Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Tikka Experience

If this is a hate thread, it is a pretty lame/tame one.

I am not upset in the least

Regarding the Lapua 308 necked down to 260:

I've never tried it in a 260, but I did order 100 a year or two for my two Tikka 7-08s. To be usable, it had to be outside neck-turned. It was REALLY tight if I didn't.

Right after I ordered the 308, I noticed Lapua was making 7-08 specific brass. I wish I would have seen that first. I have a nice Sinclair neck turning tool that just sits in a drawer now....

If it were me, I'd just get the 260 brass and not worry about it.

Just picked up a T3 in .260. I'm using Lapua and WW 7-08 hulls and sizing for a crush fit. Haven't loaded any bullets yet but have the Forster FL die set up for a production run.

It's the campfire; EVERYTHING is polarizing!

Silly me I assumed, since you responded to a thread entitled Tikka experience, that you would have some experience to offer.

<forehead smack>

DOE!

Thanks for the info
I have pretty much decided to get a tikka in 6.5x55, but your idea of the 260 has me interested
Does the swede have much of an advantage in velocity when loaded to equal levels?

Not really. The difference in powder room is only about 2-3 grains, which means a potential increase in velocity of around 1 to 1.5% with both rounds loaded to the same pressure.

Quit assuming things then. As of now you have contributed ZERO to this thread. Where is the experience that YOU have offered in YOUR 4 replies? All I see is stupid comment after stupid comment from you.

Talk about "pot meet kettle".

You may wanna try practicing what you preach...

If you haven't noticed, JGR has talked about killing with the same 2 Tikkas for about as long as he has been on here. 7-08 and 7 mag. Why would you assume that someone who doesn't like them would have equal experience? Would you hunt for over a decade with a rifle you don't like? Pretty poor assumption there.

And I don't need to hunt with a Tikka for 10 years to know what I am looking at. And if you read thread, it should be readily apparent that I have experience with them, for anyone without a learning disability.

I see you just bought your first one. You must be a wealth of knowledge by now

Well...your incessant criticisms and slams certainly indicate you don't "love" Tikka's.

"Experience" would give you 'some' credibility IN a thread entitled " Tikka Experience" .

Since you don't have Tikja experience...why would you be so negative OR even comment ?

What's the saying about "open your mouth and remove all doubt"?


....yeah, I'd say you are a hater.


Jerry

Is it reading comprehension disability day around here or something?

I clearly said I had experience. Read the damn thread. I said I did not have the experience of a guy who has been using them almost exclusively for over a decade. I don't want to ever have that much experience with Tikkas......

I've offered what I know about em and haven't spouted off. Where did I claim to be a wealth of knowledge about anything? There's only one pompous a$$hole in this thread worthy of honoring himself as such.

Post some more pics and repeat your ramblings some more you're on par with Savage99 right now in completely missing the point.

The Tikka is a lightweight precision machine. I've had one for 9 years and just bought my second Tikka. I still have two M70s but don't use them much anymore the Tikka just feels so light, handy, and precise.

You may as well buy a new one, I rarely see a used one.

Haven't spouted off? You have done nothing but chirp and make stupid comments. You have offered nothing. Zero. Show me something to the contrary.

Although I do believe you when you say you have offered what you know....

So how does your new SS Tikka shoot? Is that this year's deer rifle?

I've owned and shot, Tikka Model 65,(30-06) 595,(25.06, 6.5x55) 695,(7 Rem Mag ) and T3's.

All shot well, none were fussy about what they were fed. The older ones were all blued wood and all were slick, smooth and heavy. The weight was the number one reason I no longer own these.

The T3s were a mix of stainless and blued, wood, laminate and synthetic considerably lighter in weight then the older models . 222 Rem, 6.5x55, 338 Federal,.308 Win, .270 and .300 WSM.

Some how the T3s just don't appeal to me, no pizzaz, no soul. So I no longer own any.

The ones that went to friends and family are well used, every fall.

Flyer

I have re-read, aka suffered thru, TWICE every post of your's in this thread. Please quote yourself about your experience - using/hunting any Tikka.

Above you said you do not like/use them. All of your posts state your disapproval from 'looking' at or examining them. I didn't see one word about experience 'using' any Tikka.

I'll be looking for your quote regarding actual experience from use.

Jerry

ps - let's see now, Mule Deer, kudu dude, shortactionsmoker, and many of us commoners have given testimony from our actual experience with Tikkas.

I have zero experience with a Tikka, so this is purely subjective.

I have owned quite a few Tikka's over the years. T3 stainless in 30-06 and 300WSM. A CTR in 260, and a SS/Laminated T3 in 260. A T3 Forest in 260, and a Forest in 9.3x62.

Never fired any of them. Once I had them, I just couldn't like them.

I have little doubt they were accurate as people say. The triggers were very nice. Fit and finish were as expected.

But there was not a single feature of the rifles that made me want to keep them.

The bolts were slick for sure, like the Sauers I have owned. The triggers were nice like my Kimbers.

The stocks were acceptable, equal to a M77 Hawkeye.

The weight of the T3 SS was ok too, like many 700s I have owned.

I don't care much for the long action only thing, but as MD pointed out, there are advantages and disadvantages.

The thought of replacing too many pieces (recoil lugs, bolt shrouds, bottom metal, stocks) seems silly to me.

By the time you do that, you could have just payed a little more up front and got a more refined rifle (a Sako?) to start with.

I am not a hater. I have tried to like them.

Guess part two of my signature line says it all.

Is it maybe possible for some to ascertain all on their own, that since I basically went over each individual part of the gun, in some detail, and offered why I do not like it, that I just might have experience it? Apparently not.

Or how about a couple of pages ago where I clearly stated that I brought a Tikka home, took stock off, and recoil lug fell out? That not enough either?

Okay, here goes. I am typing this slowly because I know some don't read so well:
Yes I have used a Tikka. Nothing dramatic happened. I didn't like it. I didn't like it before I hunted with it, before I shot it, or after. Please write this down or save it somewhere.

Not going to keep typing just because people can't read or read into everything too far.

People getting butt hurt over guns is hilarious.

How many times have we all heard guys say "Tikkas have no soul." Or refer to them as Plastikka? A lot. You may not agree, but I do. There is simply nothing there for me to like past the barrel and trigger. Deal with it. It is a $350 gun at most, and I would not buy one at that price. Don't know what else to tell you. Gave you all the reasons why. Compare the pieces, part by part, vs. other budget guns. The facts should be readily apparent for those without blinders on. Less gun for more money. Expensive replacement parts and backed by $hitty CS. Period.

They do make Tikkas with all grown up parts on them. They call them Sakos......

This is exactly the butthurt BS I am talking about........