Tikka vs. Browning

[power167]

I know this has probably been done to death, but how does the Tikka Lite Stainless measure up to the Browing A-Bolt Composite Stalker? I've heard nothing but good about the Tikka, but then I saw a writeup (admittedly by someone with no credentials that I'm aware of) who said the Tikka is, in a word, garbage, especially when compared to the A-bolt. Sounds like jive to me, especially considering the overwhelmingly positive response the Tikka has, but I'd like to hear some more.

 

[MIL-DOT]

I'm gonna guess the "write up" you read calling the T3 "garbage" was the one by Chuck Hawke. Apparantly, he actually does have credentials, though a great many happy Tikka owners think he really stepped in it that time. I think his main issue was the new-wave,light-weight manufacturing techniques employed with the Tikka, and felt that these guns, while OK for what they are, won't be something solid enough to be handed down generation to generation, like the blued steel/ hardwood rifle of yester-year. Only time will tell, but I'm happy with my T3 stainless .308.........and my Glocks !!!

 

[Horsemany]

I have owned both and can offer a few comparisons. First off, accuracy is exceptional from both brands. In fact they are the 2 rifles that shoot notably better than most everything else when I volunteer as a spotter for an "open to the public" sight in day at my local club the 3 weekends before deer season. The Browning uses better components IMO. Meaning no plastic and great fit and finish. The Miroku factory in Japan where the A-bolt is made is one of the best in the world IMO. The A-bolt is actually a copy of the 3 lug Sako design in some ways.

The Tikka trigger is crisper and easier to adjust down IMO. I've adjusted 2 now and got each down to a very crisp 1.75 lbs. and they vary by less than 1 oz per pull(that's less than some aftermarket triggers vary). The magazine on the Tikka is much easier to use and quicker to load. THe magazine is uniquely a single stack design and this makes feeding smoother than most especially with the short fat WSM's. THe downside to the Tikka is PLASTIC. Sunshine pumpers will call it polymer or composite but I'll say plastic. However if the plastic doesn't bother you the design is sound. Upon disassembly of a T3 the first thing you notice is everything inside and underneath is very finely machined. Finland has a history in quality gunmaking that goes back well before WWII.

It all depends what you want. What's important to you? Do you view plastics as a negative on guns? They are both quite similar and you don't have a bad choice. It's all comes down to which attributes are important to you. The Browning may have a better name in deer camp, but the Tikka has it beat in some ways.

 

[surjimmy]

I have had A-Bolts from the White Gold Medallion in a 300 winn mag , Medallion 308 to 30/06 Every one shot dime size groups at 100 yards. I now have a Tikka T3 in a 300 WSM shoots same size groups. I like it just because its lighter and it's under $500, the Browning is $700 plus. Both are Outstanding weapons.

 

[berettashotgun]

If the "Price-is-right"................
The new 25-06 Tikka is still in the box- and I haven't fired the Browning since I got it.
Still using the old 700.
Hmmm.....

 

[Tony Sopranno]

I'm gonna guess the "write up" you read calling the T3 "garbage" was the one by Chuck Hawke. Apparantly, he actually does have credentials, though a great many happy Tikka owners think he really stepped in it that time. I think his main issue was the new-wave,light-weight manufacturing techniques employed with the Tikka, and felt that these guns, while OK for what they are, won't be something solid enough to be handed down generation to generation, like the blued steel/ hardwood rifle of yester-year. Only time will tell, but I'm happy with my T3 stainless .308.........and my Glocks !!!

I saw that article and I wrote to Mr. Hawks about it, implying he needed to make a retraction. With my comments, I sent him a picture of a target with a 1 1/2" group and a ragged 1" hole inside the group, damn near the target's center point.

Hawks replied as follows:

W_____,

Come on, W_____, the article was not about accuracy. It was about the failure of the press to identify manufacturing shortcuts for the edification of their readers! Are you sure that you have read the original article? Please read it here:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/critical_look_T3.htm

Yours in cyberspace, Chuck Hawks
www.chuckhawks.com

Sorry to say I think Mr. Hawks was/is barking up an old and tired tree.

The new stuff out there is simply fine equipment -- just not made with the same old stuff and methods that Hawks, the traditionalist, would like to see.

The article sounded to me like him telling everyone how he had to walk to school as a boy, uphill both ways, in the snow. It just didn't ring-out as true to me. He seemed also like he has an old axe to grind with Beretta/Sako/Tikka and company.

I own a Tikka T3 .223 and it shoots great, and it is well built and easy to maintain. When I purchased it, I looked at Remington 700s and the Tikka is every bit as good and maybe in some ways even better. Plus it costs far less. I could add a nice scope to it and still come under the Remington 700 O-T-D price.

Hawks was being an "old cuss" and an "old fart" on this one. I used to be into ham radio, and I met a hundred guys like Hawks -- used-ta, would-a, could-a types. It drags everything down with it!

Hawks really knows guns but I believe the guy is too set into what he likes to think of as the established (set-in-stone) ways. I stopped reading his online articles since then too. Most of those seemed to be "begging the question" ...who was he really trying to impress?

Here's the link if you want to read the piece.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/critical_look_T3.htm


...I guess that's my 2 cents!

 

[Fumbler]

I own a T3 Lite and have shot an A-bolt Medallion Grade III.

The A-Bolt is a mighty fine rifle and is heads and shoulders above Remingtons, Savages, and Winchesters (but so is the Tikka).
Both rifles will shoot great and both will handle similarly.
Fit and finish will be similar with both rifles machined very well.

If I was making the decision I'd save some money and get the T3.
IMO the Tikka is still smoother to operate.
Also, the trigger in mine is better than my friend's A-Bolt.
The detachable mag is handy. Unloading a hinged floorplate isn't fun.

The only advantages I see in the A-Bolt are the slightly shorter bolt lift and the bottom metal (the T3's plastic trigger guard works just fine).
If you were looking for a wood stock and blued steel then I'd definately say go with the A-Bolt. Their wood will be nicely figured and the blueing is deeper and more consistent. Of course that comes with a big jump in price...

 

[willymike]

Both are truly fine rifles. I've purchased four rifles in the past 6 years and all are Tikka. I have shot the A-bolts owned by friends of mine and view them favorably and would be proud to own one. They are very fine rifles indeed.

In the end I voted my dollars for value since the Tikka's were less expensive (not cheaper -- less expensive) and accuarcy was not significantly different for either, and the Tikka had better handling qualities for me.

When speaking of better handling qualities I looked at the smoothness of the bolt, trigger operation, and pointability of the weapon. This is all subjective, but for me the Tikka just felt better, shouldered quicker, had a slicker bolt, and better stock fit.

I have no problem with new manufacturing techniques (shortcuts) if performance and accuracy are evident and there is value added in the price. I have read Chuck Hawks article on the Tikka and I don not concurr with his opinion. In fact, Wayne Van Zwoll (Outdoor Life and Guns & Ammo) has also written articles praising the Tikka as a superb rifle. Opinions are like runny noses - everyone has one.

The best thing to do is actually fire and handle each (if you can) and see which one works best for you within your budget. Either will do fine.

 

[Tarvis]

I to put a bipod on my friend's T3 lite and tore the front swivel out of the stock along with the plastic the threads had tried to hold on to. We epoxied it back in, but I haven't tested it since. I'm not ragging on the T3 stock, just sharing my experience.

 

[Fumbler]

How did you strip that out?!

I use a bipod on my T3 and have never had any signs of that happening.

If you can strip a swivel stud out of a plastic T3 then you can strip it out of any plastic stock...

 

[SwampWolf]

Then there is the heavily advertised Tikka 1" at 100 yards accuracy claim. Based on my experience and correspondence from T3 owners, I am convinced that a number of T3 rifles will not consistently meet Tikka's 3-shots into 1" at 100 yards out of the box accuracy claim when tested with factory loaded hunting cartridges.

Experienced hunters know that such a guarantee, even if true, is actually pretty meaningless, but beginners are impressed. The reality is that big game animals are large and hair-splitting accuracy is almost never required. A rifle that will consistently shoot into 2" at 100 yards (2 MOA) is accurate enough for most purposes. A hunting rifle that will average 1.5 MOA groups with an occasional sub-1" group thrown in for good measure (and an occasional 2" group, too) is a very good one and the off the shelf Tikka rifles with which we have had experience met or exceeded that standard.

I've never owned a Tikka rifle but to argue that having a rifle that puts three shots into 1" at 100 yards is "actually pretty meaningless" because one that is less accurate "is accurate enough for most purposes" betrays a lack of appreciation for what really good rifles offer in terms of accuracy. I'm reminded of Col. Townsend Whelen's famous observation that "Only accurate rifles are interesting." I don't care what the mission is (ground hogs or elephants), all else being equal, who wouldn't want a more accurate rifle?