Kimber vs Tikka???

Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Location
Missouri
Kimber Mountain Ascent or Tikka T3x Laminate Stainless? Will either need upgrades? If so what would they be? Stocks, triggers, etc? Looking for a 300 or 325WSM for shots inside 500 yrds(prob more like 300yrds.) Which way would you go?
 
I think it depends on your budget. Nothing wrong with either choice. The T3x is fairly new but based on the T3 which gets great reviews from people and I have a T3 Superlite. The MA is obviously a great gun but at least double what a T3x will cost I think. At least close to that.

Some people don't like the stocks of the Tikka but supposedly the T3x stock is better than the T3. I don't mind the stock on my T3.

I believe the MA comes with a muzzle brake which you may want to have on the Tikka but that's up to you. Mine is a 300WM and the whole rifle and scope comes in just over 7lbs. The recoil isn't horrible but I'm thinking about a brake just to tame the muzzle jump a bit.

Anyway, back to the point, you can probably put together a Tikka and a good scope for what a MA will cost you alone but again, it's all about your budget.
 
apples to oranges kind of but having both (kimber in 300wsm and tikka in 270 win) I'd say if you can afford it, get the kimber. On the other hand meet somewhere in the middle and get the montana in a 300wsm. For me the mountain ascent didn't offer enough to justfify the additional costs above a montana. My montana is one heckuva sweet little gun, 6lb3oz (not scoped) and can take all the abuse in the world. That said there is absolutely nothing wrong with a tikka either.

Pretty sure the new tikka's are using the exact same barreled action (fluted in some cases) with a stock upgrade is all. If you get it in a laminate are you going to restock with kevlar/synthetic or leave it? Laminate tends to be heavier but you'd be looking at a minimum of close to $300 for an entry level kevlar from B&C so consider that also....

another thing to keep in mind is you don't gain anything (weight savings) in a tikka by going to a short action like you do in other guns. They use all one size action with bolt stops for their short actions. So if you're considering a 300wsm in a tikka you might be better off just for ammo availability to go with a regular 300win as the gun will weigh the same and you might have an easier time finding rounds.

Neither will need a new trigger, both break like glass... the kimbers is really easily adjusted, the tikka's might be but I've never had to touch it.
 
Last edited:
Better than the kimber?

Looking at strictly short mags I'd give the nod to kimber over sako a7. Both will shoot and craftsmanship is about equal but the kimber is a M70 variant and true CRF, which will help with the sharp shoulders on a wsm cartridge. Splitting hairs at that point though, both are fine guns
 
As it happens I've used both, mind you with a limbsaver on the A7 and I found it more comfortable to shoot. It depends what you want out of a rifle.

Sent from my ZTE BLADE A112 using Tapatalk
 
I don't have any experience with the T3x but I do own 3 Kimber's including a MA, and I also have a T3 lite. All shoot very well. I prefer the Kimber's over my T3 hands down, they just feel like better built rifles and I'm kind of partial to Mauser style action's and 3 position safety's. Also, my MA in particular, is a real pleasure to shoot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
A bloke once said on a forum "do what you want, you will anyway".

In that instance a fella asked whether he should go a or b but that he was leaning towards a. Vast majority made compelling reasons for b and the bloke went a anyway.

My point is, if your gut is leaning you towards one way or another you're probably going to end up going that way regardless of what's said here.

I've done the same myself really, the only way you'll know is if you handle the rifles yourself.

in big game cals ive had sako 85 Bavarian, sako 75 synthetic, Remington 700, sauer 202 and now a sako A7.

I've shot my brothers rifles a lot and he's run tikka t3, sako 75 finnlight, sako A7, blazer R8, sako 85 black bear, rem xcr2, and a couple of kimber.he currently runs a Montana as his main rifle.

Of all them (his and mine) my 85 Bavarian was my favourite but I just finished the paper work taking it out of my name the other day. I kept it because I liked it and I always tried to look passed the things that weren't so great about it.

I decided to think practical about a rifle that was accurate, fairly light without being too light, felt and shot well, and was going to stand up to my rough treatment and that's why I have "downgraded" to an A7. Lots of people have scratched their heads bout why I would sell a sauer, an 85 and a 75 and land on an A7, all I can say is that I started thinking practically.

Don't get me wrong I would have loved an 85 finnlight but the A7 is half the price and does the same job.

I'm not trying to hard sell the A7, I don't really care what you choose. My point is ask yourself what you want from a rifle, what each has for and against it in your books, what you're willing to compromise on and what's a non negotiable. Definitely handle them and see what you think. Do all that and you'll know yourself which one is right for you.

Me, I'll never sell the A7 though ten years down the track I'd like to buy another 85 Bavarian in full wood 9.3x62 to have as a safe queen.


Sent from my ZTE BLADE A112 using Tapatalk
 
As others have mentioned you aren't really comparing apples to apples here in my opinion.
To date I have owned 3 Tikka's and 3 Kimbers, I still own the 3 Kimbers.
Tikka makes great rifles, and I have never heard of one that doesn't shoot like hell. I personally much prefer the carbon stocks on the Montana/MA to the plastic on the Tikkas, but a Kimber stock (or aftermarket equivalent) is nearing the price of a complete tikka rifle, so once again not apples to apples.
If you value ultralight, CRF Mauser style actions, a three position safety, and a stock that comfortably tames recoil then the Kimber is probably a better option. A sub 7lb magnum will be harder to accurately shoot. I am by no means a competitive shooter, but I do believe a lot of people who complain about accuracy in Ultralight guns simply haven't taken the time to learn to work with them. My Montana in 300WSM will open groups with a hot barrel, and guess what... that barrel gets hot quick. Still plenty accurate to follow up shots in a hunting situation, but it goes from Sub-MOA to 2-3 in groups. If i want to find out what it can do I leave it on the rack to cool down for 15 min between shots, true cold barrel. I find it comfortable to shoot, as well as an 8400 Montana in 338 Win Mag I had cut down to 20" with NECG Irons installed for guiding in Grizz country. its a 6.5lb gun and the stock handles recoil much better than I had expected.

They are both great rifles, but it just comes down to what you want to get out of the build.
I would also strongly consider the Montana over the MA. Closer in price to the Tikka, and you wont notice a 7oz difference in the field.
 
Have owned a tikka 7mm with no mods since o3 3x9 leupold...with ballistic dots to 550 drives tacks. If you like a hunting rifle with no frills that will kill critters to 600 yds with no upgrades and have no issues the tikka is a great choice
 
Inside 300yds? Why not 30-06?

I was biting my tongue on that one. Based on the OP's initial statement, my guess is he wants something with a little more ass for the warm and fuzzy factor.

No mention of expected pursuits or bullets and a Missouri locale says "deer and maybe an elk one day"
 
Back
Top