Ruger level vs Sako level rifles

[twoforty]

Hi,

I'd like some constructive information on the differences between a couple of levels of quality rifles.

There're heaps of comments around the place when someone's asking about a Ruger, or whatever brand rifle that's about the same price as a Ruger, and someone says "Rugers are crap, get a Sako" or whatever better rifle they like.

Ok, except a Sako is two and a half times the price of a Ruger. It's obviously going to be better.

So what's actually different between them in terms of shooting accuracy. If you've got a barrel from each same calibre, same twist, why would one shoot better than the other?

I'm looking for more info then "they're crap".

Thanks.

[Guliver]

Have you checked some threads here http://rugerforum.net/forums.php ?

[Baldrick314]

Hi,

I'd like some constructive information on the differences between a couple of levels of quality rifles.

There're heaps of comments around the place when someone's asking about a Ruger, or whatever brand rifle that's about the same price as a Ruger, and someone says "Rugers are crap, get a Sako" or whatever better rifle they like.

Ok, except a Sako is two and a half times the price of a Ruger. It's obviously going to be better.

So what's actually different between them in terms of shooting accuracy. If you've got a barrel from each same calibre, same twist, why would one shoot better than the other?

I'm looking for more info then "they're crap".

Thanks.

I've never owned a Sako so can't give you hands on info but it looks to me the difference is in the quality of material used (grade of wood for stocks) and the way they're made, a lot more hand crafted from Sako and mass produced from Ruger. In saying that though I have no problems with my Ruger and it delivers what I consider acceptable accuracy.

[Zilla]

The quality of materials is definitely a huge difference.

Picked a Ruger and a Sako which both have a "Walnut" stock and you won't need the differences pointed out to you. They're completely different.

Having said that, I have a couple of Rugers and have no complaints. Sako are top notch, no doubt, but at their prices they're not for me.

[Member-Deleted]

I owned 6 Rugers both centerfire and rimfire, the way I look at it is it's like someone had a thought about how to build a rifle and built it on that just a thought. Clearly this is not Rugers process but when you buy a sako or sauer etc, it's like they have used a totally different way of doing things. Sure you can replace parts/handload or whatever to get them to feel/shoot like a more expensive rifle but at the end of the day it's still a Ruger. I will admit though if you put two timber rifles side by side I can barely tell the difference. I did this with one of my sakos & a mates howa.

[jays]

I will admit though if you put two timber rifles side by side I can barely tell the difference. I did this with one of my sakos & a mates howa.

I dunno about that... Those Sako stocks are pretty premo.

Whether or not they're worth it I dunno, but they're nice...

[Utcherd]

Materials like the stock timber are one.

Finer tolerances in manufacturing too. A thousandth of an inch here or then, and you've got a rifle which shoots better or worse.

[Member-Deleted]

All my sakos are timber, I'm not saying there terrible or anything but when you close your eyes and just grab one and then grab a different brand I can't really feel much of a difference. It's probably just me!

[butiwanna]

All my sakos are timber, I'm not saying there terrible or anything but when you close your eyes and just grab one and then grab a different brand I can't really feel much of a difference. It's probably just me!

How about quality of the wood and stain etc.?

I dunno how long you've had your rifles, but if you've had them long enough how does a Sako and a Brand X compare after 5 years, 10 years etc?

Sako built to last, others... ?

[Baldrick314]

Sako built to last, others... ?

I wouldn't say Sako's are the only ones built to last. I've got a Remington 22-250 that my dad bought in 80's that's still in pretty much show room condition after many hunting trips.

The biggest difference between Sako's and cheaper rifles is quality of wood (in terms of aesthetics not strength) and manufacturing tolerances.

[fordj]

The biggest difference between Sako's and cheaper rifles is quality of wood (in terms of aesthetics not strength) and manufacturing tolerances.

Whatever that wood and stain combination they use is really does look tops.

"Classic" is the best word to describe it I guess? Doesn't look like it's just another rifle off the assembly line anyway...

[Member-Deleted]

I've got two that I've had for close to 10years & two that are brand new. I really don't get excited about any type of firearm. There all pretty much the same in looks but just shoot a bit differently. To me a firearm is just another tool, when you grow up with them all your life there only used to stop a problem or grab some fresh meat. Like today i ordered a new x-bolt varmint to use for my culls, it's just another tool.

[Pom]

Their new toys are still a novelty for plenty of guys obviously.

I can't say I'm totally indifferent to picking up something new

[AlanK]

You buy Sako so you can look down your nose at Tikka's

[Bills Shed]

I've got two that I've had for close to 10years & two that are brand new. I really don't get excited about any type of firearm. There all pretty much the same in looks but just shoot a bit differently. To me a firearm is just another tool, when you grow up with them all your life there only used to stop a problem or grab some fresh meat. Like today i ordered a new x-bolt varmint to use for my culls, it's just another tool.

+1, To me they must work first and look good second. If I do my part they must hit what I aim at. I have no safe queens and all fire arms are out in all weather. I had a Ruger M77 in 223 and it was a good rifle for what it had to do and when I sold it the gunsmith gave me nix because the barrel was shot out. It fired thousands of rounds. I liked the ability to dismantle the bolt in the field with just a piece of wire, but the "paddle" stock was a bit flimsy but serviceable.

I have a second hand Sako and it is a excellent shooter but it does not do a better job than the Ruger, it hits what I aim at. The firearm is a tool on the property. The Sako is wood stocked and gets knocked around.
I believe the Ruger is a rugged and capable firearm. For sheer practicality and hard work I would take the Ruger. The Sako is just the sexy version that does the same thing. It is sleek and very well finished.

[Member-Deleted]

These are two of my sako,s after giving them a good run today. Honestly you wouldn't know they were sako,s if it wasn't for the badge. it Just looks like another timber stock.

[yoshie]

I couldn't drag a sako around the scrub, I'd be too worried about scratching it. I've been more than happy with the 'budget' rifles of late (marlin, howa, zastava) 3 rifles for the price of one sako. I haven't tried a ruger rifles yet, but I own 3 of Bill's revolvers and think they are just great.

[Zilla]

I've been more than happy with the 'budget' rifles of late (marlin, howa, zastava) 3 rifles for the price of one sako.

Even just a Tikka.

Same barrel, same maker, half the price.

Works for me.

[Member-Deleted]

I couldn't drag a sako around the scrub, I'd be too worried about scratching it.

Gee you must be short, lol

[yoshie]

Gee you must be short, lol

No not short, I just seem to put my rifles through a fair workout. The Sakos just look too good, if I owned one it'd be a safe queen, and only take it to the range on special occasions.

[twoforty]

Thanks for the pics Jaso, and for everyones feedback.

[jeretilda]

I have both and would say that the Rugers are probably better value for money as a general hunting rifle.

Most things I point my Ruger 7-08 at stop moving.

You see a lot of the reason for selling a Sako on used guns is simply because people don't want to beat them up in the bush given the investment outlayed.

I actually prefer Ruger's Mauser style action over the Sako.

I'd say though if the minister said you can only have one centre fire I'd have to stick with my Sako.

[Aster]

The Mauser style action definitely has a following of it's own.

That plays a big part in a lot of Ruger sales I have no doubt.

[Old Fart]

Yup, the controlled feed crown wouldn't sully themselves with a Tikka or the like

[Bristles1]

I've got 5 Sako's ( yeah I know) and one Ruger currently. They are different beasts, most of my Sakos are 40 years or older and made better when cost wasn't the primary consideration. The Rugers and I have had 2 are good rifles, just not the same quality as the Sakos but the shoot well, handle nicely and are good value for money. If you don't want to buy a new Sako and I am not that fussed on the new ones, older ones are still reasonable prices and they will last forever. Having said that I am not keen to sell my 30-06 Ruger, it is a good deer rifle and destroys pigs. Horses for courses, I know people who hand down Sakos from father to son, haven't heard of people doing that with Rugers though.

[SCJ429]

Good to see you are going through some older threads, four years between posts is a fair gap.

For what it is worth, the Ruger #1 is my favourite rifle, one that you could hand down to your son or daughter.

[Blr243]

I remember yrs ago rugrr were advertising guaranteed moa. Perhaps they still do ? Are there other production rifles that guarantee moa or better?

[Sergeant Hartman]

Yes quite a few, the new lithgows, howas for sure, possibly savage and tikka and sako and ruger. Some are moa, some are sub moa, some are even 5 shot sub moa

Most new guns are pretty accurate, as processes are so much better now.

[Rod_outbak]

Trying to compare Sako to Ruger, is a bit like comparing a glass of XXXX Gold, to a glass of Steinlager ale.
They will both get you drunk with repeated application, but taste/cost/availability is markedly different.
[And many will tell you that BOTH taste like Cats wee!]

The Sako's(all were later models like 75's, 85's and TRG-22) I've handled have been beautifully finished, and I've been through periods of yearning for one or two.
But I'd also happily take a Ruger No. 1 any day as well.

If fit & finish are important to you, then the Sako's might be a good choice.
If functionality is more important, then there are dozens of more common bands of rifle that will shoot just as well as a Sako (if not better).
I dont like how expensive many of the accessories for the Sako's tend to be; certainly Sako-branded stuff is quite expensive.

Sako has had a lot of influence in the designs on the sporting rifle market. Their design of extractors has been extensively copied, and I have a feeling that one of their models was one of the first to offer the option to top-load a detachable magazine (75??).
And this morning, I read that the Howa 1500 action was originally based on the Sako L-61 Finnbear!

When my mate was getting into competition distance shooting, it seemed that European rifles (and Sako was one of the more available options) were considered to be inherently more accurate than the American products.
[Something about almost all US manufacturers had moved to computer-controlled machinery for boring barrels and actions?? - It's some years ago, and I dont quite remember]
However, by the time he gave the competition stuff away a few years back, there was well over 20% of the competitors taking the top gong with a Howa 1500.

Pretty sure the Ruger Precision Rifles are advertised as being MOA or better, though not sure if it's worded like that.

I own a Tikka T3(7mm-08), a Remington 700(.308), a Ruger Precision Rifle(.308), and a Howa 1500 (.223).
So we have the products from 3 different countries.
All of them have good & bad points (in my mind), but all of them will need minimal care to be handed down to the next generation.

Buy what you can afford/justify, tweak it to suit you, and get out there and shoot stuff; that's my suggestion.

[Sergeant Hartman]

Good explanation.. so according to that being moa is equivalent to being drunk ...hehe