Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Kimber Montana vs. Tikka

What's a Teeka stock worth, 40 bucks?

I own 3 Kimber's, a 7-08, a 308, and a 270 all Montanas. I just picked up my first Tikka, it's a T3 CTR Stainless in 260. For range use the CTR may get the call but for hunting and which one I wouldn't part with my vote is Kimber....

Well, if you price the Sako Carbonlite ($2,800 ) compared to a Finnlite, Beretta must think a good stock like the Montana comes with is worth $1,200 or so.

So, a Montana stock ALONE is worth two Tikkas

The
Lots of cowboys ride plastic saddles in today world.

Oh, I don't know....the last Kimber I worked with involved getting a scope screwed on straight, grabbing ammo loaded for a different rifle, and shooting 5 shots in an inch @ 100.

It's Kimber Denial for some of those Tikkler owners. They're tempted by the Montana but won't commit and justify the Tikka. They just don't seem to realize it.

Others have had both and still choose the Tikka. I don't understand it but at least they realize that the two designs are in completely different classes.

As has already been said, if you get a good one - all is well.

I'll stick with my pos tikka.

SC

BTDT, Kimber 84M Montana wins hands down.

Tikka's have without a doubt earned a reputation for accuracy at an affordable price. The actions are extremely slick, feed flawlessly, and have good triggers that are easily adjustable. They're fairly light and balance well IMO....

I can see where many would feel there's a lot of value for the $$, even if they aren't beauty queens and despite the extensive use of plastic.

However, after owning a few and handling/shooting several others, I simply couldn't warm up to the extensive use of plastic parts (and got rid of them in short order) as well as a few other aspects that turned me off.

1. Liberal use of plastic parts (trigger guard, mags, bolt shroud) {shrouds cracked on a couple rifles I owned}
2. Detachable Clip (not my cup of tea on a hunting rifle)
3. Hard to load from the breech
4. Action Length..... only 1
5. Plunger ejector and a hook style extractor

And the synthetic stock in particular exhibits too much flex and feels flimsy....

After owning and hunting with them I came to the conclusion that the Tikka's simply weren't what I wanted and desired in a hunting rifle.

YMMV

I've never even seen or heard of a Montucky Bob.

Last "bad"one I saw/shot,had front base issues...in regards to the barrel shank. But that's been a "whole"few weeks ago and perhaps they've "changed".

Laughing!








You gals REALLY "know" your stuff.

Pardon my being afforded the luxury,of not being forced to guess. Hint.

Wow +P+!.......................

We were inches away from having a couple of fun Montana's straight from the factory. They said no to the 8" twist Montana, no to the Creedmoor and they nixed the 7-08 from the line.

I guess they're banking their future on the Bob and the 270WSM?

Darrik, dropping the 7-08 just seems beyond stupid.

Bad enough they quit the 260.


A fast twist 22-250 MT would be uber.

Yep, glad I found one this past weekend at a great price!

I can't like the Tikka either, too cheap/plasticky/etc. I started out with Savages, so I know all about cheap/ugly/plastic rifles that shoot. But neither has the "character" I prefer.

I've never owned one, but guess my vote counts anyway since folks who never owned a Montana seem to think their Tikka votes should count...

i have a Hunter model tikka. i think i liked it a little more when i first got it. i agree about the plastic and all. the detachable mag is ok. wish it was easier to load from the top also. never held a Kimber but im wanting to buy another rifle next year and may check em out a local shop carries some

These "vs" threads crack me up.

I'm certain the Montana is more than a nice rifle.

What I want to know is, what will the Montana offer me that my Tikkas don't? If I can come up with a realistic value I'll gladly take the Montana plunge. The Tikka mag is a non issue for me. I always carry a spare mag loaded and ready.

Just to be clear I'm not saying there isn't a real world advantage to the Montana vs the Tikka T3. I've certainly not ruled the Montana out. If anyone would expound more on what the advantages are I'm all ears.

One thing is certain. I'm going to have to see some real world advantages to make the leap because the Montana does cost twice as much.


Shod

Have you handled a Montana? If you can't tell any difference then you might as well stay with Tikka.

It's lighter.



Travis

Montana can be had on gunbroker for $1,100, Tikka for $675, not twice as much, math don't lie.

I paid full retail for my .223 Montana and not once have I wished I had two Tikkas...

What would you do if Mary Alice was leaning over your shoulder flexing all of her 175 pounds with the "stare" telling you to buy the cheap one or you're cut off for 6 months?



LOL...it lies if you know Mary Alice. Then anything cheaper can be justified as being better, even with funny math.

As for me, I don't know Mary Alice but I know she exists. In the future I'll continue to cull that "special" type of women and I'll continue to buy Kimbers.