Sako quality over the years.

[Guest]

I would like to start by saying I love Sako rifles and especially the short action one's. I know that over the years Sako has been taken over by many different companys such as Garcia, Stoeger and Barretta etc.

My question is besides collectability values have Sako's retained their quality by these different company's? Quality wise what years were the best for accuracy, fit and finish etc?

I would think that with better machining and better high tech equipment and metals these guns could actually improve but I don't know. Old hand made pieces maybe made up for technology?

Im not lookng for a mines better than your debate I just want to know which one's to buy when I see them.

Thanks

Dave

 

[Guest]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, Sako has always been Sako. Stoeger, Garcia , et al were just various importers. My own 2 cents? They've never made another rifle as good as the "L's"; at least in terms of pure beauty of workmanship and overall quality.[/FONT]





-----Original Message-----
From: biggums

 

[Guest]

I'll second that. Regards, Rick.

 

[Guest]

Until the Beretta corporation bought controlling interest in Sako (and Tikka, combining them into a single manufacturer), the changes from "Firearms International", to "Garcia", to "Stoeger" were simply changes in the U.S. importer. However, it is true that a number of changes in the actual rifles occured more-or-less in tandem with the change in U.S. distributors.

The Riihimaki guns of the 1950's usually had rather nice wood with a lighter stain. When the "new generation" of "three-number" L-actions was introduced, the wood quality was similar, but they soon went to a much darker stain that I felt was not quite as attractive -- however that would be a matter of taste.

The original Firearms International Sakos had high luster blue jobs, even in the standard grades. They also had a slimmer, more svelte stock configuration and a lighter barrel contour. Shortly after the transfer of the line to Garcia, the manufacturer (presumably at the request of the importer) beefed up the weight of both barrels and stocks, and in an attempt to hold costs down during a period of a weakening dollar, toned down the blue on the standard grades to a lower polish. While all of this sounds like the Garcias were somewhat downgraded, that is not necessarily the case. I've seen some truly amatuerish checkering jobs on pre-Garcia guns that I've never seen on Garcias, and on the whole the wood was better on the Garcias (unfortunately, there was also a lot more of it). Still, because of their slimmer lines, I prefer the older guns, even thought he QC might have improved (at least in the wood department) on the Garcias.

When Stoeger took over from Garcia, they introduced what is commonly called an "oil" finished stock in the "Hunter" grade that supplanted the "standard" (however, I believe more accurately that it is a satin lacquer rather than oil). Stoeger also quickly changed over to the A-series actions. These were largely identical to the L-series except that they had a shrouded cocking piece. The blue of this model is somewhat more subdued than earlier guns, at least in the "Hunter" grade -- the Deluxe models have seemed to keep a very high-luster blue throughout.

I have no familiarity with the short lived S-series actions, but soon along came Beretta and introduced an entirely new action called the Model 75. The fit and finish of the Beretta era guns is excellent. This is in part due to sophisticated factory automation, but whatever the reason, their quality is very high. As begun under Garcia, there tends to be more difference in the blue and stocks between the "standards" and the "deluxe" models than seemed to exist in the "pre-Garcia" guns.

Insofar as performance, I have found no consistent difference in any of the iterations. I have FI's, Garcias, and Stoegers (and friends who have Berettas) and any is as likely to shoot as well as another.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the insight on these fine rifles! It seems to go against a conpanies history to change hands so often but company standards remain the same or even improve on any product. Of course there's mechanical and technical advances that can off set that some what.

I just bought a nice older L461 223 Garcia built around 1970. This is my 3rd Sako along with a 243 and 222 both older models.

Lately I'm loving Kimbers offering in 308 but with my past love of Sako's cannot seem to shake the search for a nice 308 Deluxe. My Kimber shoots 1 MOA easy and weighs just over 5 lbs with the Kevlar stock.

For some reason I keep searching for the Sako brand. I think it's because of my love for the L461 little sweet action that is a tack driver on any I've ever shot. Also, I like the light weight of the Sako but the Kimbers closing in on my likes.

 

[Guest]

First, you have to realise that Sako sold these rifles to the world, and that Staeger and Garcia and whatever were just US importers. Outside of the USA no one has ever heard of them.
Here in New Zealand Sako's have always been very popular and highly thought of. It is generally considered that the L series and A series display the best design and highest quality. After this is it considered that the quality lowered to make them cheaper to manufacture.
The rifle made by Beretta, 75's and 85's are looked down on by Sako connosieours, as they are a completely different design, although they are still fine rifles. When it comes to snobbery, everything is perception.

The Vixen's, Forresters, and Finnbears are considered "classic" Sako's.

 

[Guest]

last year I bought a Tikka T-3 Hunter in .308 wityh a Leupold scope to use in "bad weather" . I wanted to save my Sako .308 mannlicher carbine for only good weather conditions. The Tikka shoots really well and took its first 200 pound 8 pointer last hunting season



See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

 

[Guest]

Check out the column in the new American Rifleman on the new 85!