Sako 85 Or CZ

[Hogpatrol]

I could not extract the shells of the Hornady 195 gr BTHP Match .300 Win Mag, even though they chambered smoothly. Even banging on the bolt handle with a baseball bat sized piece of wood at the shooting range did not work. I had to use a large rubber mallet back at home to get the shell out.

Holy crap! You are one lucky shooter. I would NEVER bang on a Remington bolt handle. They are silver soldered on and will break off very easily when struck. Many have already done this. That's why there are smiths/businesses, at least here in the U.S., that TIG weld the handles to the bolt body. Safest way for a fired stuck round is a cleaning rod down the bore and hit it with a mallet while the bolt is open.

 

[One Day...]

Holy crap! You are one lucky shooter. I would NEVER bang on a Remington bolt handle. They are silver soldered on and will break off very easily when struck. Many have already done this. That's why there are smiths/businesses, at least here in the U.S., that TIG weld the handles to the bolt body. Safest way for a fired stuck round is a cleaning rod down the bore and hit it with a mallet while the bolt is open.

100% agreed. TIG welding has got to be, what? 1000% stronger than silver solder? I don't know, but a lot LOL. If I dared, I would attempt to have scope bases TIG welded on the actions that do not have them integral, but I am afraid of removing the heat treatment of the lugs... I really wish we had someone in the community who could guide us on this with reliable technical expertise.

You are right too, in my mind the chances of the soldered handle coming off are about as good as that of the extractor failing. Neither happened in my case, which is likely a testament to Remington, despite all the quality issues I had initially on that gun, as my review to Euro Optic attested. I did not have a cleaning rod with me at the range that day and I guess that by the time I got home I was already prisoner of my paradigm banging on the handle, and I did not think

 

[Hogpatrol]

Here's an interesting version of a CRF. It has the Remington footprint and trigger setup so aftermarket parts are plenty. It doesn't have the blocked firing pin safety and solid ejector.
It has a one piece bolt so no real fear of breaking off the handle.

https://thompsonleh.myshopify.com/collections/frontpage/products/complete-tl700-action-1

 

[One Day...]

Here's an interesting version of a CRF. It has the Remington footprint and trigger setup so aftermarket parts are plenty. It doesn't have the blocked firing pin safety and solid ejector.
It has a one piece bolt so no real fear of breaking off the handle.

https://thompsonleh.myshopify.com/collections/frontpage/products/complete-tl700-action-1

Yep, there are a number of limited production actions out there that are interesting. I looked at this one at a time. I also looked at the Surgeon action with integral rail, and a few others, but none tickle my fancy because they do not offer all 4 characteristics I want (CRF, firing pin-blocking safety, integral bases; and I would add: solid steel bottom with magazine capacity for 4 large diameter Rigby / Jeffery shells), so I really do not see what one gets for spending twice the money one would on a Rem or Win or CZ action.

The one action I really like is the Granite Mountain (http://www.granitemountainarms.com/african.html) but at $3,000 to $5,000 for the action alone it is out of my financial reach

The new Mauser M98 magnum (from Mauser) is also nice, but I do not know that they sell actions alone to anyone else than Rigby, and the rifle itself starts at $8,000 in non-magnum calibers, $10,000 in .416 Rigby, without offering - objectively - any additional function over my "improved" CZ 550 (https://www.africahunting.com/media/cz-550-416-rigby-rifle.72411/).

Is the Mauser (or a custom gun built on a Granite Mountain action or similar) nicer? Heck yes! Do I want one? Heck yes! Can I scrap together the $10,000 for it? Probably. Will I do it? Heck no! I used to do it, but I tired of buying safes to accumulate rifles that I shoot once every 20 years, and worrying so much about the rifle in transit or in the field that the stress of having it damaged is distracting me from the pleasure of the hunt/trip. Nowadays, I will rather spend the $10,000 on a 2 week 2 buffalo free-range hunt in Zim with my "improved" CZ 550

As Hogpatrol's byline says: "Every man dies. Not every man really lives." I am going to be 60 next week, and I am starting to awake to my mortality, I need to live, NOW.

 

[BeeMaa]

Is the Mauser (or a custom gun built on a Granite Mountain action or similar) nicer? Heck yes! Do I want one? Heck yes! Can I scrap together the $10,000 for it? Probably. Will I do it? Heck no! I used to do it, but I tired of buying safes to accumulate rifles that I shoot once every 20 years, and worrying so much about the rifle in transit or in the field that the stress of having it damaged is distracting me from the pleasure of the hunt/trip. Nowadays, I will rather spend the $10,000 on a 2 week 2 buffalo free-range hunt in Zim with my "improved" CZ 550

As Hogpatrol's byline says: "Every man dies. Not every man really lives." I am going to be 60 next week, and I am starting to awake to my mortality, I need to live, NOW.

I'm on record several time here saying that my rifles have to work for a living.
Scratches and dents on a rifle are part of the trophies won from a safari.

And +1 to Hogpatrol as well.
We all need to "live" a little bit more.
May I add "love and laugh" to that as well.

Happy upcoming birthday One Day!

 

[Dewald]

I am with you on the Rem 700 action. This is not my favorite action, by a long shot. To me it suffers 3 important shortcomings: its is not a CRF (strike 1), it does not offer a firing pin-blocking safety (strike 2) and it does not have integral scope mounts (strike 3).

I own a grand total of one Rem 700 because I wanted an as-issued Mk13 .300 Win Mag rifle, and I have never had any issue with it through 1,000 rounds so far (easy to count: I shot all I bought and need to restock LOL).

I would not build a DG gun on one. From the factories, CZ beats it 2-0 (CRF & integral scope base); Winchester 70 Classic beats it 2-0 (CRF and firing pin-blocking safety); Weatherby Mark V beats it 1-0 (firing pin-blocking safety); Sako 85 beats it 2-0 (CRF and integral scope base), etc. etc.

Yes, one can retrofit a firing pin-blocking safety on a Rem 700, but the absence of CRF and integral scope base cannot be remedied.

I am not saying that this is a bad action, it has proven itself for long enough all over the world, I am just saying that one can get additional features that I personally think are important on a rifle, for the same money...

To this day CZ remains the only I know off to offer these 3 necessary (in my view) features, admittedly with the firing pin-blocking safety as an aftermarket add-on. If only CZ could offer this action in stainless steel too...

PS: come to think of it, I do have an experience with Rem 700 extraction. My Remington Defense barreled action and Accuracy International chassis (i.e. the Mk13 rifle) came from the dealer Euro Optic with a chamber so poorly finished (as well many other issues - these were the last years before Remington's bankruptcy and quality was in the toilet) that I could not extract the shells of the Hornady 195 gr BTHP Match .300 Win Mag, even though they chambered smoothly. Even banging on the bolt handle with a baseball bat sized piece of wood at the shooting range did not work. I had to use a large rubber mallet back at home to get the shell out. I tested again the factory ammo the following day (maybe I had one factory overload? Rare but possible), but same issue. This time I had the mallet in the truck with me. I am not making tis up, you can read the story on my review at https://www.eurooptic.com/Rem700p300-AT-GR-FI-Remington-700P-5R-300-Win-Mag-with-Accur.aspx. Long story short. The Remington extractor did it job; it extracted shells from the chamber even though the shell left a fair amount of brass in the chamber...

One Day, do the old Ruger M77 Magnum actions not meet all your criteria then for an out of the box rifle?

True Magnum action
Three position safety
Integral scope mounts
CRF

I have fired one in .416 Rigby that fed very smooth and worked well, and know of another that needed some CZ-like TLC to feed reliably.

 

[One Day...]

One Day, do the old Ruger M77 Magnum actions not meet all your criteria then for an out of the box rifle?

True Magnum action
Three position safety
Integral scope mounts
CRF

I have fired one in .416 Rigby that fed very smooth and worked well, and know of another that needed some CZ-like TLC to feed reliably.

This is such a gret question Dewald.

The one thing I do not like on the Ruger, and which I honestly find a little deceptive is what I would personally characterize as a "let's pretend" approach to safety features. Let me explain:

1) The Rugers have had that big Mauser extractor all along, which has led many to be misguided in thinking that they were CRF actions because they looked like a Mauser action, while actually they were not. The big extractor did not actually carry the cartridge into the chamber but snapped over it when the bolt was close. Push feed. Deceptive in my mind. I believe that they have actually changed that at some point and that there actually are now some true CRF Rugers.

2) The Rugers have that big side swinging Winchester lookalike 3 position safety knob, which has led many to be misguided in thinking that they have a true bolt-mounted firing pin-blocking safety because they look like they do, while actually they do not. Yes it is a 3 position safety, but it is still an action-mounted trigger-blocking safety, i.e. an infinitely less reliable safety. The sear can still slip in a fall or as a consequence of home-grown "gun smithing" and there is nothing to block the firing pin from striking the primer and firing the gun. Deceptive again in my mind. I believe that to this day this is still the case.

I never understood why Ruger did that, and I always felt that they were cheating the trust of the shooting public with lookalike but not actual safety features. Maybe this is just me and I am a bit of a "violet" when it comes to trust, but this has turned me off Ruger, although I love their integral scope bases and their DG guns probably have (or at least had at a time) the best barrels out there when it comes to integral rib, rear sight integral mount, barrel band sling mount, barrel band front sight.

3) The other aspect is that the Ruger actions are cast (lost-wax process if memory serves), which is immensely cheaper than machining a block of steel, like most other manufacturers do (Win, Rem, CZ, Sako, etc.), but it also results in an action that is technically not as reliable in term of possibility of fracture. Apparently casting has made enough progress over the last few decades that this may be an obsolete point by now, but still, I prefer a machined action over a cast action.

I am not trying to convince anyone here, and I am NOT saying that Ruger actively engaged in willing deception, I am just answering Dewald's question and stating a personal opinion. But double check the facts of what I said, you will find them to be true ;-)

 

[Hogpatrol]

Don't know if these are still available but they still have the weakness of the Remington trigger.

https://www.americanrifle.com/product/mausingfield-bolt-action/

 

[One Day...]

Don't know if these are still available but they still have the weakness of the Remington trigger.
https://www.americanrifle.com/product/mausingfield-bolt-action/

Yep, apparently: no firing pin-blocking safety; no integral scope mounting base; and "Battle-proven Mauser 98 claw extractor" means absolutely nothing if it does not provide CRF, which I am willing to bet it does not, otherwise they would say it.

Rifles do not need an external extractor to extract reliably. We love it because we love the romantic image of the golden age of African hunting, but as a matter of fact there is no external "claw" extractor on the Lee Enfield SMLE, M1 Garand, MAS 36 or 49/56, M14, FAL, M4, Famas, H&K, M40, FRF1, AK 47, SVD Dragunov, Galil, Sauer, Sako, Tikka, Steyr, Mannlicher, modern Mausers, etc. etc.

To me that "Battle-proven Mauser 98 claw extractor" statement is just clever marketing intended to deceive people in believing they are buying true Mauser 98 FUNCTIONS, i.e. Controlled Round Feed (CRF), which they are not. They are just getting the LOOK.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom what on earth is one buying in this $1,600 action that one would not get in a $400 Remington action !?!?!?

I don't know, maybe I am just missing something...

 

[Dewald]

Thanks for the reply One Day. I haven’t owned or stripped down al older Ruger before, just fired a few. I do remember the .416 being a true CRF, but that could have been an aftermarket alteration.

The .416 Ruger Alaskan certainly does (obviously std action etc). You are right about the safety blocking the trigger. I didn’t think about that.

 

[TOBY458]

This is such a gret question Dewald.

The one thing I do not like on the Ruger, and which I honestly find a little deceptive is what I would personally characterize as a "let's pretend" approach to safety features. Let me explain:

1) The Rugers have had that big Mauser extractor all along, which has led many to be misguided in thinking that they were CRF actions because they looked like a Mauser action, while actually they were not. The big extractor did not actually carry the cartridge into the chamber but snapped over it when the bolt was close. Push feed. Deceptive in my mind. I believe that they have actually changed that at some point and that there actually are now some true CRF Rugers.

2) The Rugers have that big side swinging Winchester lookalike 3 position safety knob, which has led many to be misguided in thinking that they have a true bolt-mounted firing pin-blocking safety because they look like they do, while actually they do not. Yes it is a 3 position safety, but it is still an action-mounted trigger-blocking safety, i.e. an infinitely less reliable safety. The sear can still slip in a fall or as a consequence of home-grown "gun smithing" and there is nothing to block the firing pin from striking the primer and firing the gun. Deceptive again in my mind. I believe that to this day this is still the case.

I never understood why Ruger did that, and I always felt that they were cheating the trust of the shooting public with lookalike but not actual safety features. Maybe this is just me and I am a bit of a "violet" when it comes to trust, but this has turned me off Ruger, although I love their integral scope bases and their DG guns probably have (or at least had at a time) the best barrels out there when it comes to integral rib, rear sight integral mount, barrel band sling mount, barrel band front sight.

3) The other aspect is that the Ruger actions are cast (lost-wax process if memory serves), which is immensely cheaper than machining a block of steel, like most other manufacturers do (Win, Rem, CZ, Sako, etc.), but it also results in an action that is technically not as reliable in term of possibility of fracture. Apparently casting has made enough progress over the last few decades that this may be an obsolete point by now, but still, I prefer a machined action over a cast action.

I am not trying to convince anyone here, and I am NOT saying that Ruger actively engaged in willing deception, I am just answering Dewald's question and stating a personal opinion. But double check the facts of what I said, you will find them to be true ;-)

1. The Ruger swapped to CRF around 1989 with the Mark 2.
2. The three position safety does mount on the action and not the bolt. However, when it's in the full safe position, the flag itself blocks the firing pin from moving forward. There is a notch in the cocking piece that the flag engages. (I agree, still not as good as a Winchester 70).
3. The cast action is definitely not as smooth or as costly to build as a forged action, but strength has never been Ruger's weakness. (I still prefer the Win 70).

In my experience, Ruger rifles are very reliable and work as intended. Hard to beat for the money....

 

[One Day...]

Ruger rifles are very reliable and work as intended. Hard to beat for the money....

I agree with this statement, and they haven proven themselves enough for me to concur that they are rationally very sensible rifles. No challenge on my part.

Thanks for confirming re. CRF, I believe that I stated that I thought they had changed at one time. Thanks also for the clarification re. the safety. You mentioning it makes me think "oh yeah, this is true, I remember that." I also remember thinking: "hmm, what a tortuous way to do thing and would that notch slip?" So, I am with you: still not as good as a Winchester 70.

When it comes to safeties, scope bases, metal bottoms, barrel mounted sights, etc. I have seen a ramp front sight and a rear sight fall off a barrel (two different guns); scope bases go loose; a 'pot-metal' bottom brake; a gun fire while on trigger-blocking safety (I always suspected "home-grown" gunsmithing trigger adjustment - even though the guy was vehemently defensive); etc. i.e. whatever can go wrong invariably will. So, I have evolved a bit of a "belt AND suspender" approach. Integral scope mounts do not loosen; barrel band front sight stay on barrels, rear sights on integral barrel dovetails stay there; bolt mounted firing-pin safeties are about as mechanical infallible as moving parts can be; etc. etc.

I also agree, and stated, that investment casting has come a long way and that the concern is likely obsolete. Still, like you I prefer forging and machining. I have seen one 1911 style .45 cast slide fracture, although it was admittedly not a Ruger.

As I said, my comments were just my personal opinion after I felt a bit cheated. In the late 80's/early 90's (not really sure when) I ordered a Ruger 77 RSI International .270 Win for my younger brother, as a welcome gift into the hunting community (see him a couple years later with it below), and I felt betrayed when I realized that it was neither a true CRF nor a true firing-pin blocking safety. I wanted something really safe for him: people stumble and gun fall occasionally where we hunt Chamois. There was no such rifle in the store and it was a special order (Ray Sport in NJ if memory serves, and they refused to take it back). I guess that I have never been able to get over it and have never looked at even the remote possibility of owning a Ruger ever since. Curious how irrational we can be sometimes...

 

[mark-hunter]

For the life of me, I cannot fathom what on earth is one buying in this $1,600 action that one would not get in a $400 Remington action !?!?!?

I think that we buy something for added value, hidden within the object, for the reasons known only to buyer. There is some special apeal to it, in hte eye of beholder.

Sad thing is, action with mauser long extractor is more expensive in production then other push feed actions, and more and more gun makers go to cheaper solution. Last example known to me is cz 557 model in check rifles new line...

Sako 85, in production, somehow conveniently skipped long extractor, saving costs, but tried to keep control feed action. Maybe I am wrong, but this is how I see this type of CRF.

 

[TOBY458]

I agree with this statement, and they haven proven themselves enough for me to concur that they are rationally very sensible rifles. No challenge on my part.

Thanks for confirming re. CRF, I believe that I stated that I thought they had changed at one time. Thanks also for the clarification re. the safety. You mentioning it makes me think "oh yeah, this is true, I remember that." I also remember thinking: "hmm, what a tortuous way to do thing and would that notch slip?" So, I am with you: still not as good as a Winchester 70.

When it comes to safeties, scope bases, metal bottoms, barrel mounted sights, etc. I have seen a ramp front sight and a rear sight fall off a barrel (two different guns); scope bases go loose; a 'pot-metal' bottom brake; a gun fire while on trigger-blocking safety (I always suspected "home-grown" gunsmithing trigger adjustment - even though the guy was vehemently defensive); etc. i.e. whatever can go wrong invariably will. So, I have evolved a bit of a "belt AND suspender" approach. Integral scope mounts do not loosen; barrel band front sight stay on barrels, rear sights on integral barrel dovetails stay there; bolt mounted firing-pin safeties are about as mechanical infallible as moving parts can be; etc. etc.

I also agree, and stated, that investment casting has come a long way and that the concern is likely obsolete. Still, like you I prefer forging and machining. I have seen one 1911 style .45 cast slide fracture, although it was admittedly not a Ruger.

As I said, my comments were just my personal opinion after I felt a bit cheated. In the late 80's/early 90's (not really sure when) I ordered a Ruger 77 RSI International .270 Win for my younger brother, as a welcome gift into the hunting community (see him a couple years later with it below), and I felt betrayed when I realized that it was neither a true CRF nor a true firing-pin blocking safety. I wanted something really safe for him: people stumble and gun fall occasionally where we hunt Chamois. There was no such rifle in the store and it was a special order (Ray Sport in NJ if memory serves, and they refused to take it back). I guess that I have never been able to get over it and have never looked at even the remote possibility of owning a Ruger ever since. Curious how irrational we can be sometimes...

View attachment 257413

Yes, it would be nice if all rifles came with an integral scope base. Or, at least go with #8 screws, like the Kimber rifles. I use steel Warne, weaver style scope bases, and locktight the screws, and have never had a base come loose. With quick detach rings, they seem to hold zero fairly well also. As for our conversation about Ruger, I guess the main thing I like about Winchester, Sako, and Kimber, over the Ruger, is the finish machining is just much more precise. I love pretty machine work! Ruger leaves alot of things "as cast" and even though it functions correctly, it's just not what I prefer. I've been told that the Sako 75 and 85 are cast actions as well. Sako just takes the time to clean them up and machine away the imperfections. I guess in the end, it's all about personal preference. Truth is, we have some great guns to choose from these days!

 

[BeeMaa]

I sent an email to Wayne at AHR asking about the safety he installed on my CZ which is a 3-position wing style.
In the rear and middle position the firing pin is mechanically blocked and sear disengaged from the trigger.
Would this be the same as the pre'64 M70?

CZ550 375H&H with AHR #2 Upgrade

• BeeMaa
• Sep 7, 2018

Bolt handle straightened and filled. Trigger replaced and set a 3.5#

 

[One Day...]

I sent an email to Wayne at AHR asking about the safety he installed on my CZ which is a 3-position wing style.
In the rear and middle position the firing pin is mechanically blocked and sear disengaged from the trigger.
Would this be the same as the pre'64 M70?

CZ550 375H&H with AHR #2 Upgrade

• BeeMaa
• Sep 7, 2018

Bolt handle straightened and filled. Trigger replaced and set a 3.5#

Absolutely. And it is actually one thing that has not changed from pre to post 64. The AHR safety (like the Gentry, the Lapour, etc,) is actually a copy of the Winchester safety, itself a modified copy of the Mauser safety.

As you engage your safety, you can actually see if you look closely that the firing pin is moved rearward about 1/64th of an inch. The camming surface of the safety lever 1) inserts itself as a block of steel in the pathway of the firing pin, making it impossible for it to move forward, regardless of the force of the blow the gun could sustain by falling etc. and the safety lever 2) cams the firing pin backward so that its does not rest anymore on the trigger sear. You can actually fully depress the trigger after engaging a firing pin-blocking safety. It has no effect whatsoever, because the firing pin does not rest on the sear anymore. When the safety is removed, the firing pin comes back forward to rest on the trigger sear, just as when you close the bolt.

This is the reason why a firing pin-blocking safety MUST be a little hard to engage. It is an indication that it is actually moving the firing pin rearward against the firing pin spring tension. (This is also why I was saying in a previous post that the adjustment of the camming surfaces is a little tricky, because it must be at precisely the right angle to actually move the firing pin backward, but not require an unreasonable effort to do so. It is best left to a professional gunsmith (that does not mean a gun salesman ;-) or to private parties who know EXACTLY what they are doing ;-)

On the third position, the safety lever additionally pushes forward a pin from inside the bolt & safety shroud that engages a hole drilled in the back face of the bolt handle, which prevents the bolt from opening.

It is no accident that most (all?) high quality custom guns feature a so-called "3 position safety" which is actually a bolt-mounted firing pin-blocking safety. It is a true safety. Nothing short of a sledge hammer blow on the rear of the firing pin (and I am not even sure it would suffice) can make the gun fire accidentally... This is why they are offered to retrofit a number of actions...

 

[BeeMaa]

Reconfirms my decision to use AHR.
If I go bigger and with a bolt gun, he will most likely be doing the build from the ground up.

 

[One Day...]

Sako 85, in production, somehow conveniently skipped long extractor, saving costs, but tried to keep control feed action. Maybe I am wrong, but this is how I see this type of CRF.

You are not wrong indeed, but maybe the superfluous word in your sentence is "tried" because they actually succeeded, and a qualifier missing in your sentence is that the Sako extractor has proven to be just as reliable as the Mauser. There is zero objective factual evidence (I am not talking about emotional preference) that an external "claw" extractor actually provides any function that a well designed Sako-type extractor does not provide.

The big external "claw" extractor makes most of the Mauser mystic, and I too, like most anyone else, worship at the Paul Mauser altar, but the Mauser 98 (and immediate iterative predecessors) revolution was not that it did things better than other actions (it did that too); it was that it did things other actions did not do at all at the time. The list is long and goes way past CRF and 3 position firing pin-blocking safety, but this is for another thread

I have no beef with the Sako extractor BECAUSE IT DOES ITS JOB, flawlessly. Actually, it is good enough that a number of gunsmiths install Sako-type extractors on Rem 700 bolts...

I have no beef with the Sako CRF for the same reason: IT WORKS. Flawlessly.

I love the Sako integrated scope mounts. INDESTRUCTIBLE.

Where in my mind Sako missed the boat is with their safety. Yes it is a 3-position safety (which, sadly, is enough to convince many that they get the best), but it is an action-mounted trigger or sear-blocking safety, NOT a bolt-mounted, firing pin-blocking safety. This is really too bad, because otherwise the Sako 85 would be one of the best and safest rifles out there despite having no resemblance to the Mauser, while still performing all its safety functions albeit in a modernized design...

Mercifully, Ed LaPour offers an aftermarket firing pin-blocking safety for the Sako “L”,”A”,”S” series. I do not know if it mounts on a Sako 85? I know it does not on a 75...

 

[One Day...]

By the way, don't you guys think that I obsess over this, I am just glad to answer the questions and help fellow Brothers in Arms

 

[Longwalker]

I own both a couple of Sako 85 rifles and several CZ / ZKK rifles, and like them all. As previously noted the CZ rifles are robust, but not well finished from the factory. Just for curiosity I took my M85 Kodiak .375 and loaded the magazine with dummy action proving rounds. If all I did was push the bolt forward and pulled back, it fed and ejected the loaded round. Every time. The cartridges all engaged the extractor, and were held by the extractor for ejection, whether or not the bolt was turned down into the locked position. Tried to make it fail, and after going through several full magazines, I did figure out how to get a malfunction if I only pushed the bolt forward about half the cartridge length then pulled back. But I am not concerned about that remote possibility. As far as I am concerned the Sako 85 is a reliable CRF action.