The difference to me is what goes in and what comes out for my money. Not saying you or anyone else shouldn’t choose the Tikka, it just isn’t for me. Like I said they are decent rifles, especially considering the competition. I tolerate the plastic of Glock simply because they’re designed that way from the ground up, and it works. The G17 was my duty weapon for years. Didn’t care for the Glock design that much at first but in time grew to truly appreciate the simplicity and reliability. I do ideally prefer a good 1911 but if they made a 1911 with plastic parts I would laugh at it. Now if the world as we know it ended tomorrow and I could only carry 1 gun it’s a Glock 17. Room for 2 guns? Glock 17 and 1956 Winchester feather weight ‘06. Seems like a contradiction of preferences, I know, but life is just chock full of those. I have tried most of ‘em in one form or another and, I have decided what works best for me. I do kind of wish I had bought a few Tilkka rifles when the T3 was well under $500 new at my local shop. Prices have gone up too much lately for me to justify it because, yes they are cheaply made. Not crude or badly made, just made to cut costs of production obviously as much possible and maximize the profit. That’s business I get it. Personally I don’t like the bottom plastic (ought to be saying bottom metal) and really don’t care for the magazine and release, but there are aftermarket parts for that if needed or wanted. I helped a friend recently select a new rifle and strongly recommended the Tikka in .308 Winchester for him. It’s a good rifle. Accurate and reliable, and a fair value considering what else is available these days. Again, not against Tikka, just saying they aren’t for me and the reasons why. Really they are decent rifles, but for my money I would rather get an old Winchester and have a smith do it up like new. Old guns required hand fitting so the quality control was kind of baked in to the production process. There was a time when things were made at a fair price with the highest possible quality. They called it the 1950s…
This is true, the dollar has lost like 25% of its value in the past four years. I would most likely go with Tikka if a brand new gun were my only option. I perhaps should clarify that while I do think they’re cheaply made and also fairly good quality, this seems like a contradiction because there aren’t many things that we can say that about. Things are usually either cheaply made and poor quality or craft fully made (expensive) and high quality. Very seldom do we find affordable things (that by their nature must be cheaply made) that are simultaneously of decent quality. Tilkka somehow manages to accomplish this. Savage did too, for a while, but I think that ship sailed. That having been said, Tikka still isn’t my cup of tea. Aside from the aforementioned bottom plastic, etc., I personally don’t care for the enclosed receiver design. Also the trigger/safety design, while functionally sound, is not to my liking. I greatly prefer a 3 position safety on the bolt and an open trigger design, as found on the Mauser and Winchester. The reliability and inherent safety of these classic designs can’t be understated. Unfortunately these designs have been largely set aside in favor of newer designs that are less costly to produce. I have developed an appreciation for the old styles of craftsmanship and the new technology both.Fortunately for me there are still plenty of accurate old rifles available at fair prices just begging for restoration. My most recent project reviving a beat up pre 64 M70 with a new laminate stock, cerakote finish, fiber optic sights and a modern scope. She looks brand new at 75 years old and shoots lights out. I can’t imagine a better gun. I digress. Like you said we’re just arguing semantics and I think we can agree the Tikka is the probably the best value among current production bolt action rifles.
