Ruger vs. Tikka... Thoughts?

[Gatehouse]

From the centre of the kill zone on a deer to the edge is 5"....you need to be shooting sub MOA at 500 to ensure you are in the kill zone. A 1.25 inch group at 100 yards does not necessarily equate to 5" at 500 yards...in fact it most likely doesn't. Come on Gate, you know this stuff.

I'm not a fan of rifles with fussy barrels. One thing I've noticed about most Tikkas is that they typically shoot whatever you stuff in them extremely well.

Sure it doesn't always translate in a direct linear equation when you get out at distance but for the purpose if this discussion 5" (or even 6") is going to kill a deer at 400 yards.

If you want to shoot sub Moa to kill stuff at longer ranges just feed the rifle good ammo. Nothing fussy about that, as all rifles have thier preferred brands of ammo even if you don't handload. Using only one box of factory ammo I got 1.25" at 100 and was able to hit the 330 gong from field positions with the remainder of the box. Good enough for most hunting applications as most factory ammo shooters aren't hunting at 500plus yards anyway.

 

[sheephunter]

I've killed several animals at over 500 yards with factory ammo....Vanessa has with her Tikka as well. Perhaps it's just what you put that factory ammo in

5 or 6 inches could be well outside the kill zone depending on if your aim was perfect in the middle of it and depending on how the group printed. An inch off dead centre with your aim and a bullet that hit 6" off POA and you are most definitely way outside the kill zone. Despite shooting a 1.25 MOA rifle at 500 yards. People don't understand this that well and sadly, the results are often a lost animal. At 400 yards plus, accuracy is paramount.....unless you are launching hand grenades.

 

[1899]

I'm not a fan of rifles with fussy barrels. One thing I've noticed about most Tikkas is that they typically shoot whatever you stuff in them extremely well.

Except the heavier recoiling chamberings - .300 WM and .338 WM. Mind you from what I've read the B&C stock does help with accuracy. And the last two I dealt with both had "slow" barrels. I was wondering what the heck was going on and after a bit of research I found that it is relatively common with Tikka T3s.

 

[sheephunter]

A McMillan looks so much nicer than a B&C on a Tikka but I digress....lol

 

[mcmack]

I own a Tikka T3 Supervarmint in .222 (yes not a typo .222 not .223). This rifle has a butter-smooth action, its super easy to clean and maintain it has a Redfield scope on it. Its a coyote/varmint gun for sure but it shoots extremely tight groups at the 100 yard range for targets too. The kids love shooting it as it doesnt have much kick. In my opinion the Tikka is a finely crafted rifle, no plastic or polymer (save for the synthetic stock) parts. I cant compare anything in a Ruger, I own an SR22 rifle (10/22 variant) and its a nicely built accurate rifle too, just not in the same class as the Tikka. Have heard some of the newer Tikkas have some plastic parts on them, mine is 7 years old.

If you can afford the price difference, I would go with the Tikka in whatever calibre you choose.

 

[Big Jon]

In the hands of someone that knows how to shoot a 1/2" or 1.25" gun won't make a lick of difference for big game hunting purposes....even at the 500 yard line. If you are relying on that difference in group size than shooting at extended range isn't likely your thing.

What makes a hunting rifle and shooter sub MOA anyways? One group out of 5 being the magic number? Every single time? or is "more often than not" enough to make the cut?

Ruger is still better than Tikka .

 

[sheephunter]

Group size is everything at long range...all other things being equal of course.

 

[Big Jon]

I disagree. I think knowing what wind does and how to shoot in it means a whole pile more than a few increments of an inch in group size.

 

[Bowie]

From the centre of the kill zone on a deer to the edge is 5"....you need to be shooting sub MOA at 500 to ensure you are in the kill zone.

The kill zone is 10" across so you should be theoretically able to do this with a 2 MOA rifle. 1 MOA at 500 is 5" group clustered around your aiming point - but that also means that each shot is generally no more than 2.5" from the center.
You're going to tell me that a 1 MOA rifle can do this, but a 1.25 MOA rifle can't?

 

[Mil Specs]

At least everyone agrees Fords are better than Chevy's lol :flamesuitactivated:. Whodafuq cares! If you have a Tikka and like it, get another one. If you want to try something different, go with the Ruger. If you have a Tikka and hate it, buy the Ruger ...Buy the gun that feels the best to you/ has the options you are looking for .

 

[Gatehouse]

I've killed several animals at over 500 yards with factory ammo....Vanessa has with her Tikka as well. Perhaps it's just what you put that factory ammo in

5 or 6 inches could be well outside the kill zone depending on if your aim was perfect in the middle of it and depending on how the group printed. An inch off dead centre with your aim and a bullet that hit 6" off POA and you are most definitely way outside the kill zone. Despite shooting a 1.25 MOA rifle at 500 yards. People don't understand this that well and sadly, the results are often a lost animal. At 400 yards plus, accuracy is paramount.....unless you are launching hand grenades.

That's great, but most people shooting longer ranges are using handloads or premium factory ammo. Or are you saying that you would be happy using any and all factory ammo in your tikka to shoot game at over 500 yards ?

 

[unstableryan]

There is no hysteria here. People on CGN have had issues with their bolt shrouds. There is a big market for aftermarket bolt shrouds. If it wasn't a problem, nobody would be paying $60 a pop for them.

There are other issues with the T3 too- you can't top load into the magazine and they only make one action length are a couple off the top of my head.

One action length works for me, I have a 6.5x55 and I can seat any bullet way out like they are supposed to be and it still works perfectly in the magazine and action.

 

[Brian46]

Correct and a little friction will wear the bit of roughness and tooling imperfections out of a Ruger action very nicely. Like said back there my new Ruger was a little rough when new. Teeth grinding, scare an animal off 200yds away like someone back there said? Um, no. A little rough to the feel that's all. After cycling it a few hundred times sitting on the couch and cleaning and reoiling it a few times it was noticeably better by day two. Today almost 10 years down the road it is very smooth. The rifle just keeps getting better accuracy wise as well. And as far as "wearing a Ruger action out" ?? Good luck with that.

so basically what you are saying is after you wear out the imperfections the factory left in the action you have a smooth yet sloppy action due to the wear those imperfections created........ lets call it what it is rather than your "ruger does this on purpose" explanation to try and make it sound like it is a good thing.

Your notion of "Today almost 10 years down the road it is very smooth. The rifle just keeps getting better accuracy wise as well" makes no sense, take two identical rifles and put 10,000rnds down one and then compare accuracy between the two, the used one is not going to shoot better groups

lets be honest, proper machining and tolerances from day one will give you a smooth action with less wear over time and a better performing rifle for it's entire life

 

[sheephunter]

I disagree. I think knowing what wind does and how to shoot in it means a whole pile more than a few increments of an inch in group size.

That would be included in the all others things being equal part...at the end of the day, all other things being equal, it all comes down to how accurate your rifle is. This no getting around it...it's either accurate or it ain't.

 

[sheephunter]

That's great, but most people shooting longer ranges are using handloads or premium factory ammo. Or are you saying that you would be happy using any and all factory ammo in your tikka to shoot game at over 500 yards ?

Not at all...bullet type is very critical at extended ranges. That's why it's nice to have a rifle that isn't fussy so you can use the proper bullet for the range being shot rather than having to compromise for one that your rifle likes.

 

[Big Jon]

That would be included in the all others things being equal part...at the end of the day, all other things being equal, it all comes down to how accurate your rifle is. This no getting around it...it's either accurate or it ain't.

I can't really wrap my brain around how wind is captured in the "all other things being equal" bit but if it's loud and clear in your head than so be it.

T3s are still Barbie guns and I bet my pick-up gets better gas mileage than yours...

 

[Salty]

so basically what you are saying is after you wear out the imperfections the factory left in the action you have a smooth yet sloppy action due to the wear those imperfections created........ lets call it what it is rather than your "ruger does this on purpose" explanation to try and make it sound like it is a good thing.

I didn't say it had a loose and sloppy action, quite the contrary. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of lapping? As in lapping scope rings, fire lapping barrels, lapping a new cylinder bore? Wearing down high spots of a thou or two does not wear in to the design bore. Its simple physics and lapping is industry standard in all sorts of metal manufacturing where precision tolerances are required.

Talk to any F class competition shooter. Come back to me with one instance where they installed scope rings without lapping them. Somebody back there said something about owning Rugers with off centre scope mounts and even twisted receivers?? Send that puppy back. Unless of course a matter of course bit of lapping can't make everything true.

Some of you closet machinists just stick to this bizarre type of argument to call down Rugers. You don't like them? Fine. But lets not make #### up.

 

[sheephunter]

I can't really wrap my brain around how wind is captured in the "all other things being equal" bit but if it's loud and clear in your head than so be it.

T3s are still Barbie guns and I bet my pick-up gets better gas mileage than yours...

You can learn to dope the wind with enough practice and experience....but an inaccurate rifle is still inaccurate no matter how much you practice with it. Some things are within your control...some aren't. Accuracy is everything...all other things being equal.

11liters/100kms beat that

 

[Salty]

The Ruger company isn't stupid. When they see Sako selling cheap knock offs labeled as T3s they are going to want a piece of the bargain rifle market too. So they made the Ruger American.

And admirably Ruger priced them for what they're worth. About 470 bucks.

 

[Gatehouse]

At least everyone agrees Fords are better than Chevy's lol :flamesuitactivated:. Whodafuq cares! If you have a Tikka and like it, get another one. If you want to try something different, go with the Ruger. If you have a Tikka and hate it, buy the Ruger ...Buy the gun that feels the best to you/ has the options you are looking for .

That's a good way to look at it if course. The Tikka has very little in the way of options I like and Rugers have what I prefer. I know that many Tikka owners are happy with thier rifles but I think they are way overpriced for what they are