Ruger KM77 Mark II or Tikka T3

Here is my Ruger M77 Mk II when i first got it:


jdeigh


jdeigh
 
Rugers are far form innacurate, too...I've posted more than once the pic of a 14 shot, 14 different powder charge 140gr TSX load, group a little over 2" or so...
 
I would choose the Ruger over the T-3 any day.

I don't like plastic in any part of a rifle.

I hate the small ejection port in the T-3. I don't think you could top-load the magazine through the port if your life depended on it.

Even if the Tika is a bit more accurate out of the box - something that is questionable -the awful truth is that bench-rest accuracy is not needed in a hunting rifle. A bone-stock Ruger capable of 1 1/2 moa is more than what is required in the hunting fields. Reliability and durability are what counts in a hunting rifle and the T-3 feels too much like a toy to me.
 
Just curious, and not trying to be a wise-ass... but with all the complaints about the plastic parts and toy-like qualities of the T3, does anyone have any stories of them breaking, or not being reliable?
 
My Ruger 7RM is not bone stock, no...I installed a Timney trigger and bedded it in a B&C synthetic stock. However, the the rest of it is stock, including the barrel...The accuracy potential is there, bedding often makes a rifle shoot better, and a better trigger makes *you* able to shoot better.

My 375 Ruger seems 100% capable of 1" groups, and it is stock, although pillar bedded from the factory.

BBB

I don'ttink there are many issues wiht the plasticness of the T3, but as Boo said- you don't appear to be able to top load the magazine, and teeny groups are not important in a hunting rifle..

The T3 seems liek a good rifle, but its not my cup of tea...(not that I drink tea, anyway):p
 
^ No, I know -- just seemed like there were some complaints about durability, and I wanted to know if there was anything I should watch out for.

Personally, I handled a couple of Rugers, and while they seemed nice, getting the extra pound up a mountain was a deal breaker for me.
 
BBB said:
^ No, I know -- just seemed like there were some complaints about durability, and I wanted to know if there was anything I should watch out for.
Click to expand...

I don't think there a has been a lot of failures with the the plastic parts in the T-3.

It is probably just an inherent mistrust in plastic rifle parts to those of us old enough to have grown up in a world with no cell phones, personal computers, or plastic car bumpers.. ;)

Firearms are one of the very few consumer products we buy which most of us expect to last for several lifetimes if treated properly. Somehow plastics - no matter how advanced - are still perceived by some of us as having a limited life span even if not prone to out-right breakage.
 
'Boo said:
I don't think there a has been a lot of failures with the the plastic parts in the T-3.

It is probably just an inherent mistrust in plastic rifle parts to those of us old enough to have grown up in a world with no cell phones, personal computers, or plastic car bumpers.. ;)

Firearms are one of the very few consumer products we buy which most of us expect to last for several lifetimes if treated properly. Somehow plastics - no matter how advanced - are still perceived by some of us as having a limited life span even if not prone to out-right breakage.
Click to expand...

Hey, I hear ya -- I just don't see how the little plastic bit on the bolt of the T3s is gonna be subject to enough abuse to end up failing.

But I'm sure as hell not willing to stand up and say that the Tikka is the better rifle. I was debating whether to get a lighter weight gun for mountain hunting or a bigger gun for elk and moose.

Because of recurrent issues with my Savage in .270 WSM, I ended up getting something to replace it -- and that gun had to be light enough for 5-10 day backpacking mountain trips and enough gun for elk and moose. The T3 filled that niche pretty well.

But if I'd gone for an elk/moose gun it was gonna be the Ruger in .350 rem mag. I'm still thinking that'll be the next purchase. We'll see what happens with the Savage -- if they end up sending me a new one, I'll sell it and get the Ruger.
 
For years my light-weight "mountain rifle" was my BSA Featherweight in 30-06. This 50 year old rifle was lighter than most "modern" light-weight offerings. It took me a couple of years of and buying and selling several other rifles before I found a replacement for it.

Today my "mountain rifle" is a short action Browning A-Bolt Classic in 300 wsm. This rifle is a joy to pack and shoots sub-moa. Under 7 pounds scoped it proves that plastic is not needed in a modern rifle although I am sure Browning's pot-metal bolt shroud and floor plate are more fragile than any plastic in the T-3. I am happy with it though as it is a "traditional" rifle with blue steel and walnut stock. The thing is that the fellow I bought it from was totally unimpressed with it. His taste in rifles is slightly different than mine - not better or worse - just different.

In the end we all make our own choices and that is good as at the end of the day we only have to keep ourselves happy, not a group of screen names on an Internet forum. ;)
 
I've had both, and both worked great. My Tikka's would shoot MOA or better with factory ammo, but the Ruger was close. With a better handload, I'm sure it would have matched the Tikka, but I wasn't reloading then... Never had a problem with the plastics either.

As for the recoil, if you get a T3, put a Limbsaver pad on it to tame it down.
 
Onies said:
That was fast. Thanks for the information. Now I just have to choose between the ultra smooth Tikka bolt and the rugged Ruger construction. Is there any other recommendations in the same price range? ($750-$900).

Fred
Click to expand...

Savage in the American Classic or the European Classic!

The only weak point might be the clip. So buy and extra!
 
I have a stainless Ruger in 308, shoots very well, and is tough as nails. I played around with both Ruger andTikka at the store, and the Tikka sure did have a nice smooth bolt, but after cycling my bolt many many times it has gotten much smoother. I am also another one who dislikes all the plastic on the Tikka, though I am sure it functions just fine, its just in my head its not right, also I am famous for mis- placing mags, so thats another reason I prefere the Ruger. The only thing I may change is the trigger, it is quite heavy, but to be honest, if you are only using your rifle at the range to punch holes in paper you may want to fine tune the trigger, but if you are going to hunt with it, you never feel the weight of any trigger when shooting at game. I spoke with a local gunsmith here who happens to be the warranty guy in Canada for Ruger, and he says he can get a crisp 2-3/4 to 3 lbs with no overtravel with the factory parts for around $125.

Cheers!
 
My bone stock M77 338 shoots 1 MOA or better and my bone stock M77 mk2 7.62x39 shoots 3/4 MOA or better and that is with factory loads. I haven't tried my 6.5x55 M77 mk2 out yet but will be soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom