Tikka Scope mounts

I’ve mounted scopes on many many Tikka’s. I can’t stand the factory rings that at least used to come with every rifle. The screws were soft and prone to stripping. To my eyes they are incredibly cheap looking too which isn’t really germaine.

I don’t own any Tikka’s because I don’t care for DBM’s and small ejection /loading ports. The port on the T3x is larger than on a T3 but still much smaller than what’s on a M70, 1700, Vanguard, etc.

That being said I believe they are excellent rifles and I’d face a dilemma if I owned one, the same dilemma I faced with my CZ 550. Though I prefer the look of two piece bases I now use one piece bases because with two piece bases you quite often cannot position a scope far enough back or forward due to tube length on today’s scopes being all over the place. With Tikka, CZ and Ruger M77’s if one wants to use a one piece base, of necessity the scope will sit higher than with two piece bases. With my CZ if I’d gone one piece I would have had to do something to raise the comb to get a good cheek weld, the same would hold true with a Tikka. So I went two piece Warne and found a scope that would work. I like Warne CZ and Tikka rings. The quality of DNZ and Talley are just as good as Warne, I just happen to prefer vertically split rings.

Is there any love for the Talley one pieces?

I have 7 Tikkas the mounts I have used are the Warnes shown, A EGW rail, A Mountain Tactical rail and Burris XTR base.The advantages. The Warne the scope can be lower. The rails you have more forward and back adj. with the scope rings.The Burris the scope can be low and the Burris has several slots.The disadvantages the Warnes the front ring has to go in one place you have some adj. with the rear ring and split vertical rings can be a little harder to install.The rails you can have problems getting the scope low because of both the front bell and the power adjustment if you buy a rail I would not get a extended.The Burris other than somewhat limited ring placement have no faults with low rings the scope is nice and low.I'm sure the DNZ are fine mounts never owned any but IMHO they are one of the ugliest scope mounts ever made don't know why I think that but I do.

The factory rings that come on the rifle work as good as any with a simple modification. The screws are the weak link. Rather than spend $50 for different mounts I spent $3 for 6 new screws at a hardware store. One of the rings has a stud that fits into a hole in the top of the receiver. Same principle as the recoil lug on the action sitting in the mortise in the stock. The rings aren't going to move if installed properly. It's not just the dovetails that are holding them in place.

The factory screws have shallow holes and a hex wrench can't get a good grip on them. In addition I found them to be soft and easily stripped. The replacement screws allow the hex wrench to get inside and you can really get things tight.

No, the factory rings aren't pretty, but certainly no worse than the old school Weaver rings. And a Tikka is a work horse rifle, not a show horse. I'd rather spend the $50 on a better scope than new rings.

There are better mounts/rings available over the original supplied rings. Jmr40 has tried and successfully improved the Tikka rings, good to know that option. Thanks for sharing @jmr40
J

Bought a T3x in .270 in March, but a set of Warne on it along with a Zeiss V4 4X14X56. Bore sighted it at 25 yards and fired 2 shots to zero. Shot 3-5 went into 3/4, shot 5-7 went into 1/2 at 100. Love the rings that fit the grooved receiver