I'm not interested in any Tikka rifles. That's because of where I hunt and what they I need my rifles to do.
If all I hunted were small varmits and the conditions were pleasant, one would be a good or even great choice.
But I don't do that kind of hunting. My guns need to fuction under constant dusty conditions. They may need to fuction perfectly after hunting under these conditions for many days then endure rain and freezing temperatures. Or really cold temperatures.
Rifles with the Tikka style extractors and ejectors have given me lots of fits over the years. No, they weren't Tikkas, they were Remingtons.
Another area that I've seen or had problems with are triggers and safeties. Usually cheap rifles have triggers that are hard to clean and can't be adjusted much if at all.
The rifles I prefer all have open trigger designs that are fully adjustable. These come, or have come, on rifles made by Ruger, Winchester and some of the Mausers.
It isn't an accident that Rugers and pre-64 style Winchesters are popular the world over by knowledgable hunters that hunt under togh conditions.
As to accuracy, I like it as much as anyone. But experience has taught me that even a 2.5 MOA rifle and load will work. But if the bolt stop fails, or the trigger goes sour on an extended hunting trip, I'm SOL. E
E (Rocklin), the fact that you keep posting at all is rather amazing. That you come off as an expert, or attempt to do so, is even more amazing.
You'd think that someone who NARROWLY avoided prison time for back shooting an unarmed man, then planting evidence to try to make it "righteous" would STFU and NOT make a spectacle of themselves.
Of course, you've done the opposite here for years; first in an attempt to paint yourself as a retired LEO (you didn't retire, you were fired and never worked law enforcement after that again) and handgun/CCW expert (you just got that privilege back after MANY years of being banned). Now, you're pontificating on rifles and hunting, espousing what "knowledgable hunters that hunt under togh conditions" (hint, learn to spell) use.
What experience should have taught you is that you probably aren't to be trusted around firearms and that you certainly are no "expert" on anything, save shooting unarmed men in the back and then failing miserably to plant enough evidence to get away with it.
People who want advice around here, and just about anywhere, generally want it from people who actually know what they are talking about and aren't simply making it up. That would rule you out, and there's another hint there - if you can catch it.
For the record, in case folks are interested:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/San%20Quentin/San%20Quentin%20312.pdfhttp://stanforddailyarchive.com/cgi...0&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-------A little more (pay attention to details):
Bad Cop: Convicting a cop, nearly impossible... California - It's been more than three decades since a police officer faced criminal charges for fatally shooting someone in Santa Clara County.
As a county grand jury considers this week whether to charge a San Jose officer in the July shooting death of a Vietnamese woman, the long-ago case of former officer Rocklin Woolley illustrates the long odds involved in trying an officer for killing in the line of duty.
"It's always hard for a jury to convict an officer, particularly in our county, where the public has a high opinion of police,'' said Dave Davies, a retired prosecutor who unsuccessfully sought to convict Woolley of felony manslaughter.
Woolley's case bore many similarities to the July 13 shooting of Bich Cau Thi Tran by San Jose police officer Chad Marshall. Both shootings drew public outrage and involved victims who were not white. The officers said they acted in self-defense and were accused of overreacting with deadly force to a harmless threat.
But what is especially telling about the failed prosecution of Woolley is that in some ways, his behavior seems more difficult to justify than that of Marshall, the officer in the Tran case. While Marshall faced a woman wielding a large, sharp instrument -- which turned out to be a vegetable peeler -- Woolley shot an unarmed man who was running away from him.
Woolley was a 27-year-old patrol officer when he stopped motorist John Henry Smith Jr., 37, for allegedly making an illegal U-turn Sept. 19, 1971. Smith, a black IBM research technician on his way home from a date, angrily protested the traffic stop when two off-duty officers who lived nearby happened on the scene.
Police said Smith threatened the officers with a tire iron. Woolley said he tried to subdue Smith with tear gas, then sent his police dog after him as he slipped free and fled toward an apartment complex.
As Smith reached the apartments, Woolley fired a single shot from his .45-caliber pistol, killing the unarmed man. Woolley later said he acted in self-defense, fearing Smith would arm himself once inside the apartments.
Community tension prompted calls for outside investigations. Two months later, a grand jury indicted Woolley on charges of manslaughter and using illegal tear gas.
At Woolley's trial, Davies told jurors the unarmed Smith posed no threat when he was shot. There was evidence Woolley threatened to kill Smith for suggesting he would sue over being tear-gassed. And officers said Smith had brandished a tire iron, but the tire iron turned out to fit one of their cars, not Smith's.
Then-Police Chief Robert Murphy said afterward that he no longer believed Woolley was justified in the shooting. Woolley, who was later fired along with another officer, lives in Placerville and declined comment. The city paid $30,000 to settle lawsuits on behalf of Smith's three children.
