Tikka T3 too light

[Lawnboi]

Yeah, the vast majority of people at the range don't shoot well regardless of how their gun is outfitted. The concussion and blast isn't something to covered up with earplugs. Some would be better served spending time practicing looking through the shot and stay down on the gun.

I admire you Lawnboi for protecting your hearing in the field with plugs. I don't wear plugs because I hunt areas where I can hear the animals approaching and don't rely on a spotting scope to find them at long distance. And a non-braked rifle is not a detriment to long-term hearing in the field in my opinion.

I hunt a few places, back home is one where I can’t wear plugs the whole time, need to be able to hear. This is why I will shoot suppressed full time around home.

Bare muzzle is damaging your hearing whether you care to admit it or not. I have near constant tinnitus from too many 20” 300wsm rounds out of my treestand without ear pro. Ear pro was not even a thought back when I started hunting. Not even something I carried with my rifle into the woods.

For me it’s not worth it. I don’t have the self control to always put in plugs before a shot so I choose what I do for that reason.

But to say that 150+db at the muzzle is not causing any permanent hearing damage is false, in my opinion.

 

[Novice]

what platform have you moved to that is more forgiving to shoot in equal calibers that is also very accurate as a Tikka is?

That’s the one thing I don’t love about tikka, whatever it is in their stock design (and how they fit me) is the worst rifles I have shot in terms of recoil management… it’s not just the weight because I have had plenty of rifles in the same weight range that have less perceived recoil in the same cartridges.

“Manning up” fits well into that stereotype of magnum shooters thinking the head stamp kills, and shooting the rifle isn’t necessary if you have a magnum, haha

Especially today with all of the great choices in projectiles, no reason to have a rifle that will form bad habits shooting it, or you aren’t willing to shoot much because of recoil… either make the rifle comfortable to shoot or move on, hunt with a rifle that you want to practice with

 

[Formidilosus]

Key part of the argument…same place. On a perfect shot you can use almost anything, heck how about a 22LR to the brain. Probably get at least 385. Not all of us are as perfect in everything we do…

You can use a Toyota Tacoma to haul a 5th wheel in perfect circumstances. Doesn’t mean it works as well as a 1 ton diesel.

Ok, what differences are there between those with gut shots? Please be specific- width of wounds, depth of wounds, differences between distances traveled after the hit, etc.

 

[Formidilosus]

And a non-braked rifle is not a detriment to long-term hearing in the field in my opinion.

A single unprotected gunshot from a rifle- braked or not, causes measurable and permanent hearing damage.

 

[roosiebull]

Where you keep yours is your business…I’ll keep mine in my thong strap! Hahaha!

Just keester it

 

[roosiebull]

what platform have you moved to that is more forgiving to shoot in equal calibers that is also very accurate as a Tikka is?

Pretty much all of them over a stock tikka (savages, howa, kimbers , x bolts, sako, etc) stock tikkas have more felt recoil than any other platform I have shot all things the same.

That’s not a general blanket statement, but applies for me. I believe it’s a design and fit combo for me, but it sounds like others have had similar experience. I had a tikka in 7rm, and used it for several years, but got sick of shooting that rifle… shooting prone, a box of shells was about all I wanted to shoot in a shooting session, and the next day would be less… I went to a rifle that had no limit on rounds per session, and easy to shoot.

I don’t currently own one, but kimbers have been some of the softer shooting light rifles for me, and my savage ultralite is good too (getting easier all the time, but also heavier, haha)

Tikkas are awesome rifles in their own right, but they increase felt recoil for me and would not be my personal choice for a heavy recoil cartridge if I was keeping it stock

 

[Novice]

I have heard the same of Tikka being harsh from plenty of people.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Ok, what differences are there between those with gut shots? Please be specific- width of wounds, depth of wounds, differences between distances traveled after the hit, etc.

Lots of differences. Quartering too, quartering away, shoulders, leg bones, bullet surface area, expanded bullet surface area, wind drift, down range velocity, etc. Some guys will argue the sky isn’t blue, and they’ll think they’re right. Arguing that a .223 is as deadly on 800lb animals as a .338 is a dumb comparison. If you want to argue that a 223 has SOME characteristics that make it more effective in LIMITED situations is a different argument.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Not a dumb comparison at all. I’d gladly kill any 800lb animal with a .223 and not think twice about doing it in any hunting scenario.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Recoil causes subconscious flinch.

Heavy recoiling rifles should have a muzzle brake or can.

Send it to Chad Dixon at Longrifles Inc and have a brake put on.

Even with hearing protection, you and those around you still suffer some level of hearing damage with every shot through a braked rifle.

I know that I do feel pain with foam inserts in my ears and over the ear protection when I’m near someone shooting a braked rifle. So I personally don’t like brakes and never will use one. And I have no issue accurately shooting my 8# 300 WM with no brake.

Another course of action is for people to be honest and realize that they’re not nearly as recoil tolerant as they think. There’s nothing wrong with stepping down a notch and being more proficient with your firearm.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

I have heard the same of Tikka being harsh from plenty of people.

As someone who accurately shoots an 8# T3X in 300 WM, the horror stories of Tikka recoil have been greatly exaggerated.

What these folks don’t tell you, and won’t tell themselves, is that they are not nearly as recoil tolerant as they believe.

It’s common for folks to say that they can’t shoot a light rifle accurately. If that was true, then these same people wouldn’t be able to shoot a Cricket rifle. No, they can shoot light rifles well but they hit a recoil threshold that is too much for them. Their fear of recoil is what causes them to shoot “light” rifles accurately.

When folks start talking about having to death grip the stock or scope, they’re past their recoil tolerance.

 

[Formidilosus]

Lots of differences. Quartering too, quartering away, shoulders, leg bones, bullet surface area, expanded bullet surface area, wind drift, down range velocity, etc.

Why didn’t you give specifics? Without skirting the answer- what are the differences between those two calibers/bullets in animals on “Quartering too, quartering away, shoulders, leg bones, bullet surface area, expanded bullet surface area, wind drift, down range velocity, etc.”?

Some guys will argue the sky isn’t blue, and they’ll think they’re right. Arguing that a .223 is as deadly on 800lb animals as a .338 is a dumb comparison. If you want to argue that a 223 has SOME characteristics that make it more effective in LIMITED situations is a different argument.

What “LIMITED” situations is the 223 more effective?

 

[Ucsdryder]

Why didn’t you give specifics? Without skirting the answer- what are the differences between those two calibers/bullets in animals on “Quartering too, quartering away, shoulders, leg bones, bullet surface area, expanded bullet surface area, wind drift, down range velocity, etc.”?







What “LIMITED” situations is the 223 more effective?

Specifics? A heavy, fast bullet will penetrate deeper than a light, fast bullet. Are you arguing that?

 

[Ucsdryder]

Not a dumb comparison at all. I’d gladly kill any 800lb animal with a .223 and not think twice about doing it in any hunting scenario.

Why stop there…22LR or maybe the faster 17hmr for elk ? Is that acceptable? If not, why?

 

[HandgunHTR]

For those looking for a brake option that won't make you the most hated guy on the firing line and that will help direct the blast away from you in the field (but please be aware it won't make it hearing safe, no matter what they may claim), check out the Witt Machine SME brakes (https://www.wittmachine.net/sme-sound-mitigation-equipment-non-class-iii/)

There are other linear comps out there that may work as well, but I am planning on using this one on my Tikka 7 mag when I go to Canada as I can't take my suppressor up there.

 

[Formidilosus]

Specifics? A heavy, fast bullet will penetrate deeper than a light, fast bullet. Are you arguing that?

So you are guessing?


Here’s specifics of those two bullets, impacting at similar velocities-

There is less than 1 inch penetration difference (and it’s not in favor of the one you think) and there is less than one inch difference in wound width at maximum.

 

[Formidilosus]

Why stop there…22LR or maybe the faster 17hmr for elk ? Is that acceptable? If not, why?

From what I have read of yours, you generally exhibit intelligent and logical thoughts, I am not sure why you have recently went down this path. Much like the scope discussion you are speaking on emotion and beliefs, not data. Not direct experience repeatedly comparing the performance of different calibers and differing projectiles.


You have three different calibers and cartridges, yet all of them create a 2.5” permanent wound channel and penetrates 18” in an animal. Being that they create identical wound channels, does one “kill better”? If so, by what mechanism does it do so?


To answer your question- the impact velocity of a 22LR causes a very narrow wound channel due to no secondary damage, although it is possible to get acceptable penetration depths. The 17HMR create decently wide wounds, though still on the narrow side, and I am unaware of any available projectile that will penetrate deep enough for realistic use on large game.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Back in 1989, I bought a 257 Roberts. At the time, magnumitis was just catching on good. Not too long after, short magnumitis was the thing. All the while, I shot the 257 Roberts, I shot it well, and while I didn't kill a large number of animals, when I pulled the trigger, deer died. I helped a lot of people who used magnums find their deer that had run off. Many were never recovered, those that were recovered had been hit poorly. Yet, people poked fun at me for my anemic 257 Roberts.

I spent a few years living in Kodiak. My primary Brown Bear Rifle was a 35 Whelen. I was crazy for not using "at least" a 30 cal magnum or better yet a 338 or 375 magnum. People were convinced that I needed a magnum of some sort.

If I were in your shoes, I'd have all the confidence in the world that my 6.5 Creed would do all I would ever need it to do. I would NOT brake that 7 mag. You may find the concussion as big (or bigger) distracting factor than the recoil. You NEVER want to shoot a braked rifle without hearing protection. My ringing and failing ears are a constant reminder. Shooting a braked rifle at the range is no fun for the people next to you. Shooting a braked rifle from the prone position over loose or sandy soil is interesting.

Sell the 7 mag. There's no sense in suffering it any longer.

 

[roosiebull]

Back in 1989, I bought a 257 Roberts. At the time, magnumitis was just catching on good. Not too long after, short magnumitis was the thing. All the while, I shot the 257 Roberts, I shot it well, and while I didn't kill a large number of animals, when I pulled the trigger, deer died. I helped a lot of people who used magnums find their deer that had run off. Many were never recovered, those that were recovered had been hit poorly. Yet, people poked fun at me for my anemic 257 Roberts.

I spent a few years living in Kodiak. My primary Brown Bear Rifle was a 35 Whelen. I was crazy for not using "at least" a 30 cal magnum or better yet a 338 or 375 magnum. People were convinced that I needed a magnum of some sort.

If I were in your shoes, I'd have all the confidence in the world that my 6.5 Creed would do all I would ever need it to do. I would NOT brake that 7 mag. You may find the concussion as big (or bigger) distracting factor than the recoil. You NEVER want to shoot a braked rifle without hearing protection. My ringing and failing ears are a constant reminder. Shooting a braked rifle at the range is no fun for the people next to you. Shooting a braked rifle from the prone position over loose or sandy soil is interesting.

Sell the 7 mag. There's no sense in suffering it any longer.

I would probably consider the roberts as the finest deer cartridge made… it’s like the perfect deer cartridge in general. Of course it’s a pretty big claim considering all possible circumstances chasing deer.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Hunters/Shooters that wear ear protection in the field, are taking the best care of their hearing. That's cut and dried, There is no gray area there.

I should've qualified what I was saying more appropriately. A non-braked rifle compared to a braked rifle in the field... there is a dramatic difference with respect to decibel level. A test I have read which seems thorough and well documented, shows the quietest muzzle brake is 41% more noise from the shooters position versus a bare muzzle. The loudest brake is 162% louder. A quiet brake is like trying to find the smallest unicorn, there isn't such a thing (Not my saying). Can any level of hearing protection account for potential damaging effects of the concussive blast a brake produces?