Chuck Hawks Review on Tikka's

Anyone who's sick of these crappy $700-$800 rifles is free to purchase a Cooper or Kimber and get the craftsmanship they yearn for.

Personally, it was the recommendations of owners that got me into a Tikka, not an advertisement or professional gun review.
 
Can't help but get a sense that this gun writer isn't happy about how rifles have evolved over the last couple decades; quite traditionalist in his views.

IMHO, he's completely overlooking a couple of realities...

1) The market: While manufacturers may try to shape or move markets, for the most part they respond to it with products on which buyers want to spend their money...and generally speaking, as little of their money as is possible.

Why do gun makers produce $300 to $800 rifles of the relatively spartan variety? Simple. Because people buy them...apparently lots of 'em.

How do they make rifles that can sell for $300 to $800 and still shoot and handle well? With creativity, ingenuity, and the application of ever improving technologies.

2) There's lots of makers still producing "traditional" rifles that generally sell in the range of $900 to $1500...because there's a big market for these, too. And there's few makers producing rifles that sell in the $2000 to $4000 range into a marketplace that, while small compared to the afored mentioned, still can offer up enough bucks to make it worth the effort.

And of course, there's those makers of fine weapons in the $10,000 to $100,000 plus range most of us dream of, but probably never will own, for the same sort of market that also has a taste for Land Rovers, 20 yearold scotch, and hunting estates.

3) The good news is that there still are very decent quality rifles that shoot straight, often remarkably so, and hold together reliably over the long haul, available to the average working stiff who has relatively limited resources with which to apply to his passion for sport shooting and hunting.

Frankly, I think the author is more choked that his idea of a traditional rifle generally falls within the $1000 to $1500 range instead of the $300 to $800 spread than anything else.

I've handled and shot a Tikka T3. Let's be honest about this, a lot of rifles with considerably higher price tags should only shoot as well, with actions that operate as silky smooth, and carry as easily as these puppies!!!

That many...meaning rifles carrying brand names that our grand-daddies cut their teeth on...unfortunately don't, I would suggest, is perhaps the underlying irritant to this author.

As for the relationship between gun writers and manufacturers that he suggests has become too cozy...

I buy and read about half a dozen rifle/gun mags every month, with articles written by the likes of Layne Simpson, Craig Boddington, Jon Sundra, John Barsness, Ron Spomer, etc, etc, etc...all well respected and popular and regarded, to one degree or another, as authorities on firearms and hunting. And for the most part, all pretty balanced and fair in their assessments of whatever product they might be testing and writing about for the pages of a magazine. If they weren't, that same marketplace would have weeded them out before they even got started. That's how the marketplace works.

On the other hand, up until half an hour ago, I'd never heard of Chuck Hawks.

Whatever.

FWIW.
 
Frankly, I think the author is more choked that his idea of a traditional rifle generally falls within the $1000 to $1500 range instead of the $300 to $800 spread than anything else.

A Champagne taste on a beer budget is quite common in all aspects of today's society.

The McDonaldization of Society (the thought that quantity is more important than quality) has has taken over here in North America and a lot of shooters buy into the philosophy that a safe full of mediocre quality firearms is better than a few really good ones.

With that said I must mention that in my opinion if guns are looked at as merely tools (rather than as pieces of art) then form must follow function and the $300.00 Stevens is just as good for it's intended job as a $2000.00 Blaser.
 
A Champagne taste on a beer budget is quite common in all aspects of today's society.

The McDonaldization of Society (the thought that quantity is more important than quality) has has taken over here in North America and a lot of shooters buy into the philosophy that a safe full of mediocre quality firearms is better than a few really good ones.

With that said I must mention that in my opinion if guns are looked at as merely tools (rather than as pieces of art) then form must follow function and the $300.00 Stevens is just as good for it's intended job as a $2000.00 Blaser.

Agreed regarding quantity over quality...but then, too, for all those business degree packing university graduates, quantity is so much easier to measure and make nice graphs about, eh?

Regarding "mediocrity", that's often as not in the eye of the beholder. Again, there's nothing at all mediocre about how a rifle such as the Tikka T3 shoots and handles. I've spent considerable jake (more than I care to remember) on a couple rifles, including on stocks, bedding, and triggers...and either still only shoot, on a good day, as well as most T3s of which many gleefully post their latest targets bearing ragged 3 to 5 shot single holes on forums like this one.
 
Anyone who's sick of these crappy $700-$800 rifles is free to purchase a Cooper or Kimber and get the craftsmanship they yearn for...

Or any of the following factory offerings - Blaser, Merkel, Heym, Kreighoff, Westley Richards, Holland & Holland, Purdy, Hartmann & Weiss, Mauser, Reimer Johanssen, Sauer, Steyr-Mannlicher, etc.
 
Or any of the following factory offerings - Blaser, Merkel, Heym, Kreighoff, Westley Richards, Holland & Holland, Purdy, Hartmann & Weiss, Mauser, Reimer Johanssen, Sauer, Steyr-Mannlicher, etc.

And that is exactly the truth of it!

Conversely, how much would it suck for a great many if the starting price on any rifle at all to go hunting with was, say, around $1500???

Not to mention if scopes of any kind at all started at about $600...???

For one thing, there'd be a helluva lot more hunters still packing ol' .303 Lee Enfields with make-do army sights into the woods, eh?

...which I would argue would not be a good thing.
 
And that is exactly the truth of it!

Conversely, how much would it suck for a great many if the starting price on any rifle at all to go hunting with was, say, around $1500???

Not to mention if scopes of any kind at all started at about $600...???

For one thing, there'd be a helluva lot more hunters still packing ol' .303 Lee Enfields with make-do army sights into the woods, eh?

...which I'm not sure would be a good thing.

I think it would be a good thing. More moose getting away and more tags available for the rest of us!!!

(Speaking from a purely selfish standpoint of course!!)


:D
 
Again, there's nothing at all mediocre about how a rifle such as the Tikka T3 shoots and handles.

Most of that Tikka accuracy stems from a European penchant for accuracy, consistency, and quality control in mass production. That extra effort is what makes then function the way they do. While they are not a "pretty" as a semi-custom Cooper or Kimber for example they will perform the job they were built for.

I personally look as a rifle as a more than a tool as as such find more appeal in a 50 year old BSA or Husqvarna than I do in a modern Savage or Remington 700.
 
I have to conclude from the common thread here that I only own one gun worth keeping and that is mediocre at best (60s Parker Hale). The rest of my guns cost well under $600 each so I'd best hurry and get them out behind the barn to be destroyed. All but the Marlin XS7 that is...
 
Personally, it was the recommendations of owners that got me into a Tikka, not an advertisement or professional gun review.

Personally, I feel that's how it ought to be.


Can't help but get a sense that this gun writer isn't happy about how rifles have evolved over the last couple decades; quite traditionalist in his views.

IMHO, he's completely overlooking a couple of realities...

1) The market: While manufacturers may try to shape or move markets, for the most part they respond to it with products on which buyers want to spend their money...and generally speaking, as little of their money as is possible.

Why do gun makers produce $300 to $800 rifles of the relatively spartan variety? Simple. Because people buy them...apparently lots of 'em.

How do they make rifles that can sell for $300 to $800 and still shoot and handle well? With creativity, ingenuity, and the application of ever improving technologies.

2) There's lots of makers still producing "traditional" rifles that generally sell in the range of $900 to $1500...because there's a big market for these, too. And there's few makers producing rifles that sell in the $2000 to $4000 range into a marketplace that, while small compared to the afored mentioned, still can offer up enough bucks to make it worth the effort.

And of course, there's those makers of fine weapons in the $10,000 to $100,000 plus range most of us dream of, but probably never will own, for the same sort of market that also has a taste for Land Rovers, 20 yearold scotch, and hunting estates.

3) The good news is that there still are very decent quality rifles that shoot straight, often remarkably so, and hold together reliably over the long haul, available to the average working stiff who has relatively limited resources with which to apply to his passion for sport shooting and hunting.

Frankly, I think the author is more choked that his idea of a traditional rifle generally falls within the $1000 to $1500 range instead of the $300 to $800 spread than anything else.

I've handled and shot a Tikka T3. Let's be honest about this, a lot of rifles with considerably higher price tags should only shoot as well, with actions that operate as silky smooth, and carry as easily as these puppies!!!

That many...meaning rifles carrying brand names that our grand-daddies cut their teeth on...unfortunately don't, I would suggest, is perhaps the underlying irritant to this author.

As for the relationship between gun writers and manufacturers that he suggests has become too cozy...

I buy and read about half a dozen rifle/gun mags every month, with articles written by the likes of Layne Simpson, Craig Boddington, Jon Sundra, John Barsness, Ron Spomer, etc, etc, etc...all well respected and popular and regarded, to one degree or another, as authorities on firearms and hunting. And for the most part, all pretty balanced and fair in their assessments of whatever product they might be testing and writing about for the pages of a magazine. If they weren't, that same marketplace would have weeded them out before they even got started. That's how the marketplace works.

On the other hand, up until half an hour ago, I'd never heard of Chuck Hawks.

Whatever.

FWIW.

That sums it up quite adaquately.

Admittedly, its fact that the T3 (read wood/laminate only and not the plastic stocked) leaves a bit to be desired in terms of overall build quality i.e. as far as those "other" plastic components are concerned.

However, that takes nothing away from its fit/finish as well as performance and handling in the field. Personally, I also feel that the factory iron sights are much better on the T3 in comparison to something such as a CZ around the same price range.
 
Most of that Tikka accuracy stems from a European penchant for accuracy, consistency, and quality control in mass production. That extra effort is what makes then function the way they do.

Chuck's article would have been considered fair and neutral had he made a similar mention in there. Sadly, those ingredients are visibly lacking in the NA mass production firearms today.
 
There are several inexpensive rifles on the market that are accurate and reliable. There are others in the same price range that don't have either of those qualities. If you are in the market for a "new" rifle and need some guidance, this is the best forum I know of to ask questions and get good feedback. I lean towards older model rifles such as Husqvarna 146's and 1640's, Remington M721/722's etc. From a price standpoint they are available in good condition for less money than the least expensive (and sometimes downright cheap) offerings on the market today. If stainless and plastic are appealing to you, investigate thoroughly before you buy and you will be fine.
 
I have to conclude from the common thread here that I only own one gun worth keeping and that is mediocre at best (60s Parker Hale). The rest of my guns cost well under $600 each so I'd best hurry and get them out behind the barn to be destroyed. All but the Marlin XS7 that is...

No .............. quite the opposite in fact.

The current crop of firearms on the market today will serve the purpose for which they are built. As utilitarian tools they are great. As shining examples of fine craftsmanship they may fall short but it is up to each individual user to decide what he wants and can afford in a firearm. All a rifle is required to do is launch a bullet with reasonable accuracy. After that everything else is icing on the cake. :)

What is sticking in my craw is Hawk's #####ing about what he perceives as faults with most of today's firearms. The firearms he misses are still available but he is unwilling to pay the price they cost. He wants old-fashioned wood and polished blued steel rifles each produced with several days labour by skilled craftsmen who are worth more money per hour than your average dentist while the wages he wishes to pay are more in line with the fast food industry.

At the end of the day the drivel he spouts in promotion for his "for-profit" web site ( his "teaser" editorials are free but you need the membership to read the whole story) is no better than what he accuses other writers of doing; putting works to "paper" in order to financially benefit himself.
Chuck Hawks said:
Most of the blame for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the writers and publishers of the specialty outdoors print magazines
 
Chuck has made his sponsor money over the years from the American manufacturers. Now he's ticked off that the European Companies don't know who he is and don't care so they won't pay him to write beautiful prose about their products. Chuck's 15 minutes is up.
 
Not usually a Chuck Hawks fan but I find little fault with his discussion of T3's in this article. Most T3 owners are suckered into paying the high price for a cheap gun because it's "Light and accurate" without looking at the whole picture.:)
 
I think Chuck is right on this one, but failed to explain why he says what he says.
Magazine writers' failure to educate people on what "nice" and "quality" really means, hiding all the problems under the general wording of performance evaluation.
There are a lot of people out there that have enough dough to not worry whether the rifle costs 600 or 1600$. But because lesser rifles are so praised, we risk to have them as a standard. And Tikka is a standard for butter-smooth action, but not for beauty or worksmanship. These cheap rifles get the job done, but it is long now since I've seen a proper review.
Therein lies the problem. Are we not educated enough to appreciate an in-depth review? Are we content with 2 page articles (including advertising to the same company that produces the revised item)?
Are we ready to pay the real price of a magazine that does not have to depend on advertising to the point of distorting the truth?

Looking at foreign magazines - Armi e Tiro for instance - one can read good firearms reviews that involve quite a bit more than "copy and paste" from the advertising brochure or statements that belong in "how did you feel about that rifle?" section of "Dear Abby".

Something is wrong, but how do we (they) fix it? I buy Double Gun Journal just for some good articles and enriching my knowledge and appreciation of quality firearms, not because I can afford to gift myself with a Westley Richards as a bonus for good behavior.
Do we want (will we) pay 20$+ for a good magazine, or keep reading DAvid Fortier crap of mis-spelling the most common firearm names in the industry?
 
The problem with most Gun Magazines these days is that they are laid out like a People Magazine. They want the average person to be able to read the average article during the time period it takes to enjoy a crap.

Few magazines do an in depth review and few include negatives.
 
Not usually a Chuck Hawks fan but I find little fault with his discussion of T3's in this article. Most T3 owners are suckered into paying the high price for a cheap gun because it's "Light and accurate" without looking at the whole picture.:)

What would that whole picture be?
I paid $700 for a Plastic stocked, SS Tikka.
It's got a slick action, an adjustable trigger that works quite well, a "plastic" stock I don't have to hide under my coat if it starts to drizzle! & your pretty much garrenteed it'll shoot.
What would you consider a better buy :cool:
Certainly not the Savs I've had the opportunity to shoot!
Nor the Browning T my bud ended up rebarreling so it'll now shoot equal to my T-3 :confused:

Granted those old rifles were made better, but most had poor triggers, poor fitting barrel-to-actions, & for the most part, not the accuracy of todays rifles. Nor did most come with a detachable mag which may not bother some but I would never buy a new rifle with-out one.
 
What would that whole picture be?
I paid $700 for a Plastic stocked, SS Tikka.
It's got a slick action, an adjustable trigger that works quite well, a "plastic" stock I don't have to hide under my coat if it starts to drizzle! & your pretty much garrenteed it'll shoot.
What would you consider a better buy :cool:
Certainly not the Savs I've had the opportunity to shoot!
Nor the Browning T my bud ended up rebarreling so it'll now shoot equal to my T-3 :confused:

The whole picture is that you paid $700 for a cheap to build rifle that works reasonably well, but is still mostly made of cheap plastic. It's got a cheap injection molded plastic stock, a plastic detach magazine, plastic trigger guard and plastic bolt shroud.

If I was looking for a off the shelf S/S rifle today it would likely be the Winchester Extreme for a few hundred dollars more than the T3's but it also has a much better stock and has metal parts, is just as accurate but doesn't feel so cheap.


. Nor did most come with a detachable mag which may not bother some but I would never buy a new rifle with-out
one

Detach mags are a distant second choice after a hinged floorplate....
 
Back
Top Bottom