I Have a 270 Win. in a Howa 1550, and want to replace it with a Tikka, or a Ruger. Whats your opinion of these two brands of Rifles.

Thanks 6.5 SWEDE.

The only Rugers in my house are SAA revolvers and it's going to stay that way!

I have several Ruger 77's, I have never handled a Hawkeye, I also have a T3 lite,I love it and it is a shooter, more than likely I won't use the Rugers much any more!!

Same as Elkman2 I haven't handled the Hawkeyes either.

IMO, it's a shame. The Tikka T3 is nicer than any Ruger M77 I've shot.

Maybe the Hawkeyes are better. I honestly don't know. I really hope they are.

Another vote for the tikka t3. I've got one in 300 win mag and it's a sub moa shooter with almost anything you feed it. Super smooth bolt, great trigger, weighs just a hair over 7#'s with scope. For $550 I don't know where you can get more gun.

I like the Ruger Hawkeye's better, but I think the Tikka would shoot better out of the box. Not saying that a new Ruger Hawkeye won't (got a 375 Ruger Alaskan that shoots sub-moa with 270-grain TSX and 260-grain Accubonds).

Tikka! The only reason I'd buy the Ruger is to get one in a 358 Win. Lou

I vote Ruger, mine have never let me down, EVER ! Accurate, cycle well and if I do my part, MOA no problems

I like to minimize the exposures when in the field. I'll take the Ruger because it is not clip fed.

I have a Tikka 695 Whitetail Hunter in 30-06 and a T3 in 22-250. Both are very accurate. I sold a Ruger M77 MkII in 30-06 when I couldn't get consistant groups better than 2-2.5". I currently have a M77 MkII Ultralight in 257 Roberts that I am working to accurize. It may turn into a real shooter but it won't shoot with my Tikkas yet.

I definitely like the layout, functioning and look of the Ruger better but they don't shoot like my Tikkas do. For me the hinged floor plate magazine is much superior to the Tikkas detachable magazine. There is no chance that you are going to loose the mag or leave it at home. The styling and all (or nearly all) metal and wood construction of the Ruger is something I much prefer. I also like the CRF feature of the Rugers

I do wish that Tikka did not use so many plastic parts. As I said above I do not like the Tikkas detachable magazines they look cheap and I am always worried about having one when I need one or loosing one. They are not cheap and run about $60 for a spare 3 rd. mag.

The draw backs of the Ruger are a rotten trigger on the MkII that requires a replacement trigger or trigger job. I understand that the new Hawkeye has a much better trigger, but I have no experience with this model. The other one is that Ruger has a much deserved reputation for producing rifles that may or may not be accurate.

The Tikka does score points for having a much better trigger than the Ruger. It is adjustable but I have never found a reason to want to adjust it. It is every bit the equal of the Timney trigger that I put on my M77 MkII.

If I could get a Ruger M77 or Hawkeye with a Tikka or Sako barrel I would be replacing several rifles in my safe pronto.

When something absolutely has to be as dead as I can make it, I reach for the Whitetail Hunter Tikka.

it really just depends on what you want the rifle to do, mainly how obsessed with accuracy you are. if you are going to use it for big game and 1-1.25 MOA will work fine, it really works enough for anyone the ruger is the best bet. its nicer, has a 3 POS safety, no detach mag, and loading port that is big enough.

the tikka, euro styling, excessively easy trigger adjustment, an allen wrench and 5 mins!!! clip, that will only hold 3 rounds, the gun will be lighter, and likely more accurate, my 30-06 shoots 1/2 groups, its an awesome gun, its just miles away from what a ruger is, if the ruger shot was well as a tikka, I think I would take the ruger, but extreme accuracy always lights my fire

Thanks for the replys, I feel the same way you do about these two rifles, and I have both. I would profer to buy U.S.A. made, but you do have some work to do with the Ruger, and the Tikka has it's good points as well. thanks agin for the help.

6.5 SWEDE.

Id also go with the Ruger.

I second VapoDog's opinion . Not real found of Ruger Rifles my own self . Have Many Many rifles of various manufacturers odd not one Ruger !.

Tikka T3 I own a few of them and LIKE THEM !.

Oh Wait I almost lied I have a 10/22 I bought at JC Pennys for $29.95 a Few day back !!!.

I also have a SS.17 Mach-2 conversion 10/22 although one could hardly call it a Ruger any more not even the bolt is all Ruger , the receiver is still Ruger though .

Shoot Straight Know Your Target . ...

I would take the T3 every time. Not for it's looks (well, for the Lite Synthetic anyways) but for everything else, I love my Tikka rifles. The Hawkeye is decent looking but I simply wouldn't have the same confidence in them after having shot M77's and sold them while the Tikkas stay in my safe and come afield with me.

My take is this...

Tikka is highly accurate and has a good trigger. Feeds well (inline) and fit and finnish is what you would expect from a higher end rifle (at least the metal work). Trigger is easily adjusted. The down parts are the plastic magazine and the inability to open the bolt with the safety on.

Ruger are controlled round feed, have a good 3 position safety, and have fairly good looking stocks (at least on the hawkeyes I have seen. The downside would be a smith performed trigger job and sometimes less than stellar accuracy.

Either will do the job quite well, but if I were going into and out of vehicles often during the hunt, I would lean towards the hawkeye for the 3 position safety.

John

Tikka T3 every time; better trigger by far, more accurate, lighter, better recoil pad.