Chuck Hawks rips Tikka a new one

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like a nice bit of wood and all metal parts on a rifle . I have a Merkel combi made in 73 and a Heym -Ruger i bought in 78. But the problem with fine quality is that at the first sign of damp or a bit of blood they rust like hell. I can't complain about the accuracy of either of those weapons. BUT i have just bought a Mauser M03 Extreme. Spending all day out hunting in the rain and snow It just makes sense to have a plastic stock and metal parts that don't rust so quick. Much as i think the Tikka is one pug ugly rifle the truth is that most out of the box Sako,Tikka shoot really well.
 
Well, when there is market resistance for prices above the $500 level, you're gonna get $500 guns. If a factory only makes $2,000 guns, they're probably not gonna stay in business with the present number of employees.

Back when I gave $200 for a NIB Sako Forrester, gasoline was 30¢ a gallon.

Think of it this way: If you can buy a good shooter for $500, at least the quality of the steel is still good. If you're worried about the plastic parts breaking, buy some spares and lay them back.

But remember that we here are in the minority of all shooters. The great majority own one or few rifles, shoot a few rounds a year and that's it. Warts and all, a Tikka is plenty good. For that matter, even the Rem 710 will meet the needs of many, many hunters...

So let's not get too snobby about how cool we are and how much we know. Don't get your nose so high in the air that when it rains, you'll drown...

Art

I couldn't agree more Art. It's easy when you really get into guns to forget that most people see them primarily as tools. Some others may appreciate old guns just as an antique collector may covet a piece of fine furniture.

I also agree that any lack of quality can be blamed 100% on the American sportsman who by a vast majority wants CHEAP above all else. We vote with our checkbook boys and Art is right. Those who appreciate fine rifles of the past are in the minority. We should be more supportive of those who share the sport rather than draw lines in the sand.
 
50 years from now my grandchildren will still be shooting my old S&W's, Colts, and Winchesters. They will be amazed at the quality of workmanship and the amount of hand work that went into them. They will also still be shooting my old Tikka's and Glocks and will be amazed at the engineering that went into a gun that allowed it to work just as well if not better and be manufactured at a fraction of the cost.

For me, I appreciate the fine guns as much as anybody but I like the newer advances as well. If you want to pay the price for the more expensive guns that option is still there.
 
Commenting negatively on another's choice of ordnance doesn't seem to advance the knowledge base of our community. Use what you enjoy, but no need to cast aspersions. Some of us own pretty rifles and utility rifles so the pretty ones need not be dragged out on the muskeg or rolled over by a fractious pack animal. Is it better to invest in a looker or a cooker?

Driving a Jeep doesn't mean we don't like Lamborghinis, but it may mean the Jeep will do what we need to do without the ownership costs of the Lambo. It's your nickel, and we're not here to tell you how to spend it. Unless you ask.
 
All very true. But let's not blind ourselves to the incontrovertible FACT that plastic parts WILL break before steel or even aluminum, of the same dimensions, even if not for decades. We won't know the difference in our lifetimes, in all likelihood. But our grandkids will have to try to find replacement parts for some of these guns for non-wear parts, which may or may not be available. That's assuming the legacy of shooting carries on in your family. If it's made of quality steel and wood, on the other hand, they won't need any replacement parts except for parts that receive wear. Whatever one wants to do is fine by me, but plastic trigger guards, magazines, etc., disgust me personally. In fact, I just got a brand new Rem 700 CDL and I cannot even tell if the trigger guard is plastic or aluminum. I *think* it's aluminum, but I have my suspicions when I tap it - anyone know for sure? I'm gonna be :mad: if there's a plastic part on this gun.
 
PremiumSauces

I agree with you on the plastics. I collect old Winchesters. If you handle one of those and then fondle a Tikka it's almost laughable. It's like comparing a Mercedes to a Pinto. But the point is some people are perfectly happy with a Pinto and it's not my place to tell them it's junk.

The way you feel about the cheapness of modern guns is the reason people have been collecting older, better made guns for decades. If you haven't started already I've gotta warn you. It's like a sickness.

I'm fairly certain all Remmy 700 trigger gaurds are cast pot metal. All mine are.
 
The rifles many are describing, with "old world" quality are still available-- starting around $1500. If the T3 were made with multiple action lengths and all forged or machined billet parts, it wouldn't sell for under a grand.
 
We won't know the difference in our lifetimes, in all likelihood. But our grandkids will have to try to find replacement parts for some of these guns for non-wear parts, which may or may not be available

Pretty sure not many of us are buying Tikkas as legacy rifles... :)

Rich
 
Yep, people just hate plastic on guns. Except, of course when it is all over a Remington 600 or 660. Then they go goo-goo and spend ten times what the gun cost just to take it home and fondle it.
 
I thought Chuck Hawks was a pretty knowledgeable fellow. Followed his instructions on painting my motorcycle and it worked out exactly as he said it would. And his gun stuff was usually well-written, if perhaps a bit topical.

But then I came across his article on Smith & Wesson wherein he berates them for producing the "defective" Model 19: defective for not standing up to extended use with full-house 125 grain magnums. It's an ignorant thing to say on several levels, and it me wonder a bit about the guy.

A few days later I read his article on the .45 Colt, which was chock-full of bias and misinformation. There were several points that demonstrated either a profound ignorance of revolvers, or were simply tall tales about things he claimed to have experienced.

So I no longer see any point to reading anything he writes. *shrug*
 
He'd probably write a similar rant on buying a new chainsaw and finding it to be mostly plastic instead of all steel like in the good old days. Welcome to 2006.

Like how the skill saw used to be all steel? :rolleyes: Gravy, those things weigh 20lbs and have less power than new "plastic crap" models. You should see the things contractors put those things through and they hold.

Just because your $1 off brand G.I. Joe had flimsy plastic and broke does not mean that an appropriate synthetic is a sub-par construction material. :rolleyes:
 
I bought a tikka3 lite in stainless 223,the twist of rate is 1-8" it wont shoot factory ammo for squt,so i been reloading ,I did get it to shot 1 in" groups
I did break in the barrel,i have over 500 rds through it,I need to spet up to the heavier bullets. before i can s ay its junk.or its gold.right now its zink.My little T/C 21 in. 223 will out shoot this Tikka 3 .as of now.I did pay 600 bucks,GM wanted almost 800, mines left hand,stainless,It was cheaper in price then the 700,I hope i made the right choice,
 
most factory ammo is very light., and 1-8" twist is pretty fast. 45-62 grain is what is loaded in most ammo. Try some Federal Gold metal Match, its a 69 grain bullet and the load is known for good accuracy.
 
Polymer stocks were indeed a chance to drastically decrease the cost of production while maintaining the price. They do indeed cost orders of magnitude less than walnut. The Tikka stock, while better than a Savage 110 stock, is still a pretty cheap thing to make. And that is just fine.

A tremendous number of ice cream manufacturers provide 1/2 gallon-size containers, but don't but that much ice cream in them (they are labeled properly, with an accurate amount in there, which is less than 1/2 gallon). My point? Instead of raising prices, which would reduce consumption, they kept the price the same but offered less product. In this case, the consumer is fooled into paying more per ounce. In the case of polymer, it isn't all that far removed, in the view of Chuck, to put a $10 stock on a rifle and convince you that it is better/high tech/etc.

In my case, I just don't worry about that. I don't like polymer stocks on rifles. I just don't. And, I think it a shame that bottom end rifles in the 1960's, still had polished blue, iron sights, walnut stocks, hinged floorplates, and the like. Bottom end back then was more expensive, in real money, than today of course. Modern rifles such as the Mossberg 100ATR or even Tikka T3, are cheaper when everything is considered. Yet, bottom-end store brand from the 1960's that costs equivalent to the modern-day Tikka was a nicer-made rifle than a Tikka currently is.

There are nice options today, of course. They can cost alot, but they can also be pretty modest. The Savage 114 is an example. That rifle is made for guys like me who like wood and steel but don't want to spend a mint. There are others, of course, and they are in the affordable range. The laminate stocked 700BDL costs about the same as a Tikka, and I would certainly prefer it.

Whether Chuck is right or not, there are plenty of us who agree with him that there is a switcharoo done with plastic stocks, convincing the masses that they are so much greater when in reality they are so much cheaper to produce.

Ash
 
It was roughly twenty years ago that I read that mature Black Walnut trees were worth about $20,000 per each. Yoicks!

Check around for the price on semi-finished halfway-decent wood stocks. If you're looking for "really nice", hang on to your billfold, 'cause you're in for a ride!

I bought a NIB Weatherby Mark V for $315, the same year I bought a brand new Chevy 3/4-ton van for $3,200. Priced vans, lately? I'm amazed that good-shooting rifles are as inexpensive as they are.

Art
 
But cars, of course, have increased at a rate far higher than inflation. A decent car, new, could be had for $1500 in 1965. Today, that would translate into about $10,000. Want nicer? A $3,000 car in 1965 would be a hair less than $20,000 today.

As to rifles, the bottom end now, are cheaper than the bottom end in 1965. Yet, the bottom end in 1965, when placed on an equal price level with mid-ranged, and equally priced, rifles today, is still nicer.


Ash
 
Thus flimsy, injection molded plastic stocks are praised as "lightweight" or "weather resistant" rather than criticized as the inferior bedding platforms that they actually are.

The plastic stock that came with my Browning A-Bolt when I bought it in 1993 was a joke.
The forearm would wiggle-waggle around.
I ended up replacing it with a Bell & Carlson stock.
 
the stock on my tikka3 does feel and look cheap,
Im not big on the plastic,but the price of wood now a days is just out of this world,
Now i have plastic and i had a gun smithh add that when he was building my 8mm.but that was a Mcmillon stock,big dif in quailty if u ask me i shoot both,and that stock was alot more money then wood,back then,
 
I own a Tikka T3 lite in 270 Win. Outside of my Weatherby MKV (300WM) the Tikka is the most accurate out of the box rifle I own. I have taken cow elk and several mule deer with the Tikka. I have no complaints about the rifle.
 
I don't see how 'plastic' parts wear more than steel.

For one, the 'plastic' used in firearms is specially designed for that use. It's not Tupperware. Also, plastic doesn't rust or really need any maintenance at all.

More likely, future generations will be trying to find a new barrel or slide for my Glock....
 
kurtmax

Plastic does have it's place, but it has weaknesses too IMO. Plastics weaken over time from expansion and contraction. An example would be old vinyl siding that becomes very brittle on southern exposures. Look at older plastic buttplates that are commonly cracked in half. Most plastics become brittle with age and shrink.

That's not saying the alternatives to plastic don't have problems too. Plastics provide a level of durability and weight that is sometimes desireable in firearms. A good thing can be taken too far or used in places it shouldn't. I find plastics good for pistol frames, but I don't care for hollow injection molded riflestocks. Anywhere it's used to make something cheaper to manufacture I feel I'm being cheated in some way. It's just my personal opinion. Handle a well made American gun from the 50's and then handle one of the plastic laden modern guns. The new stuff lacks soul IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top