Chuck Hawks Review on Tikka's

Looks like Chuck may be coming around after all. He's right about most (and I mean most) firearm reviews being manufacturer's rehashed doublespeak.

New cheap guns abound. Many of which are modern iterations of their previous glory day products. I own the Savage Edge and I like it. Having said this, I would also say it is in the same class as the 770 except the Savage is at least reliable. I own an XS7 and it is a very very well designed and manufactured cheap gun. Light years ahead of the Savages and the low end Remingtons. I also handled a modern day Tikka and a Sako in the store a while back, cycled the actions a few times, and handed them back to the guy behind the counter thereby putting Tikka and Sako out of mind forever.
All gun media must be taken with a grain of salt gentlemen. Caveat emptor is the philosophy to live by when buying a new gun these days...
 
How do new Sako 85s seem cheap?
bearkilr said:
Gun Tests magazine. They have no advertisers and are very critical when warranted.

I'd have to agree with Hawks. Many new guns feel cheap, though I don't think Tikka should bear the brunt of the criticism. The new Sako's don't feel much better. Same goes for Savage, they are the king of cheap. If they weren't accurate, they'd have nothing going for them.
Click to expand...
 
The man raises some interesting points.... obviously opinions are going to vary. If you don't like a light plastic stock(like myself) - get wood. If you don't want a smooth action with an easily adjustable crisp trigger(cheaper sako) - dont buy one. If mine fell into a wood chipper I would buy another hunter stainless tomorrow. I think chuck just misses the good old days. That being said, there is a limitation on aftermarket parts available. also lets be honest who really likes plastic trigger guards. In a perfect world there would be a sako in my hands but for the time being, i'm more than happy with my t3.
 
I agree with him, and yes I do own one.
Even though it has a nice trigger, and the rifle is accurate, they do feel cheap.The blued models show sighns of rust just a short time after being used, unlike other rifles I
I own.
Tikkas are overpriced IMO, but what isn't these days.
 
I have to agree with Chuck for the most part. I see most new "entry level rifles" (whatever that means) as inexpensive tools, almost a throw away item when something on them breaks because they are not worth fixing. The accuracy on these rifles on average are good enough for hunting purposes. Quality rifles cost money. A very fine rifle costs a lot of money. True custom build, the sky the limit.
 
mudbug said:
Chuck Hawks shares information through: Guns and Shooting Online; Motorcycles and Riding Online; Naval, Aviation and Military History, Travel and Fishing ...)
This guy seems to know everything about everything
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure he is a member here and posts thousands upon thousands of posts overstating the obvious, passing off his opinion as fact, and just generally beating his keyboard to death with incorrect information. :slap:

Either that or this particular CGN member is a near clone of old Chuck ....................... :rolleyes:
 
I think you really have to understand where the guy is coming from, and read a few of his articles to get a feel for the criteria he looks for in a rifle. I hardly take his word for gospel, but I do agree with some of what he says (definately not all).

I'm not a big fan of the Tikka rifles, even though they are known to be extremely accurate. I also disagree with the guy who said they're the best buy out there. It really depends on the weight given to certain criteria. I think the FN M70s are a better buy in that price bracket.
 
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 rifles. Often they have merely parroted the promotional flack handed to them by the manufacturer's ad agencies in their gun reviews.

Thus flimsy, injection molded synthetic 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.
------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely dead on! Those of us who grew up with quality firearms just can't get used to the new ones. He explains it much better than I could, of why I will never have a gun with a plastic stock.
How many times on these posts have I written bits and pieces of what he states? For example many of my posts state that free floated barrels were not the end all of rifle bedding.
Very recently I told of a store that had a great looking, older Parker Hale for something like $300 in the rack, but people were ignoring it and buying high priced Tikkas.
As he points out, it is amazing what advertising, and gun writers paid directly, or indirectly by the manufacturers can do.
 
H4831 said:
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 rifles. Often they have merely parroted the promotional flack handed to them by the manufacturer's ad agencies in their gun reviews.

Thus flimsy, injection molded synthetic 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.
------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely dead on! Those of us who grew up with quality firearms just can't get used to the new ones. He explains it much better than I could, of why I will never have a gun with a plastic stock.
How many times on these posts have I written bits and pieces of what he states? For example many of my posts state that free floated barrels were not the end all of rifle bedding.
Very recently I told of a store that had a great looking, older Parker Hale for something like $300 in the rack, but people were ignoring it and buying high priced Tikkas.
As he points out, it is amazing what advertising, and gun writers paid directly, or indirectly by the manufacturers can do.
Click to expand...

I thought you were Chuck Hawks..under cover?
 
noneck180 said:
Chuck is a loser...none of my guns feel like cheap crap.

P1000054.jpg
Click to expand...

Noneck,

I'm suspicious. Not a piece of wood in these pictures at all. Were you born after 1960? :)
 
I own a few tikkas and the only thing that I agree with him on is the cheap stock. But when he compared it to the remington 770 he lost all creditability in my book. The 770 is the biggest piece of junk one of the dealers I know will not carry it because of the amount of past complants. Many of the complaints he makes about the tikka could be made about the lower end 700s, vangaurds ect.
 
Excellent debate here.

I agree with Chuck on a lot of things. His general disdain for the 400 different centerfire cartridge variants out there when a deer or a moose at the receiving end couldn't tell the difference between any of them is bang on. Ditto his thoughts about too many hunters using far too large a cartridge for their prey and likely facing significant accuracy issues due to recoil and flinching.

However, to me, guns fall in two categories: some are art, but most are just tools. My hunting rifles are almost exclusively plastic or laminate stocks and stainless steel. They all shoot better than I do in field conditions and that's what they are for. After 10 years of hard use my A bolt Stainless Stalker looks exactly like it did when I bought it, and shoots just as well too. My brother has a Tikka T3 and I think it's a fine rifle. More than accurate enough for the hunting he does. If the airline loses one of my guns or I drop it in the river or run over it with a truck I'll be out some $$ but no tears will be shed. Yes, I was born after 1960 - but I do have a couple of pieces of "art" on my wall too, including my great grandfathers model 1873 Winchester. I also truly appreciate a well finished burled walnut stock and a precisely fit action - I just don't see why I would spend all that cash to knock it about in the rain and snow. On an inflation adjusted basis, guns have never been so inexpensive. I applaud modern production methods and the innovations that allow me to have a selection of reliable, accurate, reasonably priced firearms in my safe.

Sometimes the voice of experience offers real wisdom, and sometimes they are just misremembering the good old days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom