Sako .243 for sale in Aus - ladder sights?

[Branxhunter]

I saw this while cruising the web - looks to be in good condition.

http://www.ozgunsales.com/listing/61585/secondhand_sako_l579_forester_243win_posted.html

Around what time period did Sako cease using the ladder-type rear sight? The scope is mounted beautifully low, although I wonder whether that rear sight would be annoying in the view through the scope.

Marcus

 

[deergoose]

buy it !

DeerGoose

 

[stonecreek]

The scope is mounted beautifully low, although I wonder whether that rear sight would be annoying in the view through the scope.

That close to the objective the rear sight will not be at all visible in the sight picture. With low magnification scopes the front sight does "ghost" into the sight picture, which is the reason that so many people remove the sight hoods from their Sakos (which are subsequently misplaced and lost forever).

 

[icebear]

That would have to be a very, very early L579. The L57's had a ladder sight, but Sako removed the rear sight about the time of the change from L57 to L579. I'm not sure I've ever seen an L579 with a factory rear sight. My best guess would be that the sight was an option at the beginning of L579 production, and they dropped the option when the existing supply of sights ran out.

 

[stonecreek]

That would have to be a very, very early L579.

Not necessarily. Sako put open sights, even the ladder-style sights, on most of its rifles not shipped to the United States. It seems that scope usage became common in the U.S. prior to other places, so Sako catered to the demand.

Also, the rifle above exhibits the three-point checkering pattern on the forearm which was not adopted until the early 1970s; the grip has no plastic cap as with most post-1969 stocks; the floorplate has the rounded tang of post-1968 actions; and the magazine release seems to be consistent with production from the early 1970s. Also, the lack of the Bofors Steel mark on the barrel indicates post-1968 production.

 

[icebear]

Good points. I was seeing things from a US perspective, which in this case was too narrow.