I am faced with a dilemma about my next rifle.
the sako av the butt stock has been cut, reshaped. then all the cut off pieces glued back on(was changed from hunting rifle to silhouette back to hunting) blueing isn't the best maybe 85%
the next is a bsa with a cf2 action(majestic feather weight)I would call it close to mint. except the recoil pad has been replaced.
both are in 6.5x55 and I don't know anything about either.
the owner of the bsa says the action is a copy of the sako action??
which one would you choose and why??

I have no experience with either of these rifles, having said that I would rather have the one that I believe has the lower round count. I don't know what the retail value of the BSA was when new but that would be my choice without seeing the rifles. Another thought, what is the barrel twist rate on these two rifles? If one has a faster twist barrel I might be inclined to lean towards that one because those 6.5s need a fast twist to stabilize the longer/heavier bullets. The original M96 Mausers had barrels with a 1/7" ROT.

The BSA has integral scope mount bases (which are different from a Sako), but that's about as far as the similarities go between them, other than both of them being front-locking turnbolts. You could just as easily say that the "BSA is a copy of the Rem 700 (Win 70, Savage 110, 98 Mauser)", take your pick.

As they originally left the factory, the Sako would be expected to be the better performer and a higher quality firearm overall. However, from your description, the Sako's modifications and modification "reversals" certainly devalue it significantly.

In market terms, the highly desirable Sako action is probably worth about what the BSA complete rifle is worth.

But if you intend to shoot either as is, then the only way to know which is the better buy would be to compare the way they shoot.

There is no comparison between the two.

The Sako wins hands down.

I have used many of these rifles from both manufacturers.

The Sako is a better rifle.

I have to agree with Saeed, "There is no comparison between the two. The Sako wins hands down".

However, from your description of the Sako (hunting rifle to silhouette back to hunting) I would imagine that rifle has seen quite a bit of use. If the Sako could be had for a very good price, and you were willing to have it restocked to your preferences, it might be worth the effort. But that would still leave you with a "hard-worked" rifle and only 85% finish on the metal. Add in a reblue and you might as well purchase a new rifle.

The BSA CF2 was never considered a great action, they didn't make them for long (1972-1986), the company went bust in 1986 and parts would be difficult to find.

I don't think you would be doing yourself any favors buying either.

ok. so I'll say goodbye to the BSA.

sako is a maybe...$650 too much? or would a t3 lite for $700 be a better choic
e?

Definately the SAKO

3X on the Sako, this is not even close.

So I guess I am the only living fan of BSA Majestic rifles.

I have owned many of both also, and I always found the BSAs to be the better performers among the ones I owned.

In particular, my Majestics in .22 Hornet and 7x57 Mauser were two of the best balanced, most accurate factory rifles I ever had, of any make.

I'd definitely pass on buying the remains of a
SAKO in place of a sound, complete, original, SAKO.

At a bargain price, I wouldn't pass on a BSA. (Only you can determine what is a bargain price to you.)

quote:

Originally posted by crout:
ok. so I'll say goodbye to the BSA.

sako is a maybe...$650 too much? or would a t3 lite for $700 be a better choic
e?

I've paid close to that for a good clean SAKO action before. I always consider the minimum value of a SAKO is $500, because that's about what the action alone is worth.

From what you stated about the SAKO, the stock needs replacing and so might the barrel. Therefore, I would look at it as buying it for the action. You can easily invest more than double the purchase price by the time you re-stock and re-barrel it. If the barrel is still good and it still shoots ok, then it's probably a good deal but you'll still spend quite a bit on a stock for the AV.

The newer Howa 1500 or Wby Vanguard S2, slightly better value than the Tikka T3, in my opinion.

I have owned a few of the older SAKO rifles and a couple of the newer actioned SAKO rifles.

I MUCH prefer the older 2 lugged SAKO actions.
By a WIDE margin.

I've written off the bsa as an option due to price alone. but I am still unsure of the sako.
I know you guys say the action alone is worth $500 but is it really?? for an extra $200 I can have a newer tikka which will shoot just as accurate and isn't older than I am.

I'm not clear on just what it is you are looking for. Are you simply looking for a good, reasonably priced hunting rifle?

You mention both the rifles you looked at are in 6.5x55. Is it important to you the rifle you buy be chambered 6.5x55?

The Sako you describe likely needs a new stock. If it has been shot extensively in competition it may need, or soon need, a new barrel. You'll have a fair bit of money and time in it before it's done, probably enough to buy two Tikkas. Or one Tikka and one heck of a good scope.

Tikka shows the T3 as being made in 6.5x55 though you won't find them at every gunshop by any means.

If you buy the tikka you have a nice rifle and dont have to think about replacing the stock or barrel.

I would get the barrel properly inspected and test shoot it.
If the barrel looks good and the gun shoots well, buy the Sako.

If any doubt, get a Tikka T3 instead.
Then you are sure you will have a shooter.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Anderson:
I'm not clear on just what it is you are looking for. Are you simply looking for a good, reasonably priced hunting rifle?

You mention both the rifles you looked at are in 6.5x55. Is it important to you the rifle you buy be chambered 6.5x55?

The Sako you describe likely needs a new stock. If it has been shot extensively in competition it may need, or soon need, a new barrel. You'll have a fair bit of money and time in it before it's done, probably enough to buy two Tikkas. Or one Tikka and one heck of a good scope.

Tikka shows the T3 as being made in 6.5x55 though you won't find them at every gunshop by any means.

I am looking for something in 6.5mm. 6.5x55 are rather popular here and I can get them in most chamberings including 1942 m96 Husqvarnas, m96 mausers, k98 military and commercial, plenty of tikkas. not to mention the sakos and bsa's
Just looking for the best value and most accurate. I owned an old sporterised m96 mauser that shoy about 1.5" at 100 yards. paid a couple hundred for that so not interested in paying lots of money for something that wont shoot as good.

Of the three rifles you've mentioned, used BSA, well used Sako, new or like-new Tikka T3, I'd take the T3 without question, even if it cost a couple hundred more.

On a practical hunting rifle, stainless steel is worth the extra cost to me, though it's not a deal breaker. In Alberta there's no worry about salt air as there might be in BC or Alaska and with reasonable care, carbon steel should do fine.

A T3 Lite in blue or stainless, chambered to 6.5x55 would be a darn nice hunting rifle. I see on the web site Tikka uses a 1:8 twist for this cartridge (and for the .260 Rem.) meaning you can use some of the long, high ballistic coefficient bullets available.

Some years ago I had a Sako 75 Finnlight in 6.5x55, sometimes wish I still had it. I might have to start looking for a T3 in 6.5x55 myself!

several years ago i had a styer sbs pro hunter in 6.5x55.
traded it off for some dumb reason and still regret it.