Tikka Stocks are not "crap". I really don't care what a gun looks or feels like as long as its results are acceptable.
Then you're in the minority. Also you're pretty much conceding that the the gun looks bad and the stock doesn't really feel that great. Which validates my observations.
I've owned two Tik-Tacs and both were capable of results well under .5MOA with minimal effort. Most people that play armchair quarterback have never owned them and state their opinions out of a need to validate their own consumer choices.
First of all capable of, and minimal effort. Means load development. The higher end Remingtons shoot this with "no" effort. IE off the shelf match ammo. You also always have the option of reloading too.
When I buy something I do the research. I check them out. I could care less about brand. I really have very little brand loyalty. When something I like better comes out, I go for it. I've poured through the reviews, and the Tikka with it's much touted accuracy generally shot very well, but not as well as the Remingtons. IE Tikka shooting above .5 moa with off the shelf match ammo tests (lots of different ammo tested) compared to just under .5 moa for the Remington.
I went and saw the Tikkas, varmint, super varmint and even the tactical in real life before deciding on my purchases. Not after.
I handled them and found the trigger to be very good, the action moved nicely, the mag seemed to work ok although it's polymer and I liked the stainless bead blasted look on the varmints. But that stock felt like cheap junk. The Tikka are no longer "the bargain" as prices have continued to go up significantly on them, and all of the accuracy tests I've seen show them to be good shooters but not anything spectacular. When they were a bargain they gained a real following. They aren't a bargain anymore.
I agree that someone on here is trying to justify their past purchases and current beliefs. But it's not me. I made the best business decision and revisit that decision anytime I make a new purchase. Right now other than Remington, Savage would get a serious look from me. Tikka not so much. If Tikka dropped the price on the Varminter by about $400 then I'd consider it.
If composite/polycarbonate stocks are the hallmark of "crap", then Reminton and Savage wrote the book.
Yup and the price point of those lower models reflects that, so you can throw out the stock and replace them. The Tikka price point is about the same as having a far superior HS or Macmillian stocked rifle from the competitors. The Tikka stock is better than an SPS stock but that's about it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the Tikka is a bad rifle. I think it has a lot going for it. I just think it has two glaring weaknesses. The price and the stock. If the price was lower, I'd buy one, junk the stock and get a Robertson's composite stock for it. Then I'd have a nice rifle. But... they've priced themselves out of competition in my opinion. It's not financially worth while with the other options out there right now.
The Remingtons have a healthy track record in .308 for shooting .5 moa or slightly below on average for P models and upper end models with good stocks. while the Tikka seems to generally perform above .5 moa with off the shelf match ammo. Plus how is it a great out of the box rifle, if the first thing you want to do is pour $500-600 into a stock that doesn't suck? I just don't get the love affair with Tikka. When they were cheap I could see it. I'd buy one. But with the price these days. Forget it. As a hunting rifle, maybe. As a precision rifle or varminter, not at the current price. It's really a $1700 to $1800 rifle by the time you replace the stock. That's with the lower Varminter model. The Tactical will cost about $500-600 more for it to be subdued, with a rail and a cheek adjustment on the stock. That's really not that good of a deal. 
