I've highlighted the area of concern in the first quote, which is certainly relevant if correct.
The new Tikka T1X Rimfire
- Thread starter Arseno
- Start date
I've highlighted the area of concern in the first quote, which is certainly relevant if correct.
I apologize. Apparently I misunderstood.
According to the Tikka website describing the TX1, "The action shares the same bedding surfaces and inlay footprint with the centerfire T3x rifles." w w w.tikka.fi/en-us/rifles/tikka-t1x/t1x
Whether a Tikka rail will fit is another question.
According to the Tikka website describing the TX1, "The action shares the same bedding surfaces and inlay footprint with the centerfire T3x rifles." w w w.tikka.fi/en-us/rifles/tikka-t1x/t1x
Whether a Tikka rail will fit is another question.
Okay, thanks for that ^ confirmation. That will allow this to be a wonderful rimfire "understudy" for someone who shoots the centerfire gun.
Or, at least, that can be used as the rationalization for purchase...
Or, at least, that can be used as the rationalization for purchase...
This question regarding mounting optics has been kicking around since the beginning of this thread. Its been answered a couple times now.
I wish Tikka (dealers) would release the info or products to mount optics, so we aren't waiting around once we receive the rifles.
Im wondering if the standard CZ rings would work?
I wish Tikka (dealers) would release the info or products to mount optics, so we aren't waiting around once we receive the rifles.
Im wondering if the standard CZ rings would work?
Found a discussion about this on Rimfire Central, with a lot of favourable impressions being reported by a fellow who handled the gun at SHOT:
http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1057610
He claims the Tikka rep confirmed the plans for .22Mag, .17HMR, wood stocks, smaller (presumably flush-fit) magazines, stainless, etc.
Sounds interestinger and interestinger...
http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1057610
He claims the Tikka rep confirmed the plans for .22Mag, .17HMR, wood stocks, smaller (presumably flush-fit) magazines, stainless, etc.
Sounds interestinger and interestinger...
Last edited:
The Rimfire Central thread has mentioned that the bolt handle shown in photos (of a pre-production gun) has been aluminum, but the production rifles will be equipped with steel handles.
That's a relief to me, especially since I assume that the steel handle will show a higher level of polish than that hideous alloy one.
Edited to add: I just checked the Tikka website. It shows the gun with a nicely polished steel knob.
I'm not clutching my wallet and screaming "Take my money!", but I will be getting one of these.
That's a relief to me, especially since I assume that the steel handle will show a higher level of polish than that hideous alloy one.
Edited to add: I just checked the Tikka website. It shows the gun with a nicely polished steel knob.
I'm not clutching my wallet and screaming "Take my money!", but I will be getting one of these.
The way Anschutz barrels are connected to their actions is miles apart from the way the CZ 455 barrels are attached to their actions, like light years...If the new Tikka .22 also has a flimsy barrel to action connection, like the CZ 455 and some others, I would stay well clear of it...
Sakoman .308
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I too would want the barrel threaded into the receiver, unless it's an Annie.
What difference do you guys think is evident in position shooting/hunting rifles due to the barrel attachment method? Is it significant, or are we talking about trying to squeeze out maybe 0.1" for Bench Rest competition? You do know Anschütz recognized the drawbacks of their press-fit method and it's impact on BR level accuracy, hence the 54.30 action with it's threaded barrel was born? Maybe it makes a difference, but it is assuredly small and trivial to anyone but serious BR competitors. I'd take a 455 with a match-grade barrel on it any day over a randomly selected off the shelf, out-of-the-box press fit Annie if raw accuracy was my only consideration. The 455 attachment method seems to endure a lot of bashing for no good reason, without any supporting evidence or data to suggest that the attachment method offers any real and tangible disadvantage. There are other areas in CZ's manufacturing that I'd lose sleep over before this. Now, if Tikka chambers and crowns like CZ does... I'd stay far away from them for sure
The question about the significance of barrel attachment method on rifles used for position shooting or hunting is to the point. I doubt the average shooter can tell by his results what method was used to attach the barrel to the receiver on his rifle. The Tikka TX1 should be a fine rifle.
Anschutz adopted a newer method of barrel attachment for the 54.30 for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the perceived need for improvements and new designs to appeal to shooters who might be considering other factory-made rifles. These include a stiffer receiver, a loading port closer to the shooter which results in less shooter movement (which is a big improvement in my view), a shorter lock time, and a newly designed match chamber. The threaded method of attachment is also supposed to reduce stresses in the chamber which can improve accuracy. In the end, the barrel including the chamber is the most important foundation for accuracy. Triggers and stock design are important too. I'm not sure where the Anschutz methods of barrel attachment alone fit in the order of what is important for BR accuracy.
As you know, the Anschutz barrels are press fit and pined to the receiver with a taper. It takes a serious force to remove that barrel from the receiver and it is difficult to recreate that taper on a new barrel and reinstall the pins, most people just thread the action and the new barrel.
After having removed some of these Anschutz barrels from their action, I have complete confidence that nothing will ever move in that Anschutz design.
As for the CZ 455, what advantages does it offer...? If you change barrels on this gun on a regular basis, the set screws which hold the barrel in place are probably going to fail, and how would you duplicate the factory torque settings (equally) on both screws. Perhaps I am overly cynical of the design, I just don't like it.
Over the Anschutz? Price.
I do not think anyone is saying the cz or the tikka is going to be more accurate than the Anschutz however they certainly have a viable market and I'm sure that demographic will be happy with their ownership.
After reading .22lrguys comments I realize I am in error of my understanding. His is correct.
Last edited:
hans slayer
CGN Regular
- Location
- Vancouver Island
To their owners? Very little, in my opinion. To CZ? Likely, a less expensive manufacturing process poorly disguised as a "value-added" thing...the ability to swap calibers. To me, you're gambling a rigid barrel/action connection (aka, CZ452) in favor of a feature most people will never use, and potentially..compromised accuracy. In the interest of transparency, I've never owned/fired a 455. I do own a 452 and a BRNO 2E. My opinions are based on superb results with both, superb results with the 452 17HMR I once owned, and reports I've read about problem 455s.
Interesting discussion about barrel attachment. Although Anschutz did go to a threaded barrel attachment with the 54.30, I find it hard to understand why this can be expected to reduce stresses on the chamber. Maybe someone can explain that. Perhaps threading was necessary with their new two-piece chamber. From what I've read, most of the accuracy gunsmiths rebarreling M54 actions with new aftermarket barrels for BR shooters use the same press fit method used by Anschutz, and a lot of them also use one of the stronger Loctite versions on the joint. One notable exception to this would be Bill Calfee who likes to thread the barrel on his M54 jobs.
And Anschutz used an entirely different barrel-attachment method with the 2007/13 models--laterally-oriented clamping screws under the barrel tenon. Sako also used this method with their P94S models (original Finnfires). I've never owned a CZ, but it sounds as though this is how they attach the barrels in some of their models.
Has anyone definitively shared how the new Tikka T1X barrels will be attached. The word "threaded" has appeared in some places, but could this refer to cross-screws as with the Sako P94S, rather than the usual threaded attachment method?
And Anschutz used an entirely different barrel-attachment method with the 2007/13 models--laterally-oriented clamping screws under the barrel tenon. Sako also used this method with their P94S models (original Finnfires). I've never owned a CZ, but it sounds as though this is how they attach the barrels in some of their models.
Has anyone definitively shared how the new Tikka T1X barrels will be attached. The word "threaded" has appeared in some places, but could this refer to cross-screws as with the Sako P94S, rather than the usual threaded attachment method?
