Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Sako A7 experiences

Would think that after 50 or so years Sako might have ironed out any problems with their dovetail system. If a fella can't manage to tighten up a couple screws on a Sako mount, I wouldn't expect that having 4 screws would be any better. They are tapered and they have a limiting pin to resist any movement. I think any problems would come from using Sako mounts made by other companies - they often are less well made and don't have the limiter pin.

As for the A7 - haven't had the pleasure, but it's built off a modified Sako 75 with the 5shot/1inch guarantee...seems like a winner to me.

I have had no issues with Sako dovetail system either and really like it. I just ordered up a 2 sets of the optilok ring bases (1 piece) for my rifles.

I also never have had a problem with Sako dovetails on over 20 Sako's I've owned. That said, I just bought a A7 in .308 Winny (I will pick it up next week), and I am scope shopping for it. Thinking maybe a Zeiss Conquest 3x9-40 w/Z600 reticle.

Will post pictures and comments when I get it up and shooting.

Bob

DJ. I know your a huge Sako guy and they can do no wrong,I like Sako's too and other than their sorry mounting system which is also way too heavy and bulky, not mention you can't mount your scope low enough. I can find no fault with them. If it's such a fantastic "can't fail" system how come it's not used on every other rifle made? You say it's because were not used to it in the US, I think that's a little thin, if it is a better system everyone would have been using it for years, at least the custom rifle makers would use it wouldn't you think? and I've never read one story of a scope that popped completely off and went banging down over a canyon or a scope that fell off a rifle that was just standing in a rack that was mounted with flimsy screws, I'm sure many have worked loose but not completely detached from the rifle, and I know with the literally millions of rifles in service that use this flimsy screw system their could be exceptions..As for me I'll just use this sorry not lined up screw system on My old junkie Remington's and Winchester's and Weatherby's and almost every other rifle in the free world...I'm glad Sako don't build cars they might use this clamp on system to attach the wheels ..........547.

Bob, Thats exactly what I want, if it's stainless I'm jealous. how much did she cost?.................547.

I guess that means that all the Weaver systems are faulty too? Aren't they the same idea? I think that the other manufactures don't incorporate it is because of the cost to machine that into the receiver, look at remington, its a pipe basically and its cheap to put 4 holes into it to screw your mounts too. I beg to differ that the Sako system is inferior. Its just what you are used to and what most rifle makers use...does not make theirs better IMO.

I would like to see pics of these Sako mishaps from someone with first hand experience....

Nope, got the Blue one. It will be $748. delivered. The SS version was 100 greenbacks more. Hell I'm cheap, and I melt in the rain, so I do not need the Stainless one.

Bob

I'm not crazy about the Sako slide-on Opti-lok system but I'd forgotten about the good ol Ruger system that I do like, it seems to be very secure and it is machined into the receiver with a recoil lug, at least you can get your scope low enough and the system is light and clean looking (not bulky at all) Hell, Ruger even includes rings, it's really a pretty good deal..The Weaver system I also like, a vast array of ring choices that are solid as a rock with a nice big recoil lug.................547.

I heard that about melting in the rain, I feel the same. Good luck with your new rifle and let me know how she shoot's. I am still jealous..............547.

As far as Sako being able to do no wrong you must have missed my posts about the firing pin retainer that broke on my TRG-22 or where I've compared some of the features of a Kimber Montana being superior to those of a Finnlites. I like both and feel each has it's strengths and weaknesses. The TRG-22 is a superb rifle but you sure don't want to dry fire one much!

As far as why other makers don't use the same system there's probably two reasons. One is that it might be patented by Sako and therefore other makers aren't allowed to use it. Two is that most shooters tend to prefer cheaper to better, going with what works OK at lower costs than something that's better but costs substantially more.

I do agree that the Ruger system is also excellent. It doesn't allow windage adjustment like the dovetail system does and isn't quite as well made but it's solid and a bargain at that.

BTW the low optilocks are indeed what we usually would call a medium height ring but they do make extra-lows (which I haven't tried yet) and one peice ring bases that are even lower. In addition there are other manufacturers that make ring systems for the Sako Dovetails that do allow lower mounting and several of my freinds here prefer anyway, read Talley's and Conetrols. You aren't stuck with just Sako rings on Sako dovetailed rifles.

So in the end we can all have what we want anyway. If you don't like the Sako Dovetails buy the A7 discussed by the OP. They seem to be a solid bargain of a rifle just as the Tikka T-3's are. If you don't mind spending a little more for something a little better move up to the 75 or 85 series rifles - They all shoot great!....................................DJ

Played with a few at the local shop. There is a lot to like about the A7. But what I really don't like about them is the overuse use of plastic. The plastic bolt shroud, triggerguard, and magazine just sits wrong with me. Especially on a $800 dollar gun. Would it really have cost that much more to put in a metal shroud and triggerguard?

I'm ambivalent on the scope mounting system. The new systems saves on costs but once again they went cheap on the mounts. Or at least they look cheap.

Sako came so close to having a really special rifle but decided to nickel and dime it into a dud. The mounts could be a little better along with the stock. But those are easily changeable and most of us will anyway. A metal shroud and triggerguard are a must if you want the gun to look like it has any quality to it. If it had those two things, which shouldn't cost Sako much, the A7 would have a much more solid look. The rest would be gravy. Instead, I'd rather just buy a used 75 for just a little more.

I fondled a A7 a few weeks back at our local SW. To me it was a Tikka T3 that you could load from the top, that was about it. Oh and it was $250 more than a T3. Felt about it just like I do about the Tikkas, too much plastic.

Just a thought. Don't blame Sako. I'm fairly sure the parent company Beretta is the one who made the final decision to use the plastic.

Beretta, while they make some excellent and fine shotguns and a company with a long firearms history-I think it is the longest privately held company at over 500years-is notorious for doing things on the cheap.

For whatever reason, it was not a great day for Sako when they sold out to Beretta.

Some interesting comments above. I'm not defending my purchase of an A7, but rather I am musing about what exactly is wrong with it's concept.

New Blued Tikka's with glass stock sell from around $550. give or take $25.

New Stainless Tikka's are around $650. give or take.

New Sako 85's run $1200. and up, and up.

Used 75's are around $950. to $1050 or so.

Blued A7's $750. SS one's $850. or so.

So A7's are more expensive than their Tikka counterparts by $200. and less expensive than used Sako 75's by about the same amount. So are the A7's too cheap or too expensive.

The 75, even used, is a better gun for sure, and it is priced that way. The 85 is better yet and is priced as such. Is the A7 "better" than the Tikka? I don't know yet, but I do prefer a short action, rather than Tikka's one size fits all. And that is worth $200 to me, if not to you.

Are the weaver bases on the A7 cheap? I don't have my A7 in my hands yet, but if they are made out of Aluminum I would say YES. If they are steel bases, which is my understanding (and I may be wrong), what would posters like them made out of? And if they are steel, why change them. And how are steel weaver type bases cheap? Ever price Leupold MK 4 bases? Or how about IOR's weaver type bases for Sako 75's?

As far as the plastic trigger guard and magazine I guess I'm just jaded. I owned the original plastic wonder gun a Steyr Mannlicher Professional in 270 Win that I bought in 1988. It had a plastic stock, trigger guard and magazine. I think it retailed for around $750 even in the late 1980's. Now Steyr never sold a boat load of them, and it did have some funky styling, but I never heard a Steyr called a "cheap" gun. The now defunct Steyr SSG target/sniper rig was built the same way. All plastic, and very accurate. Their last retail price was over $2k. No, not cheap at all.

Now the A7 may be a dog, and it may turn out to be a cheap POS. Time will tell. And if you are a "blue steel and walnut" kind of guy, I would think that the A7's style would not appeal. But because something is different and it's not made the way they were made before, does not make it junk.

I was guilty of the same thinking when a small Austrian company released it's new plastic pistol in the 80's. I thought they were junk; I mean they were made out of figgin plastic, they just had to be junk. Today Glock owns the pistol shooting community. Sometimes junk can take you a long ways.


Regards to all,

Bob

My junky plastic Tikka Whitetail has been used and abused for 9 years now and it still outshoots any other rifle I have. I don't give a rats azz about looks, its only a tool to kill stuff to me. I also use and have found no fault in the optilocks, and the original sako rings that came with my pre garcia L61R. The optilocks, original rings, and even the rings that come standard with the T-3's ( I have 2) are still going strong with zero issues.

I think it takes some major cahones" to guarantee a 5 shoot sub moa grouping like Sako does for their A-7.

I would say that for a flatland deer hunter the Tikka/A7 would be great hunting rifles. They are generally good shooters and are nice and light. For me, miles into the backcountry in rugged terrain, away from any access to anything but whats in my pack, the plastic became a huge concern issue. Looking down at the bolt shroud that is busted off on my Tikka T3 300WM was worry some enough, makes you wonder WTF is gonna break next, triggerguard, magazine, bottom metal???? Selling all 4 Tikkas and buying a Kimber was much more satisfying, the Montana seems bulletproof compared to the T3's I owned. Different strokes for different folks.

You have me chuckling; Flatland deer hunter, yup that be me!!!! Though I did spend 4 weeks in Alaska once, I wonder if that is like the Holiday Express thing???? And I understand your concern about plastic being in the back country miles away from the nearest Mickey D's much less a gunsmith.

But I did own a Kimber Montana once, in 7mm-08. I did not like it. It was light to carry, but a pain to shoot because for me, as it was too light. Hard to bench, hard to get shooting right, and I hated the blind magazine. I also thought that the bolt throw was gritty. I replaced it a Sako 75 Finnlight that I viewed as a better bargain. So YMMV. If I lived and hunted in Alaska, I might have felt differently. On the other hand if I lived and hunted in Alaska, I would likely get lost and die, flatlander that I be.

Thanks for your words,

Bob

I'm with AlaskaCub. I have dropped, or fallen on rifles enough to be scared of a plastic trigger guard(of all things I woudn't want plastic). Of course I often hunt in steep rocky terrain. The A7 may shoot extremely well, but for the same money you could buy an XCR.

yeah but replacing a tikka with a kimber is blasphemy, you may trade plastic, but your trading it for poor fit and finish and spotty accuracy, I asked my smith about a kimber and he told me the last one he had in had the bore cut off center. many plastics are in some cases tougher than metal, I think I would rather have a plastic trigger guard than a pot metal one like what comes on a remington

Not looking to fight fellas, the only reason I used the Kimber as an example was the similar weight. A Tikka T3 Lite, the A7 and a Kimber Montana in a 300 WSM are all within an oz or 2 of each other. Theres lots of great guns out there, I have just decided that I'd prefer they not have a large make up of plastic components for the hunting I do.

My comment about flat landers was simply saying that if your looking for a deer hunting gun that will see little physical abuse and just needs to shoot accurately the Tikkas and A7 would be a good/great choice.

cumminscowboy...you asked a smith about a Kimber, well I own a Kimber as does the friend I sheep hunted with the past 2 seasons, and none of your "smiths" experience can be shared by us. So take some things you hear with a grain of salt.