Who makes the best Picatinny rail mount for a Tikka T1X MTR?

MapleSugar

MapleSugar

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
63   0   0
Location
On the loose
I was finally able to score a Left-Hand, Tikka T1X MTR and I was wondering who makes the best Picatinny rail mount for them?

I'm only looking for a 0 MOA rail as I don't plan on shooting it past 100M.

A steel rail would be preferable, but I've only found aluminum ones available.

It really pisses me off that they don't come standard with the gun like they do on the T3X CTR.


R.950227d5fa59e2f6ae4ffa0fee2fafed
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if PR Precision makes Tikka rails for the T1X but that'd be where I'd look first. He seems to make very nice stuff and is a site sponsor. I'm going to order a 20moa rail from him soon for a CTR build. If that turns our to be a dead end, I'd order from Mountain Tactical out of Montana. I have a ton of their products on various T3x' and they're all quality. Might take a few weeks to get across the border but they're worth the wait.
 
Dorian Gray said:
I'm not sure if PR Precision makes Tikka rails for the T1X but that'd be where I'd look first. He seems to make very nice stuff and is a site sponsor. I'm going to order a 20moa rail from him soon for a CTR build. If that turns our to be a dead end, I'd order from Mountain Tactical out of Montana. I have a ton of their products on various T3x' and they're all quality. Might take a few weeks to get across the border but they're worth the wait.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I've been looking at the Mountain Tactical rails, but I've never even heard of PR Precision before.

He makes some really nice steel rails for the T3X, but I don't see any for the T1X. I'll have to phone him and ask.

He's not too far away from me, either.

https://www.prprecisionrifles.com/products-1/p/tikka-t3-picatinny-scope-mount
 
Last edited:
The buyer still got to shove up the additional money for it..and like you said, it make it non competitive with other brand. Buyer beware..shop shop shop.
 
May I suggest you don't limit yourself to a 0 moa base. Getting a 15 or 20moa base is not going to have a negative effect in shooting out to 100m, will likely cost the same as a zero moa, it will be easier to find them in stock and you never know, you may get a chance to shoot further than 100m someday and want a little extra elevation when you dial your scope...better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
 
grauhanen said:
No other European-made .22LR comes standard with a Picatinny rail. The addition of a 0 MOA rail as a standard part of the package would raise the price of the rifle in a competitve market and may not appeal to many shooters.
Click to expand...

Yet, both of my Rugers had them included and they cost much less than my Tikka T1X.

Dovetails on rimfires are obsolete. It would be nice if manufacturers got with the 21st century.

If it were up to me, Picatinny rails would be machined directly into the receiver.
 
Last edited:
TonyMo said:
May I suggest you don't limit yourself to a 0 moa base. Getting a 15 or 20moa base is not going to have a negative effect in shooting out to 100m, will likely cost the same as a zero moa, it will be easier to find them in stock and you never know, you may get a chance to shoot further than 100m someday and want a little extra elevation when you dial your scope...better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but it's not that I don't have anywhere to shoot past 100M, I just don't like to with a .22LR.

I find that my groups open up too much and I can't keep 10 shots in under an inch.

For targets 200M and out, I'd rather just shoot a .223 Rem.
 
MapleSugar said:
Yet, both of my Rugers had them included and they cost much less than my Tikka T1X.

Dovetails on rimfires are obsolete. It would be nice if manufacturers got with the 21st century.

If it were up to me, Picatinny rails would be machined directly into the receiver.
Click to expand...

Yet, despite your claim of dovetail obsolescence, European manufacturers continue to only make rimfire rifles with dovetail grooves. Other than the alleged advantage of having Picatinny or Weaver-style bases on your Rugers, are either of them better performing rifles than European models?

You must accept that, unlike many North American manufacturers, European rifle makers and shooters are not as wedded to the idea of Picatinny/Weaver-style scope mounting being necessary on rimfire rifles. Dovetail grooves and rings are able to mount scopes without issue. It's not like rimfire has any significant recoil to deal with. There's nothing that a 0 MOA base can do (other than the obvious ability to use different rings) that good dovetail rings don't do.

Besides, if a 0 MOA rail was included with every rifle regardless of origin, there would always be shooters complaining that they prefer a canted rail which would cost extra. Furthermore, if a rail was machined directly into the receiver, that couldn't satisfy everyone -- would it be 0, 20, or 30 MOA?
 
grauhanen said:
Yet, despite your claim of dovetail obsolescence, European manufacturers continue to only make rimfire rifles with dovetail grooves. Other than the alleged advantage of having Picatinny or Weaver-style bases on your Rugers, are either of them better performing rifles than European models?

You must accept that, unlike many North American manufacturers, European rifle makers and shooters are not as wedded to the idea of Picatinny/Weaver-style scope mounting being necessary on rimfire rifles. Dovetail grooves and rings are able to mount scopes without issue. It's not like rimfire has any significant recoil to deal with. There's nothing that a 0 MOA base can do (other than the obvious ability to use different rings) that good dovetail rings don't do.

Besides, if a 0 MOA rail was included with every rifle regardless of origin, there would always be shooters complaining that they prefer a canted rail which would cost extra. Furthermore, if a rail was machined directly into the receiver, that couldn't satisfy everyone -- would it be 0, 20, or 30 MOA?
Click to expand...

You sound like you're trapped in the 50's.

Technology has moved on and some people like to be able to remove a scope from a rifle and have it return to zero when they reinstall it.

Or, they like to be able to use the same rings and mounts for their centerfire and rimfire rifles.

Comparing U.S. or European made rifles is also ridiculous, they are all cheaply made nowadays. I was disappointed to pull my Tikka out of the box and to see how much plastic there is on it and how lame the plastic magazines are.

Will it stack up to my 452's? I doubt it. But it offers a similar platform to my T3X's.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY makes the perfect rimfire. Only the CZ 452's came close in my opinion, and even they are a PITA because the dovetails are different between the Luxes and Americans. Most rings that work on one rifle will simply not work on the other, and they never seem to sit just right either.

Can you not comprehend how having a proven mounting system that is compatible with every rifle type would be advantageous?

I doubt that you speak for European shooters in regards to their scope mounting preferences. I suspect that they too would prefer a reliable and universal mounting system.

As for worrying about the angle of the mount, that's a ridiculous concern. There are enough one-piece mounting systems with MOA built into them already to meet the needs of anyone requiring more elevation adjustments at long range.

Simply put, your argument just doesn't hold any water.
 
MapleSugar said:
You sound like you're trapped in the 50's.

Comparing U.S. or European made rifles is also ridiculous, they are all cheaply made nowadays.

Simply put, your argument just doesn't hold any water.
Click to expand...

It's possible my argument doesn't make sense. But it may be you who is trapped.

For only one of us there remains a seemingly incomprehensible problem of why dovetails rather than Picatinny/Weaver-style rails prevail on rifles made by current and past European sporter rimfire manufacturers, including Anschutz, Brno, CZ, Mauser, Sako, Steyr, Tikka, Walther, Weihrauch and Zastava, among others.

If all current European and North American rimfire rifles are equally cheaply made, you will do well to avoid dovetail rifles such as CZ and Tikka and stick with North American rifles such as Ruger and Savage and their Picatinny/Weaver-style bases. Then you might rail only about the performance of your rifles.
 
grauhanen said:
It's possible my argument doesn't make sense. But it may be you who is trapped.

For only one of us there remains a seemingly incomprehensible problem of why dovetails rather than Picatinny/Weaver-style rails prevail on rifles made by current and past European sporter rimfire manufacturers, including Anschutz, Brno, CZ, Mauser, Sako, Steyr, Tikka, Walther, Weihrauch and Zastava, among others.

If all current European and North American rimfire rifles are equally cheaply made, you will do well to avoid dovetail rifles such as CZ and Tikka and stick with North American rifles such as Ruger and Savage and their Picatinny/Weaver-style bases. Then you might rail only about the performance of your rifles.
Click to expand...

Why are you continuing to argue in this thread?

I asked the simple question of "Who makes the best Picatinny rail mount for a Tikka T1X MTR?" and you've failed to answer it.

Instead, you've focused on an off-the-cuff comment and insist on making your unwanted opinion known.

Do you even own a Tikka T1X?

Meanwhile, you can start your own thread on the merits of dovetail grooves on European rimfire receivers.

I'm sure that it will enthrall the masses.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom