• Hey All! Lately there has been more and more scammers on the forum board. They register and replies to members requests for guns and/or parts or other things. The reply contains a gmail or hotmail address or similar ”anonymous” email addresses which they want you to reply to. DO NOT ANSWER ANY STRANGE MESSAGES! They often state something like this: ”Hello! Saw your post about purchasing a stock for a Safari. KnuckleheadBob has one. Email him at: [email protected]” If you receive any strange messages: Check the status of whoever message you. If they have no posts and signed up the same day or very recently, stay away. Same goes for other members they might refer to. Check them too and if they are long standing members, PM them and ask if the message is legit. Most likely it’s not. Then use the report function in each message or post so I can kick them out! Beware of anything that might seem fishy! And again, for all of you who registered your personal name as username, please contact me so I can change it to a more anonymous username. You’d be surprised of how much one can find out about a person from just a username on a forum such ad our! All the best! And be safe! Jim

Rough, busted, tough old sako's

Sako Collectors Club Discussion Forum

Hey Guys!...great thread here!!...I just did notice the shim on the rear mount as well...I wionder if one could possibly use the same rear mount that would work on the H&R/Sakos and some Coltsman rifles were the the dove tails are completley removed and radiused. My L46 Coltsman Custom Deluxe has Weavers on it, I dont like them, they are just butt ugly and revolting, but they function well and the rifle exibits excellent acuracy with them installed...food for thought I suppose! Bottom line is...If it shoots good then it is what it is, The left wing safety is an attribute one doesn't see much anymore...(Shame on the gunsmith who thought the grinder was a good idea:der:)~Bloo
 
Arrow's Rihimaki

I am amazed and gratified by the interest in my old Sako. Also amazed at the sharp eyes. I tried uploading better detail photos but could not get them to go. Yes it looks like the dovetail is gone. Wonder why? It would be nice if someone could post a photo of how it should be and any further suggestions to fix it as well as possible would be appreciated.
Arrow
 
Last edited:
Arrow's L-46

Tried some more and hope the files go. Well, I am not real disappointed as I did not buy it as a collector nor did I pay "collector" price. I just did not want to ruin it if it did have collector value. Will now concentrate on working with what I have.
Arrow



P1010573.JPG P1010574.JPG P1010575.JPG P1010576.JPG Arrow's L046
 
Bloo.......

You might want to look into Conetrol mounts and rings, for your Coltsman. Especially since it's a Deluxe.

Just ask Stonecreek........they're his FAVORITE!!:nod:
 
Thanks Kevin! Food for thought? I think the menu just got better! I also noticed on Arrows photos that the top of the receiver is not really radiused , the dove tail is just almost gone! I have no idea how one would go about finding a better way other than something custom made. I'm no Smith or machinist tho' ...with the right skills and tools any thing is possible!~Bloo
 
Arrow: I think that the set up you have is about as good as you're going to get, other than possibly replacing the rings with some that are a little nicer. No matter how much time and money you spend on the rear dovetail, it won't work any better and will still not be original, so what would you have gained? There is no reason that it shouldn't shoot just fine as it is. And as you can tell, numerous of us Sako "experts" didn't even notice the modification to the rear dovetail at first glance.

Given the relative scarcity of the left-hand wing safety models, I would still be very proud of it and keep it as much original as possible.
 
Food for thought. I would use Burris Signature Zee rings just in case they have the heights wrong ( this could be a tube bender), The ring inserts would help this out. Or since this was drilled & tapped, I would mount good Rail stock to it, then you could just about any ring
 
You are probably right Stonecreek, but Paulsonconstructions advice is good also. I am thinking to replace the aluminum shim with a new steel one with a proper dovetail milled in , use the screw holes they used for the shim. Then I can eliminate the Weaver mounts and bring the scope lower. As-is it is too high, you have to lift your head a bit to see down the scope. I would ideally like to bond the new shim as well as screw it on. Then some nice rings that fit the dovetails and it might even fool the experts. I will also look into the Burris Zee rings as suggested by m995. If they fit the dovetail and can conform to any out of level condition, maybe I could have it all. I have contacted the dealer for a bit of price relief on this and he seems ashamed to have sold it in that condition so there is some hope on price.( he did not know, so he says). Thanks to all who contributed, I will post an update when this is over.
Arrow
p.s. I just had horrible afterthought - Maybe the weaver base was put on for scope clearance. Does anyone know if that would be an issue with the small 2 x 7 Leupold?
 
Last edited:
To resolve your "clearance" concerns, remove the Weaver bases from the rifle & the rings from the scope. Cut two small wood blocks of roughly .234", .359" & .505" each. These blocks represent the low, medium, & high heights of the Leupold ringmounts measured from top of dovetail to bottom of ring. Place the wood block on the dovetails, then set the scope on them & you will be able to "see" what clearance you have for the scope bell & the bolt handle. Different brands of ringmounts will vary a little, but you still will get a height for clearance with this method & be able to get the right ringmounts. I don't believe Burris offers a ringmount for the Sako with the "signature" type synthetic inserts. If you stay with the Weaver bases, measure the same way but leave the bases on. Then you can get the appropriate height Weaver "style" rings. With the scope you have, I believe the bolt handle/ocular bell clearance will be the determining factor, not the objective bell/barrel clearance. If you mill a new dovetail to attach, be aware that the rear one is narrower & is tapered from front to back (narrower at the back). Would be best to measure another Sako & duplicate it.
 
Last edited:
Machining the piece of steel to properly match the rear Sako dovetail is going to be a challenge due to its taper and the little lug recess at its rear. But you might find a machinist who can do it. IF, and it's a big if, you could find an original rear base for a Sako Finnwolf you might be able to use it to replace your rear spacer, but I'm not sure how closely the height would match. If the Finnwolf base were too thick, then machining a bit off of it wouldn't be a problem. If too thin, it might be possible to discreetly mount a spacer under it.

If your 2-7X Leupold's ocular bell it too large to clear your bolt handle when you mount the scope as low as you want it, then you may have to swap it for a Leupold 2-7X Compact model (now called Ultralight). The Compact/Ultralight series has a smaller ocular bell. I've taken advantage of this on several rifles to get the scope lower than it would otherwise go. If you prefer a little more power, the 3-9X compact also has the smaller ocular bell.

There might be one more "hybrid" way to skin this cat: Millett makes an adapter set which converts their Weaver-type CrosLock rings to clamp directly on the Sako dovetails. These rings work quite nicely. It is possible that you could get rid of the Weaver base ont he front and use the Sako-adapted ring directly on the front dovetail. Then you would use a new thinner shim on the rear to lower the Weaver base into proper alignment. You would use the same Millett Croslock ring on the rear, just with the regular Weaver clamps rather than the Sako clamps. I know that this sounds jury-rigged, but it could be used to effectively lower your scope height and would be visually identical to the set-up you have now.
 
Great news on L-46
The gun shop called this morning and offered to send me a set of Sako Optiloc rings for free and to pay a "reasonable amount" for a gunsmith to fabricate a rear dovetail. The plan would be to braze or silver solder the fabricated mount to the rifle and they assure me the rings will fit and allow clearance from scope to the bolt handle. This sounds too good to be true so "is it"? Does anyone here know of concerns that I should work out with the shop before proceeding? However it turns out, I am lucky to have dealt with a reputable seller. If this is not going to work, they will return my money, not that I want to give up the rifle.
I am so appreciative of all who have contributed their time to help with advice and encouragement. Wonderful site.
Arrow
 
Arrow- I think all you will need are good measurements and a few pictures from a similar vintage rifle-Not to mention a decent smith-Misako
 
Arrow- I am not sure if this will help you any. This is my sako Riihimaki L-46 222 that I bought in 1955(first thing I bought after getting out of school). The scope is an old Lyman All American 6x with bell outside measurement of 1.740. Measurement from dovetail base to tube is .450. I am pretty sure that is low mount. Plenty of clearance between bell and barrel. No problem with bolt clearance. The original rings that came with it were one set of screws and you had to take the scope apart in order to install it. I still have that set of rings plus the peep sight that came with it. You will love your L-46. I also have a Riihimaki Vixon 222 magnum that was purchased in late 1950's by my brother. Good luck with your L-46....Win-52
8474149069_27ca974c54_m.jpg
8448678253_105c72e459_m.jpg
8475238228_9ec51e2498_m.jpg
 
Hi Win-52

That mount on your rifle is actually the 'high' vintage mount. My experience is different to Stonecreek's and I've never got the low mounts to work on an L46 apart from the 'Build for the Boy 2' thread rifle where I filed the bolt handle. BUT I've also never tried the leupold x2-7 so I think that is where the difference lies. i.e small rear ocular bell on the x2-7

If it was me and I wanted to change it I would get a smith to mill me a sako rear dovetail and drill and tap it to the receiver. That way you could use any original sako ringmount. i.e. similar to the set-up on the finnwolf.

Cheers John
 
Also I agree with Stonecreek. Unless you can do this yourself (mill the mount) or have a friend that can I wouldn't worry about it. It adds no value and probably won't be any better from a strength perspective. The best sako's are the using ones that look like they have seen some action and have a story to tell!

Cheers John
 
Arrow...there are many good ideas that have come from highly respected members here...But a question rings out in my mind. Have you shot this rifle yet? Have you been able to determine if the scope and its mount system causes accuracy problems? The recoil of a .222 rem is very low, compared to a .308 win or 30-06 spr. It is still possible that what has been done to your L46, even tho' it causes severe anxiety with the purists and collectors, can still be strong enough to provide consistant accuracy. In other words, as long as it shoots well...no problem. Like the old saying says "if it ain't Broke..."

The use of a Finnwolf rear dovetail base would seem to be the best alternative, but there will be pitfalls towards the unknown as far as all the retrofitting that will take place. Valuation will not be complimented by one fix any more than the next...Take her to the range, to the field, find out if she even needs any of it...like Topgear implies...she may have a wondeful story to tell you..to show you~Bloo
 
My question is - why would anyone do such a dumb thing ? If who ever wanted to put weaver rings on a Sako, Weaver makes adapter bases that slide right on the Sako dovetail. Dah..
 
Arrow's Sako Rihmaki .222
I felt obliged to complete the discussion I started while asking for help with this rifle. The one with the rear scope mount dovetail removed. I mounted the scope and shot it at the range. First thing I noticed was difficulty chambering some factory loads. Actually more than difficulty, some cartridges just would not fit. The second thing was that rounds did not feed smoothly from clip to chamber. Most needed tweeking with a finger. Accuracy was so--so. Started O.K. but group opened up. Maybe the mount was moving a bit. Anyway, I made the hard decision and shipped it back to the seller. Thanks all for you helpful comments, so sorry it came finally to nothing. Love the feel of the little rifles though, maybe I will find another. I notice lots for sale in U.S.A. but they are scarce here in Canada.
Arrow
 

Latest posts

Back
Top