Tikka/Sako question

[buckchaser]

I know that many Rokslide members use Tikka T3s as their backcountry/mountain rifles. I'm looking to expand my rifle "quiver" . I want something tough, dependable, durable, etc. It will be hunted rain or shine and bashed through the bush.

I could afford the Sako, but want to figure out just exactly what I am paying for.

Are the differences primarily cosmetic (e.g. better fit/finish, etc.)? If the Tikka has proven to be just as reliable, tough, dependable, etc. it will be tougher for me to justify spending double.

 

[Ross]

Been using my tikka 7mm since 03. Never a single issue with anything, clip, bolt, firing etc. I would buy another in a heartbeat if the need arose. For the money a tough gun and excellent value. Have no idea how many days afield I have used it or the miles, but in all kinds of weather and it has bagged a few bulls for me. You will be pleased if you choose it.

 

[mt100gr.]

^^^this gentleman came to mind as soon as I read the initial post. I was about to type about how much I like my T3, but deferred to him. Good timing, Ross.

 

[Yellowknife]

I owned a Sako for a while, and have hunted a Tikka the last few years. From a field use standpoint the Tikka checks all the same "reliable, tough, dependable" boxes that the Sako does. Haven't had a bit of trouble with mine, and it's been a few interesting places and gotten cold and wet a couple times.



The extra money for the Sako buys you things like a different shaped stock with less of the slick plastic feel and a true short action if you are interested those calibers. Standard calibers hold 5 vs the Tikka's 3 rounds in the magazine which is nice if your are choosing a .308 or '06 based round. Those aren't "cosmetic" features, but they aren't critical to killing things either.

Yk

 

[Colberjs]

I'm not a firearms expert by any stretch of the imagination. But In 2010 I bought the Tikka in 30-06 and my buddy bought the Sako in .308. My Tikka with factory ammo would outshoot his Sako with any combination of hand loads he could put in it. I'm not saying that is the norm between the two but it made me comfortable with my purchase and the money I saved.

 

[solo06]

Are the differences primarily cosmetic (e.g. better fit/finish, etc.)? If the Tikka has proven to be just as reliable, tough, dependable, etc. it will be tougher for me to justify spending double.

I researched this a fair amount before my last rifle purchase. Here were my basic conclusions:

Regarding reliability, toughness, dependability, and accuracy... they're equal. Both Tikka's and Sako's have excellent reputations and you won't be disappointed either way on those aspects.

"You get what you pay for"... Although there are cosmetic differences (as expected, more money = better fit/finish), there are also a variety of design differences that you're paying for. To me, the biggest design difference between these is the bolt design, particularly the lug design. The Tikka has a simpler 2-lug bolt while the Sako has a 3-lug bolt. The 3-lug bolt is a bit more complex to machine, so it requires more time/work... for increased cost.

The benefit of a 3-lug design is shorter bolt lift travel: 60 degree 3-lug versus the 90 degree 2-lug. Shorter bolt lift provides greater clearance between the bolt handle and the scope. So, you never have to worry about clearance issues no matter how large your scope is or how low it's mounted.

Also, to me, my perception is that the 3-lug design "feels" faster to cycle. Mechanically, there is a shorter distance that the bolt has to be lifted, so that does kind of makes sense. However... practically, people can also cycle 2-lugs exceptionally fast, so it's not really a significant advantage. I've seen really experienced shooters cycle 2-lugs so fast it's a blur, so I really wouldn't want to try to argue that 3-lugs are faster. That difference of 30 degrees can easily be overcome by shooter practice/skill so there's not really a practical speed difference between the designs.

Thinking of Tikka vs. Sako reminds me of Weatherby Vanguard vs. Mark V. The Vanguard is a cheaper 2-lug design while the Mark V is more expensive with 3 rows of lugs to result in a shorter bolt lift (54 degrees), along with better fit/finish.

Tikka's, Sako's, Vanguard's, and Mark V's all have great reputations for reliability, toughness, dependability, and accuracy for factory rifles. If those are your only concerns, you won't be disappointed with any of them. They all put rounds on target equally well.

If you view your rifle as simply a basic tool to harvest game, then go with a Tikka or Vanguard. It won't let you down and you'll be very happy.

I've also noticed a lot of threads on here with people upgrading, accessorizing, and customizing their Tikka's. If you enjoy doing that, then the Tikka is a great platform to start with, since it's already a great rifle and there are a lot of aftermarket products available for it.

If you want a more refined design and finish out of the box, and don't mind the extra cost up-front, then go with a Sako or Mark V. It will look and feel different in your hands. But... the target won't be able to tell a performance difference.

 

[bkondeff]

Both are great. Basically the Tikka saves money by using plastic/polymer in certain components. I own and love both. Not even my custom rifle with Stiller Predator Action, feels smoother to cycle. The Tikka is slightly lighter, due to the polymer. I've never found anyone who owned one of either of these rifles complain about the polymer components failing. All in all I think there is not production rifle sold that is more inherently accurate out of the both. I do like the feel of my Sako 75SS stock quite a bit over the synthetic stock on my T3. But, I love the Medalist line of stocks and they have them now for the T3.

 

[Yellowknife]

... The Tikka has a simpler 2-lug bolt while the Sako has a 3-lug bolt. The 3-lug bolt is a bit more complex to machine, so it requires more time/work... for increased cost.

The benefit of a 3-lug design is shorter bolt lift travel: 60 degree 3-lug versus the 90 degree 2-lug. Shorter bolt lift provides greater clearance between the bolt handle and the scope. So, you never have to worry about clearance issues no matter how large your scope is or how low it's mounted.

Also, to me, my perception is that the 3-lug design "feels" faster to cycle. Mechanically, there is a shorter distance that the bolt has to be lifted, so that does kind of makes sense. However... practically, people can also cycle 2-lugs exceptionally fast, so it's not really a significant advantage. I've seen really experienced shooters cycle 2-lugs so fast it's a blur, so I really wouldn't want to try to argue that 3-lugs are faster. That difference of 30 degrees can easily be overcome by shooter practice/skill so there's not really a practical speed difference between the designs.

For what it's worth, even though the Tikka is a two lug design, it's not a 90 degree lift either. Believe it's a 70 or 75 degree lift as I recall. There is no mechanical reason that 2 lugs = 90 degrees, it just happens that the early bolt actions were built that way, and most since have followed suite.

As far as speed of cycling goes, there is a trade off in the bolt lift designs. A short bolt lift also means you are doing the "work" of compressing the firing pin spring in a shorter distance so it can theoretically be a little stiffer. That stiffness can negate some of the benefits of the shorter distance. A number of other factors in that equation though.

 

[JustOneMoreShot]

I have a Sako 75 Stainless Synthetic in 300 Win Mag and a Tikka T3 Lite in Stainless chambered in 270WSM. I love both rifles and they are both very accurate and dependable.
I would have no problem recommending either rifle and will not ever sell either rifle.