I'd always choose a Tikka over a Ruger if everything else were equal...but of course, that's never the case. I've only handled the Ranger version, never shot it. I recall noticing that it was a bit hefty, didn't realize it was all the way up in the 9-10 pound range. You know it's going to be a shooter, and that cool rear sight is a huge bonus. The much-price of the Arctic is only the beginning; the mags are somewhere close to $200 apiece brand new! You can upgrade it with aftermarket parts to take AICS mags, which might make sense if you already own and use a bunch of them, but that's still more expense.
The Ruger Scout has always struck me as a bit goofy. In its original configuration, you need to remove the rear sight if you want a conventional scope, and then you need Ruger rings for that scope but Pic rings for a scout scope. Goofy. You can get the aftermarket rail that stretches from the rear of the receiver all the way up over the barrel, incorporating a rear aperture as well. Then at least you can mount both scopes in Pic-style QD rings, and always have the aperture for back-up use...but there goes more money. The big plus IMHO is the easy use of AICS mags. I've never handled the synthetic version, but it sounds like it is a lot lighter so that's a plus. CRF is much less important to me now than in years past, but if you care about it then the Ruger will make you happy.
On a purely subjective note, I personally think the Tikka looks great...and the Ruger is one of the most butt-ugly rifles out there...but that's obviously personal taste.
As others have stated, you really need to handle both of them to make a decision which you can trust.
