Tikka Arctic Opinions & Insight Wanted - Diopter sights

Devlin

Devlin

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
131   0   0
Location
Behind You
Hey Folks

I've done some reading through the forum here and what I can find online that isn't marketing hype on this rifle. I've been looking over one of these at a local gun shop and it appears to be quite well made. I'd be using it as an all around do everything rifle from range plinker to deer rifle and the occasional moose/elk hunt. My observations so far from just handling it in the shop are that the quality looks to be there, but it is fairly beefy in terms of weight.

The diopter style iron sights are intriguing to me as a nice option (assuming they work well) they are marked from 100-600 yards with the holes in the rear sight appearing to change position slightly and from what I can see the size changes as well. Most of my hunting is done in fairly dense bush in the North Bay/Kirkland Lake/ Parry Sound area. I'm curious as to how usable these style of sights are and does it avoid the issue of getting lost in a magnified optic (I've goofed and done that in the past).

Looking for any real world experience folks may have on this rifle, lots of consternation online in forums around the looks and cost of this rifle. It is spendy but it does appeal to me.
 
No experience here with one sorry, but I also like the looks of them. For me I liked the sights on the CZ Ranger rifle better. Have you seen those??
 
IMHO, on a rifle intended for practical shooting, rear sight adjustments beyond 300 yards are pointless. Your "getting lost in the optic" problem is consistent with using too much magnification at short range, where you experience insufficient field of view in which to locate the target. Magnification is not the primary advantage of the telescope sight. Rather the advantage is that the scope's reticle, and the target are in simultaneous focus, something not possible with iron sights, since the human eye cannot focus on two or more objects at different distances at the same time. Purchase a variable power scope with 1X or 1.5X at the lowest setting, and don't crank it up unless you have a shot, that requires more magnification in order to see the target, either due to target size, range, or light conditions, such as a dark colored game animal standing in the shadow of a rock or a tree on a very bright day. That said, making the investment in quality irons for your hunting rifle, either factory equipped or aftermarket, is money well spent.
 
Lead hammer said:
No experience here with one sorry, but I also like the looks of them. For me I liked the sights on the CZ Ranger rifle better. Have you seen those??
Click to expand...


I did look at the CZ, Wolverine has them in stock and at a far lower price than the Tikka. There is a great review, very in-depth by Riflechair (believe he's a member here) and that is a tempting option but the Tikka has me quite tempted.


[youtube]9axqSfGddJ0[/youtube]


Direct link to video on the CZ, the embedded link below seems to be having issues https://youtu.be/9axqSfGddJ0
 
Last edited:
I'm with you Devlin. I've been looking for more info on the tikka as well. All I usually read or hear is it's an overpriced stainless t3x with irons and a LAm stock. I handled one the same day that I purchased my .308 t3x ctr. The arctic does have a heavier profile barrel than the ctr. I did like the sights also. I have been thinking if these sights were sold separately I'd put some on my ctr but I'm not sure if that's an option yet. sorry I don't have better insight either. I hope this rifle comes down to 2g or less also.
 
Anything? Any reviews?

I might have a shot at an Arctic for $2200 after a rum fueled evening with a guy that wants to build a custom rifle now.

I still don't get the price, but there doesn't seem to be any reviews either way. Maybe Nobody else bought one?
 
It was supposed to be the same version the Rangers got. Turns out it's not quite the same.... Different stock, different bottom metal, and something else I can't recall.
So really the price is insane. As a copy there was interest, as a thrown together whatever version there is much less interest.
 
There is no arguing the inflated price is not justified.

Recently handle one. It was a pig weight wise to be honest. It's well made though and felt decent enough, just real heavy.

The example I handled had the stock screws so lose couldn't say they were even hand tight. Action was flopping all over the place. That didn't turn me off since it's easy to torque correctly, just don't understand how it could leave the factory in such a state.

The sights are interesting. However I agree with Boomer. They are not appropriate for a hunting rifle, certainly not for a "bush" rifle.

If doing long range iron sight target stuff sure.

Once I handled it immediately lost all enthusiasm as to it being marketed as kinda/sorta like the Ranger rifle. As suggest above I'd personally look at the CZ Ranger. Far better deal imo and the direction I'd go if in the market for such a thing.

Don't mean to rain on your parade, just my take on it.
 
The thing which strikes me odd in Artic is weight - 4kg, 8.13 lbs. It is for 20 inch barrel no optic. This is not a bush gun.

T3x Battue is 3.1 kg
T3x Sporter with 20 inch barrel is 4.1kg
T3x CTR is 3.4 kg

And for the price, well Sako Black Bear - 3.1kg with bush iron sights, better magazine, better action - is LESS money.

Odd offering, I don't see how it would appeal to anyone. If only just out of pure curiosity or collecting.
 
There' no way to even justify the price for the tikka Arctic. It's a tikka. They are meant to be budget friendly. Not cooper rifles! I like my tikka a lot. There is no way in heck those cool iron sights of the Arctic would have me pay almost 3000$ for that rifle. Laminate stock of interest to you? Boyd's makes an equally quality laminate stock for tikka rifles for 110$ ish. I would rule out the tikka Arctic right away. The cz 557 ranger i would happily snatch up for its orice and a way better rifle for bush and hunting in the bush. Just trying to help ya out on the best decision
 
I recently handled the Tikka Arctic and the Tikka CTR, here are my thoughts, and as a qualifier I do like Tikka rifles currently owning two and just ordered a third. I really liked the Arctic, metal mag, ambi mag release, nice feeling laminate stock, very intriguing and practical peeps sight system, 0 MOA picatinny rail, but WAY too expensive. The CTR had a similar profile barrel (not sure of the EXACT dimensions), same bottom metal and mag--huge PLUS, same 0 MOA picatinny rail, no open sights, and a standard synthetic stock. So for a difference of $1500 (ish), you get a laminate stock and peep sights on the Arctic. Well I haven't shot open sights of any description for 30 years so that is not enough to make to me jump to the Arctic, and I can get a Boyds laminate for about $200 delivered to my door. So if I was in the market for such a beast, hands down it would be the CTR, I would put a light weight 1.5 to ? on it in light weight rings and have it for a bush gun, or put a 10X on it and use it as a short to medium range target rifle and have a blast. Just my two cents, and no, I have not shot either one on the field.
 
Pretty gun, very heavy and costly. Serves the Ranger purpose though as most of their gun work is on a range and bragging rights in the Rangers goes to the best shot.
 
owlowl said:
The thing which strikes me odd in Artic is weight - 4kg, 8.13 lbs. It is for 20 inch barrel no optic. This is not a bush gun.

T3x Battue is 3.1 kg
T3x Sporter with 20 inch barrel is 4.1kg
T3x CTR is 3.4 kg

And for the price, well Sako Black Bear - 3.1kg with bush iron sights, better magazine, better action - is LESS money.

Odd offering, I don't see how it would appeal to anyone. If only just out of pure curiosity or collecting.
Click to expand...

That's the answer to the question right there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom