Tikka T3?

I used a synthetic stocked T3 Lite in 270 Win in an antelope hunt a few years ago. I didn't like the looks of it much and thought 22" was a bad compromise barrel length - neither short enough to make it worth it not long enough to take full advantage of the caliber. But I was very impressed by accuracy and found it a fairly light and handy rifle. Smooth function. I gave it high marks for performance. With decent wood, it should be a looker too. I am not a fan of 7mm Mag, so have nothing constructive to as there. I think if you find it in the configuration you want, it is a good rifle.

 

Good quality and all that I have seen have shot very well. A friend just bought one in 6.5X55 that shoots Sub-MOA with factory ammo. I can't wait to work up a load for him.

One of the perks of having a FFL. I get to see and handle some nice stuff.

 

It'll likely be one of the more accurate rifles you'll ever own. I had a SS/Synthetic 30-06 and a wood stocked 308 in the past. I had nothing against either, but had too other many rifles I liked better. My brother has 2 in 223, actually one belongs to my niece. Both are absolute tack drivers.

The only 2 negatives are unconventional styling and hard to find and expensive spare magazines. Really the only reason I sold mine, while they shot great I had other more conventional looking rifles that I simply liked better. I think the magazine problem has gotten somewhat better.

I'd be hesitant to buy anything in any magnum cartridge anymore though. With todays better bullets and loads hunters are proving that rounds like 7-08, 308, even the 6.5's and 243's are capable of killing elk at 600-800 yards. Almost no one relies on point blank range zeroing anymore. They just zero at 100 and use range finders and scopes with multiple aiming points. There is no advantage to a flat shooting cartridge anymore. Why get beat up with 25-30 ft lbs of recoil burning 70-80 gr of powder for each shot when rifles with 12-15 ft lbs recoil burning 40-47 gr of powder will do the same job.

 

Tikka T3 Lite 223 1:8 twist stainless

Typical targets

M

 

I'll have to disagree with RPRNY on the T3 in .270, I have a T3 Superlite in .270 and think it's a most excellent setup. My load is a 140gr Accubond over IMR7977 @ 2950 fps out of the 22in barrel. To date I've killed an antelope buck, a muley buck and a cow elk with that load and I can't really figure out how an extra couple of inches would have helped in any of those situations. That rifle will be back in the field next year for sure.

I've had several Tikkas, and they've all been very good. I honestly couldn't care less about the styling (my other go-to hunting rifle is an X-Bolt ). I would recommend a Tikka to anyone for most hunting tasks.

I don't really have a use for a 7mm Mag, but I've been eyeballing a T3 SS in 7mm Mag with a VX-2 that was listed @ $675 on GB and didn't get picked off the first time around.... Seems like a pretty decent deal for a back up to the backup elk rifle.

Anyway, one of my most consistently accurate rifles is my Tikka CTR. Here are a few targets from some load work today, this rifle has put out many other similar targets before with other loads.


Not bad for a rifle that is 8.75lb all up and has me pulling the trigger .

Edit: This was five shots on steel from the same rifle @ 300 yds a few years ago.

 

Tikka's are excellent rifles with a well deserved reputation for accuracy.

 

Pros- Typically very accurate right out of the box, excellent adjustable trigger, very well made and well finished rifles.
Cons- expensive detachable mags (~$65) that can't be topped off in the rifle and must be dropped to be loaded (my biggest gripe-for almost 50 years it has been my habit to top off the mag to full loading when approaching any down game), aluminum pillar blocks on older ones (not SS in the new t3x) can deform with use but easily replaced with mountain tactical pb,
and a thing that looks a lot like a recoil pad but should be immediately replaced with a limbsaver unless you just like taking the hit.

 

I sighted in a new Tikka walnut in .270 for a friend shot less than an inch at 100yds! very smooth bolt and nice looking rifle. go for it!

 

As I said recently in another thread, I bought a T3 in .30'-'06 for a very good price a few years ago with a mind towards re-selling it or trading it... it's still in my safe. Yes, the wood on mine (a "Forest" model) is fairly plain, but boy does that rifle shoot well. Very accurate indeed and plenty fine for its intended purpose. It's a light rifle though, and my change was to add a LimbSaver recoil pad to make it a little more comfortable. Very nice rifles and I would highly recommend a T3. Very nice trigger as well.

 

my Tikka T3 Light .243 is slick, light and scary accurate

 

A Tikka is never a bad choice and more often than not it's a great choice.

I'll take the bait. Mass and velocity buy margin. If you can shoot a magnum cartridge well and carry the heavier rilfe, why on earth wouldn't you want a bigger bullet. For some of us, we only get one chance at an elk each year and when that chance comes, a factor of safety is a good thing. Yeah I know, shot placement, shot placement, shot placement ... but you don't always get the chance for an easy broadside shot. I don't get the recent rush to go as light and as small as possible for hunting bullets ... other than hunters don't want to put in the practice for rifles that have more recoil.

 

You are making a valid point but doing so ineffectively. "Magnum" refers to the case, rather than the caliber. It doesn't give you a "bigger bullet", it gives you a faster bullet. The 7-30 Waters, 7x57, 7mm08, and 7mm Magnum all use the same caliber bullet. The Magnum delivers it at higher muzzle velocity than the others. You have a valid point about the margin. The argument that with today's bullet construction and the MOA guarantee from even sub $500 rifles today the value of the additional velocity of the 7mm Magnum vs the 7mm08 is itself marginal vs the likelihood of better shot placement with the lesser recoil cartridge is also valid. In the end, as you suggest, it comes down to psychology and individual choice as much as anything. If the shooter is comfortable with the Magnum and gets added confidence from the flatter trajectory and terminal ballistics energy, then the Magnum is "better" for that shooter, whereas, the lesser recoil of the non-Magnum might be better suited to another shooter.

 

I know the difference between caliber and cartridge ... it's been one of my pet peeves for years. Anyway, I made the point that mass and velocity buy margin which assumes magnum loadings because you're not going to have both with say a .308 Win compared to .300 Win Mag. My point about a bigger bullet is that a 240gr .30 cal bullet is bigger than 150gr .30 cal bullet and the former requires more energy to drive it fast.

Can't argue with that but it's not just "confidence" it's physics. To me it's like swinging a hammer. Most people don't use a hammer much and so are more comfortable driving a nail with a lighter hammer and more hits often choking up on the handle to reduce the length. If you practice though you'll prefer to use a heavier hammer with fewer hits. It's all about practice. Handling rifle recoil is about practice but many simply don't want to be bothered with that. People should own that rather than imply that magnum cartridges and heavy bullets are an anachronism and not required for the well-informed hunter.

 

I practice quite a bit, and still prefer recoil levels around that of .30-06 and under. Realistically that is where the quality of my shooting starts to drop off, maybe I'm the only one, but I doubt it. Inferring that people who shoot lighter recoiling rifles simply aren't willing to practice enough to shoot heavier recoiling rifles is just as flawed as stating that no one needs a magnum.

The more is better mantra is fine, and if you want to shoot more gun, that's also fine, but there is a level that really is enough for most situations. If someone is comfortable shooting a .270, .308, .30-06, or 7mm Mag, and does so well, what reason is there to push them to shoot something bigger unless you really believe that even when using best bullets, those calibers are not sufficient. Are they sufficient for deer? Obviously. Do you feel that they are not sufficient for elk in most situations? That would be a tough argument to make around here, there are lots of folks killing an elk or two every year with those calibers.

Most folks I know hunting elk with a 300WM use 165gr or 180gr bullets. Inside of 400 yds, what difference will it make whether those bullets were launched from an '06 as opposed to a 300WM?

 

That's a fair point ... blanket statements don't help much so I apologize for that. I do need to remember the saying "What's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander". However, I guess when I read that someone wants to buy a magnum rifle it pisses me off that rather than answer the question of whether brand X rifle is a good choice, some need to lecture us as to why magnums aren't needed anymore.

 

CptnAwesome;

I have several Tikka's, two T-3's. Of those two, one is a full custom gun based on a Tikka action that's in 6.5 X 55 mm Swedish Mauser & the other is a blue/syn .30-06. Both of the T-3's are very nicely accurate. And if you really want to fall in love, get yours in Swede instead of a duplicate 7 magnum.

900F

 

The 7mm Mag. will kick especially hard in the lightweight Tikka.

 

Tikka rifles have a long standing history of accuracy and performance. That sounds like a company commercial, but it's not, I have a wood stocked M695 in 7mm mag, and it is top notch. Everything under 1 inch with 160 Nosler Accubonds.

 

A wood stocked Tikka T3x in 7mm Rem Mag weighs around 7lb but add a scope and sling and it's up around 8lb. A 150gr bullet at 3025 fps and 70gr of powder gives 21 ft-lbs of free recoil energy. Compare that to a Kimber Montana in 6.5 Creedmoor shooting a 143gr ELD-X factory load with a Leupold VX2 3-9x40mm mounted giving almost 17 ft-lb of free recoil energy. The Tikka in theory would only have a 27% increase in free recoil over the Kimber. Heck, my 9lb Talkeetna (rifle and scope) shooting a 250gr bullet at 2,800 fps with 75gr of powder is up around 35 ft-lb of free recoil energy ... a 67% increase over the Tikka and about 100% over the Kimber Montana but it's still very manageable and actually a pleasure to shoot. All this theory aside, I'm not a big fan of the online recoil calculators because they don't account for the shape or fit of the stock, the flex of the stock under recoil, the recoil pad, the person shooting, the shooting position, or anything else that has a significant effect on felt recoil. Bottom line, magnums don't necessarily beat you up as much as many think. For some, the shorter recoil impulse of the SA cartridges is worse than the longer recoil impulse of magnums.

 

It really shouldn't recoil any worse than heavy .30-06. The standard Tikka T3 tire rubber recoil pad is pretty useless, but add a limbsaver and you'll be set (I believe that the new T3Xs come from the factory with a decent pad).

Like MCMXI said, stock fit makes a big difference in felt recoil and with a decent recoil pad, Tikkas have never really bothered me. One of the most uncomfortable rifles i've shot was an old Savage 110 in .30-06, something about the fit made for a rough recoiling gun... It certainly didn't get any better when I screwed the 35 Whelen barrel on....

 

Sako/Tikka have the very best factory actions of any factory produced rifle.

To the guy that was complaining about mags not being conventional...get a chassis for it and you will have more mag choices.

The whole recoil argument is silly these days. If your state allows for NFA...get a suppressor and go on with your day instead of arguing with strangers about recoil.

 

Pretty sure we're all strangers here. If by 'suppressor' you mean ported barrel, no thanks, one shot can ruin your hearing.