Why the tikka T1X will change the rimfire game.

[Blairsville]

This is of course in my opinion, heck what else can I give

There are a few innovations that the T1X has introduced that will change the rimfire market from now on and they deserve credit for it.

Number one which is huge being able to for the most part just drop in a full size stock from another tikka rifle.

Two the exact same trigger as the center fire with adjustability without taking anything apart.

These two factors are so key for anyone wanting to use the rifle to practice there hunting riffle

The bolt is the same again so key for practice.

From here on in we will see the the other company’s follow suit.

This is a big deal and I’m so happy with my tikka in a Varmint stock with an out of the box top class trigger.

And 1/2 inch groups at 50yds

 

[Epoxy7]

Going to disagree. First off the Tikka regular stock sucks. I've never liked them and it's the main reason I held off with a tikka. The A1 tactical chassis system, Cadex , KRG and the other aftermarket stock/chassis companies have made the Tikka rifles viable here in North American. I actually looked at the T1X to drop into an A1 chassis. But of course the T1X rimfire doesn't currently fit in the A1 chassis, Cadex (which is cost prohibitive for a rimfire) or the KRG without a lot of modifications. Most of the other aftermarket stocks/chassis are also a no go for the T1X. Now even when KRG makes their bravo stock for the T1X, it's another $500. A plus $1000 rimfire is nothing new. I already have a few of those.

I think they still have work to do on this one before it will make any real impact. There are a lot of other $1000+ rimfire rifles I would rather have.

 

[Paul_T]

I've got a Grey Thumb hole CZ455 (fluted or varmint barrels in 22LR and 17HMR) and now the T1x in 22LR. For accuracy, trigger out of the box and bolt/action the T1x is superior (at least in 22LR).

Looking at the CZ 457 series coming down the pipe with the beautiful CZ wood stocks and similar features to the T1x we shall have to see.

The T1x has definitely been a step up at the price point.

Epoxy7 aftermarket stuff will come online as soon as manufacturers get their hands on the T1x. For an out of box great shooter for $650 it is a winner IMHO.

I take my rimfires out in the woods hunting and drop them etc so the CZ/Tikka line has been well suited for that as well as bench rest shooting for me.

 

[Epoxy7]

I've got a Grey Thumb hole CZ455 (fluted or varmint barrels in 22LR and 17HMR) and now the T1x in 22LR. For accuracy, trigger out of the box and bolt/action the T1x is superior (at least in 22LR).

Looking at the CZ 457 series coming down the pipe with the beautiful CZ wood stocks and similar features to the T1x we shall have to see.

The T1x has definitely been a step up at the price point.

Epoxy7 aftermarket stuff will come online as soon as manufacturers get their hands on the T1x. Since it is a $650 rifle out of the box it is well below the $1k you speak of.

$650 + 500 for a KRG bravo to make it a trainer isn't well below the price point. A cheap plastic stock isn't my idea of worth it price wise. I don't expect a $650 rimfire to come in a cheap tupperware stock. If they come with a nice wood stock for the $650 price range than it will be worth reconsidering. The stock has been the weak point with the Tikka centerfires for a long time and is why until recently I avoided Tikka. I have opted for the A1 chassis version and will build another centerfire in the Bravo stock. Putting the T1X in the same stock, or allowing you to use that same mediocre stock isn't a "feature". Putting it into a decent option as mentioned brings the cost over $1000.

 

[grauhanen]

People sometimes note an ostensible similarity between shooting a .22LR at 100 yards and a centerfire like a .308 at three times the distance. Despite the winnowed wisdom of the internet often repeating that it is true, I don't know if this comparison is accurate or fair (I don't shoot at 300 yards as my range is not that long). Repetition of something online doesn't make it true. And I don't know if shooting a .22LR really serves as an adequate practice substitute for a CF hunting rifle or a CF target rifle. In any case, the comparison seems better fodder for an entirely different thread.

The contention in the original post seems to be that the T1X fits the bill as a rifle to use as a substitute for a Tikka T3/T3X. That's undeniable. Perhaps it was the intention of Tikka to make a rimfire rifle that shared components and the footprint of its popular CF rifles and could therefore serve as a practice rifle. For Tikka shooters it is a boon and will undoubtedly prompt many of them to get the T1X, especially as aftermarket products become available.

Whether other rimfire manufacturers feel like they need to adapt to this game remains to be seen. It depends on the extent to which rimfire makers feel that they need to produce a rifle that acts as a practice rifle as well as serving the more traditional purposes of .22LRs and .17HMRs -- plinking, hunting, pesting, and target shooting.

 

[.22LRGUY]

People sometimes note an ostensible similarity between shooting a .22LR at 100 yards and a centerfire like a .308 at three times the distance. Despite the winnowed wisdom of the internet often repeating that it is true, I don't know if this comparison is accurate or fair (I don't shoot at 300 yards as my range is not that long). Repetition of something online doesn't make it true. And I don't know if shooting a .22LR really serves as an adequate practice substitute for a CF hunting rifle or a CF target rifle. In any case, the comparison seems better fodder for an entirely different thread.

The contention in the original post seems to be that the T1X fits the bill as a rifle to use as a substitute for a Tikka T3/T3X. That's undeniable. Perhaps it was the intention of Tikka to make a rimfire rifle that shared components and the footprint of its popular CF rifles and could therefore serve as a practice rifle. For Tikka shooters it is a boon and will undoubtedly prompt many of them to get the T1X, especially as aftermarket products become available.

Whether other rimfire manufacturers feel like they need to adapt to this game remains to be seen. It depends on the extent to which rimfire makers feel that they need to produce a rifle that acts as a practice rifle as well as serving the more traditional purposes of .22LRs and .17HMRs -- plinking, hunting, pesting, and target shooting.

^I'm inclined to agree. I don't see the Tikka as a "game changer" in any way really, just an interesting/good addition to a line up of very good rifles from a reputable manufacturer. I've never heard anyone say they like the tupperware stocks Tikka make, most people tolerate them because the build quality of the rest of the gun (minus the mags maybe) is about as good as you're going to get in a factory gun at that price. I plan on getting a T3X Varmint in 204R myself in the next year or so, and provided the stock is rigid enough that it doesn't touch the barrel when shooting prone off a bipod...no modification or upgrade is likely to ever happen.

There is probably merit in the theory that shooting a T1X will be beneficial if you're running a T3X centerfire. Then again, it's sort of anecdotal..unless you compare with people running other brands of rimfires THEN shooting their T3X. To me, real performance results happen with decent guns that are used allot, running ammo they like. If a guy shooting CZ452s 10X more than a T1X shooter uses his rimfire..will the fact that it's a T1X make any difference when both guys pick up a T3? Highly unlikely.

All that said, I like the T1X..and would love to try shooting one. It would have to be a very stellar gun to rattle my CZ/Anschutz sensibilities!

 

[Got Juice?]

Whether other rimfire manufacturers feel like they need to adapt to this game remains to be seen. It depends on the extent to which rimfire makers feel that they need to produce a rifle that acts as a practice rifle as well as serving the more traditional purposes of .22LRs and .17HMRs -- plinking, hunting, pesting, and target shooting.

Newsflash... Ruger Precision Rimfire Rifle?

 

[metalbender]

Money saver for the company, Same stock, one less to manufacture. Cost cutting means profit.

 

[IvoB]

Money saver for the company, Same stock, one less to manufacture. Cost cutting means profit.

This ^^^
and... hopefully these profits get reinvested into new / improved products

 

[grauhanen]

Newsflash... Ruger Precision Rimfire Rifle?

Thanks for the newsflash. I've never used any Ruger rifles. Perhaps the Ruger American Rimfire serves as a trainer for the Ruger American. Out of curiosity does the name "Precision Rimfire Rifle" imply the rifle has a top level of precision or accuracy?

Are there any others that can be added to the list?

 

[Mike112288]

The tikka rimfire I had and sold shot very very good groups with Aguila superextra ammo but from the groups I’m seeing posted here either the shooter is not too skilled or the gun can’t stand the ammo. The cz 457 will be nice too I’m sure accept for the same barre installation design as the 455. The 452 shines in that dept

 

[Got Juice?]

Thanks for the newsflash. I've never used any Ruger rifles. Perhaps the Ruger American Rimfire serves as a trainer for the Ruger American. Out of curiosity does the name "Precision Rimfire Rifle" imply the rifle has a top level of precision or accuracy?

Are there any others that can be added to the list?

He He, tongue in cheek of course

Back to your question, i think it was marketed as a separate entity, the chassis being 7/8 scale, some parts are the same, whilst others are not. So as far as being a scale trainer... it is very close.

Accuracy results have looked promising.

And the best part is that we shooters win. "competition improves the breed"

 

[KDX]

People sometimes note an ostensible similarity between shooting a .22LR at 100 yards and a centerfire like a .308 at three times the distance. Despite the winnowed wisdom of the internet often repeating that it is true, I don't know if this comparison is accurate or fair (I don't shoot at 300 yards as my range is not that long). Repetition of something online doesn't make it true. And I don't know if shooting a .22LR really serves as an adequate practice substitute for a CF hunting rifle or a CF target rifle. In any case, the comparison seems better fodder for an entirely different thread.

The contention in the original post seems to be that the T1X fits the bill as a rifle to use as a substitute for a Tikka T3/T3X. That's undeniable. Perhaps it was the intention of Tikka to make a rimfire rifle that shared components and the footprint of its popular CF rifles and could therefore serve as a practice rifle. For Tikka shooters it is a boon and will undoubtedly prompt many of them to get the T1X, especially as aftermarket products become available.

Whether other rimfire manufacturers feel like they need to adapt to this game remains to be seen. It depends on the extent to which rimfire makers feel that they need to produce a rifle that acts as a practice rifle as well as serving the more traditional purposes of .22LRs and .17HMRs -- plinking, hunting, pesting, and target shooting.

.22lr @ 300 yards

.308 @ 1000 yards

 

[yodave]

pull the chart for 155 grain bullets at 1000 and you'll see it's closer to the rimfire at 300 then the 168 grain data

 

[KDX]

Well that kind of blows the old "People sometimes note an ostensible similarity between shooting a .22LR at 100 yards and a centerfire like a .308 at three times the distance. Despite the winnowed wisdom of the internet often repeating that it is true, I don't know if this comparison is accurate or fair (I don't shoot at 300 yards as my range is not that long). Repetition of something online doesn't make it true" out of the water.

 

[yodave]

Well that kind of blows the old "People sometimes note an ostensible similarity between shooting a .22LR at 100 yards and a centerfire like a .308 at three times the distance. Despite the winnowed wisdom of the internet often repeating that it is true, I don't know if this comparison is accurate or fair (I don't shoot at 300 yards as my range is not that long). Repetition of something online doesn't make it true" out of the water.

wind drift on the 155 grain full bore in the same conditions is 5.25 MOA at 1000 yards compared to that of 6.5 MOA of the rimfire at 300 yards, but what do we know?? we've only been telling everyone this on the internet since before the web's time when it was preached to us in the old books

 

[KDX]

Guy does a test at 300 yards and then talks about ballistics.

 

[Got Juice?]

wind drift on the 155 grain full bore in the same conditions is 5.25 MOA at 1000 yards compared to that of 6.5 MOA of the rimfire at 300 yards, but what do we know?? we've only been telling everyone this on the internet since before the web's time when it was preached to us in the old books

LMAO, I simply stopped pointing it out... save my breath for worthwhile advice.. not that I have much to give

 

[grauhanen]

Well that kind of blows the old "People sometimes note an ostensible similarity between shooting a .22LR at 100 yards and a centerfire like a .308 at three times the distance. Despite the winnowed wisdom of the internet often repeating that it is true, I don't know if this comparison is accurate or fair (I don't shoot at 300 yards as my range is not that long). Repetition of something online doesn't make it true" out of the water.

As I said, I didn't know if the comparison was accurate or fair. Perhaps, as KDX suggests, repetition does make what's on the internet true. Further consideration seems warranted.

wind drift on the 155 grain full bore in the same conditions is 5.25 MOA at 1000 yards compared to that of 6.5 MOA of the rimfire at 300 yards, but what do we know?? we've only been telling everyone this on the internet since before the web's time when it was preached to us in the old books

A good bit of information from the net and ballistics tables that have long been available. My interest is piqued. I've never shot either round at either distance. Do any posters here shoot a .22LR at 300 yards as good practice for shooting the CF round at 1000?

Considering how very much the challenges of shooting a .22LR increases with distance, perhaps a shorter distance with it would be more useful. The following is from 6mmBR.com http://www.6mmbr.com/rimfiretactical.html



According to the information here, shooting the .22LR at 100 yards, which is at its more reasonable limits for consistent accuracy, is comparable to shooting a reasonable load of .308 at 230 yards. These ranges seem more realistic for shooters to use than the 300 and 1000 yards referred to above for practical (but not impossible or insurmountable) scope mounting reasons if nothing else.

I have no experience with using a .22LR as a trainer for CF rifle shooting. I understand a fundamental reason to use the .22LR is that it is much less expensive than CF ammo, a selling point that no doubt some shooters use to sway a tight fisted spouse into accepting the need for another rifle. Another obvious difference between the two is recoil. A shooter can shoot a .22LR for a long time without any discomfort whatsoever from recoil. Is anything lost by not using a rifle with the same recoil? I gather that wind doping skills acquired with the rimfire can be transferred to CF shooting at the appropriate ranges. What other skills can be acquired as a result of using a .22LR in place of a CF rifle?

 

[RabidM4U5]

Well, back on track... I'm not sure I see anything "game-changing" about the Tikka T1X. When I want to practice my hunting rifle, I shoot a box of ammo with it, not a .22. The concept might have some merits for PRS style shooters, but now think Vudoo rifle in a chassis and a Rem 700 build vs. a pair of Tikka hunting rifles... All I really see with the T1X is just another moderately priced factory rifle with decent, but not incredible, accuracy capabilities. Nothing about it moves me to buy one. I'll save the money to buy ammo to feed to my custom .22's.