Factory Rifle that likes 77gr TMK?

[dirtytough]

I doubt it really matters for what you want to use it for. Most of the reports I’ve seen both are usually accurate. I don’t like the stock on the Ruger myself. And there are probably a few more aftermarket options for the Howa. But if keeping it completely stock I would pick the one you like best.

 

[Mike D Texas]

I did consider them. Tikka makes a great rifle, no doubt, but I'm just not sure what value I'd be getting for the extra money. If it were up to me, I'd buy another Savage. Most of my rifles I've built myself off of Savage actions. But their twist rates are too slow for my needs. I also want to make the purchase through Cabelas (Ive got GC's to use), and they don't have that model Tikka in that price range. I feel that one of the above rifles will kill a deer just as dead as that Tikka would.

You will absolutely get the additional cost value over the Ruger or Howa.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[MuleyFever]

You will absolutely get the additional cost value over the Ruger or Howa.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

In what way, exactly?

 

[eric1115]

I've owned gen 1 RA, Howa mini, and T3x. Absolutely the T3x is worth the price difference vs equivalent RA, and less dramatically but still worth it vs Howa.

The Ruger tends to shoot fine, but reliable function is their real weakness. Magazines, cycling, fair-at-best triggers, flimsy stocks, bolt that binds when cycling, the list goes on. People talk about the "zipper" sound the bolt makes, but for me that's way down the list about what I didn't like about the one I had and the others I've handled/shot.

Howa has similar weaknesses, but they're less severe and more easily remedied.

Tikkas typically feed/function very very well, magazines work great, triggers are wonderful and and safe/reliable, Tupperware stocks are stiffer and more functional than most, smooth bolt that doesn't bind, basically all the things I didn't like in the RA are non-issue or strength with the T3x.

If I was given a RA tomorrow in a cartridge I needed/wanted, I'd sell it and put the money toward a T3X. I'm done dealing with headache rifles.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

In what way, exactly?

Do you really need this explained or are you being silly?

 

[Tmac]

My RA is the 5.56 Ranch rifle, 16” barrel. Handy with a suppressor. Just as accurate as my Tikka, but perhaps a little less refined. Bought it for my grand kids to ruin. Couple thousand rounds at steel, two deer and a cow elk, two years in, it is their favorite, and mine too. I will be cutting my Tikka down to 16” for suppressed use, then it may become my favorite. Howa makes a fine rifle too, my 223 is the older 12 twist (iirc), it shoots 62 gr Fusions well and has murdered a number of deer and pronghorn. My other Howas are mini’s in larger calibers. All my Howa rifles have been pickier than my RA or Tikka on bullets they shoot well.

Based on my experience and preferences here is how I look at it. If budget is a factor, I'd go RA with short threaded barrel, if I wanted the best platform I’d go Tikka cut down and threaded.

 

[kkp005]

I’ve got a Ruger ranch gen 2 in 5.56 and a tikka t3x light stainless in 223 cut down to 18” and threaded

The Ruger shoots smaller groups(it’s consistent with 1/2-3/4” groups, and that’s with a Swfa 6x…..but that’s the only thing it does better)

The Tikka is just a more refined and much smoother gun. It’s a 1 Moa gun and I’m okay with that…

If you’re wanting to save some $$ , the ruger will work well for you. I would recommend an mcarbo trigger spring for the Ruger.

 

[MuleyFever]

Do you really need this explained or are you being silly?

I am wondering how the Tikka will "absolutely" provide $400+ more value for the OP. The OP said it will be for whitetail in PA and he will maybe shoot 60 rounds a year. The Tikka wont provide any more killing ability. The OP likes Savage actions so he doesn't personally see value in the action function as long as it works. So how will the extra money provide the OP more value? Value is always subjective and for the OPs use I just don't see how the Tikka will absolutely provide him more value.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I am wondering how the Tikka will "absolutely" provide $400+ more value for the OP. The OP said it will be for whitetail in PA and he will maybe shoot 60 rounds a year. The Tikka wont provide any more killing ability. The OP likes Savage actions so he doesn't personally see value in the action function as long as it works. So how will the extra money provide the OP more value? Value is always subjective and for the OPs use I just don't see how the Tikka will absolutely provide him more value.

Okay I see where you were going. I was thinking along a different line…

To me, if the aforementioned guns were even half their current price, I still wouldn’t buy them. Like Talley rings and vortex scopes, they work until they don’t.

I never saw the post about 60 rounds per year…For a very low volume application these rifles will likely work, until they don’t.

 

[waspocrew]

Okay I see where you were going. I was thinking along a different line…

To me, if the aforementioned guns were even half their current price, I still wouldn’t buy them. Like Talley rings and vortex scopes, they work until they don’t.

I never saw the post about 60 rounds per year…For a very low volume application these rifles will likely work, until they don’t.

I’m not a Ruger or Howa fan at all, but the OP doesn’t want to spend more money on a Tikka - even though I would argue the Tikka is a better rifle. But for his applications, I’m sure either of his choices would be fine.

 

[waspocrew]

These threads always go this direction. OP states which would you go with: A or B?

Inevitable answers: None! Those suck! Go with X, Y, or Z. It’s out of your budget but…

 

[dirtytough]

These threads always go this direction. OP states which would you go with: A or B?

Inevitable answers: None! Those suck! Go with X, Y, or Z. It’s out of your budget but…

Agreed. It’s getting ridiculous.

 

[Formidilosus]

These threads always go this direction. OP states which would you go with: A or B?

Inevitable answers: None! Those suck! Go with X, Y, or Z. It’s out of your budget but…

Agreed. It’s getting ridiculous.

It’s not ridiculous- it’s people trying to help someone not make a poor decision. If someone needs to ask “which gun”, they don’t understand what they are needing/wanting. You don’t know what you don’t know at that point.

When RA were $300, maybe they had some value as a legit cheap rifle. At $500 and $600 now- no.

 

[OKHunter84]

If I had to pick between the two, then I'd pick the Ruger. The gen 2 looks nicer then the first gen, which always felt cheap to me. I've never owned one but have a few friends that do and they all seem to shoot well. I've picked up some Howa rifles and they feel cheap to me, the barrel wasn't centered in the barrel channel and the stock looks like it would flex too much on a bipod.

I bought a Tikka t3x blued for $750 out the door this spring. I wouldn't say it's cheaper cause I ended up putting a new stock and a proof research barrel on it. I like the factory trigger on Tikka's.

 

[ElPollo]

I have gotten rid of my Howas and Savages. I was not tempted to buy a Ruger American when they were cheap and am less inclined for 30%more $$. Bolt binding, feeding issues, flimsy forends, trigger issues… Life is too short for spending money on guns that fail you when the chips are down. Buy a Tikka. It’s a decision you won’t regret.

 

[BLJ]

It’s not ridiculous- it’s people trying to help someone not make a poor decision. If someone needs to ask “which gun”, they don’t understand what they are needing/wanting. You don’t know what you don’t know at that point.

When RA were $300, maybe they had some value as a legit cheap rifle. At $500 and $600 now- no.

And then this guy comes along and tells EVERYONE they’re wrong.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

These threads always go this direction. OP states which would you go with: A or B?

Inevitable answers: None! Those suck! Go with X, Y, or Z. It’s out of your budget but…

A new Tikka is $100 more than a new Ruger American Gen 2. That’s like half a tank of fuel for my 5500 pickup.

Save up another $100-$200 and buy a gun that will serve them a lifetime of hunting at 60 rounds per year, and then still have plenty of life left to leave to a young hunter someday.

 

[gbflyer]

Anybody tried one of those Winchester XPR’s? They have a 8 twist .223


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Megastink]

It’s not ridiculous- it’s people trying to help someone not make a poor decision. If someone needs to ask “which gun”, they don’t understand what they are needing/wanting. You don’t know what you don’t know at that point.

When RA were $300, maybe they had some value as a legit cheap rifle. At $500 and $600 now- no.

Form, you’ve forgotten more than I’ll ever know about firearms. But I don’t think the gen1 and gen2 Rugers are the same. I have a gen1 in 350 legend, and it has all the issues you hear about: flimsy stock, feeding issues, coarse action, no bolt lock. It seems like all of that was fixed with gen2, save maybe the stock is still cheap. Maybe I’m misinformed? Maybe you handled both models and had the same issues with both?

I‘llown a tikka one day, but not sure this is the application that I’d buy it for.

 

[sveltri]

The only Tikka available at my local store is $1,100, and for the $300 out of picket that the American will cost me, again, I just don't see the value in the Tikka. I'm not shooting 3,000 rounds/year; I'll be lucky to shoot 60 out of this new gun per year. I don't need to kill Russians, I need to kill one, maybe three, PA deer per season. If they had the t3X for $750 where I can put my hands on it first, it would more of a contender.

Why not just spin a barrel on a savage? For less than $500 you can get a great barrel and recoil lug from northland shooters supply, a new bolt face is sub $40 and you already have familiarity with the action.