Price:Quality ratio of CA Ridgeline vs Tikka Roughtec

[nobody]

The lighter you go the more limitations you‘re willing to accept. I have a 243 that shot a cow through both lungs and she went a long long way - not a problem in the sage, but would have been hard to find in the timber. I shot a bull facing me with a 338 and he made it a football field away. If that was someone’s only shot, how far would he have gone with a 6.5? I’m jealous of those that can have an elk in the scope and patiently wait for it turn, hopefully slowly, for a double lung shot. When there’s a little hole in and no hole going out, tracking becomes more than a little difficult.

The physics of what it takes to kill elk hasn’t changed in half a century - Jack O Connor waited for broadside shots and killed elk just fine with a 270. Others who want to be able to take tough quartering shots have gravitated to larger calibers for a reason - same reason many shooting the 6.5 will gravitate to larger calibers after a bad experience or two.

My judgement tells me, after hearing the same stories you’ve heard of light calibers killing elk way out there, is that there are plenty of stories not being told of times the shot should have waited for a better angle. That‘s also nothing new - human nature is what it is - many of my friends growing up have lost elk to every caliber and don’t seem to mention it.

As big and heavy as they are, following tracks in the timber with dried up dirt and pine needles of October is one of the hardest things I’ve ever done - rarely does the topic even come up and self teaching the moment it’s needed just doesn’t work all that well - much easier to simply justify it as a clean mis.

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/223-for-bear-deer-elk-and-moose.130488/

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/6-5-creedmoor-260-for-deer-elk-and-whatever-else.244973/


I would highly recommend you spend some time doing some "light reading" sir. Genuinely, there's a ton you can learn from the above threads. Not to be confrontational by any means, but the only thing "marginal" about smaller cartridges is the bullet selection, and it goes against every major marketing budget in the industry.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I owned two Christensen Ridgelines and my father in law still owns a Christensen Mesa I think they call it.

My personal experience...

.VERY clunky and stiff Remington 700 style action. Tons of play in the action side to side.

.Small bolt handle combined with clunky action leads to terrible chambering feel and rounds getting jammed. Especially when coyote/varmint hunting and killing multiple targets back to back to back quickly.

.Terrible stock ergonomics and balance when hand carrying is not great (most guys use slings and won't notice). Free hand shot rifle balance leaves lots to be desired.

.Factory rotary muzzle brake kicks up dirt in real world shooting scenarios (solvable)


My father in laws 6.5 PRC is a shooter. Very picky on bullet choice.

My 6.5 CM and 28 Nosler both left a lot to be desired. I meticulously followed their stupid "barrel break in process", sent them both rifles which they "corrected". Sent back and performance was the same. Sold both rifles and didn't look back.

 

[TaperPin]

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/223-for-bear-deer-elk-and-moose.130488/

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/6-5-creedmoor-260-for-deer-elk-and-whatever-else.244973/


I would highly recommend you spend some time doing some "light reading" sir. Genuinely, there's a ton you can learn from the above threads. Not to be confrontational by any means, but the only thing "marginal" about smaller cartridges is the bullet selection, and it goes against every major marketing budget in the industry.

I read through a whole lot of those posts and nothing stands out as new information. The physics of reliably killing animals hasn’t changed in my lifetime. The 6.5 produces 270 energy - that makes it a good deer cartridge, but very few think the 270 is an ideal 500 yard elk gun.

You and I look at the same information and simply come to different conclusions. My opinion hasn’t changed in over 30 years, but I’ll gladly accept something better when it comes along.

 

[atmat]

I read through a whole lot of those posts and nothing stands out as new information. The physics of reliably killing animals hasn’t changed in my lifetime. The 6.5 produces 270 energy - that makes it a good deer cartridge, but very few think the 270 is an ideal 500 yard elk gun.

You and I look at the same information and simply come to different conclusions. My opinion hasn’t changed in over 30 years, but I’ll gladly accept something better when it comes along.

If you read through it, you would realize energy is a terrible metric to quantify killing potential.

 

[TaperPin]

If you read through it, you would realize energy is a terrible metric to quantify killing potential.

Energy, velocity and bullet construction - there’s nothing magical about any of it.
140 gr loads out of the 6.5, 270 and 280 are essentially the same velocity at 500 yards. Nothing wrong with that - similarly constructed bullets going the same velocity should react about the same on game. Did I mis something?

The chamber specs on the PRC are tighter, brass is better, factory ammo is really accurate, and it’s popularity has been great for bullet selection, so I’m happy to see a well though out caliber become so popular. Heck, I’ll probably have a barrel chambered for it one of these days.

 

[Formidilosus]

Energy, velocity and bullet construction - there’s nothing magical about any of it.
140 gr loads out of the 6.5, 270 and 280 are essentially the same velocity at 500 yards. Nothing wrong with that - similarly constructed bullets going the same velocity should react about the same on game. Did I mis something?

Yes you missed something. Read the 223 thread in its entirety, every single post- don’t skip. Then come back a make a case for “energy” as a wounding mechanism.

 

[TaperPin]

Yes you missed something. Read the 223 thread in its entirety, every single post- don’t skip. Then come back a make a case for “energy” as a wounding mechanism.

Yes you missed something. Read the 223 thread in its entirety, every single post- don’t skip. Then come back a make a case for “energy” as a wounding mechanism.

Well, I’ve read 20 pages and I do see what I was missing. You started off with a good explanation of using the .223 because it wastes less meat and it’s still way more deadly than archery hunting, especially with heavy for caliber bullets. I‘d say we don’t disagree at all on any of that. Another point was shooters are more accurate with small calibers - no disagreement there - the bullet has to hit it to kill it. Something like page 13 you talked about the bullet breaking up and heavier bullets doing more damage because there’s more there to breakup - makes sense to me. I should mention the description of a good wound cavity, consistent with rapid expansion and moderate bullet disintegration, but not so lightly constructed it‘s superficial. I would agree that will kill anything with legs when it’s put in the vitals.

How am I doing so far?

I‘m not a meat hunter so reducing bloodshot meat isn’t the primary objective. I also shoot enough that the accuracy loss between a 243 (practice gun) and a 7 mag isn’t enough to make much of a difference at the yardages I’d shoot at. While there’s nothing wrong shooting an accurate rifle with minimum lethality - same for handguns, bows, black powder, or horribly inaccurate historic gun - my gig is a rifle that can take a hard quartering shot and is as effective as I can shoot, rather than small and efficient.

 

[Formidilosus]

Well, I’ve read 20 pages and I do see what I was missing. You started off with a good explanation of using the .223 because it wastes less meat and it’s still way more deadly than archery hunting, especially with heavy for caliber bullets. I‘d say we don’t disagree at all on any of that. Another point was shooters are more accurate with small calibers - no disagreement there - the bullet has to hit it to kill it. Something like page 13 you talked about the bullet breaking up and heavier bullets doing more damage because there’s more there to breakup - makes sense to me. I should mention the description of a good wound cavity, consistent with rapid expansion and moderate bullet disintegration, but not so lightly constructed it‘s superficial. I would agree that will kill anything with legs when it’s put in the vitals.

How am I doing so far?

Not great. You’re telling me you aren’t actually reading it. There is nothing about the 223 with good bullets that “wastes less meat”. Quite the opposite.

I‘m not a meat hunter so reducing bloodshot meat isn’t the primary objective. I also shoot enough that the accuracy loss between a 243 (practice gun) and a 7 mag isn’t enough to make much of a difference at the yardages I’d shoot at. While there’s nothing wrong shooting an accurate rifle with minimum lethality - same for handguns, bows, black powder, or horribly inaccurate historic gun - my gig is a rifle that can take a hard quartering shot and is as effective as I can shoot, rather than small and efficient.

Read the entire the entire thread. You are stating things that are factually and demonstrably untrue. “Small” calibers have zero issues going through any/all bones in the front end, nor do they have issues going through bone in the rear end.
There are elk and moose shot through both “shoulders” from 40 yards to 803 yards with the 77gr TMK in there.

 

[Marbles]

I'm going to be nitpicky.

Energy, velocity and bullet construction

Velocity is included in the formula for energy (both KE and momentum). Listing both is redundant.

Yes you missed something. Read the 223 thread in its entirety, every single post- don’t skip. Then come back a make a case for “energy” as a wounding mechanism.

Energy is the wounding mechanism. Not necessarily KE, or even momentum, but the transfer of energy is what destroys tissue. This is true of bullets, arrows, knives, burns, electrocution, primary blast injuries, Etc. Cold injury is the only one not caused by energy being transferred to the victim, but it still involves the transfer of energy.

I do have to agree that it is an over simplification to say more energy is better. More energy transferred to the tissue will cause more damage, but simply because a projectile has more energy dose not mean it will transfer that energy to the tissue, or do so in a way that destroys the correct tissue. For example, a rubber bullet transfers almost all of its energy to the tissue, but is rarely lethal.

I guess, if someone wants to get even more nitpicky they could say entropy also contributes and therefore transfer energy is the primary, but not 'the' wounding mechanism.

 

[Hnthrdr]

So you guys think he would be happier with a CA or Tikka roughtec?

 

[ShortMountain91]

Love my roughtech. Rifle shoots great on any ammo I give it. Cheap ammo, expensive ammo, hand loads, they all do great

 

[SW hunter]

Well, I’ve read 20 pages and I do see what I was missing. You started off with a good explanation of using the .223 because it wastes less meat and it’s still way more deadly than archery hunting, especially with heavy for caliber bullets. I‘d say we don’t disagree at all on any of that. Another point was shooters are more accurate with small calibers - no disagreement there - the bullet has to hit it to kill it. Something like page 13 you talked about the bullet breaking up and heavier bullets doing more damage because there’s more there to breakup - makes sense to me. I should mention the description of a good wound cavity, consistent with rapid expansion and moderate bullet disintegration, but not so lightly constructed it‘s superficial. I would agree that will kill anything with legs when it’s put in the vitals.

How am I doing so far?

I‘m not a meat hunter so reducing bloodshot meat isn’t the primary objective. I also shoot enough that the accuracy loss between a 243 (practice gun) and a 7 mag isn’t enough to make much of a difference at the yardages I’d shoot at. While there’s nothing wrong shooting an accurate rifle with minimum lethality - same for handguns, bows, black powder, or horribly inaccurate historic gun - my gig is a rifle that can take a hard quartering shot and is as effective as I can shoot, rather than small and efficient.

Not good. You're treading on thin ice here. Forum 101- you don't ever disagree with folks with high post counts. Thats universal.

 

[atmat]

If you're going to be a member in good standing here you need to follow the rules. Remember Tikka rifles and swfa scopes are the only thing you should be buying. Best there is dollar for dollar. Everybody knows this. Its a fact. Stop playin around mister. And CA and Leupold are absolute garbage always have been always will be. In the entirely unlikely event some kind sole gifted you one, you should refuse it. Thats how lousy they are. They’ll probably jinx your entire collection. Guaranteed to ruin any hunt you’re silly enough to take it on. There shall be no dissent.

You should also never mind that not a lot of guys have owned a CA or Leupold…. because they know a guy who does… or a poster can SCIENTIFICALLY prove its true… or its WELL documented on ALL the forums… or the best gunsmith around or some joker behind the gun counter told them he had a customer… Anybody with half a brain can tell you they’re garbage.

Joking aside I’m not calling anyone a liar. Those companies built enough that some guys do or did own one. Those guys can offer first hand experience. But most can’t bring themself to branch out of the accepted circle and then sell it off if it’s not what they expected. Or keep it when they're pleasantly surprised its as good or even better than this other thing.

So you should get the Tikka not CA. If you do- please don’t play around with an old cartridge thats widely available over the counter. Now sit back and watch. Theres a good chance I get flamed for even playing around about any of this stuff.

Not good. You're treading on thin ice here. Forum 101- you don't ever disagree with folks with high post counts. Thats universal.

So out of curiosity, are you just a troll?

 

[LeftyWilbury]

I'd vote for Tikka over CA. Disclaimer, I have never even handled a CA, much less fired one. CA's barrel break in procedure goes something like shoot and clean shoot and clean..."Repeat steps 1-4 until you have fired a total of 50 rounds. 50 rounds is usually sufficient to smooth out the surface of the barrel lining and “break in” your barrel." Good thing they're giving you $450 gift card so you can buy expensive ammo to break it in.

I took out my brand new .308 roughtech Wednesday night. With one box of crappy ammo I was on paper at 100, sighted in at 200, and ringing steel at 300. I set up a buddy with the same rifle a few months ago and followed the same program. He was amazed to be able to ring steel at 300 his first time out with the rifle. "I've never been able to ring steel like this with my (Tikka) 300 WM!" Makes you wonder why CA wants you to blow 50 rounds to get their barrel conditioned to function well.

Which brings us to caliber. I have two tikka T3s in 7 RM. And two buddies have T3Xs in .300 WM. We love our rifles. They all shoot very well and kill things dead. But I'm hunting deer and elk in mostly forested areas, longest shot was 300 yards. Last year's elk, 75 yards. Deer, 30 yards. Antelope 350. Turns out .308 does everything I need and is way more enjoyable to shoot and ammo is far less expensive. Plus the 7 mags still sound like cannons when suppressed while the .308 is sufficiently muted a herd of antelope will stand around looking confused when their friend falls to the ground. Most of my friends I hunt with have been downgrading their calibers....and becoming far more successful in filling their freezers.

If you've got money burning a hole in your pocket look at the Tikka Veils and Embers. I couldn't justify an extra $300 for the camo stock and cerakoted barrels, but damn they're sexy.

 

[MattB]

At one point I owned a Tikka 7MM-08 and a CA 6.5CM and I still have the Tikka. They shot just about the same accuracy-wise but I liked just about everything better about the Tikka. Even the stock, mostly because the CA stock had a narrow grip and comb and just didn’t seem to fit me.

 

[TaperPin]

Not good. You're treading on thin ice here. Forum 101- you don't ever disagree with folks with high post counts. Thats universal.

*chuckle*
I had fun reading the posts and learned one heck of a lot about heavy bullets in the 223 and 6.5, and have a better appreciation for the opinions and philosophy - they deserve a hand for the collective footwork that goes into something new and generates over 200 pages of discussion. There’s a lot of room for differences. Just don’t anyone suggest I need to ditch the whisperlight stove - I have to draw a line in the sand on that one.

 

[RobertLosekamp]

Bought a Roughtech in .308 from Sportsman's yesterday, haven't shot it yet but I'm actually shocked at how much of a step up it is compared to the 700s and Savage's I've used in the past.

I couldn't get over the reports of bad QC from Christensen so I wasn't willing to take the chance, Tikka seems to be one of the gold standards for quality out of a factory gun.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Bought a Roughtech in .308 from Sportsman's yesterday, haven't shot it yet but I'm actually shocked at how much of a step up it is compared to the 700s and Savage's I've used in the past.

I couldn't get over the reports of bad QC from Christensen so I wasn't willing to take the chance, Tikka seems to be one of the gold standards.

You will love it, I had 5-6 different types of factory loads ready to see what it loved turned out hornady sst’s in 150 shot awesome out the gate!

 

[RobertLosekamp]

You will love it, I had 5-6 different types of factory loads ready to see what it loved turned out hornady sst’s in 150 shot awesome out the gate!

Happy to hear! I was originally a little miffed that the barrels are 1:11, but I'm only going after whitetail so I got over it. 150-168 is plenty. I picked up some Barnes 150s and bonded Fusions to try out first. We'll see what I get and go from there lol.

 

[Sandstrom]

Excellent call on the roughtech! I shoot a 308 roughtech for F class at 600 yards and for a factory action, barrel, and ammo it does pretty good!! Mine also liked the 150 sst Hornady load. Lately I have been shooting the federal premium 168 Berger hybrid hunters. The only thing I have modified for shooting F class is the stock. Here is a target from one of my better nights The 10 ring is 6 inches, and all shots were in under 20 minutes.

Ryan