Tikka T3 Owners/Users?

NAA

NAA

Akita Master Super Moderator
Moderating Team
Rating - 100%
233   0   0
Location
S. Van Isle, B.C.
Would be interested in hearing from any Tikka T3 owners/users. Interested in the wood/blued vs. synthetic/stainless vs synthetic blued experiences.

I'm very intrigued by the fact the Tikka website is offering the T3 series in .260 Remington. Anyone have one of those? :cool:
 
Last edited:
I don't own a T3 but I have its predecessor, the M695 Stainless in 30-06. Personally, I think that Tikka is the best value among bolt action rifles. Tikka is basically a Sako with a two lug bolt (Sako has three lugs) and a couple of plastic non-stressed parts (trigger guard, bolt shroud and magazine). Other than that, there's not much difference between the two. Sako and Tikka are made at the same factory, come with identical hammer forged barrels, and have the same level of accuracy and fit and finish. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how Sako manages to stay in business offering essentially the same gun at twice the price.

But in any case, I'm quite happy with my Tikka. Out of the box, it's a much better gun that similarly priced rifles from American gunmakers.
 
Last edited:
I absolutely detest straight combs, I only bought it because I wanted a .25-06 and that's what was there. Tops in my books will always be the Weatherby as a general hunting gun, and the M98 for a DGR. T3 feels like a toy to me, as does the new Sako 85 for that matter...
 
Last edited:
capp325 said:
I don't own a T3 but I have its predecessor, the M695 Stainless in 30-06. Personally, I think that Tikka is the best value among bolt action rifles. Tikka is basically a Sako with a two lug bolt (Sako has three lugs) and a couple of plastic non-stressed parts (trigger guard, bolt shroud and magazine). Other than that, there's not much difference between the two. Sako and Tikka are made at the same factory, come with identical hammer forged barrels, and have the same level of accuracy and fit and finish. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how Sako manages to stay in business offering essentially the same gun at twice the price.

But in any case, I'm quite happy with my Tikka. Out of the box, it's a much better gun that similarly priced rifles from American gunmakers.
Click to expand...

+1

I already have a 695 stainless/synthetic in 6.5x55mm and a 595 blued/synthetic in .308 Win - but I gotta admit a Tikka T3 in .260 Rem sounds very interesting... :cool:
 
NAA said:
+1

I already have a 695 stainless/synthetic in 6.5x55mm and a 595 blued/synthetic in .308 Win - but I gotta admit a Tikka T3 in .260 Rem sounds very interesting... :cool:
Click to expand...

Well when you decide to buy the T3 I'd be more than willing to take that 695, 6.5x55 of your hands. Seriously, if you end up going with the T3 .260 keep me in mind for your 695. :)
 
I have one, but I'm not exactly a member of the raving tikka fanboy cult. It works, but the plastic stock is unbelievably fugly. The metal finish is second rate. There's an excessive use of plastics in its construction. They're only made in long action, totally defeating the whole damn point of short action cartridges (ergo I'd get a 6.5x55 before I'd bother with a 260 in this particular case). They are quite accurate, but not especially so. The trigger is also very good, but has extremely limited adjustments (basically only weight of pull, down to about 2lbs). The bolt is smooth, but not out of this world smooth.

Altogether it's a good, functional gun with no frills. The problem, as I see it is the price. I honestly see nothing compelling about a t3 blued/synth over a Stevens 200, yet it's twice the price. Where does the extra money go? The stock is slightly better but the 'styling' is revolting, there's no accuracy difference, the trigger is better out of the box but the stevens trigger has a lot more adjustments available. The Stevens, on the other hand, is available in actual short action short actions - which alone is enough to tilt the balance for me.

So, IMHO, it's a good gun, but over priced. For similar buck, you could get a CZ, or a Ruger 77, or even a remmi 700 (of which I am also not a huge fan, but don't hold any particular dislike of) - all of which feel much more 'quality' than the tikka.
 
Last edited:
bronco_mudder said:
Well when you decide to buy the T3 I'd be more than willing to take that 695, 6.5x55 of your hands. Seriously, if you end up going with the T3 .260 keep me in mind for your 695. :)
Click to expand...

The 6.5x55mm won't be going anywhere, even if I do opt to pick up a T3 in .260 Rem at some point. But I appreciate the interest... :D

[BTW - you'd be about #5 in line according to all those who know I have it & claim 'dibs' if I ever decide to part with it... ;)]
 
prosper said:
For similar buck, you could get a CZ, or a Ruger 77, or even a remmi 700 (of which I am also not a huge fan, but don't hold any particular dislike of) - all of which feel much more 'quality' than the tikka.
Click to expand...

The CZ's out for me. Got plenty of Rem's so want to venture into something different. That leaves the Ruger... have had a MkII in 6.5x55mm before [should've never sold it] and have a tang safety in 7x57mm... not sure if I want the wood/blued MkII in .260 Rem... kind intrigued by the synthetic/blued Tikka T3.... :eek:
 
prosper said:
So, IMHO, it's a good gun, but over priced. For similar buck, you could get a CZ, or a Ruger 77, or even a remmi 700 (of which I am also not a huge fan, but don't hold any particular dislike of) - all of which feel much more 'quality' than the tikka.
Click to expand...
Did Tikka quality deteriorate in recent years? The old 595/695 is head and shoulders above Remington 700 and Ruger M77 in terms of fit and finish and workmanship.
 
Tikka 595/695 Series...

capp325 said:
Did Tikka quality deteriorate in recent years? The old 595/695 is head and shoulders above Remington 700 and Ruger M77 in terms of fit and finish and workmanship.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's too bad Tikka dropped the 595/695 line in favour of the T3 series. If they still made a 595 [short action] and offered it in a stainless/laminate in .260 Rem I'd be so all over that!
 
capp325 said:
Did Tikka quality deteriorate in recent years? The old 595/695 is head and shoulders above Remington 700 and Ruger M77 in terms of fit and finish and workmanship.
Click to expand...

Yes, it did. I was talking about the t3. The 595 is a whole nuther story. Get one of these if you can find one, and keep it
 
I sure don't like the T3 one length action fit's all. Especially when looking at true short action cartridges like 223. Still, the new action seems pretty slick.

Guess I should of bought both bargain basement S/S Bdl's in 260 when I had the chance.
 
I would say there are a LOT of Tikka fans out there. Here is a discussion on them in another gun forum:

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=14197

I have had a few of them, and the T3 Lite I have right now in 6.5 x 55 is looking like a keeper, which is something of a novelty for me. Mine is blued/synthetic, and I quite like pretty well everything about it. I admit it took me a while to get over the (EXPENSIVE) plastic mags, but they work very very well, in my own experience so far. I have NOT hunted these guns in sub-zero temperatures, where that may be a factor. But on Vancouver Island I reckon you are pretty safe.....:p

Just go for it, I have been waiting to buy a decent used .260 for a while.....:cool:

Doug
 
ltcpara said:
I have a T3 stainless laminate in 300wsm, and i love it. it looks cool and is very accurate. I did want to get a sako but they didnt have one in 300wsm.
Click to expand...

But - why get a 300 WSM in a t3? Given that the full 300 WM fits nicely into the exact same action as your WSM, what's the point?
 
chappy said:
i own one in 300wm. i think the short has better potential for accuracy than the wm at least in my experiance.
Click to expand...

Part of the reason why the WSM has a reputation of better accuracy than the WM is because it's chambered in shorter stiffer actions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom