I saw a short article in F&S mag about the Tikka T3. It does appear to be nicely designed hunting rifle, but the receiver is grooved (similar to some rimfires) instead of drilled and tapped for scope mounting. How will this mounting system hold up for magnum calibers? Does anyone have one of these guns yet, if so, tell me all about it? According to what I've found, availability is somewhat limited.
Anytime you can mount your rings right on the receiver is a dream come true......One less thing to mount, one less thing to fail, and it's pretty much square to the bore. Ruger, Sako, Tikka and others hold on regardless of the round. IMO
The groved base is the same as my oldman's Sako which has never had a problem. I can take the scope off my Ruger and put it back on with out the POI changing. The system is reliable.
Posts: 4326 | Location: Under the North Star! | Registered: 25 December 2002
Warne Industries in Clackamas, Oregon makes dovetail quick detach and permanent mounts in inch and 30 mm steel versions. http://www.warnescopemounts.com
Have not had a problem on my Sako for over a decade, not a magnum though, 280AI. Have optilocks on my new T-3 in 300 win mag and no problems so far , but now a lot of rounds through it , yet.
Posts: 8 | Location: south east Sask | Registered: 26 November 2002
I recently purchased a T3 For 459.00 and for that price I think it is a lot of gun.
I'm able to get right at moa with factory loads at 100 yards the fit and finish of the gun is nice. over all I think it is a realy nice gun. alot of people will say it has to much plastic or this an that but for that price with the out of the box accuracy that I'm getting you'l never here me complain.
[ 10-22-2003, 07:14: Message edited by: chevy man ]
Posts: 3 | Location: Alabama | Registered: 22 October 2003
I also have a Tikka T3 in a 3006 it shoots under 1" groups out of the box and with a little work handloading you can see .25 groups I have a 6 shot group 6.19 group not trying to hard as for as the smoothness of the bolt I don't think it can be bet it is light and quick handling and for some of us old timers that is just what the doctor ordered. I believe it is the best dollor value out there today. Old Timer
The rifle sounds pretty impressive, but, I have since read a couple of other articles on them and have learned that these rifles cannot be loaded from the top (through the receiver). It says that the receiver opening is rather small and difficult to access. If this is correct, then every time you remove a loaded round from the chamber; you must remove the box magazine to replace the round. Is this correct?
quote:Originally posted by Felcher: The rifle sounds pretty impressive, but, I have since read a couple of other articles on them and have learned that these rifles cannot be loaded from the top (through the receiver). It says that the receiver opening is rather small and difficult to access. If this is correct, then every time you remove a loaded round from the chamber; you must remove the box magazine to replace the round. Is this correct?
The real reason why the Tikka magazine cannot be loaded while inserted in the rifle is because it's a single column magazine. To load that type of magazine, the cartridge needs to come in from front to rear of the magzine and down into the feed lips. That contortion is just about impossible to achieve with the mag in the rifle, no matter how large the ejection port might be.
Think about trying to load a pistol magazine while it's in the grip, and you get the idea.
In practice, removing and reinserting the magazine is so easy that this issue is moot. At least to me.
Posts: 2206 | Location: USA | Registered: 31 August 2002
quote:Originally posted by Felcher: The rifle sounds pretty impressive, but, I have since read a couple of other articles on them and have learned that these rifles cannot be loaded from the top (through the receiver). It says that the receiver opening is rather small and difficult to access. If this is correct, then every time you remove a loaded round from the chamber; you must remove the box magazine to replace the round. Is this correct?
I think the Tikka magazine is actally a double stack but the feed lips are place so that the top cartridge feeds from the middle, rather than from one side. This makes for smooth and reliable feeding, but like many (or most) removable magazines, it must be removed from the stock to load it. That DOESN'T mean that you can't single-load directly into the chamber -- single loading works just fine.
Posts: 13274 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001
The Tikka T# I handled the other wekk seemed ver smooth in the action but I did not like;
1. The way the bolt handle was sort of wedged in with a male female triangle piece of metal.
2. And I certainly was not impressed with the increasing amount of plastic everywhere.
I have handled older Tikka's and they where far superior in my opinion.
I would take a cz with metal parts any day of the week over a Tikka, action may not be as smooth out of the box but there is much more to work with, and if your unlucky enough to cop a plastic floor plate and follower as some rifles manufactured in 1999 had then cz will swap it out as there was such an out cry over plastic included.
CZ's I won and I own 5 all shoot very well to.
If your hearts set on a Tikka find an older one and have it rebarrelled.
Posts: 7505 | Location: Australia | Registered: 22 May 2002
I looked a Tikka's at Gander Mt. and thought they looked cheaply made.The bolt was smooth but I just couldn't warm up to them.I also didn't like the scope mount set up it looked like it couldn't possibly hold.I have a friend who has one and loves it,but they ain't fo me
to be honest there not an advancement of aany kind for Tiakk there a cheapeningg of there manufacturing processes to increase profits and smooth bolt or not they look like a throw away rifle and I would not be sucked into buying one.
As stated before I am a cz fan as they seem to have kept some features of the old way of doing things (there diamonds in the rough as J.Belk once said) but I am begginning to see why so many like the older mausers and pre 64-s.
Posts: 7505 | Location: Australia | Registered: 22 May 2002
quote: "If your hearts set on a Tikka find an older one and have it rebarrelled".
PC, out of curiosity, why rebarrel the Tikka ? I do have CZ�s that shoot great and a Tikka Whitetail SS in 7mmRM that doesn't. I always had the impression that Tikka and Sako shared barrels, so are Sako barrels crap as well ? My Tikka is currently being bedded due to bad precision. I have tried different loads and bullets without satisfactory results so far.
Are Tikka barrels bad ? cant imagine so since so many have and still do praise them for precision. It would however be great if Tikka owners (satisfied as well as unsatisfied) would give an input on the matter.
Regards
Posts: 392 | Location: Insula Thule | Registered: 03 January 2003
what I meant was if buying an old Tikka say in 22/250 then I would rather ra-barrel that than buy a new T3 (assuming it needed a re-barrel that is). I should have explained myself better. I have handled som of the Tikka's made many years ago and they are by far a streak ahead of the T3 model. The workmanship on the older Tikk'a is just great or it was on the ones I have handled. My first experience with a centerfire was with a Tikka .222 that my friends father owned it was a supurb shooter and was of fine craftsmanship. The rifle may have been late 60's early 70's
Posts: 7505 | Location: Australia | Registered: 22 May 2002
I agree with you - I was looking at a T3 the other day abd was not impressed with the feel of it although I believe they shoot well.
I have the Stainless Synthetic (Whitetail Hunter) in both 308 and 223 and they both shhot very well. My 308 is the rifle I reach for nearly every time I go hunting and I love it. Its a practical all weather rifle.
I get the impression that Sako have gone too far with the T3 in distancing it from the Sako product.
Posts: 789 | Location: Australia | Registered: 24 May 2002
I have two whitetail hunters, one in 222 and one in 25-06. Both are 3/4 moa rifles (5 shot groups) Being a lefty I brought the 222 before the t3's arrrived here just in case they are not as good. Not saying they are not, but was pleased with the 695 so brought the 595. I hope the t3's are good rifles but I wasnt going to take the chance as left handed guns are hard to come by here.
GF, I own an Takka 3006 and am very impressed with it accuracy and smoothness I don't like the plactic clip but over all I give it a "B+" not like my winchesters which I give a "D" Old Timer
The bolt handle on the T3 is dovetailed into the bolt. The dovetail does a fine job of holding it in place. The firing pin captures it in the non load-bearing plane. To say that's not a quality design is to admit not knowing much about mechanical excellence.
Plastic used in non structural parts is a non-issue. The inletting of the "plastic" trigger guard (same type of material used in polymer frame pistols) is better inletted in a T3 than in rifles costing several hundreds more.
The magazine is a single stack. No doubt about it. Stonecreek, you are indeed correct in saying that the chamber can be loaded directly through the ejection port.
The dovetail scope base system is superior to ANYTHYING else out there. There is nothing for shearing forces to act upon and break, as the clamping force of the scope rings on the dovetails acts at 90 degrees to the axis of recoil. On top of that, the dovetails are tapered to the front, seating the rings tightly against the dovetail on recoil. I have a Sako 75 in 300 Win Mag, and the scope is mounted as solidly as if it were welded on.
I've never seen so many luddites as I have in the area of hunting rifles.
Posts: 2206 | Location: USA | Registered: 31 August 2002
The Tikka T3 has a provisions for regular mounts also. I think Browning A-Bolts bases will fit. They have very light triggers compared to other factory rifles(Winchester, Remington, Ruger). You will always shoot better with a better trigger. Maybe why all these foreign rifles shoot better. We just shoot them better because of their triggers.
I have handled a couple at my local gun emporium. The first thing I noticed was the feel and balance: felt good in the hands, a bit forwarded weighted like a good shotgun; proper height comb for scope use; very stiff, lightweight stock and noticeably lighter than the competition. The Lite model is something like 6 pounds, 3 or 4 ounces with a 22 or 23 inch barrel than is not a wand! These are the same features attributed to Forbes' New Ultra Light Rifles (but they are even lighter). The trigger was crisp and light. Of all of the production rifles available that I have looked at in the above respects, it far surpasses them (the Kimber 84 was similar however but twice the price and wood).
I have two pre-T3 ss Tikkas. In the postings that I have made regarding these rifles, I have always maintained that they offered good value. However, I have also noted a shortcoming. By taking the bolt out of the rifle, you can examine the oversized safety pin well in the receiver. In freezing rain and wet snow, the well can trap water and freeze the safety pin in place. It is a hell of irony that my Nordic cousins designed a rifle with this issue. In any event, the safety can be broken loose by yarding up and down on the bolt handle. Incidentally, in very cold and dry conditions, I have not had this problem with these rifles. CP.
It seems curious to me that many will comment on this rifle and it's scope mounting pros and cons who by their own descriptions and false assumptions have obviously never even held the rifle.
The rifle does not have tapered scope mounting grooves. The grooves are parallel until they end. They don't taper like a Sako. The gun IS drilled and tapped, and in my opinion, mounting in this case would be far more secure if a person went with weaver bases and burris signature rings. The rings sent with the gun from the factory suck, they appear to made by B square for Tikka and in addition to being relatively soft aluminum have a rather short bearing surface. Furthermore, only the front ring is set up to handle recoil because only the front ring has a pin which mates to a recess in the top of the receiver to abate the natural tendency to slide under recoil. The rear ring in this setup does vitually nothing. In that it is very similar to the redfield system where the front ring does all the work as well. IMO this is the worst of the integral mounts and I wouldn't trust it unless the recoil level is relatively low.
Gabe
Posts: 410 | Location: Granite City, WI | Registered: 10 March 2003
I have a Tikka M695 White Tail hunter in 7mm Rem Mag. I use the Tikka bases. It's the version just before the T3, the T3 I'm not too familiar with. I wanted to go for a Sako, but at the time they didn't make a LH model (this year they do btw and I'm looking at the 9.3X62).
My opinion is that it is one of the best guns (out of the box) that I have had the pleasure of hunting with. I hunt pretty rough where I live pushing hard push and knocking my guns around alot. This year I dropped a deer at just over 400 yards in it's tracks(It dropped, stood up and imediately dropped again), so I think the bases work well. I was perhaps 3-4 inches right of my aiming point, but I was prone, so it was probably my aiming.
I believe the T3's are exactly the same mechanically so it should be a good shooter. The main difference I noticed in the pictures is that the T3 has a straight butt stock where the M695 is more sculptured.
Oh, and for the young guy in the other thread who was not happy with the 7mm Core Lokt 150gr, that is the exact round I've been using with excellent results 1/2 - 3/4 inch groups.
My biggest question about the T-3 is the lack of an integral front lug on the action. The lug is a separate piece and I question whether this arrangement over time will produce consistent accuracy. It is easier to manufacture but...
For the life of me I cannot see why they abandoned the old Tikka mechaics which made for a solid performer, if not the classiest rifle made.
1B
Posts: 51 | Location: Reston VA | Registered: 02 January 2003
quote:Originally posted by 1B: My biggest question about the T-3 is the lack of an integral front lug on the action. The lug is a separate piece and I question whether this arrangement over time will produce consistent accuracy. It is easier to manufacture but...
For the life of me I cannot see why they abandoned the old Tikka mechaics which made for a solid performer, if not the classiest rifle made.
1B
The Tikka's recoil lug arrangement is the same in the T3 as it is in the Whitetail Hunter. The forces that the recoil lug is required to handle are in a longitudinal plane, normal to the contact surface between the lug, stock, and receiver. That the lug isn't a permanent part of the receiver is irrelevant.
Sometimes you CAN design something to be easier to manufacture without compromising quality.
Posts: 2206 | Location: USA | Registered: 31 August 2002
I handled one the other day, and I'm not that impressed. I didn't like the little plastic clip. I probably could crush it with one hand. And it only holds 3 shells.
One sized action fits all? I would only buy one if I was going to get in a regular length caliber. In a short caliber it would be a waste. After all, what is the advantage of a short action caliber if its actually in a long action? All the heft and bulk with less velocity. Is that progress? Is that what hunters are asking for? I don't care if it saves them money. It sucks.
And then there is the action. Damn, did they have to copy the Remington 710? Did they think that was the definitive pinnacle of style?
The new t3's may be accurate, but the old tikkas were accurate, inexpensive, and good looking too. This is a step backwards in my opinion.
Handled a T3 today and felt that it was a value for the price on the sticker. Would like to see longer barrels for some of the cartridges. This would be a nice walking varminter in a .224 cal. How is the barrel and action fitted and would it be eazy to replace the barrel?
quote:Originally posted by Orion 1: I have a question for all those who think the T3 could have been done better.
Why are none of you employed as a desginer/engineer by a major firearms manufacturer?
Could it be that none of you know better than those who design guns for a living?
Orion, We couldn't be firearms designers because we as hunters/shooters are interested in quality, not how cheaply something can be designed.
Look at the remington 710. It was touted as a revolution in the way firearms are manufacture(read cheap). You cant blame us for being suspicious when something new comes along. The T3 will have to prove itself.
quote:Originally posted by Orion 1: I have a question for all those who think the T3 could have been done better.
Why are none of you employed as a desginer/engineer by a major firearms manufacturer?
Could it be that none of you know better than those who design guns for a living?
Orion, We couldn't be firearms designers because we as hunters/shooters are interested in quality, not how cheaply something can be designed.
Look at the remington 710. It was touted as a revolution in the way firearms are manufacture(read cheap). You cant blame us for being suspicious when something new comes along. The T3 will have to prove itself.
Ahhhhhh, QUALITY.
What you call "quality" is anything but. Quality is performance to design specifications.
What you call quality is wishing that rifles didn't change.
I'm done here.
Posts: 2206 | Location: USA | Registered: 31 August 2002
Orion, You have a good point, but shouldn't design specifications meet customer expectations. Brilliant design doesn't mean squat if it is not perceived as value by the customer or has an inherent problem not detected at the drawing board. The Tikka T3 could very well be a superb value and has received favorable response by sportsmen, only time will prove it has a solid place in our market. I'm leery of what I perceive as the development of throw away guns, gear, etc. Use it until it is worn and then junk it and buy a new one. Sporting firearms are usually considered to be investments to hand down to our future generations.
![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon}
