A couple of questions, if I may:
Quote – J Valentine:
Look, Sako made a huge massive error when it decided to ignore the needs of the International Benchrest and other competition shooting markets .
They were too dumb to see that if they allowed aftermarket production of add on target triggers and all the other accuracy improvements, they would cement their rifles into the competition scene.
Question: How did – or could – Sako ‘disallow’ production of aftermarket triggers, etc? Both Timney and Canjar have for decades made triggers for Sako rifles up to and including the A series. Jewell once made a replacement trigger for the Finnfire. (I often wondered if it would also fit the 491/591/691 series, and the Models 75 and 85, but now it is out of production, it’s a moot point) I also heard of an Australian manufacturer producing a true benchrest class trigger for Sako rifles some years ago, though I was never able to find which models, but I understand that it, too, is now out of production.
Do you REALLY believe that Sako – or any other major producer – could have come up with a rifle that would satisfy serious BR shooters for very long? Let alone do so at any sort of profit?
Quote - R Stiefel:
The AI designation was available in both the single shot and repeater, though it is a L461. The PPC was actually a different action (a bit bigger by design) made to accommodate the larger diameter of the PPC case. It also is a AI/L461 action by designation from the SAKO plant.
I have to question your statement that the PPC uses a larger action. Amongst my rifles I have a Sako 222 Rem of unknown age, and a Sako 6PPC made in 1989. The receiver of the 222 is stamped AI 17**** followed by what I presume are proof marks. The receiver of the 6PPC is stamped Sako PPC B 6** followed by proof marks.
Apart from the fact that the 222 is a magazine action and the 6PPC is a solid-bottomed, single shot job, the actions are practically identical. It’s difficult to measure them precisely without taking them out of their stocks, but if anything, the receiver ring of the 6PPC is fractionally SMALLER than the 222. The two bolts are so similar that they will actually interchange, at least as far as fit in the receivers is concerned. (I have never actually tried it, but it’s plainly obvious that the 222 bolt would not fully close in the 6PPC rifle with a cartridge in the chamber!)
Another curious thing is that despite both bolt shrouds being the enclosed type apparently characteristic of the AI action, the factory documentation that came with the 6PPC rifle says in big, bold type on the front page, that is a Sako L 461, Varmint Model. The correct serial number is shown in the appropriate panel, so I must assume that the documentation IS the original.
More puzzles and apparent contradictions?
