 700 dollar range . I just picked up a STW NEW for 749 and have seen them cheaper. I have owned all American made rifles and some Jap and European rifles and these are the best .
Posts: 1779 | Location: Southeast | Registered: 31 March 2003
The way you termed it... I'd take a Savage and a Caribou hunt anyday over a Sako sitting in the closet waiting for me to scrap up some dough for the hunt.
SS and plastic, both rifles have a great reputation for being accurate and both sound ugly as hell so I wouldn't care what name was on it as long as it shoot and feed good.
Terry
Posts: 6315 | Location: Mississippi | Registered: 18 May 2002
I agree with the suggestion of going with Ruger 77 Mark II in .338 Win. Mag. A very tough, rugged, reliable rifle, and some of them are really accurate right out of the box.
Quote: I agree with the suggestion of going with Ruger 77 Mark II in .338 Win. Mag. A very tough, rugged, reliable rifle, and some of them are really accurate right out of the box.
Works just like a good pre-64
Posts: 1779 | Location: Southeast | Registered: 31 March 2003
I bought a .338 Savage in the ss/syn version a few years ago and have never looked back, except to remember all the game I shot with it. I shot it for a while before shooting a group to measure. My 250gr load grouped .87". That was good enough for me and since then it has taken several bears and a truck load of small game. I even did some plinking at clay targets and even bottle caps! I have no "real money" to speak of and a new rifle is a big deal to me. Might I suggest a Bushnell 3200 to put on it.
Posts: 741 | Location: NB Canada | Registered: 20 August 2002
Ruger is cheaper than Sako and a lot more rugged than either of them. With the rings and mounts included with Ruger it probably doesn't cost much more than a Savage either. Sako and Savage may have slight, but immaterial edge in accuracy.
Posts: 3174 | Location: Warren, PA | Registered: 08 August 2002
I know it's not what you asked, but I'll echo those advocating the Ruger. They're stout!
Me, I'd get one in stainless, whack the barrel to 22" and bead-blast the entire rifle, put it in a Bansner stock, tune the trigger, send the medium height rings back to Ruger for a low pair and, while I'm at it, put an all-steel floorplate on and, finally, mount a 2x7 Leupold on top. With an Uncle Mike's "Mountain Sling" and three rounds a rig so equipped will go 8.5 lbs "all-up" and have plenty of "hang" in the barrel because of the Ruger contour.
The problem with the savage is most misfeed 1 in 5 times. You'll be doing good to empty a mag out without a feed problem. Accuracy is great though,but it doesn't do much good if you can't get a round chambered.
I've owned and shot alot of sako's and have yet to have a problem with one and I've abused several and they still held up. If you can get past the initial price,which isn't all that high considering that you don't have to replace half the rifle,to get it to shoot. You get a rifle that feeds great,is highly accurate and in my experience reliable.
Ruger. What can you say,a crisp 15lb trigger,which you'll replace or pay a smith to clean up.The stainless bolt has a reputation for being rough inside which causes it to bind and misfire.A heavier spring is one option,but the bolt will still be gouging the shit out of the firing pin. Hopefully you can get ruger to fix it.Most likely not. Three out of 10 show a promise of accuracy. The only thing going for the ruger is the barrels on the MII are a hell of alot better then what the original M77 had,which isn't saying much.
If you're going to hit the one grand mark to fix one of these pieces of fuck,save your money and start out with a M70 or 700 in the first place. Or just buy the sako. Tikka wouldn't be a loss either. Sako barrel with a two lug bolt instead of the sako's three.Same accuracy and reliability of the sako.
Posts: 837 | Location: wyoming | Registered: 19 February 2002
Quote: Ruger is cheaper than Sako and a lot more rugged than either of them
have to admit, i havent read anything negative in terms of ruggedness on sako, ruger, or savage. how'd you arrive at this conclusion?
Sako uses more stainless steel on their stainless rifles than anyone else does. I am talking internal metal, the parts that dont get wiped down everytime you come in from hunting and condensation sets in...hows that for "rugged"?
Posts: 315 | Location: SOUTHEAST USA | Registered: 26 December 2003
I have a Tikka Whitetail hunter, blue synthetic in 338WM. The gun is super light, about 7.5 lbs scoped but I love to shoot it and its MOA or better with almost every load I have put together. It really doesnt kick too much either IMO. My dad has a 30-06 that I swear hurts my shoulder more than my 338WM.I also have a 243 T3 that really shoots also. IMO they are the best bang for your buck around today, you can buy one of them and some decent glass for under 800. GL on your purchase.
I second the stainless Ruger suggestion, I like the CRF feature of that rifle and that is why I prefer it over a push feed. Not trying to start a bun fight thats just my opinion. I have stainless Ruger MK11 30/06 does not comwithin a bulls roar of my cz's for accuracy but it is a tough rugged out fit and accuracy for hunting is alright.
Posts: 7505 | Location: Australia | Registered: 22 May 2002
I own a couple of sako's and I really like them , i have a cou ple of Rugers M-77's and beside the recoil being worse the any large guns thatI have shot... .That most of the gunsmiths that I deal with prefer not to work on them because they say there are better actions to work on.Don't get me wrong as the rugers have performed very well for me over the years. I just saved up enough money to buy a sako and never looked back! hysider
Posts: 165 | Location: unit 10 Colorado | Registered: 19 January 2004
Its all personal preference really - they are all good rifles. For me, The Tikkas or Sakos will leave the Rugers for dead in these areas :- smoothness of action, accuracy, fit& finish, attention to detail, trigger adjustment.
As for then CRF bit think about this - most modern military rifles are pushfeed actions and whilst it may be of benefit to have CRF for a dangerous game rifle I would not worry about it for a 338 Win Mag.
Buy what fits you the best and feels the best and then get it to work for you.
Posts: 789 | Location: Australia | Registered: 24 May 2002
Yes the savage is the most accurate. But the lease reliable(I own 4 of them) I would not have a savage for a big game rifle. For hunting ect in AK by the Ruger tougher less trouble. All my savages give me feeding troubles. My rugers don't.
This could be really important for big game hunting but for varmints A missed shot now and then most likey isn't going to cost you your life.
Buy a ruger save some money over Sako and get a better rifle over the savage.
Posts: 19669 | Location: wis | Registered: 21 April 2001
Ruger MK-II stainless rifles are very popular in Alaska, perhaps because the stainless steel used by Ruger resists rust very well, and are very rugged. I have used one of these Ruger rifles in .338WM since the early 90's, and it has become my only big game rifle, since it has been very reliable. I replaced the trigger, and also the "boat paddle" (Zytel) stock it came with, with a Hogue Rubber-Overmolded. There are better stocks out there, but since my rifle is a "working rifle" for all hunting conditions in Alaska, cosmetics in a stock is not important to me.
I have heard that Savage rifles are accurate out of the box, perhaps more than Ruger rifles. I have also heard of a few failures with their bolts, but so I have heard about Remington rifles. However, I have a couple of friends who use Savage rifles, and I have never seen nor heard problems with theirs. I do favor Ruger for the reasons I mentioned above.
Posts: 2448 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 25 May 2002
