Kimber Montana vs tikka t3

Q

quarterman

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
101   0   0
Location
b.c.
I'm considering buying a new lightweight rifle in 300wsm. I be had tikka rifles in the past and know they are usually very accurate. Tikkas tend to be a very good bang for the buck. I have also one day few limbers which were all very accurate, but I've never owned a kimber Montana. The things I like about the kimber are the crf action, 3position wing safety and the stock. On the tikka I don't care for all the plastic crap, but I know if I go for the tikka it will be very accurate. I like that the kimber is lighter. For me recoil and price tag are not an issue. With those things out of the way, which would you choose and why? What kind of experiences have you had with either of these. Hopefully cgn ers can help me pick one
 
Kimber hands down. I feel everything about them is far better and not a lot of plastic bits. Yes I have owned both. If your after a all day range gun the Kimber is not the barrel warms up quick and accuracy goes down. But the first 3 shots are lazer beams.

The tikka is a great rifle as well but far more plastic and I hate plastic
 
The mags on those t 3 rifles are costly too but they are nice I haven't heard anyone not like them I'd love to try a kimber
 
I have first hand experience with two Tikka's that did not live up to the Tikka accuracy reputation - a .300 WM and a .338 WM. Both had slow barrels too. So I did a bit of research and found that the heavier recoiling T3s can be less accurate than those below the .300 WM. A fellow on 24hr Campfire said the Bell & Carlson stock cures the "problem". Regardless, I personally wouldn't go with a .300 WSM in a Tikka - why bother with a short cartridge in a full length action?
 
1899 said:
I personally wouldn't go with a .300 WSM in a Tikka - why bother with a short cartridge in a full length action?
Click to expand...

Bingo, couldn't have said it better.

You want lightweight, well the Tikka is long action, no matter what caliber which is added weight that you dont need. Now someone who didnt care about light weight that wouldnt be an issue. It might only be a couple ounces but when your 4000ft up on the side of a mountain thats a lot of weight!
 
I have fire a couple tikka 3's, mine in 6.5x55 and one in 30-06. I don't think I want one in 300 wsm.

Mine is really accurate, the 30-06 I'm not sure of, I only took a couple shots. I think I would like another pound on the rifle with a nice recoil pad on a .300 wsm.
 
I should add that if you are looking for light weight and the Tikka, take a look at the Superlight. They are supposedly under 6lbs. I handled one the other day but didn't have a "regular" T3 on hand to compare them side by side. You could always go that route plus a McMillan stock in a style and fill that suits your needs.
 
I'd go with the Montana. All my Tikka rifles except the 7-08 that I got my daughter seem to have wandered away.

I've had T3s in both .300 WSM and .300 Win. There was a noticeable difference in recoil between the two, the WSM was a real cream-puff. Sadly the reason for that was the WSM had more in common with a enthusiastic 30-06 than the Win Mag. It went to a friends son, and the Win Mag went to a friend. Both are still killing things, but I don't miss them at all.
 
1899 said:
I have first hand experience with two Tikka's that did not live up to the Tikka accuracy reputation - a .300 WM and a .338 WM. Both had slow barrels too. So I did a bit of research and found that the heavier recoiling T3s can be less accurate than those below the .300 WM. A fellow on 24hr Campfire said the Bell & Carlson stock cures the "problem". Regardless, I personally wouldn't go with a .300 WSM in a Tikka - why bother with a short cartridge in a full length action?
Click to expand...

Maybe you couldn't hang on to the heavy caliber recoil. Not being a jerk, just saying. I own tikka 270, 338wm and I shoot them both sub MOA. As a matter of fact tikka guarantees that all rifles are sub MOA. You probably didn't test which ammo your gun liked as all guns I don't care what brand deserve that test. All my guns have a different brand, load (I reload), powder etc. I have my 338 averaging below 1 MOA all day.

Tikka is best bang for your buck hands down. Yes there are other rifles that are better, but they are more then double the price. Yes the magazine is plastic. Although I have never seen anyone break one before. And what it would require to break it, would equally break a metal one. So there is no point to that arguement. In the under $1000 mark there is no other rifle that can even be held in same conversation. Both mine are with wood stocks, I agree I'm not crazy about there composte stock. But that being said I don't buy any rifles in composite. Except my precision long range rifle which is a aftermarket stock designed for my use. All factory ones are brutal in every brand.
 
Tiika are not that bad if you consider there is a sako barrel on it. but the magazine can be lost and there are not cheap.

I m seeing only one problem with Kimber no southpaw option ...
 
Chago said:
Tikka is best bang for your buck hands down. Yes there are other rifles that are better, but they are more then double the price.So there is no point to that arguement. In the under $1000 mark there is no other rifle that can even be held in same conversation.
Click to expand...

...and then you woke up!
Those Tikkas with them socko barrels sound positively dreamy. Somebody pinch me please!
 
Chago said:
Maybe you couldn't hang on to the heavy caliber recoil. Not being a jerk, just saying. I own tikka 270, 338wm and I shoot them both sub MOA. As a matter of fact tikka guarantees that all rifles are sub MOA. You probably didn't test which ammo your gun liked as all guns I don't care what brand deserve that test. All my guns have a different brand, load (I reload), powder etc. I have my 338 averaging below 1 MOA all day. .
Click to expand...

Yeah...you are wrong about that. I've owned numerous rifles that have more than average recoil - .338 WM's, .375 H&H's, .416 RM and others. My .300 WM Mauser M96 (1996) straight pull weighs less than the T3 Lite and, curiously, I can shoot 220gr Partitions at 2850 FPS just fine with it. Next, both the .300 and .338 were tested with numerous powders - H1000, H4831SC, IMR4350, Ramshot Magnum; and numerous bullets - .300 WM - 180gr TSX, 180gr BT, 180/200gr Partition, 200gr Sierra GK; .338 WM - 185gr TTSX, 225gr Hornady SP and 250gr Partition. The .300 WM would barely squeak under 1" with the best load and the .338 WM would do no better than about 1.25". Most loads were in the 1.5" to 2" range.

It is not just me - look on other forums and you will find that the T3 Lite in heavier recoiling chamberings can have accuracy issues. As I mentioned, these are apparently rectified with the installation of the B&C stock.
 
Id buy a new Winchester Model 70 extreme. They are going for about $875 right now if you want a nice CRF. Cheaper then a Kimber and has a Winchester has a good track record. Just a thought.

Cheers!!
 
I have had a few Tikka T3's and non of them seem to fit me properly. They can shoot really good groups, at least the ones I have had, but I can't get good accuracy from field positions... I really have to work at shooting them. I have now gone away from the tikka's and have a kimber montana due to arrive any day. I will let you guys know how I like it.

I had gone to the Weatherby rifles as fit was perfect for me, I was going to buy another Ultra Lightweight, but this Kimber came up and as a few buddies have had great luck with them I decided to give it a go. One buddy even drove over his broke off the bolt handle and it still shoots like a dream. Try that with a "plastic" rifle :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom