Thread: All joking aside,

Originally Posted by Gillie

This is hardly a fair comparison Kim! There are so many variables at play that to limit your comparison to rifle brand is simply unrealistic. In my experience it is almost always the shooter that makes the difference and not the rifle. There are a couple of games that the rifle has a big influence on e.g. benchrest and F-class, but they still need a good shooter to drive them well.

To me it is simple - if you want a dirty, crappy Remington with their quality control so good that you're just as likely to be able to fire a 270 in your so called 308 - get one then. If you want a blaser with its plastic washer, stupid slam shut action and drop out mag that also drops out the trigger - then get one. If you want a savage with its god ugly bolt - then get one. If you want a plastic fantastic tikka or a kimber with their horrible stock design - then go ahead and get one. But if you want a elegant, beautifully made, practical, reliable, accurate rifle out of the box with a great, user adjustable trigger and a flush fitting, drop out, double stack mag that you can also feed through the action in a rifle that will hold it value - then get a sako cause you can garun-fu#kin-tee it will do all this, make you look cool, cook you dinner, walk your dog and still find the time to magically hit the target every time you wave it generally in the right direction. Just don't take them in the hills - you might scratch it and forever after every time you look at it, you will feel it judging you!


Bottom line, as long as you are comfortable with your rifle, you shoot it well, and it does what you want it to then who cares what it is and what others think about it!

BTW, this post might be slightly bias because just as Kim is a Remington fan, I might be a slight sako fan

I reckon it's a fair comparison if comparing cost of the two rifles. You can have a standard sako or a better shooting modified Remington for the same cost. A standard Remington is a pretty hit and miss affair in regards to accuracy, but throw on a shillen barrel and true the action, pick a stock of your choice and your still under $3k.

I totally agree it's always the shooter that is the biggest variable, no arguments there.

And yes I'm totally bias on this, but it not that I don't own any sako's as I do... I just never use them as they rust like fuck and weigh 2lb more than my Remington does, so my bias is based on experience.

Kj

Originally Posted by kimjon

I reckon it's a fair comparison if comparing cost of the two rifles. You can have a standard sako or a better shooting modified Remington for the same cost. A standard Remington is a pretty hit and miss affair in regards to accuracy, but throw on a shillen barrel and true the action, pick a stock of your choice and your still under $3k.

I totally agree it's always the shooter that is the biggest variable, no arguments there.

And yes I'm totally bias on this, but it not that I don't own any sako's as I do... I just never use them as they rust like fuck and weigh 2lb more than my Remington does, so my bias is based on experience.

Kj

so after the custom work ditching the remington parts you only have 1/3 of a remington, thats why it shoots better!!!!

LOL

Originally Posted by Blaser

so after the custom work ditching the remington parts you only have 1/3 of a remington, thats why it shoots better!!!!

LOL

Yes, that's what's so great about them as just like an ar15 they are big boys Lego. Now if I were to get a sako to fit and shoot as well with the same treatment you be out of pocket by >$5K plus.

Kj