Sako & Tikka Rifles

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by awebb7, Nov 4, 2011.

  1. awebb7

    awebb7 Contributor

    Anyone have any experience with them? I am in the early stages of building a "scout" type rifle, and the more I read about these two brands the more I am interested.
  2. golfballs03

    golfballs03 New Member

    I think the Tikka T3 is an excellent value for the out of box accuracy you get with it. I don't own one, but I've used the .270WSM Hunter and I really liked it. For most of my uses, I don't prefer a bolt-action
  3. awebb7

    awebb7 Contributor

    This is what I keep coming across - Tikka has amazing out of the box accuracy. With a price point around $600 that is hard to beat. I am also encouraged that Sako and Tikka are both owned by Beretta but allowed to continue almost autonomously in their production. The t3 model in .308 is close to moving to my safe . . . I just can't find a dealer around that stocks them. A final bonus is that both manufacturers provide an "optilock" system that (supposedly) retains accuracy with interchangeable optics.
    Re: Bolt action rifles - I have a few semi autos, some M4 clones, and am happy with them but want to try to replicate Cooper's scout idea on my own.

    VOLFREAK11 New Member

    I've never heard of either of these brands. What are you going to do with the new rifle, just curious? I shoot a 25 year old .270 ba and an old Marlin 30-30 la.
  5. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Your accuracy is going to be mostly defined by: ammunition, barrel harmonics and head space.

    As to the ammunition, that is on you. As to barrel harmonics, I would avoid anything not free floated. As to head space, that depends on the conditions you plan on firing. If you think you'll drag the rifle through the mud, have the head space cut more loose. In pristine conditions, it can be tight.

    If you are looking for just a "scout" rifle, and don't plan on really doing anything outside of 500 yards, you really only need a 2 MOA rifle.

    So, I'd probably go cheap on the rifle and go heavy on the optic and rails. If either of the two you mentioned meet your weight desires, and are sub-2 MOA, buy the cheapest. Pop on a Badger/GGG ord picitinny rail and same same interlocking rings for your optics.

    Conversely, just buy a M14 and call it an afternoon.
  6. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Sako was known a few years ago for producing a decent out of the box, MOA with factory ammo "tactical" rifle that looked clunky. Tikko seems, at first glance, to be a slightly better built rifle, but the detachable mag on the receiver would annoy the absolute bejeebus out of me.
  7. golfballs03

    golfballs03 New Member

    Tikka is free floated
  8. cotton

    cotton Stand-up Philosopher

    There is no reason to settle for 2 MOA. I've never found a rifle that can't do better than that with decent optics, good mounts, and a load it likes. If I do find it, I will have it fixed or dispose of it in short order.
  9. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I wouldn't settle for a 2 MOA rifle, either, but to meet "scout" requirements you need a light weight rifle, capable of hitting a man sized target at 500 yards.

    The chest "kill zone" on a man sized target is 10" around the nipples. At 500 yards, a 2 MOA rifle is at its maximum variability of 10". So, you only need a 2 MOA gun.

    The second requirement for a "scout" rifle is weight. And it is low. Like 7 lbs. This means you can't have much in the way of optics, mounts or barrel. So that desired bull barrel throwing rounds down range in tight groupings isn't allowable.

    For it to be a true "scout" rifle, that is... meaning you can sacrifice the precision of the rifle for weight.
  10. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I'd still go with the M14, unless bolt was an absolute requirement, in which case I might give Ruger's scout rifle a look.

    Last edited: Nov 5, 2011
  11. cotton

    cotton Stand-up Philosopher

    I'm not sure I completely understand "scout" rifle, and I don't shoot at 500 yards. I know if you have a rifle capable of 2MOA, you won't keep it in a 10" target area, even from a bench, much less field positions. Human error will never allow for 100% accuracy out of a rifle. That means you need a sub 2MOA to achieve 10" groups, but it really isn't much of a struggle to get that.

    I currently own, I think, 5 scoped rifles from .22-250 to .375 H&H. They all sport reasonably priced glass from 2-7 to 4-10 and, aside from some trigger sweetening on a couple, are factory issue straight out of the box. None has a bull barrell (which helps hunter accuracy and takes longer to heat, but doesn't improve the rifle's cold barrel accuracy,) and the lightest comes in fully loaded at a fraction over 7#. They all group between .7 and about 1.3 MOA with factory ammo, although I did experiment fairly extensively with a couple of different loads to get those groups.
  12. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    The M40 and M40A3, the bolt rifle for USMC Scout/Snipers, is a 1 MOA rifle. Until the A5, all Marine sniper rifles were 1 MOA, except the SASR, which isn't classified as a "sniper rifle."

    They all group sub MOA, but not by much, and especially the rifles pushing 7,000 rounds. When we talk about MOA, we are talking about maximum allowable. The M40A3 was a 1 MOA rifle. The M40A5 is a half-minute rifle, or purported to be. I haven't shot one.

    Further, the qualification of minute of angle is in a vise, not from the field. It is a measure of precision of the rifle. Not accuracy.

    Cold barrel should always be determined from data. If you know your cold barrel is a half minute high, nothing else matters. You learn this by making a cold bore shot, repetitively, at 100 yards. This is data based.

    And if you have factory rifles at < 1.5 MOA to sub MOA, given that none of those rifles are likely free-floated and thus have terrible harmonics and whip, and shooting factory ammo, I'd almost be willing to bet it is the shooter, not the rifle.
  13. cotton

    cotton Stand-up Philosopher

    I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I know what MOA measures. I also know that if you are planning on being able to hit a 10" target with a 2 MOA rifle from 500 yards, you are going to struggle. That accuracy of the rifle leaves no margin of shooter error, and there will be shooter error.

    Of the group I mentioned, 4 are pillar bedded and one is glass. I'm also not sure how a shooter improves the rifle's accuracy; it seems to me that he can only detract from the rifle's potential, not add to it. But I've shot enough rifles, and seen enough of others shooting rifles, to know that sub 1.5 groups with a quality rifle, decent optics, and factory ammo just isn't that special if you are willing to search a bit for ammo.
  14. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    There is precision and there is accuracy. Precision is grouping. If you fire three rounds at the bull, and all three rounds strike within a 1.047" group (a minute is not 1"), but not in the bull, this is a measure of precision. This is a measure of the rifle. If all three strike in the bull, and within a minute, this is a measure of accuracy and precision. If you want all three in a 3" bull, and land all three in the bull, this is accuracy, but not precision. This is a measure of the shooter.

    A 2 minute gun at 500 yards has an inherent precision of 10.5". And in my world of shooting, that is an expected hit. But I'm a former sniper. I don't know what is expected of hunters.

    An aside as to how a shooter can influence how a rifle is perceived: unless the rifle is grouped in a vise, with minimum human interaction, to determine the inherent precision of the rifle, the human can influence how the rifle is perceived. Let us say you have a 2 minute gun, but you don't hold the EXACT same point of aim every shot, you don't have exactly the same trigger pull or exactly the same follow through, and your point of aim waivers. Your point of impact thus also waivers. You can end up pulling or pushing the theoretical maximum arc to one side or the other, and either expand or contract the grouping.

    MOST shooters who aren't data shooters... don't look at a bad grouping as anything other than a "mistake," and consider their tightest group as "how well the gun shoots." The problem is that, well, you can affect the grouping both equally well and bad. Unless the gun is vise shot, and the precision determined. And considering the money long range shooters put into developing a solid MOA rifle, both military and civilian, I find it difficult to believe that yours came that way naturally.

    Thus, I chalk yours up to a good shooter.
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2011
  15. cotton

    cotton Stand-up Philosopher

    Well, thanks. I still haven't had any problem getting quality rifles with good optics to consistently group sub 1.5 MOA if I am willing to play around with the ammo, which suggests OTC rifles are a little better than I thought you were allowing.

    To the original post, Sako has an extremely good reputation among hunters, although I don't have any first hand experience.

Share This Page