save an extra $100...you saying go for the Steven's, eh?
Well, maybe. If you like it, go for it. Alot of people look at the T3 as an entry level rifle, I don't. To me, it's as good as a Remington, Browning, Ruger or many others, and is close to the same price bracket. But alot of people, for one reason or another don't like them. I never did, but I decided 'what the heck?' and bought one. I have to say I was impressed with it.
Now I have also owned a few 200's, and for the money you cannot go wrong. But in my opinion the Steven's isn't the same feature for feature as the T3. You can write about it all day long, but in the end you have to handle them and feel them to understand.
The final choice is yours. You need to decide what features you like. The obvious is the magazine. Do you want a detachable mag, or a blind mag. That will depend on how you plan on hunting. If you are going to spend alot of time cruising roads and hopping in and out of a car, the detachable magazine is a better choice. If you are going to load your rifle once in the Morning and unload it that night, or the next day, then the blind mag won't really bother you.
Next you need to decide what you like for feel. To me, the T3 stock doesn't feel like plastc, but more of a composite. The 200's stock is probably the same material, but it just doesn't feel the same. I do prefer the old style checkering of the 200 over the raised dots on the Tikka.
Next look at the other features. The Steven's safety is large and easy to get a purchase of. But the T3's is quiter. I trust the safety of the 200 more, as it feels more positive. Both rifles wear a hockey puck for a recoil pad, but the Stevens is thinner. If it's about right for your length of pull right now, it will probably be too long if you upgrade the pad later. The T3 has a thick pad, and I prefer too short of a pull to too long of a pull. Though I haven't seen a good pad for it yet.
While Savages are known for being accurate, so are Sako's. The T3 wears the same barrel as the Sako rifle. That may or may not be of concern to you, but I like that. Also a silly little thing. The Stevens rifle still has a slotted barrel nut. It's not a big deal, but that's just a little more of a pain whn it comes to dust and crap getting in there that you need to clean out and oil. Like I said, it's silly.
My biggest beef with the Tikka has always been on the bottom. I don't like plastic magazines, but they are very strong I know. The one thing that sits in the back of my mind is 10 years from now, and this rifle is discontinued, can I get spare parts like the magazine catch release? If the aftermarket ever offered replacement bottom metal, I would upgrade. And really, chances are none of thos parts are going to break under normal use, but like I said, it's still in the back of my mind.
But really, pick whatever you want, they will both treat you well I can almost promise you that. But it's in your scope selection that you should put the most weight on. I cannot trust a scope a whole lot. They can be easily bumped or jarred out of zero, it doesn't take much. I found that, especially with low quality scopes that is even more of a problem. That's why if someone asks me what my most trusted rifle is, I'll always say my iron sighted .30-30, because the four horsemen of the Apololypse themselves won't knock those sights out of place.
You will have more faith in better optics. I have a leupold scope on my T3 and my CZ. The .22 gets out alot, and does get bumped around a bit. But that scope holds it's zero even though it has every right to move. You also pay for how well your scope is going to behave at dawn and dusk. I found it's not so much how bright your scope is at these times, but how well you can cut through glare when pointing it towards the rising or setting sun.
Good luck with whatever you choose.
