Newbie....First post.....need help deciding whether to buy the wife a Tikka T3 Hunter or Sako 75 Hunter in the 7mm-08 calibre. I want to make the decision based on quality and performance, but I don't know enough about either rifle to decide without help.

I plan to add a scope that will allow use of Low rings and the rifle will be used primarily for muleys in open high country.

What do the experts think......Diving Bear

Never tried either of those 2 rifles, however, if I got one I would lean toward the Sako, no idea why, maybe someone else can shed more light on them for you. Welcome to the forum by the way.

I don't have either but have heard a lot of good things about both. You can probably pick up a Tikka T3 for a lot less than the Sako 75 and if I remember right it's made by Sako and guaranteed 1 MOA out of the box.

I just bought a Finnlight 270win. Great rifle,10 shots inside 1in at 100 factory loads.I thought 6 1/2 lbs would be light,still prety heavy with scope.The lowest rings Sako (optilock) makes are more like most manufactors medium although high cheek piece helps.My rings & bases were 125$. Tikka comes with rings & groved reciever. Tikka light would be nice.I have only heard good about them.Also she should handle both rifles.Might look at a Kimber 84 M if possible.The only reason I bought Sako 75 Finnlight over Tikka at twice cost is Finnlight has all internal stainless parts.

Before you purchase or fire a new Sako or Tikka, please contact Beretta to see if your rifle is part of their recall. See the stuck thread at the top of this forum.

Performance-wise, I doubt you will find much difference between them. I own a 75 Hunter in 308, but it was made before Beretta started importing them. Mine was imp'd by Stoeger, but it is of excellent quality. I only tried two factory loads in it, 150 gr Rem CoreLokts (about 1" groups at 100) and 180 gr Win PowerPoints (Maybe 6" groups at 100). My handloads have gotten down to 1/4" 3 shot groups, but 1/2" is the norm with 165/168 grain bullets.

Functionally, I would say that the Tikkas are close because everyone I've heard from likes them. However, there is a reason they are cheaper than the Sakos. They have that big chunk of plastic around the magazine well, the magazine sticks out, and the wood is not quite as nice. I still would have bought one if I had not found a used Sako 75 in 308 at the same place. I picked up the Sako and couldn't put it down.

You really have to ask yourself if the nicer look and feel of the Sako is worth double the price of the Tikka. The deer and paper won't know the difference, but your wife might.

Also, save yourself some money and don't buy the Sako rings. They are expensive!! Leupold makes an excellent set of rings for the Sako at about half the price. I'm using the Leupold Medium rings with my Nikon 3-9x40, and I don't have a complaint in the world about the scope, rings or rifle.

amndouglas

I would go with the Tikka T3 ... it's an excellent rifle, made by the Sako company (Beretta perhaps)... you won't be disappointed in the Tikka at all. From what I know, the only differences in the two makes are that the Tikka uses plastic/synthetic componants in a lot of places, and the Sako uses all stainless steel. This makes the Sako a bit heavier, but not really any "better" from a performance standpoint. Also, the Sako uses 3 locking lugs on the bolt, where the Tikka uses only two. I can't argue here which is better. IMHO, as long as the bolt/reciever/chamber housing are substantial enough, your gun will shoot just fine.

On a side note: I work with a few guys from Europe. They all consider Tikka to be what most of us in the USA consider Remington and Browning to be... Basically what I mean is that they are the standard in rifles, offering a great rifle at a great price. They, and most of the people they know, all hunt with Tikka rifles.

Now, the bottom line is that the Sako is going to be more stylish, and possibly be made from a hair better parts and craftsmanship... but that little difference is going to come at a hefty price. The Tikka is going to perform well above average at a much better price. It's going to be a lighter rifle (all other things being equal) due to the use of synthetic parts internally. And, the best part about going with the Tikka over the Sako is that you will have a lot more cash in your pocket to outfit your new Tikka... ie: scope, rings/base, ammunition, miscellaneous hunting supplies, etc.

Last but not least, you say you're looking to get a 7mm-.08 for mulies. Not a bad choice at all, but I just wonder what your normal hunting conditions are? You know a 7mm-.08 is just a 7mm bullet in a .308 casing that's been necked down to fit the smaller caliber right? With that in mind, you might want to just get the .308, as it will allow you use a wider range of bullets with respect to grain amount. Also, considering your hunting conditions, you might want to look at 30-.06. Personally, I use a 7mm Rem. Mag. for hunting whitetail when I'm in the open areas of fields and food plots... but I use my .270 Win. when I'm down in the woods.

Well, I hope I haven't gone too far on this thread, or got off topic... just trying to help you decide which gun is right for you. Hope I have helped.

Amndouglas.....Thanks for the info and I have a follow-up question. Would Leupold's low base/rings provide enough clearance to acccomodate a scope with a 40mm objective.

Everybody.....thanks for the feedback so far.

I forgot to clarify the dollar factor when asking for input on quality and performance differences. Obviously, the more expensive Sako should have a better stock and action quality, but is it twice as good, since the price is almost double.....Diving Bear

I forgot to clarify the dollar factor when asking for input on quality and performance differences. Obviously, the more expensive Sako should have a better stock and action quality, but is it twice as good, since the price is almost double.....Diving Bear

Bear... I don't believe that the Sako is worth twice the price, nor does it perform twice as well. As other's have said, Tikka makes a great rifle. For me, before I got my Browning A-Bolt 7mm Rem Mag, I was going back and forth between the Tikka and the Browning. Point is, I like the Tikka rifles a lot.

In the end, the most important thing is that you are happy with your choice. If you get the Tikka, will you be wishing the entire time that you had bought the Sako? Or, are you truly just concerned with having a rifle that performs well in both the short and long run? I have a few rifles, some are 15+ years old... not that old in the grand scheme of things, but not new either. I've never had any problems with wear and tear thru normal use of my rifles, and NONE of them are of the "high end" makes and models. Most notably, my Ruger MKI .270 Win is the oldest... Wood stock, blued barrell and reciever. I have just taken care of it over the years, and it's never shown any signs of aging...

I guess my bottom line is that the Tikka is going to give you the type of accuracy and quality that you want and need for your hunting... So if they have a model that you like, why would you pay more for the Sako? The Tikka is going to give you 100yd groups of 1" or less out of the box, and depending on the load you choose, they might be even better. Do you "need" a cloverleaf at 100yds? Do you plan on taking shots of 300+ yards on a regular basis? Seeing as how you said you want a 7mm-.08, I'm guessing your not planning on taking really long shots... So once again, what more do you need than 1" or less groups at 100 yds?

Save some good money by going with the Tikka, spend a little more than you think you should on a really good scope and set of rings/bases... and put the rest of that cash back in the bank. You won't be sorry with any of those decisions.

Amndouglas.....Thanks for the info and I have a follow-up question. Would Leupold's low base/rings provide enough clearance to acccomodate a scope with a 40mm objective.

Everybody.....thanks for the feedback so far.

I forgot to clarify the dollar factor when asking for input on quality and performance differences. Obviously, the more expensive Sako should have a better stock and action quality, but is it twice as good, since the price is almost double.....Diving Bear


You can check out leupold's info on mounting here.

http://www.leupold.com/resources/MountFitChart/default.asp

I don't think you could go with lower mounts and a 40mm objective. There is about 1/8" of clearance between my barrel and my scope, so I wouldn't want to go any lower.

If you want lower mounts than that, you should probably get a scope with a smaller objective.

Hope this helps.
amndouglas

WGM........that's a real good assessment and I'm sure other readers here will appreciate the info as well.

Amndouglas......thanks for the follow-up that included Leupold's matrix for proper ring/base selection. This info will save me from going thru the trial and error selection process.

Everyone.....thanks again for your input which I'll use to make my decision......Diving Bear

For my money I would go with the Sako. I own three and they are well worth the money. My Finnlight escaped the recall problem and I'm extremely happy with that rifle. If you stick with the blued models you won't have the recent problems. Quality-I would go with the Sako, Accuracy?- the Sako and Tikka barrels come out of the same toolings. The 7-08 is a great round, especially with the new 140gr Accubond Bullets.

SPAD

Spadkarma ... if you don't mind me asking, what is it for you that justifies paying double, or near double the price for the Sako over a Tikka or other comparable rifle? For the record, I agree that overall the Sako is a superior rifle... but i'm strictly asking this based on price vs. performance, as well as getting what you "need" vs. what you "wish for" ...

Thanks...

2 Sako 75's here too----but I didn't pay double either-----they had been sitting awhile and the retailer discounted them to $849 each. One is a .338 and the other is a .375---probably why they had been sitting---but I find them very usefull---plinking is not a good idea with these 2.

I've had a couple T3's too---they are very good rifles---and probably the best value for the dollar paid out there----but I've been spoiled by Sako.

WGM,

I really don't look at it as paying double. It is not the Same rifle. I am tired of living in disappointment. Through my childhood hunting years, I always had to borrow someone's POS rifle/shotgun/optic/ammo, and when I did get a thirdrate very used rifle for my birthday (apparently there was another "Great Depression" in the early '80s, but it wasn't in any of the History books). I always heard "the 30-30 has taken more game than any other rifle", etc. Probably why I don't own a 30-06(the 30-30 story tellers always had a 30-06).
What exactly am I saving this money for by getting a Tikka over the Sako? Mortgage-I don't have one. Car payments-my two Pick-ups are paid off. Exwife or alimony-don't have any. Children-don't have any. I have led an "extreme life" and have never been married. I'm just smelling the roses now after the "Training Accident" I was invovled in a couple years ago.
As for the need vs. wish, I really don't need another gun, I just want new ones. Shooting, reloading, improving the aestitics of a rifle are what I do. "That's my bag, Baby". I don't golf/hang-out at the bar/etc. I just shoot/reload for a hobby. None of my rifles are only used during hunting season. I go shoting twice or three times a month. As for the "Huge" cost difference, I don't know of any Gunshops that don't have a favorable "Lay-away" program. Put it on layaway in Feb (worst gunselling month) and you should have it by hunting season. I have also put a Swaovski scope or two on layaway.
I just like the "Good Stuff", it may take me awhile but if it is what I "Want" the wait is usually worth it.
Performance wise? I can really only say that ammunition is more of a performance indicator than the rifles/barrels that are made today. None of the deer I shot this year were further than 70 yards. The doe I shot yesterday (last day of rifle season here in MN Zone 2A) was at 25 feet. Other than the rifle(Rem 700 25-06)/Optic(Swarovski AV 4-12X50 TDS)/ammo(115gr Ballistic tip over some RL-19) working there was only one-the deer fell down after I shot it. I was anticipating a 300yd shot from my stand, where I have scouted the deer, a couple days before but I had my 300 Savage at the time with some 165gr Grand Slams-not a distance shooter.
I saw a 1969 BAR 308 the other day at the local gunshop, I am pretty interested in it but I think I can live without it. I have a Buckmark 22 which I shoot more than all other guns, I just have not been impressed with the Blownings made today. I like the way the A-Bolts eject shells, the magazine configuration and the palmswell the classic models have. Just not a fan.

SPAD

Spadkarma...

Thanks for the input - it should prove usefull to Diving Bear. At the same time, you also kind of made my point again for me. In my reply, I asked if Bear were to buy the Tikka, would he still be thinking "I really wish I had bought the Sako". I've made a few purshases like that before, and it's a hollow feeling when you end up there.

Bottom line, for just about anyone getting geared up to make a purchase of any kind, you just have to lay out your criteria and your limitations vs. expectations. Are you into having the highest grade of whatever it is? How important are the aesthetics? The longevity? The craftsmanship? The service from the manufacturer? Money? Yadda yadda yadda...

I only said to go with the Tikka because it did not seem to me that Bear was overly concerned with most of those things outside the cost... and for the cost, yes, you'll get what you pay for. Sako makes outstanding production rifles, but they do come at a premium. I would be thrilled to own one, but with cost being a factor, I don't think you physically get a proportional increase in quality with the price. (what you do get is some extra bragging rights at the camp when you show up with your new Sako - which is worth something i guess)

The two rifles in question are made by the same people (basically) ... One is lower end, one higher... but neither is "low end". You can (and should) expect excellent rifles from both. Let's not forget that while Sako rifles are beautifully styled, the Tikka rifles are not without style. I've seen quite a few models that I consider very handsome. Then again, I absolutely love the look of my Browning A-Bolt II Composite Stalker w/ BOSS. To each his own.

I would love to further discuss all of this, but I fear it will only convolute the issue for Bear since he simply asked the reason for the significant difference in price. I think it's been laid out pretty well already, and he should have more than enough info to make in informed decision now.

Bear ... Best of luck deciding which rifle to go with... I'm sure you'll be happy either way.

It's been a couple of days since we put this subject to bed and during that time the wife and I have decided to go with the Tikka T3 Hunter chambered in the 6.5 x 55 Swede.

Here's the thinking:
1. The wife only weighs 100 lbs and is 5 feet tall.
2. The rifle weighs 6lbs 13 oz, the scope weighs 11.6 oz and the weight of Talley one piece aluminum rings is negligible. All totaling 7 lbs 9oz.
3. Recoil of the Swede with a 140 gr bulllet is a very mild smack of 10 lbs. When comparing the Swede recoil to the recoil of most big deer calibres, the swede is all by itself in the recoil tables. I don't understand why unless it has to do with a low rifling twist rate. Here again, the Swede's rifling twist rate is at the bottom of the spectrum for popular deer calibres.

OK,....OK, I've rambled, so I'll get to the point. Where can I find someone or dealer who wil sell me this rifle. I've searched the internet sites and contacted some dealers without success. So, do I wait until Tikka imports a new supply in the spring of 2005..........???........Diving Bear

So, do I wait until Tikka imports a new supply in the spring of 2005..........???........Diving Bear

On the Tikka website, there is an * next to the 6.5x55 SE calibre - stating that these are "For USA special order only" . So, I would just go to your local Tikka dealer and ask them to order your rifle for you. Most will be more than happy to do it (in my experience).

Now, if I can interject my complete personal opinion... Nice choice of calibre, but I prefer the .270 Win... I don't know the recoil numbers, but it's not a kicker as far as I'm concerned. Also, it's very versatile considering different loads, all very easy to find. Last, I know you said you want the "hunter" model, but take one last look at the "laminated stainless" model... I think it's beautiful.

No matter what, as stated before, be sure you're happy w/ the make, model, and calibre of your rifle. In the end it only matters how happy you are with it, not any of us. Also, get a "good" scope... spend a little more than you think you should on it. It's one thing that you can use from gun to gun, so make it a worthwhile investment. A mediocre gun and a great scope is a much better combination in the field than a great gun and a mediocre scope - you can't hit what you can't see...

Great advice from WGM. I own a 270 Win, and it is a great caliber. As long as it is not in a super-lightweight package, it should be very managable, but then again, I weigh a bit more than 100 pounds. Speaking from personal experience, it shoots nice and flat and the recoil is not uncomfortable, which both contribute to good shot placement. A 130 gr. bullet in the right place drops mulies quick.

You're right about the Swede being all by itself in the recoil tables (11 ft.lbs. 140gr @2400fps, 36.5grs powder, 7.5lb gun), at least in full-power loads. If you're a reloader, though, it should be very easy to find an accurate reduced load that will bring a 270 down to the velocity of the swede with 130 grain bullets. My 270 shoots lower charges of Reloader 19 very well with 130 gr Sierra Gamekings. A starting load of 48.5gr RL-19 would give you a 130gr bullet @ 2486fps. The recoil would only be 13 ft. lbs., so I doubt the difference would be very noticable. And to be completely honest, full-house rounds probably wouldn't knock her socks off.

Also, with the scopes, most of your shots while hunting will be at first light or just before dark. Make sure you get a good scope that will bring in a lot of light, not necessarily one with a huge objective, but one that is bright and clear.

amndouglas

Amndouglas........thanks for the suggestion to reload the 270 in a lighter load, but I'm not into that....yet.

I agree a bright scope is important because trophy class muleys don't like to walk around with lots of daylight. I was thinking of Leupold's new VXIII because of it's look and warranty, but I don't know if another manufacturer is head and shoulders better.......Diving Bear

I doubt you'll find anybody head and shoulders above a Leupold VX-III. It seems to be the standard by which most other scopes are judged. After the VX-III, you really don't get a whole lot more for every dollar you spend. I decided on a Nikon Monarch because it looked just as good as the VX-III to me, and it didn't cost as much.

I decided on a Nikon Monarch because it looked just as good as the VX-III to me, and it didn't cost as much.

YAY! Another Nikon fan!!! I have a Monarch UCC 3.3-10x44 mildot reticle with adjustable objective in matte black... I love it. Durable, handsome, target turrets protected by the screw caps, crystal clear and bright as any of the other "big name" scopes out there, but for a better price. I find it to be the perfect scope for anyone hunting from 0-400yds that wants to have an adjustable zoom rather than a fixed power scope. And, for those that are truly into ballistics, the mildot reticle is soooo nice. I might mention also that mine is mounted on my 7mmRemMag, so it does take a moderate recoil beating... but it could care less. It's still like it was the day I got it.

YAY! Another Nikon fan!!! I have a Monarch UCC 3.3-10x44 mildot reticle with adjustable objective in matte black... I love it. Durable, handsome, target turrets protected by the screw caps, crystal clear and bright as any of the other "big name" scopes out there, but for a better price. I find it to be the perfect scope for anyone hunting from 0-400yds that wants to have an adjustable zoom rather than a fixed power scope. And, for those that are truly into ballistics, the mildot reticle is soooo nice. I might mention also that mine is mounted on my 7mmRemMag, so it does take a moderate recoil beating... but it could care less. It's still like it was the day I got it.

There are quite a few Nikon fans here, and if they were made in the USA, there would be a lot more Nikon fans here.