What is the measured height from the firing pin at the chamber to the tube center of the scope?
Have you the skill to remove the extractor, spring and plunger?
Did you clean, inspect and lube these parts?
Did you prove or disprove your extractor claw was within spec having no defects at the claw?
Did you prove or disprove the spring was weak, or there was a defect such as machining burr or excessive old assembly lube causing the parts to be sluggish and hang?
If you determined the spring was insufficient, did you attempt to replace it with a stronger Gre-Tan?
So far, those who have experienced a perceived high ejection, and have taken those steps, have either completely corrected such ejection or have made marked improvements so that rifle is reliable. Worst case scenario for those, would be under hard forced ejection, one may see damage to case neck from hitting turret outside of chamber, but casing would eject. For those reloading, don't hard eject while shooting groups and save that for follow up shots while hunting.
Otherwise, as stated earlier, mine has a measured height of 1.55" and it properly clears. Again, mine was disassembled, cleaned, inspected and lubed. I did find the spring tension to be correct, in fact it was text book correct for the function of the claw extractor. If it were not correct out of the box, I see no reason why it could not be corrected. If you like the rifle in all aspects, except for you are experiencing straight up ejection, which is without a doubt, way out of spec. Then I would suggest getting it fixed and live happily with your rifle. I would care less about Beretta USA, as everything discussed so far as a correction can be done for little to no money spent. If you do not care about the rifle, and you just care to vent, then so be it, but at least make an effort for a correction. The time you've spent typing, you could have removed the parts and determined what is off to cause a straight up ejection. For that matter, you may even be experiencing too low an ejection with the case bouncing off the rail causing it to go straight up.
You can search videos and find scores upon scores of functioning M size action 85s chambered in long action having zero function issues. The few having issues are spotty at best, and often are the same few being retold. The vast overwhelming majority run well. You can search any production rifle for ejection issues and find complaints on every single last one. If it doesn't work for you, then get something else. If it does work for you and you'd like to work through your kink, then put some effort in that direction and less time spinning wheels to create smoke and noise.
A Winchester M70EW has a manufacturer price of $1200 vs. a Sako Finnlight having a manufacturer price of $1500. If the Sako better fits you and it works, it may very well be worth the additional $300, especially if you need to put work and parts into the factory Winchester. But, if it doesn't work for you, then there are many other options, just like boots and backpacks.
I've come to the conclusion that you are not trying to work through any kinks to vet your rifle, but you are merely venting because you've run into something you either did not expect, or you have some sort of opinion that a Sako rifle does not need to be vetted and that you should be able to run non-Sako parts to save money and not run into a hitch. You further expect an importer to fall to their knees and agree with you in writing over your complaints of a second hand used rifle. I'd forget them, and take the matter in your hands and attempt the corrections that have shown success. Very simple, few dollars spent. If they do not work for you, then the only avenue in which you are sort of screwed, is you bought a used rifle that is previously transferred. If you had purchased the rifle new, likely you could have had your money refunded and walked away.
Several are attempting to help you out, while others are just bitching a moaning. I may have a need to be in North Carolina next month. I will know shortly. If so, I can offer to bring my own tools and some spare springs, along with solvents and lube. Maybe we can coordinate a meet and we can make a valid attempt to identify the problem and make a correction. However, I do not have any spare extractors at this time, so if that is the issue, I would not have that part on hand to replace.
I'll send you a PM by mid-next week and let you know if I will be in your state. You can then decide if you're interested.
Best
So tell me again, who is it venting?? Sounds like you have some hurt feelings over Sako's design fault being outed.
First of all this is not a second hand used rifle. I bought it new in the box. It is still unfired. And I made note of this previously.
I disassembled the bolt early on and the interior is clean.
The extractor is smooth moving and there is smooth movement of the extractor plunger.
I don't really care what the height from the firing pin hole to the center of the scope tube is. That's a totally irrelevant number. The scope is mounted in medium height Leupold rings using the integral bases and the objective clears the barrel easily. The Zeiss HD5 scope has standard Hunter Turrets. I removed the scope today and as I knew already the brass is not hitting the turrets. It's hitting the turret housing and leaving brass marks. Now really, name for me another production bolt action rifle that has consistent problems over multiple rifles and multiple users, failing to eject brass with such a simple setup.................waiting.
As far as "running non Sako parts to save money" I have no idea what you're talking about and doubt seriously that you do. The only non Sako parts on the rifle are the sling swivels, sling, scope and rings. None of these items, including the rings, are causing the ejection problems. Plain vanilla set up. And the reason for using Leupold rings instead of Sako is bulk and weight, same reason I put them on a Ruger 77. Amazingly the Ruger still ejects empty brass correctly, every time.
I could take the remainder of your comments and questions and filet them as well but it would not change the most importand facts. And those facts are:
1)Sako has a design flaw in the 85M
2)Sako/Beretta refuses to admit it:
Occasionally, we receive customer complaints regarding Sako 85 rifles ejecting spent cases that either strike the scope or strike the scope turret and fall back inside the action of the rifle. This situation is predominately caused by both the scope mounts and type of scope (particularly scopes with extended turrets) installed on the rifle. A secondary consideration is how rigorously the bolt is operated by the user.
Occasionally?? Scope mounts?? How rigorously bolt is operated???(If it's operated "rigorously" enough to rattle the case around in the ejection port I believe that qualifies.)
3)Sako/Beretta lay the problem on the buyer:
Beretta will not consider rifles that exhibit the condition above to be a warranty issue. Provided that the rifle fully extracts and ejects the spent casing, the rifle will be considered functional and serviceable. Sako cannot anticipate every possible scope mounting configuration when designing their rifles. Since the selection and installation of the scope and mounts are determined by the owner, it is the owner�s responsibility to ensure that the system will not interfere with the operation of the rifle."
A reputable rifle manufacturer would not make such statements. Designing your rifle to function with a 1" scope tube, medium rings and standard turrets should be a given.
4)Sako/Beretta reject your and others' claim of a spring fix:
Regarding your specific inquiry, there is no "fix" for this condition as the ejector is not adjustable in this rifle. The comments that you have read regarding "extractor spring pressure" are not valid. The spring pressure does not affect the ejection trajectory of the casing. The bottom line is if the rifle extracts and ejects the casing, it is considered functional.
They just called you and several others liars. According to them ya'll not only don't know what you're talking about, you lied to make it seem you did. They're wrong of course, but the stronger spring just makes the system do something it doesn't want to do; eject the case outward. More later.
5)Sako/Beretta follow up this complete denial of liability and responsibility by suggesting further unwarranted, illogical, inappropriate and irrelevant actions be taken by the consumer:
Our suggestion would be to experiment with different scope mounts and/or type of scope to determine what will work best on your rifle.
Yeah right. Never mind what I'm using is about as average as a C grade in high school. I have 8 or 9 more sets sitting around, guess I'll just have to go thru them all a few times to discover that doesn't work either.
6)It is not the responsibility of the consumer to make this product function properly with normal and anticipated optical components. That is the responsibility of the manufacturer. Sako/Beretta failed. That is not my fault.
7)What I feel to be the both the most important and the most disturbing fact is this. Sako/Beretta continue to market and sell a product they well know has a hard fault.
This afternoon I spent quite a bit of time with the rifle. What I found totally supports the explanation of the problem I gave a couple of posts back. The design can be made to work as is evidenced by both the lack of OBVIOUS problems in some and by the home repair of others. However the design works with great resistance and will not do so at all in some cases.
As far as your offer of assistance goes I appreciate the gesture but I now understand how the system is intended to work and why it does not. I don't know yet if I am willing to
make the rifle work. To send it back to Sako/Beretta Customer Service would be an exercise in futility. Might as well argue with a Democrat about high taxes with an equal chance of success. But to let them off the hook is wrong. I loathe companies that refuse to accept responsibility for obvious errors. And there is no doubt about this being an obvious error in design. Tired of this issue for now but later I'll post other observations I made today and what I learned from them. Although I had one momentary surprise, what I learned only supported what I already knew. Once you get down close and work with it back and forth, up and down, inside and out the quirks become obvious. Every time it works, it almost didn't.
G'night all.
