I was wondering if anybody had any luck with beretta fixing their Sako 85 with the ejection issue?
My 7mm rem mag is indeed problematic.

I’m pretty sure that they don’t believe there is any problem with their rifles ejecting brass up into the bottom of mounted scopes, so I doubt they are going to do anything about improving it. Sad. It definitely has kept me from buying any 85s, especially the long actions which seem to be the most problematic. Not going to consider buying one until the design changes, which may never happen given Beretta and Sako’s position on the matter.

Agreed.....it is a shame indeed....Hb

I own two that were perfect out of the box, both were short action .308. And two that were not so good, one was a long action and the other a magnum action. For those two, I had a skilled machinist build me a new extractor claw with minimum clearance between the rim of the case and the claw. Fixed the problem permanently and cheaply. Best $50 I ever spent on a rifle. Both my M85 Bavarian 7x64 and my M85 Kodiak .375 H&H eject straight sideways now. And I really like both rifles. I wouldn't avoid buying another now that I know how to improve on their one flaw.

I like Sakos but who wants to roll the dice on an expensive rifle that if it does have the dreaded extractor issue, Beretta won’t help fix?

I’ve heard there’s a redesign underway….

My thoughts exactly. I would have bought a couple new 85’s by now if I didn’t have to worry about the gamble. I already have a Sako A7 that requires high rings for brass to clear the scope without contact. I’m not interested in further troubles. It’s a shame as I love the rifle otherwise and I think 85’s would be better still if it weren’t for that flaw.

Best news I’ve heard in 2022!

C'mon, shortactionsmoker, tell us more. You can't leave us hangin.'

There was another thread on this issue recently. In that thread I had written that I wasn't having any ejection issues with my .30-06 Black Bear I had been using low Optilock ring mounts. And it was ejecting the empties out of the way. But I did check my windage cap and sure enough there were some brass marks on it. So, even with traditional caps, there was contact with the ejecting brass.

Those low Optilock ring mounts put the objective lens right behind that big rear sight. So I switched to Optilock bases (with and extended front base) and medium height rings. That raised the scope about 8mm over where it had been. I little higher than I noirmally mount a scope but still very comfortable. I am not detecting any empties hitting the windage cap now.

Most 3 lug bolt guns have some ejection issues because of the location of the ejector and extractor between lugs. Empties go up more hitting the scope caps , rather than out. You usually can't use low rings or target caps.

Are they calling it the S20?

On a more serious note, rumor has it that 2022 is the last year of the 85.

I was at the LGS the other day and was talking to the counter guy. We took a serious look at both the S20 and 85 bolts. The 85 uses the fixed ejection blade at the 6 o'clock position and the extractor at about the 10-11 o'clock position. The S20 on the other hand uses the same extractor position, however, the ejector is a sprung plunger (ala Rem 700) in the 3 o'clock position. Some simple ejection testing with a fired case clearly showed the the sprung plunger in the 3 o'clock position is much better at ejecting cases horizontally than the fixed blade ejector. The fixed blade ejector has the effect of pushing the spent cartridge up and thus the potential to hit scope turrets.

Not! Browning A-Bolt and X-Bolt, 3 lug guns, no ejection issues. It is because the damn ejectors are in the correct position on the bolt head, not at the 6 O'clock position like poorly designed on the Sakp M85. RJ

Yep, got two X-Bolts and they eject perfectly. But they aren't "controlled round feed" either. The 85 kinda is, and kind not.

I think another factor is the position of the next round in the staggered magazine. The ejection is not consistent from empty to empty. The 1st and 3rd empties eject the same, the 2nd a little differently. It's the last empty ejects differently than the rest. It's subtle but you can see it if you really watch. I think the next round in the magazine, whether its to the left or right, or the follower alone, influences the angle of ejection too. That inconsistency is more apparent to me now that the scope is higher and its not getting hit.

It’s a very bad design and worse customer dis-service. I had CS straight out lie about product complaints i.e. there were none. And that was the BEST response. He was all about being right and me being wrong. I remember distinctly him saying, to paraphrase, “the rifle ejects the case from the action, that is all that can be guaranteed. We can’t be responsible for problems caused by every combination of scopes and mounts”. I was using medium Leupold mounts and a 1” tube Leupold scope. My 85m failed to properly eject every time. No problem repeating. The case mouth was hitting the tube not the turret or cap, then falling back into the action.

It’s easy to understand. The extractor pulls the case head rearward by the rim. As the case mouth clears the chamber the case head is pushed against the 6 o’clock ejector. The case mouth then rises until stopped by the scope tube and can rise no further. But since the case is still moving rearward against the ejector with nowhere for the case mouth to go, the case rim is pushed from under the extractor and flops onto either the next round or the follower. I watched this happen time and time again and repeated the process to CS with no success.

Take a good look at that extractor placement. It bears a strong resemblance to the position of 1894 Winchesters. The Winchester is designed to eject the case straight up and does that well. So can the 85M though unintentionally. Sure, there are ways for a handy man to respring or redesign the extractor but you’re still dealing with a faulty design. Every time a reworked extractor manages to hold the rim, it almost didn’t. What if you were dealing with something that wants to bite, claw or hook you? It’d be a bad time to have an empty case blocking the ejection port. And there is absolutely no excuse for Beretta to disavow responsibility. TMSAISTI.

Why do you suppose there is seemingly no issue with the short actions?

The case on .308 length isn’t long enough for the case mouth hit the scope tube before being ejected.

I'm ambivelent about it. Mine works well enough. I think I've got the contact issue licked. Even if it isn't, it's still ejecting well. I love this rifle. I toyed with the idea of not scoping it at all. The open sights are magnificent. It's a great length. It handles exceptioanlly well. If I had no scope on it at all I'd still love it, and will likely hunt with is at times with the open sights.

Put me in the holding out for the 2023 re-design camp, hopefully one like 10Glocks with nice functional irons. When the 75's were available, I couldn't afford them. Now I can, but I dont want a flawed ejector placement. Reliability feeding and extracting with irons or a scope is always very high on my list. I do love most things about their rifles though, just a bad design that needs to go away.

Its not an "extractor" issue. Their exractors are much better than remingon 700's. The problem lies in where the ejector is located. Total fu cking stupidity on their part... Poor engineering and they act like it's a non issue. I've personally seen rifles fail to eject a spent cartridge right. Because of the 6 o'clock location of the ejector, it throws the brass up into the body of the scope or turret and back down onto the feed rails. If you have a scope with a large turret, it makes it worse. It not only happens with long action rifles, like most believe, but it also happens with their short action rifles as well. However it largely depends on how large the turret is with the short actions. Some believe there are fixes with stronger springs, but the main problem is a poorly designed/located ejector.. Give me a Tikka any day over the Sako in any flavor, until they totally redesign the system. Its flawed..

Good post buddy. The funny thing is they will also tell you to run the bolt with more authority. Really pull back on it hard and quick. A good rifle will feed, eject and control the cartridge no matter how fast or slow you run the bolt. Tikka's and pre 64 model 70's are both great examples of this function..

Ran it fast&hard, slow&soft. With my rifle it didn’t matter. Now REALLY hard pulling on the bolt would rattle the case up and down and side to side and it would sometimes fall off the rifle. But not because of engineering. Blind squirrel / acorn deal.

Really? I have owned a dozen or more Browning A/X bolt rifles and every one ejected perfectly...Its not the 3 lug bolt its the location of the ejector @6 o'clock thats a poor design......Hb

They should bring back the 75.

I only own one Sako 85. it's a 260. I guess I'm one of the lucky ones. I haven't had any problems with it what so ever. Then again it is a short action. My long actions 270, and 30-06 are Tikka T3x Lite's. They shoot every bit as good as the Sako 85. Imo, you get the most bang for your buck with the Tikka.

I imagine Sako selling Tikka’s 3-4:1 to 85’s has to be wake up call. It isn’t because we are all about “budget” rifles.

I would gladly pay more for the finer points of the 85 when they re-design the ejector.

Ha! I bet Sako sells 10:1 Tikka T3x rifles over Sako 85's....Hb

There's no place to move the ejector to unless they split a lug. That'd be fine. It need to be directly across from the extractor. A grooved lug doesn't hurt in a Mauser.

Sorry, I did not know that Browning even had 3 lug guns. Sounds like Browning has better engineers. I do know Sako and Cooper had troubles with ejection in 3 lug guns.