Action Design For Hunting

[nm.otter]

I just want to go on record as proof that you can like (love) Tikka rifles and still acknowledge that a 3-position safety on a bolt action rifle is objectively better.

I'll again point to the Sako 85/90 safety system. It's not 3-position per se, but delivers the same functionality in what I believe to be a more intuitive (and possibly safer) manner.

 

[Kjc103]

I don’t think anyone is forcing anyone else to only buy Tikkas. If you feel they are unsafe then absolutely buy whatever platform you think gives you the best safety.
That being said there are more accidental discharges from weapons believed to be unloaded than from the design of Tikka’s safety system and in those instances the best safety is following the rules for safe firearms handling.

Tikkas are not unsafe, they’re awesome.

They’re not ideal for carrying it with a round chambered, very few rifles are. Very few can do this safely,

 

[Marbles]

I'll again point to the Sako 85/90 safety system. It's not 3-position per se, but delivers the same functionality in what I believe to be a more intuitive (and possibly safer) manner.

Like this?


People who think safeties make a rifle safe are a little scary. Once the design hits a certain level of reliability, the difference is the user.

The Tikka design is prone to two user errors, failure to adequately reinstall the trigger, and users making the trigger less safe with aftermarket springs.

The question then becomes, how do you use the rifle and what is good enough. A lighter spring in a range queen is not as concerning as a lighter spring in a hunting rifle, and a lighter spring in a combat rifle is flat unacceptable.

 

[Formidilosus]

Tikkas are not unsafe, they’re awesome.

They’re not ideal for carrying it with a round chambered, very few rifles are. Very few can do this safely,

What are you talking about?

 

[amassi]

You really that worried about opening the bolt with the safety off?

It’s time some of these posters take up pickleball


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amassi]

I have heard this said many times. I cant wrap my head around it. Why would it matter if you had to take the safety off before unloading a chambered round?

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

Well you see- Guns are hard to grip without placing your finger in the trigger guard and pulling the trigger for maximum control especially when your booger picker is extra slick


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wapitibob]

Safety is off and rifle can be fired, who'd of thought..

 

[amassi]

Yes sir. IMO the only time the safety should be in the fire position is when the weapon is about to be fired, or dry fired on the range. I would especially be concerned about putting a weapon like this in the hands of a youth. Just another way to have an accident IMO.

To each its own though. My reason for responding was due to how much I like the X-Bolt’s locking bolt system, the safety location, and being able to unload it while the safety is in the safe position.

You’d be shocked how many “safe” x bolts get negligently discharged every year when trying to unload
You either are capable of handling a firearm in all conditions or you are not capable. There is no work around and in BACOS case certainly no magic button


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BLJ]

People who think safeties make a rifle safe are a little scary

 

[ddd-shooter]

The PRINCIPLES are what’s foolproof, not the mechanical device in your possession.

Yes, hunters who look for a mechanical way to make up for their negligence are the issue.
OP used the negligent examples in this thread to justify the need for a company to “fool proof” his rifle.
If you’re at the ready, be at the ready! Carry a round chambered with confidence.
If you’re on a horse, or at camp, or in a vehicle, or otherwise not in control of the rifle- don’t have a round chambered!

I walked two miles yesterday looking for squirrels with a group of 6 people-3 children. My lever action .22 mag didn’t have a safety. (Shocker) No one was injured, because we practice proper firearms handling.
I can also carry a revolver that’s loaded, shotguns with no safeties, etc.

The PRINCIPLES are what’s foolproof, not the mechanical device in your possession.

 

[goalie]

Having the ability to both lock the bolt on safe as well as cycle the bolt on safe is a good thing.

Three position safety is objectively > 2 position

It doesn't mean a rifle with a 2 position safety is unsafe or bad.

 

[grfox92]

Well you see- Guns are hard to grip without placing your finger in the trigger guard and pulling the trigger for maximum control especially when your booger picker is extra slick


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For real. I guess when it's time to unload, a lot of guys are pointing their rifles at their friends and family and maniacally running the bolt until the gun is empty. Think of Jack Nicholson in the shining, they have that look on their face when they are doing it.

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

 

[rookieforever33]

Agree with many above that the ultimate safety of the rifle is the user. If there are mechanical designs that you prefer to "help" you remain safe, buy one of those. Chances are you will find a rifle with features you like that still outshoots you even if it isn't a mythical tikka. I have different guns, with different safety designs, I treat every one the same if its a 3 position, 2 position, hammer fired, striker fired, or slingshot. By following all fundamental rules of firearm safety.

 

[REWIND]

For anyone worried about the Tikka style safety, I think the safety design on the CZ 600s are great alternative. The vertical tang safety plus the button forward of the bolt to allow unloading on safe make it unlikely to be accidentally moved to fire position. The 600s aren’t as well received as the 550s but still a good “modern day” rifle. I have both and they perform equally well.

 

[Chris in TN]

My preference is the 3 position on model 70s. I do enjoy the fact that I can unload a 700 with the safety on.

Almost useless trivia: older 700's (I mean back in the 1970's) had an extension on the front of the safety lever that locked the bolt. I'm not sure when they switched but it was probably/maybe the late 70's or early 80's.

 

[43.6N]

I’m going to stir some sh*t up with this post, no doubt. So trigger warning if you’re trying to keep your blood pressure down.

I think the fatal flaw in the Tikka action for hunting is that it is not rock solid safe to carry a round in the chamber. If you do carry it hot, even if it’s unlikely, that safety can be flicked off and that trigger can snag on any number of things and go off. To a lesser extent, the bolt could flip open, though I have never personally had that happen.

This is the only reason I have not gone all in on a Rokstok-Tikka build. I am 1,000 percent convinced of every other argument for that action, I have had one before. It’s just as smooth as a $1,500 custom actions (maybe smoother), it’s durable, the trigger is excellent and reliable, etc etc. All undeniable.

I have a dozen or so custom’s built on 700 custom clones. They’re all collecting dust right now for the same reason. In fact, they’re probably worse in this regard. I did have a stiller long action safety get bumped going through brush once.

The best safety designs? Blaser R8 (Sauer 505 too), Ruger M77. The blaser cannot possibly fire, there is no energy in the firing pin. It is totally inert until cocked. The M77 locks all the way back and snug against the bolt. It’s not protruding, it has zero play, and you can physically see metal on metal blocking that firing pin from dropping. The edge goes to the blaser design here but I’ll argue all day the merits of the M77. They’re rock freaking solid. Unfortunately, there’s just not a lot of good aftermarket options for a modern lightweight stock.

The Winchester model 70 and any similar with the largish blade are better than tikka/remington but I’m only like 85 percent confident carrying an M70. I want to be 100 percent. The safety is always a little loose fitting and not confidence inspiring.

I’m open to the MCR Marshall whenever that comes out. I’ll buy one and try it.

So what exactly is the question you are asking?
Because here is how it is reading to me:

You don’t trust any safety that has an exposed lever? You want to use the popular tikka as the example of a poorly designed safety and the browning as an example of a good safety? You want to backpack and brush bust with a loaded gun and rely 100% on the safety to prevent ND?

OK, but people will rightly take issue with those points. Nobody can help with your confidence or trust level with any particular system.

I agree that the blaser cocking piece/safety is a mechanically great idea.
I also agree that a 3 position safety is a feature that a lot of people value.
But neither of those points lead to the conclusion that a tikka safety is inherently inadequate or dangerous.

Again to be blunt: nobody should ever be so trusting of any mechanical safety to rely on it to the exclusion of safe gun handling.

Finally, the story about my uncle is an example of negligent gun handling. Full stop. Something that everyone is at risk of regardless of the mechanical features of their gun.

 

[goalie]

I also agree that a 3 position safety is a feature that a lot of people value.
But neither of those points lead to the conclusion that a tikka safety is inherently inadequate or dangerous.

Nailed it. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[bnewt3]

EVERY. SINGLE. THING. in the world has a compromise. Convenience vs safety, performance vs cost, freedom vs security, safety vs options......everything is a compromise.

Personally I think this is a big nothing burger. Dont carry one in the chamber if it bothers you. Do some practice identifying a target, chambering a round, and getting on target. Ill bet with just a bit of training, you wont feel like you are losing anything. Especially with a slick, well-feeding rifle like a Tikka.