I am looking for an ugly all purpose deer sized rifle.

Looking very hard at the A7 and the Tikka T3.

My criteria are as follows

1-Must be capable of clean 2.5# trigger. If I need to replace the trigger, so be it. If either can be done in factory form, better yet.

2-Accurate out of the box(No time to mess with bedding, crowns, lapping bolts etc. I need turn key accuracy right now). Better than MOA is acceptable.

Other than the name on the stock, both of these rifles seem pretty similar in design and construction.

I have read a little about the A7, and they promise MOA with FIVE shot groups....which translates to 1/2"-3/4" with 3 shots.

I have heard nice things from Tikka owners, but want more info. Again, triggers and out of the box accuracy matter.

Is the Sake $350.00 better out of the box?

What say you?

Is the Sako worth 350 more? IMO no, it just looks like a Tikka with a different stock.

The trigger on the Tikka is fantastic and can be easily adjusted if you so desire. Buy the Tikka, throw on a set of Talley lightweights and use the 350 for good optics.

The Sako A7 has the Sako 75 action which is a more open action and thus easier to topload and a polycarbonate bolt shroud like a Tikka. Stock is very similiar and the magazine has metal feed lips versus plastic on the Tikka. I think the scope mounting system on the A7 could be better then the Tikka when more ringmakers design new bases for it. Is it worth the money? I can't honestly say that I own both a 75 and the T3 and I have not had the T3 for a few months.

Buy the T3 Tikka and spend the difference you saved over the A7 on upgrading your glass.

The Tikka will likely be a tackdriver out of the box and meet your other criteria as well.

I have not been fortunate to see an A7. However I know the Tikka quality, accuracy, and flawless feeding is a huge value at it's price.
What does the A7 give for the coin? I can think of nothing that I have heard about that matters?

Save the money buy a Tikka and upgrade to Limbsaver recoil pad and Warne mount/rings. Have enough change left over to go to the movies, get a hair cut, and take your wife to a first class dinner.

+1 on what Mackay said. I am a big sako fan, I have 4 model 75s, but having owned several tikka t-3's and have bought all 3 of my kids T3's I can't see a big difference worth jumping up to the A7, the t3s just plain shoot...and shoot well!

The magazine is more firmly held with the A7 (M85 release mechanism) and it can be top loaded. I'm not sure if the T3's can be top loaded or not, but my 595 cannot.

I have been a Sako man for over 20 years and have owned more than I can remember.... However, with that said I have recently bought my first T3 lite.... I was amazed... I am going to buy another one very soon as well... Now, I am not getting rid of the Sakos I own but I do honestly believe the T3 lite is by far the best value on the market right now.... I would follow Sagebrushes advice and buy the T3 and use the money you save to upgrade your glass...

I just purchased a new A7. I chose it because I think the trigger is a little lighter and crisper and I like the more open action on the A7. The Tikka has a very small opening......just preference I guess? I still say you can't go wrong either way!
And just like Sagebrush says....if you buy the Tikka you can put better glass on it.

I now own a T3, but have only handled the A7 in the store. I liked the A7, but did not see how they justified an extra $300 over a Tikka. Afterall, they both have Sako barrels, and have very similar stocks.

Yes..T3s can load through the port w/mag in place..yes...595s can also load through the port....no problem...

Hmmmm ... really? I didn't see how it was possible, but next time I have my 22-250 out I'll giv'er a whirl. Learn sumptin' new everyday.

It will work BTDT.

Well curiosity got the best of me so I had to try it tonite. I cannot stuff rounds into the magazine from the receiver. Trust me ... I really pushed on it pretty hard, I was really worried abut snapping off the magazine feed rails. I also took the magazine out of the rifle and tried to push'em straight down with no success.

Maybe its the rifle I have. Its a 595 Master Continental in .22-250. The rifle has a three-round single stack detachable magazine. Are some of the magazines double stack?

Am I missing the definition of top-feed? Yeah I load single rounds into the chamber via the receiver, but CANNOT stuff'em into the magazine.

Am I missing sumptin'?

I believe some people think you cannot single feed a round into the Tikka's, when sitting at the bench etc. Filling the mag is a different story. I remember reading people saying what a pain it was to drop the mag, load one, and shoot one at the bench. They didn't realize you can just drop one in on top of the mag, without it being in the mag. It works like any other pushfeed.

I am not sure why you would want to try and fill the mag while it is inserted into the gun? The military doesn't even do that since they quit using stripper clips.

Because the military people carry extra magazines to reload. Most big game hunters normally have a magazine full when hunting and it's much easier if you need 1 shot to finish whatever to drop it in the chamber or top off the magazine rather than to pull out the mag and load one cartridge and put it back in. Plus anything you take out has a chance to get lost, dropped or whatever else especially if your in say a tree or whatever at the time. Small possibility but it's there.

I agree you can load one in the chamber by pulling the bolt back partway and dropping the cartridge in. Loading the magazine from the top I couldn't pull off but apparently I'm an idiot when it comes to these.

Back onto topic...

I don't see who Sako is marketing this rifle to. If you want 80%-90% of a Sako at 60% of the price get a Tikka. If you want a full bown Sako get a Sako. I don't see the attraction of getting something similar to a Tikka for nearer Sako money and vice versa....having said that they'll probably sell faster than they can make them....

The thing I would worry about is if say you ever needed a new stock on an A7 what would you do unless you can find a take off factory one? But then again that's just about the only option for Tikkas as well so that could go either way.

I still don't understand your aversion to carrying an extra, loaded magazine in your pocket???

And, for the 500th time, you CAN load a shell into the chamber, through the port, even if the mag is in place.

That's EXACTLY WHAT I JUST SAID - read what I said - "I agree you can load one in the chamber by pulling the bolt back partway and dropping the cartridge in. Loading the magazine from the top I couldn't pull off."

But you can't top off the magazine while it's in the gun like nearly every other gun made in the world today...why Tikka has to be the only one - even the Sako's aren't like that.

I'm not talking rapid reload or shooting 20 times. I'm talking about just needing to top off. Say you shoot once and get an animal down and want to top off the rifle.

Ever drop a magazine from a tree 30 feet up reloading after a shot when you have 2 deer tags per day - every day? It sucks to climb down and try and find it.

I have an aversion to carrying extra crap period. Extra crap tends to get lost, rattle or whatever else. If you want to carry extra mags - great for you. I'm not really one to bicker on economics of rifles especially if you look at my gun safe - but 3 extra mags runs about 1/3 the price of the gun.

I don't have a problem with the function of the rifle. Just don't care for it.

BTW I see in the field every year hundreds if not thousands of hunters and very few - very few carry extra magazines for bolt action rifles. Very few.

Old habits die hard. I don't care for detachable magazine rifles. If you do great. The few I have I just keep them in 100% of the time so they don't get dropped or lost or dented or whatever else.

Just picked up the aversion in Africa where DM's are looked upon like death walked into camp.

Agree


Anyone that can hint they can load a tikka magazine from the loading port easily doesn't own a tikka. It is not something I would like to do if I had to reload fast. Just remove the magazine and replace with new fully loaded one. Now you can easily drop one in the Tikka port and cycle it for bench shooting. I know I can load my 75 effortlessly from the loading port without even looking. Not sure if the A7 is a single feed or not if single feed it might be able to be loaded from the top not sure of the effort involved though.




I can easily load rounds into the magazine on my 75 probably easier then any other bolt I have owned in fact From The TOP.





SInce they are using the 75 action I believe a Mcmillan could be rigged to fit it unless they changed the layout of the floorplate magazine system.




That is a concern of mine as well and I will probably get backup mags for Tikka and Sako rifles I own. I know of no one that has lost or dropped a magazine on a Sako 75.

So,

1-Buy the Tikka.

2-Buy an extra mag(Why did they not do a spring floorplate like every other rifle in the modern world?) for tactical reloads on charging prarie dogs.

Thanks for the help. I would have been at the range for hours trying to load that thing from the top before I figured out it didn't work.

One VERY IMPORTANT difference that nobody has mentioned is that the Tikka has a 2 position safety. In order to unload it, you have to put it on "Fire". I dont like that.

The Sako has a bolt release lever that you push and allows you to unload the rifle without ever taking the safety off the "safe" position.

Tried loading my A7 in .300WSM while leaving the mag in the gun and it is possible and relativly easy. Just thought I would let you know.

Thanks
kevin

Your arguement still makes no sense. Where do YOU keep your extra shells? For all my guns without mags, I keep some extra shells in my pack, and I keep five in a little leather shell holder that I put in my pocket. I don't understand why putting a little plastic mag in my pocket instead is any different? Actually it is better, all I have to do is pull it out of my pocket, and stick it in the gun -vs- taking it out of my pocket, and pulling each shell out individually, and loading one at a time. You are creating an issue that doesn't exist.

I would think a Sako or Tikka magazine placed in a secure pocket with a zipper or button closing it a lot easier then carrying loose ammo or ammo on a belt but that's just me.

Does the New A7 have a 2 or 3 position safety?

Sorry for starting the top-loading stink fest. I thought one was refering to stuffin't the magazine (such as an ADL would be loaded). For loading single roundds on the bench, my 595 is a breeze, drop one in atop the magazine and close the bolt ... no fuss no muss.

Cain't really talk about hunting situations with it, I don't hunt it. Its more for punchin' paper, although next year it may get to shoot some little furries.

I think we are all learning about the differences between the A7 and T3 on this thread.

For me, the detachable mag "deficiency" doesn't exist. I have a spare, The T-3 is the best bang for the buck known to hunting rifles, and is far worth the $400 or so you save over the A7. I have Sako's, I have 3 Tikkas...all are fantastic shooters. I do like the limbsaver idea also.

Yep.....right on down the line.

Many years ago I had an aversion to DM's as I'd heard all the horror stories as well about the obvious concerns of losing them during inopportune times, but never heard first or second hand, just someone this and someone that. Bought hinged floorplated rifles for years due to that concern. I suppose losing DM's, for whatever reason, has happened and perhaps still does on occasion (some guys also get their wieners stuck in their zippers more than once.....hey, every guys entitled to one screw up......right?), but I also suppose that most manufacturers nowadays that offer DM'd rifles have taken that into consideration when designing rifles with such devices. My Sako and T3 mags seem to lock up quite securely.

I own several Sako's and Tikkas like JGRaider with DM's and have never had a problem either and I carry each afield a great deal every year. I also own and carry spare mags for each rifle......just in case. I'm not exempt from Murphy either and so I also feel that it's prudent to do so.......and Sako mags, in particular, are not cheap, so I am an ardent believer in always being prepared......no matter the cost.

There may be someone who now posts that he lost a DM and it cost him the largest muley, WT or BT ever seen by man, but even if true, I would expect that it occurs about as often as someone who gets a Tikka that shoots like chit, costs more than it's worth and has a lousy trigger.

Oh yeah.....every big game rifle I own wears a Limbsaver. That is a truly worthwhile suggestion made by a few here.

Oh, BTW, for clarification purposes only........not the entire wiener, I was referring only to just a very small piece of the entire 8th Wonder of The World. If it was indeed the entire appendage that was so caught, this entire thread is lost on you and perhaps this forum is not where you belong.


Having said that, in mid-October I'll be hunting a great deal and therefore not posting for awhile. Please don't confuse my absence from this forum for any reason other than that..................no really.

Yep. And furthermore, if you want a metal instead of plastic magazine for a Tikka (mine's a 595) get a 5-round replacement. They're made of blued metal, except for the bottom cap and the follower.
Actually, being a 223, the clip holds 6 rounds, and I can have another in the chamber, making it a 7-shooter.

Funny ... there was guy in our deer camp in PA that had a Remington (I do not recall the model) that when fired at game would cause the magazine to drop. Never happened at the range. Happened TWO years in a row while shooting at deer. The first year he tracked the deer need a finishing shot and CLICK ... no magazine, hence no finishing shot.

The third year he showed up with a new rifle!

Now that is a safe rifle , must be a new Remington feature.

Gotta love those "single shots".........now that's a horror story.

Shooting at the range and shooting at deer (unfortunately, due to the way we practice) have almost nothing in common, sans the report of the rifle. I expect, but obviously don't know, that the way he held or gripped his rifle when anxiously shooting at a deer as opposed to when shooting off of a bench, might have had something to do with him detaching his magazine inadvertently. Purely a guess on my part, but when in the excited moment of pullin' the trigger on any live target (big game animals in particular), people do funny (not ha-ha funny) things and sometimes resort to methods yet, unpracticed.

I was with a guy who was handgunning for deer and he had an unexpected and very quick opportunity at a nice, safe, close shot on a nice blacktail with his 6in. 629. He likely had more time than he thought as we often do, but went immediately into the "I gotta get this shot off as quick as possible" mode and his left support hand did something unusually funny (again....not ha-ha funny).

He was a very accomplished hunter whom I'd seen take numerous animals quite efficiently with a rifle and practiced equally with both handgun and rifle. For whatever reason, he placed his left support hand loosely underneath and almost entirely around the front of the cylinder and forcing cone area. Only his sights were unobstructed by his left hand. The escaping gases and ensuing pain felt in his support hand, at the shot, still remain a very vivid memory for this fella. I've seen pictures of fingers almost made useless from employing such ill advised and excitable practices.

All this to say that sometimes we do things to ourselves (via our equipment) that cause us to be inconvenienced. We'd like to think otherwise and we often make that choice, but sometimes such mishaps lay directly at our own feet.

No matter what the reason, if I were your friend, duct tape and a good throat slitter would have become a staple in my day pack that second year...............grin.

Oh yeah......very dead deer, but the congratulatory part was much shorter lived than usual.

It has a 2 position safety with the bolt release lever. It works slick. Personally, I think that is a significant difference, but it isnt getting near the attention that a detachable magazine is getting!

I can load my tikka T3 magazine from the action. You just have to start pushing down on the shell when it's in front of the magazine cartridge retainer "ledges." Not that hard at all.

IMO the A7 doesn't have enough features to warrant the $300-$400 extra over the T3. Still has plastic in the same places, so you are paying extra for steel feed-lips and a bolt release.

That said, get a Rem 700.

So they kept the 75 trigger group and safety with the A7?

If you want the best rifle for the money get the Tikka. If you want the best rifle get the A-7. I've handled both and the A-7 with it's open top ejection port and it's push button bolt release that allows you to unload the rifle while it's still on safety are nice touches not to mention the better magazine the A-7 has, The A-7 is a little classier rifle than the T3. If your sweating the money you can buy used Savage 110's really cheap. they shoot great and function perfectly.............547.

If I wanted a cheap rifle that shot well I would buy a Savage. I have been around two lately and the both shot very well.
If I wanted a step up I would go A-7.
To me the Tikkas always looked like cheap junk.

I own a Savage, and the machining, and metal finish isn't fit for a BB gun. It is accurate, but there is no comparison between the machining work on my Tikka.

The Tikka's do shoot well I know but I agree with BWalker the Tikka's always looked mighty cheap to me, I don't know how you could make a cheaper looking rifle unless you made it totally out of plastic and that includes the Barrel. That might make it look a little cheaper than it already does..........547.

I suppose that Glocks might look plenty cheap given the abundance of polymer in their overall design, but one can't argue with their desirability regarding reliability, cost and function. Subsequent to the very warm welcome that the Glock received from it's very inception, every other handgun manufacturer now offers their own version of these unattractive "plastic" guns, with their sales/profits having also notably risen.

Being that most LE agencies in this country and many others have readily accepted this particular handgun even with it's obvious beauty "flaws", there seems to be more than a few reasons to do so aside from concerns from its detractors who seem to place attractiveness over function, accuracy, cost and reliability. Seems the Tikka's have garnered the same type of reactions from both sides of the aisle.

Note to self..........marry or date only women who fit the general public's definition of beautiful, 'cuz in the long run, the Brittany Spears and Lindsay Lohan's of the world will undoubtedly prove to be much more reliable and trustworthy....as opposed to those less attractive.

I don't think you can get much "cheaper" than an AR15/M16. Aluminum receivers, plastic stocks, grips, and some (Israel) even use plastic mags! Gasp.

I haven't seen any volume of groups posted by A7 owners yet, but the T3 provides tons of evidence that the T3 Tikka is equal if not beyond the accuracy that Remy 788's provided.

The fact is that the A7 is a modified Sako 75 reciever that's been put into a Tikka T3 rifle. It will be interesting to see the results.

Spot

Count me in as a recent convert to those "ugly plastic" mags, PMags to be specific..........and many thousands of other converts from what I've seen on numerous other forums espousing their attributes.......go figure.

Has nothing to do with the use of plastic.
Glock's do not look cheap, Tikka's do.
My comment about the Savage was in reference to value. If you want to spend the least amount of money possible and get the most for that amount of money the Savage trumps the Tikka.
Even though I need one like a hole in the head I am considering buying a A7 to use as a beater/truck/boat gun.

The "cheap look" must then be determined solely on the shape of the firearm, as the materials for both the Glock and Tikka's are essentially the same.

Actually, I could care less what people buy and/or spend their money on as it is of no consequence to me, but comments here and elsewhere have definitely targeted and singled out the cheap look component as reason enough for not purchasing or recommending this firearm or that. Seems silly when, since 1981 when Gastion Glock produced his first Nylon6 (polymer) framed firearm, all others have fallen in line to produce the same or made attempts to produce a better material.

If you go the A7 route, let us know how that works out for you. Still not much info out there due to it's newness, so any and all reviews are welcomed.

Thanks.

As I alluded to above, its not the materials IE plastic.
To be specific the wood(birch?) stocks and the way the action is machined looks very cheesy, as does the bolt.
A savage looks kinda cheesy as well, but is cheaper and shoots probably just as good hence my preference to go that route of price vs. performance is of the utmost concern.

Stocks are made of walnut. I can say there is no american mass produced rifle that has the consistent fit and finish of a Tikka rifle. Take apart the bolt on a Tikka and then take apart the bolt on a savage and tell me there is no difference or that the Tikka bolt is cheap or simpler and elegant in design. I was a doubter for a long time of Tikkas but not anymore. My t3 in 308 shoots better then a 308 heavy barrelled rem 700 I had that I thought was the best shooting gun I had ever owned up until I bought the T3 . I shot the remington with handloads and the tikka with hornady off the shelf 150 grain bullets. I am still in shock over the range sessions.

Your certainly entitled to your oppinion.... They still look like hell IMO.

Note to self..........marry or date only women who fit the general public's definition of beautiful, 'cuz in the long run, the Brittany Spears and Lindsay Lohan's of the world will undoubtedly prove to be much more reliable and trustworthy....as opposed to those less attractive.

[/quote] Huh? What the H&%!, Have I missed something? and who said anything about Glock's anyway....I own two Myself and I think they are beautiful..............547.

I thought it was pretty clear........your comments/post, just above where my Brittany Spears comment appears, seems to suggest that you base your ideas of a rifle's "worth" on how it looks rather than on how it performs. Your use of the word "cheap" and general dislike of the Tikka's, clearly would lead one to believe that assertion.

Being that your use of the word "cheap" seemed to have everything to do with the "plastic" contained within each Tikka T3 (ie: "they could only be made to look even cheaper if they made their barrels out of plastic"), I thought it reasonable (and still do) to throw another known "plastic" firearm into the mix to show that being supposedly cheap looking has absolutely nothing to do with function and performance, nor with how the majority of LE agencies in this country and many other countries, view what is truly important in a duty weapon. Therefore the reference to Glock. I didn't think it too much of a stretch.........still don't.

When a poster asks about what we think a reliable firearm (of any type) might be, I, for one, don't immediately start thinking about how cheap one might look as compared to another. The questions are generally about reliability, function and cost......as well they should be. I'm always amazed how people would rather take those opportunities to disparage a firearm that they likely don't even own and likely have never used ( also likely due to their stated dislike of the materials used in it's manufacture), as well as rating the attractiveness or cheapness of potential firearms that might very well meet the OP's criteria as a possible acquisition.

As to Glocks.....I own more than a few. Beautiful and do I care?.....nope. Do I trust them with my life.........you bet.

Bottomline.....which I hope clears up anything that you say you might have missed. Looks aren't everything and when we equate cheap looking with a products ability to perform as intended and then openly state as much to dissuade another due to our own likes/dislikes, we do a disservice to others that are merely seeking information on what the product (rifle in this instance), as a whole, can do.

As I said earlier, I don't care what people buy, but if they're seeking answers not specific to materials used, but rather performance of the product as a whole, we should simply give them, as best we can, the answers they seek. Beauty still remains in the eye of the beholder, as does cheap looking. But what is patently true is that neither has anything to do with function and performance, which was and almost always is, the question being asked.

No offense intended and no offense taken.....just a difference in how we look at things.

Good luck to you this season, whether you pack wood or polymer.

I enclose pics of my 243's. I can understand why people think the T3 looks cheap. I have however sold the CZ as it couldn't hold a candle to the performance or light weight of the Tikka. I am a hunter and shooter, not a sculptor. I understand the T3 looks are not for everyone, unlike my wife who is stunning!

Magnumb, I agree with you %100, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't think old Mr. Whitetail could tell the difference if you shot him with an A-7 or a T3 either...........Best of luck this hunting season...............547.