Comments appreciated from current owners of late model sako and tikka rifles. I am looking at the Stainless / Laminated models. There is a significant difference between prices and I was wondering if there is a significant difference in quality. I have owned a Tikka in the past, never a sako. I was pleased with overall quality of the Tikka, especially the inherent accuracy. They look to have the exact same stock, probably the same barrel, however, there seem to be a few improvements in the overall quality of the sako action. Three lugs instead of two, more in terms of antibinding guides in the action, steel magazine instead of plastic. More closely resembles mauser in terms of ejection. But is this worth the $400-500 extra in price? I ask you folks with experience, especially those of you that have owned both guns. If I planned to hunt dangerous game, I might pay more for the Sako, but this rifle will be a deer gun. Thanks. Hugh

Well I can't comment on the Tikka beyond what I have seen. i have never shot a tikka or know anyone that has one. But I have Sako's. To me, in my opinion and just my 2 cents, they are superior to your basic production rifle. the actions are so smooth you almost have to watch a round being chambered. I've never had a malfunction. Are they worth the extra money? Depends on how serious you are about firearms, to me, yes, they are worth it. I'll practically guarantee it that you will be extremely satisfied with a Sako.

The Tikkas were well worth it when they were priced in the mid $400's two years ago. This year they raised the price to into the mid $600's. IMO its a bit much for a Tikka. They are OK rifles with a good reputation for accuracy and come with nice triggers.
Sako's are off the charts these days in the $1,000 to $1,100 range. I have three of Sakos and a newer M75 Stainless Synthetic I bought when they cost about $750. Many of my comments about the Tikka would apply to the Sako...nice gun but too much for what you get. I personally find the M75 actions heavy and clunky compared to some other actions.
If you shop around you can buy a new or like new Beretta Mato (no longer in production) and get a far superior rifle in every way for about $1,000. If you want a small lightweight rifle a Kimber 84 or 84 Montana would come in under $1,000 and again I think its a better rifle for the money.
Just depends on your druthers. Sako rifles are very nice but they aren't the holy grail and I've had my troubles with Sako as with other gun makers. But the three I own are good rifles. Still, I wouldn't give over a grand for any of em.

quote:

Originally posted by Hugh W:
Comments appreciated from current owners of late model sako and tikka rifles. ...

Hey Hugh, I don't own one and probably never will.

You might want to take a look on the GunSmith Board about the "Exploding" SAKOs which the Sako/Beretta Management doesn't seem concerned enough about to issue Recalls.

I have a Tikka in 338 Winnie. I love it. You can drive nails with that thing. Super smooth action. The Tikka just made more sense at the time for me. I would go handle them both and see which feels better to you. They are very similar though.

I had a Tikka whitetail Hunter and it was a good rifle especially for the money. Sako M-75 IMHO are excellent rifles, I have several. M-75 are far better made than most other Factory guns. If weight is an issue try a Finnlite, they are just as accurate as the heavier versions. I like the Finnlites in lighter calibers and think the std M-75's are good for heavier calibers like 300 Ultra, 375 H&H etc.
Mato's are also good rifles, I have 3 of them but I certainly don't consider them superior to the Sako's. I like the stock design and the magazine system is maybe a little better but they aren't as smooth, especially at first.
Kimber also are an excellent choice, especially if you can find one with nice wood. I like them as a light rifle with pretty wood. They are almost as accurate as the Sako's.
My only gripes with Sako's are the stock design and the magazine. The magazine feeds great but I prefer a attatched floorplate (which 2 of my M-75's have but they are rare). Also I prefer a straight classic stock such as on the Kimber the Sako stock fits but kicks a little more to me.
So in summation I would reccommend a Tikka if you are on a budget. A Kimber if you love wood and light rifles. A Mato is fine if you get a good deal on one. A Finnlite for a stainless gun in any caliber up to 300 WSM. And a Std M-75 is you want a 300 Weatherby or heavier caliber.....................DJ

tikka and sako are both good quality guns, i own several sako and they operate fantastic and very smooth. i can highly recomend them, the reason tikka are so much cheaper is they have more plastic pats ie magazine ,bolt shroud. barrels are the same and sako did do a major recall of some stainless guns last year.

i love my sako 300wsm stainless synthetic

2.8" group at 400m yards with cheap win 180 grain power points

well balanced

ACTION IS LIKE BUTTER

love the detachable mag.

My favorite most usefull rifle

rings and bases expensive though, but solid.

Feels and looks quality

There is no question in my mind that Sako's are worth the money, they are very high in quality, I do think they handled their issue with defective barrels like a bunch of asses. I think a few people probably got hurt unnecessarily due to the fact that they didn't make a massive public issue out of it.

Having said that, you never hear of a Sako being out of line like you do Winchesters a lot, and Remingtons as well. A far superior rifle for slightly more money.

Rarer still is me disagreeing with DJPaintles, but I have both rifles as well in several calibers, and I am quite confident that my Kimbers kick harder than my Sako's. I probably have defective shooting form or something, because I know DJ knows his stuff, and I wouldn't want to challenge him on a technical knowledge issue!

Having said that, I also love the detachable box mag, like The Silver Fox, and feel that the dovetail integral bases are just superior.

Merry Christmas--Don

quote:

Originally posted by Fish30114:

Rarer still is me disagreeing with DJPaintles, but I have both rifles as well in several calibers, and I am quite confident that my Kimbers kick harder than my Sako's.

Fish, We aren't necessarily disagreeing, you are instead making that point of how fit is important in felt recoil. If the Sako's fit you better that might very well kick less to you than an otherwise identical Kimber. As allways it's probably a good idea to shoot both to see which suits you best. If you're in the OKC area that can be arranged (even with a Mato)...............DJ

DJ. as usual, well said!

That's a good point, if it's possible it sure is nice to shoot one before you buy one--it's just tough to make that happen sometimes.

i own two 595 sporter models 22-250 & 308 and a T-3 they all shot extremly well all under 1 moa

I have a sako 75 and I love the smoothness of the action,also it feeds much better than a rem 700.The Sako has a high quality firing pin spring that is more consistant than the rem.700 spring.The trigger of the Sako is also of high quality,consistant and reliable.The Sako has a larger loading port than the rem.making it easier to load but less ridgid.The Sako extractor is super strong,but I have not really tested the remington.As for the Sako barrelI can't really say that much,I guess it was ok.The rail on the action that the rings attach to are a plus,making installation of the scope easier.

I got a great deal on a Tikka T3 lite in 270wsm/stainless. The rifle does have some plastic but so what. with handloads it shoots groups into one ragged hole. The straight line detachable mag feeds the fat wsm case slicker than snot. the bolt and trigger are very smooth. all this out of a 6 plus lb. gun.
the stainless/syn isn't pretty but is a hunting machine. Again, it isn't a sako but for a light weight rifle on a budget you can't beat it.

That said, if I had the money I would've had a kimber.

Steve

About the only major difference you will see between a Sako and Tikka is the stock. Both rifles seem to shoot very well. I would go with the Tikka as you can get two of them for the price of one Sako 75. Another nice thing about the Tikka is they come with a 4lbs trigger pull and are free floated. Not to many 500 dollar stainless rifles offer those options.

I have an older Sako; it does not have the 75 Action. I will write that it is the most accurate and reliable rifle I own.


Good shootin',

Tom1911

My Tikka is 78 years old, no problems ever and still more accurate that most production hunting rifles. But I also have experience with modern Tikkas and Sakos. They both come out of the same factory and are the most popular rifles in Finland - obviously. They always are ranked higher than Remingtons, Winchesters etc. in the independent press.

Their prices have risen a lot in last years but that is not uncommon in EU.

IMO they are both nice rifles. Tikkas are ok for 90% of hunters, Sakos are the way to go if you are the kind of guy who buys Omega instead of Seiko if you know what I mean? Both do the job but Sako has an edge when it comes to finish but this is the kind of diffirence average guy never notices.

Now the history has a 2-5 (?) exploded stainless Sakos to show. Lots of people are talking about this but I suspect there is a loads more of failed (insert your traditional make here) around. The problem was fixed and I suspect there will not be many such screw ups by Sako in the future.

So, IMO either is a good buy.

I have a Tikka T3

They come with a free floated barrel, bedded action and a reverse cone crown. The triggers on these rifles are outstanding and easy to adjust.

The "plastic" used on these rifles is a fiber reinforced polymer. It's tough stuff.

Tikka T3s come in only one action length. Unlike the Sakos. This allows for mass production to keep the prices down.

Mine shoots just about anyones factory ammo under 1.5 MOA. It has a preference for 180gr 30cal bullets. Groups just above 1 MOA are possible with some 180gr factory loads.

Only did a couple things to this gun. Adjusted the trigger and opened the barrel channel a tiny bit.

A good workhorse gun, IMO.