1. For reasons unknown to us at SCC, it seems that SCC members who are AT&T users experience issues with emails and personal messages when using our forum. This is not unique to SCC and several other internet sites are reporting the same issues. Todo10, the company who helps us with the forum and hosting, have file a complaint with AT&T but we are not convinced AT&T will do anything about it. The only way around this is to register and use another email address not connected to AT&T. We are sorry for any inconveniences this might cause! Please check this link for more info: https://forums.att.com/t5/AT-T-Internet-Email-Security/Blocked-Domain-Email-or-IP-address-Questions-and-Discussion/td-p/4961060/page/28 More info will come when we know more! With kind regards Jim aka L61R
    Dismiss Notice

.308 Carbine Weight difference

Discussion in 'Sako Mannlichers and Carbines' started by robinpeck, Jan 23, 2017.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. robinpeck

    robinpeck Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    25
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    State/Region:
    CA New Brunswick
    I have two vg-exc. cond. .308 full-wood carbines: an L579 Forester made around 1970 and an AII made around 1981. They are the two bottom (and to the right) rifles in the photos with a .243 from 1966 above (and on the left). The older .308 is the bottom one with the glossy stock. The two don't look all that different...although they must be different enough I suppose, because I am amazed at the weight difference. According to my scale the earlier .308 carbine weighs 6 lb. 6 oz. (the same as the .243) and the later AII .308 weighs 7 lb. 6 oz. That is a difference of exactly one entire pound and you really do notice it. (I also note the muzzle caps are different, although the more recent AII has an end cap with more or less the same form as the much earlier 1966 .243). I am wondering where all that weight came from?...after all, the stocks are approx. the same size, neither being the slim earlier version as in the .243 to the left. I guess it's mostly in the slightly thicker barrel and maybe some slight changes in the receiver as well?
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2017

  2. ricksengines

    ricksengines Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    60
    Country Flag:
    USA
    State/Region:
    US Florida
    Wow. They are really nice. Thanks for posting.

    rick
     
  3. robinpeck

    robinpeck Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    25
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    State/Region:
    CA New Brunswick
    I just came back from buying a battery for my calipers and I'm going to measure various diameters on those two .308 barrels.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  4. stonecreek

    stonecreek SCC Secretary SCC Board Member

    Messages:
    5,252
    Likes Received:
    234
    Country Flag:
    USA
    State/Region:
    US Texas
    I think you'll find that nearly all of the weight is in the barrel, with perhaps a few ounces in the stock.

    Heavier barrels are good for holding zero on long strings of shots, and for dampening recoil. But neither of those are attributes one is normally looking for in a full stock carbine, which was designed for quickness and handiness. I feel that Sako made a mistake by switching to heavier barrels on these otherwise trim little carbines.
     
    iwanna likes this.
  5. robinpeck

    robinpeck Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    25
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    State/Region:
    CA New Brunswick
    So when did they switch to the heavier barrel?...according to my rifles, its sometime in the decade between 1970 and 1981.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2017
  6. vigo

    vigo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    18
    Country Flag:
    USA
    State/Region:
    US Oregon
    Hello Robin,
    There are probably several factors involved that result in the weight difference between your two .308 full-stocks. If you really want to know the difference, I would suggest you remove the barreled action from the stock of each and compare the weight of the stock and barreled action against each other. I believe I know what causes the difference but would like to see the results of the weights of the two stocks and two barreled actions before putting my head in noose here. Carl
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  7. robinpeck

    robinpeck Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    25
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    State/Region:
    CA New Brunswick
    I think I'll have time on Wed. to do that...weights and measures.
     
  8. iwanna

    iwanna Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    19
    Country Flag:
    USA
    State/Region:
    US Minnesota
    Yeah, a gentleman I know would probably say, "That's a 2-shot gun!" (Barrel heats up--POI starts to 'ladder')

    Well, so be it, I like the light-barrel ones better, too. Most hunting is a one-shot deal anyway. Or, in my case, a no-shot deal.
     
  9. robinpeck

    robinpeck Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    25
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    State/Region:
    CA New Brunswick
    I note that with the new Sako 85 carbines (Black Bear, Grizzly, Kodiak) the somewhat heavy Sako barrel is now fluted for lightness. And I think it also looks very good. Better late than never.
     
  10. robinpeck

    robinpeck Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    25
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    State/Region:
    CA New Brunswick
    .308 carbine barrel approximate dimensions in mm

    1970 (1/8 in. longer than 1981 barrel)
    At Receiver: 27.68
    100mm from Receiver 18.88
    At Barrel Band: 17.69
    100mm from Muzzle 16.66
    Muzzle: 15.80

    1981
    At Receiver: 28.63
    100mm from Receiver 20.47
    At Barrel Band: 19.
    100mm from Muzzle 18.
    Muzzle: 17.

    Weights later.
     
  11. Cali

    Cali Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    3
    Country Flag:
    USA
    State/Region:
    US Vermont
    I can't speak to those specific rifles but can tell you my friend has an AIII in 270 (1980 - 85 ) and the bulk and weight of that one is disappointing. I have to agree with Stonecreek much of the appeal of the Sako carbine was lost in the engineering changes to the later models. Not sure what people were thinking.
     

Share This Page

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Okay More information