Originally Posted by SakoShooter
There's nothing rude about your question, though I did not say that a Remington or Weatherby Vanguard wouldn't be good enough, in a practical, functional sense they are fine.
What I did say, was that based on my experience, you will find many reasons to upgrade, and will spend much more in the long run if you make a budget buy.
What specifically is better about a Tikka/Sako than the name? Well, I've never owned a Tikka, but have friends who do, and I have used them.
Tikka:
- Trigger is better than any mass produced rifles factory trigger, it is identical to the Sako trigger as far as I know, is adjustable from 2-4 lbs, and more importantly, breaks cleanly and consistently.
Savage Accutriggers are good too, and the target trigger they put on their more expensive guns are even better, but they do have the little take up tab, ostensibly for safety, which gives them a sort of two stage feel. Some may not mind that tab, but it is objectively not as nice a smooth trigger face.
- Barrel is better than most any mass production rifle, also the same barrels as Sako uses in their rifles; there's a reason that Tikka has a reputation for accuracy, and the barrels are very highly regarded. I have owned many rifles that shot okay with rough barrels, but Sako/Tikka barrels shoot well, clean easily as a matter of course, and I personally have not seen one with rough machine marks and burring as is common in many rifles.
- Action is smooth and fast. If you think this is malarkey, hype, or inconsequential, please pick up and cycle the bolt on a Ruger American, Remington 700, Weatherby Vanguard, then pick up a Tikka.
If you spend time shooting a Tikka and then pick up almost any other brand of rifle you will immediately realise how quickly you've come to take a smooth cycling bolt for granted, and how much easier it is to shoot.
- Accuracy may well be debatable, and is obviously a variable from rifle to rifle, but sample size doesn't lie, and Tikka's have an unparalleled reputation for accuracy, and are one of the most common rifles around. Savage used to have a very good reputation in this regard as well, though I feel that it was partly due to the "value" factor and concurrent lowered expectations, my experience with Savages has been....inconsistent.
- Value and resale is superb, you can resell a Tikka at minimal loss as compared to a Ruger, Savage, Remington. This is not baffle-gab and hearsay, I have bought and sold many rifles over the years and I feel that I have a good idea of the used value of various makes, and how quickly they sell.
There are of course some compromises with a Tikka, and reasons I haven't owned one. The stock isn't top notch, though MILES better than what you will get with most sub $800 rifles such as a Ruger American, the detachable magazines are single column and hold just 3 rounds while protruding slightly the the action bottom, the integral rings and bases are expensive, though I believe they come tapped for conventional bases as well, and there is plastic in these rifles.
All in all, for around $900 these are very good utilitarian rifles that you can expect to function smoothly, shoot much more accurately than average, and offering a great trigger and slick action (usability).
Sako:
- Trigger and barrel are the same as Tikka, ie. excellent.
- No Polymer. Every part of a Sako is metal, including the detachable magazine (expensive if you want extra though). Of course synthetic stocks are exempted from this.
- Bolt is a three lug (low bolt lift for quick cycling and scope eyepiece clearance as compared to Winchester model 70, Kimber, Savage, Remington 700, Weatherby Vaguard, and others) and is made of one piece of steel, including the bolt handle. Most rifles (Tikka too) have a brazed or pinned on bolt handle of some sort, this might never be a problem, but it is a positive to me.
- Wood is very good on Sako's these days if you are interested in a wood stock. I am still trying to resist a Sako Grizzly for $2,400.00. They are just beautiful rifles, if you care about that sort of thing
- Fit and finish may simply be a non-issue for you, or it may be a non-issue right now, but when you notice some rough machine marks, burring, visible finish flaws, etc. you may just find that you are bothered by it after all and start lusting after a "nicer" gun. Take a look at pretty much any (well regarded) CZ rifle and you will see machine marks, burrs, flaws, maybe a sticky spot in the bolt, you name it.
You can expect a very high standard of workmanship and QC with a Sako rifle, this matters to me, and I don't take it for granted as a guy who has owned a few Ruger M77 rifles for example.
The bottom line here is pride of ownership, Sako rifles are on average, objectively nicer than rifles for a few hundred dollars less, and it's apparent when you spend even a little time with one. Don't try to convince yourself this won't matter to you if there's a chance you will start to feel dissatisfied with, say, a much cruder Vanguard, with it's cheap stamped metal safety selector, and crappy magazine system, etc. because I have wasted a fair bit of money in upgrading rifles that I bought while ignoring their shortcomings.
Now for the Budget guns:
Remington 700 SPS: My advice is not to buy a Remington, their QC is non-existent these days, and by the time you make use of the extensive aftermarket to upgrade a Remington, you will have spent a considerable amount more than you thought you would going in. The cheap Remington 700 you find may well have a stock that needs replacement, a poor trigger, bad QA/QC resulting in poor accuracy or reliability.
I realise that some people love the Remington, and the 700 action is number one for builds, but you aren't shopping for a build action where you buy a $700 rifle and throw away the barrel, stock, and trigger.
Remington 783: possibly the worst rifle you could spend that money on.
Ruger American: Bought one, sold it after replacing the stock, still hated it. The bolt is garbage, machine marks, sticky, gritty, binds easily. The trigger is pure, unadulterated garbage that masquerades as a Savage Accutrigger. It is not. The stock is rubbish, and quite likely the poorest stock in this price range. Also, the magazine is hot garbage with s prone to fail retention clip.
I do not understand how these rifles have become popular, and I do like Ruger M77 rifles, have owned 3 and still own one.
Winchester XPR: Decent value I think. I owned one, the stock fairly smooth and hard plastic, so may be slippery, but it's nice and stiff for this price range, maybe a step below the Tikka synthetic stock.
Positives on the one I had were a very decent trigger, and okay accuracy. Negatives were the fat bolt which is not slick to run, and the cheap finish and appearance, such as mold markings on the stock.
I would recommend it as a utilitarian rifle as it seemed functional, and of reasonable value for the price.
Browning AB3: Same as the Winchester XPR as far as i can tell. I have not owned one, but they are the same company, and I believe they are clones.
Savage Mod 10 (11, 111, 110, etc.): I have owned a Savage 11 in .223 and it was an extremely inaccurate specimen; my brother has a Savage in .270 win and it's reasonably accurate, though nothing to write home about in all honesty.
Pros: Good trigger (though not as good as their reputation,) common and well regarded so resale might be better than it should be.
Cons: Hold one and look as the tang at the rear of the action where the safety is located, see that gap and the little spring? Now maybe it's paranoia, but I imagine dirt or a twig, or foliage getting snagged in there and jamming something up. Either way, they are ugly, obviously cheaply thrown together with the bolt assembled as a series of washers, barrel attached with a threaded nut, absolutely no regard for aesthetics here.
These rifles are also overpriced in my opinion as the price point has risen since Savage introduces the Axis line and presented the 10/110/11/111 as their "premium" line while not materially improving them in any way.
Savage Axis: Do not buy, I have no real reason for saying so as I have never owned or fired one, but I know that the magazine is worse than the standard Savage and they did not leave much room for cost cutting in my opinion.
Weatherby Vanguard (Howa 1500): I have owned exactly one of these, and I realise that these are highly thought of by quite a few people, so I’m probably in the minority. I didn’t think the trigger was good, and yes, it was an S2 that I owned, I disliked the magazine…a small thing I know, but you use it every time you use the rifle, so why accept a poor magazine system? The overall quality is just not great, stamped bent metal safety, the bolt isn’t really bad or good, but nothing special for sure, the one I owned wasn’t more accurate than average, I didn’t care for the style.
These are probably okay rifles as they are recommended by many, perhaps just not my cuppa.
Mossberg: No idea, have never touched one of these.
Not quite budget:
Winchester Model 70: These are in the $1,100 to $1,200 range and are a legendary rifle, quality is good, I owned a North Carolina built Super Grade in .270 WSM and it was solid with an okay trigger.
Pros: Good build quality and fit and finish, legendary action which is reliable and smooth enough, resale should be good, value is very good for what you pay.
Cons: Trigger is just okay, and mine had the MOA trigger (it’s the same trigger as in their XPR line,) bolt lift is high, so unless you are mounting a scope high, or using a scope like a Leupold VX3 with a narrow eyepiece, you may have bolt clearance issues, Euro scopes need not apply, hinged floorplate magazine with no detachable option.
Accuracy is not necessarily a hallmark of these rifles, they are average in this regard by reputation, and mine fell into that category.
Ruger M77/Hawkeye: Good rifles, but not cheap. I feel that the price has been pushed up (like Savage) with the introduction of the American line, which allows Ruger to position these as a more “premium” rifle without making material improvements.
Pros: Bombproof action, all metal construction and good quality, I like the look of the Hawkeye models which have a very classic style to them.
Cons: Triggers are not good, bad in fact. Action isn’t the smoothest, hinged floorplate magazine like the Winchester model 70 means no detachable mag, accuracy isn’t great by reputation, but mine have all shot very well to be honest, the scope rings suck, but you can buy Leupold brand rings that fit the machine cuts in the receiver and are better rings.
Not really the cheapest at $1,300.00 or more, but will outlast you as they are very sturdy arms.
Browning X-bolt: Have only owned one, they aren’t my style, triggers are okay to use but are painted gold coloured on most models, lots of plastic in these rifles.
I guess I don’t have much to say about these, they have a reputation for accuracy, but I just irrationally don’t care for them so haven’t really thought about them much.
Kimber Hunter: These are around the price of a Ruger M77, but have a crappy magazine, a reputation for poor quality control, high bolt lift with a straight bolt handle that makes them possibly the most challenging rifle out there for mounting a scope low.
If you really want a lightweight sporter with a decent synthetic stock….buy a Tikka instead of this overpriced offering.
I’m sure I’ve missed some, but you asked me for specifics, not generalisations and I aim to please.
I am not simply repeating things I’ve heard or read, I have experience with quite a few rifles and have formed my own opinions based on MY experience.
I like Sako, and all of my hunting rifles are Sako, everything else ends up getting sold or sitting. I am not saying that you need to spend $2,000 plus on a Sako to be happy, but I would have saved thousands of dollars if I had resisted the many rifles I have bought because I thought that small deficiencies, or differences in features or quality were something I could live with…you might be different, but something that you use is never a waste of money when it works even a little bit better than the cheaper option.
|
Linear Mode
