Thinking of buying a Sako

[mountaineer273]

I recently sold my primary hunting rifle due to not wanting to mess with a rebarrel. Now I’m looking at something to replace it with. At first I let my milsurp rifle fan get the best of me and bought a replica Mauser K98k sniper in 8x57 that is currently at the gunsmith being bedded and having a modern Swarovski scope fitted to the reproduction short side rail scope mount.

While I’ve been waiting to get the Mauser back though, I’ve been feeling the need to buy another modern hunting rifle. Something stainless with a synthetic stock and much lighter than the 10+ lbs Mauser in full military trim with a scope. As such, I have been looking primarily at the Sako 90 and in particular the Adventure model. I have also looked Tikkas which would be a project of stock upgrade and other customizations. Caliber choice would be either 308 or 30-06 and I can’t make up my mind at this point.

My question is, is the Sako 90 worth purchasing over say a Tikka or other options on the market? I have seen some claim that the Sako has accuracy inconsistencies which sort of worries me given the amount they cost. I’ve read consistently on this forum and elsewhere about them and watched just about every YouTube video I can find about them. I really like what I see other than complaints of (and one video in particular) regarding accuracy. Does anyone here have insight or recommendations? Thank you for taking the time to discuss!

 

[hereinaz]

Tikka with a stock of your choice will be a great gun. Sako of course comes from the same people with better quality out of the store. Not sure you can get a Sako with a stock that will be as personal as your aftermarket choice with Tikka.

Question is what features do you want? If the Sako answers that then do it. If not, building off a Tikka seems better.

For example, you could pick up an 18” 6 Creedmoor with a Preferred prefit on a Nitrided action, and with an average priced carbon fiber stock be at the price of a Sako. If you prioritize the feature set of the 18” 6 creed, the Tikka makes more sense, IMO.

Question is always, what specs do you want. From there the question mostly answers itself.

 

[mountaineer273]

Tikka with a stock of your choice will be a great gun. Sako of course comes from the same people with better quality out of the store. Not sure you can get a Sako with a stock that will be as personal as your aftermarket choice with Tikka.

Question is what features do you want? If the Sako answers that then do it. If not, building off a Tikka seems better.

For example, you could pick up an 18” 6 Creedmoor with a Preferred prefit on a Nitrided action, and with an average priced carbon fiber stock be at the price of a Sako. If you prioritize the feature set of the 18” 6 creed, the Tikka makes more sense, IMO.

Question is always, what specs do you want. From there the question mostly answers itself.

The Tikka aftermarket stocks that I’ve looked at are carbon fiber similar to the one of the Sako Peak which is way out of my price range. I’m not set on a full carbon fiber stock though. The Adventure stock is nice as well from everything I’ve seen about it. I also like the action of the Sako better. All metal, no plastic. That and the magazines are much nicer. I used to have a Tikka and the magazine setup seemed to me like a weak link. The integrated pic rail mounts are a nice plus to the Sako as well. I also prefer the semi-three position safety of the Sako.

 

[nm.otter]

• T3x and Sako 90 barrels are interchangeable (same factory, same machines).
• Sako 90 triggers are nicer and more adjustable.
• Sako safety includes a bolt release (functionally equivalent to a 3-position, but I actually prefer the Sako design).
• Sako bottom metal is actually metal.
• Sako magazines are double stack, sitting close to flush with the stock with 5-6 rounds. BUT: no large capacity or 3rd party options so far.
• 3rd party stock options for Sako are quite limited, thanks to a combination of having five different action lengths and not being a mass-market line.

 

[mountaineer273]

Does the Sako 90 use the same magazine as the 85? I’ve been looking at whether I can purchase more magazines and can’t find any listed for the 90. Some places say they are identical and others say they are different.

 

[nm.otter]

Beretta says they are the same.

FWIW, Beretta USA runs sales 2-3x per year where you can get 25% off on magazines, with free shipping.

 

[ezwy]

If you plan on changing anything, go tikka. If you are good with factory options go sako. I actually sold my sako (A7, Not exactly their flagship model) and own two tikkas now. The safety, trigger and other features mentioned above make them better. If you think you might be uncertain on bottom metal, stock, or other such things the tikka availablity wins out.

 

[mountaineer273]

If you plan on changing anything, go tikka. If you are good with factory options go sako. I actually sold my sako (A7, Not exactly their flagship model) and own two tikkas now. The safety, trigger and other features mentioned above make them better. If you think you might be uncertain on bottom metal, stock, or other such things the tikka availablity wins out.

I just did the math and with all the customizations and additions that I’d be looking at doing to a Tikka, I’d have about the same if not slightly more money spent on it than I would to buy the Sako model that I am currently looking at and that Sako gets me pretty much everything I would want.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

If money wasn’t an issue, I would have Sakos in wooden RokStoks instead of Tikkas in wooden RokStoks. To me, the integral picatinny rail and 3-position safety are the primary benefits of the Sako. I am not currently willing to spend 3x more for those features.

 

[mountaineer273]

Those of you that have the Sako 90, do they seem to live up to their accuracy guarantee?

 

[Cherokeeguide]

Caliber choice would be either 308 or 30-06 and I can’t make up my mind at this point.

In the hunting field, I'd take the .30-'06. I took an inherited Griffin and Howe Springfield in .30-'06 to Botswana twice. I shot everything on my license with the rifle, both times, using handloads topped with Colorado Bullets / Barnes 220 grain "solids". That's not really an option with a .308. The .30-'06 worked so well for me that I didn't fire a shot at game with my Ruger No.1 Tropical in .375 H&H at all, and, when I booked the second trip with the same outfit (Hunters Africa), my PH told me to "just bring the Springfield and leave your three-seventy-five at home," which was a big deal, coming from him, as he was a HUGE fan of the .375 Holland and Holland magnum.

Why have "almost an ought-six" when you could have the real thing, instead?

My question is, is the Sako 90 worth purchasing over say a Tikka or other options on the market?

My answer is that owning a firearm might be potentially cheap, but actually using one never was, is not, and never will be, and it costs exactly the same to use a cheap gun for the same things with the same degree of frequency as costs to use a more upmarket choice the same way. For me, and for a lot of other people, my biggest expense isn't hardware, but in the metal I send downrange through it, and all of the costs associated with doing that.

If I were going to buy a new bolt-action rifle today, it would be a Winchester Model 70 in either the Featherweight version or the Super Garade. If I bought a Tikka T3x at 1/3 the price, instead, I wouldn't get a discount on licenses and tags, range fees, the cost of getting to and from shooting grounds, ammo, or anything else. It would cost me exactly the same to use the rifle I don't want instead of the one that I do.

Compared to this,,,,,,,,,,,,



------the cost of any mass-produced centerfire bolt action rifle is cheap.

I didn't spend the money on that Jeep because I'm an off-roader. I'm not. I consider driving BLM and Forest Service trails as a means to an end, not a hobby in and of itself. I don't personally get anything more out running my CJ 2A on trails that I get from driving my daily driver car on a paved public road. How and why people make a hobby out of one little necessary evil of hunting public land out west has always been a mystery to me.

If I wasn't into hunting hooved game, upland game birds, and fly fishing, I would have no use for the Jeep above and zero desire to own it and maintain it. I need it, though, in order to use my rifle, my shotguns, and my fly rods.

I wouldn't have thousands of dollars worth of camping gear, either.

If I am going to spend what I do in order to use a rifle how I want to use one, you can bet your ass or anything else that I'm going to spend it for the privilege of using something I like, rather than something I like less well, or don't like, at all.

I might rather have a Tikka than a Savage Axis. I'd certainly rather have a SAKO 90 than a Tikka. I'd rather have a Winchester Model 70 Super Grade than a SAKO 90.

I wouldn't save any meaningful money by buying a Tikka instead of a SAKO 90 that I'd rather have. I could more than make up the price difference there by skipping one Arizona quail hunt, staying out of South Dakota for one pheasant season, shooting one less round of sporting clays per month, and shooting a few less National Match courses of fire with my AR-15 each month.

With a SAKO 90, there's probably not going to be much "coulda woulda shoulda" in your end user experience. If that's what you want, I say "go for it." You'll forget about the purchase price, but you'll probably be happier spending what it costs to actually use it.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Those of you that have the Sako 90, do they seem to live up to their accuracy guarantee?

The folks at my range who have them get excellent results. I would not worry about Sako accuracy.

 

[mountaineer273]

In the hunting field, I'd take the .30-'06. I took an inherited Griffin and Howe Springfield in .30-'06 to Botswana twice. I shot everything on my license with the rifle, both times, using handloads topped with Colorado Bullets / Barnes 220 grain "solids". That's not really an option with a .308. The .30-'06 worked so well for me that I didn't fire a shot at game with my Ruger No.1 Tropical in .375 H&H at all, and, when I booked the second trip with the same outfit (Hunters Africa), my PH told me to "just bring the Springfield and leave your three-seventy-five at home," which was a big deal, coming from him, as he was a HUGE fan of the .375 Holland and Holland magnum.

Why have "almost an ought-six" when you could have the real thing, instead?




My answer is that owning a firearm might be potentially cheap, but actually using one never was, is not, and never will be, and it costs exactly the same to use a cheap gun for the same things with the same degree of frequency as costs to use a more upmarket choice the same way. For me, and for a lot of other people, my biggest expense isn't hardware, but in the metal I send downrange through it, and all of the costs associated with doing that.

If I were going to buy a new bolt-action rifle today, it would be a Winchester Model 70 in either the Featherweight version or the Super Garade. If I bought a Tikka T3x at 1/3 the price, instead, I wouldn't get a discount on licenses and tags, range fees, the cost of getting to and from shooting grounds, ammo, or anything else. It would cost me exactly the same to use the rifle I don't want instead of the one that I do.

Compared to this,,,,,,,,,,,,

View attachment 1066264

------the cost of any mass-produced centerfire bolt action rifle is cheap.

I didn't spend the money on that Jeep because I'm an off-roader. I'm not. I consider driving BLM and Forest Service trails as a means to an end, not a hobby in and of itself. I don't personally get anything more out running my CJ 2A on trails that I get from driving my daily driver car on a paved public road. How and why people make a hobby out of one little necessary evil of hunting public land out west has always been a mystery to me.

If I wasn't into hunting hooved game, upland game birds, and fly fishing, I would have no use for the Jeep above and zero desire to own it and maintain it. I need it, though, in order to use my rifle, my shotguns, and my fly rods.

I wouldn't have thousands of dollars worth of camping gear, either.

If I am going to spend what I do in order to use a rifle how I want to use one, you can bet your ass or anything else that I'm going to spend it for the privilege of using something I like, rather than something I like less well, or don't like, at all.

I might rather have a Tikka than a Savage Axis. I'd certainly rather have a SAKO 90 than a Tikka. I'd rather have a Winchester Model 70 Super Grade than a SAKO 90.

I wouldn't save any meaningful money by buying a Tikka instead of a SAKO 90 that I'd rather have. I could more than make up the price difference there by skipping one Arizona quail hunt, staying out of South Dakota for one pheasant season, shooting one less round of sporting clays per month, and shooting a few less National Match courses of fire with my AR-15 each month.

With a SAKO 90, there's probably not going to be much "coulda woulda shoulda" in your end user experience. If that's what you want, I say "go for it." You'll forget about the purchase price, but you'll probably be happier spending what it costs to actually use it.

I couldn’t agree more. Especially regarding 308 vs 30-06. 30-06 is what I have used for over a decade and have the components, dies, and ammo for already. I don’t own any 308 rifles. Not to mention that the 30-06 Sako I’m looking at is, for whatever reason, $250 less than the same model in 308. The only reason I ever consider a 308 is because it’s a short action and I would like to get something like an M1A in that cartridge as well.

I would caution you against a new production Model 70 though. Problems with one of those is why I’m asking about Sakos to begin with. I’m sure they aren’t all bad but I would not buy another one.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

I've spent a lot of time with a Sako 90 over the last year. Spent a lot of time with multiple Tikka's for years. Here's my basic breakdown:

Love the Sako 90 action and magazines. This is the biggest pro over a Tikka. Integrated pic and excellent mag/bm design. 85 mags will work. Extra 90 mags are expensive, extra Tikka mags are not when compared. Tikka's (short actions at least) can be converted to AICS so this could even the pro/con somewhat. I've got a BM I need to mod a Tikka stock for but I haven't gotten around to it yet so I can't speak to much towards it. It could be considered a pro towards the AICS for all around compatibility. UM rings even the pro/con somewhat as well. Still, there's extra cost/effort to do these things related to bottom metal with a Tikka and the 90 is set from the start.

Barrels are the same for me either way, no pro/con.

IMHO, stocks are where things change with a pro towards the Tikka...if you want to replace the stock. Weight matters to me. I originally went with the 90 Peak because of this. I recently looked at the 90 Adventure but I knew I wouldn't carry it having the Peak so I didn't buy it. There aren't many aftermarket stock options for the 90. With Tikka, there are many options to upgrade the stock...some very good options. I think the Sako 90 is the only bolt gun I use that still has the factory stock. For me, even though I considered the Adventure, the only 90 models I'd consider would be Peak and Quest. The possible exception would be having a wood Rokstok/Lite inlet for the 90...but that's another $2000(+) on the price.

I think the Tikka is just as functional as the 90, in regard to accuracy and reliability. I really don't think there's enough difference there to matter. If I were trying to decide with one vs the other it would come down to:

Do I want to modify/customize it (Tikka) or use it exactly as it came (90)?

 

[mountaineer273]

I've spent a lot of time with a Sako 90 over the last year. Spent a lot of time with multiple Tikka's for years. Here's my basic breakdown:

Love the Sako 90 action and magazines. This is the biggest pro over a Tikka. Integrated pic and excellent mag/bm design. 85 mags will work. Extra 90 mags are expensive, extra Tikka mags are not when compared. Tikka's (short actions at least) can be converted to AICS so this could even the pro/con somewhat. I've got a BM I need to mod a Tikka stock for but I haven't gotten around to it yet so I can't speak to much towards it. It could be considered a pro towards the AICS for all around compatibility. UM rings even the pro/con somewhat as well. Still, there's extra cost/effort to do these things related to bottom metal with a Tikka and the 90 is set from the start.

Barrels are the same for me either way, no pro/con.

IMHO, stocks are where things change with a pro towards the Tikka...if you want to replace the stock. Weight matters to me. I originally went with the 90 Peak because of this. I recently looked at the 90 Adventure but I knew I wouldn't carry it having the Peak so I didn't buy it. There aren't many aftermarket stock options for the 90. With Tikka, there are many options to upgrade the stock...some very good options. I think the Sako 90 is the only bolt gun I use that still has the factory stock. For me, even though I considered the Adventure, the only 90 models I'd consider would be Peak and Quest. The possible exception would be having a wood Rokstok/Lite inlet for the 90...but that's another $2000(+) on the price.

I think the Tikka is just as functional as the 90, in regard to accuracy and reliability. I really don't think there's enough difference there to matter. If I were trying to decide with one vs the other it would come down to:

Do I want to modify/customize it (Tikka) or use it exactly as it came (90)?

I tend not to be one to customize rifles much which makes me lean towards the Sako. The modifications I would want make to a Tikka would end up with a final price higher than just buying the Sako. The particular Sako I’m looking at is on clearance because it’s the previous version with metric barrel threading instead of standard US threading. I’m also not big on muzzle devices so the metric threading isn’t really a downside to me and yet it knocks $1000 off the price tag.

While I would love to have a 90 Peak, it is way out of my budget but the Adventure on clearance is not and it’s stock is still nicer than any other hunting rifle I’ve ever had.

 

[hereinaz]

Get the Sako, seems like that’s your jam for the price and your way of being in the world. I’m the opposite, can’t not mess with stuff, lol.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

I tend not to be one to customize rifles much which makes me lean towards the Sako. The modifications I would want make to a Tikka would end up with a final price higher than just buying the Sako. The particular Sako I’m looking at is on clearance because it’s the previous version with metric barrel threading instead of standard US threading. I’m also not big on muzzle devices so the metric threading isn’t really a downside to me and yet it knocks $1000 off the price tag.

While I would love to have a 90 Peak, it is way out of my budget but the Adventure on clearance is not and it’s stock is still nicer than any other hunting rifle I’ve ever had.

Yes, the metric threaded Adventure was the one I was considering as well. If you're good with the stock and weight, talk to Jake and jump on it.

A note on the metric thread, when I purchased the Peak it was threaded M15x1 but came with an M15x1 to 5/8x24 adapter which is nice. I'm not sure if the Adventure does the same.

 

[mountaineer273]

Well, I ended up ordering the Adventure with metric thread chambered in 30-06 from EuroOptic. Went back and forth but have done much research and it seems like a great rifle and a really good deal on it at the clearance sale price point. Thank you all for the help and encouragement!