Tikka vs Sako
- Thread starter powdergun
- Start date
As a general rule of thumb, paying extra gets you more. Tikka and Sako are owned by the same company but don't share any design features. I doubt that so much as a screw will interchange between the two rifles. To me, that doesn't make the Tikka an econo Sako.
Chances are the Tikka will shoot well, but held together with a Sako it feels like a toy. Too much plastic to rate as a quality rifle IMHO, but a very functional and accurate tool. I just can't warm up to my .300 Tikka Hunter, even though it is boringly accurate with 180 Partitions. That the wood finish seemed to melt off when it got wet the first time didn't help.
Chances are the Tikka will shoot well, but held together with a Sako it feels like a toy. Too much plastic to rate as a quality rifle IMHO, but a very functional and accurate tool. I just can't warm up to my .300 Tikka Hunter, even though it is boringly accurate with 180 Partitions. That the wood finish seemed to melt off when it got wet the first time didn't help.
What Dogleg said. If all you want is function a Tikka T3 is fine, a Sako is different. I've had a few that feel like living breathing things when you hold them in your hands.
My favourite is the A series that came the 75 replaced, just about perfect rifles.
My favourite is the A series that came the 75 replaced, just about perfect rifles.
M12shooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- East St. Paul, mb
Tikka never had the warmth Sako's had IMO. As stated above too much plastic... floor plate, clip, trigger guard, etc. All of my Sako's are from the 70's and 80's and reek with quality. Modern Sako's sadly don't seem to be finished as well as the older models IMO.
Old Sako's all the way for me X2
As far as I know, that new Sako (A7?) is pretty darned close to the T3. If your comparing the T3 to the 75/85 series rifles, no their not the same. With that being said I don't think to me, that $1800 is worth it for a bolt action rifle. I could buy two T3's with good optics for the price of one 85. As far as the Tikka rifle goes, their are very accurate and I think still a pretty good buy. Aside from all the plastic, their built well and feel good. I've only ever owned one, and it did teach me to respect them a little more. But it doesn't feel as nice as the much heavier, more expensive Sako rifle.
Mighty Peace
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Land of the Mighty Peace
The "A" seriers mentioned above is not the "A7" rifle. The Sakos were listed by action (AII,AIII, AIV, AV) prior to 1997, then the model 75's were released.
I own a few Sako model 75 rifles and a couple of Tikka T3 LS models. Get by the plastic clip and its a great rifle, awesome shooters - I do not like the synthetic Tikka T3's. BUt when you handle a Sako, its a different feeling.
I own a few Sako model 75 rifles and a couple of Tikka T3 LS models. Get by the plastic clip and its a great rifle, awesome shooters - I do not like the synthetic Tikka T3's. BUt when you handle a Sako, its a different feeling.
I know nothing about Sako's, but I can say that the Tikka T3 lite I have is an excellent rifle and leaves nothing to be desired in my opinion, aside from whether you like the aesthetics of it, extensive use of plastics or have unrealized fears of things breaking that in my experience have not been a problem so far. I've heard some guys have broken the plastic bolt shroud. Dunno how you do that. Anything else you break would likely be the result of some abuse.
- Location
- Dah Soo,ON
I just bought a Sako 85 SS and....if I wouldnt have bought it for 1300$, I'd be very dissapointed in it. Its a great rifle but in reality...it doesnt give up much to the T3's. As for the older "A" series Sako's they seem to be much nicer. They will all shoot good enough to satisfy anyone I'd imagine, but 1850$ for a Sako 85 with a PLASTIC stock?..come on.
Tikka's shoot very nicely, and even feel relatively good. However, they don't have the same attention to detail and craftsmanship that the Sakos (especially older ones) have. There are lots of cast and plastic bits, and the design screams 'mass production.'
They're both equally functional; the difference boils down to whether you want a gun that was built by robots on a production line, or lovingly designed and crafted by proud workers. And this comes through in the details.
They're both equally functional; the difference boils down to whether you want a gun that was built by robots on a production line, or lovingly designed and crafted by proud workers. And this comes through in the details.
I can't give you a side by side review, but my Tikka in 22-250 is awesome. I have the lite, with syn stock in stainless and it shoots great. Best group is 0.5" with whitebox ammo.
IMO, why pay more when you can get quality for less. No sense splitting hairs if its going to cost you another 2-300 bucks
IMO, why pay more when you can get quality for less. No sense splitting hairs if its going to cost you another 2-300 bucks
That was the only caliber Tikka I owned that didn't shoot! I suspect it was a dud though. I have had a few other 22-250's since and they have all shot fine.
Yep, I also had great results with my former TIkka .270. I love these rifles and they're rumored to be the new 'remington'.
I like the 22-250 cartridge, although, I haven't shot any .223 which I guess is the next closest comparison, just waiting until I buy an M4 though!
I like the 22-250 cartridge, although, I haven't shot any .223 which I guess is the next closest comparison, just waiting until I buy an M4 though!
- Location
- Dah Soo,ON
Depends what your idea of quality is. A barrel that shoots straight is only 1 piece of the puzzle...
Just put a bushnell trophy on it, bore sight it and call it a day.
