Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Sako 85 ejection failure

I think the reason it's an issue is in Europe they use 56mm obj moonscopes that have to be mounted high. That's why Sako's low Optilocks will handle a 50mm obj. I've noticed their one pc ringmounts are really bad for scope clearance. I use the 2 pc with lows and no problems on the current guns. Even long action 7mmRM. Cheek weld is fine on that gun even with the low comb classic stock.

Bolt face Sako 85 260



1" low Optilock ring mounts and 42mm obj....no issues with ejection on both 85 SA's that I have set up like this

I have a M85 Black Bear chambered 9.3x62 with a 30mm tube S&B Zenith mounted in the newer Optilock Ringmounts. The scope tube center is mounted 1.64" over the bore centerline above the chamber. I shot this rifle with the scope mounted and with it removed to address the iron sights. So far, it has proven to be the most reliable "out the box" production rifle I've handled when it comes to feeding. The Zenith is markedly bulkier over the ejection port compared to a standard 1" Leupold hunting scope with normal turrets. My rifle cycles exceedingly well with no issues caused by the Zenith.

As to scope height, I mount a rifle same as I mount an upland shotgun, without any stock crawl. I find my combination to be a perfect height for my mount, I'd not want it any higher or lower. The dimensions of the Sako stock place my line of sight down the center of the scope tube using the ringmounts. If I were a certified member of the stock crawlers guild, I'd have trouble with the Sako ergonomics.

Best

Gramps2,, keep us posted on how you get on with Beretta. Im rather interested in this as Im (maybe)looking at getting an 85 in 270 or maybe wsm/ finnlight shortly.

Ive also owned a 75 model 270wsm and 2 other 85 model 7mm08,s (besides my current 7mm08)which performed perfectly. However, I had an older sako hunter 308 which was the model before the 75. It had the 2 bolt lugs.. this rifle had ejection issues where the fired case would hit the scope and fall back into the action.It was sent back to the sako agent and fixed.

All the above rifles had 36mm objective lenses mounted in old style medium height mounts which are significantley lower than the so called "low" optilok mounts supplied with new 85,s.

I'll add:

I just inspected mine by cycling fired cases. Cycling fast or slow, the extractor claw holds the case against the bolt face until it strikes the ejector. The ejector only makes the case tilt up high enough to clear the outer lip of the ejection port, and then at that point, the claw extractor pulls and flips the case in its direction which is the correct angle to clear the outer lip of the ejection port and go under the scope body. The force of ejection is completely controlled by the force used to operate the bolt, but the angles stay the same. If I reduce the force to bare minimum, the angles stay the same, but gravity pulls the case back into the port.

Same occurs using live rounds, but the added weight of the bullet requires additional force on the bolt to overcome.

I'd be curious if something was amiss with your claw extractor. Maybe it has a weak hold on the case against the bolt face and is overpowered by the ejector. Possibly this limits its ability to pull and eject the spent case towards its position. If this were the case, I could see how the ejector could dominate the process and push the case through the extractor straight up into the scope body. Maybe a combination of things, including the case dimensions itself, could weaken the extractor hold on the case causing such issue.

I've cycled Lapua, Norma and Hornady through mine so far. I'm unsure why a 270 case would have issue over a 9.3x62 case. There must be more to it than just the chambering. Just some thoughts anyway.

Best

The length of the standing ejector possibly needs to be just right or the timing could be off. I'm not an engineer but don't understand why some do it everytime and others never will.

MCT3....thanks for the pics!

Good Evening Campers,

Heard back from Beretta today. Their fix was to slide scope fore and aft until "right position" for ejection is found. What I found is this fix only makes it hit my scope with the very edge of the case mouth, or it hits my scope with the shoulder of the case. Let Beretta know this afternoon that this did not solve problem, and that I wanted gun fixed right, another gun, or my money refunded. I know what you guys are thinking, yea, good luck with that. If you will look at the photo of a model 85 bolt face that MCT3 provided, you can see what I think is part of the problem with 85's. The bottom of the bolt face is completely open. This was necessary for the so-called controlled feed of the 85. As GaryVA pointed out, only the extractor is holding the case being pulled rearward. If extractor/spring are not strong enough the case may slide down face of bolt causing front of case to stick upward. Now for those of you who have 75's. Your bolt face is enclosed by a ring of steel except for the ejector cut. This means that the case being ejected can not slide down as it is held in place by the extractor and that bottom ring of steel. IMHO the bolt of the 75 is much better than the 85. If you have a 75 and an 85 just compair them and see which one you think is the strongest. You don't have the controlled feed feature, but that is BS anyway since without the claw extractor which grips the base of the cartridge from the time it is stripped from the magazine, that claw never lets go of the cartridge until it hits the fixed ejector. Sako 85's claim this, but fall far short of the original Mauser or model 70 Win design. It's really a push feed until round is almost in chamber. I have also just noticed that the fixed ejector rubs the inside of the cut on my 85 bolt. I may have just discovered what's wrong with my rifle. In rubbing the inside of the cut, the case is flipped up and somewhat left(inward) instead of up and outward. Just compaired bolts again, the 75 is a hands down better design. I sure wish that Sako had never gone with the half ass control feed BS on their 85's. I'll keep you guys posted.

Good Evening,

G2

Please keep us posted.I love Sako rifles but really hate Beretta.I will never again buy a new Sako as long as Beretta owns them.I had a terrible experience with Beretta customer service with my first Sako 75.

The only thing I have been able to turn up researching is that some have had some luck replacing the extractor/spring.I'm no smith but it would seem that since some have problems and some do not,a slightly out of spec extractor/spring could be the problem.Also take the bolt apart and give it a good cleaning.I do agree with you about the design.

I might even try to find a competent smith to do it if Beretta doesn't satisfy you with a replacement or refund.Try to find someone who works on Sako and is aware of the issue.Beretta is likely to even tell you they replaced it and not do a thing.They lied to me and my GS owner to keep from replacing a rifle they damaged.Lucky for me the GS owner stepped up and refunded my money.

After my experience with Beretta,I didn't even shoot my other 75 for over a year and it took anothet couple years before I didn't get mad just thinking about it.I do now however really enjoy my 75 and have since added an L579 to the collection.I will own more Sako rifles in the future but they will be pre Beretta.

2 sako 85 finnlights 25-06 and 300 wsm. no issues with either.

As Gary says, some, if not most of the 85 do actually get a very good grip of the catrtridge rim and are effectively as CRF as any other rifle, and more CRF than many rifles with a full length extractor. Just having a full length extractor isn't enough to ensure you have CRF. This grip then also tends to result in horizontal displacement on ejection. I do think though it is easier to ensure tension on the rim with the full length extractor, but i don't know that there is anything inherently wrong with the Sako design, and certainly the Sako extractor has a well deserved reputation for strength. They just need make absolutely certain they get that extractor right during manufacturing, and some are not going to work right and some will need to be fixed. Obviously longer cartridges are going to be more of a problem, not least because they will require a tighter grip by the extractor. Certainly the vast majority of Sako 85 work as intended, which is better than some other "CRF" mauser-type designs i have seen.

Perhaps as Mr Clark suggests, the real problem with the Sako rifle is Beretta. Beretta is certainly the reason i no longer own a Sako. US, Europe, Australasia - it doesn't matter where you go, Beretta's customer service of Sako products is extremely disappointing!

I have owned a dozen or so Sako rifles over the past 20+ years with no ejection issues (knock on wood) but lets not talk about the 5 shot MOA guarantee bullchit ...................Hb

Sako 3...problems 0

Sell the Sako, buy a Tikka. Apply the extra money towards good glass.

dogcatcher223,

I already have a T3 Lite in 30/06, to me it's the best buy out there. OH [bleep], I probably just PO the Savage shooters out there. Well sorry guys. DHG, we will just have to agree we disagree about what true CRF really is. I do agree that a lot is expected of the extractor on an 85 I am certainly glad that your 85 is working fine. Do you have a 75 as well? If you get the chance to look face on at a 75 bolt and an 85 bolt you can see what I refer to as a lower ring of steel on the 75 that captures the case and aides the extractor in holding the case in battery from the time it leaves the mag, through chambering, firing, extraction, and ejection. I have both guns, I am not trying to put down the 85, but if you will compare the two, I think you too will agree that the 75 is a stronger, less prone to problems design. The ejection problem that some 85 owners and some 75 owners are experiencing could have been avoided if the fixed ejector had been left in the 9:00 position as they were on pre 75 models. If you are looking head on at either bolt with ejector cut at bottom, you will see a locking lug on the right. Just above that lug would have been the perfect place for the ejector cut. It would have weakened nothing, and been perfect for a 9:00 position fixed ejector. This was probably caused by a young design engineer wanting to put a feather in his cap with this "NEW SAKO DESIGN". I would almost be willing to bet that older Finn riflemakers were questioning the "new design".

A good day to all,
G2

Sounds like your bad feelings toward Beretta may be skewing your reasoning a bit on the Sako 85 when comparing it to other CRF bolt guns in function.

In terms of CRF, be it a 98, 70, 77 or the 85; all of them mechanically hold the top round into the mag box and all of them require the bolt face to push the round forward into the ramp to clear free from the mag box. The round must travel a distance forward to go up and out of the mag box. Once free of the mag box, it is under the claw extractor, be it a full length extractor or be it a Sako extractor. A magnum action with a magnum chambering will have more forward travel to clear the box than a short action with small chambering. Some combinations have a steeper climb than others, but the concept is the same on all.

I've experienced 85s in 338, 375 and now 9.3x62. All functioned correctly out the box with the last being near perfection. At no time does the round leave the mag box in front of the claw extractor. When chambering, the round is riding in the mag box against the bolt face just below and going behind the claw extractor until it clears the mag box, and then it is against the bolt face captured by the claw extractor. Same as my 98s, same as my 70s, and same as my 77s. The difference with the Sako claw is that it does not require pinching or being mechanically undercut to ride over a round dropped directly into the chamber.

Nothing wrong with a push feed, but that is a different animal as the round is in front of the extractor when it comes out the box, and it is under spring pressure to eject once it clears the port opening. Two different animals.

Some of the biggest offenders I've experienced, when it came to production rifles that reliably fed off the assembly line, were full length extractor Mauser variants which required skilled adjustments and removal of material to obtain proper functioning. Some required a complete change in geometry of the mag box. When it comes to the production 85, my experience has been most positive. As I've already noted, my most recent 85 came out the box as the single most reliable feeding production rifle I've ever experienced. Every 98, 70, and 77 required varying degrees of skilled adjustment to come anywhere near the reliability of this later bone stock Sako.

I am of the personal opinion that your rifle does not reflect the correct functioning of the 85. No different than how any given Mauser in need of feed work doesn't reflect the correct functioning of the 98. As to your bias toward a push feed 75, that is fine and dandy. But this is no different than you having a bias toward your wife and a particular tie while I have a bias toward my wife and a different tie.

I do hope someone is able to sort out the issue with your rifle. However, I'm still of the opinion that if you are not crowding the port and the round is ejecting straight out the top, then the extractor must not have a proper grasp of the fired case as it is being overpowered by the ejector. I could see a number of things that could weaken its hold on the case. Otherwise, the case should pop up high enough to clear the lip of the port and be flipped toward the extractor at its position on the bolt face. Keep us posted.

Good Luck

Second that.

One aspect I appreciate with my 85 Finnlight 300 WSM; I can control the ejection force with controlled bolt throw. While at the range I can ease the bolt back and the fired case will rattle back into the chamber for manual plucking. While hunting it could be thrown forcibly for positive ejection.

GaryVA I thought that the 85 was a true CRF until a fellow camper pointed something out to me. I just ask that you please try the following: Put a live or dummy round in your magazine, push round down in mag so that bolt can go forward and lock, put muzzle of rifle on floor so that rifle is in verticle position, with rifle in this verticle position raise bolt and pull all the way to the rear, slowly push bolt forward, at about half way forward your round will fall into chamber without the extractor ever getting a hold on it. If you try this same procedure with a model 70 Winchester that has pre64 type CRF the round will not fall into chamber. This is because the extractor on the model 70 engages the round just as it begins to push it out of the magazine and holds it through the loading, firing, extraction until ejection. The 85 extractor does not engage the round until it is much further forward in the loading cycle. I tried this several times with my 85 and two Win 70 CRF's I have, and it was true every time. Like I stated earlier, I had not noticed this myself, until another camper told me about it. I am NOT SAYING ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER, just pointing out the difference.

Have a good day,
G2

At what point might you deploy this practice while hunting or vigorously chasing your prey?

Personally,in 35 years of hunting I have never had a problem with a push feed bolt.I have never had a bolt of any kind jam.I never saw the need for CRF.I thought though, that the whole arguement for CRF was reliability of feeding from any angle,even if knocked down while hunting dangerous game.

To answer your question,possible while getting up, after being knocked down by something I or my guide should have already put down.