Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Tikka VS Kimber in 300WSM...your choice?

I think Brad does a pretty good job in summing this topic up. Let me give you my perspective . . .

I own a 270 WSM in a Montana, love the gun and it continues to amaze me that others don't see the value when compared to the competition. Like Brad said the stock is sweet, likely a $500 stock - compare that to the Tikka which does nothing for me. What really confuses me is guys buy a $600 Remington or Winchester and then restock it and now they have a $900-$1000 gun and they complain about how expensive the Kimber is. Furthermore they still have a junk trigger. Maybe it makes people feel better to spend their money in chunks rather then one big lump sum? Regardless Tikka isn't in the category to me as they offer a lot of gun for the money.

I will say a huge plus for me is the action size tailored to the WSM shell, I see no reason by a WSM in a Tikka, may has well buy a 300 win mag. The Kimber is light and and much of this to do from the nice compact action size.

Shooting wise I'll tell you they both will shoot, and will say the Tikka will likely shoot better from the bench. But with that said my gun w/150 Federal Fusions I can group 3/4" at 100 yards - how can you beat that? Now I can't shoot very fast as the small diameter barrel heats up quick but then again I didn't buy this guy to be a great range gun. It's a hunting tool to me and an awesome one at that.

I'd say the Tikka is a good gun and if we were comparing it to a Remington or Winchester I'd say buy it. But given your application and cartriage choice the Kimber makes more sense.

If those guys with Tikka's are having triggers freeze up then they havent done the neccessary preparation for hunting in wet and cold conditions. I live in Alaska you are not going to tell me that it was Tikkas fault that the triggers froze up , cause there is a little responsibilty involved in your firearms maintenance relative to the conditions you hunt in. My Tikkas have never froze up and I have spent hours at the range in sub zero temps as well as sopping wet hunts in below freezing weather. I am not going to go into how to degrease and lube a rifle for sub zero temps but thats not the rifles fault.So under no circumstance should you not consider a Tikka because some guys took their factory delivered rifles into cold wet(snow or rain) conditions,and they didn't fire, that could have easily been prevented. In my experiene many rifles will not even fire at sub zero temps becaus eof the thick grease they come with. And I have to also reply to the statement about guys justifying reasons not to spend money, I know for me at least I do the opposite, justify reasons "TO" spend money. The Kimber Montana was my first choice as I had heard all the rave about it and it just didn't do anything for me, sorry. as to the belief that Tikkas are cheaply made, You'd have to prove that one to me because I have beat the crap out of my 7mm on 2 sheep hunts and a couple bear and moose hunts. No complaints yet.

What Cub said.

I had a friend in Alaska who would not hunt with a Remington because one had frozen up on him on a hunt in the interior. When I asked what happened, he said it was left outside over night in the freezing rain, and he couldn't get the bolt opened.

DUH

Like a Model 70 would have opened?

I'm not a real smart man, but I have been known to pack that lock deicer stuff (real small can) on bad weather hunts.

I haven't shot a Kimber, but have handled them in a store. They did nothing for me, they seemed "plain" for a rifle wirth $1500 cdn. For the price of a Kimber I would buy a Sako Finnlight or even a grey wolf in a heart beat. The Finnlight is the same weight as the Kimber and the Greywolf is 10 oz heavier.
BTW My son shoots a Tikka, it's a really reliable gun, no problems with cold weather, very accurate, trigger groupos freezing up isn't the guns fault, it's the owners fault.

Cub, both these guys are hunters of long experience with years of field time. One has a safe full of rifles that I've handled, all impeccably maintained. He told me rain settled in the trigger assembly and froze in that sort of in between weather found here in November. He mentioned the rifles receiver design seemed to channel the water when slung.

I guarantee you improper maintainance had nothing to do with it... I'll try to get him to post his observations first hand.

I wasn't insinuating that the guys with frozen triggers didn't do proper maintenance on there rifles, but if you are going to hunt in the kind of conditions we experience up here regularly which is what it sounds like they experienced, there are tricks to the trade. I use a B-12 chem cleaner to completetly remove the grease and oil that my action and trigger come with from the factory and use a synthetic oil "lightly" applied to both. I also check my rifle periodically throught a hunt, the de-icer sprays are awesome back up for a very cold night after a very wet day. They make them in small squirt cans that are handy to throw in with your field cleaning kit.(they also work great on your door locks for your truck when the grease freezes up, or your lock is covered in ice)I have never let a gun get into the condition you described throught a hunt. I have woken up along the river at 9 degrees in September and the boat is covered in ice , the entire camp is coated in ice, but my rifle that was in the tent with me all night is not covered in ice. A can of break free is also in my field cleaning kit to completely spray the entire gun down if I cant get it very dry( rags are all wet and or dont have anything dry to wipe it down with). I have gone out and shot guns at -40 with guys and have seen 3 out of 4 guns not fire, pistols and rifles alike. The one with zero oil or grease will fire everytime. It makes a weird sound firing a gun at that temp too, it s quieter, its weird. Just stuff you learn if you ask the right people the right questions. I recently inquired for help on things a guy needs to know about hunting near saltwater as I am going brown bear hunting on the Pacific coast of the Peninsula next month. Never hunted near saltwater before and got some good feedback from people with experience. We all learn, some the hard way some the easy.

Mark, I was kidding about the Tikka fan comment. Sorry I didn't throw in a grin.

Other than that, I'll say almost everyone I know who bought the Tikka vs the Kimber did so to save money. Watch for the words "For the money..." etc. in this thread. Hell, the opening post proves my point.

Also, my recollection is that neither the Finnlight nor the Tikka are as light as the montana.

As a criticism of the Montana, the words "it does nothing for me" leave a lot to be desired.

I bought two Montanas vs the Tikka because I didn't want detachable mags, and the Montanas were lighter, if I recall correctly. I mounted a fairly heavy scope on both of mine, and I figured I'd do well to conserve weight on the rifle to make up for it.

In my group of hunting pards, there are 4 Kimber Montanas and 2 Tikka T3 Lites....both Tikkas purchased to save cash.....

You make your choice and pay your money.
I insist on a rifle that will work. And hold zero.
Tikkas use a plunger ejector and a hook style extractor. Kimber uses the time tested Mauser system. Far more reliable.
My "go to" rifles all have open trigger assembles for proper drainage and maintence. Anybody that thinks a simple, well stoned and adjusted trigger like that on a Win M70 won't hold up better than one that collets all sorts of dust, lint and moisture simply hasn't been around much. It does count.
Kimber uses a simple blind magazine in a first class stock. Not some alloy or plastic junk. Not much to go wrong there.
Yeah, great accuracy is lots of fun. Gives the warm fuzzys. But that under MOA stuff is worth nothing in the field for big game. Far more important that the rifle holds zero and works.
Light rifles require real care when shooting. I've seen several who just can't make'em work. Not the rifle's fault. Slim barrels simply don't shoot as many loads accurately as a heavier barrel. They will shoot just as well as the heavier barreled guns with ammo they like if they are well put together.
Lastly, ask anyone who walks much how important even a few less ozs. are when hunting and climbing.
No Tikkas or A-Bolts for that matter for me. I don't care how well they shoot at the range. What I insist on is holding zero and working when things get tough. E

I didn't buy my Tikkas to save cash, I bought them because they have the best triggers I have ever handled.

And I'm a certified gun nut, whit over a few hundred buy, shoot, trades under my belt.

I am with David, I have owned many guns in my shooting/hunting life and price is never a deterrent. If the local Sportsmans Warehouse had a Sako FinnLite when I was shopping I surely would have bought it and payed Kimber price for a better rifle IMO. There just wasn't anything there that supported the $1100 price tag. I like spending money but I dont spend it stupidly. I could have bought 2 Tikkas for the price of the Kimber and would have felt like I got a way better deal, than the short stubby Montana, with a grey stock that felt cheap to me, and a sloppy "Mauser", Winchester type action. As for sub MOA not meaning anything, its just one less thing to worry about when you are huffing hard after a stalk and you have been in the mountains for a week looking for that one animal, gives you a little more accuracy than the less accurate rifle at the range. If you shoot animals at 150 yards or less then MOA isn't that critical but for a 300 yard shot sub MOA guns shine.Jyst my opinion.

I cannot comment on the Tikka as I've not had any experience with them, but I do not like the Kimber because of the action. It looks and feels too much like a Ruger. I have to work too hard for my money to ever go down that road again.

There's a Kimber 300wsm in the classified section for $750. Might be worth a look.
I cant comment on the Tikkas, but I will on the Kimbers. The trigger was easy to adjust and is crisp. The accuracy is at MOA. It comes free floated with pillar beds. There's nothing else to do. Just open the box and shoot. I like the 3 position safety and the Mauser action. I am waiting to purchase another Kimber. But, its your $$.
Just one question. If the Tikkas are so good, why are they so inexpensive? (Serious question).

There's a Kimber 300wsm in the classified section for $750. Might be worth a look.
I cant comment on the Tikkas, but I will on the Kimbers. The trigger was easy to adjust and is crisp. The accuracy is at MOA. It comes free floated with pillar beds. There's nothing else to do. Just open the box and shoot. I like the 3 position safety and the Mauser action. I am waiting to purchase another Kimber. But, its your $$.
Just one question. If the Tikkas are so good, why are they so inexpensive? (Serious question).

Can anyone post the weights of the Montana, T3, and Finnlights?

My work computer is under heavy censorship.....

I DID NOT KNOW THAT! (The way Johnny Carson used to say it)

I can't believe that wouldn't be compelling enough..... addressing the choice of rifles in 300wsm that is.

I'm sentimental, so a rifle is so much more than a tool to me. I appreciate craftsmanship and things have to appeal to my eye and touch. (I don't care how well she cooks and cleans or if she is low maintenance and won't cost me much....I ain't goin' to marry an ugly woman!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> )

Silliness aside and considering why the Kimber Montana was designed, The Montana in the 300wsm trumps the Tikka in every category. Lock? By far! Stock? By far! Barrel? For the purpose? Yes! Trigger? Look, I know that Sako makes a sweet trigger for the Tikka, but the Kimber trigger is damn nice too!

With due respect to you Tikka owners, it is just my opinion really. It is the issue of comparing the two in 300wsm that makes me feel that there is practical merit in choosing the Kimber.

Learn to shoot left handed get used to lh bolts and then you'll have nothing to fret about!


Lucky bastids get to argue over which one is best!

Don't even realize how good we got it most days eh?

do like some of the others have, buy both and tell us which one you like best.

But I'd definitely get the Tikka in a 300 WM just doesn't make sense to me to put a short action cartridge in one.

Sako Finnlight all calibers list at 6lb 8oz. $1249-$1349.
Tikka T3 Lite Stainless all calibers list at 6lb 3oz. $549-$599.
Kimber Montana .300WSM list at 6lb 3oz. $1000-$1100.
Prices from www.gunbroker.com and a good local store here in MT, www.shedhorn.com. Sam

As much of a Tikka fan as I am, I will generally stick with standard length cartridges. The only advantage to the one length fits all is the one I am enjoying in my .223. I actually want the action to be a twin to my 270 so that shooting the plinker makes me more automatic with the hunting rifle. If I go up, it will be to a 300 Mag and not a WSM. It is more versatile and (to me) there is no advantage to a short mag in a Tikka, but I am not a big fan of them anyway since I don't reload and enjoy the factory options in calibers like 223, 270 Win, and 300 Win Mag.

In a 300 WSM, the Tikka really is at a disadvantage.

DJ

first of all, look at the wood stocked kimbers, There wood stocks are nice, and finished right, they have the look of a custom rifle, To compare the kimber to the tikka is like comparing a '67 big block vette to a new honda accord. The guns just really arent in the same class, The tikka has a flimsy cheap synthetic stock, with tons of flex, and booku plastic parts, plastic trigger guard, clip etc, I am suprised the aciton isn't plastic. go look at the tikka varmint model, its got glued on beaver tail forearm pieces and comb pieces, YUCKA!!!!!

the kimber is a classic rifle, its got all the parts most people want on a rifle, elegant looks, proper safety etc.

I don't know. I thought the reason for a rifle was to put bullets into the desired location from way out there.

Tikka T3s excel at that, for not a lot of money.

The rest is just window dressing.