The new Tikka T1X Rimfire

[Tikka223]

I don’t want to sway you but as a first gun I would go 22lr for many many reasons but the main one is that AMMO is the most expensive part of this hobby nothing compares to what you spend on Ammo and 22lr ammo is far cheaper then 17hmr.
Just my 7 cents which is what decent 22lr will run you. There’s a reason the range is always full of 22lr and 7.62x39 and 223 because those are the cheap ones.

Extremely valid point. You can shoot .22lr until your bored and still have money to spare. .17HMR can add up quick and I find rifles can be finicky with the ammo as well. I have both calibers and that is my experience. If you already thought of this then disregard and enjoy your excellent choice in rifle.

PS, I would suggest anything that is First Focal Plane with Mil turrets. The Bushnell LRHS 3-12 is an excellent choice and can be found for about 1000$ on the EE.

 

[grauhanen]

Extremely valid point. You can shoot .22lr until your bored and still have money to spare. .17HMR can add up quick and I find rifles can be finicky with the ammo as well. I have both calibers and that is my experience. If you already thought of this then disregard and enjoy your excellent choice in rifle.

PS, I would suggest anything that is First Focal Plane with Mil turrets. The Bushnell LRHS 3-12 is an excellent choice and can be found for about 1000$ on the EE.

An excellent point about the cost of ammo, .17HMR vs .22LR. A box of the former can be almost the same price as a box of top-end .22LR match ammo.

The recommendation of a FFP scope for rimfire shooting seems unusual. Why a FFP scope for a T1X rather than the much more commonly used SFP scope?

 

[french_fried_taters]

Does anyone know where I could get a 20 moa base for this rifle? I have some burris 2 piece bases that will do for now but I'd like to do some long range CPRS shooting come spring time

 

[chalkriver2]

There may be one being made in Europe I believe but $$.. You could always get a 20 MOA rail for a Tikka3 and then redrill the front two mounting holes . The back ones will line up OK ..just not the front two.

 

[45CAT]

There are companies in Europe(England) and Australia selling rails, nothing in the states yet. I believe Contessa is the European maker

 

[quikcolin]

I don’t want to sway you but as a first gun I would go 22lr for many many reasons but the main one is that AMMO is the most expensive part of this hobby nothing compares to what you spend on Ammo and 22lr ammo is far cheaper then 17hmr.
Just my 7 cents which is what decent 22lr will run you. There’s a reason the range is always full of 22lr and 7.62x39 and 223 because those are the cheap ones.

It was definitely a consideration. The .22 is wildly appealing as it’s so cheap to shoot. I’m sure they’re alot of fun to shoot as well. I fear i’ll become bored of a .22 as I’m more interested in long(er) shooting. That’s the appeal of the .17 (based on my research). It’s relatively cheap to shoot (compared to a .223, which was my other choice), and the .17’s higher FPS making it more accurate in the 200yard+ range...

I’ve always been under the impression that .223 ammo is more expensive than .17HMR?

 

[quikcolin]

Extremely valid point. You can shoot .22lr until your bored and still have money to spare. .17HMR can add up quick and I find rifles can be finicky with the ammo as well. I have both calibers and that is my experience. If you already thought of this then disregard and enjoy your excellent choice in rifle.

PS, I would suggest anything that is First Focal Plane with Mil turrets. The Bushnell LRHS 3-12 is an excellent choice and can be found for about 1000$ on the EE.

Thanks for the recommendation. That’s where I’m a big foggy, the scope powers. What I would want for shooting from 50-200 yards

 

[mikepos]

I wouldn’t overscope and I’d stay SFP. 9x or 7x max. The .17 is far more expensive and fussier. If you want to go 200 go 223 for sure, it costs near the same and will shoot to 600 easily. If staying rimfire get a rimfire scope for proper parralax. And stay low power unless spending min $1000, I’ve tried cheap high power scopes and the top end is blurrier and not as easy to see as low powered scopes same price range. All IMO of course, but I’ve done all the wrong things over the years to teach these conclusions

 

[CaptainHook]

It was definitely a consideration. The .22 is wildly appealing as it’s so cheap to shoot. I’m sure they’re alot of fun to shoot as well. I fear i’ll become bored of a .22 as I’m more interested in long(er) shooting. That’s the appeal of the .17 (based on my research). It’s relatively cheap to shoot (compared to a .223, which was my other choice), and the .17’s higher FPS making it more accurate in the 200yard+ range...

I’ve always been under the impression that .223 ammo is more expensive than .17HMR?

You have to keep in mind that the 17 HMR is an exceedingly light bullet (about half a 22LR) and that even a slight bit of wind can through off your aim beyond 100 yards. Im sure it can land hits at 200m (a 22LR can to), but neither are ideal choices beyond 125-150m if you want to print tight groups. Although I've been shooting for a long time, I only obtained my own guns about a year a go and also thought I'd get bored of a .22LR pretty fast but I have found that this isnt the case, it honestly mirrors shooting larger caliber guns pretty well. Shooting a 22LR well at 100 yards is just as challenging and IMO, satisfying as shooting a .223 at 300-400 yards.

My other gun happens to be a .223 and good quality ammo IS more expensive then .17HMR, but it apparently remains accurate out to 600+ yards and is re-loadable. What caliber you get also depends on how long your local range is.

 

[jjohnwm]

If you plan on shooting a lot, I would also suggest the .22lr over the .17HMR, but either will be a ton of fun. Aside from cost, one of the beauties of .22lr is the almost limitless range of ammo choices available to you. You can experiment and try dozens or hundreds of different loads if you like, and it's a sure thing that some will shoot much better in your individual rifle than others. The .17HMR has only a relatively small number of factory loads available. For many years all the .17HMR ammo on the market was made by one manufacturer and was, except for varying bullet weights, pretty much identical; not sure if that's still the case, but for sure the variety doesn't compare to .22lr.

For shooting a lot, I would suggest spending the money for a decent quality scope of around 3-9x or 4-12x, rather than buying some junky higher power variable scope. A quality scope will allow you to see your target clearly; a crisp clear image at 9x is far preferable to a dim, foggy 20x view that appears as though you are looking through waxed paper. You will always regret buying junk, especially when it comes to optics. You will never regret quality.

Parallax adjustability is okay, but far from essential. If you shoot at 100-200 yards, you are right in the range for which most fixed-parallax centerfire scopes are factory pre-set. For target shooting, fiddling with an adjustable parallax can be interesting, but I'm not sure that a beginner wants the added complication. For hunting, parallax adjustability is largely a crock; once you get to super-long-range "hunting" and know what you are doing, maybe. For most typical hunting, an adjustable parallax is not only unnecessary, but largely a hindrance. Developing good form, which includes keeping your eye centered behind the scope, eliminates parallax.

Let's face it, no matter what you buy there is a good chance that some experience will tend to have you leaning towards certain features and away from others. Buying a quality rifle like the Tikka, mounting it with a quality scope and learning to shoot properly will strongly increase the odds that you will still own, use and enjoy that first rig for many years to come.

 

[grauhanen]

You have to keep in mind that the 17 HMR is an exceedingly light bullet (about half a 22LR) and that even a slight bit of wind can through off your aim beyond 100 yards.

Of all the rimfire cartridges, .22LR, .22WMR, .17HM2, and .17HMR, the .17HMR has the least wind drift and the .22LR in standard velocity is next best.

 

[pazzo]

Of all the rimfire cartridges... .22LR in standard velocity is next best.

Interesting.

 

[quikcolin]

You guys sure having me reconsidering. Maybe a .22LR is the right option, then eventually throw a .223 (T3x as an example) into the mix... this Tikka T1x in .22LR sure looks incredible

 

[Mike112288]

Good choice good choice!

 

[Tikka223]

Thanks for the recommendation. That’s where I’m a big foggy, the scope powers. What I would want for shooting from 50-200 yards

Rifles come and go but if you have a decent scope you will likely keep it forever. I can see .22lr bullet holes at 12x at 200m. I highly recommend the FFP and Mil because of the versatility. If you end up wanting to try PRS or even to correct you shots at different magnifications, you will need FFP and Mil just makes the math easier.

As well, .22lr has similar ballistics to a .308 which is a huge benefit if you can see yourself shooting center fire down the road.

Lastly, .17hmr is useless past 200m in my experience. It’s so light that it’s too hard to shoot. .22lr can get out to 300 with surprising accuracy.

 

[CaptainHook]

Of all the rimfire cartridges, .22LR, .22WMR, .17HM2, and .17HMR, the .17HMR has the least wind drift and the .22LR in standard velocity is next best.

Didnt know that. Thanks for clarifying!

 

[Got Juice?]

Rifles come and go but if you have a decent scope you will likely keep it forever. I can see .22lr bullet holes at 12x at 200m. I highly recommend the FFP and Mil because of the versatility. If you end up wanting to try PRS or even to correct you shots at different magnifications, you will need FFP and Mil just makes the math easier.

As well, .22lr has similar ballistics to a .308 which is a huge benefit if you can see yourself shooting center fire down the road.

Lastly, .17hmr is useless past 200m in my experience. It’s so light that it’s too hard to shoot. .22lr can get out to 300 with surprising accuracy.

Correct on all points.

 

[Got Juice?]

You guys sure having me reconsidering. Maybe a .22LR is the right option, then eventually throw a .223 (T3x as an example) into the mix... this Tikka T1x in .22LR sure looks incredible

I currently reload 204 Ruger for almost the same money as purchasing 17 hmr. .223 will be even slightly better than that.

.22's are really the best thing. shoot premium ammo, or plinking ammo as much as you want, all day long, and still have $$$ left over to buy take the wife out on the town.

You simply cannot do that with .17hmr.


Looking at it another way. Suppose it takes 5000 rounds to get really proficient with your rimfire. on a .22 that can cost as little as 300.00 to 2700.00

In .17 hmr, that cost is 1900-2300.

So, for pure unadulterated fun, and flexibility the .22 is tough to beat. Subsonic, CB's, Standard Vel, High Velocity, Hiper Velocity, it is all there


Of course if you only plan to get one rifle for the forseeable future, you can make a case for the .17 hmr.

 

[jjohnwm]

One last thing to remember: When you are shooting .17HMR, you need to wear hearing protection, hands down.

There are plenty of .22lr loads that you can shoot safely with no concern towards ear protection. For short-range, off-the-porch target practice, this is an oft-ignored but huge bonus feature. Sub-sonics, CeeBees, etc...lots to choose from.

A warm summer afternoon that allows you to shoot as long as you want, without having to peel a sweaty, soggy set of earmuffs off your head when you get done...aaaahhhhh….

 

[Got Juice?]

A warm summer afternoon that allows you to shoot as long as you want, without having to peel a sweaty, soggy set of earmuffs off your head when you get done...aaaahhhhh….

Yuk. but yeah, what he said.