new rifle rem 700 vs tikka t3 vs ruger m77
- Thread starter Cujo03
- Start date
.
Yep. Also look closely at the newly-resurrected winchester model 70, and maybe the new Thompson center Icon. I have 700's and t3's, and - while they work just fine - they both feel kinda cheap to me. The m77 doesn't, though ironically it does cost about the same
On average the Tikka is probably the best shooting "from the box." The Remington trigger generally needs some work and it's not that difficult to adjust. The Model 77s are nice rifles but their triggers suck and they aren't generally easy to adjust. I don't know a lot about Ruger's new Hawkeye though.
Last edited:
juanvaldez
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sudbury, Ontario
Not putting a savage in the lineup?
The choices are all good, I go to a lot of gun shows and the Rem's seem to bring better prices used and are in demand. as for caliber I would consider the .280 over the .270 or the wsm cartridges are quite good as well
gun choices
I have a Ruger MK-II in synthetic stainless. Had it about 3 years now and it serves as my primary hunting rifle. The stainless holds up well. The only bad thing I have to say about it is the trigger. I had a Timmney put in it and it shoots about a million times better.
I dont have much to compare the rifle against other than a few I've handled and shot.
A friend of mine has an older tikka in stainless synthetic. Seems to be a nice gun and cant argue with the accuracy even with his cruddy $80 scope.
Last week when I was down at WSS I saw a Rem 700 stainless in 270 sitting ontop of the counter. Nobody was around to help me so I picked up the rifle and started playing with it. My buddy and I both commented how it was definately used and someone must have returned it for some reason. When we talked with one of the Sr. sales people we deal with we asked him about the gun. First he was mad that another employee left a firearm out on the counter unattended. Then he told us that it was brand new, not used like we had expected.
I know he's a Ruger guy himself so his comments have to be taken with a grain of salt. The finish was really rough (marks in the barrel) which could have been from either from shipping or manufacturing. It might have been a lemon in the batch but needless to say my friend and I were less than impressed with a brand new rifle.
The WSS sales person also mentioned that one of his good friends is a well respected and popular gunsmith in central alberta and now refuses to work on Remingtons because of all the problems he's had with them.
That being said, I've been keeping my eye open for a used stainless 700 to use a project gun due to the availability of parts. I dont really care if the metal is a bit rough or it needs some work as its a project. I figure I'll give it a try and see how it goes and make up my own opinion.
From what people have been telling me, the older remingtons are excellent and the metal is very nice. The newer ones like everything else is mass produced and the quality suffers.
Personally if I was going to purchase a new rifle, I'd pick up and handle each of them at the store. See what fits you better, decide if you like the mag in the tikka or just want to stick with a hinged floor plate.
I've done a bit of work on my Ruger MK-II (trigger and recoil pad thats it) and I dont have any complaints about it. Its stood up well and so far no major issues.
A nice feature with the Rugers are the integrated bases and that they come with rings which saves a bit of money.
I'm sure they're all good rifles so its just a matter of personal choice. Again another Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge discussion. Just my 2 cents.
Mad_Mikee
I have a Ruger MK-II in synthetic stainless. Had it about 3 years now and it serves as my primary hunting rifle. The stainless holds up well. The only bad thing I have to say about it is the trigger. I had a Timmney put in it and it shoots about a million times better.
I dont have much to compare the rifle against other than a few I've handled and shot.
A friend of mine has an older tikka in stainless synthetic. Seems to be a nice gun and cant argue with the accuracy even with his cruddy $80 scope.
Last week when I was down at WSS I saw a Rem 700 stainless in 270 sitting ontop of the counter. Nobody was around to help me so I picked up the rifle and started playing with it. My buddy and I both commented how it was definately used and someone must have returned it for some reason. When we talked with one of the Sr. sales people we deal with we asked him about the gun. First he was mad that another employee left a firearm out on the counter unattended. Then he told us that it was brand new, not used like we had expected.
I know he's a Ruger guy himself so his comments have to be taken with a grain of salt. The finish was really rough (marks in the barrel) which could have been from either from shipping or manufacturing. It might have been a lemon in the batch but needless to say my friend and I were less than impressed with a brand new rifle.
The WSS sales person also mentioned that one of his good friends is a well respected and popular gunsmith in central alberta and now refuses to work on Remingtons because of all the problems he's had with them.
That being said, I've been keeping my eye open for a used stainless 700 to use a project gun due to the availability of parts. I dont really care if the metal is a bit rough or it needs some work as its a project. I figure I'll give it a try and see how it goes and make up my own opinion.
From what people have been telling me, the older remingtons are excellent and the metal is very nice. The newer ones like everything else is mass produced and the quality suffers.
Personally if I was going to purchase a new rifle, I'd pick up and handle each of them at the store. See what fits you better, decide if you like the mag in the tikka or just want to stick with a hinged floor plate.
I've done a bit of work on my Ruger MK-II (trigger and recoil pad thats it) and I dont have any complaints about it. Its stood up well and so far no major issues.
A nice feature with the Rugers are the integrated bases and that they come with rings which saves a bit of money.
I'm sure they're all good rifles so its just a matter of personal choice. Again another Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge discussion. Just my 2 cents.
Mad_Mikee
- Location
- Vegreville Alberta
I would go with the Tikka and get a better recoil pad for it. The only thing I find lacking in a Tikka.
- Location
- Vancouver Island BC
The Tikka would be my choice if it had a floorplate instead of the plastic mag that limits overall cartridge length.
- Location
- Vegreville Alberta
Bought a SMLE sporter, thanks. Don't have the money to get a Tikka right now.
manbearpig
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Somewhere in the Third World
get the Ruger M77 - the tikka T3 and recent production rem 700s arent even in the same class.
also keep in mind that when you buy a Ruger you are getting a very nice mount setup and rings that would cost you around $100 for another rifle for equal quality/QR.
IMO Rugers are the best value in production guns nowadays. im kicking myself for buying a stainless Savage, i saved $130 over a Ruger but then spent $90 on mounts and rings and im getting a far uglier/cheaper finished rifle with perhaps a tiny bit better accuracy.
also keep in mind that when you buy a Ruger you are getting a very nice mount setup and rings that would cost you around $100 for another rifle for equal quality/QR.
IMO Rugers are the best value in production guns nowadays. im kicking myself for buying a stainless Savage, i saved $130 over a Ruger but then spent $90 on mounts and rings and im getting a far uglier/cheaper finished rifle with perhaps a tiny bit better accuracy.
Something to think about, for me anyway, is bolt handle to scope clearance. My Rem 700 bolt handle whacks the scope every time you cycle it. Not sure if all Rem's are like this but it's a PITA. I think the Tikka bolt rotates less so this shouldn't be a problem, not sure about the Ruger.
I like my ruger in the stainless steel with a lamanated stock. in 270 cal of course. I sold my remington because the extractor gave me the willy's as I felt if it screwed up in the bush I would be out of luck. the remington and tika are push feed and the ruger has the mauser controlled feed which is recomended by most big game hunters for relialibity. and I have no quams about the trigger as it let;s off very nicely. good luck and good hunting.
Have you ever had a Remington fail to extract a factory or reasonable handload?
Many, many thousands of hunters use them every year without any problems at all. I've personally never had a problem with many 700s in several different calibers.
Yes, the claw extractor is a bit stronger, but the Remington is very reliable as well.
For the life of me, I can't remeber the last time I tried to chamber a round while holding the rifle upside down.
I agree, the Mauser system is very good, but for the everyday hunting that 99% of us do, the crappy old push feed does work very well and alot of those rifles are more accurate than a 98.
.
Just took my new Ruger M77 mkII 6.5x55 to the range today for it's first sighting in. Shoots Federal blue box 140gr ammo great, three round groups just under 1moa. My 7.62x39 M77 mkII and my M77 tang safety 338win also shoot just as well. I've never had an M77 that didn't shoot great not that my odd winchester and remington didn't shoot well to but the rem need all sorts of smith work done to it to make it a rifle I could trust, really piss poor QC on some remingtons. My M77's have never been smithed, just always great out of the box. I've had a couple of 30-06 M77's in the past to and they where also good.
