-
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
what changed with Garcia?
- Thread starter dbyrne
- Start date
Sako Collectors Club Discussion Forum
- Admin
- #2
Barrel length stayed the same. It was not until the late Stoeger era that some barrels were cut to 22.5".
The contours of the stock became heavier, as did the contour of the barrels (although some late pre-Garcia barrels were heavier). For example, an early pre-Garcia barrel on a Finnbear typically measures at or just under .600" at the muzzle, whereas a Garcia will run about .640" at the muzzle. On the standard models the polish and blue was not as slick. The fixed sling swivels were replaced with quick detachable studs. And of course the third lug was dropped from the L61R action at roughly the time of the Garcia take-over. Later Garcias adopted a slightly higher stock comb. The checkering pattern on the standard sporter was changed slightly.
Many of these changes were phased in with quite a few guns in the "transition" era showing mixed features. For instance, I now own three Garcias with fixed sling studs and three lug bolts. I also have a couple of late pre-Garcias with heavier barrel contours.
The contours of the stock became heavier, as did the contour of the barrels (although some late pre-Garcia barrels were heavier). For example, an early pre-Garcia barrel on a Finnbear typically measures at or just under .600" at the muzzle, whereas a Garcia will run about .640" at the muzzle. On the standard models the polish and blue was not as slick. The fixed sling swivels were replaced with quick detachable studs. And of course the third lug was dropped from the L61R action at roughly the time of the Garcia take-over. Later Garcias adopted a slightly higher stock comb. The checkering pattern on the standard sporter was changed slightly.
Many of these changes were phased in with quite a few guns in the "transition" era showing mixed features. For instance, I now own three Garcias with fixed sling studs and three lug bolts. I also have a couple of late pre-Garcias with heavier barrel contours.
I believe it's been pointed out before here that the checkering became more predictably uniform during the Garcia era. Also, that wood quality may have picked up just a little - in that fewer of the 'plain janes' were likely to pop up.
I think it's important to recognize that not all the Garcia changes have to be viewed as bad. While I don't really care for the looks of the later higher comb, they do make the use of a bigger bell scope a little more comfy, for example.
I think it's important to recognize that not all the Garcia changes have to be viewed as bad. While I don't really care for the looks of the later higher comb, they do make the use of a bigger bell scope a little more comfy, for example.
I agree that we are usually a little rough on Garcia. For ME, it was mostly the bolt issues going from the 3-lug to a 2 -lug. The Finn engineers must have had a good reason for that third lug. A lot of people don't care, or see any use for it, but when they put in a 3-lug action/receiver and add a 2 lug bolt, something just doesn't seem complete to me. I think any good additions or features after the pre-'72 would yield a trade-off somewhere else if you looked real close. Yet, there's nothing like a SAKO out of the box.
The preceding was just my opinion.
S-A
The preceding was just my opinion.
S-A
- Admin
- #5
I agree with Hayseed on the quality of checkering and wood becoming more consistent in the Garcia era. Many F.I. Deluxe stocks were as plain as your spinster great aunt, and I've see a few atrocious checkering overruns on F.I. sporters.
As opposed to Sala's view on the three lug bolt, I think that Sako decided to get rid of it because it was simply a hold-over from the basic Mauser 98 design and provided no real benefit. The two shorter actions never had it, and as is plain from over thirty years of field testing, the two-lug bolt gives up nothing in strength or safety to the three lug bolt. Machining the rear lug recess into the receiver bridge must be a bear, so getting rid of the third lug surely saved some production time and cost. Like Sala, however, I'll take the three over the two in a heartbeat:wink2:.
As opposed to Sala's view on the three lug bolt, I think that Sako decided to get rid of it because it was simply a hold-over from the basic Mauser 98 design and provided no real benefit. The two shorter actions never had it, and as is plain from over thirty years of field testing, the two-lug bolt gives up nothing in strength or safety to the three lug bolt. Machining the rear lug recess into the receiver bridge must be a bear, so getting rid of the third lug surely saved some production time and cost. Like Sala, however, I'll take the three over the two in a heartbeat:wink2:.
stonecreek,
One of my L61R's has that flat-faced cross bolt, which I thought was a good idea and soon found myself taking actions and barrels off to make sure the face was in the proper alignment. To my disappointment, the rest were round. One exception is a Deluxe stock I have from '71 (a replacement from the factory [ $85] for a .375 H&H. That has a separate flat plate behind the round cross bolt.
Thanks for that bit of information.
S-A
One of my L61R's has that flat-faced cross bolt, which I thought was a good idea and soon found myself taking actions and barrels off to make sure the face was in the proper alignment. To my disappointment, the rest were round. One exception is a Deluxe stock I have from '71 (a replacement from the factory [ $85] for a .375 H&H. That has a separate flat plate behind the round cross bolt.
Thanks for that bit of information.
S-A
- Admin
- #7
I don't think you have to pull them apart -- just look for the open-centered nut on the left side. All of the flats I've seen had this nut, and the rounds all have the closed center nut. But remember, this is Sako we're talking about, so they are sure to throw a curve every now and then!
I'm going to guess that your flat-faced gun also has the "S" shaped magazine release and a barrel which measures no more than .600" at the muzzle?
I'm going to guess that your flat-faced gun also has the "S" shaped magazine release and a barrel which measures no more than .600" at the muzzle?
Stonecreek,
No "S" shaped magazine releases in the bunch. Didn't measure , but barrels were all the same . No HB's, for sure. It was time to clean the trigger assembly's anyway and do a little routine maintenance all around. :bigsmile3:
S-A
No "S" shaped magazine releases in the bunch. Didn't measure , but barrels were all the same . No HB's, for sure. It was time to clean the trigger assembly's anyway and do a little routine maintenance all around. :bigsmile3:
S-A
I'll be darned. Like I think Stonecreek was refering to, the ones I have with 'flats' on the bolts also have the open center nut. The possible exception may be my 71 vintage 375, but I'm not anxious to pull it apart. Dick
- Admin
- #12
Just when you think you've got Sakos figured out . . . .
