It’s been said by many, but from what I know is the biggest difference is fit and finish, but I also seem to recall that the Sako uses a steel receiver where the Tikka uses an aluminum receiver.

the Sako uses a steel receiver where the Tikka uses an aluminum receiver.

Negative.

Tikka offers blued or stainless steel.

I am not aware of any center-fire action in the world made out of aluminum.

Not a bolt gun, but AR15’s and AR10’s are aluminum.

NP has is about right from what I see in mine. I do really like the 60* bolt throw though. Mags are expensive too.
I have the A7 Tecomate; stainless, fluted barrel and composite stock. Very accurate for my 165 gr handloads, likes lots of bullets too. Recoil is not noticeable to me for a 300 wsm.

Benelli Shotguns, ARs, Anzio Iron Works 50 BMG all have aluminum receivers with the commonality being bolt lockup with barrel not the receiver

A .50 with aluminum?

Now I know, thank you.

Sakos may be a bit more refined but that isn't the only difference. The actions are different designs. The Tikka is a push feed, the Sako 85 has a claw extractor. Scope mounts are not interchangeable.

The newish Sako A7 is different than the Sako 85. I don't know a lot about it, but I know it's a push-feed action and the price isn't as high as the 85. It may be just a better-finished Tikka. The OP wasn't clear on which Sako they looked at.

Sako actions are simply better. Tikka actions are functional, but nothing special. IDK all the spec details, but the differences in the “feel” and functionality are readily apparent. As several have pointed out, what makes Tikkas good shooters is the barrel, not the action.

When I see folks buying Tikkas and putting new stocks, sometimes barrels, re-working this or that - it always makes me wonder why they didn’t just save the time and expense and buy a Sako.

I have owned and hunted with Sakos for almost 40 years. They are quality through and through. When I bought my first Finnlight I knew I would never carry another rifle in the mountains. And I had spent more on others - sometimes much more.

Are you suggesting a sako is as good as a semi custom tikka?

NP, check out this guy's opinion. He happens to test optics, rifles, etc for the USDOD.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthread...uy#Post12882609


Having used every rifle mentioned, most quite extensively, except the Sauer; it takes a very specific reason for me not to go Tikka T3.

Now I may use rifles and equipment different than most, but they get used heavily and a barrel on any individual rifle seldom lasts a year.

With seeing multiples of identical rifles shot side by side the Tikka T3/x offers-

1) The best factory barrel available. Even on match guns for PRS/sniper matches we haven’t replaced the factory barrel until it’s shot out.

2) The smoothest action, with very good extraction and ejection that is consistently not as effected by blowing sand and dust as most others.

3) Great triggers out of the box. Not only in weight and feel, but again in bad conditions with dust and freezing slush they do not suffer the reliability problems that most others do (Remington 700 based triggers).

4) Factory synthetic stocks that are entirely usable, and FAR stiffer than any Remington, Winchester, Savage, etc factory plastic stock.


When laid out side by side there just isn’t an objective reason from a function standpoint to choose most others. For instance the Weatherby Vanguard suggestion. I have shot and seen shot several Vanguards and we have a Howa Alpine (which was the best version of it). And while solid rifles, none of them have been as accurate or as easy to find loads for as the worst of a couple dozen T3’s. Barrels not as good, triggers decent with only minor issues so far, action is nowhere close, and stock design/shape not as good.

For the Ruger 77- barrels haven’t been as accurate, though they have been decent and others have seen great precision, triggers OTB not as good, action is extremely rough, less options and compromised options for rails unless you want the factory setup, stocks good but not better. The Ruger American... no. They can shoot good to great, but stocks are garbage, mags show issues.. just the stocks alone... It’s a cheap gun.

Remington 700- quite possibly the worst major manufacturer. Actions not machined square, base screw holes miss-aligned, the worst trigger design, barrels are extremely variable- some good, some horrible, stocks not as stiff, etc.


As an objective view if I (and I have) need to pick a rifles setup for 20-30 guns that will just work and show excellent precision, excellent reliability, ease of use, and just generally no problems- the T3 is an easy choice. I’ve done the same with Remington. I’ve done the same with Winchester. I’ve done the same with Ruger. We’ve had considerably more problems with all of those than any of the Tikkas.