Improvements in Sako Actions

[South Pender]

'I'm curious about what the improvements have been in various Sako actions. To make this query answerable, let's consider the transition from the L461 and L579 actions to the AI and AII actions. Clearly the fully-shrouded bolt sleeve was an improvement--from a safety standpoint anyway--but were there other noteworthy improvements (and I mean real improvements, not just changes)? As just one example, was the striker-fall shortened, resulting in faster lock-time? Were the triggers noticeably better? Let's just focus on the actions, ignoring the barrels and stocks.

 

[kevinlg]

Meaningful?.......the extractor.

There are other, lessor changes.

 

[paulsonconstruction]

Any "real" improvements"? NO!! Most "changes" come from bean counters anyway & have nothing to do with "improving" anything but the bottom line.

 

[South Pender]

Well, I would say that the shrouded bolt sleeve was an improvement, but I'd be interested in whether any of the fire-control system was improved. Over those years, a number of competing actions were improved by shortening the striker fall, with greatly-improved lock time, and better accuracy potential. Someone on this forum undoubtedly knows whether the A-series were an improvement in that regard, or, for that matter, whether the 75- and 85-series models were.

In my view, the three-lug bolt was an improvement of sorts (not of the A-series over the earlier ones); at least I like it better, with the shorter 70⁰ bolt throw (albeit perhaps requiring greater force).

 

[stonecreek]

There was no fundamental change between the A-series actions and their predecessor L-series. In fact, the factory continued to refer to them internally under the L-series designations. The shrouded bolt was not actually an A-series feature. Many of the late L-series rifles came with the shrouded bolt. We tend to refer to the shroud as an A-series feature simply because the shroud and the name change happened about the same time -- and it is true, so far as we know, that all receivers marked as A-series left the factory with a shrouded bolt.

I have seen black synthetic magazine followers on some A-series actions, a feature unique to them. The followers work well and are probably some fraction of an ounce lighter than a metal follower, but I'm not sure you'd call that an "improvement".

The change of the name from "L" to "A" was mostly for marketing purposes as Stoeger believed (probably correctly) that American consumers are conditioned to expect products to be hyped as "new and improved", regardless that the only "improvement" may be the advertising copy.

The next set of actions, the relatively short-lived S491-M591-L691 series, was "improved" in terms of manufacturing costs by eliminating the fixed recoil lug and a few other changes. They also had a cocking/firing pin weakness which was occasionally subject to breakage where the previous cocking mechanism was not, so I don't think that many would class that series as "improved".

Some like the three-lug M75 series and some don't. It was available with either a fixed internal box magazine or a detachable clip, which, whether that is an improvement, is at least a choice. I've only handled a few of them, but they seem to be well-made and as serviceable as the original Sakos.

I can't comment on anything later than the M75 series as I just don't have any experience with them.

 

[deerhunter]

Good topic that I've been interested in for some time, specifically the transition from the "L" series bolts to the "A" series bolts. The later series of Sako actions are totally different animals. I own both AI and L461 rifles in 222 mag and AII and L579's. There were some changes made to the bolt but IMO, no significant "functional" changes (except for maybe the enclosed bolt shroud). Feeding and extraction are the same and I've never noticed a difference in the triggers once adjusted or perceived a significant difference in lock time between the two.

I took some pics of my AI and L461 .222 mag bolts side by side for reference (the AI bolt body was jeweled as part of a custom build). The biggest differences are the bolt shroud, extractor, and rear bolt "guide".

 

[16b410]

Thanx for taking the time to do that, Deerhunter. Very nicely done reference material.

 

[South Pender]

Yes, indeed. Many thanks for your efforts with the pictures and explanation. Has the much-shorter extractor body in the A1 actions resulted in any extraction problems?

 

[deerhunter]

No problem. Just trying to contribute in payment for the knowledge I've gained from this site over the years.

SP - I've had no issues with extraction. Both have been very reliable.

 

[South Pender]

To get into the subjective and aesthetic realm here, which action do you prefer, deerhunter, all things considered?

 

[deerhunter]

If just considering the action, I prefer the "A" series actions over the "L" series actions purely based on aesthetics.

Having said that, I prefer the earlier "L" series Sako rifles for a couple of reasons. I really like the more svelte stocks with the grip cap from that production period. They fit me like a glove and balance/handle very well. I also prefer the slimmer barrel contour on the "L" series sporter rifles compared to heavier barrel contour used on the "A" series sporter rifles. My AII classic rifle is 3/4 pound heavier than my L579 rifle secondary to the beefier stock and barrel contour.

 

[stonecreek]

Like the bolt shroud, the "short extractor" on the short Sako action was found on the later L461's and was not introduced with the A-I action. The short extractor is similar to those always used on Sako's longer actions and is regarded as fully dependable and said to be less subject to breakage than the "long extractor" of the L46/earlier L461 actions.

The bolt handle of the A-I is slightly longer and of very slightly different shape to that of the L461. But that is more a change of style than an improvement.

 

[deerhunter]

SC - Were the long extractors only used on the L46/earlier L461 bolts and not the L57/L579 bolts? My early 5 digit SN L579 has the short extractor. Thanks.

 

[stonecreek]

Right. The long extractor was limited to the L46/469/461's insofar as I'm aware.

 

[South Pender]

Well, to perhaps take this discussion in a slightly different direction, is there some consensus regarding quality of materials and workmanship when comparing (to stay with the short action) the L46, L461, A1, 75 and 85 actions?

I run across references to the Riihimäki L46 action as in some ways special. It was the first (or close to it), and so perhaps that's why it's so regarded. I've always been put off a bit by the large cubic bolt sleeve with the safety on it and, at least from an aesthetic perspective, have preferred the L461. Pictures I've seen of the L46 show a pretty primitive-looking trigger. But, in general, has there been a decline in overall quality as we go from the early L46 down to the 85?

 

[paulsonconstruction]

Riihimaki is the city the Sako plant is located in not part of the name of the Model L46. What is "better" is a matter of personal preference. Some prefer the L46 safety as it blocks the striker & thus directly prevents the firing pin from moving, while the L461's safety is incorporated in the Sako #4 trigger & blocks only the trigger from moving. The trigger on the L46 is a direct copy of the Winchester Model 70 trigger. It is a simple, clean design that can be easily adjusted to a crisp, clean, light pull as all the working parts are visible. It is a safe, proven design that is considered anything but "primitive". It's simplicity is it's hallmark. I own many L46 Sakos & feel that the changes displayed in the L461/AI are more about marketing to what they think their customers prefer than real "improvement". Change to meet customer preferences & changing market demands is a natural thing, but that doesn't always mean things are "improved". Change for changes sake is also a marketing tool, as having the "latest, greatest" is a powerful urge. When comparing my L46 Varmint from the mid-1950's to my AI Varmint from 1986 I don't see any drop in the quality.

 

[South Pender]

Riihimaki is the city the Sako plant is located in not part of the name of the Model L46. What is "better" is a matter of personal preference. Some prefer the L46 safety as it blocks the striker & thus directly prevents the firing pin from moving, while the L461's safety is incorporated in the Sako #4 trigger & blocks only the trigger from moving. The trigger on the L46 is a direct copy of the Winchester Model 70 trigger. It is a simple, clean design that can be easily adjusted to a crisp, clean, light pull as all the working parts are visible. It is a safe, proven design that is considered anything but "primitive". It's simplicity is it's hallmark. I own many L46 Sakos & feel that the changes displayed in the L461/AI are more about marketing to what they think their customers prefer than real "improvement". Change to meet customer preferences & changing market demands is a natural thing, but that doesn't always mean things are "improved". Change for changes sake is also a marketing tool, as having the "latest, greatest" is a powerful urge. When comparing my L46 Varmint from the mid-1950's to my AI Varmint from 1986 I don't see any drop in the quality.

Yes, I understand that Riihimäki is the city where the Sako plant is located, but the word is stamped on at least some of the early L46 actions and is frequently used as a descriptor of that action.

Good point about the bolt-sleeve safety on the L46--it is more positive. As for the trigger, I agree that it looks like an early M70 trigger, and although state-of-the-art--one of the first commercial override triggers--in its day, the early M70 trigger looks primitive by today's standards--partly because it is not encased in a trigger housing. When placed beside many modern triggers--like those by Jewell, Rifle Basix, or Kepplinger to list only three--it looks primitive to my eye. Others will disagree....

I do agree that change for the sake of change is not improvement (at least not necessarily). It is noteworthy that you see no decline in quality from your mid-1950s L46 actions and the later A1 actions. That's good and, I suspect, unusual in the annals of commercial sporting rifle evolution. Is the quality of today's 85s and the just-preceding 75s equal to that of the early Sako actions?

 

[stonecreek]

Given my choice of any of the Sako short actions I would take the L461/A-I over the others. It has the internal magazine I prefer, and while it is supposed to hold six .222-sized cartridges I own one which takes seven-down. The extra capacity can be handy if in a very dense, very busy colony of prairie dogs or ground squirrels.

However, that doesn't mean that I find the earlier L46 unattractive. I suppose the jewel of the L46's might be the handful of early actions made with the "turned down" safety on the LH side of the action. The safety would clear a scope, but was lighter and less obtrusive than the rolling bolt shroud safety of the later L46's.

 

[topgear]

The L46's really shine in the small things - like matching the action opening size exactly to the cartridge size. The L46 in the short magazines are an example of this with the action opening and magazine tailored exactly to the size of the cartridge being used. i.e. the short magazine L46's in .22 hornet, .25-20 and 7x33 are exact for that cartridge - you won't fit even a .222 in them! - that's pretty cool.

But like Stonecreek mentioned its really a matter of preference. I'd argue once you get into what you guys call the "stoeger" era/CNC age things are a little less "custom" or "hand finished". Sako rifles with black pistol grip caps just feel like a custom rifle when picked up too me, later ones don't. But everyone has their own opinion.

 

[blackjack]

Hello South Pender & Paulsonconstruction,