New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - sako 85 and kahles
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

sako 85 and kahles

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/05/2007 at 13:49
frankx45 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: September/25/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6
I've used the search function and have not really found my answers. I have a Sako 85 hunter on order and wanted to top it off with a Kahles scope. If I went with a CL 3x10x50 do you think this scope will sit too high on the rifle? Also wouldn't this require high rings?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/10/2007 at 03:13
timber View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/03/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 354

     frankx45.  I'm no expert and have not posted before but have done considerable research on this topic.  I have a Sako 85 Hunter in 30-06 coming in next week.  I also recently sold a Sako 75.  There are fewer mounting options because of the dovetail receiver on these rifles.  I found these rifles to be the hardest to scope of any rifles I've owned.  You may want to consider actual scope lengths, eye relief requirements, as well as mounting height requirements.

 

     First the Sako 85 Hunter (according to customer service at BerettaUSA) has a LOP of 13 3/4".  My 75 had a 14 1/4" LOP.  This may not seem like a big deal but if you are used to say a Remington 700, with a typical 13 1/2" LOP, it begins to matter.  If you are getting a 30-06 length action this will also increase the overall length scope requirements.  Consider the heaviest clothing you may be wearing.

 

     Unlike the Sako 75 it appears the 85 is only available in three actions.  The SA(short action -308 length), SM(short magnum - wsm's) and the M(medium action - 30-06 length).  I think the M action is 10mm longer than the other two actions.

 

     The problem I had with the Sako 75 was that very few scopes were physically long enough with comfortable eye relief.  Perhaps another shooter would not encounter this but I found that some scopes in the mid-range and smaller power category, say 2.5-10, like the Zeiss Victory were literally too short. 

 

     I finally charted some dimensions from various manufacturers to find scopes that would be long enough.  This can be a chore because some manufacturers do not display this information on their websites, requiring telephones to customer service.  If the ocular lenght plus the tube length was not at least about 9 1/4" in length I did not consider it to be viable for me.

 

     Some that worked, in no particular order, were the Leupold 3.5-14x50 LPS, the new Leupold VX-7 3.5-14x50, the S&B 3-12x42, and both of the new Swarovski Z6's, the 1.7-10x42 and the 2-12x50.  You'll note that these scopes all have mininum eye reliefs of about 3 3/4".

 

     I wanted a detachable mounting system and considered Leupold QR's and Talley Quick Detachables.  There are others but these seemed reliable and accessible.  For instance the EAW swing mount, perhaps the best, seems designed for the European 'Head Up' shooting position and as such place the scope very high.  The Sako 'Optilock' also mount fairly high (start at medium height) and seem to have very soft mounting screws.  I did not consider various 'ringmount' type options.

 

     As an aside if you want the strongest mount possible consider the Near Manufacturing picatinny base.  This is an incredible piece of engineering and CNC machining and is a one piece rail.  For a long range shooting/hunting rifle this base with picatinny rings would be the way to go.  It will have a built-in 10 MOA and would, even with the lowest rings, put the scope fairly high.

 

     The Leupold QR's and Talley Quick Detachables both offer low rings although the Talley Low Ring (in 30mm) actually measured slightly higher than the QR (in 30mm) medium's. 

 

     Edit 6-11-07:  After again looking at a Talley Quick Detachable base and ring set-up for a Reminton 700 I realize I may be mistaken on the Talley measurements in regards to the Sako Rifle.  I do know that on a Remington 700 the combination of the Talley Base and 30mm Low Ring did measure slightly HIGHER than the combination of the Leupold QR Base and 30mm Medium Ring.  This may NOT be the case on a Sako as the Talley Sako Base may be LOWER (thinner) than a Remington 700 Base, comparing the overall heights of the front and rear bases respectively after they are mounted.  (Unlike the Remington 700 the Sako front and rear receiver are the same height and therefore the bases are the same height also).  The same Talley rings are used with either the Sako or Remington Base.  I do have a Leupold Sako QR Base set but I did not have a Talley Sako QD Base set on hand when I made that judgement.  I made an assumption that in fact may not be true and I apoligize if this has caused any confusion. 

 

     Both were lower than the Sako and EAW mounts. 

 

     Edit 6-11-07:  I do know that the Talley (Quick Detachables) and Leupold QR base & low ring combinations will both mount lower than the EAW mount on the Sako Rifle.  The QR's will also mount lower than the Sako 'Opti-Lock' mounts but I'm NOT 100% sure the Talley's will also mount lower than the Sako 'Opti-Lock' mounts. 

 

     The Leupold QR's base mounts with a single side screw on each base where as the Talley's mount with 2 top screws on each base.  I've read too much presure on the Talley's screws will raise the base from the dovetail.  But I'd also add that Talley's Quick Detachable rings seem to be very strong and precise.

 

     One additional factor to consider is the size (height) of the cast receiver of the Sako in relation to the shank (chamber) end of the barrel.  It is higher than say a Remington 700's machined bar stock receiver.  As a result you may find (on standard barrel profiles) that a scope with a very long length may actually 'tuck in' to the barrel with adequate clearance.  This is because the barrels' outside diameter gets smaller from the chamber forward.

 

     I should also mention I personally do not like 'extension' rings having had various problems with them in the past.  Their use for me at least almost always required the use of higher rings, sometimes two steps higher.

 

     As you can tell I went through a lot of research trying to figure out what would work for me.  I wish manufacturers would not try to constantly design their scopes to be smaller and more compact.  It seems to limit their flexibility, especially on longer actions and longer LOP's.  Good luck in your decision.

 

Timber

 

    



Edited by timber
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/10/2007 at 07:32
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20475

Good post, Timber.

I welcome both of you Gents to The OT.

 

Warne also makes rings/mounts for Sako's, IIRC, but I have never used them.

I used Talley's and Leupold Ring Mounts on a .300 WM Sako M75.

Both worked very well.

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/10/2007 at 16:32
timber View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/03/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 354

frankx45.  Looking at my post, which reads like a long expression of  frustration, I realized I didn't answer your original questions.  I should have said right up front that my goal for a hunting rifle is to always strive for the lowest scope mount possible, sometimes sacrificing larger objectives to achieve this.  Although the Kahles Cl 3-10x50 is a very fine scope it comes up short (no pun intended) for my requirements.  The Ocular + Tube Length = 9.01" and the listed eye relief is 90mm or about 3.6".  Combined that adds up to about .4" too short.  

 

Now I realize that I'm being a bit overly critical in this judgement.  Please keep in mind that those mininum numbers I came up with (eye relief, 3 3/4" & ocular + tube length=9 1/4") were just criteria used to narrow the list of workable scopes that fit ME.  I actually trial fitted several scopes I had on hand whereupon I realized that my Sako 75 was going to need these longer numbers.  Your personal requirements (judgements) may differ with mine.  And your Sako 85 Hunter should have the shorter LOP (13 3/4" vs. 14 1/4" for my Sako 75).  This 13 3/4" LOP is still longer than my previous rifles.

 

As to the question of ring height it's very likely this Kahles with the Leupold QR's would require High Rings if used on a SA (short action).  If used on Sako's M (medium action - 30-06 length cartridges), which is 10mm longer, it is very likely that QR High Extensions may be necessary to get comfortable eye relief.  It's also possible that by pushing the scope back with the extension rings the objective bell may end up touching the barrel shank.  Either way this would definitely be a deal breaker for me.  Equalivent height Talley's would be the same and I don't think Talley Quick Detachables are offered in extension rings.

 

I would consider 50mm objective scopes if they can be fitted with Medium Height rings.  This is possible if they are physically long enough (ocular+ tube length) and have enough eye relief.  For instance I found the Leupold 3.5-14x50 LPS (and new VX7 3.5-14x50 and Swarovski Z6 2-12x50) are long enough and have enough eye relief.  The Leupold 3.5-14x50 LPS (now discontinued), although not in the same class as the Swarovski, possibly the new VX7 and Schmidt & Bender (first posting), is a particularly sleek and low profile scope for a 50mm objective and would look great on a Sako Hunter.  Interestingly, the Burris Black Diamond 4-16x50, although out of your general power range and with a shorter eye relief at higher power settings, actually cleared the barrel by about 1 mm with QR Low's because of it's very long length (15.7").

 

As I said in my first posting when I considered LOP, action size, and hunting clothes typically worn I realized longer scopes with longer reliefs would be necessary for the Sako 75.  By only considering scopes that met this criteria it really narrowed the choices.  There were some 1" scopes in this general power range that also made the list including the very flexible Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 (ocular + tube length=9.85" & eye relief= 4").  There were a few others that escape my memory at the moment.

 

Cheaptrick's suggestion of Warne rings is a good one.  They may positon scopes differently (fore and aft) than Leupold QR's and Talley's.  Also having read his and others postings in regards to optical qualities I would defer to them as I have no expertise in that field.  The only thing that I could say, as trite as it will sound, is that the more expensive scopes have been generally more effective, especially in lower light situations.

 

Having never had this experience of a hard fit did make this a somewhat lengthy and frustrating experience.  Really all I was trying to achieve was an efficient tool to be used without second thought to any one particular aspect of the rifle.  For me that was all about fit.  And without actually realizing it this is what I have always gone for with previous rifles.  Good luck and I hope I have made your decision easier.

 

Timber

 

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/11/2007 at 10:20
8shots View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar
Lord Of The Flies

Joined: March/14/2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 5754

Timber, I like your post and it seems you have done your homework. I have a Sako with the old action L61. which was of the Sako's built in the 60's.

I have a Leupold 3,5-10x40 and the Leupold QR mounts. I find the QR mounts are a size lower then their "normal" mounts. A Low in normal mounts fitted, whereas I had to go to Medium in the QR's. I had a problem with the scope not aligning on the horizontal plane and had to shim the rear mount upwards. I have not figured out why this is, as it is difficult to put a level on a sloping bore to see if the receiver and barrel align or whatever.

I have not tested the mounts for return to zero. Have you tested them?

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/11/2007 at 17:20
timber View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/03/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 354

Hello 8shots.  Again I'm no expert but I'll try to answer your questions.  I'm not familar with the older L61 Action.  Does it have a dovetail receiver and is it cast (I'm told some machining is required after casting) or perhaps a machined bar stock?  I've been told that actions like the REM 700 or the WIN 70 (machined flat stock) can be more precise than a cast receiver like the Sako or Browning A-Bolt II.

 

First as to your shimming situation.  A couple of weeks ago I was talking to a gentleman at Schmidt & Bender USA.  We were discussing the S&B's (front focal plane reticle models) relatively small amount of internal elevation and windage adjustment.  I had asked him if the Leupold QR or Talley Quick Detach mounts would work okay with the scope.

 

The particular scope in question was the variable 3-12x42.  He told me this scope has a 14 MOA in both directions for both elevation and windage and was factory set at 'zero'.  In other words say for elevation you can move it up 14 MOA or down 14 MOA from zero for a Total of 28 MOA adjustment or approximately 28 inches at 100 yards.  Same for windage.

 

Your Leupold 3.5x10x40 (newer models) has a much higher 57 MOA total adjustment range for both elevation and windage.  My understanding is that this has to do with the fact that the S&B has a front focal plane (or 1st plane) reticle and the Leupold a rear focal plane (or 2nd plane) reticle.  Perhaps someone else could explain it further but I believe it's simple engineering - only so much physical room in the scope itself for adjustment of the reticle depending on where it is located.

 

Anyway I say all of this to tell you that he told me further that they had had some difficulty with some Sako's having the rear 'dovetail' part of the receiver to measure very slightly (thousands of an inch if I remember) LOWER than the front 'dovetail' receiver.  It did not pose a large problem because the mount they were using was an EAW that had elvation adjustability in the mount itself.  As a result they did not have to shim OR use large amounts (which the S&B did not have) of internal elevation adjustment.  No mention was made of windage challenges so I'd assume the dovetails were aligned laterally.

 

So it sounds as if your particular Sako has a slightly lower rear receiver too.  I'm guessing it was so low that you determined mounting it 'as is' might put the scope in a bind OR that you did not have enough internal elevation adjustment of the reticle to range sight the scope, or both?  Therefore shimming might have been the only logical solution for the mounts you were using.  I'd like to know because I'm strongly considering the S&B scope.

 

As to the heights of the Leupold QR vs. 'Standard' Mounts.  I can only go by the data listed in their 2007 Catalog, perhaps online also.  I've also spoken with Leupold's Customer Service about this very topic.  The base dimensions will vary from one model of rifle to the next of course but he used a REM 700 as an example.  Here's what he told me.

 

The 'Standard Mount' rear base of the REM 700 is slightly SHORTER than the QR rear base.  This is because of the 'quick release' mechansim located inside the QR base itself.  It needs a given amount of space, the result of which is the QR base will have to be THICKER and therefore TALLER to accommodate the mechanism.  This concept would apply to any rifle, front or rear base.  Incidentally, base heights for various rifles are NOT listed in Leupolds Catalog.  (You'll forgive me for the capital letters - I use them to help me keep things straight in my simple mind, ha ha).

 

     Edit:  I found an example in the "Leupold Answer Guide" tonight:

How thick is a Leupold base?
The thickness of Leupold bases varies from one model to another. For example, the Winchester Model 70 front base in the STD style is .185" thick. The QR version of the same base is .230" thick.

 

Now if you refer to the 2007 Leupold Catalog, page 105, you will see their various ring product codes listed with corresponding height dimensions.  So if you look at the 'Standard Rings' in a low height you will see the dimension of 0.65".  Then look at the QR Rings in low height and you will find 0.65" also.  Mediums in both style rings are 0.77".

 

     Edit:  According to the 2007 Leupold Catalog:  "Ring height measurement is from the contact point with the base to the center of the ring."

 

So it would appear to me that the exact opposite would be true of what you said, at least with a comparison of 'Standard Mounts"' vs. QR mounts.  That is to say the QR Ring in the same height ring as a 'Standard' Ring would actually put the scope at a slightly HIGHER mounting position.  This is assuming we are talking about new 2007 products and the exact same style mounts.  As you know there are literally hundreds of possible combinations of base mounts and rings and styles of both so we would have to be talking about the exact same mounts to be 100% sure.

 

     Edit:  8shots.  If you were referring to the Leupold Sako Ringmounts as 'normal' mounts I think the same would be true.  The 2007 Leupold Catalog list the 'RM Sako Low' as 0.76" and the 'RM Sako High' as 0.86".  I measured a Sako QR base tonight and it was approximately 0.25" in height.  So if you add the base height to the ring heights you get the following:  QR Low is 0.65" + 0.25" = 0.90" and the QR Medium is 0.77" + 0.25" = 1.02".  So since Ringmounts don't have separate bases the QR combination in either Low or Medium would be HIGHER than the corresponding Ringmount sizes.

 

As an aside, if you want to go to the very lowest mounting position (for any given mounting style or model of bases and rings) you would want a scope with the smallest diameter offered.  For centerfires this would normally be 1".  The reason for this is because the smaller diameter of the scope tube allows the centerline of the scope to be positioned lower.  Keep in mind that the scope's objective bell, if applicable, would have to be able to clear the barrel and the rifle's bolt handle/safety would have to be able to clear the ocular (eyepiece).  As to the bolt lift issue the Sako 75 and 85's have 70 degree bolt lifts so that usually is not a problem.

 

As an example compare a 1" QR ring to a 30mm QR ring.  Both are listed at a height of 0.65".  To acheive this you will see that the 1" low ring has a 'thickened base' under the bottom portion of the ring whereas the 30mm ring has a much THINNER 'thickened base' under the bottom part of the ring.  This 'thickened base' measures 0.1" taller than the thinner 30mm 'thickened base'.  This allows the ability to shorten the 1" low ring by that 0.1" to make what Leupold calls a 'Super Low' ring, which is listed in their catalog as having a height of .55" (0.65"-.1"=0.55").  This would probably make a lot more sense if you could physically see and handle all three rings.  I thank the Leupold Customer Service guy for explaining this to me. 

 

Finally the return to zero question.  Leupold stat

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/12/2007 at 01:18
timber View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/03/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 354

It appears there is not a lot of information in regards to scope mounting for Sako's.  That's one reason I have gone into great detail with my explanations.  It also has helped to re-enforce what I have gathered and learned from talking to many people.  If someone finds that I am mistaken about anything please let me know as I am still learning.  Little did I know that when I bought my first Sako that I would be  embarking on this adventure.  So for you Sako owners out there I hope that some of this may help you.  And to everyone else I appreciate the patience and again thank you for the indulgence.

 

Timber

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/12/2007 at 04:37
8shots View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar
Lord Of The Flies

Joined: March/14/2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 5754

Timber,

Thanks again for a good post. Firstly I am not sure if it is a cast receiver. It is dovetail mounts. On normal mounts I did not have this problem, so I am not sure if this is a QR mount problem. I have however had the rifle rebarreled since, so this could also be the cause.

I ran out of elevation adjustment and was still not zeroed. Shooting about 6 inches low at 25 meters and elevation maxed out. Because of the dovetail I had to shim the inside of the ring. I show the ring I had made from brass. I worked it down a bit since the picture was taken. At the thickest point it is about 1.8mm.

 

I enclose pictures of the QR Low rings v's Normal Low rings v's QR Medium rings. The medium QR Rings are attached to the scope and are the same height as the normal Low rings. When I ordered QR Low rings the dealer warned me that they would be to low, so I (just as well) included the QR medium rings. The packaging was marked Low and Medium.

So definately, on the rings I purchased their heights differed from one type to the next. You can also see that the bases do not differ that much in height (QR vs Normal)

I tried the QR on the scope you see in the picture and found them to return to zero OK, but my grouping was also a little off, say 2 inch grouping, so it did not proove to much.

 



Edited by 8shots
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/12/2007 at 13:00
timber View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/03/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 354

8shots,

 

     The 'standard' base in the picture is unfamilar to me.  Your first posting reads like it is a Leupold brand base.  Is it?  I can see where it (the 'normal' or 'standard' base) combined with the 'Standard Low' ring would be higher than 'QR Base and Low' ring combination. 

 

     On page 97 of the  2007 Leupold Catalog in the 'Base Fit & Ring Height Information' guide they list a 'Round Receiver' as well as a 'Tapered Dovetail Receiver'.  I can't tell from your picture; does the receiver have a taper to it? 

 

     If you have a 'Tapered Dovetail Receiver' (all Sako 75 & 85 are tapered) both QR Bases and Ringmounts (which are 1-piece, no separate base) are listed.  By the way, if you check Leupold's online Mount Selector Guide for the Sako 'Tapered Dovetail Receiver' you will only see 'Ringmounts' recommended.  I called Customer Service and they told me both styles are still listed as part numbers and are still being produced - I guess it's just an oversight with the new web-site.

 

     If you have the 'Round Receiver' the Catalog guide refers you to the Mauser FN where QR Bases AND 'Standard Bases' are listed.  So this leads me to believe that if you have a Leupold brand 'Standard Base' and it fits then you must have the 'Round Receiver'.  If this is the case then the QR Base would be different than the QR Base for the Sako 75 & 85 (Tapered Receiver).  Therefore it's entirely possible that the 'Standard Base' in combination with the 'Standard Low Ring' could in fact be higher than the 'QR Base & Low Ring' combination.  

 

     However if this is in fact the case I can't see where it would matter unless you wanted to use the low standard set-up for technical reasons and found it to be TOO HIGH.  If for instance the QR set-up is where you are seeing the alignment problem I can certainly understand why you'd want to use the standard set-up.  Did you have an alignment problem with the standard base and standard rings?  If NOT then I would strongly suggest the following:

 

     1) verify the receiver style

     2) see if you have the correct part # for the QR Base

                   a) round receiver - two parts are listed, one for gloss and one for matte

                   b) tapered receiver - three parts are listed, gloss, matte and silver

 

     I would be most concerned with the alignment problem.  You say:  "I ran out of elevation adjustment and was still not zeroed. Shooting about 6 inches low at 25 meters and elevation maxed out. Because of the dovetail I had to shim the inside of the ring. I show the ring I had made from brass. I worked it down a bit since the picture was taken. At the thickest point it is about 1.8mm." 

 

     A 1.8mm shim is very large.  I would think something is drastically wrong.  And to run out of elevation with what I assume is a scope with 57MOA's of adjustability just doubles my suspicions.  Something is very wrong.  You may remember me saying the following:  "Anyway I say all of this to tell you that he told me further that they had had some difficulty with some Sako's having the rear 'dovetail' part of the receiver to measure very slightly (thousands of an inch if I remember) LOWER than the front 'dovetail' receiver."

 

     He was talking about thousands of an inch, an increment much much smaller than 1 mm.  I believe the conversion is 1mm = 0.03937 inches.  Therefore 1.8mm x 0.03937 inches = 0.070866 inches.  If my calculations are correct that would be about 70 thousands of an inch or 7 hundreds of an inch.   That is a big number.  The Schmidt & Bender tech guy was saying that the rear receiver was lower by several thousands of and inch.  I took that to mean 0.009 or less otherwise I'm thinking he would have said hundreds, something in the range of 0.01 to 0.09.

 

     If the QR base part number you have is correct and this alignment problem is isolated to it I wouldn't use it.  I'd use either the standard Leupold set-up or if that is too high look for another brand of base/ring set-up altogether. 

 

     Let me know what you find out.

 

Timber

 



Edited by timber
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/12/2007 at 13:24
timber View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/03/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 354

8shots,

 

     I missed this on the first reading of your post.  You said:  "Firstly I am not sure if it is a cast receiver. It is dovetail mounts. On normal mounts I did not have this problem, so I am not sure if this is a QR mount problem. I have however had the rifle rebarreled since, so this could also be the cause."

 

     Does that mean the 'normal' or 'standard' mounts did NOT have the aligment problem.  If that is the case then either you have the wrong part number or something is very wrong with the QR set-up.  I can't see how rebarreling the rifle would affect the receiver.

 

     One quick note on the cast receiver.  I'm not an engineer but it does make sense that a machined receiver could be more precisely manufactured as far as measurements are concerned.  I presume this is why some of the Sako's rear receivers are very slightly lower than the fronts.  This would also explain why the cast receivers are larger/bulkier as cast components are not as strong as components machined from something like bar or flat stock.  To get adequate strength they need to be bigger dimensionally than the same part made from machined stock.  And finally, my understanding is that more complicated designs, like the Sako Dovetail, are more easily and cost effectively manufactured by casting.  The 'dimpling' alone on top of the Sako 75 and 85 would be very time consuming if machined. 

 

     I'm going to leave may last post largely intact as there may be some relevant information in there that might help you or some other Sako owner.

 

     Let me know.

 

Timber



Edited by timber
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/12/2007 at 13:49
8shots View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar
Lord Of The Flies

Joined: March/14/2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 5754

Timber, Ok I have looked at Leupold's new website. Things have undergone a bit of a change in the last month or so. I bought my QR bases in Sep 2006. The base that I show as standard is to the best of my knowledge the old Leupold standard mount. Their new? or current mount is in line with the QR system and ring heights. You are therefore correct in everything you have said. I bought my Leupold in 1997 with the mounts and basis and I am pretty convinced that during Sep when I did my research these same (as in my picture) showed as their standard bases. Interestingly the Sako dovetails QR did not show on their website and I phoned Leupold Technical who assured me they did make them. I had to check a couple of stores in the USA before I could locate dovetail QR for Sako. Most stores said it was not made any more and I would have to locate old stock. Anyway I did find a pair.

As you can guess my Sako has dovetail scope mount receivers.

Yes, your calculations are correct on the fairly hefty offset. I had the solid base and rings on the rifle before rebarreling and had no problems. Whilst the rifle was being re-barreled I decided to go the route of QR mounts. I wanted to use a 3,5 - 10 x40 scope for hunting and a 8,5-25x50 for target day at the range. I searched at all the options and was pretty convinced EAW mounts was the way to go. Except the price. I can litterally buy a second rifle for the price of 1 set of mounts, 1 set of 30mm rings and 1 set of 1 inch rings. I further spoke to someone who tested them and they were not to impressed. That sealed the deal. Warneke, Tally etc all did not have Sako dovetail systems, neither are the Leupold QRW in Sako dovetail.

So for the price I went this route. Either it will work or it will not. The school fees are affordable and I will know a bit more at the end. I am short on time and had to get the rifle up and running for a hunt, so I could not take the mounts off and put the other on to see if the old mounts still work or have the same problem as the QR. Anyway, irrespective I want the QR to work. I shimmed them untill I had a zeroed scope on zeroed dials, end of story and bolted the lot down. On a shoot of some 50 rounds everything is holding out OK and zero is spot on. I have not taken the scope off and put it back on yet and will do this test after the hunt.

The vertical plane or windage was no problem and spot on centred on the vertical line.

I have had the rifle at two gunsmiths and no-one was overly alarmed at my problem, so what can I say. Anyone know how to check the barrel alighnment with the scope receiver mounts? That is without expensive equipment. I can get a level on the receiver mounts, but how do I transfer this line to the bore line or vice versa???

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/12/2007 at 14:01
8shots View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar
Lord Of The Flies

Joined: March/14/2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 5754

Further to the above, yes the original fixed base and ring setup gave no problems. Zeroed the dials, bore-sighted the scope and used the widage adjustments (a screw on each side of the pillar to get windage on line). And then dial in a little up or down, boom on the paper at 25 yds!

This time with QR -boom- and after searching found the hole farrrrrrr down on the backing board. But vertically in line. Dialled up and up and ran out of dialling power. First coke can shims 14 layers !!!! and then I was Ok. Then made more durable permanent brass shimm.

When I took the rifle to the gunsmith for the barrel inspection, he loosened the bolt at the trigger gaurd end and showed me a fair amount of movement in the action and the stock. He said this is either poor bedding or a bent receiver, something the Sako's are known for according to him.

Well I have glassbedded the sucker down properly and see no such movement anymore. So maybe things are a bit bent and buckled!!!!!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/13/2007 at 00:39
timber View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/03/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 354

8shots,

 

     Okay, I'm closer to understanding what your saying the problem may be.  It's interesting.  You say: 

 

     " I had the solid base and rings on the rifle before rebarreling and had no problems."

 

     So you're saying no problems BEFORE rebarreling with the solid base and rings (what you also called the normal/standard set-up).  If I'm understanding correctly you changed the barrel AND the base/ring set-up and then wen to sight-in the rifle.  If that is the case you've got TWO VARIABLES, either one of which could be the problem. 

 

     First, the more I think about it, for the QR's to be off by let's say 7 hundreds, well that's a huge amount, but still possible.  I'd think Leupold would have caught the problem during routine factory quality inspections.  OR they'd have produced a bunch like that and would have heard from many people like yourself, measured the suspect bases/rings and if measurements were off that much would have had some kind of bulletine or recall. 

 

     One sure way to see if it's the QR's would be to put the old 'standard' set-up back on and head to the range.  That's what I'd do.  If time is a problem and accuracy is acceptable with the shimmed QR's, hunt with what you've got.  No big deal.  Wait until you have the time to try it.  But try it.

 

     If the 'standard' set-up still yields elevation problems, well then you know the problem is with the barrel installation, the barrel itself or the receiver.  (THE QR's WOULD BE OKAY).   If that were the case, now that I understand the sequence of events, I'd bet the problem is with the receiver.  But let me think about the barrel, barrel installation, and receiver first.

 

     First, let's say the barrel is bored out of alignment.  7 hundreds I'd guess really wouldn't be all that difficult to be off over the entire length of the barrel.  BUT, the odds of the barrel being installed, with the proper seating, AND then the bore alignment problem being ALL in elevation and absolutely NO windage are extremely unlikely.  I mean here is your gunsmith threading on your new defective barrel, which is off by 7 hundreds in the bore, and he just happens to stop right where the bore is pointing down by 7 hundreds.  I just don't see that happening.  The odds are against it. 

 

     AND, I would say the same thing if the threading were off slightly so that the bore ended up being off ALL in the vertical (elevation).  Same thing, he would have to stop threading on the barrel at EXACTLY the right point to get these results.  So logic would say the barrel is okay.

 

     So, what could go wrong with the installation to get the bore 7 hundreds out VERTICAL (elevation) alignment?  Could it be ever so slightly cross-threaded so that it ended up that much out of vertical alignment?  Again, the same thing would have to happen; he stops at exactly the point of theading where you get those results.  It's all just too against the odds.

 

     That would leave the receiver as being the culprit.  If it was okay before the rebarreling somehow it would have to be damaged during the barrel installation.  That, 8shots, would make the most sense to me.  I could see where it was in a vice or hold and the barrel is being threaded and sometime during the process too much pressure is applied to the barrel, acting as a long lever.  Or maybe the receiver was in some kind of bind in the vice.  Either way, with the cast receiver not being as strong as a machined receiver from bar or flat stock, it could have been bent.

 

     You said: "He said this is either poor bedding or a bent receiver, something the Sako's are known for according to him."

 

     It looks to me that gunsmith is right about the bent receiver.  I can't understand how poor bedding would give you those results.  Doesn't poor bedding usually just give you poor (large) groupings all over the map, so to speak, not a consistent elevation problem.  I mean what's happening is that the action/ barrel is moving in the stock.  I can't see how shimming the rear ring would fix that problem. 

 

     If the bedding were the problem in that the receiver/barrel just wasn't in alignment with the STOCK, I don't think you'd ever realize it.  I mean if it's all bolted down firmly and the scope is mounted securely, I don't even think you'd notice it while bore sighting or at the range. 

 

     So in summary, I'd try the standards first.  If that fixes the problem then it was the QR's.  It's possible and that would be great!  If not, then you've got a much bigger problem.  I'd probably use it as is until you can get another gun.  At some point, unless the gun has sentimental value, it wouldn't be cost effective to try and fix it.

 

     EAW's.  I totally agree with you about the cost.  I was quoted about $350 US for the total mount system plus then it was going to cost even more to get it installed.  I wouldn't try it myself, too finicky.  But there are people who say they are the best and I understand they are very popular in Europe.

 

     Talley's.  Glad you brought that up.  Talley does have a 'Quick Detachable' system for the Sako 75 & 85 (tapered dovetail).  It appears to be strong and precise, especially the screw detach instead of the lever (which is more convenient).  I edited and corrected a statement about Talley's Sako Mounts last night.  I have some additional information tonight.

 

     I did some research today and found the base height of the Talley Sako QD Mount.  The base height is 0.175" from the top of the receiver (front and rear are the same height for those unfamilar with the Sako 75 & 85).  The low rings are 0.300" and the mediums are 0.400", measurements being from the top of the base to the bottom of the ring while mounted.  So with low 30mm rings the total height from the receiver to the bottom of the ring is: 0.175" + 0.300" = .0.475".  The medium 30mm would be:  0.175" + 0.400" = 0.575".

 

     In 30mm, the Leupold QR set-up on the Sako 75 or 85 has a total height measurement of APPROXIMATELY  0.28" (base 0.25"+ ring 0.03 = 0.28"), my measurements.  The Medium is APPROXIMATELY 0.40" (base 0.25 + 0.15" = 0.40").

 

     Edit:  I corrected the QR ring measurements.  The QR 30 mm low is about 1/32" high or 0.03125 (or about 0.03")and the medium is 0.15125 (or about 0.15").  The QR base measures about 0.25".

 

     So the Talley 30mm low is HIGHER than the QR low 30mm (0.475" vs. 0.28") or about 0.195" higher (0.475 - 0.28" = 0.195").  And the Talley Low would be HIGHER than the QR Medium (0.475" vs. 0.40").  That makes the Leupold QR the lowest set-up in 30mm for a detachable system of the four systems I compared.  I bel

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/13/2007 at 06:55
8shots View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar
Lord Of The Flies

Joined: March/14/2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 5754

Timber, Thanks for the feedback. You have a good analitcal mind. The barrel, receiver, mount lignup problem is as how you summed it up. I am dealing with two variables. In the end I will go back to the original set-up and try to eliminate the one. I only mentioned the "poor bedding" in that the tang was possibly raised and then bolted down, effectively bending the action. The whole rifle set-up has gone a long way. My wife is actually accusing me of slipping in a new rifle piece by piece! It is/was a rifle of great sentimental value. But due to circumstances I had to re-stock it. Right hand to left hand stock. Then the barrel issue came about. The new stock is well made and really good, so I have my doubts about the poor bedding. It was not glass bedded but the woodwork fitted like a glove. The "possible bent action" was raised by the gunsmith before the rifle was sent in for rebarreling as a matter of interest.

I think that you may be very correct in that the action got hurt/bent during the rebarrel process. The odds of the alighnment being vertically 100% and the horizontal out is  very low due to other problems. Idid take the matter up with Leupold regarding a problem with their mount, but received a standard reply. It is not possible to take my rifle to them for further investigation due to the small problem of the Atlantic Ocean being a bit wide.

It is a Sako 300 H&H.

This is my last grouping target.

 



Edited by 8shots
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/13/2007 at 18:10
timber View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/03/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 354

8shots,

 

     If that is 100 meters (or yards) I'd be very happy, especially with a 300 H&H.  It looks like about a 1.5" or 4cm grouping?  Plenty good enough for hunting I'd say.

 

     Now I understand why the bedding could have caused the problem.  Torqueing down the action when it wasn't properly seated because of incorrect bedding could definitely bend it.  And I think that might explain why it is off only in the vertical (elevation).  I guess I got off on a tangent and completely missed that point -  sorry about that.  But if you can consistently get those kind of groupings I'd definitely wait until the season is over.

 

     Some gun guys have discussed the size of the Sako's very large and open loading port in comparison to the much smaller port of the Sako's brother, the Tikka.  While the Sako is much larger and therefore has easier access for loading and clearing a jamb supposededly there is (or can be) some 'flex' in the action at that location during firing.  The Tikka's much smaller port theoretically should be stiffer and flex less and therefore potentially be more accurate. 

 

     If this is true it stands to reason that it would be more vulnerable to bending in a gunsmith environment, ie. rebarrelling, etc. or as you explained, the more likely situation of the bedding problem.

 

     Whatever the case I'm sure you're well aware of the advantages of the large port being an African Hunter.  And whatever potential accuracy you're sacrificing with it is outweighed by the advantages.

 

     I agree that by going to the standard base/ring set-up when you get the time you'll eventually be able to eliminate a potential scope mounting problem from the equation.  Then you can concentrate on the barrel/action and get it repaired or leave it as is.  But I'd definitely want to fix it though because there would always be the lingering doubt in the back of my mind that something could go wrong with such a large shim.

 

     So good luck and good hunting!

 

Timber



Edited by timber
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/22/2007 at 08:25
8shots View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar
Lord Of The Flies

Joined: March/14/2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 5754

Timber, if you are reading this: The mystery has finally been solved.

The barrel is bent!! I have sent the rifle to a company called Truvelo, which manufactures rifles and barrels. They have a solid reputation. The report is that the barrel is bent!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/28/2007 at 23:28
timber View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/03/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 354

That's great news!  I sent you a PM.  Thanks.

 

Timber

 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "sako 85 and kahles"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Sako 85 & Pickatinny rail officework13 Rings and bases 9
Sako 85 Hunter Scope Rings manderson Rings and bases 12
IOR picatinny rail for Sako 85 kaiwang188 Rings and bases 1
Mounting Sako Model 85 Plug-n-Play with Optilocks Rask Rings and bases 17
Sako 85: Help Needed Hunter84 Rings and bases 6
Sako 85 Design timber Firearms 66
Talley's for Sako 85 timber Firearms 2
X-Bolt vs Sako 85-my take Horsemany Firearms 42
Sako 85 Finnlight 270 blew up ccoker Firearms 80
Sako 85 Finnlight 270 stainless fluted barrel for ccoker Firearms For Sale 2


This page was generated in 0.281 seconds.