Chuck Hawks rips Tikka a new one

[Ash]

Chuck's issue is that we have allowed ourselves to accept that the finish of a rifle is not important. It isn't as far as killing a deer or punching holes in paper. However, by reducing quality of fit and finish, we pay the same price for inferior workmanship and materials. As I said, store brand rifles 30 years ago, the cheapest rifles out there, have better materials, fitting, features, and finish than rifles today. Plastic stocks are an excuse to build a cheaper rifle. They really are. I would bet that my 1960's Savage not only looks better than a current Tikka, but will shoot just as well or better.

Of course, folks don't mind paying more for prettier cars and trucks. Vehicles are vastly more expensive, even when inflation is considered, than vehicles 30 years ago. Sure, there are computers and air bags, but fundamentally that is not enough to justify the additional cost.

My real question is, why attack Chuck for telling the truth? Sure, todays rifles shoot very well, in many cases better than 30 years ago. Yet, they are not as well made as they once were. No, they really aren't. They may be accurate, but they do use lots of very cheap components, things that a generation earlier would not have been tollerated.

Ash

 

[Art Eatman]

"...inferior workmanship and materials."

Naw, it ain't inferior workmanship; it's just that there is less of it in the final-finish department. Labor = $$$.

Inferior materials? Priced decent hardwood, particularly quality walnut? And more particularly, burled walnut? $$$$$

In constant dollars, whatever cost $100 in 1971 is $500, today. In 1971, my Weatherby Mark V retailed for $350, plus 5% sales tax in Texas. Today, in constant dollars, it oughta be $1,750 plus 8.75% sales tax in Texas.

Quality of fit and finish is readily available today. All sorts of gorgeous stuff out there.

But it ain't gonna retail for four hundred bucks.

Art

 

[Koobuh]

"My real question is, why attack Chuck for telling the truth?"

He's making a value judgement of a rifle based purely on aesthetics rather than functionality. That's his prerogitive, but a lot of people will follow his judgement without question, and that's what I at least object to. He doesn't like the rifle's looks and construction, so regardless of how excellently it can shoot and perform otherwise, he tears it down.
Then he bemoans the lack of aesthetic workmanship in modern guns, insulting those of us that don't mind black plastic stocks and chintzy bolt lugs if the rifle performs.

Insulting? Presumptive? Just plain arrogant? He's got it in spades, and while his opinion may have merit, it's presented in a way that tears down a perfectly useable rifle. He should save his derision for firearms that don't perform the operation they were designed for, is my view at least.

Frankly, I would not care to carry a finely made piece of craftsmanship into the field when I could tote a utilitarian tool that I don't have to worry about dropping in a mud-puddle or re-zeroing after a sudden weather change.

 

[rbernie]

He's making a value judgement of a rifle based purely on aesthetics rather than functionality.

I don't see the use of plastic trigger parts, floorplate parts, trigger guard parts, or magazine parts on a hunting rifle to be 'aesthetics'.

But that's just me.

 

[rangerruck]

severe ouchy. However, as much as he is right in his review here, there is another problem. most rifle makers count on North American and South American buyers to keep them making money. The regs, taxes, laws, lawyers, etc., in our governments make it impossible for them to make a quality product,
sell plenty of guns,keep themselves and their employees in business, and turn a decent profit.

 

[Ash]

Many synethetic stocked rifles have very poor finish, with casting lines and very poor stock to metal fit. Of course, it doesn't really matter because the pillars or bedding blocks fit nicely, but I have priced Walnut. That isn't my point. The cheapo rifles 30 years ago are finished nicer than rifles today, with decent iron sights, jeweled bolts, hinged floorplates (or even detachable magazines), adjustable triggers, and grip caps that have gone by the wayside on what is considered higher end rifles today. Take a look at the casting marks on the Remington 700 bolt handle, or the rough machining on the Winchester 70 bolt heads before they went away. Pick up a Remington model 710 to see the worst of it all.

But, the Tikka T3 isn't a $400 rifle, is it? Chuck wasn't talking about a Mossberg 100ATR or Stevens 200, which can expected to have the bottom end finishes and materials. Heck, my Stevens 110 in .243 from the early 80's exhibits some better finish than the Remington ADL's did (though the stock was not walnut). As to wood, American Walnut is pricey. Yet Turkish walnut isn't. But any wood stock, even beech, costs more than the very cheap to produce injection molded plastic that most stocks are today. Want something better, like fiberglass, and you'll pay much more.

Now, to be certain, the American shooter gets a fine shooting rifle these days, especially now that adjustable triggers have come back in fashon in many rifles that did not have them for many a long year. But the rifle we get today is not as well made and finished as they once were, which is made more significant because of the new machinery at our disposal today (the cause of the increased accuracy). Indeed, if we were still making rifles on the kind of machinery in the 1960's, accuracy would likely be worse, not better. If anything, the CNC machinery, which makes rifles cheaper to produce for the factory than ever before, should allow us to have even better finished rifles than before. Yet the factory rifle of today is not as nicely made as the exact same counterparts of yesteryear even though production ability is at its cheapest.

Ash

 

[Koobuh]

"I don't see the use of plastic trigger parts, floorplate parts, trigger guard parts, or magazine parts on a hunting rifle to be 'aesthetics'.

But that's just me."

Does it impede functionality? No? Then it's aesthetics.
More often these changes are for weight and inexpensive manufacture, but again, does it make the rifle not work to have plastic parts?

 

[rbernie]

The use of plastic bits as mentioned impedes reliability and/or longevity. That is NOT a question of aesthetics. As I posted about fifty posts back:

Heck, I watched a guy drop a rifle in the field not six months ago and shatter his rifle's plastic trigger guard to smithereens. It was only by the grace of the overlords of all that is good that his rifle's plastic-n-potmetal trigger didn't get FUBAR'ed along with the trigger guard.

I'm sure that the manufacturer of that rifle touts the four ounces of weight savings in that plastic trigger guard as an advantage. But I suspect that the real savings was likely pure economics for the manufacturer. In this case, that cost/weight savings almost caused the end of an expensive out-of-state hunt for the rifle's owner.

You can push the problem around all you want, but in the end Chuck is not WRONG. People today accept a lower standard of materials and workmanship in their rifle in exchange for cachet or some other attribute. Anyone who thinks that a rifle needs to have plastic working bits (I don't consider stocks to be mechanical working bits) in order to be both accurate and inexpensive needs to look to Savage or Howa to see how to better balance cost against performance, reliability, longevity, and accuracy.

 

[Ash]

I guess my issue is that folks have been saying they can't afford $3,000 custom rifles, which is what you pay if you want something nice. But there was a time when any fellow could afford a nicely made rifle, with good bluing, iron sights, a hinged floorplate or detachable magazine, adjustable trigger, good stock. These older rifles exhibited a kind of craftmanship that doesn't exist today. Rifles have a much more disposable feel to them, and so many of them are not the kind of thing you would see your son shooting when he grew up. Even my oh so very humble Mossberg 183 bolt action .410 that was my grandfather's, that my dad and I both grew up shooting, has a better finish and standard of workmanship than many modern rifles. That Mossberg looks nicer than anything on the rack at Walmart (even though it does have a plastic trigger guard). And with the Stevens 200 costing so cheap, we KNOW we could get better made rifles for not too much money. If the Stevens can be sold for $250, then surely for $400 we can get a better finish and a nice turkish walnut stock. There seems to real excuse not to offer that except in a super premium price.

And, more to the point, how much money is lost when customers pass on the new rifles for a better made, even if it is less accurate, rifle from the 1960's? I have a Savage 111, a Revelation and four Western Fields, in .270, .30-06, .308, .243, 7mm Rem Mag, and .30-06. I picked up the Savage because the Remington 710 was such a piece of junk. I then picked up the Revelation because it was so finely made in comparison with the other rifles I looked at, even the stock Rem 700. Then the Western Fields out of nostalgia and because they, too, were better made. There were at least 4, if not 6, rifles not sold to me because of a lower standard of finish. That Savage is as accurate as anything offered today but in a much more attractive package. The Revelation is also just as accurate. The Western Fields are all hunter grade, the 7mm Rem is as accurate as the Savage. The secondary market is not good for Remington or any other producers.

Ash

Ash

 

[pete f]

Read this and then went to Sportsmans warehouse to look at one tonight.

The one I saw was a butt ugly piece. The parting line on the stock was sharp enough to draw blood. The forearm was in no way sturdy enough to use a sling for a steadyrest on. The trigger was atrocious, maybe 8 lbs.

The QC on it was just poor. Remington once upon a time made a cheap gun that was actually well made, called it the 788, accurate all out of proportion to what it cost. but people just refused to buy it because it was ugly, now they sell used for the price of a new 700.

Savage 110's used to just sit on the shelves because they were ugly, then people started to realize that the darn things made tiny holes in the paper.


But this Tikka, for the price of a real gun, was just bad. Maybe some of you have good ones, but the one i looked at was really rough/

 

[Elkobsessed]

Hard Earned Dollars Are Hard To Spend.

I am in the market for a new rifle, something that I can use on elk, deer, bear, pretty much all north american big game. My dilema is I want the best bang for my buck as do most people. I want something light, accuarate, and durable. I am really considering the Tikka T3 lite stainless in the .300 WSM but I have not heard alot about the accuracy of it. My current favorite hunting rifle is a Huskavarna ( <--spelling ) 7mm mag and with hand loads is a very accurate and nice rifle to shoot. It is however getting old and I want this rifle to stay in good condition for years to come and want something that if I get a scratch in it who cares. Anyway I am open to suggestions on make, model, caliber, any help is better than no help....right?.

Budget 1000.00 CND funds.

 

[mylesrom]

Look at the Tikka, Vanguard, Savage and Remington SPS.... handle all of them at the shop and see which one feels best to you. You have to carry it and hunt with it.

In 300 WSM the Tikka is the lightest. Will kick a little harder... You will want to change the Pad out to a Limbsaver.

 

[rbernie]

For the money, I don't hink that you can beat the Vanguard/Howa. The SPS examples that I've handled have been, ah, disappointing.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

Only a few objective points here. A lot of cognate dissonance from T-3 owners.

In general, I agree with Chuck. Handle a pre-64 Model 70!

Is the steel as good as now...dunno, I doubt it. Is the barel then within .0005? Doubt it.

It would be nice to have the best of both worlds.

But the cost of Labor drives a lot of this. The cost to make a pre-64 Model 70 drove it's demise. Quality costs money. The price of putting a BAT action ( or Stolle, or Nesika etc.) would not appeal to the market that buys T-3(s).

 

[mylesrom]

I have had and shot Remington 700's, Winchester 70's, Tikka T-3's, Kimber 8400, Sako 75, and Weatherby Vanguards. The most consistantly accurate rifle has been the Vangaurd in 257wby, right out of the box with nothing done to it and its also the least expensive of the bunch.

 

[ArmedBear]

Hear, hear, for the Vanguard. Available in walnut, too.

 

[hessy]

.223

Nothing beats Tikka T3 in .223 Rem. Vanguard is 2 pounds heavier, creepy 6 lb trigger, no detachable mag and has 1:12 twist
Tikka is 6.1 pound, excellent trigger that is easy to adjust, 1:8 twist and you do not have to buy a sub-MOA option for it to be sub-MOA
Say all you want, Tikka all the way for me

 

[igorts]

I love my Tikka T3 in 30-06 and don't care if someone craps around. It does it job as well as a few$k rifles and makes a hole exactly where I aim.
It's a hunter rifle, with syntetic stock and no extra care needed.
My next rifle will be Tikka.

 

[mylesrom]

I own a Sako, tikka's big brother its still not as accurate as the Vanguard, 5 shots in one ragged hole, time after time..... Its not the submoa version either, its their cheapest model, consistantly shoot under .50 in groupings. Tikka t3 is fine in a smaller caliber, not in the magnums, have shot the 300wsm and it isn't any fun. My Sako is over 8lbs before the scope and handles the 270 Wby recoil well.

 

[schmidtbender]

Chuck has never owned a 595 target/sniper or he would sing a different tune. My 308 is an out of the box 1/2 moa rifle with fed prem mtch ammo. Cost $650 new. Here's a very nice 22-250 (same model) I bought yesterday for $750. bet it too will shoot small holes at 1/3 the price of a TRG or even a fancy savage.

 

[Waywatcher]

I think the rampant elitism in the article is sickening.

 

[Hokkmike]

Sako and Tikka are my preferred brands, but the man does have experience.

 

[Art Eatman]

Back when a Model 70 cost $54, retail, a graduate engineer fresh out of college made $200 a month, before taxes.

Generally, post-64 Model 70s shoot tighter groups than pre-64 Model 70s.

Modern stuff does even better, plastic parts or no plastic parts. Show me a modern action that's as smooth as a Krag, and then tell me the cost.

And so it goes...

That Chuck Hawks may be very knowledgeable about firearms does not make him knowledgeable about either economics or history.

Art

 

[theken206]

you guys raggin on my rifle are hurting my feelings, tell ya what. Maybe I got the cherry pick but ill tell yeah, alot of us that own them think they ARE the bees knees.




some people dont seem to get that tikka t-3s are are manufactured by the same technicians using the same state-of-the-art machinery and the same quality of materials that are used for Sako firearms.:banghead:

same cold hammer forged free floating barrels ect ect.

just type in tikka-t3 reviews to get a look at what those of us who own them think of them.

from snipercentral.com

"The Tikka T3 Tactical was awarded the prestigious ‘Rifle of the Year’ award from American Rifleman. American Rifleman is one of the official NRA magazines and they award annual awards for rifle and handgun of the year. For the T3, they states “… among the candidates from the past year, one stood out for its combination of quality, handling, accuracy, styling and features: the Tikka T3 Tactical.” They tested the 20″ version and were obviously quite fond of it. It is a good rifle and we liked the one we reviewed also."



and its funny how fond people are of my t3 when I take it to the rifle range. Including the older guys on there daddy's pre-64 model 70. Heck MY DAD had a custom pre-64 "bug holed, tack driver of a rifle" model 70 that his father left him.{got pawned for 150 buck by my mom:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:}

He is as fond as my tikka-t3 as anyone and says he wished he would have got one instead of his remmy'700.

Agin maybe some of us got the pick of the litter and others havent but I wouldnt trade my tikka for any rifle in the world, I love it, its mine, it VERY accurate and damn it its mine and I love it.

 

[randomblunt]

for me a rifle is a tool.

been hunting on my own since i was 12, so at 25 and after 100's of deer, goats, tahr, chamois 'downed', i may be qualified to offer an opinion.
i'm not a gun writer, I'm a hunter, and you would see that just by looking at my rifles, mostly stainless, a couple with scratched up blood smeared synthetic and composite stocks, and a couple of slightly worn, well looked after wallnut blued jobs.
these rifles get used allot, but none moreso than my tikka t3 270 wsm.
it groups under moa with most factory ammo and has taken game from 60 to 600 yards.
i have no trouble loading single rounds into the chamber through the ejection port, if an animal is running away you only get enough time for one shot most time, and if more is needed the spare mag in my pocket is just the ticket.
positive safety, good trigger, solid stock, and good glass to topp it off with.
its been covered in mud, blood, dropped of a cliff(allong with me), used as a brake while sliding down a glacier, and well looked after.
my kids will be using this rifle in years to come, if they're still making the 270 wsm cartridge.