But the corollary is that many of those who say "YOUSE TEH TIKKA!!!!!!" have never owned or used anything else
pretty much sums it up right there.
discussions are much more civil around CGN, but in most web posts there is so much rampant Tikka fanboi-ism on the net right now that many new rifle owners seem to think that the only way to get an accurate rifle is to buy a Tikka. they also buy into all the 'low-glare bead-blasted', 'self-lubricating lightweight corrosion resistant radar-invisible co-polymer resin' and 'tactical' marketing hype.
in every single thread people just post
'go see what else is out there, you could get more for your $800-1000'.
yeah i havent shot my own Tikka (thank god, otherwise id have been stuck with it). i have owned one for one brief day before i returned it after examining it next to my other rifles and realizing that it wasnt what i wanted. materials/quality-wise it was about on par or slightly lower than a Savage, but it had cost $400 more. this was unacceptable to me.
insert:
'but if you had shot it youd have changed your mind'.
why, exactly? because it 'worked'? every bolt gun ive ever purchased functioned perfectly - i only have problems with semis.
because it would shoot MOA? whooptee-doo, so do most factory production bolt guns these days like Remingtons, Rugers, Weatherbys, Savages, Stevens, etc. the only bolt actions i own that
dont shoot MOA are old milsurps.
theres nothing wrong with the Tikkas, but expecting accuracy and function from a modern bolt-action rifle is pretty
basic: what people are trying to tell you is to open your eyes - you can get
more for your money such as actual fit & finish, actual quality materials and finishes (not bead-blasted crap or injection molded plastic), an action that isnt designed totally around cutting manufacturing costs, etc.
if the Tikkas were selling for $500-550 id probably change my tune, but $800-1000 is rediculous for what they are - a Finnish Savage.