For the $200 difference, go Sako for sure. Nicer stock, metal mag, metal bottom metal, action sized to the cartridge - not "one size fits all", and a metal shroud which won't need to be replaced like the Tikka has. Just the price of an aluminum shroud for the Tikka offsets the price difference by almost 50%.
Advice for a friend: new Tikka T3 or used Sako 75
- Thread starter buckchaser
- Start date
This is pretty much exactly what I would say.
Tikkas are great rifles, without a doubt. Being a guy who has owned a few tikkas, and many Sako rifles, hands down Sako rifles are a notch above. For the $200 take the Sako, every time. The resale factor alone is worth buying the Sako.
Retail a Sako 75 sold for almost $1000 more then then a Tikka T3, for the mere $200 dollar difference..easy choice in buying the Sako 75. They both will probably shoot the same, excellent. Tikka does have alot more aftermarket support if he plans on changing things up.
Cheers!!
Cheers!!
- Location
- Steel Town
The base Tikka is an excellent choice, particularly if you want a long action. There is growing aftermarket support that really pushes Tikka's into the premium category, depending on how much you want to spend. I find that my Battue, with some Lumley Arms "bling" is one of the best all-around modern hunting rifles I have ever owned, and trust me, I have spent far more on other premium brands. Sakos are excellent "out-of-the-box", but they will cost you quite a bit more than $200 over a Tikka T3. However, aside from pretty to very pretty wood (their synthetics are not better than Tikka synthetics) and actions sized to their respective cartridge category, and if you have a phobia against glass reinforced polymer, there's nothing they offer over a Tikka T3 in my opinion.
First off, don't misunderstand my post. The tikka is a great rifle. They shoot great, they are light, have a great trigger and are quite affordable.
That said, the sako is all steel, it has a superior recoil lug arrangement, it has a 3-lug bolt which is also 1-piece, and a mechanical blade ejector - not a spring loaded plunger like tikka. They are also made to fit the cartridge length, not one size fits all like the tikka.
The tikka has more aftermarket parts available - but the majority of them are simply replacing the factory plastic parts (that the sako doesn't have.) If the OP bought the tikka, swapped out the shroud, bottom metal (plastic) and aluminum lug he would have more in the tikka than the $200 more the sako costs and it's still a tikka.
They are made by the same company yet sold roughly $800-1000 apart - that should tell you something.
This is of course only my opinion.
That said, the sako is all steel, it has a superior recoil lug arrangement, it has a 3-lug bolt which is also 1-piece, and a mechanical blade ejector - not a spring loaded plunger like tikka. They are also made to fit the cartridge length, not one size fits all like the tikka.
The tikka has more aftermarket parts available - but the majority of them are simply replacing the factory plastic parts (that the sako doesn't have.) If the OP bought the tikka, swapped out the shroud, bottom metal (plastic) and aluminum lug he would have more in the tikka than the $200 more the sako costs and it's still a tikka.
They are made by the same company yet sold roughly $800-1000 apart - that should tell you something.
This is of course only my opinion.
- Location
- Steel Town
Without getting into a debate, and also because I am a Sako fan, the Tikka is largely more affordable due to the materials used, a lower cost manufacturing process, and final finishing. There's a place in my locker for quality wood and nicely finished metal parts. However, there is also a place in my locker for a well made rifle that utilizes durable, no nonsense glass reinforced polymer parts and detachable mags. With the exception of the plastic shroud which isn't expensive to replace, and getting over the horror of a one size action design, the T3 needs nothing.
Exactly my point.
Just call it plastic already and be done.
lol
- Location
- Steel Town
I posted this in another thread, as I was comparing the features of my Tikka T3 Sporter and my Sako Bavarian Carbine. I believe this pretty well explains the price and parts difference.
BTW, I have nearly $3500 into my Tikka T3 Battue, so I don't consider T3's any more affordable, but I digress...
***
Just an FYI, I love BOTH actions!
***
Some interesting facts/observations when comparing Sako 85 to Tikka T3 rifles:
1. Sako receivers require more machine work due to more complex contours, and therefore, require more time to finish. Time equals money. The Tikka T3 receiver is geometrically simpler and does not require as many machining operations. For example, Sako 85's have a tapered dovetail on their receivers versus Tikka T3's being simply drilled and tapped for standard Weaver style scope mounts.
Photo of a Sako 85 receiver here:
Photo of a Tikka T3 receiver here:
2. Tikka T3's contain glass reinforced polymer parts (for simplicity sake, I will refer to "plastic" from here forward), and Sako's generally do not (excluding their synthetic stocks). Plastic is simply a far less expensive medium from which to create parts from. Tikka T3 plastic parts include: bolt shrouds/knob ends, trigger guards, and magazines. Barrels, receivers, and triggers are of equal quality and made on the same Sako assembly line. Note, plastic (polymer) is not necessarily a negative thing, and in some applications/conditions, is arguably a superior material -- it is strong, flexible, and does not rust or dent. Many firearm manufacturers employ polymer parts to varying degrees, including highly respected names like Glock, Benelli, and even Remington. Regarding Remington, the highly regarded 870 'Police' pump action shotguns are now shipping with polymer trigger guards!
3. Tikka T3 bolts are simpler in design and less expensive to make (as evidenced by the photo above). Given that Tikka T3's are found chambered in 300 Win Mag, 338 Win Mag, and 270/300 WSM, just to name a few, there should be no concern about the durability and safety of the T3 2-lug design! Tikka T3 bolts are particularly slick feeding, especially in combination with the T3 single-stacked polymer magazines.
4. Tikka T3's usually come with a relatively inexpensive molded stock. Sako wood stocks are usually much more expensive, and Sako synthetic stocks are also arguably of higher quality (note: I prefer my T3 Battue's synthetic stock over my Sako Finnlight stock). This does not apply to the Tikka T3 Sporter stocks and Tikka T3 Tactical synthetic stocks, which are amongst the nicest factory stocks on the market -- and reflective in the retail price of these models!
5. Sako is regarded as having a bit better finish quality. Note: this has NOT been my observation when comparing my lovely Sako M85 Bavarian Carbine to my Tikka T3 Sporter, but is certainly the case when comparing the standard "blue" finish of a standard T3. If you know anything about firearms, the amount of time and effort put in finishing is reflected, big time, in the price tag!!
6. Sako has multiple action lengths scaled to the family of cartridges they are designed for. Tikka (T3) have only one action length. This keeps costs lower for Tikka. Personally, I would not buy a Tikka in a calibre smaller than 308 (eg. 223), and prefer to take advantage of the larger T3 action length (eg. 30-06).
7. The Sako safety is more sophisticated as it allows you to operate the bolt while on safe.
BTW, I have nearly $3500 into my Tikka T3 Battue, so I don't consider T3's any more affordable, but I digress...
***
Just an FYI, I love BOTH actions!
***
Some interesting facts/observations when comparing Sako 85 to Tikka T3 rifles:
1. Sako receivers require more machine work due to more complex contours, and therefore, require more time to finish. Time equals money. The Tikka T3 receiver is geometrically simpler and does not require as many machining operations. For example, Sako 85's have a tapered dovetail on their receivers versus Tikka T3's being simply drilled and tapped for standard Weaver style scope mounts.
Photo of a Sako 85 receiver here:
Photo of a Tikka T3 receiver here:
2. Tikka T3's contain glass reinforced polymer parts (for simplicity sake, I will refer to "plastic" from here forward), and Sako's generally do not (excluding their synthetic stocks). Plastic is simply a far less expensive medium from which to create parts from. Tikka T3 plastic parts include: bolt shrouds/knob ends, trigger guards, and magazines. Barrels, receivers, and triggers are of equal quality and made on the same Sako assembly line. Note, plastic (polymer) is not necessarily a negative thing, and in some applications/conditions, is arguably a superior material -- it is strong, flexible, and does not rust or dent. Many firearm manufacturers employ polymer parts to varying degrees, including highly respected names like Glock, Benelli, and even Remington. Regarding Remington, the highly regarded 870 'Police' pump action shotguns are now shipping with polymer trigger guards!
3. Tikka T3 bolts are simpler in design and less expensive to make (as evidenced by the photo above). Given that Tikka T3's are found chambered in 300 Win Mag, 338 Win Mag, and 270/300 WSM, just to name a few, there should be no concern about the durability and safety of the T3 2-lug design! Tikka T3 bolts are particularly slick feeding, especially in combination with the T3 single-stacked polymer magazines.
4. Tikka T3's usually come with a relatively inexpensive molded stock. Sako wood stocks are usually much more expensive, and Sako synthetic stocks are also arguably of higher quality (note: I prefer my T3 Battue's synthetic stock over my Sako Finnlight stock). This does not apply to the Tikka T3 Sporter stocks and Tikka T3 Tactical synthetic stocks, which are amongst the nicest factory stocks on the market -- and reflective in the retail price of these models!
5. Sako is regarded as having a bit better finish quality. Note: this has NOT been my observation when comparing my lovely Sako M85 Bavarian Carbine to my Tikka T3 Sporter, but is certainly the case when comparing the standard "blue" finish of a standard T3. If you know anything about firearms, the amount of time and effort put in finishing is reflected, big time, in the price tag!!
6. Sako has multiple action lengths scaled to the family of cartridges they are designed for. Tikka (T3) have only one action length. This keeps costs lower for Tikka. Personally, I would not buy a Tikka in a calibre smaller than 308 (eg. 223), and prefer to take advantage of the larger T3 action length (eg. 30-06).
7. The Sako safety is more sophisticated as it allows you to operate the bolt while on safe.
- Location
- Steel Town
Have you seen the plastic used in cheap consumer products? Not the same bro...and let the black rifle guys know their $3000+ poodle shooters utilize the same "plastic"! lol
- Location
- Steel Town
Here are the photos of the T3 and Sako 85 bolts. Given that I can swap-out bolt handles on my T3 is an advantage to me!
I don't buy cheap consumer products.
- Location
- Steel Town
Really? You have nothing made in China in your home? I highly doubt it! lol
Steyr also bragged up their "space age polymer" (plastic) when they introduced the professional. Now pretty much everyone you see has a broken, or cracked bottom metal. Yes plastic has come a long way, but it's still plastic and primarily used to save money. Sako themselves changed the design when they introduced the A7. They gave the plastic shroud a steel skeleton, the mag steel feed lips and reinforced the bottom metal (plastic) with steel inserts in the high stress areas.
To suggest plastic is superior to steel (in firearm parts) is simply laughable.
FYI I too have owned both and now only the sako's remain. The tikka is a great rifle, but when it comes down to $200 discussed in the OP there isn't even a choice in my opinion. It's funny the tikka guys always take it personally when the cost savings of the design are pointed out. It shouldn't be taken personally, it's just the reason they sell for half the money. It's great sako offers both lines so guys can decide for themselves which works for them.
To suggest plastic is superior to steel (in firearm parts) is simply laughable.
FYI I too have owned both and now only the sako's remain. The tikka is a great rifle, but when it comes down to $200 discussed in the OP there isn't even a choice in my opinion. It's funny the tikka guys always take it personally when the cost savings of the design are pointed out. It shouldn't be taken personally, it's just the reason they sell for half the money. It's great sako offers both lines so guys can decide for themselves which works for them.
Last edited:
- Location
- Steel Town
When I post pictures of my Ralf Martini custom Brno model 21... you'll know that I have an extreme fondness for walnut and steel!
However, when I carry my T3 Battue, I have no worries. The bottom "metal" won't rust in my sweaty hands, the detachable mags are super strong and reliable, and the stock is very rigid. I did upgrade the shroud and added a Titanium/Carbon fibre bolt handle/knob, but the rifle has been faultless and incredibly accurate. I don't suspect I'll need to worry about replacing the mag for many many years due to wear, and I have yet to hear about a problem with broken plastic parts (other than shrouds) on T3's.
It took me a long time to get over the growing trend towards durable polymer materials, but I have finally accepted their place. There's nothing laughable about this "space age" material. It's here to stay and has its respected place in quality firearms.
However, when I carry my T3 Battue, I have no worries. The bottom "metal" won't rust in my sweaty hands, the detachable mags are super strong and reliable, and the stock is very rigid. I did upgrade the shroud and added a Titanium/Carbon fibre bolt handle/knob, but the rifle has been faultless and incredibly accurate. I don't suspect I'll need to worry about replacing the mag for many many years due to wear, and I have yet to hear about a problem with broken plastic parts (other than shrouds) on T3's.
It took me a long time to get over the growing trend towards durable polymer materials, but I have finally accepted their place. There's nothing laughable about this "space age" material. It's here to stay and has its respected place in quality firearms.
- Location
- Steel Town
Since you softened your remarks in your previous post, I will say that I agree that in terms of finishing, the Sako is a nicer rifle. But, there are premium Tikkas (with Sako price tags) that are every bit as nicely finished. In my opinion, it's down to preference of materials and application. I will likely never buy another Sako as I prefer to have rifles built for not much more money, but I certainly have my eyes on another T3. I've been a firearms enthusiast for more years than I care to admit, and while I have a love for custom rifles (particularly Mauser builds), the T3 makes the best out-of-the-box "field carry" you can buy for under $1200.
I wouldn't buy a new sako either for the money they ask for them now (That and I don't care for the 85 series.) However, used stainless 75's can often be had in the $1200-1300 range, so I wouldn't buy a new $1200 tikka either.
- Location
- Steel Town
I have nothing but respect for the 75 series. I do prefer the refinements of the 85 series, but the wood seems nicer and better finished (generally, not universally) on the 75's. In the end, for general field carry, I prefer a lightweight T3 hanging on my back over either two!
