Close to Giving Up on Rifles

manitou1

WKR
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
1,937
Location
Wyoming
Wow, I can't begin to count the guns I have bought/sold over my lifetime.

I had problems with only two. Both functioned fine but were inaccurate with no visible or operational defects.
Of the five X-Bolts I have/had... zero problems.

You must have terrible luck.
 

Craig907

FNG
Joined
Dec 8, 2024
Messages
5
Whats the difference? The quoted sections seem like a double standard. One could easily say the same about a lot of things, “it ought to be metal” (or wood or x or y or z). But if it “shoots” and feeds and doesnt cause future reliability issues, and is pretty easy to correct yourself if anything is wrong or you prefer otherwise…not to mention having production tolerances such that any legit barrel shop will happily spin up a shouldered pre-fit, and an action that makes the legit “cheap” rifles feel like they’re full of sand…why quibble??

Fwiw, new stock tikka t3x lite stainless at 2 different local gunshops is $759, blued 659. Its about $100 less than MSRP, but a new tikka can still be had under 800 at full msrp. Coincidentally, that’s not that much more $ than a (plastic) glock.
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…
 

Macintosh

WKR
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
2,819
@Craig907 I thinknwe’re mostly on the same page, its maybe semantics Im reacting to. To be fair, over the past 20 years the US to Eu currency conversion has shifted over 30% to the negative if you are manufacturing and selling rifles from finland to the US…so more than half the price change from $500 to today isnt profit, its simply exchange rate. Beyond that, virtually no other products are holding prices from 15-20 years ago either, why should rifles be different? Dont know about anyone else but I haven't seen 1.99/dozen eggs or a $20,000 price tag on a brand new truck in a while. And, while I cant argue preference, everything you are saying is in line with my point—you summed up that your quibbles are preferences yourself. I dont disagree with that and I share much of your preference. Its the (probably unintentional) grouping them in with the rest of the problems in that post and the characterization of “cheaply made” (your words were: “not inexpensive (not anymore), just “cheap”) that I disagree with, when these are also your own words (which I also agree with):

It’s a good rifle. Accurate and reliable, and a fair value considering what else is available these days.

I think at least some people will equate your earlier “just cheap” characterization of tikkas with what you said about other brands—bad crowns, chatter marks on metal, 3-4moa precision in many examples, and outright defective guns. Im simply differentiating between “well made but with concessions to hit a price point” versus “cheaply made”, which to me is a major difference. So many people lament that manufacturers have stopped offering good quality BASIC no-frills products that dont cost an arm and a leg—functionally good products that make aesthetic or feature sacrifices to stay reasonably priced—well, here’s a perfect example of that, I think we should keep sight of it. If people want a good, smooth, reliable and accurate rifle, a tikka offers that. But if you prefer no molded or plastic parts, scaled action sizes and a nicely finished and checkered walnut or a carbon stock, well, break out the credit card, that $800 price point isnt where they're going to find it from any manufacturer.
 
Last edited:

Craig907

FNG
Joined
Dec 8, 2024
Messages
5
@Craig907 I thinknwe’re mostly on the same page, its maybe semantics Im reacting to. To be fair, over the past 20 years the US to Eu currency conversion has shifted over 30% to the negative if you are manufacturing and selling rifles from finland to the US…so more than half the price change from $500 to today isnt profit, its simply exchange rate. Beyond that, virtually no other products are holding prices from 15-20 years ago either, why should rifles be different? Dont know about anyone else but I haven't seen 1.99/dozen eggs or a $20,000 price tag on a brand new truck in a while. And, while I cant argue preference, everything you are saying is in line with my point—you summed up that your quibbles are preferences yourself. I dont disagree with that and I share much of your preference. Its the (probably unintentional) grouping them in with the rest of the problems in that post and the characterization of “cheaply made” (your words were: “not inexpensive (not anymore), just “cheap”) that I disagree with, when these are also your own words (which I also agree with):



I think at least some people will equate your earlier “just cheap” characterization of tikkas with what you said about other brands—bad crowns, chatter marks on metal, 3-4moa precision in many examples, and outright defective guns. Im simply differentiating between “well made but with concessions to hit a price point” versus “cheaply made”, which to me is a major difference. So many people lament that manufacturers have stopped offering good quality BASIC no-frills products that dont cost an arm and a leg—functionally good products that make aesthetic or feature sacrifices to stay reasonably priced—well, here’s a perfect example of that, I think we should keep sight of it. If people want a good, smooth, reliable and accurate rifle, a tikka offers that. But if you prefer no molded or plastic parts, scaled action sizes and a nicely finished and checkered walnut or a carbon stock, well, break out the credit card, that $800 price point isnt where they're going to find it from any manufacturer.
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.
 

Jon C

FNG
Joined
May 17, 2017
Messages
62
Location
Wisconsin
Bought 3 xprs,1 x bolt,1 Ruger American and 1 Christiansen arms and all were great other than the clunker Christensen. These were all bought since covid. 3 tikkas pre covid have been great.
 

Craig907

FNG
Joined
Dec 8, 2024
Messages
5
Bought 3 xprs,1 x bolt,1 Ruger American and 1 Christiansen arms and all were great other than the clunker Christensen. These were all bought since covid. 3 tikkas pre covid have been great.
Christiansen puzzles me. I see more of them for sale used than new, and they cost thousands of dollars either way. Clearly they have significant problems, and yet people keep buying them. No one is going to get rid of an accurate rifle unless he’s behind on his mortgage or he just inherited it from grandpa and doesn’t know any better.
 

KenLee

WKR
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
2,561
Location
South Carolina
Christiansen puzzles me. I see more of them for sale used than new, and they cost thousands of dollars either way. Clearly they have significant problems, and yet people keep buying them. No one is going to get rid of an accurate rifle unless he’s behind on his mortgage or he just inherited it from grandpa and doesn’t know any better.
You left out "divorce is imminent and she knows you have a bunch of guns, but she doesn't have an accurate inventory of them" and "ran out of $ building a new house".
I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons folks need to sell accurate rifles.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
1,225
Location
Kansas
You can easily build a rifle for just a little more then the price of that Kimber or Sako 85.
or
Check the gun classifieds on here and other hunting/shooting forums. Guys are selling proven shooters all the time at great prices. A lot of these adds have pictures of groups shot and are willing to give out their load data that made those groups.
 

PsRpOiGrRiAtM

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
279
Location
Montana
In college, I bought a Ruger American as a first rifle in 2020. It shoots nice groups, but my magazines have never fed correctly out of it. Lucky if I can even get a follow up shot with it. It hasn’t ever costed me an animal, so I wasn’t too aggressive getting Ruger to deal with it, but after hunting in Montana with it in wet and freezing weather, I’m ready to throw it in the dumpster. I wish I would’ve just bought a nicer rifle in college, but live and learn.
@Woods Sleeper it's worth it to reach out to Ruger. I have a pair of .308 Americans that had the mag feeding problem with older mags. I reached out to them with the serial numbers and had 2 mags in hand shortly afterwards. They both feed great now, and are more accurate than their price tag would indicate.
 
Top