Got my eye on 2 hunting rifles need help making a decision

Huntin' Gun said:
Kind of a side question: With the CRF, shouldn't all round come from the magazine anyway? That way the rim of the case slides under the extractor claw. Just pushing a round in and then closing the bolt is hard on the extractor claw, since the claw would have to get forced over the case rim. I know my mausers are like that, and I assumed the Winchester would be the same, no?
Click to expand...

I could be mistaken, but I think Winchester Model 70s (as well as some other Mauser type actions) have the extractor beveled to allow it to snap over a round fed directly into the chamber.

At any rate, it is still easier to drop a single round into the rifle, even if it has to go into the magazine compared with many rifles, such as Tikkas, which have a very narrow ejection port. Because these rifles can't be easily loaded from the top, you have to take out the magazine, load it, and put it back in even if you only want to load one round.
 
could be mistaken, but I think Winchester Model 70s (as well as some other Mauser type actions) have the extractor beveled to allow it to snap over a round fed directly into the chamber.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I think you're probably right.

At any rate, it is still easier to drop a single round into the rifle, even if it has to go into the magazine compared with many rifles, such as Tikkas, which have a very narrow ejection port. Because these rifles can't be easily loaded from the top, you have to take out the magazine, load it, and put it back in even if you only want to load one round.
Click to expand...

I agree mostly. But when I want to load only 1 round in my Tikka, I just place it in the small ejection port, and then close the bolt. Works every time. I suppose it would be easier if the port was larger, but only marginally, and not enough to really notice. Now if I want to load more than one round, then yes, I have to take out the magazine. Tikka magazines will not top load. I haven't noticed that as a major inconveinience. Remingtons are handy that way. You can load those magazines whether they're in the rifle or out of it. The Winchester has no detachable mag, and that can be more of an inconvenience than a small ejection port.
To the OP: Mostly to decide between the 2 it's a personal choice. The Tikka has a 1.5 MOA guarantee, but generally they shoot better; the Winchester has no guarantee, but most shoot decent. The Winchester is probably fancier, with the 3 position safety and such. The Tikka is a good shooter. Period. No bells or whistles. I don't think that makes them junk. Just not as fancy.
 
I should add some info here.

#1) I have looked and handled both and as for personal fit I think it is a tie. The tikka is only about 1.5 inches longer than the winchester overall (winchester feels a little better but not much).

#2)I have a savage 10FCP in .308 that is my dedicated target rig so as long as both rifles are close to MOA I am not to worried about wich one might have a slight advantage here (probably tikka?). The gun is being chosen as a hunting rig that will see bad weather and will be subject to bumps and scrapes. Durability is paramount.

#3) I am choosing between these two rifles because they are light weight. I will be hiking a lot with the one I choose. That is not to say I will not be getting in and out of a vehicle throughout some hunts. The gun with the magazine would make this easier.

#4) Spending this much cash it has to have some ### appeal (hands down winchester)


#5) I want this to be a gun I own for a long long time until it is a beat up shot out wreck

#6) any thoughts on 30-06 or 300 win mag for a guy shooting mainly mule deer, white tails, moose and bear? I am thinking 30-06 on this one. But a little part of me is thinking why not 300 win mag because I have never had one before and yes I will admit to factoring in the "cool" factor however impractical it may be. Also though I don't one day want to find out that I wish I had gone with the 300 because my hunting type has changed.
 
Last edited:
From what you've said, I think you'd be happier with a winchester. Go for it. If you're still in doubt, then flip a coin. If it were me I'd get the 30-06, but if you want the 300 mag, then why not? Imagine yourself in the future hiking along or sitting in a bush or talking to your friends. Imagine yourself doing that with the tikka, then imagine yourself doing it with the winny. Which one makes you more pleased? Which one are you more proud to carry, hold and show off? I think you want the Winny in 300 mag. So why wait? If you ended up with the tikka in 30-06 you'd be able to do the same things hunting wise, but would you be as happy? It doesn't sound like it, but only you can answer that for certain.
 
spenom said:
I should add some info here.

#1) I have looked and handled both and as for personal fit I think it is a tie. The tikka is only about 1.5 inches longer than the winchester overall (winchester .......
Click to expand...


Let's factor in what you get for your 1000 hard earned dollar's with each of these rifles.

Stocks- Tikka gets tupperware, Model 70 get's a REAL synthetic B&C...it's no McMillan, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of Tikka. EDIT- the Model 70 also comes with a Decelrator pad...Tikka get's hockey puck rubber.

Barreled Actions- Tikka gets a side port and a plastic magazine. Model 70 gets a metal hinged floorplate/trigger gaurd and CRF along with a fluted barrel.

Safeties- 2 position on the Tikka, 3 on the Model 70. Not a big deal if you aren't a retard, but still...
Also note that some reviewers on the web are claiming the new FN Model 70's to be the most well built ones since the Pre-64's :cool: .

Accuracy is a wash as any factory rifle nowdays will shoot under 1@ at 100 and I don't care who thinks otherwise :rolleyes: .


It's all up to you man...
 
It's quite simple to me.....buy both. In two years sell the one you don't use. Or like most (finances willing) have a rifle or two in every calibre.
Pick the
Winchester in 300 WSM.
The Tikka in 30-06.

You'll have your gun with the mag for jumping in and out of a vehicle and your ###y larger cal for the looks and moose.
 
I'd get the Tikka in 30/06. It would be a good rifle to start out with. Accurate out of the box, light weight, available ammo everywhere, less recoil than the 300WM and reasonably priced.

Hunter model has a nicer walnut stock and is much easier on the eye than the plastic job.


.
 
Huntin' Gun said:
Kind of a side question: With the CRF, shouldn't all round come from the magazine anyway? That way the rim of the case slides under the extractor claw. Just pushing a round in and then closing the bolt is hard on the extractor claw, since the claw would have to get forced over the case rim. I know my mausers are like that, and I assumed the Winchester would be the same, no?
Click to expand...

Teh extractor on the M70 (and the Ruger M77) will jump the rim on a case. They did this in case you had to toss a round into the rifle quickly to get it back in action. If you look at the extractor they are beveled on the front edge whereas the Mauser is much more square.
 
Model 70, hands down. I went to a store thinking to buy a Tikka in 270 WIN, ended up with a M70 in 270 WSM.

All detachable magazines are good for is losing in the bush. Does the Winchester have a hinge plate?
 
Did you look at the Savage rifles at all? I got one in 30-06 and am very happy with it for what it's capable of and the price.
 
A Critical Look at the Tikka T3
(And Other Economy Hunting Rifles)
By Chuck Hawks



Like many old geezers, I bemoan the loss, or lack, of standards in our modern world. And nowhere is this devaluation of quality more evident than in 21st Century hunting rifles. (Actually, the slide started in the 1960's and accelerated toward the end of the 20th Century).

We are, today, reaping the crop of sub-standard rifles previously sown. Most of the blame for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the writers and publishers of the specialty outdoors print magazines. In the quest for advertising dollars they have turned a blind eye to the constant cheapening of our hunting guns. Often they have merely parroted the promotional flack handed to them by the manufacturer's ad agencies.

Thus flimsy, injection molded plastic stocks are praised as "lightweight" or "weather resistant" rather than criticized as the inferior bedding platforms that they actually are. Free floating barrels, introduced simply to minimize the labor cost of precisely bedding a barreled action in a gun stock, are now praised as an asset by those who know nothing else. A perfect example of an economy shortcut becoming the new standard.

The deficiencies of receivers that are simply drilled from bar stock and that substitute heavy washers for integral recoil lugs are never examined in modern rifle reviews. Often the loading/ejection port--merely a slot cut into the tubular receiver--is so small that it is difficult or impossible to load a cartridge directly into the chamber, or manually remove a fired case. But the implication of this drawback at the range and in the field is never mentioned in most rifle reviews.

In many cases, "short actions" are merely long actions with the bolt stop moved to limit bolt travel. The modern gun writers who review these creations likewise never mention that this defeats the fundamental purpose of the short action calibers for which these rifles are chambered.

The receiver holds the bolt, which brings up a salient question: does anyone really believe than a cheap multi-piece, assembled bolt has any possible advantage over a one-piece forged steel bolt except economy of manufacture?

The use of plastic, nearly disposable, detachable magazines and trigger guards is overlooked by the popular print press, or actually praised for their lightweight construction. Talk about spin, these guys could teach the Washington politicians some tricks!

In fact, "lightweight" and "accuracy" are the buzzwords most frequently used to "spin" hunting rifle reviews in a paying advertiser's favor. (Cheap substitute materials are usually lighter--but not stronger--than forged steel, and most production rifles will occasionally shoot a "braggin' group" that can be exploited in a review.) Whenever reviewers start touting either, watch out! There may not be a lot to tout in the critical areas of design, material quality, manufacture, or fit and finish.

A rifle's lines and finish are largely cosmetic, but why should we be condemned to hunt with ugly rifles? Matte finishes on barreled actions are sold as a benefit ("low glare"), but in reality they are simply faster and thus less expensive for the manufacturer to produce than a highly polished finish. And the flat black color touted as a stealth advantage of plastic stocks over walnut is patently absurd. Why would a rational person believe that such stocks are any less visible to animals in the woods than a wooden stock?

Have you noticed how the checkered areas on wood stocked Tikka T3 rifles are divided into several small patches? That is done because it is easier (and therefore cheaper) to cut a small patch of checkering than a larger one. The shorter the individual checkering lines, the easier it is to keep them straight. Once again, manufacturing economy triumphs over aesthetics and function.

The Tikka T3 is certainly not the only modern hunting rifle to adopt some or most of these production shortcuts. I have not chosen it for the lead in this article just to pick on Tikka. I have chosen it as the poster child for cheap rifles because it is one of the few models to incorporate all of these cost and quality reducing shortcuts. If there is a production shortcut out there, the T3 has probably already incorporated it.

Then there is the Tikka 1" 100-yard test. I have yet to see, or even read about, a T3 hunting rifle that will consistently meet Tikka's 3-shots into 1" at 100 yards accuracy claim.

Now, unlike many gun writers today, I try not to over emphasize the importance of accuracy in big game hunting rifles. Big game animals are large and hair-splitting accuracy is almost never required. A rifle that will shoot into 2" at 100 yards (2 MOA) is accurate enough for most purposes. A hunting rifle that will average 1.5 MOA groups is a good one, and most T3 rifles fall into that category.

But the Beretta/Sako/Tikka conglomerate heavily advertises their accuracy guarantee. They market their rifles on that basis. And, in my experience, most Tikka T3 rifles simply will not consistently meet their own accuracy guarantee. If a average T3 will shoot an occasional 1" group with any load it is doing well. (Want a real MOA hunting rifle? Read our review of the Weatherby Vanguard SUB-MOA on the Product Review Page.) Why do none of my fellow gun writers in the popular press call Beretta on its misleading advertising?

That is, of course, a rhetorical question. The answer is simple: Beretta Corp. is a big bucks advertiser in the popular print magazines. But what about the writers' and editors' obligation to their readers, who pay their hard earned dollars to read those reviews? Obviously, the word "integrity" has been deleted from the print mag publishers' spelling checkers.

To add insult to injury, the Tikka T3 is a cheap rifle, but not an inexpensive one. These things cost as much or more than some higher quality, better designed, and better turned-out hunting rifles.

None of this means that a person cannot hunt successfully with a Tikka T3 rifle, or that Tikka owners are a particularly dissatisfied lot. There are many T3 owners who have no complaints, and many who are pleased with the performance of their T3 rifles and satisfied with their purchase. In truth, they are safe, functional rifles and perfectly capable of killing game in the hands of an adequate shot. The same could be said about most other economy models, including the Stevens 200, Remington 710, and NEF rifles.

But I suspect that most satisfied T3 customers are not experienced rifle buyers. A person who has never owned a fine rifle is much more likely to be tolerant (or ignorant) of an economy rifle's shortcomings than an experienced shooter and hunter. The relative newcomer simply has inadequate personal experience upon which to formulate an informed opinion.

To make a crude analogy, all acoustic guitars may feel pretty much alike in the hands of a person who doesn't play, but not to a virtuoso. Similarly, I'll bet that most hunters who use economy rifles don't realize that their rifle's cheap plastic stock is too thick through the wrist and forearm. This is something that comes into play every time they pick up their rifle, yet they don't even know that it is deficient! They have never owned a rifle equipped with a well-designed stock, so they have no frame of reference and simply don't understand how much better a good rifle feels in the hands.

Still, I find it hard to understand how Tikka stays in business offering less rifle for more money. The T3's success is a tribute to the ignorance of the modern American sportsman--and the connivance of the sporting press upon which they rely for information.



What do you guys think about what he has to say? I was thinking about getting a Tikka but this article gives me second thoughts.
 
I also found this while doing a little investigation. It was posted in a different forum.


Stainless Tikka .243 exploded at the range today - lots of luck
First of all I wanted to say that there were no injuries and that's gotta be a miracle because there were about 40 people there. I wish I had brought my digital camera because you would not believe what the pieces looked like if you saw it with your own eyes. I'm posting this to see if anyone else has heard of or had a similiar experience. (and is still alive )

Was at the rifle range today shooting my MK9, P35 and .22 Ruger. Had a pretty good day, was impressed with the accuracy of my MK9 and I've almost got enough rounds through it now to consider it "broken in". My dad has packing up his stuff and I'm about ready to leave thinking I'll save the other value pack for another shooting session.

I was shooting the last of the Winchester 9mm 100 round value pack when all of a sudden I hear a loud clang and see a large piece of metal bounce in front of me. I stopped shooting and looked down thinking someone had shot part of their target off or something my dad goes, "what the hell"? And I says what is that a piece of someones target stand? Then I look to the right and notice nobody is shooting so I walked out a foot in front of the firing line and pick it up. It says something like "CAL .243 WIN MADE IN FINLAND *"

So right away I'm thinking "barrel". I look to the right and there's about 20 people standing around a bench at the other end of the range about 12 benches down. So we walk over and laying on the bench is an absolutely destroyed Tikka rifle. The guy's wife is standing behind the bench with a not too happy look on her face. This (what was once a rifle) has gotta be in over two dozen pieces if not more. The other half of the completely bent, jagged, twisted barrel is laying on the table. I tell the guy that the other half of his barrel landed in front of me at the far edge of the range and lay it on the table. Both parts of the barrel are separate from the frame, the frame is in several different pieces. The Simmons scope is destroyed, the front of it is bent to an oval and the glass is missing. The scope and mounts are still screwed onto a broken off top piece of the frame. There are many small pieces laying on the table. The synthetic stock is in many pieces, but the butt of the stock is largely intact.

The only thing that wasn't destroyed on this rifle was the bolt which was in perfect shape, the extractor was even in place and looked fine and had spring to it. I haven't seen a Tikka up close before, but I did notice that the broken up frame looked cast while the bolt looked machined out of barstock. I don't know if that's true, but that's what it looked like to me. A guy commented that he was surprised the bolt didn't come back and hit him. The only injury was that the guy's hand was a little red, he said he had been resting it on top of the scope.

The ammo he was using was 100gr. Federal Power Shok. I'm not sure if it was the Soft Point bullet or the Speer Grand Slam bullet, but it was definately 100gr. It was the stuff in the new blue boxes. He said he had only two and a half boxes of ammo through the rifle. The round that the rifle detonated on was round #10 of box three. I asked the guy if there might have been a barrel obstruction and if the last bullet had hit the target before this happened. He said yes, the last bullet had hit the target. Eventually him and a couple of other people went down to check the target and sure enough there was 9 holes in it when he brought it back. The other scary thing is that his wife had been shooting the rifle before him and his daughter before that.

The cartridge case was split in half evenly halfway down the case, the bottom half of the case wasn't buldged. So it looked like a normal case that turned into a "V". If I was thinking at the time, I would have looked at the primer to check for signs of overpressure. A guy commented that it was probably an overcharged round. Probably an ignorant statement, but I commented myself that I never thought a .243 could get overcharged enough to detonate a rifle in such a way, probably more wishful thinking than anything.

The last scare came on the way home when my dad told me that the guy that was standing in back watching had said the twisted jagged half of barrel that landed in front of me had gone waaaaaaaaaay up into the air and when it came down just about hit me in the head. I had no clue I thought that it had rolled over! The more I thought about it the more it made sense though because they guy's bench had to be 50 yards away.

The guy happened to buy the rifle at my favorite gunshop. I don't know if he transfered it or what. I'll be asking if they found anything out next time I'm there. "Hey Bruce, you know that guy that brought in that detonated stainless Tikka..."

here are some pictures of a similar indecent

B-barrel_pieces-1_jpg.jpg



PC020021.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's a known fact that anything Chuck Hawks says about tikkas should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not a tikka lover, but even I can tell that Chuck is a bit much...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom