Sako 85 Ejection Issue Solved

Good stuff Toby, thanks for the video

bruce moulds said:

what do you expect from a brand that uses a bolt on recoil lug.
bruce.

Click to expand...

Actually the 85 has an integral lug, albeit a small lug. The 75 has the bolt on lug. I have both rifles, and the lugs have never been an issue at all

There may be some confusion about the nature of the problem.... there may NO problem with the Sako extraction/ejection on TOBY 458’s rifle.

Most repeating bolt guns, including military type autos and semi-autos have similar systems where an extractor ”grips” the case on one side and an ejector “pushes” on the other. During cycling, the cart is ejected out the “port”. That function and geometry is usually some kind of compromise among 4 variables- fast, slow, loaded, empty. Add a scope with a turret sticking out into the port some distance and at some height and not uncommonly there will be a chance for interference. If severe enough it could impede complete ejection and/or interfere with cycling the next round. If only slight it may not even be noticed except by small turret ding marks on the case’s upper body or shoulder. Not at all uncommon to see this in scope mounted ARs of various configs.

Most always not a fault of the rifle- more a symptom artifact of adding a scope/mount that is not completely compatible with original design specs of the rifle to begin with.

Absolutely a good idea to stress test the cycling and loading of a DG rifle- fast, slow, loaded rounds, empty rounds, reloading under stress. If the fired cases do impact the scope turret cap upon ejection, the first thing to try would be to rotate the scope 90’ left (if possible). If the impact is very slight it may not even be noticed and may not affect reliability. If the fired cases impact a bridge or picatinny type mount- modify the mount by relieving the impact area or switch to a two piece mount. As has been posted the scope can be raised but that is not such a good idea where a consistent cheek weld hold is best for that type shooting. Trying to modify an extractor/ejector system that is working properly, just to change the ejection angle, would be my LAST choice to try and only if all else fails. Solving the problem by simply rotating a conventional 2 turret scope, is by far superior- IMO

About 30 years go I hunted with a friend that had a Browning BAR 7mag that had the same issue- fired cases hitting the windage nob on his scope and he solved it the same way. He rotated the scope 90 degrees so the ejected cases passed the underside of the scope. I recall the only issue was in sighting the scope he had to figure out which way to turn which nob to move the bullet impacts to the right spot. that was in the day before bullet drop dials, so adjustments were Kentucky windage.

fourfive8 said:

Have to disagree. Rotating the scope 90' left changes nothing mechanically

Click to expand...

Only exception I can think of is some scopes have more elevation travel than they do windage. This of course is just nit-picking as a DG scope will almost never need to be adjusted to the full range of travel allowed anyhow, and, its not the case on all scopes.

I think the issue with no one ever manufacturing this as a production run as you can simply turn the scope if needed. Only issue you have is on taller turret scopes the elevation, now left side windage, can possibly block some visions with your left eye when shooting if you have taller turrets (again nit-picking). Although, tall turrets probably have no bearing on a DG scope anyhow.

Philip Glass said:

A good gunsmith can change the angle of ejection. A much better option than moving the scope. This is one of the things I had done at Hill Country Rifles on my Rugers. After my experiences I believe any potential DG gun needs to be put through a torture test on the range and go to the best gunsmith you can find.
Philip

Click to expand...

There are things I agree with you on, and some I'm on the fence with.
I would agree with you on a torture test for any DG rifle to fix any possible issues.
Changing angel of ejection vs rotating scope, I'm going with rotating the scope for the simplicity, cost and it fixes the ejection problem.
As for changing the angle of ejection, you could just start over with a new action or rifle...possibly one with CRF.
It's much easier (and most of the times cheaper) to start closer to where you want to end up.

We all want to end up with DG in the salt and no one hurt.
Altering the angle of a push-feed action doesn't make it a CRF rifle.
It merely fixes the ejection issue and does nothing for controlling the next round into the chamber.
As long as I wasn't hunting DG, I would consider this just fine.
However, I would not hunt DG with a push-feed rifle and yes I would torture test the crap out of it.

BeeMaa said:

There are things I agree with you on, and some I'm on the fence with.
I would agree with you on a torture test for any DG rifle to fix any possible issues.
Changing angel of ejection vs rotating scope, I'm going with rotating the scope for the simplicity, cost and it fixes the ejection problem.
As for changing the angle of ejection, you could just start over with a new action or rifle...possibly one with CRF.
It's much easier (and most of the times cheaper) to start closer to where you want to end up.

We all want to end up with DG in the salt and no one hurt.
Altering the angle of a push-feed action doesn't make it a CRF rifle.
It merely fixes the ejection issue and does nothing for controlling the next round into the chamber.
As long as I wasn't hunting DG, I would consider this just fine.
However, I would not hunt DG with a push-feed rifle and yes I would torture test the crap out of it.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that push feed is not DG material. I was assuming it was CRF but I guess I missed that! The point is that if the gun (and scope) does not function perfectly it’s not DG ready. Go buy another gun! I know I’d did. More to come on that.
PG

fourfive8 said:

Have to disagree. Rotating the scope 90' left changes nothing mechanically and has all positive effects and is completely reversible. Monkeying around with the ejector and extractor, which together determine angle of ejection, is just that monkeying with and altering the basic parts of the extraction-ejection system.

Click to expand...

I was not speaking of “monkeying around” with anything. I was speaking of, as I did recently with my Rugers, taking them to one of the top gunsmiths in the nation for their professional advice and help. This is what I did that helped alleviate one of the possibilities of my malfunction that nearly put me 6’ under.
My point that I keep repeating is that a DG gun must be as close to perfect as possible. I really hope people on this forum take this to heart.
Philip

Philip Glass said:

I agree with you that push feed is not DG material. I was assuming it was CRF but I guess I missed that! The point is that if the gun (and scope) does not function perfectly it’s not DG ready. Go buy another gun! I know I’d did. More to come on that.
PG

Click to expand...

This is the 'pseudo' CRF bolt. It captures the cartridge but not for the entire feeding process where as a Mauser CRF has the cartridge snap right in as soon as the bolt slips over. Is it a CRF? Technically it is a controlled feed, but not for the entire process as there is that small section of free travel, or more than a mauser CRF at least.

No. The whole issue was not a malfunction of the extraction/ejection system. The Sako was operating correctly. No matter the gunsmith, if trying to fix or modify something not broken or malfunctioning then it is monkeying. Apples and oranges... really. Changing the angle of ejection on a Sako system to prevent ejected cart from striking scope turret cap would be monkeying —- finest gunsmiths included. Having experience with an issue or understanding the design mechanics involved is required for offering reasonable solutions/ ideas.

I reckon that this is one of the reasons why USRAC brought out the Model 94 Angle Eject, i.e. not just for scope mounting ease. I seem to recall that the Model 1873 was notorious for dropping the empty case back on the follower unless you raised the muzzle before working the lever.

NB Don’t those Scandinavians all use Aimpoints to avoid the ejection issue?

My question is.... Why does Sako not change the angle of ejection? Was the rifle designed to only be fired with iron sights? Sounds like a band aid to have to turn your scope. I get that if your using a scope that does not have hash marks then your really not changing functionality. But I wouldn't be ok with having to do that. Or knowing that anything near the port could cause a jam like that. ESPECIALLY in a DG rifle.

I read the OP hunting review and had a chill down my back. That's a bad situation.

Glad all is well Toby. Run that rifle through multiple tests. I would suggest fast reloading with your rifle canted. Leaning on the left and the right. Cause that can sometimes cause issues as well. And in a real life scenario who knows what angle you will be holding the rifle when chambering another round. So just get silly with it to see if anything causes the same jam.

Most all agree that a speed and “stress” test be done by cycling hunting rifles and especially DG rifles. Thinking of all variables in the mechanics of cycling, it may be impossible to try or duplicate all. One, that was eye opening for me when I first started looking deeply at this, is the very slow cycling of both loaded and empty cases. I will guarantee huge differences and huge differences among the basic designs- like Mauser/Win 70 CRF, true push feeds like the Rem 700 and similar and Sako 85 semi- CRF.

Load an empty case in chamber and extract very slowly- note angle of ejection and dynamics of ejected case. Do the same but extract as fast and hard as you can- note the angle of ejection and dynamics. Do two more extractions, very slow and very fast, this time with loaded cartridge with bullet- note the angles and dynamics.

Do this with various actions with various types of extractor and ejector designs. Then draw up some blueprints for an action that will, UNDER ALL VARIABLES, eject a cart at a precise angle that will miss hitting ANY part of the action port and ANY scope mount or scope knob above the port!!

And think there’d be no possible issues under ANY variable or condition with say a true CRF?... try doing a very slow extraction/ejection of a loaded cart in a Mauser type CRF rifle (the holy grail of reliability) that has a fixed position ejector

Hi, new here. I know this is an old thread but thought id chime in.

Sako is working on a solution.

Im looking at purchasing a Sako 85 in 7mm Rem mag and scoured the internet on this problem. What Ive found is that the extractor on the bolt face is a one size fits all. Well not ever cartridge has the same head size on the brass. The cases are gripped by the extractor but if there is too much slop, then it ejects at a higher angle. You can measure the heads on brass and find that different calibers have a different thickness of the case head. By having a machinist make a new extractor that grips the case tighter to the bolt face will give a much better ejection angle. Ive read where one guy hammered his extractor on an anvil to better grip the case head and it worked but thats taking the chance that it wont eject at all if its not done perfectly. A guy on Sako forums showed a picture of a new machined extractor that worked. Most Sako 85s extract perfectly but some dont and it seems to be the WSMs, 270s and 30-06 that hav the most problems.

Some have fixed it by changing out the ejector spring but it hasnt solved everyone's issues.

Mekaniks said:

All this kinda makes me wonder if the folks at Leupold are paying attention....Shouldn't be that big a deal for them to design the turrent on the other side.

Click to expand...

Chuck,
If you just turn the scope 180 degrees in the ring the turret is on the left side! Problem solving, it’s what I do. It just makes the animals seem like they are really far away though!
Signed,
Capt. Obvious

Please note I’m joking guys!

Welcome saintsfan 1977 to AH!

Bullthrower338 said:

Chuck,
If you just turn the scope 180 degrees in the ring the turret is on the left side! Problem solving, it’s what I do. It just makes the animals seem like they are really far away though!
Signed,
Capt. Obvious

Please note I’m joking guys!

Click to expand...

BWHAAA Cody hope to see you at DSC Brother

Mekaniks said:

BWHAAA Cody hope to see you at DSC Brother

Click to expand...

I’ll be there for sure! Looking forward to it!

I used to be a huge Sako fan. I have a Finnlite and a Kodiak that both experience that same problem. When I got the canned response from Sako stating it wasn't an issue and to use higher rings and a different scope I responded that I had Optilock highs and a Leupold VX2 on them and it really doesn't get any better. No response. Its absolutely infuriating that you can spend 1600+ on a gun and get no help. 2 different gunsmiths couldnt help. 3 of my 4 sakos are now sold and the 3rd is at a shop for sale. Yes, the scope turning works it also limits you to a plex reticle and scopes that dont have adjustable parallax.

Chris Bellucci said:

I used to be a huge Sako fan. I have a Finnlite and a Kodiak that both experience that same problem. When I got the canned response from Sako stating it wasn't an issue and to use higher rings and a different scope I responded that I had Optilock highs and a Leupold VX2 on them and it really doesn't get any better. No response. Its absolutely infuriating that you can spend 1600+ on a gun and get no help. 2 different gunsmiths couldnt help. 3 of my 4 sakos are now sold and the 3rd is at a shop for sale. Yes, the scope turning works it also limits you to a plex reticle and scopes that dont have adjustable parallax.

Click to expand...

Yes. I agree that this is definitely an issue that shouldn't have to be dealt with on such an expensive rifle. I have 2 other Sakos besides the Kodiak and they work fine. One is a model 75 in 30/06. The other is an 85 in 9.3x62.
I would sell the Kodiak 375, but I've shot so much game with it, I have a sentimental attachment.