Tikka/Sako what’s the diff?

I was in Cabelas yesterday, sniffing new rifles. I wanted to look at the new Tikkas. Mine has the old style small ejection port. And yes, i did like the new version. Then the counter guy handed me a Sako. Gotta tell ya, they looked pretty much the same. Same barrel and action, but slightly different stock. There was a big price diff, so there must be some thing or things that make the Sako worth the extra cost. What would the diff be?

I have a Sako from the 80’s. A Lightweight Hunter in 270, and it has the CRF. I would never sell that rifle and replace it with today’s pushfeed. Love that gun and caliber. Of course, i have a T3 ‘old style’ in 260 and I’m real fond of it too, but the Sako is special. But...are new Sako rifles ‘special’ or more special than a Tikka? Really...?

that's a good ?

Tikka, 2 lugs 70° bolt throw.

Sako, 3 lugs 60° bolt throw.

Sako is gonna be a prettier rifle, in metal finish, and wood.

Sako also has multiple action sizes that Tikka does not offer. You can get a XShort action for example in 223 that has a 5 round detachable magazine. As far as I know the only rifle that offers small action with flush magazine that holds six rounds

I'd love to a Sako for the further refinement and action sizes, but I'm more than happy with my Tikkas

Very cool. I bet that is a slick little rifle!

IIRC you can also work the bolt while on safety with the Sako's, at least the A7, whereas the Tikkas you cannot.

This is correct.

I definitely have a soft spot for (old) Sakos
I have my dad's 22-250 from the early 60s, I had a 243 from the same era..

The last new Sako I bought was a Finnlight 75 in 270

I haven't had an 85 or an A7
I have also had (and still have 1) Tikka..

Great rifles


I checked out a carbon fiber 300 WinMag Sako at the NRA show that had my attention, except they use a goofy Euro threaded barrel spec.

the ONLY thing I don't like about Sako's, 22-250 is the slow twist, get one in faster twist in the 22-250 would be the cat's meow

Sako's will ALWAYS have a special place in my safe and in my heart. My Uncle purchased 3 at the Kaiserslautern Rod and Gun Club in West Germany in 1969, all of course "Pre-Garcia". Two Finnbears (.270 and 30-06) and a .243 Forrester. He traded the Forrester off base at Fort Polk sometime after coming back home as he had bought it for his wife and she didn't want to hunt. But he kept the '06 and he gave the .270 to my Dad. My father used that .270 for every deer he ever shot - most hunts I was there hunting with him. My love of hunting is due to my Dad and our hunts with him carrying that gun.

The '06 my Uncle did hunt with but after 2 tours in Vietnam he didn't really have it in him to kill anything again, never shot a deer with it. Dad gave me the .270 when he could no longer hunt. I also got the '06 after my Uncle passed. Both are still hunted with each year by me and my boys and will be God willing for generations to come.

I know there is a love and liking for the new Tikka's and the fiberglass and what not - but I'll always have the European walnut and Bofors steel Sako's with the original red scrunchy butt pads (only thing on the guns that doesn't hold up over the years). Well the optics were also replaced as optics are a bit better than what was found at your typical Rod and Gun club 50 years ago.

Earl

There is a noticeable difference in quality, “feel” and balance in Sakos vs. Tikkas. To me it’s obvious. Actions are better, stocks are better.

Sako AV vs. Tikka T3 Hunter?
Sako Finnlight vs. Tikka T3 Ultralight or Superlight?

The former in each case are simply better quality rifles.

Tikkas are good rifles no doubt though - probably the best value out there.

I have not owned an A7 so IDK much about them. My feeling from handling a few is that they are sort of a hybrid of both.

I didn’t know that there was a bolt lug difference. Still, the two rifles handed to me were stainless with synthetic stocks. I worked the action on both and they looked and felt identical except for the stock. The Sako had a much fancier, and likely more expensive, stock.

Maybe i could have looked a bit closer for differences.

The Tikka was a lightweight model, with a fluted barrel, and i was really amazed at how light it was.

A tikka is just a low end sako. Made in same factory. The #1 component of any rifle is the barrel and they both use sako barrels. beyond that everything is a little cheaper on the tikka. Stock is noticeably cheaper and I'm not sure about the trigger but I'm guessing the sako may be a tad better. The bolt itself on a sako or at least on my 85 is all metal where I noticed the last tikka I handled had some plastic on the bolt. It wasnt quite as silky smooth either when I worked that bolt on the tikka. Just a cheaper version of the sako but that is why the tikka is such a good rifle for the price. The quality is built in.

yep, they have a great barrel..
and while people bitch about the "cheap stocks" they still shoot very well, and I would feel more confident about getting a "good shooting Tikka" than anything else in it's price range.. and even above it.

You drop a Tikka in a nice stock.. yeah baby

tikka is a poor mans Sako

That's right.

98% of my knowledge about SAKO's come from the '60's, '70's & 80's.
SAKO bolts are 1 Piece item, machined from a solid block, handle and all & Tikka T3's and I assume a "x" model is also a 2 piece item that can be disassembled without tools in the field. Both share the same extractor that has been used since the '60's.

The M85S SAKO I had had a by pass button to open the bolt while cocked that Tikka does not have on T3's...and Great wood, ask DT abut it.

Wood on the T3 Series is no where near as good as Sako's, with the Classic Grades are still using Circassian Walnut from around the Ural Mtn's in Russia and cost about 4+ times what I was selling them for in the '80's, and still my favorite SAKO Stock style of all time, and mostly French Walnut on their Std & Dlx Grades.

I hand picked a Classic Grade LA stock for a gift rifle I receved in '84 and spent 6 hours inspecting every finished LA Classic Grade stock in the warehouse in October '84...and came home with a killer piece of wood I've never seen the likes of since from SAKO on a 1 of 1 ever produced rifle in 25'06, when I could not get a 7x64 or Roberts barreled action in the 1st gen Series being built at that time. Sold that gun to a guy in New England for enough to pay for one of the kids 7 years worth of braces. There is no Walnut grown in Finland, and the T3's I've seen in Hunter Grades are exceedingly plain grained, but understand the Forest Series have some figure in their wood stocks, probably the same as a SAKO base model.

I understand the triggers are different too but have no hard knowledge to that.
Ron

OP, did you check out an A7 or an 85?

Chital, let me restate that both rifles were stainless/synthetic, so wood quality on the stock isn’t part of the informal comparison. And, i didn’t ask what the Sako model number was. The Sako definitely had a fancier synthetic stock, but action and barrel on both the Sako and Tikka looked exactly the same and felt the same as i cycled the bolt. If I had been there to actually buy a rifle, the Tikka would have been the chosen buy. But then, we all know the Sako is the higher grade rifle. I just could not see why.

In comparison, my Sako (wood stock and polished blue metal) from the 80’s looks and feels like a very expensive rifle. I paid about $750 for that rifle in 1981 or 82. And i asked the gun store to bring out every Sako of that grade and caliber so that i could choose the best wood. And it has lovely wood.

603, you are correct about the barrels being very very similar, as both lines use the same raw stock inventory, from the "cured for 7 years outside in the weather" billet, to the hammer forging process, chambering the raw semi finished barrel still in the spiral over sized thickness from the hammer stretching process of the 15-18" thick billet to about 26+ inches & firing it off of an electric trigger for groups at 100 meters in the underground firing range for accuracy before finishing the barrel into the desired contours. Then the finished rifle is test fired again by the Gvt's Export Inspectors for pressure Proofing standards @ an average in the old days of about a 12% overload, depending on caliber, used in the proof ammo fired in a heavy steel "file cabinet drawer" using a long steel rod thru the front wall of the cabinet to pull the trigger with, before the Finnish Lion proof marks are allowed to be stamped. Been There & Seen it done.

Receivers ? dunno the intracacies but I doubt the Tikka T Series will be the same as a SAKO's, like I mentioned on the T3 & SAKO M85's are, with the cocked bypass button beside the safety on the M85. Non wood stock raw material will probably be similar in the raw material poured, but constructed differently. The McMillan prototype sample I had for a couple months in a 7Rmg "Fiberclass", and took pictures of at Gov Dolph Brisco's ranch, was the 1st composite stock offered in SAKO. SAKO used the same stock again in a ltd run of lightweight +/- 6 1/2-7lb 375H&H carbines ordered as a special offering by an Alaskan Guide Assc, and would rock your world off the bench...only rifle to ever knock me off a shooting bench's stool, and landed on my back with the rifle pointing at the roof on the concrete sidewalk at the old Winchester Range in Dallas...but was a pussycat's hard shove standing off hand with proper feet placement and really very accurate at 100 yrds in RP 300gr'ers....and a similar rifle was released later under catchy descriptive name.

FWIW prior to 1984 Tikka was still owned and built in a Finnish Military machine gun plant, with the Tikka LSA series imported & distributed by Ithaca...and noted for it's accuracy and fine finish out. Nokia accepted ownership of Tikka under some political pressure, and the Rihimakki plant's stone tower's huge SAKO Logo was changed, along with the plant entry gates etc to our complete surprise when we arrived for the plant tour in October of '84 as the 1st step in the merger. Stoeger did not get the Tikka line until couple years before the Beretta buyout when Nokia wanted to divest it self and seperate from Llama in the joint venture in Stoeger, where I had worked for 6 years, from Fall '82 to Fall '88.

The Tikka M658 I think was their 1st sporting rifle produced by SAKO. I owned a Tikka 695 Hunter Grade and it reeked of it's SAKO heritage with the attention to detail, and a friends 695 Deluxe is even more Dlx SAKO'ish in the checkering and finish out. Both of those guns shot/shoot like SAKO L61 LA's or better too, but I never got to shoot a 595 and saw very very few of them at retail.
Ron

Wiley has covered a lot of what I saw on a tour in 2000. Barrels are made from the same steel on the same hammer-forging machine. Next step was having each barrel 'trued'(?) on a wagon-wheel looking device by two brothers and one son. Actions were made from the same steel to different finished levels. Wood for the Tikka's actually came from the US - Black Walnut for the most part. Good, solid wood, just nothing fancy. Test firing is different for the two. For Sako's, they fire 7 rounds down range with lasers showing 'point of impact' (there's no targets, just a point of aim). Of the 7 shots, 5 must be within an inch. For Tikka, they fire 5 rounds down range of which 3 must be within an inch. This is for the final test.
When I was there, we were told the proof loads were 150% of 'normal' loads.

Couple of trivia items we learned:

-The origination of the Sako plant was to re-barrel Moisen-Nagants picked up from the battlefield in the fight against the 'Red' Finns in their war for independence. The caliber of the first 'Sako' rifles was 6.5x55 Swede. (The Swedes didn't want a 'Russian state' next door and offered the Finns all the ammo they could use. Then, in 1919, they started an actual factory. Again, using picked up Moisen-Nagants from their battles with the Russians.
- Tikka is an abbreviation of the factory's original name - Tikkakoski Oy
- The word Tikka is the Finnish word for 'Woodpecker'. When I was there, they were running ads in Finland and Sweden talking about the rifle was like a woodpecker - always hit the same hole.
- Sako is an abbreviation of the factory's original name - Suomen Kaapelitehdas Oy
- Tikka was once owned by Nokia
- The original Sako plant was in a cave in Riihimaki, Finland - the still used it when I was there to make ammunition for the Finnish Guard.

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing that.

Bbear,

Well, now i know what the diff is. The Sako is built to a higher standard, which of course we all assumed was the case. It just wasn’t readily apparent when i handled the two rifles.

Love my A7 in 300 wsm !! Carries nice in the mountains.

Thanks for the info Bbear.

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.

When I bought my CTR, the dealer also had a Sako A7 Long Range in 6.5. It was going to be over $300 more to get the Sako. It was an impressive rifle, though, and at times I wish I'd sprung for it.

From what I can recall the A7 has an aluminum bolt shroud, a plastic magazine with metal “lips” added, and other plastic parts i.e. trigger guard. I’m sure there are other differences.

That’s why I think of it as a Tikka/Sako hybrid.

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.

Ah yes. That's right, I forgot about the ARs.

I love my Finnlight in .300 WSM too. Recoil not noticeable to me either.

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.

Their 20mm and 50/20 are also made that way. The 50/20 will shoot a 750gr A-Max at 3650fps if you are looking for not much wind drift but the steel plates better be very serious stuff

I've been wanting a Finlight for a while.

For what it’s worth, I have a Tikka T3x CTR and don’t regret it over a Sako.

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?

Yes, if not better. If for no other reason because of the better action. I’m pretty sure the guys over in Finland know how to build and put together a rifle as well or better than the majority of “semi-custom” folks. Of course, there are exceptions and not every rifle will be created equal.

I get people love to tinker and have fun plumbing on rifles and say “good for them”. Not trying to step on toes.

(To clarify, I’m talking hunting rifles, not specialty rifles for paper-punching.)

[quote=Nogalus Prairie
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. [/quote]


I've owned Sako's for a long time too, and agree that they're probably one of the best factory produced rifles ever made, particularly the L61's. However, you're dead wrong on the Tikka actions. They are "special" in that they are very, very stiff, aided by the comparatively small ejection port that some people gripe about. They are a very high quality piece of work that are very much a part of why Tikkas shoot as good or better than any Sako ever made, and most anything else for that matter.

That’s why everyone gets to have an opinion I guess.

Working and shooting a Tikka action shows me there’s no comparison to a Sako action. Just another push-feed action that’s not very smooth or sturdy to me. Push feed vs CRF, correct action length on Sakos vs. one action length with a bolt “stop”, aluminum bolt shroud, one less lug, longer throw......to me the differences are apparent.

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.

Again, let me say that the Tikka was a T3X, and that I did not ask what model number the Sako was. And the reason i asked the Tikka/Sako question was that they were both push feed and looked and felt exactly the same. I might have missed 10 degrees of bolt lift.

Except for the stock, they looked and felt identical. Which is why I asked what the diff was. Since the question was asked, I have learned from ya’ll that the Sako barrel minimum accuracy is slightly better than the Tikka.

Probably, and I’m guessing, the Sako I held was not their ‘top of the line’ model. It certainly did not compare to my CRF long action Sako from the 1980’s. Hold that rifle and you know you have quality in your hands.

You undoubtedly handled the Sako A7.

I agree with his assessment.

For anyone claiming a Tikka isn't smooth, is handling an action right out of the box. In my experience they are almost void of any oil. On a brand new action I will wipe down the bolt, and inside the action, cleaning. Then add my preferred gun oil to the bolt, and run it back and forth a few times. Runs like a Singer sewing machine. Unlock the bolt, point the muzzle toward the sky, and the bolt will fall to the rear, with no assistance.

The hardest test I've put a Tikka action through is each year in July. The Heatstroke Open PRS match. 10 to 30 mph winds driving NE Oklahoma sand into everything, including the action. Saturday holds 120 to 150 rounds, and the action never locks up, that night I'll wipe it down, and re-oil. Sunday holds over a hundred more rounds, action never locks up. Not to mention, I've never had to address any issues with a Tikka trigger. One trigger has 3500 rounds, and unknown dry fires on it, trigger 2 has about 2000 rounds, including dry fires, and the newest one is up to 600 rounds in the last 8 weeks.

I’m talking Sakos vs. Tikkas, not Tikkas vs. other similar price-point models.

Again, to me, the differences are obvious. The only difference at all between a Tikka vs. a Sako rifle is the ejection port on the action. Everything else on a Sako (other action specs set out above, stock, trigger, materials, barrel, fit and finish) is either the same or better overall quality on a Sako. That’s just the simple fact. So, almost by definition, the Sako is a better rifle.

There is no real comparison between my Finnlights and T3s as far as quality is concerned. Again, to me, that’s obvious from the first moment you pick one up and becomes even more obvious as you shoot them. Of course, that quality comes at a price, and I certainly understand the popularity of Tikkas. As I said above, Tikkas are probably hands down the best bang for the buck in the rifle world.

NP I think your comparison of sako-Tikka-semi custom tikka is off from my views. Having owned all 3 I wouldn’t specify the Sako is a better “hunting” rifle at all. In fact I would mark it as a clear second or even third. The stock Tikka in my eyes is clearly the best hunting rifle. Why? Because I recognize none of the shortcomings you list. On top of that and most important over the Sako is I’m not afraid to beat the hell out of it. It stands up for more. While the Sako is a far more beautiful gun and at least as functional people generally will not abuse them. Except for the Elite the only advantage I see of the Sako is in showmanship. Few people throw a Sako 85 on a rack and ride 4 miles to the stand, or stalk through brush. Yes it happens. But how often. Hunters don’t pay for fit, finish, and beauty. They pay for accuracy and reliability. On one note you’re right, the Finns have their shot together. They knew what a hunter wanted and made the T3.

The Sako is hands down the most beautiful rifle I’ve ever owned from the factory as well as a great weapon. Not even close to the best hunting rifle I’ve ever owned although I’ve never hunted dangerous game where CRF was a conversation. Then again I’ve never had my muddy, dusty, wet Tikka fail to feed or fire. So there’s that.

My hunting rifles are tools. I want the best tools I can get. I have carried my Sakos all over North America from Mexico to the Yukon and all in between.

Don’t be fooled by their looks - that’s just a bonus. From a reliability standpoint, they will handle anything a Tikka can (and more) without issue, I can assure you. And feel a helluva lot better in your hands resting over your pack when it comes time to make the shot of a lifetime.

YMMV. But I don’t see how one could objectively say a Tikka is better than a Sako. They are simply the same factory’s attempt to make a more affordable (read:lesser quality) alternative to their better rifles, pure and simple.

Many times on this very forum you can read hunters say, I don't like the way it looks, or, it looks cool. Hunters will buy camo underwear and phone cases cause they think it looks right, why not an eye appealing rifle?

For the record, I didn't say Tikkas were better than Sako's. As far as performance goes though.....shootability, function, accuracy, toughness, etc, they are every bit as good though, IMO. My rifles are tools too, nothing more.

I guess I wasn’t clear for sure. I meant the Tikka is as functional and accurate and a “tool” I don’t mind abusing. The sako will for sure take the abuse. And there are a few who will use them as such. But few. Again, I said elite. For me I won’t beat up a sako to get the same performance I can from a Tikka. The day a Tikka fails mei will reconsider.

And there are those out there, I’ve saw men drag $5,000 shotguns over barbed wire in a quail hunt. Most wont.

I have drug mine anywhere and everywhere. I consider the dings and marks on my 40 year old AV memories of great hunts. As for the Finnlights, they are synthetic rifles designed for backcountry hunts anyway. And the stocks on mine “fit” me like a glove.

As I said above, they have taken the place of more expensive hunting rifles - both factory and “semi-custom”. Money is not the issue (one way or the other/more expensive or less expensive) to me. Having a hunting tool I like the best is.

I feel you’re view the world from and elite perspective and while I have a decent job that I’m not ashamed of I’m not at such a point to trash a beautiful gun. Although I congratulate you on your arrival.

And yes I cringe, I sold a rifle I had $4,000 in and tried to buy it back. He said he can’t sell it it’s his sons deer rifle. That blows me away.

You’re way off base. No way you could get that from what I wrote. But, whatever.

Sakos are hunting rifles. They are built and designed to hunt with. So not sure who the “elitists” are - the ones who use hunting rifles to hunt with or the ones who would put them in a safe to pull out and look at. Nobody’s talked about “trashing” anything.

Something to think about....

Maybe you should start a poll on who is willing to drag a beautiful rig through the muck. Heck I could be wrong.

And I guess trashing was the wrong word for sure.

Have owned Sakos and other fine looking and feeling guns, still have some. My best looking guns still get hunted with, after teh first couple scratches they become character marks with in some cases good mempries of tough hunts or there are a couple that are reminders I am not as agile as I one was. Still memories made and something to recall them by

I love my Sako FinnBear Delux 30.06. there was a seasoned hunter in our deercamp when I was a very young kid and he had one in 25.06 and it was grand. I knew that I wanted a Sako and saved for years and finally bought one while working in college. It is a tool and it has a nice crease mark on it from a hunt about 30 years ago. It's a memory I tell people, and thus I will not have stock repaired or changed. I also have a new Tikka but still deer hunt with the Sako each year. It is by far my prettiest gun in the safe and gets used the most out of my bolt guns.

There is nothing rational about building custom guns, so take this for what it's worth. I scratch my head when people buy a Tikka for the action and throw the barrel in the trash to start over. I thought the barrel was the best part of the Tikka. That's the part I would keep.

If I were going to strip a rifle for the action, I would start with a Ruger, but I'm probably the only one.

The reason for that is a certain contour, caliber and twist combination that Tikka flat out does not produce. And swapping a stock and bottom metal is an improvement over what Tikka offers.

If you got behind my 7mm-08 "rental rifle" you would understand. The only thing Tikka about it is action and trigger. Male, female, young and old all love shooting it.

I just wish someone would buy the pre-Garcia L61R Finnbear 7mm Mag at the Allen Cabelas so I can quite getting tempted by it every time I go in. I don't "need" it but I do love those pre-Garcia Sako's. I'm really surprised they've had it as long as they have. I think the younger generations don't really know what it is. Granted they don't have a low price on it ($900) but it is worth that in excellent condition with leather sling and scope mount/rings. Some of the kid's these days probably see the plum color on the receiver and think it's reblued, flawed or something but older Sako's do that and it's beautiful.

Earl

When I hear everyone say “Pre-Garcia,” are they referring to the changes made in beefier stocks/barrel contours in ‘69 or are they referring to the “lower grade models’ lesser quality finishing” after Garcia took over as the importer in ‘71?

I’m embarrassed to say I never took the time to look up what “Pre-Garcia” ever meant. Now, having done so, I wonder what everyone else’s reasoning behind using that particular label on their guns may be. From what I’ve read, Sako’s More desirable models don’t seem to have been affected. Am I wrong with this thinking?

Short Story a lil long ....since you asked...

Firearms International ( FI Intl ) was the 1st US Importer, Washington DC of SAKO's after WW II when SAKO production was resumed after the Finnish/Russo War ended in August 1948. All of those rifles were stamped "Bofors Steel" on the barrels too + the FI Wash DC Importers label& the FI Wash DC as the importer. FYI Google that "Bofors" term to see what it means. In WW II the US Navy AA cannons (commonly referred to as "Pom Pom guns) used barrels made from Swedish Steel made from iron ore from the Bofors region of Sweden, as it has a higher heat tolerance in the finished steel products at that time...and lasts considerably longer. That labeling was later discontinued after the Bofors Name was pattened and Sweden wanted a royalty payment for use the Bofors name.

Needless to say SAKO responded with a major expansion to fulfull the Garcia Corp orders to the point they were forced to ship products that were not completely dry or poorly assemeled among other shorcuts, and the excellent decades old from the the turn of the Century reputation for workmnaship of SAKO was trashed ...hence the caveat of only buying "Pre Garcia " rifles was folk lore in the US for years and years years until Nokia took over the SAKO plant and installed rigid manufacturing controls.

Garcia Corp, Wash DC (the importer of fishing reels and other sporting goods items from Sweden and France) had promised SAKO that they could out sell FI Int'l substantially...and almost broke SAKO as a manufacterer until Nokia stepped in. I repped Stoeger Industries (and SAKO), the importer after Garcia Corp was fired in the mid-late '70's for only about 4 years, SAKO from '82 to '88 and was still finding Garcia labled rifles that needed to be returned and exchanged for current product.
Ron

To add to what Wiley stated, there are many, many Pre-Garcia Sakos (made before the Garcia acquisition) that were not imported by FI Intl and have no import marks whatsoever. Both of my Finnbears have the original paperwork from 1969 from the Kaiserslautern Germany Rod and Gun Club where my Uncle purchased them for a whopping $100 with scope, sling and ammo each. Rifles purchased at the Rod and Gun Clubs and brought back by servicemen did not have any import markings - same gun as the FI Intl imports, just no import markings.

Earl

Earl, the guy Steve Glick I referred to as being on my plant tour in '84 was Colonel Steve Glick, Commander of the Army Field Sports program in Germany, and how he got to become the CEO of Stoeger Industries, with an early retirement.
Any of the SAKO's that were bouhgt in "local" markets in the various europen and British Empire countrie also would not have had a US Importer's mark, except for Canada. Stoeger had the import right for Canada, but can't say about any of the earlier Canadian importd guns.
Ron

My Sako, bought in about 1980 or slightly later, has a Stoeger marking on the underside of the barrel.

As my ever declining memory serves...ownership of "Stoeger" from the original family operated retail store on 5th Ave in Manhatten, down the street from Eddie Bauer, was resolved with the joint venture of Nokia and Llama in ummm 1975 +/- a year or so. Subsequently Stoeger was moved across the river to Bergen County, and located at 55 Ruta Ct, S Hackensack NJ. All of the imported firearms from Franchi to SAKO were roll marked with the Stoeger name after that with that address until Beretta bought out the SAKO portion after the break up of the joint venture. Stoeger had moved to Wayne NJ to upgrade and expand the warehouse I'm guessing about 1990'ish after the Sodini Family who had enginerred the joint venture was ousted, where the intial Beretta marked guns were shipped from, until the consolidation to the Beretta HQ's in Accokeek MD. Just a good way to guess at the age of Tikka T3's by the rollmark location.
Ron

Maybe this will help some. I've had it marked for a long time.


https://hirvikota.wordpress.com/tikka-kivaareiden-valmistusvuodet-ja-sarjanumerot/

I was in your shoes and ended up with a Tikka. My thoughts were this
If I were to have only one it’d be a Sako
It’s really comes down to looks cause but guns function above normal.
The Tikki T3 is so hard to beat for what you pay for them.
For me it’s more about function then looks but honestly both rifles are above average in look and feel

After owning a few I think every hunting family should have a Tikka T3 lite in 243 to pass down. What an incredible rifle for deer hunting.