Why I would never buy a Tikka

[pacoalcracker]

If a Tikka was every bit as good as a CA, why isn't Tikka asking for the same 1999.00 instead of 999.00? Every company is there to make as much profit as possbile for shareholders/owners. No company anywhere is giving anything away. Tikka owners here spend major money to make them "better".....I spent nothing to make my 2 CA FFT TI rifles better....because they are already "better" right out of the box. To each their own.

 

[pharmfisher]

If a Tikka was every bit as good as a CA, why isn't Tikka asking for the same 1999.00 instead of 999.00? Every company is there to make as much profit as possbile for shareholders/owners. No company anywhere is giving anything away. Tikka owners here spend major money to make them "better".....I spent nothing to make my 2 CA FFT TI rifles better....because they are already "better" right out of the box. To each their own.

So your saying if Tikka would charge more you would buy one? I have a Tikka that you can buy for 2k if you'd like. People who buy CA do so purely out of aesthetic appeal and are ignorant of how poorly they function. How is a CA objectively better? They are not more accurate, they are much less reliable. I can drop a Tikka into a $500 stock to get it looking as pretty as a CA, have a better gun, and save $500. Do your research before buying things.

 

[The Guide]

If a Tikka was every bit as good as a CA, why isn't Tikka asking for the same 1999.00 instead of 999.00? Every company is there to make as much profit as possbile for shareholders/owners. No company anywhere is giving anything away. Tikka owners here spend major money to make them "better".....I spent nothing to make my 2 CA FFT TI rifles better....because they are already "better" right out of the box. To each their own.

I can buy a Tikka rifle ($700 to $800), a Trijicon Credo ($900), Good Tikka rings ($150), 3 to 5 boxes of ammo ($150), and be shooting as far as I want to for $2000. You haven't even bought your CA FFT TI rifles yet at that price.

Jay

 

[ElPollo]

If a Tikka was every bit as good as a CA, why isn't Tikka asking for the same 1999.00 instead of 999.00? Every company is there to make as much profit as possbile for shareholders/owners. No company anywhere is giving anything away. Tikka owners here spend major money to make them "better".....I spent nothing to make my 2 CA FFT TI rifles better....because they are already "better" right out of the box. To each their own.

Honestly, I’m not sure exactly where to start in response to that argument. But I am convinced that none of the evidence I could provide you with would ever change your opinion.

 

[lineslayer]

Smooth bolt tikka > CA action

 

[mt100gr.]

If a Tikka was every bit as good as a CA, why isn't Tikka asking for the same 1999.00 instead of 999.00? Every company is there to make as much profit as possbile for shareholders/owners. No company anywhere is giving anything away. Tikka owners here spend major money to make them "better".....I spent nothing to make my 2 CA FFT TI rifles better....because they are already "better" right out of the box. To each their own.

So more expensive = better?

You, my man, got suckered by the hype!

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

If a Tikka was every bit as good as a CA, why isn't Tikka asking for the same 1999.00 instead of 999.00? Every company is there to make as much profit as possbile for shareholders/owners. No company anywhere is giving anything away. Tikka owners here spend major money to make them "better".....I spent nothing to make my 2 CA FFT TI rifles better....because they are already "better" right out of the box. To each their own.

Because they have the Sako line of rifles which offer "premium" stocks, actions sized to chambering, set trigger options, flush mount mags, top fed DBM options, aluminum bottom metal, integrated pic rails, etc... Some of these features have snuck over into the Tikka line, increasing the price.

Tikka was brought on as a "budget" line rifle when they are clearly worth as much as a Christensen or more. Better action, better barrel consistency and longevity, better trigger design and function, better safety design and function, better in dust/dirt, better in ice/snow/rain... The list goes on.

They aren't really even comparable rifles from a quality/finish/repeatability/reliability standpoint at all. I actually just twisted off a factory Christensen carbon barrel in July on my father in laws 6.5 PRC Mesa, he's been having issues and wanted to swap barrels. It was so loose it broke free with less than 40 ft lbs and had non locker residue on the threads. Action screws that are supposed to be "spec'd" from Christensen at 65 inch lbs according to the manual were torqued to 25 inch lbs and were greasy...

Christensen rifles could be $500 and I'd still never buy another one.

 

[BigSky]

I didn't read all of the responses because, frankly, I don't want a headache. My only input is to the OP and that is, based on your experience, you are justified in the position you have taken.

 

[Mike D Texas]

If a Tikka was every bit as good as a CA, why isn't Tikka asking for the same 1999.00 instead of 999.00? Every company is there to make as much profit as possbile for shareholders/owners. No company anywhere is giving anything away. Tikka owners here spend major money to make them "better".....I spent nothing to make my 2 CA FFT TI rifles better....because they are already "better" right out of the box. To each their own.

Hahaha. I fought the Tikka urge for a long time. But I’ll tell you that the only mods I’ve made to my Tikkas is a long action bolt stop and longer length mags which has nothing to do with the performance of the rifle.

I’ll take the $1k difference between a CA (which has well documented issues) and spend it on ammo.

I have rifles that I’ve spent 4-5x the cost of my Tikkas on they perform no better than an off the shelf Tikka does.

I only have 1 custom rifle that runs as smooth as a stock Tikka.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro