Thoughts? Christiansen Arms Mesa vs Tikka T3X

Rockrivr1

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,959
Location
Massachusetts
I’m currently looking at getting a new rifle that will be used for an upcoming hunt as well as long range shooting. It’ll be in 300 Win Mag.

I’ve been doing a bunch of research and have nixed the Weatherby Vanguard, Remington 700 BDL, Howa 1500 and Winchester 70. So many things to look at that it makes your head spin. All were so close that it came down to personal preferences.

From the research I narrowed my choices down to the Mesa and TX3. Here I’m stuck as they both have very good pluses. The Tikka is cheaper by a few hundred but not enough to be the deciding factor.

Anyone have any opinion on these two? Appreciate it!
 
I don't know anything about the Christiansen rifles other than their reputation as well-built, accurate rifles.

I do have a lot of experience with several Tikka's, and it's all been positive. If you can afford the Christiansen and like it, I say go for it. They are certainly a lot more traditional looking. You can save a few hundred $$$ and the Tikka will probably be just as accurate, but not as aesthetically pleasing.

Both are pretty light. You might want to re-think 300 WM in any rifle that light. I don't know what you plan to hunt or what you consider long range. But there are cartridges out there that will take elk size game out to 400-500 yards and still be viable as a target round to 800-1200 yards or even farther that generate about 1/2 the recoil of a 300 WM.

If you want to hunt elk size game at 500-700 yards a 300 WM is what you're looking for. But there are much better 1000 yard cartridges than 300 WM with half the recoil.
 
I happen to like the Christensens i have and have chosen the mesa over the t3x more than once.

That said your not really getting a "better" gun with the Mesa, but if you like it better then your not getting a worse gun either.....

Thus (imo) it comes down to personal preference.
 
I loaded for a friend’s Mesa in 6.5 Creedmoor. It did OK but was somewhat picky development wise. Very attractive gun.

If it matters to you, the bolt locks while on safe with the Tikka. Probably more of a chance of getting well below MOA with the Tikka.

Either one seems like it would be a little lightweight for target shooting with the .300…
 
I won’t touch a Christensen arms Rifle if you rolled up a $100 bill put it in the barrel and offered it to me for $80 I’ve heard to many bad things about them Now tikka on the other hand I’ve had/heard the opposite all good things from that outfit kinda slow twist rate but very accurate
 
I’m interested in Christensen Arms, but anecdotal reports of “iffy” accuracy and variable build quality have kept me from committing. It may be unfair, and of course we all know that there are 10 disaster stories for every one tale of triumph on the interwebs, but an impression is created nonetheless. I have had an excellent experience with my Tikka T3X TAC A1 (6.5 Creedmoor) and, if my example is indicative of the accuracy potential of the whole lineup, then you could certainly acquire one with confidence. I haven’t begun reloading for it yet and am amassing brass through factory ammo. My first ever group with Hornady 140 grain ELD-M ammo shot this .5 MOA group:

IMG_4293.jpeg

I had sighted in at around 50 yards so the first shot at 100 went high. I adjusted the scope and sent the next five into a nice cloverleaf. The action is super smooth and the trigger is excellent. I have made some modifications to it - MDT buttstock and reduced power trigger spring - but I’m stopping there. It’s simply wonderful. So there! Sorry I have nothing more substantial to say about Christensen but, man, the Tikkas are nice!
 
Any research you did that led you to ditching the Winchester Model 70, but not the Christensen needs to be reviewed with a critical eye. I will NEVER own a Christensen. Ever. I spent a few years behind a gun counter and Christensen was easily the brand we sent back for warranty work more than any other brand.
 
I’ve heard a rumor that Tkka/Sako are coming out with some new caliber choices this year at shot show. Overall it seems the Tikka has a much better reputation for accuracy than the Christensen.

Your mileage may vary.
Having had 2 Mesas and 1 T3x I would concur, although the Mesas were pretty good shooting rifles. A lot gun stores near me no longer stock Christensen except Sportsman's warehouse, they use to stock quite a bit of them especially Ridgelines . I still have the Tikka.:)
 
I don't know of a single person that had an issue with a Christensen arms rifle. The Internet is full of a lot of hearsay.
 
I don't know of a single person that had an issue with a Christensen arms rifle. The Internet is full of a lot of hearsay.
I do. There was a period several years ago that they were having problems with their barrel quality. Accuracy during that time was hit or miss and Christensen did not take care of their customers very well during that time period.

I’ve heard they are better now.
 
What would a long-range rifle weigh anyway? I don't have one. If I were to guess, I'd imagine somewhere between 11 and 17 pounds or more. Even a hunting-weight rifle at 8 pounds with a 3 pound optic will be 11 pounds. If you hunt from a blind, maybe that's practical. I wouldn't want to hunt with anything that I'm not willing to spend an hour on the stair climber with.
 
What would a long-range rifle weigh anyway? I don't have one. If I were to guess, I'd imagine somewhere between 11 and 17 pounds or more. Even a hunting-weight rifle at 8 pounds with a 3 pound optic will be 11 pounds. If you hunt from a blind, maybe that's practical. I wouldn't want to hunt with anything that I'm not willing to spend an hour on the stair climber with.
What’s your definition of “long range” there are plenty of standard weight rifles that are capable accuracy wise of hitting the vitals of an animal out to 7 or 800 yards. And more than a few that are capable past 1000 yards. That’s with a high quality scope of standard weight.
 
What’s your definition of “long range” there are plenty of standard weight rifles that are capable accuracy wise of hitting the vitals of an animal out to 7 or 800 yards. And more than a few that are capable past 1000 yards. That’s with a high quality scope of standard weight.

The outfits we are looking at for our Elk Hunt indicate no shots longer the 600 yards. I’m looking for a lightweight hunting rifle with good optics to bring with me. I’m thinking a Tikka T3X Lite or Lite RoughTech but fluted or not is a question I’m looking at now.
 
I do. There was a period several years ago that they were having problems with their barrel quality. Accuracy during that time was hit or miss and Christensen did not take care of their customers very well during that time period.

I’ve heard they are better now.
A few months ago I understand that someone purchased them .
 
I’m currently looking at getting a new rifle that will be used for an upcoming hunt as well as long range shooting. It’ll be in 300 Win Mag.....

What would a long-range rifle weigh anyway? I don't have one. If I were to guess, I'd imagine somewhere between 11 and 17 pounds or more. Even a hunting-weight rifle at 8 pounds with a 3 pound optic will be 11 pounds. If you hunt from a blind, maybe that's practical. I wouldn't want to hunt with anything that I'm not willing to spend an hour on the stair climber with.

What’s your definition of “long range” there are plenty of standard weight rifles that are capable accuracy wise of hitting the vitals of an animal out to 7 or 800 yards. And more than a few that are capable past 1000 yards. That’s with a high quality scope of standard weight.
It was the OP's definition that matters.
The outfits we are looking at for our Elk Hunt indicate no shots longer the 600 yards. I’m looking for a lightweight hunting rifle with good optics to bring with me. I’m thinking a Tikka T3X Lite or Lite RoughTech but fluted or not is a question I’m looking at now.

In your original post, you indicated the rifle would be used for an upcoming hunt as well as long range shooting. 600 yards would meet anyone's definition of long-range hunting, but it would not meet most people's definition of long-range shooting. Even so, what most people consider "long range shooting" is better accomplished with a rifle and optic suited to it, and they are not the same as a rifle and optic suited to hunting.

Don't buy a hunting rifle or a long-range rifle based on advice from a gun shop or an internet forum without going and seeing what people who are doing what you want to do are actually using to do it. If you're using an outfitter or guide for the elk hunt, ask them what they recommend and what successful clients with a similar level of experience to yours are using. If you have a place to do long range shooting in Massachusetts, go there and see what people are using and then talk to them about what they would change, if anything, and why. Do you even have a range that goes past 300 yards? If so, are the people there shooting a benchrest style discipline like F-class, or Palma, or are they shooting Practical Precision steel?

Hunting can be accomplished a lot of ways. Elk hunting can be done with a SxS or a pack horse carrying the rifle most of the way. Then a long-action (300 WM), heavy-stocked rifle with a heavy barrel and optic with a giant objective and rock-solid erector could be quite practical. It can also be accomplished backpacking. In that case, the saying is, "ounces equal pounds, and pounds equal pain." Your success backpack hunting is more assured with an ultra-light, short-action (308-class) rifle with a lightweight optic (16 oz or less). For that weight, the erector is not as likely to track as well, and the objective is likely to be smaller. Compare the weights of a Swarovski Z5 (hunting scope) and a Nightforce ATACR (long range scope).

What experience do you have hunting deer? I've not had any myself, but I have helped others do it, as in being right at their side through the whole hunt. I've been with beginners to intermediate (5 years of hunting experience). Based on that experience with multiple hunters, I would strongly advise against taking a shot longer than 200 yards. For a hunter's first shot on big game, I would strongly encourage getting 150 yards or closer. If the shooter were particularly talented and had considerable skill in a discipline other than hunting, and they had hunted at least once before, 300 yards would be the most I would not oppose. I know life-long hunters with decades of experience hunting all over the west, three or four hunts per season in multiple states, who will be honest with me. They screw up 500-yard shots, and it ruins their season. For a beginner to attempt a 500-yard shot on an elk would be idiotic. Besides, it's far less exciting when you can't get any closer than that. What is worth much more than making a 500-yard shot is actually hunting to get closer. Even if I were to have a shot at 500 yards, but lose the opportunity while attempting to get closer, I would attempt to get closer dozens of times, even if it took several seasons, before I would rather take the 500-yard shot and take home what I would consider to be a concession prize.

Rather than thinking what rifle will allow me to make a 600-yard shot, I would think: what rifle will hinder me the least in my effort to close less than 200 yards.
 
I know people in the East will be thinking, "what? I've never had to take a shot more than a hundred yards!" Here in the Great Basin, it can be very hard to get that close. The game can see you coming from four miles away (not an exaggeration). They typically move when anything approaches within a 1/4 mile. In the canyons, there can be no cover other than the ridgelines that can be many hundreds of yards from the game that can just pop over the next ridgeline as soon as they see you. You will have to descend hundreds of feet down and then climb 400 feet up before you can hope to see which way they went. Being tempted with 500-yard shots is not unusual at all. I've seen far more mule deer, antelope, and elk at 400 to 2000 yards than I have any closer. If I would take a 700-yard shot, I could finish the hunt the first weekend, but instead it is likely to take two weeks and just as probable as not to result in nothing taken. Even so, I've been on hunting trips with several different beginners and inexperienced hunters and never once have any of us done anything we had any reason to regret. Missed opportunities are far easier to remedy than mistakes.
 
The web is full of opinions and a lot of them only talk about the issues they had with a firearm. They are both fine rifles and the choice is strictly up to you. You cannot go wrong with either. Christensen used to offer an accuracy guarantee. I don't know if they still do as I have not kept up with them. Many a fine BR rifle built on a 700 style action...
 
It was the OP's definition that matters.


In your original post, you indicated the rifle would be used for an upcoming hunt as well as long range shooting. 600 yards would meet anyone's definition of long-range hunting, but it would not meet most people's definition of long-range shooting. Even so, what most people consider "long range shooting" is better accomplished with a rifle and optic suited to it, and they are not the same as a rifle and optic suited to hunting.

Don't buy a hunting rifle or a long-range rifle based on advice from a gun shop or an internet forum without going and seeing what people who are doing what you want to do are actually using to do it. If you're using an outfitter or guide for the elk hunt, ask them what they recommend and what successful clients with a similar level of experience to yours are using. If you have a place to do long range shooting in Massachusetts, go there and see what people are using and then talk to them about what they would change, if anything, and why. Do you even have a range that goes past 300 yards? If so, are the people there shooting a benchrest style discipline like F-class, or Palma, or are they shooting Practical Precision steel?

Hunting can be accomplished a lot of ways. Elk hunting can be done with a SxS or a pack horse carrying the rifle most of the way. Then a long-action (300 WM), heavy-stocked rifle with a heavy barrel and optic with a giant objective and rock-solid erector could be quite practical. It can also be accomplished backpacking. In that case, the saying is, "ounces equal pounds, and pounds equal pain." Your success backpack hunting is more assured with an ultra-light, short-action (308-class) rifle with a lightweight optic (16 oz or less). For that weight, the erector is not as likely to track as well, and the objective is likely to be smaller. Compare the weights of a Swarovski Z5 (hunting scope) and a Nightforce ATACR (long range scope).

What experience do you have hunting deer? I've not had any myself, but I have helped others do it, as in being right at their side through the whole hunt. I've been with beginners to intermediate (5 years of hunting experience). Based on that experience with multiple hunters, I would strongly advise against taking a shot longer than 200 yards. For a hunter's first shot on big game, I would strongly encourage getting 150 yards or closer. If the shooter were particularly talented and had considerable skill in a discipline other than hunting, and they had hunted at least once before, 300 yards would be the most I would not oppose. I know life-long hunters with decades of experience hunting all over the west, three or four hunts per season in multiple states, who will be honest with me. They screw up 500-yard shots, and it ruins their season. For a beginner to attempt a 500-yard shot on an elk would be idiotic. Besides, it's far less exciting when you can't get any closer than that. What is worth much more than making a 500-yard shot is actually hunting to get closer. Even if I were to have a shot at 500 yards, but lose the opportunity while attempting to get closer, I would attempt to get closer dozens of times, even if it took several seasons, before I would rather take the 500-yard shot and take home what I would consider to be a concession prize.

Rather than thinking what rifle will allow me to make a 600-yard shot, I would think: what rifle will hinder me the least in my effort to close less than 200 yards.
Actually the OP did not state his 600 yard number until after I asked the question. Which is why I asked what our definition of long range is for this thread. And I’ll stick with my original post that a standard weight hunting rifle of good quality and MOA or better inherent accuracy with a quality scope is perfectly capable of putting bullets into vitals at 600 yards.

It’s all the other variables that make it not such a great idea unless you really know how and have practiced it a lot from field conditions in variable weather conditions. It does not take a 15 lb target rifle to make vital hits at 600 yards.
 
Last edited:
Right. Your question was spot on. But the OP did not state, "long range hunting." He wrote, the "rifle would be used for an upcoming hunt as well as long range shooting." This could be an example of what is not an unusual proposition. Rockrivr1 will have to tell us. People need a rifle for a hunt, but instead of buying a gun to shoot one elk, once in their lifetime, they determine to get a rifle that can shoot targets at 1000 yards also.
 
Right. Your question was spot on. But the OP did not state, "long range hunting." He wrote, the "rifle would be used for an upcoming hunt as well as long range shooting." This could be an example of what is not an unusual proposition. Rockrivr1 will have to tell us. People need a rifle for a hunt, but instead of buying a gun to shoot one elk, once in their lifetime, they determine to get a rifle that can shoot targets at 1000 yards also.

Yeah, this is specifically for a once in lifetime hunt for elk out west. Longest shot will be around 600yards according to the outfitters we are looking at. After the hunt I’d probably do a range day from time to time with it. Have access to a 1000 yard range and of course I’ll need to try it that far. But that would not be the normal range time. 4-500 mostly.
 
Yeah, this is specifically for a once in lifetime hunt for elk out west. Longest shot will be around 600yards according to the outfitters we are looking at. After the hunt I’d probably do a range day from time to time with it. Have access to a 1000 yard range and of course I’ll need to try it that far. But that would not be the normal range time. 4-500 mostly.
If your rifle is squared away that’s mostly going to be an optics issue. If you’re just banging steel for fun that’s one thing. If you’re planning on doing some 1000 yards competition shooting then a target specific rifle might be in order.

In any case for your hunting needs a squared away rifle with a decent scope and dial will do what you need it to do.

I’d save yourself a lot of heartache and money and pass on any shot you’re not perfectly comfortable and confident of making. A gut shot elk or a three legged elk is usually a lost elk.

You and only you can determine what your range limitation is after lots of practice in field conditions from improvised positions in various weather conditions and especially wind of various angles and velocities.

My max effective range changes on a daily basis depending on the wind, shooting position/rest and weather.

Some days it’s 300 yards and some days I’ll stretch it out to 500+ yards.
 
Back
Top