I haven't shot Tikka but looked at a magazine from a 25-06. It wouldn't let the shells slide out without letting the 3rd shell drop it's nose. Not feeding. I showed it to a guy who has had a few Tikkas and he said all his did it too. Not saying it couldn't be fixed but you get what you pay for.
Chuck Hawks Review on Tikka's
- Thread starter b72471
- Start date
Has anyone read a BAD review lately??
Thanks Red Herring for bringing this article to this thread. Chuck makes some valid claims which are largely true. Are guns "fininshed" cheaply...? Well I would say, without hesitation, for the most part - yes...! Some are worse then others and it would have been a fairer article if all the brands were flogged in Chuck's article. I personally lament the loss of the Sako L series... I have one and, like it or not, everything else is compared to it... The gun has nice looks, heavier then todays standard barrel, open sights and can have a scope adequately mounted on it...
Nobody really builds a standard type of rifle with a nice check rest like the older Sako L series Hunter model had on it. And in MHO a cheek rest provides for a better position to line the eye up with the sites... Be they open or scoped. the Finns had the right concept and somebody lost track or it. Where the "American" style stock leaves me in the position of doing a quick check in finding the sweet spot where my cheek can be in the right position to get on target fast (when needed).
I also have a M70 Classic Sporter with a smaller cheek rest, not as well pronounced as the Sako L series. But it too gets my cheek in position faster then an American style stock on other rifles I've used. Just MHO.
Overall I do prefer a slightly heavier wooden stock and a slightly heavier barrel. And lugging around the extra weight is something I'm used to... So the lightweights in any model don't really appeal to me. I do like laminate, but nobody seems committed to having the laminates on a left handed rifle. Of Course, the Remington BDL had them, and Remington also made another modle with a grey laminate stock that they produced some years ago in 7mmRUM and 300RUM. I believe that this one is no longer produced.
Admittedly, the current Tikka 3s have a fairly smooth bolt, and a particular varmit rifle I've used is very accurate with factory loads.
Savage has a bolt that can come apart and that issue could spell disaster if one is out in the bush and it comes off... I've experienced that and was able to put the half donut back in place and I later fired off a box at the range to insure it was still shooting properly...
I had a Remington CDL in 223 and I wasn't ever able to dial it in (for varmits) so I dumped it.
So yea, a lot of the newer entry level and possibly even the mid level production rifles have some very inexpensive features that leaves one scratcing their head...
If some of these things happen to a younger shooter, they could loose interest in the sport in no time at all. As they may be too embarashed to speak to someone who could help them out with some of these issues.
Everyone wants to save costs, and rifle companies want to increase production / sales and profits... So cost saving measures are part of the mix. And, yes the information ought to be shared by those who can see the differences of various rifles and identify their quirks. But the consumer has a role in this too, because we all what to try different rifles out and we too are trying to save a few bucks along the way also.
Nobody really builds a standard type of rifle with a nice check rest like the older Sako L series Hunter model had on it. And in MHO a cheek rest provides for a better position to line the eye up with the sites... Be they open or scoped. the Finns had the right concept and somebody lost track or it. Where the "American" style stock leaves me in the position of doing a quick check in finding the sweet spot where my cheek can be in the right position to get on target fast (when needed).
I also have a M70 Classic Sporter with a smaller cheek rest, not as well pronounced as the Sako L series. But it too gets my cheek in position faster then an American style stock on other rifles I've used. Just MHO.
Overall I do prefer a slightly heavier wooden stock and a slightly heavier barrel. And lugging around the extra weight is something I'm used to... So the lightweights in any model don't really appeal to me. I do like laminate, but nobody seems committed to having the laminates on a left handed rifle. Of Course, the Remington BDL had them, and Remington also made another modle with a grey laminate stock that they produced some years ago in 7mmRUM and 300RUM. I believe that this one is no longer produced.
Admittedly, the current Tikka 3s have a fairly smooth bolt, and a particular varmit rifle I've used is very accurate with factory loads.
Savage has a bolt that can come apart and that issue could spell disaster if one is out in the bush and it comes off... I've experienced that and was able to put the half donut back in place and I later fired off a box at the range to insure it was still shooting properly...
I had a Remington CDL in 223 and I wasn't ever able to dial it in (for varmits) so I dumped it.
So yea, a lot of the newer entry level and possibly even the mid level production rifles have some very inexpensive features that leaves one scratcing their head...
If some of these things happen to a younger shooter, they could loose interest in the sport in no time at all. As they may be too embarashed to speak to someone who could help them out with some of these issues.
Everyone wants to save costs, and rifle companies want to increase production / sales and profits... So cost saving measures are part of the mix. And, yes the information ought to be shared by those who can see the differences of various rifles and identify their quirks. But the consumer has a role in this too, because we all what to try different rifles out and we too are trying to save a few bucks along the way also.
Nahh.
I don't really give a damn if you throw a frikken great flashy-blinky neon sign in the sig line.
At least, I don't care as long as I have the option to turn off signatures, so I don't have to see them.
When that dissapears, I'll start to care what you put in your sig line!
I gotta say, I was not real impressed with the Tikka's I handled last time I looked at them. May have been flavored a bit by the sales dude doing the hard sell on me, looping back to why I should want one, and why the one he had there was THE one for me, each time I started asking about the other products in stock... Weasels. Sales weasels. Bleh. Kamloops WSS, last year.
I'll buy really cheap, like Savage cheap, when I want a cheap feeling rifle.
As to running out and doing the opposite of what Chuck Hawks says, I'd be careful spouting that. One day he may tell the world that dog turds are not fit to eat, and then where will you be? Blindly doing the opposite is as dumb as blindly accepting any other's opinion as fact.
Good on him for throwing up the brown card, on all the so called reviews, though. I actually agree with him on that. Big mutual admiration festivals, most of the reviews.
Anyone want to buy a King Optics Co. scope?
Cheers
Trev
I don't really give a damn if you throw a frikken great flashy-blinky neon sign in the sig line.
At least, I don't care as long as I have the option to turn off signatures, so I don't have to see them.
When that dissapears, I'll start to care what you put in your sig line!
I gotta say, I was not real impressed with the Tikka's I handled last time I looked at them. May have been flavored a bit by the sales dude doing the hard sell on me, looping back to why I should want one, and why the one he had there was THE one for me, each time I started asking about the other products in stock... Weasels. Sales weasels. Bleh. Kamloops WSS, last year.
I'll buy really cheap, like Savage cheap, when I want a cheap feeling rifle.
As to running out and doing the opposite of what Chuck Hawks says, I'd be careful spouting that. One day he may tell the world that dog turds are not fit to eat, and then where will you be? Blindly doing the opposite is as dumb as blindly accepting any other's opinion as fact.
Good on him for throwing up the brown card, on all the so called reviews, though. I actually agree with him on that. Big mutual admiration festivals, most of the reviews.
Anyone want to buy a King Optics Co. scope?
Cheers
Trev
I think Tikka pulled off the right blend of shortcuts and quality for the price. Let's face it, they are not expensive rifles. I have a Sako A7 and had a Tikka T3 lite and I'd put them in the same category. Accurate and functional. They weren't meant a heirlooms, but as good value. I like tinkering with rifles, but neither of the two needed any. Mount a scope, sight it in, go hunting. Today's similarly priced wood stocked rifle usually looks like cheap crap you'd expect on a $150 twenty two and the metal is finished the same way. If you want something significantly better, you'd better be prepared to drop a serious wad of cash or buy something vintage.
- Location
- Haliburton County, Central Ontario
Okay, we have an opportunity here. What guns have you bought in the last few years that you feel are good guns (quality/accurate/durable) and good value for the money?
Let me start by saying that recently I purchased a Remington 798, now discontinued unfortunately, (IMO) with walnut stock, very nice Zastava Mauser 98 action and a beautifully deep blued barrel. It shoots very very well. At $575 (unscoped) I see no down side with this one.
Last year I bought a Marlin XS7 and put it in a Boyd's laminate stock for around $500 (unscoped). I am extremely pleased with this gun too. It puts the Savages (I own the Edge) and Stevens to shame with it's design, features, and build quality.
Inexpensive guns both, but right up there in quality and accuracy. If we identify the good ones (and the poor ones) in a constructive and objective manner we help new buyers and give notice to the manufacturers that we are paying attention and spending wisely. A forum like this can be a good place for said manufacturers to look for feedback.
IMO.
Let me start by saying that recently I purchased a Remington 798, now discontinued unfortunately, (IMO) with walnut stock, very nice Zastava Mauser 98 action and a beautifully deep blued barrel. It shoots very very well. At $575 (unscoped) I see no down side with this one.
Last year I bought a Marlin XS7 and put it in a Boyd's laminate stock for around $500 (unscoped). I am extremely pleased with this gun too. It puts the Savages (I own the Edge) and Stevens to shame with it's design, features, and build quality.
Inexpensive guns both, but right up there in quality and accuracy. If we identify the good ones (and the poor ones) in a constructive and objective manner we help new buyers and give notice to the manufacturers that we are paying attention and spending wisely. A forum like this can be a good place for said manufacturers to look for feedback.
IMO.
1. The stocks are lightweight and weather resistant;
2. Bedding is an important aid to accuracy, the T3s are amongst the most accurate out of the box rifles out there - so what's the point about "inferior bedding platforms"?
3. Free floating vs. "precisely bedding..." - again, see #2.
What does he excpect for the price - case hardened receiver, rust bluing bedded in AAA Turkish walnut stock with 24 LPI wrap-around hand-cut checkering with a skeleton butt plate and pistol grip cap, all put together by a craftsman with +40 years experience?
Agreed strongly.
westcoaster
CGN Regular
- Location
- Central BC
Chuck tells it like it is and he doesn't care who he offends...he's right. Nothing really "wrong" with the T3 and the other's mentioned........they are just not a Pre'64 Model 70 or an FN Browning, or a Husqvarna 1600,...or a Tikka M55/65....or an L series Sako...and others of thier era and quality level...which is what Chuck is lamenting the loss of....
Well said...
lejarretnoir
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- 162km from Connaught
I don't know or really care if Hawks is the gun expert. I can see where he's coming from. He's an older man who is tired of the corporate brainwashing and has probably already made his money so he can tell it his way and not care about being bullied around. I'm sure he lashed out at Tikka because of Berreta USA. Oh I get that part!
He comes from a time when fine walnut and highly blued barrels were the norm. Where the Golden Age of Gunsmithing hit it's prime and slowly withered from there. A time when Pre-64 Winchesters were made and everything was hand fitted and assembled correctly before leaving the plant. A time when CNC didn't exist and a craftsman earned his pay.
Ah yes the new mindset. High production, lower cost, more profit. Sell inferior finish and market it as beneficial to the consumer. To have a rifle made in the old ways is to have a custom rifle today. Voila, we have that too.
My experience with the Tikka T3, Remington, Savage, etc plastic stocks is they will shoot, but I have no love affair with them. Bead blasting the crap out of actions and barrels and calling it tactical? Please! They are all business and nothing else to me. Give me the feel of good wood or at least a good McMillan type fiberglass stock I can snug my cheek to and I'm all set.
They say that art reflects the time period. Guns are science and art blended together IMO. Modern steel is made better than a hundred years ago and space age polymers have blended with it.
He comes from a time when fine walnut and highly blued barrels were the norm. Where the Golden Age of Gunsmithing hit it's prime and slowly withered from there. A time when Pre-64 Winchesters were made and everything was hand fitted and assembled correctly before leaving the plant. A time when CNC didn't exist and a craftsman earned his pay.
Ah yes the new mindset. High production, lower cost, more profit. Sell inferior finish and market it as beneficial to the consumer. To have a rifle made in the old ways is to have a custom rifle today. Voila, we have that too.
My experience with the Tikka T3, Remington, Savage, etc plastic stocks is they will shoot, but I have no love affair with them. Bead blasting the crap out of actions and barrels and calling it tactical? Please! They are all business and nothing else to me. Give me the feel of good wood or at least a good McMillan type fiberglass stock I can snug my cheek to and I'm all set.
They say that art reflects the time period. Guns are science and art blended together IMO. Modern steel is made better than a hundred years ago and space age polymers have blended with it.
Pretty much the way our world is going, more quantity, less quality. About the only new rifle that looks decent to me is a winchester. We should all just be greatfull there are so many quality rifles out there on the used market for great prices. Those are by far the best 'bang' for your buck IMO
R&R Rancher
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoba's Interlake
IF you take emotion out of the debate and look at the cold hard facts, its not hard to see why firearms of today are what they are. Take for example the pre 64 Winchesters everyone loves. Wonderful guns. Every one hand fitted, beautiful wood and bluing. They were losing money on everyone sold and were still losing market share. Their redesigned, and lower production cost, firearms were not as well accepted and Winchester finally went broke. A firearm manufacturer MUST make a profit, otherwise they will not be in business. The only way to keep making a profit is to build your gun at under the price point the consumer will pay. That means CNC machinery, new designs that take CNC manufacturing in account and as little hand finishing as possible. The end result is not as pleasing to end users who were accustomed to the older, craftsman like, firearms.
I'm a shotgunner. In shotguns there are still guns being build that utilize CNC machining for the basic parts but are hand finished, have beautiful blue and gorgeous walnut. These company's employ CRAFTSMEN to finish these guns. The price reflects it. If this were the only way to build a gun, very few of us could afford them. Do I like the new price point firearms? Not really? They do have a place and unfortunately are here to stay. If you want better, pony up the cash.
Now excuse me while I go put on my asbestos undies.
John
I'm a shotgunner. In shotguns there are still guns being build that utilize CNC machining for the basic parts but are hand finished, have beautiful blue and gorgeous walnut. These company's employ CRAFTSMEN to finish these guns. The price reflects it. If this were the only way to build a gun, very few of us could afford them. Do I like the new price point firearms? Not really? They do have a place and unfortunately are here to stay. If you want better, pony up the cash.
Now excuse me while I go put on my asbestos undies.
John
Don't blame it all on the CNC area. CNC's are capable of out doing any human hand fitting. Most of space ship parts are CNC products. Blame it on the corporate greed, where 10 and 15 percent profit is not good enough anymore for the Corporate owners of these Companies.
We still have some reminiscence of "Walnut stock", "deeply blued"....., quality guns for more or less same price as the "short-cut" rifles. Look at CZ line and Savage Euro Classic and even 700CDL.....
But if we don't show that we "Get it" and demand quality for ...yes, $800 rifles, these are on their way out too, to be replaced by pimped up Edges and 770's. and why not? I think Chuck Hawks is trying to get our attention to this point that it is not all about rising cost of materials, but also the fact that corporations have decided they want to keep more of our money for themselves
.
For the record, I do believe that t-3 may be one of the few short-cut rifles that has actually got it right. Still a "short-cut " gun though!
We still have some reminiscence of "Walnut stock", "deeply blued"....., quality guns for more or less same price as the "short-cut" rifles. Look at CZ line and Savage Euro Classic and even 700CDL.....
But if we don't show that we "Get it" and demand quality for ...yes, $800 rifles, these are on their way out too, to be replaced by pimped up Edges and 770's. and why not? I think Chuck Hawks is trying to get our attention to this point that it is not all about rising cost of materials, but also the fact that corporations have decided they want to keep more of our money for themselves
.
For the record, I do believe that t-3 may be one of the few short-cut rifles that has actually got it right. Still a "short-cut " gun though!
Why do you think it is corporate greed? Why dont you look at your labour and material and other input costs?
The cost to make anything is going no where but up. Moving offshore was just one step in trying to control your input costs so you can produce a product that does not cost a fortune.
I am not saying rising labour costs is a good thing or a bad thing - but it is a huge factor on what can be produced. As a producer- try and hire people to work for what they did in the 60s or 80s ---- they wont and who would blame them. So what is the market for a $4000 Remchester 70/700? Pretty small I would venture.
So companie shave to stuggle to find function and form for $1000. A tough thing to do.
We are lucky that older guns can still be had and still be functional. But if you buy one and get a good smith to change a bbl or ... whatever mods you may want - you are crowding $2-3000.
It is a very hard decision path for a company to put into a market place an inexpensive but yet quality piece of consumer good, and yes, that allows a profit margin that allows the company to continue into the next generation.
Companies that do not make money will go under or be merged into larger ones, that may desire the dead one for some reason, very, very quickly. It is a funny thing when employees or suplliers do not get paid - they tend not to hang around long.
And in case you have not noticed - these are tough times in manufacturing - only the strongest will survive, and the accountants do control the process.
We may, in a decade, only be able to buy new low cost rifles from China or India. The rest will be cost prohibitive to the average consumer.
The cost to make anything is going no where but up. Moving offshore was just one step in trying to control your input costs so you can produce a product that does not cost a fortune.
I am not saying rising labour costs is a good thing or a bad thing - but it is a huge factor on what can be produced. As a producer- try and hire people to work for what they did in the 60s or 80s ---- they wont and who would blame them. So what is the market for a $4000 Remchester 70/700? Pretty small I would venture.
So companie shave to stuggle to find function and form for $1000. A tough thing to do.
We are lucky that older guns can still be had and still be functional. But if you buy one and get a good smith to change a bbl or ... whatever mods you may want - you are crowding $2-3000.
It is a very hard decision path for a company to put into a market place an inexpensive but yet quality piece of consumer good, and yes, that allows a profit margin that allows the company to continue into the next generation.
Companies that do not make money will go under or be merged into larger ones, that may desire the dead one for some reason, very, very quickly. It is a funny thing when employees or suplliers do not get paid - they tend not to hang around long.
And in case you have not noticed - these are tough times in manufacturing - only the strongest will survive, and the accountants do control the process.
We may, in a decade, only be able to buy new low cost rifles from China or India. The rest will be cost prohibitive to the average consumer.
Last edited:
Whenever I do a Google Search and see chuckhawks, I don't even click it on because he is obviously clueless.
I saw one article once, on good quality, dangerous game rifles on there. He listed several groups starting with the least best, up to the most best for dangerous game rifles. I think I saw a All Weather Ruger bolt action rifle listed below a Browning Abolt Gold Medallion. The Browning has a nicer finish, so they put it ahead of the Controlled Feed Ruger. What a joke. I think he copies the prices out a catalogue and bases his recommendations on that.
I saw one article once, on good quality, dangerous game rifles on there. He listed several groups starting with the least best, up to the most best for dangerous game rifles. I think I saw a All Weather Ruger bolt action rifle listed below a Browning Abolt Gold Medallion. The Browning has a nicer finish, so they put it ahead of the Controlled Feed Ruger. What a joke. I think he copies the prices out a catalogue and bases his recommendations on that.
