# sako 42 or 22



## trikortreat (Dec 10, 2008)

im trying to figure out if i should get the sako 42 or 22. the 22 fires .308 while the 42 fires a 300 win mag and a 338 lapua. i dont know much about 338 lapua round so thats why im asking. but i herd the 300 win mag is an awesome round also. im leaning more towards the 42 n im lookin for disstance. i have been using my 700 22-250 and it has worked awesome for dogs. either way im buying one or the other. it will be used for dog huntin also.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Are you talking about the trg. I would get the 22 with all the info on the .308 and recoil will not beat you up. All the cals you have would do any thing you ask of them.


----------



## xdeano (Jan 14, 2005)

What kind of ranges will you be using this on? If you going to be using it up to 800, you'll be find with the TRG22, don't get me wrong it will reach out there with the right ammo, out to 1200 yds w/out going subsonic. If you're going to be shooting beyond the 800yds, i'd step up to the 300. The 338Lapua is a great round, but the cost is also great. The brass is about $4.00 a case but if you're lucky and find a deal you can get it for around 2.00. If you want to step out there go with the 338L.

So I guess what's your budget? Either the economical way go with the 308 or the burn money and go with the 338L.

The TRG is a really nice weapon, you won't go wrong there.

xdeano


----------



## trikortreat (Dec 10, 2008)

hey dean like what we talked about before the 22-250 has done its job for me. but i just want to step up to a longer caliber so i know i can take the long range shots ( beyond 800 yards). haha i would take 1000+ yard shots if i knew i could n i know its all practice. so yer sayin the 338 has more velocity and energy then the 300 win mag? money is no problem right now. i know that sounds terrible with the ecomonmy n all. im leanin more towards the 338 from what you have said. thanks for the help now and in the past. let me know if ya got ne more ideas thanks sir.


----------



## xdeano (Jan 14, 2005)

Trik,
Don't get me wrong the 308 or 300 are very doable at 1k +. But realistically speaking most guys will shoot most of their coyotes at the 200yd line and under. You'll get a few guys who get a couple a year at 400yds, but very few people take the time to learn their own capability to make a first round hit on a coyote past 600yds.

I guess I'll put it in another perspective. If you're practicing to make long range shots, you're not going to want to throw a lot of money into a hillside. The more practice you get the better, so cost comes into play, would you rather spend $20 for 20rounds of 308 or $20 for 5 rounds of 338L? It adds up quick. The more bullets the more practice = accuracy and consistency.

There is a lot of variable at 1K.

xdeano


----------



## trikortreat (Dec 10, 2008)

im never gona take a 1000 yard shot dean we all know that. i was just sayin it would be cool..i should of worded that better. i see what yer sayin on price and expenses. if you were me what would you do? lets just say i have enough to buy the rifle, and amunition. but like u said i dont wana be givin money to mother earth if i dont gota. say we take the 338 out. 300 win mag or 308? because if im gona get a 308 caliber i not gona get teh sako when i can buy a cheeper gun. And i know i said either way im buyin one or the other i just started thinkin theres no point if im not gona get the 300wm or the 338.


----------



## xdeano (Jan 14, 2005)

I get what your saying about buying an expensive gun. The reason to buy the expensive gun isn't because it looks pretty. Sako's do look nice but they are not going to give you any better groups than some off the shelf brands. Heck I only have a Rem 700P 308, and it'll shoot 1/2" groups at 200yds consistently. With several .1xx" groups at 100yds.

When you buy a rifle you have to keep in mind on what kind of glass you put on top. I could buy a Sako too, and put on a tasco scope on it and it wouldn't shoot any better than I can see through that scope.

I was kind of brought up on the idea, "buy once, cry once". If you're going to go all out, you might as well pick up the 338L. But you also better put some glass on top that will match the setup. But if you don't have the glass on top you might as well be burning your money.

Here is if you were to reload 
338L bullet - 250g Lapua Scenar $0.587/ bullet
338L brass - Lapua case $2.22/ case
338L primers - Fed 210M Mag $0.032/each
338L powder - ~75g (26.40/lb 7000g/lb = 93loads/lb = $0.28/round
total = ~$3.119/round on the low side

308win bullet - 155g Lapua Scenar $0.327/bullet
308 brass - Lapua case $0.575/case
308 primers - Fed 210M $0.03/each
308 powder - ~36g (same price just for comparison) 26.40/lb =194loads/lb. = $0.136/round on the high side. 
Total = $1.068/round

So that's a 2/3rds more bullets that you could put down range. You could save the money and put a great scope on top. 

If it were me and were going to do it all over again, I'd do something custom in a 6.5 or 7mm. And stick a very nice scope on top.

xdeano


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

The Sako TRG is a very nice rig. I have drooled over it more than once and know a few that own them. I have never heard a bad word about these rifles. If it were me though, I would pick the round you really want to shoot and build it to your own liking. Do what you want with it and choose your own action, stock, trigger, barrel, bolt and so on. Just don't short the project with poor optics. If you're going to buy or build something of quality it needs to be topped with quality glass. Check out a few calibers and their ballistics and find one that fits your hunting and shooting style.


----------



## trikortreat (Dec 10, 2008)

i didnt know much about the 338 wich is why i asked. i have herd great about the 300 win mag also. if i get either one or the other, im planing on putting a barska 6x24x60 on it.. on my 22-250 i have a barska 6x24x44 and it is great.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Also it doesn't matter how good your scope is, nor how expensive your rifle, if you can't shoot better than 1 moa, that is all you are going to get. Practice doesn't make perfect, but it does make you better!!


----------



## xdeano (Jan 14, 2005)

Trikortreat,

Ok, now there are two of us on the optics, don't short the weapon by putting a barska on it. When you say you're going to put a 6x24x60mm on top, it leads me to believe that your thinking that the higher the numbers on the optics will make up for the scope. 60mm objectives don't give you anything, if anything they are a con in buying a scope. It just gets you further off the barrel, so you're center to center will be that much further off, leading to more correction at longer ranges.

More about the glass, good optics make a gun, look into Leupold, Night Force, IOR, USOptics, or Schmidt & Bender if money is not an issue.

Laite319 has a valid opinion also. Practice! Which gun allows you the most practice for the money?

Longshot has a valid suggestion also, look at what you're going to shoot and narrow the bullet down to that.

xdeano


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Please god dont put a barfska on a trg. If you are going to spend that much on a rifle why not get the glass is deserves. S&B ,uso,nsx,leupy are all great chioces. Dont skimp on rings or bases either look at seekins or badger ordinance. Dont see the need for much more than a 40mm objective when unless you are shooting at night. And then you dont have to have it mounted so high off the gun.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

I myself am a fan of the 30 mm tube with 50 mm objective. I would go with any of the scopes that xdeano listed. The rings and bases that KurtR listed are also nice. For a bit less money and equal quality IMO take a look at the Ken Ferrel base and rings also. I would not let a Barfska touch one of my rifles. A 60 mm objective on their scopes is a joke. Their glass has a fairly poor light transfer and some of those low quality scopes think they can make up for it in objective size. I would stay away. Nightforce has a 56 mm objective that while it is very nice I don't feel is necessary and would prefer the 50mm.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

People have been hitting their intended targets with "subpar" scopes for many many years. I still say if you can't hit what you are shooting at with a Barska, you won't hit it with a Nightforce either. You may be able to see it more clearly, but you still won't be able to hit it. I have Barska, Konus, Nikon Buckmasters, Leupold VXIIIs, and as soon as my LR-260 comes in I will have a Nightforce NXS 5.5-22X50. I have yet to see where the better scopes make me a better shooter.

That being said, I wouldn't put a Barska on a Sako either.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

It not just clarity laite319. Yes clarity is important IMO and most everyone I know would agree. The other big part of it is the accuracy of the turrets. Most all the cheap scopes I have tried claim 1/4" clicks and are not even close. When you start running and field proving your ballistics chart and using your turrets for elevation most cheap scopes will not get it done. Yes people have hit "intended" targets with subpar scopes. If that's what you want then get one. Why the Nightforce then? 
The statement that if you can't hit it with the Barska you can't hit it with the Nightforce I believe is bogus. I prefer a scope that has great clarity, good accurate turrets, and good parallax adjustment.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> If that's what you want then get one. Why the Nightforce then?


As I posted above, I have a few supposed "subpar" scopes. They work just fine. Why the Nightforce? Because I don't have a scope in that class. Maybe once I get it I will change my mind about these things, but I would have thought that would have already happened with my Leupolds.



> The statement that if you can't hit it with the Barska you can't hit it with the Nightforce I believe is bogus.


You can believe it is bogus all you want. A scope will not make a bad shot a good shot. I am pretty sure a good shot with cheap scope can out shoot a bad shot with a $2000 scope given every thing else is the same.

Again, that being said, I am fully ready to be convinced otherwise. If you can prove to me that I really can shoot better with my higher dollar scopes then at least I can justify spending all the money to my wife!!!


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Then again that high end 260 you're waiting for isn't going to make you a better shooter either. Put it simply, better equipment DOES help you make a better shot. It dosn't make you a better shooter, but it does help you reach your full potential. I don't put the Leupolds in the high end class. The last couple I have used didn't live up to their name. It will be a long time before I buy another one of their scopes. Not all cheap scopes are bad either, but many are. Most high end expensive scopes are very good quality, but not all are. Maybe after you use the Nightforce for a while you will understand what I'm saying. Take a look down the line at a long range competition and tell me how many Barskas you see. Do good optics make you a better hunter, no but it sure helps to find your game.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> Then again that high end 260 you're waiting for isn't going to make you a better shooter either.


First off, since when is DPMS "high end"???? It is a bit pricey, but that is because it is an oddity in the firearms world right now, but I wouldn't consider them to be "high end".

I know the rifle won't make me a better shooter, just as the scope won't make me a better shooter. I am not suggesting to any one that they should get a "high end" rifle, and there are a few people on here making suggestions about scopes.

The suggestions are just that, suggestions, but to an inexperienced person looking to buy some thing they can be very powerful when they come from people who are experienced.

The average shooter really will not benefit much, if at all,
from a high end scope or rifle. That is all I am saying.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

The cheap scopes have no repeatabiltiy. Do a box test and see how it measures up. I will warm you about the night force once you get it you will want it on all your guns. To tell the difference in glass when you shoot at 500 yds look and see which scope you can see the holes with and which on you cant. I know my groups have inproved when i got the nikon buckmaster which is average at best. saving this summer for a uso sn3 i dream about that scope every night


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> The cheap scopes have no repeatabiltiy. Do a box test and see how it measures up.


I have done this with a Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14X40, a Leupold VXIII, and with the Barska Swat Tactical. They all came out basically square. I admit I am not that great a shot so it isn't a perfect test. I will try again with all my different scopes this spring/summer, and I will snap some pix of the results.



> To tell the difference in glass when you shoot at 500 yds look and see which scope you can see the holes with and which on you cant.


 I wish I had a place to shoot 500yds. That is probably why I think the way I do about scopes. I don't have an available range over 250-300.

Does any one own a Nightforce, S&B, USO?? If so please post pix. I have only ever seen the NightForce, and that was at the store. I want to see them on rifles.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

since we were talking about trgs.these are not mine but there is a nsx,s&b mark 4 and ior on those


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Very nice, thanks for the pix!


----------



## trikortreat (Dec 10, 2008)

well thanks for all yer opinioins but what is wrong with barska? i got a 44 on my 22-250 and it has never failed me? farthest shot i ever got a dog with was 502, i know thats not he best ever but that is good for me. like i said before, that i dont think any of you understood. im not tryin to go for looks here or rub it in anyones faces. i just thought it would be an awesome gun to have to get some distence and not to mention a great step up for being faithfull to the 22-250 so long . i was talkin to my old man and he said go with the 300 win mag. he said later down the road you dont want to be killin yerself over money for a 338 lapua. now for optics i want to nkow why a night force? and not a barska? it has never failed me and i dont have to go out n buy a 60mm scope, i can buy something else other than barska. like one of you were sayin before. last year i had a leupold on my 30-06 n every 3 shots i took the grouping was off by 4 inches. the scope would not hold its dials. and dont tell me that the kick could of been to much for the scope to handle because it wasnt. 30-06 dont kick that bad to throw a scope off by 4 inches at 150, so obvioulsy it was the scope. i guess ill go look at night force.


----------



## xdeano (Jan 14, 2005)

Trikortreat,

IMHO I wouldn't use a Barska as a hammer. When you shot that dog at 502 you were probably using Kentucky windage and got lucky is my guess. When you start to range with a good rifle, you'll start to learn comeups and you'll want a scope with dials that are repeatable. So instead of aiming 6 feet above the target and praying that you'll hit it, you can comeup on your scope to the desired distance, aim at a small tuff of hair and pull the trigger. There's more to it than that, but that's were the practice pays off.

When talking about scopes, there is a major league and minor league, and then everything else. Major league scopes are IOR, S&B, USO. Minor League is Leupold Mark 4, Nightforce, Sightron, Swarovski, Zeiss. Then there is low end leupolds, burris, Kahles, Nikon etc. Then you have Barska in teeball. :lol:

You get what you pay for. When you walk across a F-class firing line you'll see Major league and Minor league hitters, and you can tell who has experience and who doesn't, it isn't always about the rifle.

With all that said, buy the scope you want to buy. 
The 300win mag is a decent choice. 

xdeano


----------



## trikortreat (Dec 10, 2008)

so yer tellin me i can get lucky in kentucky and hit a dog at 502 (luck) n you can hit a dog at 647? thats an extra 145 yrds their. i might not be as a good of a shooter as you but i also aint a liar. you got people on here that are full of it pullin stuff out of there you know whats sayin there makin shots at 680 + some even 700 n yer belivein them. but i got a teeball on my 700 and i cant make a true shot at 500 and walk away sayin i actually did it with no luck? people on here are sayin 600+, the 22-250 is capable of doing that you told me yerself n i dont hear nothin about theirs bein luck. i have had a leupold take a crap on me n my old man had a nikon take a big one on him.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

trikortreat, I don't think you understand how others are making those longer shots.

I have said it before I will not buy a Leupold again. Their quality over that last few years in my opinion is no longer there especially with the price they want for them. I have a 6.5-20x50 mark 4 that I would like to trade up for a Nightforce. I will also not buy a Nikon again either. Some people have very good luck with Nikon, yet I do not. Get what you like, makes no difference to me. I also would buy a Zeiss, even the Conquest, over a Leupold any day. My Zeiss conquest with 1" tube is just as bright as my 30mm tube Leupold yet has better clarity. Why would you not want the best clarity and repeatability in your optics if you can afford it? I want to see what I am shooting at with as much clarity as I can. When I run a ballistic chart for my rifle I want to be able to prove and repeat those adjustments every time to the best accuracy possible. We all have made lucky shots, I know I have and am not scared to admit it. I like others prefer to range a target and adjust the elevation turret. Test the wind and adjust windage. If your scope is not consistent in these adjustments it will be frustrating. This technique is much more accurate time and time again than just guessing at hold over unless you are using the milldots and have them calculated to a set holdover at a set magnification.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

xdeano said:


> Trikortreat,
> 
> IMHO I wouldn't use a Barska as a hammer. When you shot that dog at 502 you were probably using Kentucky windage and got lucky is my guess. When you start to range with a good rifle, you'll start to learn comeups and you'll want a scope with dials that are repeatable. So instead of aiming 6 feet above the target and praying that you'll hit it, you can comeup on your scope to the desired distance, aim at a small tuff of hair and pull the trigger. There's more to it than that, but that's were the practice pays off.
> 
> ...


Night force has to be major league look how many fclass records they hold.

Trikortreat for the guys who shoot and know what they are doing shooting at the ranges you said are done on a consistant basis. If the leupy crapped out send it in they fix it no questions asked. Go on utube and look for the durability test they do on a uso. after watching that you see why they are in the class they are. Thrown 30 ft in the air hit the gound reatched to the gun still zeroed. They have even used it to pound a nail into a board and it was still zeroed when put back on the rifle. Like was said before not my gun so put what ever you want on it.


----------



## xdeano (Jan 14, 2005)

KurtR,
Nightforce has got a lot of F-class winnings, and it is a good scope, but I would still rate it in the Minor Leagues, It's definitely above the Leupold Mark 4's, no offense to anyone, I myself have a Mark 4, and I like the NF glass over the Leupolds. If anything it might be in the grey area between Minor and major, if there is such a thing. There are a few things I don't particularly like about the NF. USO would be my first choice, If I wanted a divorce. 

Trickortreat,
It was lasered at 627. :lol: but who's counting. I'm not saying, I'm any better than anyone else, hell I know a lot of shooters that are much better than I am on a good day that read these forums. 
The 22-250 is very capable to do it, I'm not going to tell you that it isn't. It just isn't consistent/repeatability. With my loads, I know where they are going, there wasn't Kentucky windage, IT IS 82.5" or 12.5 MOA on my turret, which isn't even a full revolution. That isn't off some computer diagram, that's from actually shooting it on paper. There was no wind and yeah there was luck, when you're pushing that small a bullet out there there luck is in the air. I'm not saying that you're a liar, I'm just saying you got lucky. A squirrel gets lucky and finds an acorn once in a while.

You're right about people putting up crap about killing 2 fox at 700, the same day, that's a bunch of crap, but did you notice he hasn't posted back since he wrote that.

Do what KurtR said, send the Leupold back, they have a great warrentee program and will refurbish anything you send to them, even If you found a scope on the bottom of the river, send it off and it'll come back like new.

xdeano


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

I am saving for a uso sn-3 right now. i just have not told the wife yet waiting for the right time


----------



## xdeano (Jan 14, 2005)

I did that once. Once!!! I got the *** reaming of my life, It was above and beyond those that I got when I was in high school from my parents. 

Be very careful.

xdeano


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

I don't think the looks of a scope really come into play when it really matters, but after reading what you guys have been saying, and doing a lot of searching the web last night. The USO scopes must be great because they are one of the worst looking things I have ever seen on a rifle. I saw a couple pix of the sn-3, it doesn't even look like a scope. I definately wouldn't mind putting one on one of MY rifles though. Valdada is very interesting too. I pulled this off one of the sites I looked at last night. What do you guys think about the rankings??? 10 is the best 0 is the worst, and remember this leans toward hunting scopes, not just overall quality of the scopes.



> The scale below was formed by SWFA sales staff, customer service, pro-staff and owners using personal experience, customer input and facts supplied by the manufacturers. The ranking system is based on the following criteria (in order of importance and weight).
> 
> 1. Optical Quality - How bright and clear the scope is.
> 
> ...


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

With hunting being the driving force no problems with that. But for tactical comps swaros are pretty worthless when turning dials. I love the looks of the uso and also knowing that i can drop it off a cliff and it will still be zeroed. The nightforce is tough as hell to. Took a ak bullet and was used for 3 more days till it was replaced.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

I was kinda thinking the USO is built like a tank. It definately looks beefy sitting on a rifle in the pix I saw.


----------



## trikortreat (Dec 10, 2008)

does the night force come with a sun shade on the 5.5-22x50 nxs?


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Dont know if it comes with but you can get one


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

It comes with a shade and the bikini covers as far as I know.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

The USO scopes are definitely tanks and almost weigh as much. I think the weight is about the only drawback.


----------



## rus (Mar 17, 2009)

Sako quite expensive weapons. Look at Tiger worth $ 700. Caliber 7,62 mm, two kinds of cartridges of different capacities.









Source www.tigr.info


----------



## catfisherman2 (Apr 17, 2008)

> does the night force come with a sun shade on the 5.5-22x50 nxs?


It comes with a sunshade...no bikini cover though. I really thought the mag was 5.5-22X56? I could be wrong although I have sold the exact model that I just listed. Nightforce is one of the best long range tactical scopes that you will ever buy. Like I said, "one" of the best as there are similar ones but when the guards, marines, and army use them, something must be okay? Anyways, just make sure your rifle is as good as the scope...


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

The 5.5-22X50mm NXS comes with a 3" sunshade and bikini style covers as per the MidwayUSA webpage. The one I was looking at in the Sportsman's Loft in Minot also came with the above mentioned equipment.


----------

