Tikka…

[ColPenguin]

well you can fix the issue of the ctr mag by converting it with regular tikka mag. i do like the compact barrel of the ctr and rail used by tikka. it is not that heavy and it is working great for my use.

Its not so heavy that you can't carry it around in the deer woods. It's maybe a 1 lb. difference.

CTR does have a nice steel pic rail, I forgot about that. One of the CTR dofferentiators was a factory threaded barrel, which is now standard on the Lite models.

The mag that came with my CTR had feeding issues, out of the box. I just had to adjust the follower spring. It wasn't a major issue. The exposed mag release on CTR may be easier to bump and drop a mag in the field than standard Tikka mag. Of course you can swap bottom metal and add a mag retention spring, and just use standard Tikka mags.

I like the CTR as a range gun, practice setup. I prefer a 20" Lite barrel with the standard mag in the field. I'm not poo-pooing the CTR, just pointing out it may not really be a $440 value-add.

 

[Coopsdaddy]

I just did this and really regret it. The nitride went over blasting material and caused a bunch of issues. Definitely on the company that did it but still something I wouldn’t have dealt with on a stainless

Had unknown do my action,bolt and barrel and its great.
Slick as snot.
I would do my best to make the company eat it.

 

[Cant hit em]

I buy blued and get them Cerakoted and have had no issues. I dont care for the stainless look


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IdahoHntr]

Interesting.. I live in a drier western state, but own a lot of blued rifles that’s see quite a few days in weather without any issues. I would have never not called them “weather resistant”. After a week of hunting in the snow or rain it might need a wipe down, but never had the issues that a lot here seem to have.

I’d have no hesitation going blued especially if it was just for a once a year western rifle. If you’re hunting every day in the Pacific Northwest (I don’t) then probably a different answer.

 

[Timberline001]

Had unknown do my action,bolt and barrel and its great.
Slick as snot.
I would do my best to make the company eat it.

It’s $125, it’s not worth my time and not having the gun while fix it. I ran a copper brush inside the bolt body with a drill and cleaned it enough for it to operate.

 

[freakycamo]

I would go stainless.

 

[z987k]

Interesting.. I live in a drier western state, but own a lot of blued rifles that’s see quite a few days in weather without any issues. I would have never not called them “weather resistant”. After a week of hunting in the snow or rain it might need a wipe down, but never had the issues that a lot here seem to have.

I’d have no hesitation going blued especially if it was just for a once a year western rifle. If you’re hunting every day in the Pacific Northwest (I don’t) then probably a different answer.

We took a blued rifle hunting a couple years ago. It didn't make it a full day before it had rust spots all over it.

I won't even buy non-stainless coated rifles as the coatings do nothing for the bore.

The very minimal cost increase of stainless is worth the non-stop care needed to keep a blue rifle from becoming an orange one.

 

[freakycamo]

Yes go stainless

 

[Dave Thomas]

Go with the stainless

 

[bnewt3]

I only have a Tikka and 10/22 in SS, all other rifles are blued.

The peace-of-mind is nice. Same with wood vs not wood stock.....moisture is an afterthought with synthetic/SS

 

[Yaremkiv]

Is rust prevention important to you? Because stainless steel helps with rust prevention.

 

[JakeT]

Aren't the roughtec barrels and actions already cerakoted? I could be wrong on that but I thought I heard it somewhere.

Sent from my SM-S938U using Tapatalk

 

[Choupique]

is stainless really worth the extra price?

Ill get on the dissenting side.

I prefer carbon steel to stainless for most applications. I live in south Louisiana where everything is always wet, and I still prefer carbon steel for most things, including rifle receivers. Surface rust is no big deal and can be fought off with an oily rag. Its unatractive, but it doesnt hurt anything. Stainless is soft and galls easily. Its usually not as strong as carbon steel. Quality carbon steel does not readily rust like regular ol 1080, and you can see this with rifles easily. Give a 2013 remington 700 and a tikka t3 a wipe down with brake cleaner and put them in the rain. The remington will almost immediately turn into a rusty fuzz ball and the tikka will take far longer to start showing the orange hue.

Carbon steel with a good paint job is extremely corrosion resistant. Ships are entirely carbon steel, eternally dunked in salt water, and last a very long time (i know, anodes. You get the point).

The ideal rifle, for me, has a blued reciever and Stainless barrel. All the stuff with screw holes and moving parts carbon steel, the bore highly corrosion resistant.

 

[z987k]

Ill get on the dissenting side.

I prefer carbon steel to stainless for most applications. I live in south Louisiana where everything is always wet, and I still prefer carbon steel for most things, including rifle receivers. Surface rust is no big deal and can be fought off with an oily rag. Its unatractive, but it doesnt hurt anything. Stainless is soft and galls easily. Its usually not as strong as carbon steel. Quality carbon steel does not readily rust like regular ol 1080, and you can see this with rifles easily. Give a 2013 remington 700 and a tikka t3 a wipe down with brake cleaner and put them in the rain. The remington will almost immediately turn into a rusty fuzz ball and the tikka will take far longer to start showing the orange hue.

Carbon steel with a good paint job is extremely corrosion resistant. Ships are entirely carbon steel, eternally dunked in salt water, and last a very long time (i know, anodes. You get the point).

The ideal rifle, for me, has a blued reciever and Stainless barrel. All the stuff with screw holes and moving parts carbon steel, the bore highly corrosion resistant.

There's "Carbon" steel alloys for things like ship and bridges that are meant to rust on the outside and provides a protective coating much like stainless and aluminum do. The alloy matters a lot though.
Gun barrels and receivers are normally made from 4140. Which very much will rust badly and is not engineered to take any weather. Save for the blueing(also a protective oxide) or the ceramic coatings put on it.
But you can't just say ships are made of non-stainless as well so this non stainless must be fine. Entirely different alloys.

 

[Choupique]

But you can't just say ships are made of non-stainless as well so this non stainless must be fine. Entirely different alloys.

Yea, I know. I dont want to nerd out on steel. Point being, you can do stuff to it to make it very corrosion resistant and not have to deal with the bad personality traits stainless steels have.

As a general rule, if its got threads or sliding parts involved, im going to avoid stainless if I can. I have some old shotguns that have been rode hard and put away wet for five plus decades now that have almost no bluing left on them but otherwise, they are fine. They dont rust very easily and for a few decades of assembly and disassembly, I greatly prefer carbon steel.

If you aren't hunting in/around saltwater, the choice to use stainless steel is largely a cosmetic one and IMO not offset by the bad qualities of SS.

 

[z987k]

Yea, I know. I dont want to nerd out on steel. Point being, you can do stuff to it to make it very corrosion resistant and not have to deal with the bad personality traits stainless steels have.

As a general rule, if its got threads or sliding parts involved, im going to avoid stainless if I can. I have some old shotguns that have been rode hard and put away wet for five plus decades now that have almost no bluing left on them but otherwise, they are fine. They dont rust very easily and for a few decades of assembly and disassembly, I greatly prefer carbon steel.

If you aren't hunting in/around saltwater, the choice to use stainless steel is largely a cosmetic one and IMO not offset by the bad qualities of SS.

Ive never seen a blue shotgun survive about 1 day on a sled.
Ive also seen blue rifles with orange spots the first morning at camp after coming in. Yes we're near saltwater but we have wildly less corrosion problems here than I did growing up 12 hours from the coast.

 

[wind gypsy]

I’ve posted this pic elsewhere but this is just from shooting in the rain for a couple hours and then sitting uncased in a car for about 5 hours after. Stainless is the way.

 

[SloppyJ]

A sample size under 10 but I think the blued actions are smoother. Can't say I've ever read anyone else saying that but they're noticeable to me. I live in the humid south and haven't had too many issues with any of the blued rifles. Just wipe them down and maybe take them out of the stock once a year or so and give them a good clean.

 

[Speaks]

Given cost difference is small I will tend to buy stainless but its a very small level of preference. If I see what I want in blued and not in stainless I will not go out of my way to get stainless. But if both equally available the cost will not change my preference.

 

[Choupique]

Stainless is the way.

Thats nasty, but itll clean up fine.

Wax also works really well for steel with a bright finish. Wax it just like a car before a trip and itll hold up for several days of use.

Theres no doubt stainless is better if your plagued by corrosion problems. Ive never had a serious problem with it so I prefer the better mechanical properties of carbon steel for receivers. For barrels, trigger mechanisms, etc, gimme stainless.

Whatever glock gen 5 slides are is awesome as well. Mine sometimes spends several days with constant salt spray exposure and even after a week of no attention, it just wipes clean. I think its coated stainless but the coating is tough as woodpecker lips.