Sako vs Tikka - Is the Sako truly better
Both
Sako &
Tikka have a great reputation, & quite often those that could afford either will just buy a sako & be done with it. Those who cant easily afford it, will need to justify the extra.
Currently, Tikka is less than half the price of a Sako in New Zealand. Im told Tikkas are cheaper here than most of Europe, where the difference is only a few hundred dollars apart, not thousands.
Ive owned both, & would like to share what I believe is the naked truth.
Is the Sako worth twice the Tikka price?
In my opinon, NO, its not. Please see my list of reasons below.
Probably emphasised by the fact that Tikkas are so under-priced here in NZ thanks to
Beretta NZ being competitive I guess, but that just means more buying opportunity for us kiwis, we benefit for once! :)
Should you buy a sako even if you could afford it?
This might shock some of you, but, again, in my opinion, NO, get a Tikka & use the rest to buy a good scope, good ammo, get the barrel professionally fluted if you want to, customise your rifle in other ways, etc etc.
Or get 2 tikka rifles! :)
Im not specifically comparing each of the models, but my comments should hopefully help anyone trying to make that all important decision of whether to spend the extra dosh on a Sako or NOT.
So its not about comparing a Varmint to a Hunter to Finnlight to a T3 to a Tactical etc, its more of a general guide on the brand's perceived vs real value in price. Ive never owned the A7 etc so wont comment on them, which though cheaper in price seem to be even more of a waste given I dont quite see what they cost extra for, they look like Tikkas in a Sako stock.
Reasons why I believe Tikka wins over Sako:
1) Identical barrel & chamber quality
The grunt of your accuracy is in the barrel, both Tikka & Sako barrels have the same quality of hammer-forging done in the same factory with the same materials right there in Finland.
2) Bolt face is matched to breech with the same accuracy
The bolt sits to the same 0.01" accuracy for each Tikka or Sako rifle & is factory matched for that particular rifle. So a tikka locks in the cartridge just as well as a Sako.
Yes, a Tikka bolt has more plastic in it, & Sako all metal, but for this so called 'better quality', the Sako is twice the price. If they both shoot the same & pretty much last longer than an average barrel, then would you worry about the plastic in the bolt?
I dont, & it works fine.
3) Identical Trigger assembly
Plastic or metal, the basic trigger assembly is the same. Contrary to opinoin, the trigger breaks just as nicely & I swear if you tried both groups you couldnt tell them apart.
4) Weaver Picatinny style mounts
Generic rings can be used on Tikka rifles, & tikka rings are cheaper. The sako rings cost more & generic rings cant be used on a sako, you have to buy very expensive rings if you need something that your rifle didnt come with. Are the tikkas rings 'bad'? No, they hold fine. The sako rings might be theoretically better, but the point is, they dont actually make any difference, so why pay more?
5) Lighter in weight for the same price
The finnlight is the lightest rifle, & hey well done to Sako, but when you look at your average hunter & varmint models, the Tikkas are actually very light in comparison. So if you wanted something light, you have to buy a Finnlight for Sako, OR a Tikka for half the price!
6) Out of the box grouping guaranteed
The sako's guaranteed grouping is smaller than a Tikka, agreed. But hey, how many brands of ammo have you had to experiment with your rifle to select the ammo that gets you your 'guaranteed grouping'?
Now here is the point:
Until you have found the correct ammunition for your rifle, you cant assess the guaranteed grouping performance of your rifle. So it doesnt matter how badly your rifle shot with the bad shooting ammo, because when you find the rightt ammo, both the rifles shoot equally well.
Arguably, not so favourable ammo would shoot better in the sako than the equally 'not so favourable' ammo would in your Tikka, if that makes sense... which is really impossible for you to ever compare or evaluate.
In my case, I tried 4 ammo brands for my Sako. The Remington shot like crap, at around 2 inches 100 metres. The winchester was aceptable at 1-1.5" with the occassional flyer which was probably me. The Lapua did well with 0.5-1" & Federal did well with the expected consistent 0.5"
For my Tikka, I only had to try 2 brands due to sheer luck, turns out I started with the right brand so I got the rifle to group its best quicker. The Winchester shot 0.5-1" out of a brand new rifle, first 3 shots after bore sighting & I couldnt believe how lucky I was, smack bang easy peezy.
So both my Tikka & my Sako gouped 0.5 inches with their respective ammunition.
Both are capable of grouping better than their so called 'guaranteed grouping'
The Tikka groups just as well as the sako with the right ammo, so how can one justify the Sako as being the better grouping rifle?!?
One might argue the Sako will group better with a wider range of ammunition, I cant be sure of that, it could be true, but how many of us have tried every single brand out there to compare?
Better long distance performance from Sakos, I hear you say. Hmm, well, maybe you have a point there. I havnt tried 600 metres with either but I doubt it will matter because MOA varaince stays constant, it shouldnt matter any more than your own handshake at such long ranges. The wind, the projectile, & your own shooting skills matter more in those cases I think.
7) Better Build quality & longer life ?
Actually, my Sako started rusting & kept rusting in very specific places, before my CZ did. Weird isnt it?! Now its minor rust mind you nothing to worry about, but hey, it happened. Well I tried everything, the whole lubrication, storage space, moisture, cleaning, checking for scratches, no nothing. Internal bore was fine, just the outside had small particles developing rust. Its just the way it was. The tikka didnt rust outside but I could see slight loss of bluing marks, & was told there might be some slight pitting in the barrel. Given both rifles were different calibres & different amounts of use, I agree its not a fair 1 to 1 comparison, but thats not the point.
The point is, the Sakos rust too, & a cheap CZ didnt. If the sako is so damn indestructible, why did it start to rust, you know what I mean... I had not taken it out hunting at that stage, the CZ infact had already been! Dud piece you think, well, ok, lets say its a faulty piece, but then hey what about all that 'consistecy' we get promised, either way its a bit of a shame dont you think ??
8) Good resale value despite cheap price, ie. less overall depreciation
Despite being a cheap rifle, the Tikka holds value incredibly well. I can prove to you with numbers that you are actually financially better off owning a Tikka, should you want to sell it.
Average price for a new Sako is currently NZ$3400. A new Tikka averages $1300.
Used 10 year old Sako in good condition is currently averages $1800.
Used Tikka in good condition around $800.
Depreciation on Sako is close to 50% value & you lost 1600 bucks! With the Tikka, you are only loosing $500.
And here is the kicker, even if Tikka looses its value down to 50% & is worth $650, you still loose $650, & not $1600 - Big Difference aint it! :)
Yes, there are 'differences' between the 2, but is it worth it?
'Differences' dont automatically make something better. It can be better for you for a different reason though. For example, I find the Stainless Synthetic Finnlight to be the most comfortable rifle for my body. The stock is super light, beautiful nice rubberised grip, fits naturally. Barrel balances brilliantly, the length is just right & its just a dream to hold up, like a part of your body.
But how much more comfortable than the Tikka is it for me? Well, not twice as comfortable, so I wont pay twice the price, & then loose half the money if I do choose to sell it!
Yes, if you felt the finnlight was out of this world & everything else was just not close, then by all means go get a finnlight & fork out the cash. But dont be so certain that youre paying for 'a much better rifle', thats my point.
The Tikka is a very capable rifle, & you would be hard pressed to find a better rifle in its price class, in fact, I doubt you will succeed in finding a better rifle than a Tikka for what it offers at its price point.
Please dont think I hate sakos; Im sorry if the post sounded that way, that was not the intention. Im merely trying to make some points in the Tikka's favour. Both rifles are very good, but I feel Tikka offers way more.
Please share your thoughts...
If you have had both, please tell us what do you think worked? Do you agree with my opinion re the Tikka being a better buy, or do you think the Sako at twice the price truly is a better quality rifle for reasons I havnt yet found? Please post your comments here.
Happy Shooting :)
