Sako Carbonlight introduction, compared against the Kimber Adirondack
- Thread starter Ardent
- Start date
I understand that this is all personal preference, and that you have built quite a few light rifles, which is why I'm asking, but why do you feel that a blind mag is not the way to go ? Not judging, just curious.
I have seen some of the lightweights you have built, and I value your experience with them. I would not have thought the weight difference was that close.
I know I am concerned with this stuff, and I don't think I'm alone. For shooting at the range, I agree, who cares how heavy the rifle is, in fact, the heavier the better. But I will take lighter (and usually shorter) any day of the week when I'm hiking and hunting. And as has been said, an ounce here or there all adds up to pounds.
I like the fit on my Kimber, and agree the bolt does need to be moved quite deliberately, but the lightness, accuracy and feel are fantastic to me.
When I first got it, the front action screw was seized and apparently my trying to get it out cracked the stock (?)... Kimber called me every name in the book plus a liar... then replaced the stock for $80 (shipping, apparently). Originally they wanted hundreds of dollars to "re-bed the rifle". Despite what they say, Montana's aren't bedded, which I pointed out. "Bedded to a slave action" ain't bedded, it's just a fancy way of saying "molded". I asked for the old stock back, but they suddenly chose to replace it for $80. Odd.
The new stock has the barrel off center in the barrel channel (but it is floated) and the trigger is off center in the hole it passes through (but it doesn't touch). These bug the crap out of me, but the rifle shoots, so who *really* cares? Means I'm not tempted to baby it. The new front action screw was also too short, but they overnighted me a new one... I lie. Korth overnighted me a new one. Kimber wasn't involved. Love Korth.
Essentially, Kimber did the right thing the worst way.
I'd buy another kimber, but only in person. No sight unseen. I really love my 84L. It's so handy, accurate and gentle on the shoulder. Love to have an 8400 in 300 win mag. I'd only use the warranty for the accuracy guarantee and plan on paying for all other repairs. Maybe their W/R guys just need a hug or some prozak or something.
When I had to give Stoeger a rap on the pipes about my Sako, they were awesome. Beyond awesome.... until I asked for a single new $0.25 screw for my optilocks... that they were dicks about. I think that was one particular guy, though, not Stoeger per se.
I'd buy another Sako, but I hate Optilocks. Speaking as an engineer, that tapered dovetail is 16 kinds of stupid, and the Optilock rings and bases weighed more than the scope (VX-3 3.5-10). Plus the ring screws are beyond fragile. Head popped off one of mine before the shoulder made contact with the counterbore!
What a wall of words! Hope I'm not too off topic.
Quote-level of refinement on the Sako is twice as acute as the Kimber, and the bolt feel except for lifting the handle is far smoother. It shoots better than the Kimber as well, printing groups roughly 50% smaller in my so far informal shooting getting to know it and it should; it has a much beefier barrel.
Sorry for straying, I only meant to say the beefier barrel on the Sako would be worth the weight to me
Sorry for straying, I only meant to say the beefier barrel on the Sako would be worth the weight to me
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
No valid point, not for me as on a cold bore shot the two are equally accurate. The Kimber just starts to wander a hair more when the barrel has heat in it, and that only takes two shots. I'll likely turn the Sako barrel down, flute the bolt, and end up with a very agreeable little ultralight. Or I'll just continue with the Kimber as truly it lacks nothing now that it feeds flawlessly. I do prefer the Sako at the moment however but it needs customization to be something truly special.
As for bolt smoothness not a "real" consideration just something academically pleasing, so I'll flute it and if it gets ratchety so be it worth it to save a couple ounces bearlkilr.
As for bolt smoothness not a "real" consideration just something academically pleasing, so I'll flute it and if it gets ratchety so be it worth it to save a couple ounces bearlkilr.
i do not know if still Christensen Arms operate but they were doing lightweight rifles based on rem 700 and blaser93 in the past and at least 12-15 years ago ....
but nice review.
found them it is still christensen europe ....
but nice review.
found them it is still christensen europe ....
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The optilock rings are crap, agreed, please inform me on the issue with the tapered dovetails? Know better than to question your technical judgment, I'd thought the tapered dovetails quite clever but I'm clearly missing something.
1) Moving fore and aft causes side to side movement.
2) movement under recoil loads the dovetail gripping screw massively. The taper gives recoil huge mechanical edvantage. They've been known to break. Once one does, you better have a spare screw and an easy-out.
3) Tapers are notoriously difficult to machine accurately
4) Different heights for the front and rear is just a #### move.
5) Bases not reversible.
They're just fancy for the sake of being fancy. If a 378 WBY works with four #6 screws....
Second hand info but guy had a scope come of under recoil of a 338Win Mag. Scope hit him in the forehead. This rifle had a cerekote finish and with the coating it did not have a tight fit to the dovetail. He ended up with some bruises.��So ya #2 can definitely be an issue.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
#science! The one thing I can add is the bases are the same height front and rear on the 85. Prior to the education here I'd thought the taper was a clever way to maintain zero removing and reinstalling rings / scopes. I just pulled my scope to take this pic to show level and if it doesn't remain zero'd on reinstallatoon I'll be angry. I want an aluminium and decent one piece alternative to the optilocks without adding a conversion rail.
