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

For the guys that have both or have had both;

Which one wins?

Kimber is a lot more $$ of a rifle as well as better built. Not really a fair comparison. Tikka's shoot nice but they are built at a price point with their plastic trigger guards, plastic stock, etc....

Summary of the posts to follow:

Tikkas are plastic POS and Kimbers will shoot if you can!

Kimbers don't shoot and Tikkas weigh pretty much the same!

Both.

You can't just make a blanket statement on one vs. the other. I have some hang ups about both. My 270WSM barked like a mofo. My 1:8 223 shoots like a mofo. I don't like detachable mags so the Montana would be my choice for a hunting rig. Tikka's don't take schit to make them shoot.

Dunno, somehow I end up with Remingtons as a mainstay. Personally, 270Win is all the Montana I'd want. Were I picking a SA, it'd be a 243 Montana over the Tikka and my beloved Faux Ti 260.

Its a mystery wrapped in a conundrum. End of the day, pick what you like, like what you pick. None of it amounts to 2 schits....

This might be a popcorn making thread but my experience is that most Tikka's shoot very well out of the box. I've also come to automatically bed my Kimber Montana's and they then perform like a Tikka. Maybe some of those Montana's didn't need it but I wouldn't know that.

The comparison between the two reveals quite a difference in actions, designs and yes - co-polymer parts on the Tikka. Remember that the US military and LEO's across the land have a lot of "plastic" on their rifles and pistols too.

But in general, what you purchase depends on how adamant you are to have Win. Mod. 70 style action features as opposed to the features on the Tikka. Three position versus two position safeties as an example.

Detachable magazines versus a blind magazine, large versus small load port, tupperware versus kevlar. You have plenty to choose from between $600 and $1150 - give or take.

If you don't care and just want a reliable rifle at the least cost, than the present Tikka T3 is your choice. There is talk that the T3 is changing - to what no one who knows will tell, so you'd better act now.

Good luck with your decision. There is a good chance this will become a lively thread here in short order.

An A7 is as low as I will slum.

T3's are right now there with Remingtons.....grin



Kimber all the way for a true walk around rifle.


And yes they can be a little tricky but the end result is worth it.

"Kimber all the way for a true walk around rifle.


And yes they can be a little tricky but the end result is worth it."

I have both and the Kimber is my pick!

I've owned four Kimbers, three Montanas and a classic. I've also owned four Tikkas, three T3 lite SS and a T3 SS SL.

I really like a lot about the Montanas. But I read (here) that in the event of a case rupture, they don't handle the gas well.

I also read (here) about a guy who put a 308 in his 270 Tikka T3 and was fine.

I don't plan on having any problems like that, but just to be safe, I sold my Kimbers. (I also don't do any big back packing trips anymore.)

I started thinking what if one of my kids puts a 243 in the 7-08, or a ...

I know I'm being weird and it probable won't happen and common sense and training would make the chance of a gas event even more remote, but I still got rid of them.

With the same scope, my T3 SL is fourteen ounces heavier than the same caliber Montana. To make the comparison fair, I need a cheek riser on the Tikka but can get by w/o one on the Montana, so that adds another four ounces.

My Tikkas shoot so great, the only thing I miss is the cool factor of the Montanas.

I'll probable come to my senses later and stop worrying so much and get another Kimber sometime, but I'm really liking the Tikkas. They are just erally easy for me to get shooting well.

Almost like trying to compare an apple to an orange. Eat the one you like the most.

I've just acquired my first Montana, currently have 3 T3's.

All my Tikkas shoot, hands down and they are not really picky. The one real issue I have with them is that I can't unload the chamber when safety is engaged...

The Montana is an engineering marvel...weight is unreal, but I can say that a T3 in SL sitting in a McMillan edge will get you close if weight is a concern...then again your right back at the cost of a kimber out of the box.

It's a crap shoot and neither of these shoot like crap.

Even if it were apples to apples, it's akin to a man's preference for Granny Smith or Golden Delicious.

I can appreciate the Kimber and I have owned a grand sum total of one. For me, the Tikka is a sweet spot.

I have had more Tikkas than I care to remember. They are a great rifle, they all shot exceptional. That is where it ends for me though. I could never get "attached" to a single one of them. Now the big question is why the huge jump? You have skipped a wide range of fine rifles from the price point of a Tikka to the Kimber. I know you just asked about these two rifles but I would throw the M70 fwt into the mix or even the M70 Extreme Weather since you are in that price range. Or add a few more bills and get the "Real Tikka". But between those two, Kimber gets my vote everyday of the week.

I agree with this. Tikka's were a appliance to me almost a disposable rifle with no emotional attachment to them at all. I got it so cheap I had to buy it and try it. It shot good but no better than a comparable Winchester, Savage, or Remington in that price range and certainly didn't have any of the feel or build quality of my Sako's. I had the Tikka for about a month and took a huge beating on a trade in for classic 1955 Winchester. My buddy that owns my LGS showed me what the mark up on the Tikka was and that explains why you see so many sales and promotional's on Tikka rifles and why trade-in was deplorable.

Look at a CZ. They are great shooters with a quality build at a outstanding price. They have the feel and quality of the earlier Sako's of the early 1980's. They are undervalued at this point in time and a good rifle to invest in now.
The new Winchester Model 70 is the best version of the legendary 70 in its evolution. Savage better models are great shooters at a affordable price point if you can get use to the accu trigger.
I own a few Sako's and still prefer the build quality of the Kimber over my 75 and 85. The synthetic stock on the Sako's isn't up to par for a gun in that price range. The Montana synthetic stock is as good as you can get. My Montana and the other 3 I shoot with at my gun club are under 1" MOA rifles. I am a M70 fan so the Montana's design has everything I am looking for in a rifle. If your a crazy Winchester Model 70 fan, then the best Flyweight Model 70 is the Kimber Montana if that makes any sense.

The Montana and Mountain Assent are the platinum standard in synthetic mountain rifles in my neck of the woods.

So far...

Kimber - 4

Tikka - 2

I wouldn't throw in an EW because you get a crappy stock and at the same price as the Montana, it just isn't cost effective to buy it over the Montana.

Put me down for Kimber Montana...

bsa, I agree about the EW, mine is wrapped in an edge and I didn't shoot it much in the B&C.

Of course the Ruger American kicks both of their azzes.

Lefty C

Let's focus on what the OP asked.

I'll vote for the Kimber.

I like and have both but I lean toward the Kimber. I have played with six Kimbers if memory is correct and all would go MOA or better consistently with most going 3/4 MOA or so. The Tikkas I have played with have been even better except one instance that was an 1" to 1.25" rifle at 100. I give the accuracy edge to the Tikka. I like the stocks on the Montanas better. I greatly dislike the enclosed top on the Tikka action and that in itself is enough to make me look elsewhere.

Kimber - 7

Tikka - 2