I never much liked Chuck Hawks articles. But you Tikka boys will hate him for this.
- Thread starter pharaoh2
- Start date
Chuck never read something O'Connor wrote that he was too bashful to tweak slightly and repost on the web. He's a shameless copycat of Jack's opinions and writing style, there's really no 'there' there.
But his product reviews are honest, or at least they sometimes advise that the reader _not_ buy the rifle/scope/whatever. That's something I can't say for any other big-name writer, or any other gun mag for that matter. I respect that he wants to help the average shooter make a good buying decision, and isn't just another shameless PR whore (read: Boddington).
But his product reviews are honest, or at least they sometimes advise that the reader _not_ buy the rifle/scope/whatever. That's something I can't say for any other big-name writer, or any other gun mag for that matter. I respect that he wants to help the average shooter make a good buying decision, and isn't just another shameless PR whore (read: Boddington).
+1
I agree.
At least Chuck says something. I cannot stand reading that boring drivel coming out of the mainstream gun media. There never is a bad gun, and every cheap gimmick is a great innovation that must be bought. It has left me utterly skeptical, unable to believe anything I read about new guns.
If I recall correctly, the Colt 2000 pistol was what did it for me. All the reviews were raves. Yet it subsequently emerged that it had serious problems that were never disclosed in the gun press. I think I recall something similar with the HK VP70. It was the cat's meow and had the best reviews that HK money could buy. In truth it was a horrible piece of trash that should have been melted.
I never read a review of the Rem 710. But I did play with that piece of junk in a gun store. I would bet the popular press loved it anyways. I bet Guns & Ammo and its many clones just loved the thing, and hailed it as a new innovation, "not everyone's cup of tea, but a reliable tool that gets the job done." That is how the media spins the story. The review leaves a little wiggle room, to account for all those who recognize the new rifle as worthless junk, but the new product will be acclaimed, to insure advertising revenue will continue to flow.
Even it I disagree with a particular viewpoint, I still like reading Chuck, because he is worth reading, unlike most of what is out there.
Big
Bishopus said:
I agree.
At least Chuck says something. I cannot stand reading that boring drivel coming out of the mainstream gun media. There never is a bad gun, and every cheap gimmick is a great innovation that must be bought. It has left me utterly skeptical, unable to believe anything I read about new guns.
If I recall correctly, the Colt 2000 pistol was what did it for me. All the reviews were raves. Yet it subsequently emerged that it had serious problems that were never disclosed in the gun press. I think I recall something similar with the HK VP70. It was the cat's meow and had the best reviews that HK money could buy. In truth it was a horrible piece of trash that should have been melted.
I never read a review of the Rem 710. But I did play with that piece of junk in a gun store. I would bet the popular press loved it anyways. I bet Guns & Ammo and its many clones just loved the thing, and hailed it as a new innovation, "not everyone's cup of tea, but a reliable tool that gets the job done." That is how the media spins the story. The review leaves a little wiggle room, to account for all those who recognize the new rifle as worthless junk, but the new product will be acclaimed, to insure advertising revenue will continue to flow.
Even it I disagree with a particular viewpoint, I still like reading Chuck, because he is worth reading, unlike most of what is out there.
Big
- Location
- interior b.c.
I read one reveiw of economy rifles and the 710 was rated above the savge and SPS.Rated best budget gun as a mater of fact.I wonder who was paying that stiff to write that.I think it was in B.C. outdoors.
New technology has it's ups and downs... When polymers become the industry standard in safety/stability/cost effective etc, we will all look back and wonder why did we asked ourselves "paper or plastic?"
I'm no history buff on when the first polymer stock came out, but once it becomes an industry standard and wood phases out more and more, consumers will demand cheaper pricing due to low manufacturing costs and the industry will lean towards what consumers want, it all takes time.
In my opinion,Tikka is a prime example of cost effective gun ownership. I went to a couple sport and rec stores and both were backlogged on just Tikkas, roughly over 1,000 guns from what I heard.
Note... I only asked the sales reps about Tikka's, so I apologize if this may seem biased.
I'm no history buff on when the first polymer stock came out, but once it becomes an industry standard and wood phases out more and more, consumers will demand cheaper pricing due to low manufacturing costs and the industry will lean towards what consumers want, it all takes time.
In my opinion,Tikka is a prime example of cost effective gun ownership. I went to a couple sport and rec stores and both were backlogged on just Tikkas, roughly over 1,000 guns from what I heard.
Note... I only asked the sales reps about Tikka's, so I apologize if this may seem biased.
Last edited:
They are accurate but don't "look" good? How does that make one an amateur?
LOL! everyone one needs something to hate !!! and teh T-3 is first in line, always will be
He said it like it was, I dont praise the gun either, as being great looking well built rock solid, and the best this you ever laid your hands on..
I always said the proof was on paper!! again and again!
He said it like it was, I dont praise the gun either, as being great looking well built rock solid, and the best this you ever laid your hands on..
I always said the proof was on paper!! again and again!
manbearpig
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Somewhere in the Third World
the only thing really wrong with the Tikka is the legions of internet fanboys that tout it as the greatest firearm ever created 
I read his article before buying a T3 lite but bought one anyways. I saw no reason of substance, but merely style and personal preference that argued against the Tikka T3 lite. If you don't like it, that's reason enough not to buy one. But if you do find it suits you, you get a decent gun for the money.
What it basically boils down to is the difference between new and old school. The T3 represents everything that is new school, cheap manufacturing, simple design, mass production and without any homage paid to the gun maker's art. Old school holds a special place in many of our hearts but we also like cheap, effective and reliable. I for one will take both in my collection, variety is the spice of life and each one will have its own application. As an example I am currently torn between an excellent condition
Browning Superposed or a brand new Benelli Ultralight.
Chuck Hawk is a gun enthusiast who happens to publish his reviews and has enjoyed a devout online following. Who cares, if you are buying guns based on one guys opinion on the internet, you are spending too much time on the internet and not enough time hunting or shooting. I would never spend money to read someones' opinion. I buy gun/hunting magazines, but thats mostly for the pics anyway and it gets me through the off season. This is a Ford and Chevy debate, I could find lots of people who love Tikkas and those who despise them, fact is I needed to pick one up and shoot it before I decided that I could not stand it. But to each their own,
Patrick
Browning Superposed or a brand new Benelli Ultralight.
Chuck Hawk is a gun enthusiast who happens to publish his reviews and has enjoyed a devout online following. Who cares, if you are buying guns based on one guys opinion on the internet, you are spending too much time on the internet and not enough time hunting or shooting. I would never spend money to read someones' opinion. I buy gun/hunting magazines, but thats mostly for the pics anyway
and it gets me through the off season. This is a Ford and Chevy debate, I could find lots of people who love Tikkas and those who despise them, fact is I needed to pick one up and shoot it before I decided that I could not stand it. But to each their own, Patrick
I have shot a number of T3 Tikkas, and a couple I shot a lot. A friend bought a 30-06 that did not live up to the accuracy standard. The resolution to that is still in limbo...they are not very fast on their warranty issues. I shot a T3 lite in 338 Win Mag, and found it almost unpleasant to shoot. AAMOF, another friends Sako 338 Lapua did not recoil much harder. They are, for the most part, very accurate, and the actions are slick. But they are simply not for me. No objection to those who love them. They certainly will get the job done with a minimum of fuss and bother. They also fill a very nice niche in the marketplace, regardless of how Chuck feels. Regards, Eagleye
