Tikka T3 SS Lite or Kimber MT? I have read a ton about each of these rifles. They both get rave reviews. I have handled each and like them both. I like the adjustable trigger on the Tikka, but I like the stock on the Kimber. It's hard to argue with the shooting results of either, although the Tikka seems to get the nod, at least right out of the box. I am at a point in my life where I don't have the time to tinker much with handloads, although I will if I have to. With the accuracy of some factory loads though, it doesn't seem as necessary. So, my question is this. Is the Kimber really worth twice the cost? I can get a Tikka with a Leupold VXIII 3.5-10x40 for the same money as the Kimber. I'm leaning this way unless someone can convince me why I should buy the Kimber. What do you think?

Don't be cheap or short change yourself. Get the Kimber.

No offense, but I have heard such statements already. What I am looking for, is for someone to back up such statements with solid reasoning. What is it about the Kimber that makes it a better choice for you?

It's funny a guy could like both of those rifles as they're quite different from each other. I dislike almost everything about the Tikka but like nearly everything about the Kimber.

Go figure...

I woulnt get either in a 300 WSM. I'd get something heavier. Such as a Rem XCR, CZ Ultimate Hunter, Or build one myself with different fav components. Of the two you mention, I'd get the Kimber because I have a thing for that type of action. Do I think the Tikka would be a better shooter? Yeah, without a doubt. If I went Tikka I would go LaM SS to get a bit extra weight. CZ I believe also makes a wood/SS 300 WSM that i'd also look at. I just refuse to shoot 300 WSM's from a very light platform unless it was like 10 shots per year. I like rifle that weigh reasonabley for cal. The Tikka t3 lite is the upper register of what I'd punish myself with those guns and .308 in the Montana.. But thats just me. I'm waiting for those CZ Ultimate hunters in 300WSM coming out soon.

I see a lot to like in both rifles. Both are well balanced, stainless, lightweight, rugged, out-of-the-box accurate rifles. I have a couple of Tikkas, and am learning about the Kimbers.

I have read a lot about the Kimbers (as I did about the Tikkas before I bought them), handled several, and like the feel and balance of the Kimbers. I hear they are usually accurate, although there are some which are not and have to go back. Otherwise, I have heard nothing but good things about them. I like that they are American made, although I wish the company had a longer track record and was older - just for peace of mind, although I know there are no guarantees what any company will do. They are a little lighter than the Tikkas, but the synthetic stock is pretty plain and without a floor plate.

My experience with the Tikkas has been stellar, as seems the case for just about every Tikka owner. My rifles are extremely accurate with every factory load I have tried. They have shot every factory load so far well under an inch, with some tiny (near 1/4 inch groups with my 223.) I like the way they handle and shoot, love the triggers, and the Sako barrel is a great tube combined with a very slick action. I expect there will be after market stocks soon, given the extreme popularity these guns seem to enjoy, so if the stock is distasteful (as it seems to some - I see nothing but the plastic not to like about these rifles), perhaps there are options around the corner. The stock and plastic doesn't bother me, they seem to hold up and something has to give if weight is being shaved.

Tikka does not go light by using a pencil barrel, and while the Kimber is not too thin, it is thinner than the Tikka.

If you want to be certain of a good shooter with factory loads, I think you can bank on it with the Tikka. For a guy who has to pay attention to the money, doesn't reload, and wants a shooter, I would go Tikka. The bench performance translates very well into the field when hunting with my Tikkas, and while the Kimber may outshine Tikka by a bit in a pure hunting scenario, I am not sure it does.

I like the looks of the Tikka, but I buy SS rifles to use them and don't worry about their looks much if they are not just offensively ugly, which the Tikka is not IMO. I know some say if you want accurate and cheap, go Savage, but to me the Tikka and the Savage are worlds apart in fit, finish, slickness of action, and appearance.

For me, accuracy builds confidence for hunting situations, and that's what's most important to me in my rifles. If I am confident, I make good shots, and I am confident in the Tikkas. I might be as confident if I get an accurate Kimber, but the small chance that I might get $1,ooo in a rifle that I don't feel confident in is a pretty big deal to me when I can have two Tikkas or a Tikka with good glass for the same price.

One other consideration - you want a short action. The Tikkas' actions are all the same length. I would have a hard time buying a WSM in the longer actioned Tikka, so for a WSM, the Kimber has an edge.

I want a Kimber and will probably buy one in 308 or 300 WSM, but I am more uneasy about buying one and being totally confident in getting a real shooter than I was with my Tikkas. I have not heard much about how the Kimbers shoot factory ammo, most of the guys I have read on them reload.

Both rifles will be pretty snappy in a 300 WSM, since they are so light. Mowzer's idea about the laminate stock is a good one on the Tikka if you go with one.

Hope this helps.

DJ

I went with the Tikka T3 Lite S/S over the Kimber. I handled both and cost was not an issue. The Kimber had the same sloppy action that Winchesters have and the balance of the shorter Kimber didn't feel right to me. I already owned a Tikka in 7mm so I might have been biased to a sub 1" gun with everything I feed it , the action on the Tikka is to sweet to compare to anything else, except for a Sako or a high dollar Mark V. There is some true quality to the Tikka. I will tell you that at the last minute I changed my mind on the 300 wsm and went with a 300WM, there is no weight difference, and it seemed more versatile. Ammo is readily available. I am shooting 200 grain A-Frames out of it for an upcoming brown bear hunt next month. It kicks, but its deadly accurate out to 300 yards with the A-Frames. Its hard for me to buy anything else but another Tikka, they have outperformed every gun in my safe and the action is like butter. I like lightweight rifles, in Alaska theres a lot of hoofing to do and the lighter the gun the easier to carry it is. I put a LimbSavers recoil pad on it and its totally shootable.At a solid 7 1/2 lbs scoped with a Leipold VX-III 2.5-8x36. Cant be beat.

Joeshooter...Here is something on the Tikka from ShortMags.com.: We dislike repeating our reasons for not recommending the T-3 because it just upsets those forum members who have them. So, I'll just state the primary 2 reasons and let it go at that:

1. The T-3 uses a long-length action for all cartridges - negating one of the principle points of getting a short mag. If opting for a Tikka, you may as well get a standard-length cartridge.

2. The T-3 is a step down from earlier Tikka models like the Whitetail Hunter. The T-3 was deliberately cheapened to lower manufacturing cost. The intent was to step into the low-cost market with an inexpensive item for less-discriminating buyers. (See, told you I would just make folks mad!)

When initially introduced, T-3 prices were significantly lower than most of the WSM competition except for the Wal-Mart Special (M70 Super Shadow) and the basic Savages. Now, T-3 prices have crept up to where their purchase can no longer be justified on the basis of low cost - at least not in the United States. Cost situations in other countries may be different and make the T-3 more appealing due to an exceptionally low price.

I've never shot a Tikka but have handled them and personally prefer the balance and appearance of the Kimber but that's me.

I have both and would pick the tikka. I like that although it weighs a tad more it puts that weight in the barrel. I never really enjoyed shooting the montana 300wsm, lota barrel jump. The kimber is a quality rifle no doubt, but I have bought 3 t-3's and am sold on them. I also like the detachable mag, and the trigger better on the tikka, And boy does it shoot well.The tikka also has a lower bolt throw and will cost you about $400 less.

I have a Kimber 8400 in .300 WSM. I have other Kimber rifles and no Tikkas, so I warn you in advance that I am biased. I can vouch that the Kimber is an excellent rifle, and has done well for me in the .300 WSM category.

But my advice on the Tikka vs. Kimber is to get the one that feels better in YOUR grubby paws and that YOU are most comfortable with, and (if you get a chance to test them out) which shoots better for you. It's all about YOU and YOUR rifle, not about the rest of us and our rifles, if you know what I mean.

I know two guys here locally that both had their T3's trigger group and/or firing pin freeze up under hunting conditions rendering them unshootable. One guy had it happen on two T-3's, the other on one. That's three rifles! That on top of all the plastic parts, forget it. As much as it pains me to agree with that dimbulb moderator at short-[bleep].org, it does seem pointless to put a 300 WSM in the same action a 300 WM fits in.

The Kimber Montana is a bargain price-wise. Heck, the stock is probably in the $500 range alone considering it's hand-laid fiberglass (not chopped glass like the Ti) with aluminum pillars. The only thing I prefer about the T3 over the Kimber is the barrel contour. The good news is a guy can always shoot-out the Kimber barrel and go heavier if so-desired. Heck, the price of the Kimber would be worth it just for the action and stock.

As to the 8400 being a "sloppy" action, that's new to me. The tolerances on both Kimber MT's I've had are amazingly tight. In fact, the initial runs were too tight and tolerances had to be loosened a bit. The machining is unmatched. I think some don't understand that a Mauseresque bolt always has a lot of play in it when open in the raceways.

My admittedly biased views...

OK, I will admit. I have heard stories about the triggers freezing up on the Tikkas, and that concerns me. Partially because much of my hunting is done in MT and Canada where it can get mighty cold. I also don't like the plastic stock on the Tikka(was actually thinking about trading for or purchasing the HUNTER stock if I bought the Tikka). The only other thing that I dislike is the plastic bolt tip. I do like the magazine versus not having anything on the Kimber and the one size fits all action does not bother me, given that they shoot so dang well!

As for the Kimber, I love the stock. The action is tight. I like the fact that it has a CRF. Just like with the stories about the Tikka triggers, I have also heard stories about Kimber quality control issues, so neither company is completely free of these types of issues. I don't like the barrel contour of the Kimber either, which makes my concerns and dislikes about equal on each rifle. So now I am back to square one. I wish I could shoot each rifle before making my decision. Brad, I am currently shooting a 338. Given that you have shot this caliber a bunch, give me your honest feedback and compare your Kimber 300WSM to your past 338's in terms of recoil. Anyone else, feel free to make the same comparison. It really doesn't bother me much, but I do want to know. Typically, when I am shooting paper, I use a Caldwell Lead Sled, so I do not even notice recoil. I notice it even less in the field! I can honestly say that I have never once noticed an ounce of recoil in the field, as the rush of the hunt with all that adrenaline pumping makes it a non issue. Nevertheless, I am curious. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Joe, I think the Kimber MT on the bench at 7lbs (or a smidge under), recoils a touch lighter than, say, an 8.25 lb 338 at the bench with 210's at max. That's highly subjective, obviously, due to a lot of variables. In the past I've only used 180's in various 300 WSM's. Since becoming a 168 TSX TB (True Believer) I'll be running 165/168's exclusively... it'll be interesting to see if that makes any difference in perceived recoil vs. the 180's.

I'd also add, I tend to think Kimbers "QC" issues are largely a thing of the past. I also believe some of the supposed accuracy issues were mainly due to guys that don't know how to shoot light rifles.

The lattest Kimber 8400's all have a shallower feed ramp (by approx 10 deg's) than the original's... certainly makes for slick feeding of the WSM's... with that new feature, I'll boldly say I don't believe there's a finer acton for the WSM's.

Lots of ways for folks to justify not spending the extra $$.......

and vice versa...

Brad,

With my 338 I shot 225gr TSX and Accubond. With the 300WSM I plan on shooting the 168gr TSX exclusivley as well, so I expect that the recoil will be less than my 338. Thanks for the input.

Joe, you're welcome.

Ahh, another Tikka fan....

Ahh, another Tikka fan....

Huh, on what basis do you say that?

I simply made a point that the process can go both ways on this debate. No denying that.

And I could honestly care which anyone chooses to carry.

Life is simply about choices and we all have them to make.

I like em both they both have their challenges and both have their areas of excellence.

Mark D


oops almost forgot to add that the only one of either in my corral at this time is a Kimber. (Super America 223 of Oregon)

I have both in 308, and the Tikka is less finicky about ammo, and more accurate, and has a better trigger. and cost 1/2 as much.

Based on Brad's comments, I'll soak the trigger in rubbing alcohol, and use graphite lube.

No problems so far, but I live in a desert.

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.

David, my Big Sky 300 WSM with 3x9x40 in Talley LWT's, Uncle Mikes Mountain Sling and 3 rounds goes 7lbs 5 oz's. I haven't bedded it yet but it'll take a little skim coat at most.

cummins-in comparing Vets and Honda's and Tikka's and kimbers I would also add this.

The Honda is gonna be less expensive, runs trouble free and work great. The Vet is not gonna be like this.

I'd say that the Tikka is like a Honda and the Kimber is like the Vet. The Vet is a nicer rig by most standards but it is not gonna be without issues. Just like the Kimber.

All in all to date the Tikka has been basically a trouble free rifle and the Kimber is on Phase 3 of trying to get it right.

Don't get me wrong I think the world of the Kimber, its just that there has been more than a fair amount of issues with it to date.

We'll see what Phase 3 brings.

Brad just got one of the P 3 rigs and I look 4-ward to giving it a workout.

Mark D

Again, the money issue is raised.

We shoot our Montanas out to 700+yds on a regular basis. Tikkas have no corner on that market, that I can see.

People buy the Tikkas to save money.

Personally I like both of them and for very different reasons.

When I was in retail I sold about 50 or so of the Tikka's. Money no doubt plays a big part in it. Accuracy is wonderful and not an issue with the T3's. In most parts of the world there is always gonna be a lot more T3's sold than Kimbers. And that is part of the reason why 10/22's, 870's and Mickey D's sell so well.

Is the plastic an eye sore, yep it is but I would be borderline amazed to hear of problems with it. Next time I get a clip for a T3 in my hand I will try to break it. I do wish that they would of made the bolt shroud metal and not ziplock plastic but then I do believe it works.

I love the feel of the Kimbers super rifle, and well it should be. It is about 2x the cost of the T3 and so it should be a lot more money.

In a accuracy race I would take my money and put it on the less expensive T3 each and every day.

In a feeding race (to date) I would also put my moola on the T3 over the Kimbers. And I also know that feeding is a very personal thing and all people have different ideas of what good feeding is and what it isn't.

Weight, it is pretty much a tie and they are both gonna come in within a couple of ounces of each other from gun to gun.

I love em both.

I do believe that the Little Sky (08 based rounds) and the French Select are two of the best pieces of equipment out there for the bucks. They are some kind of rigs. The new Phase 3 version of the Big Sky is yet to of proven itself to me, time will tell on this one.

Either way you go there is gonna be things that could/would/should be better. Take your pick and spend your money's.

Mark D

Brad, thanks for the info....wish I could remember what my Kimbers weigh, but I can't recall...

Was more curious about weights of just the rifles...

All I know for sure is that all of them somehow or another get heavier every year!!

Mark D

DavidAk311,

As I said, I have both. My Kimber is a shooter, my Tikka is, too for 1/2 the cost.

If you're saying people buy Tikkas because they don't have the money for a Montana, you might be right.

If you're saying the Montana is twice the gun because it can shoot as well as a Tikka, and costs twice as much, you're on shaky ground.....

IMHO

Mark , don't be too quick to sell that old tech stuff short for reliabilty .

I used to own one of those big block Vettes.......'66 model , 427 , 390 horses ........never caused me a minute of trouble .

The Kimber is what it is,less fluff.

The Tikka is a plastic attempt at same.

That ground ain't shakin'...in that one gets what he pays for,both initially and down the road.

Hard to bitch about that,either in theory or application.......................

The first group is the 1st 3 shot group I shot out of my Kimber 300WSM. The Second is out of a French Walnut 270 WSM, the third a 200 yard group with Factory Ammo at 200yards, and the 4th another 270 WSM;












Tikka' seem to be excellent rifles for the price. I personally would prefer a 300 WSM to be made on a short action and not have as much plastic on it as the Tikka's, but if you are budget limited they seem to be a good choice. The one Tikka I had didn't shoot near as well as any of my Kimbers.
The Kimber is an All steel American made rifle with Control Round Feed backed by a company with excellent customer service. I personally wonder how many of the rifles sent back with accuracy concerns were due to operator error. All of mine save one shot this way out of the box and the one that didn't was probably due to someone switching out the stock. The one that someone switched out the stock on was sent back and kimber replaced it with the stock on the bottom of the following picture:






Yes the bottom stock is the one that Kimber Service replace a Claro Walnut stock with. Needless to say I'm pretty high on Kimber service.
Tikka's may be a good choice if you are budget limited but in my experience the Kimber is a higher quality, all steel, much better stocked, American made rifle that is far nicer than the Tikka. A more directly comparable rifle to the Kimber would be a Sako Finnlite - but that's an arguement for another thread.................DJ

As to the weights of the Tikka vs. Kimber, here you are.
The Kimber Montana in 300WSM weighs 6# 3oz. and the Tikka weighs 6# 6oz. . I have both in that caliber. Both shoot very well but there are significant differences.
The Kimber is a pure hardcore hunging machine. Costs more? Yes! In MN. they are $1022 and the Tikka T3 Lites are $625.
Both have adjustable triggers (hear that Ruger!) with pillar bedding and a free floated barrel.
The Tikka has a shortcoming for handloaders. The detachable magazine (which I detest and costs $60) limits your ability to adjust the OAL of a load. However they still are incredibly accurate. Tikkas' ring/base hexhead nut is prone to strip if you are not ABSOLUTELY precise in your alignment.
Tikkas' have a lot of "plastic" that is written about. Boys, that ain't plastic, its a polymer resin that can take an incredible beating. Your cars' bumper is made of plastic, not Tikka's magazine! Don't sell the Finns short. They have been making firearms for a long long time. I consider the Tikka a better rifle than either model of Sako. Had one once, a Finnlight in 300WSM couldn't get adapted to it.
What I find embarrssing is that Tikka can mass produce a rifle that can put many US made rifles to shame. However the Kimber is no slouch - hopefully they stretch themselves too thin with all their models and have quality suffer.

So the bottom line to all this is to buy what feels good to you and your pocketbook.

BZY, guess who switched out the original stock on the 270 WSM 8400? After a trip to Kimber and a little tweaking it shot the 2nd group in the series of pics..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />........DJ

Yup, that group of three look great! Looks like you have a "keeper load"!

Trouble is...folks are lamenting Tikka of old(which WERE superlative).

Today's offerings...are very,very,sad...in comparison.

Hard to get excited about [bleep] up,a once initially sound design.................

David, went home and got the EXACT weight's...

Bare Kimber 8400 300 WSM Big Sky: 5 lb's 14.5 oz's
Talley Lwt's: 2.1 oz's
3x9-40 VXII LR: 11.7 oz's
Sling: 3.5 oz's
3 Round's: 2.9 oz's

TOTAL WEIGHT 7 lb's 2.7 oz's Add a smidge of bedding you're at 7lb's 4 oz's MAX... nice.




For an extra $500 (basically the price of a McMillan Stock) I think the Kimber is far ahead of the Tikka.

I dig my Kimbers, now I remember one of the reasons why......<grin>

I have a couple Tikkas and a Kimber 8400 Classic, and I have no complaints on any of them. I get acceptable to good accuracy from them all, (But my Tikka 300 WSM is one of my most accurate standard hunting rifles), and I have absolute confidence that they will do their part if I do mine, anytime their called on to do it.

Granted, my Kimber is a different class of rifle, and will hold or increase in value more than my Tikkas. But I'm pretty sure I won't feel that nauseating feeling near as much when I put my first ding in the stock of one of my Tikkas, like I did when I found one on my Kimber last year.

I kind of like the idea of having a few choices in a fairly lightweight rifle chambered in the WSM's, (My T-3 Hunter 300 WSM tops out at about 7.5 lbs. w/ scope). that offer some really nice features like clean, crisp, adjustable triggers, ultra smooth actions, proven accuracy, dependability (at least to date), and some really pretty decent walnut for stocks.

Though there are a few minor things I might change on the Tikkas and my Kimber, I cant' honestly knock either. I like 'em both, and the all have earned their spot in my safe!

Finally got to weigh in: My Kimber was a 7mm-08 my Tikka is in 30-06 which is why my first reponse to this post was "I wouldnt buy either in a 300 WSM cuz I have no desire to own a 300WSM.The two rifles are different tools and really not comparable at the end of the day. There is no question however that the Tikka is a superior (on average) out of the box shooter. The things that come in a kimber I can experience with any old remchester which I have with the exception of weight. For a little extra elbopw grease or $$ I can get any remchester to be as accurate and cool as any Kimber. If I want a light weight rifle, I want a rifle with weight shaved elsewhere rather than the bbl. Therefore for me, the Tikka is superior (regardless of cost) to the lightweight Kimbers). Better value, better accuracy, better bbl (for me). Thats why comparison of these rifles is really useless (if not ludicrous) at the end of the day. Its really an individual taste. Just like one's taste in anything. To say one is better for everyone is crazy. For me the Tikka has more to offer at the $650.00 to $1000.00 price point. But for many others, the opposite is true. There are pluses and minuses to both rifle -period. For example: The Synthetic Stock of the Tikka (which is why I chose the Laminate) the pencil bbl of the Kimber (which is why I chose Tikka). The action of the Tikka (precluding that you should go long action to many). The incredible Tikka trigger (that is now reputed to freeze up-news to me) the bad run of Kimbers that I have read many posts of folks having to send them back to the factory cuz they had accuracy issues. And on and on. It is what it is and you like what you like. The only kimber right now that I wouldnt mind darkening the door of my cabinet is a montana in .308 (which is the limit for me in a lightweight.

This has been a great and lively debate. Exactly what I was looking for. I really wanted to hear all the different opinions. I can certainly see the merits of each rifle. After holding each rifle again tonight and carefully examining them, I can only conclude that I am still not sure! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> Let me be clear about one thing however, my question about the cost is not out of a need to go cheap. I can certainly afford either rifle. I just want to make sure that I am getting the most for my money. I really like Brad's point about the value of the Kimber stock. There is a lot of truth to that. On the other hand, it is VERY hard to argue with the proven accuracy of the Tikka. It comes down to this... I don't like the Tikka Stock and the action bothers me. Nevertheless, despite my dislike of the action, they do shoot! I cannot argue with that. The Kimber on the other hand has a barrel contour that I am not fond of, and the quality control has been suspect. No one can argue with that. I have a hard time swallowing the idea of spending a grand on a possible lemon. At this point, I am leaning towards the Tikka, maybe one with a laminated stock, although I still like the idea of the SS with a Walnut Stock. Anyone want to trade the synthetic stock for a Walnut one? Better yet, maybe I'll just get an HS Precision Rifle in 300WSM and forget about it. If the Kimber is worth twice as much as the Tikka, why wouldn't the HS be worth twice as much as the Kimber? Afterall, they do offer a .5MOA guarantee at 100 yards. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Joe,
I have heard about the tikkas being great rifles, but i guess i received the ones which were questionable, I have owned 5 tikka's in 3006 and 300 Short mag the 06 was a tack driver like a fool i traded it off for the 300 and then problems began first with blueing first time out rusting i sent it back the company sent a new one the finish on the stock pealed of when the stock got a little wet sent it back they sent another one the safety wouldn't stay on safe sent it back now i have a stainless with a lam stock real pretty but to get it to shoot under an 1.5 inch at 100 yrds seems almost impossible. I have been hand loading for 30 plus years and never had any trouble with accuracy before. I to am in search of a truly consistently accurate rifle and have the same questions.
Old Timer

My Kimber 7mm-08 was a yawner at the range but great on game. My Tikka T3 Lam/SS 30-06 is a tack driver with anything I feed it. It loved the TSX'x, NP's, BT's SST's and now the SP's. I measure OAL to fit the magazine and try to make suure I put powder charges in the brass prior to bullet seating, but that's it. My Kimber did everything I asked of it. It functioned flawlessly in every real life hunting situation I had it in-I loved the rifle. I love the Kimber for many reasons and am hopefull they will become even better in the future. At the bench I like the Tikka way better. The verdict is still out in a hunting situation. I used the Kimber for one full season and then sold it on this site because I wanted a 30-06 Supergrade (which was the prettiest and most accurate gun I have owned so far). Truly a dream gun. Problem is it was too pretty for me to beat up. In comes the Tikka in Lam/SS hopefully built for a beating. I'm kind of excited about the CZ Ultimate hunter right now-have yet to handle one.

Joe, I've played with 4 HS precision rifles and still have 2 of them including one in 300 WSM. The magazine in the HS WSM's restricts you to a 2.860 OAL which isn't always long enough to seat some bullets where you would like. The HS's are good rifles but IMO not really nicer than a Kimber unless their stock fits you better. My Kimber 270WSM shoots as well or better than my buddies HS Prohunter for dollars and pounds less.
I still haven't had anyone prove that Tikka's are as or more accurate on average than Kimbers. I think that most of the accuracy problems some people have experienced are more operator related than firearm related. True I've shot more Kimber's than Tikka's but I'd venture a guess that the Tikka proponents have shot more Tikka's than Kimbers.
I still think you should also consider a Sako Finnlite....................DJ

I have shot both an equal amount and would rate the Tikka's as more accurate out of the box period, end of story. That point really isnt debatable for me. Its just a fact from what I've seen first hand.

I always thought accuracy depended on a whole lot of variables...

How anyone can say that Tikkas are more accurate than Kimbers, or vice versa....or Winchesters are more accurate than Remingtons, or vice versa....and ignore all of those variables, isn't really clear to me.

joeshooter,
Your original question was whether the Kimber was worth the price over a Tikka. You've read the posts and the answer is an emphatic NO!. If you can get a Tikka and scope for the price of a Kimber, than you have no debate. Allowing for some cosmetic differences the Tikka is a better bargain.
But people like choices as you have seen in these posts.

It was worth it to me...and I'm guessing I'm not the only one, or there wouldn't be a Kimber....

David, I'm in your corner on this one big time. If I was right handed I'd own two, mabye three Montanas and be happy as a pig in manure for a long time. Long after the price difference mattered. To me accuracy is a moot point, and that Kimber brings so much more to the table. So much more.

Chuck

I agree..

Mowser, I have no doubt that you are accurately reflecting your personal experiences. But one persons personal experiences don't make an unarguable fact whether they are yours or mine. I've posted numerous groups from my Kimbers I haven't seen many from Tikka's. I'm sure plenty of people have shot them but I haven't seen them yet. For that matter how many of your Tikka's commonly shoot 1/2 to 3/4" groups at 200yds? Maybe most of them do I just haven't seen it.
But you might be careful calling something a "fact", repeatable proof is required for such..............................DJ

I guess if someone doesn't like the way a discussion's going, putting a stupid argument into the other guy's mouth for him might seem a good tactic...especially if you're out of ammo on your side.

Again, the money issue is raised.

We shoot our Montanas out to 700+yds on a regular basis. Tikkas have no corner on that market, that I can see.

People buy the Tikkas to save money. [/quote]

----------

Hey David, what cal do you have that you're running to 700?

Many thanks

Mark D

I dig shooting my 7-08 to that distance....

David, 120gr TSX, X?

TSX......and 120 Vmax's.......

The 700yd line requires but 15.25MOA,via 22" 7-08/120V-Max.

I view it as modest dope,for portable precision..................

What color mittens, might be a better question....?

I called it a qualified fact based on my experience only-in that regard its is a fact. My reality, my facts.

David-when you're running the 700 line what size groups are you shooting with that Little Sky?

Gracias

Mark D

Like I've said. I own a few Tikkas and one Kimber Classic, and I got to say that the arguement that keeps being made that the only reason someone would buy a Tikka instead of a Kimber is the money involved, is most definitly not always the reason.
Sure, there are a lot of folks that may feel that the Tikka's price fits their budget much better than a Kimber, or the budget might dictate that being able to buy a good rifle and scope for the price of just one particular rifle, is the most responsible sollution.

But I believe there are quite a few folks that have read reports on the Tikka's, maybe checked them out at the local store, or even had the chance to shoot one at the range. Then decided that this is a gun they want to add to their battery. These rifles just offer another choice. They do have some nice features, and they just happen to be priced at a great price point.

As for the "Out of the box" accuracy arguement, all I can offer to that is that in my experiences with these two brands, the Tikka's I've shot, (Including a few that aren't mine) have shot a wider variety of factory loads more accurately than the two Kimbers I've used.
Handloads level the playing field out however, and my Classic will hold it's own quite well then!

I think are some folks that just honestly believe that if a firearm, or scope, or binos, etc... isn't priced toward the upper end of the price range for that particular product, it can not possible be of any quality, and performance can't possibly be anywhere near the higher end competition.
In many cases, that's true, but once in awhile......
But that just my opinion.

It'll hang sub 2MOA,easily..........................

Minute of license plate....<grin>

MOLP from MPAJ.

That ain't too shabby....................

Buy the Tikka in 300 Win. Mag. (if you want a 30 caliber magnum). No sense buying a short magnum in a long action rifle.

To save a few more bucks, there are a lot of pretty-good and pretty-cheap scopes out there that are half the price of the Leupold, and kind of look the same, and function the same. You could probably save another $200.

The good news is that since you don't care much about the aesthetics and features of the rifle (controlled-round-feed action, 3-position safety, all steel construction, hand-laid kevlar stock) you can pretty much stop looking for the next rifle. You're interest in them likely isn't deep enough to dictate further analysis.

The Tikka will probably function with boring predictability, never disappointing you, but never really excelling either. That is the way all compromises are.

Actually, these are the items that I do like about the Kimber. It's the stock on the Tikka that I dislike. Truthfully, if I could get a McMillan Stock for the Tikka, I'd do that, but that's not going to happen. Besides, then I'd be in the same price range and any issue about money would be a moot point. So, on that principle alone I am giving the Kimber more serious consideration.

I definately want a 300WSM. I can definately see that each rifle has it's merits, as well as it's own drawbacks. My original question was simply this... Is the Kimber worth twice as much? Based on my own statement that I would pay the money to get a better stock for the Tikka, I am beginning to believe that perhaps it is. While the Kimber does have a few options that I like, I am still not convinced that the barreled action is any better than that of a Tikka. Nevertheless, I think the Kimber, when considered as a complete package is beginning to make some sense to me. I'll keep you posted. Again, thanks to all for your thought provoking responses!

Stick-I am assuming (always dangerous of course) that you're talking sub 14" @ 700?

Correct or no?

Thx

Mark D

My 700yd gong is 12"x12" and it's tough to miss,those dimensions are sub 2MOA at that distance.

Milk jugs are easy,until you're sick of doing it....................

Brad, I hate my POS plastic, trigger freezing T-3's. They only shoot 1/2" groups with everything I put through them. But then again, us Tikka lovers are non-descriminating buyers.........

Groups alone do not a hunting rifle make...

Also, never actually said the Tikka was a POS... your words.

Stick- I would agree a 12x12 gong would be a bit tough to miss, but is a ton load of fun to beat on 4 sure.

I love to pound the steel, but I also like to shoot 4 group and see what exactly I am running 4 group sizes. Even if I just spray the gong and then shoot a group to mea. it.

Curious if you shoot 4 group at 700 as well as for gong (or as David said MOLP), and if you do what size groups are you running with those Montana's.

Many thanks

Mark D

(snowing like a big dog down here, it's killing m as bruin season is up and running)

Well, just remember to close your eyes when you kiss'er!

Hehe, the ugly truth.

You know. to me my Tikka T3 in Lam/SS is better looking than my Kimber 84M was. Its tougher looking and it's got kind of a hardcore business look to it-almost tactical. Its low key and kind of camoflaged with SS that is flat finish. It looks and feels like a gun I can beat up. The Kimber always looked and felt fragile to me and I always worried about nicking up the stock. If I go Kimber again (which I may someday) it would be the Montana which seems more sturdy. But the truth is, I will probably never own another pencil barelled rifle again for hunting. Beauty is still in the eyes of the beholder. Even my 1969 BDL 30-06 is prettier than the 84m was to me. Did you see how well that .308 Tikka on the leopard skin rug looked on the classifeds a few weeks ago? That gun was so purty it lasted about 3 minutes! She's mighty photogenic and a cheaper date than a Kimber girl too.

No sense going much further with this but . . . .

yes, inexpensive guns sell fast.

yes, it's tough to handle damaging a nice looking rifle.

yes, a rifle with the action appropriately sized for the catridge does feel smaller.

NO, YOUR 69 BDL IS NOT PRETTY! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Back in 1969 those white spacers were the cat's meow. Leisure suits were also quite popular shortly thereafter. I know, I've seen pictures of it. Sam

I don't think the Tikkas are ugly by any stretch. I think the SS's and Laminates are very nice looking rifles, at least as good looking as the Kimber Montana Sythetics (as nice as that stock is, it is dog ugly to me. Looks like the cheapest Wal-Mart Remington synthetic IMO). I really have never understood the "ugly" rap on the Tikkas, and I rarely hear it except here. It is no walnut wrapped beauty, and I think the wood stocked Kimbers are prettier, but Stainless synthetic rifles are utilitarian, like a Jeep. For what it is and is designed to do, I think the Tikkas are nice looking.

I have prettier rifles, but they just sit in the safe while I use my Sythetic Stocked Stainless rifles.

DJ

I must add.. I do like the tikka syn stock, compared to the others out there under $1000 I think it looks ok and is quite stiff with a consistant reveal ( atleast on my 3 t-3's) in the barrel channel.It is not just " plastic" I believe between these 2 rifles it is more personal than quality or cost.

mowzer,

Your '69 Remington is nothing special but you like it so I guess that accounts for anything.

Your attacks on Kimber are strickly limited to one Kimber you owned which by your own accounts killed everything you shot at it. Furthermore it's field attributes were outstanding according to some of your own postings. Now your Tikka may shoot better from the bench but which gun is going to serve you better in the field? I guess the jury is still out on that. And my guess is that you will change your opinion on your weapon of choice yet again before the fall season rolls around as your opinions switch like the wind direction.

My Montana can print a half inch group if I do my part, now can I tell you that there is no way that a Tikka can compare to this gun from the bench? I don't think so, which is my point that one experience from me does not make it FACT!

cfran,

What are you saying? That a Tikka will not shoot 1/2 " groups at 100 yards. Tikka guarantees 3 shots under 1" or they'll replace it. Look back in the archives and you'll find a photo I posted with a Tikka T3 Lite in 338WM shooting 250 grain A-Frames at 2613fps, that was a 1/2" to 3/4 " group and thats no plinking rifle like a 270 win, or a 300 wsm. I have yet to see a Tikka that wont shoot under 1" moa at 100 yards.

Dang! I'm not at all trying to attack Kimber. I loved the 84m 7mm-08 I had. And, I think the wood kimbers are beautifull. Kimbers are on my short list. That said, they are a bit over rated to me for some personal reasons-mostly tied to accuracy-yes from the bench. All the pillar bedding and match grade bbl and $$$ for them they should shoot consistantly excellent like I dare say, Tikka's. And you are not unwarranted in your charge that i have been changing my mind on some things. But the changes are part of my own personal learning experiences and just because I made changes doesnt neccesarily equate with being wrong either. Last I heard, based on the poet Robert Zimmerman's insight;
"Those that are'nt busy being born, are busy dying". That is, if you are not constantly learning new things (I am right now at a rapid pace for a 47 year old) in your life, then you might as well throw in the towel cuz your reason for being here is gone. When I started hunting (age 9) for many years 9into my late 30's) merely threw the gun in the truck and went on my way. Hunting and guns just were what they were-to me. I did not give a rats behind about makes, models, trajectories and on and on. Then one day I decided to make guns and hunting more of a study. That's where I'm at now, so I reserve the right to make changes either in my mind or with my equipment as I begin to form opinions based on experience of my self and others. I have never emphatically stated all that much negative about Kimbers. I have come to have a distaste for pencil bbl rifles across the board right now. No matter who makes them. They don't fir the bill right now for what I like to do-that may change someday. The kimber killed everything I pointed it at with great efficacy and it is the best factory gun of its type out there IMHO. But I don't really like that type of rifle right now. I like standard weights and long actions. For me they are more pleasant and fun to shoot on, or off game. And you are right about the Tikka's verdict still being out on game, because I have yet to shoot any with it. Heck, I don't know if I'm even gonna carry it on game this year becasue I'm also inlove with the Remmy. Might take it out on game this year while it's still shooting so good. Maybe I will let the weather decide too. But my long range plan is to use the remy action for a custom stocked gun. And most on this site shot dowm my HS Precision stock idea. And, rather than buck the odds on that info, I will prolly hold out for a Mcmillan, Attach a SS bbl and have it pretty weather proof. Taint a collector, just want good guns I can count on.

I opted for the Zeiss conquest over the loopy III

OOPS, wrong arguement thread <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I have never owned a Kimber, but I have a Tikka 338 lam ss that I love. Recoil is nothing, even with the factory pad. I have no desire or need for a "better" rifle. Those who love the Kimbers, great.

Corvette or Viper? Both will HAUL ASS.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I have taken lots of game with my SS T3 270 Win. Probably 10 hogs, 12 to 14 deer (hunted with it and helped cull friends ranches), 5 or 6 coyotes, and a few crows with my SS T3 223. It is the best rifle I have used in the field, ever. It handles, balances and carries extremely well. I have shot it in a variety of situations, from truck gun popping hogs to calling coyotes to rattling to stalking to still hunting to a little stand hunting while guiding. I liked it much better after hunting with it, since bench rest with it really required a bit of extra concentration since it is so much lighter than anything I previously owned.

It really snaps to my shoulder and balances beautifully and naturally on game. I put it on something and it is right there in the middle of my sight picture. It just fits, and reminds me of shouldering my dad's Belgium made Browning Light 20. The trigger hunts like a dream. I have not made any extremely long shots with it, but I have yet to miss an animal with it, including a couple of doubles on hogs with my dad. On one, he shot before I did and I hit my hog on the run quartering away.

This dog will hunt. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

DJ

MikeL751,

That is a very good point. there is a sort of chauvinism that pervades the internet. Price and quality are points of honor for some. And everyone kind of wants to defend their choice.

I'll tell you something else too, in real life hunting situations benchrest accuracy doesn't mean a thing. From what I have seen on the range the Kimber and the Tikka are both fine performers. In the field both would do very nicely. They both consistently have more potential for accuracy than their shooters do.

One of the reasons I lurk a heckuva lot more than I post online is that I got tired of the Chevy/Ford arguments. And the lies and exaggerations about accuracy. Every rifle is the best and every shooter makes half inch groups at a hundred yards.

The guy who started this thread wanted to know whether to buy a Kimber or a Tikka. I'll answer that: Pick both up and see how they feel. Every man is slightly different and one will feel better to you. Pick the one that does.

Then get it dirty and start making memories with it.

Peace,
Will

I think most people who buy Tikkas rather than Kimbers, do so to save money....

Of course they do. They's be crazy not to. Tell me this, if you could buy the Kimber for $200-300 less over a Win M70 wouldnt you just go ahead and jump all over the Kimber? Same thing applies to the Tikka. If you can get a fine quality rifle that will shoot lights out at a discount - over a gun of the same quality that is higher priced its a no-brainer. If any guns perform at an equal level and also satisfy you in the looks and feel department you are absolutely going to pick the best value-which if they are equal, will be the less expensive of the two. I paid $815.00 for my kimber 84M I paid $749.00 for my Tikka T3 Lam SS. So we arent talking about a big savings here. Plus, I mounted the T3 with a Swarovski 3-10x42 so I wasnt exactly penny pinching. If I could have afforded the Tikka without having to sell the Kimber, I would have kept the Kimber with a huge grin on my face. But also glad I was able to sell it before I beat it up too bad.

I don't see what's wrong with this. If you can get the same performance at a lower price, then that seems like a reasonable thing to do. Just because someone chooses a Tikka over a Kimber does not mean however that they can't afford the Kimber.

I think it is equally fair to say that some people that buy a Kimber (or any other high priced gun for that matter) do so simply because they assume they are getting a better product JUST because it costs more. In addition, I think it is also fair to say that some people will pay more for a Kimber just because it gives their ego something to feel good about at the range. I'm not saying that's the case with anyone invloved with this thread, but it does happen. Price alone should never be the determining factor for buying a gun. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

So what is it again that I get with a Tika that I don't with the Kimber?

Chuck

an extra $400 in your wallet

Just for fun, I am going to pretend like you really want an answer <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />, since your question kind of made me stop and think.

1. Money in your pocket to spend on hunting.
2. IMO, a better barrel contour and perhaps a better quality Sako barrel.
3. Maybe a little better accuracy.
4. IMO, a smoother, slicker, better feeling action with a lower bolt throw.
5. A removable magazine with your synthetic stock.
6. Scope mounting rail which allows for more flexible mounting options.
7. I like the feel and balance of the Tikka better with a little more weight in the barrel, but this is probably because I have hunted with a couple, while I have just drooled over the Kimbers at the gun store <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.
8. A track record of fewer problems (although the problems have been major for Tikka when they have arisen - like exploding stainless barrels! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />)

I expect the list of what you get with a Kimber that you don't with a Tikka is longer, as it should be for the price difference.

I like both guns a lot and hope to own some of each in years to come. I am glad both are available and hope Kimber succeeds grandly.

DJ

I think dj has it right, david in ak I have both guns and am selling my kimber, not about money at all, I like the tikka more for many reasons and if I don't enjoy a rifle I'd rather get it to someone who will.

Something that we all have to consider, is what asthetically pleases some dosen't mean [bleep] to others! I personally do not own a gun for its beauty, it is a tool that I will become familiar with and will serve me well in all conditions. Some people talk about synthetic stocks doing a firearm a disservice, whatever floats your boat. To me a durable weapon that I can depend on in all conditions that delivers bullets where I want them is the definition of a hunting rifle for me. Should it become broken or unserviceable , it shall be replaced and a new friendship will be created. Simply put we will all defend the weapons we count on for success, I stated this earlier in the post. I almost bought a Kimber, held it , played with the action, threw it to my shoulder several times, it did nothing for me.In fact I did not like the balance of the short Montana. I was excited as we all are when we get to buy a new gun, and thought it would be the cream of the crop. It turned out to be nothing like that, I already had a Tikka T3 and went for another one. Wouldn't go for the 300 wsm in the Tikka when the 300WM will do the same and more. At 6 lb 6 oz. its perfect mountain rifle.

I agree, I'd take a 300WM myself over the WSM. I also hope Kimber succeeds grandly. I hope they buy the rights to make Tikka's from beretta then we can all buy American. i just don't get how Tikka can build a such a high quality rifle in a place with a relatively high cost of living, package it up and ship it over here and sell it at the price they do. The question is : how do they do it? How can they build a better product than most American companies and sell it for the same or less $$$??

The question is : how do they do it?


They use a lotta plastic where others use metal. Good, Bad or Indifferent, they do what they do.

+1

"I think people who buy Tikkas rather than Kimbers do so to save money........"

I think people who buy Tikkas rather than Kimbers DO save money and end up with a better shooting gun! Guys, Tikkas arent cheap , the going rate for A Tikka T3 Lite, stainless is about $600-$660. That is in the same price category or higher than many other popular American rifle manufacturers. We didn't just muster up the idea that Tikkas are great rifles, people are raving about them everywhere. Would I pay more for a Tikka T3 than they are going for? You damn skippy. I have bought too many $700 American made rifles that couldn't hold a candle to the Tikkas I have and that was after they went to have gunsmithing done which cost more money. I would say that there has been no one rifle that has taken off in popularity in such a short time because of its performance like the Tikkas' have. Even after a bad batch of barrells blew up in peoples faces they are still selling like hot cakes, thats got to tell you something. Man I love the way there bolts slide!!!!!

I don't remember saying anything negative about Tikkas.....though I see folks responding to me as if I did.....

Cheap sells,but that don't mean much in comparative evaluations.....................

You nailed it...the copious use of cheap ass/[bleep] materials.

Quite the Sales Pitch...(give or take)..................

Penguin, I agree that for the most part, accuracy from a supported position off a bench may not neccesarily translate into hunting accuracy.
However, I personally find shooting my rifles from the bench to be a very useful part of my practicing.

It's the best way I know of to find out just what kind of accuracy a particular firearm is capable of. I also use it to help me work up the best loads for each rifle.

By shooting from a solid, supported position off a bench at 100 to 600 yds, it gives me an excellent idea of the capabilities of a particular gun. Then when I switch to more practical hunting positions, I can't blame anything but the shooter for misses.
Granted, I typicaly don't hunt at those extended ranges, but there is no substitute for knowing what the rifle and round will do, and knowing what ranges you are capable of, if the situation calls for it!

If it don't shoot from the bench,it ain't gonna shoot anywhere...........................

I love to hear people refer to todays synthetic polymers as "cheap [bleep]", when they are driving full size 1/2 ,3/4, and 1 ton trucks that are primarily constructed of the same materials. Its good enough for 8000lb automobiles that they drive in excess of 80mph but its not good enough for a 6 1/2 lb rifle. What gives? By the way has anyone heard of one of these "cheap [bleep]" plastic mags breaking on a Tikka yet, I havent? Rifles been out for what 2 1/2-3 years now, has become extremely popular in states that are hard on any rifle and I have heard of one synthetic stock breaking after a fall on a sheep hunt, oh yeah that wouldn't have happened to a Winchester, Remington, Ruger or any other rifle right. We will believe what we will believe. Its not about money, its about an awesome product that is sold at a more than reasonable price, we havent figured out how to do that in America yet! Isn't the cost of living pretty high in Finnland?

Jesus Christ,I could [bleep] in a ZipLoc and you'd prolly give me $100 for it.

There's one born every minute........................

I like the bench for all the same reasons you listed above as well as to build confidence which is everything when it comes to being a good shot on game. I have always been a good shot on game, but it took me a bit of practice to become good at the bench. Blend the two and it can do nothing but make you better. The bench can help you become one with your rifle grasshoppa. i couldnt shoot the Kimber I had very well at the bench, but had incredible shots with it in the field. I didnt stink it up at the bench there was just no awe factor. The Tikka definitley has that awe factor at the bench, not becasue its a more accurate rifle necessarily-but because its an easier rifle to shoot well at the bench. Its a widely know fact that lightweight pencil bbl rifles require different techniques to become a proficient bench shooter with them. But they tend to shoulder very quickly and in the case of Kimber, balance like a dream for quick offhand work. At least that was my experience with the Kimber. The above statement about ifn it dont shoot well from the bench it dont shoot anywhere is true. But, in the case of pencil bbl lightweights its usually not the gun's problem, but rather the shooter's technique that suffers at the bench. If the rifle itself is accurate anyway. I can't help but wonder when I read all the folks postings on many gun sites talking about sending their Kimber's back to the mill due to accuracy problems -if it wasnt the shooter's problem and not the gun. They really are different to shoot vs. standard weight rifles.

MikeL
I too enjoy shooting from the bench as to me it removes all human error and makes the guns accuracy as pecise as possible. I have been shooting the last few weeks off of shooting stix and off of a backpack at yardages from 100yards to 300+ yards. Not the best weather conditions and fairly windy days and a fella definately must duplicate the conditions you wll be shooting in while hunting. I was pretty happy with 5 inch groups at 310 yards with shooting stix with my Tikka 300WM with 200 grain A-Frames , the stix sure like to sway. But I am not going to kill a sheep or a brown bear from my benchrest so once the gun is dialed in on the bench the real shooting starts. It makes things change just a little bit. But gets you ready for the real deal. I have seen guys that shoot 1" groups at 100 yards on a bench rest and shoot 5" groups at 100 yards without a benchrest. Then you push them out to 200 yards and they cant even hit the target. Shooting while hunting as you know is nothing like being on the bench. practice , practice, practice, just make sure its not on the bench unless you hunt from the bench.

Stick, If that ziploc has a an action thats as slick as whale [bleep] and will shoot sub moa groups I'll give you a $100 for it, jsut dont put Kimber on it and paint it grey.

Oh no, don't misunderstand me. I spend better than half of my "range time" shooting from more typical field positions. We like to shoot un-even terrain as well as flat. Up and downhill shots. Stressed shots after a short run. And of course sitting, kneeling, prone (un-supported), and offhand. I practice with and without shooting sticks.
I do like to cheat whenever possible by using a down tree, a tree limb, my backpack, a fence post, shooting sticks, or anything to help steady my shot.

Oh theres another awesome review on the Kimber Montana in the Ask the Gunwriters section of the forum. That will be the umteenth post I have read with problems on the Kimber Montana, not just action and feeding problems but accuracy too. The Kimbers cost how much! Oh let me gues its the ammos fault. Sign me up, I'll take two of them! I think Big Sticks' Ziploc bag of goodies might get a better review than the Kimber Montana. But guys will defend them to the death,why?Because they payed a grand for them. That makes a lot of sense, but its not about how much they cost!

Mike,

I do the same thing. Don't know why but offhand shooting to me is one of the most enjoyable things to do at a range. It is tough, but I really like doing it. Those NRA sprting rifle matches probably did more to made me into a rifleman than anything I did before them.

Just like there are people who insist that a more expensive rifle is better there are those who will tear down something that costs more than their favorite. I think we are flirting with that on this thread.

If the guy who started this thread is even around after all the brush beating that we have done I have something I would like to add: There two guns are totally different. They have different action designs, different safety designs, different barrel contours, and very different stocks. Comparing the two is like comparing a Queen to a Case.

And yes, there is a difference in price. Whether or not you think it is worth it to have a Kimber is a very personal choice. There has been some Kimber bashing on this thread so I'll give you my take. I wouldn't trade it for any other rifle I looked at if you paid me the difference. But if I was looking for a smaller rifle, the Kimber 8400 is full sized, I would never choose the Tikka.

The Model Seven short magnum would beat it out every time. Matter of fact my next rifle, if I ever buy one, will be one in a larger short magnum.

Peace,
Will

All you gotta do,is fool yourself..................

Stick,

I'm confused by your attitude. The Tikkas aren't perfect, but they are pretty good rifles. Some folks even prefer them to Kimbers. Why should that offend you so much? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I don't know of any failures of the polymer stuff. It is what it is, it makes the rifle lighter, doesn't rust, and seems to work OK.

I like a serviceable hunting rifle that I don't have to pamper and baby. I like pretty rifles, but I find when I hunt with them that I worry about banging them up or scratching them. I just enjoy hunting more with a rifle I can trust to shoot well, that handles nice, and that I don't have to hold my breath about using. The Tikka fits that bill pretty well. I don't think the people who like them are idiots, any more than it is a moral failure to like something else.

I did not intend to offend any who like Kimbers better, and have tried to make accurate statements that don't exaggerate or insult, while being reasonable and friendly, but it is a little insulting to be painted as a fool for liking a very good shooting, popular rifle. I expect the market is smarter than any of us, and it says Kimber and Tikka are among the most sought after guns for the money.

I'm not claiming the Tikka is better, or even as good as the Kimber, just that it is a pretty nice, accurate rifle and a good value that I am happy is available.

Good hunting!

DJ

Yep, this thread has taken a turn for the surreal! The question was really pretty straight forward, and basicaly asked:
If you were buying a rifle, and the choices were limited to a Kimber or a Tikka, and money not a concern, which one would you pick?
And also joeshooter was leaning one direction, and was looking for an arguement that would convince him, one way or the other.

Pretty much seemed like a request for individuals experiences, opinions, and preferences. Just trying to gather as much information as possible, which is a good thing in my opinion.

Somewhere along the line, It took a turn toward the ugly! Folks started feeling somewhat insulted by statements that insinuated that only someone who couldn't afford a Kimber would even consider a Tikka. That the only possible reason someone would buy a Tikka is that they can't afford a Kimber. Or that because the Tikkas cost what they do, and they use some less expensive matterials in production, the word "quality" can not be used in any description of them.

On the other hand, some felt somewhat insulted by the insinuation that Kimbers are just overpriced pretty guns, that most buy as a fashion statement, rather than because it's actually worth the cost. Some just felt the need to respond as their Kimbers were under attack, as was the quality.

For the most part, there was a good bit of useful information and interesting experiences being shared , up to the point where it started heading towards the arguement that unless you see things my way, it's obvious that you are mentaly deficient, and shouldn't be expected to make any better choices than you have here.

A good, spirited debate is a wonderful thing. It can be educating, informational, entertaining, somewhat frustrating at times, and a lot of fun.

One thing I've always found interesting about many of these types of threads that ask for opinions, experiences and reasons for buying a specific item, is how often the folks doing the hardest slamming on either side of the issue, have seldom if ever used the product their slamming so hard.
It's the same with scopes, rifles, bino's, trucks, whatever!
I know it's possible to form opinions using many factors, and once those opinions are formed, for some, they're set in stone.

When someone makes such rediculous statements (Big Stick) you just have to ignore them. Nobody likes a winner.

Mike L-I think it would be kind of fun for these forums to be able to state your opinion once and be done with it.

Some, sure seem to feel the need to lobby for this or that and usually it is what is in their opinion the one and only way to go.

Not that I could ever be accused of that......grins

Mark D

Good Post. Some common sense as you have exhibited could also be used on the TDS reticle thread. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

+1 as well.

It is also unfortunately a fact of human nature that some folks take differences of opinion a bit too personally. Thought process goes a bit like this:

You disagree with my opinion?
Well then, you must think what I like is a POS!
And by association, you probably think I'm an idiot for buying/liking such a POS!
Well, SCREW YOU, A-HOLE!

The world will never be in short supply of hot heads.

BTW, I like the color blue and vanilla is my favorite ice cream flavor, but I know and respect people who like red and chocolate. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hey, I never made a derrogatory comment about the Kimber so as not hurt anyones feelings throughout this thread , other than saying that the bolt seemed sloppy and the balance wasnt right for me. But if you think I will sit back and have someone bash the Tikka, if thats the case then I will get a little more descriptive with my true opinion of the Kimber vs the Tikka so as to make sure someone considering either rifle should get the facts.

Mike ... the facts are the facts. First of all, I own a Tikka, a M595 Master Continental in 22-250. All-in-all its a nice package. Fabulous trigger and shoots 5 shots into about and inch with the cheapest ammo I can find. But its no Sako and to convince others is foolish.

How do they save money & sell at a reasonable price? The wood isn't nearly as nice as a Sako, the fit and finish are nearly as nice either and those things add up to savings (I cannot compare synthetic stocks). The plastic mag helps save some loot too (although you wouldn't think so esp. when you look at replacement prices!!! .... OUCH). The trigger gaurd is plastic (but so is the ADL and look how cheap they sell that!). Plastic is more prone to wear-out before steel, its just the way it is ... may take 10 years to happen, may take 20 years. but the polymer trigger guard and magazine aren't my serious concerns though, what DOES concern me is the plastic (or polymer) magazine latching device (maybe its steel now on the T3's) ... but this part needs to be steel. I can carry a spare magazine in the albeit rare instance the one I'm carrying breaks or is too worn .... but I CANNOT carry a spare latching device and replace it in a hurry. But by the same token my 22-250 was never puchased as a serious big game hunting rig. Where else to they save money??? .... the T3 is a one size fits all action .... good or bad, it is and therefore lowers manufacturing costs. Hell Weatherby has been doing for years on their six lug MkV actions (their SA six lug action is sweet and wish I had more of them).

I like Tikka's and I think they represent a great value. A couple minor details and IMHO they would make extremely servicable field rifles. And while I have never heard of one breaking in the fashion that concerns me ... doesn't mean its outta the question. There are a lotta thing I never heard of that happen everyday, and the 20 or so diehard Tikka fans we have here at the campfire (outta 10,000) aren't going to alieviate my concerns.

With my limited knowledge/experience.....which is why I, generally, just lurk in the rifle forums......here is my take....

There is an azz for every seat.

If Tikka wanted to sell a more expensive rifle, they would/could.....but obviously that would require more over-head for them. Why don't they? Cuz there are people who, for a variety of reasons, are willing to buy their rifles. It is COST EFFECTIVE for them, as a seller, cuz there is demand....and it is their perspective corner on the market.

Kimber is more expensive....cuz the costs appear to be greater for them to put together a rifle with more expensive parts/labor. Why do they do this? Cuz there are people, for a variety of reasons, that are willing to pay the price. It is their corner on the market.

What I don't get.....is why people are so reluctant to just say...."Yeah, I would choose a Tikka over a Kimber because of price.".....cuz that really IS the bottom line.....and there isn't anything inherently wrong with that....nor should their be shame in admitting it.

Everyone has a set of priorities that dictate where/when they spend their wad.....but quality isn't free....and if the product is priced for quality.....the market will determine whether or not the price tag is justified......

Anyhow, just thought I would babble a bit about chit I am just now getting the hang of <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />....

<back to lurkin', lol>

HoundGirl

Because you are totally missing the point:
I could buy any rifle I wanted from $500.00 to $1500.00.
If you lined up my choice between a Kimber and a Tikka I will pick the Tikka and it has absolutely nothing to do with the cash. So I don't need to admit anything other than i like Tikka's better than Kimbers. That Tikka's do represent a good value is counterpoint to me, as I'm sure many others. So just because a gun is cheaper does not always imply that's the reason folks chooseX ver Y. If I spend $1000.00 buck it prolly won'tt be on any factory rifle right now. I will just build a parts gun and get it to my spec's. Some people just don't like Kimbers as well as Tikka's-period. And, vice versa. For some reason there's a contingent of folks that want Tikka owners to step up to the plate and admit something that isnt true: That they bought the Tikka purely for ecomomic interests.

avagadro, I don't think anyone would really argue the fact that there are features, matterials, and labor involved in the Kimbers, that add to the cost, that are absent in the Tikkas.

I would like to ask a question about the "plastic" that has been referenced so much on the Tikkas.
Are the magazines and trigger guards actual plastic? Or are they of polymer construction, kind of like Glocks.
Is it the fact that they use polymers in the making of these rifles that precludes them from being associated with the word "quality"?

Or is it that and the fact that they don't use a piece of A-grade walnut for the stock that keeps them from achieving quality status.

I would certainly not say that my Tikkas are of the same quality as my 8400 Classic, but that does not mean that the Tikkas are not a quality product in their own. At least in my opinion
I guess much of it comes down to how one rates the quality of any product. I personally use several observations to decide on the quality of something.
Matterials, craftsmanship, dependability, and how well it does what it's supposed to do are some of the factors I use.
I do believe that just because a rifle may be lacking somewhat in one area, it does not neccesarily disqualify it from still being considered a quality product.

I got to say that of all of the factory production, un-altered guns in my safe, I can't think of one right off the top of my head, that scores 100% in all categories. Yet, I promise I do have a few quality firearms! (And they cover a fairly wide price point range).

Yea, I find that interesting too. Furthermore, I find that if someone is quick to offer advice on something they have absolutely no experience with, then I will likely ignore their advice on practically everything else, whether they have firsthand knowledge or not.

Now, as far as Tikkas and Kimbers are concerned, well, I can't comment. I have no experience with either of them.

Mike .... if you re-read my posts, I never said Tikka was not a quality firearm. The question was asked by another member .... how do they make the product for less money? To which I gave a response. Plastic is a polymer (but not all polymers are plastic <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />). I didn't say they used cheap low-grade plastic. But mass producing polymers are still cheaper then using steel (or stainless steel as on some Sako's). Facts are the facts. Hence why we find so much of it on our 8000 lb trucks <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> And yes ... a grade A stock does add to the quality of a rifle esp. when accompanied with superior fit and finish, BUT saying that, doesn't mean the rifle will shoot any better .... lower grade wood and less detail to fit and finish saves money .... the question which was originally asked.

I gave MY reason why I wouldn't use one for MY primary hunting rifle, if that issue doesn't bother you or the legions of Tikka fans .... Fantastic ... (seriously) good for you and yours, you have found a very servicable hunting rifle that's fun from the bench to boot!!!

As I stated earlier .... I really like my M595, but its not a serious big game rifle for me .... I've given thought to selling it, b/c of the price of replacement magazines .... quite ridiculous!!! But by the same token its hard to sell a rifle that shoots so well and has even more potential. But I do have a Weatherby Varmintmaster (old SA, wood stock!) that is that much better than my Tikka.

Perceived quality as well as beauty are in the eye of the beholder. We all have different triggers that need tripped when it comes to our rifles. If the Tikka trips your's, then I'm happy for you. While it may be a quality rig ... the Tikka does not trip my trigger when it comes to being MY primary big game rig. But then again, neither does Kimber. If good shootin' is all a rifle needs for you ... fine. I do like nice wood and nice fit and finish ... these are also important to me on a hunting rifle. As our friend Art so aptly points out .... Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun. (& I don't want to hear the "I don't want to nick or scratch my nice stock" arguement .... Friggin' hogwash in my book)

I have been one of the individuals that has been dragged into this debate for no other reason than my desire to defend a make of rifle that I am so impressed with and have become so fond of that I have bought several calibers of. I spend a ton of money on hunting related purchases each and every year. I am a believer of the theory that you get what you pay for, in most international markets, however with that said I do not always agree with that theory in our own American retail market. The American businessses have a tendancy to spend more money in flashy advertising than in R&D for the product being advertised. With that said, I went to Sportsmans Warehouse and 2 other gun shops shopping for a new toy several months ago. In a previous post months back I did an analysis of all the rifles I was considering for my new purchase. This meant I handled the rifles, cycled the actions and shouldered the rifle in several positions. Hands down the Tikka was FOR ME, the best balance, the smoothest bolt action, and the right weight for a rifle I was looking for. There were many other guns that cost a lot more that I would have bought had they done something for me. Spending $1000 on a rifle is like filling my truck with fuel, if I need it I buy it! But I am not going to give my grand away just so I can jump on this forum take a bunch of pictures of it and say man I got my new Kimber and I love it and have all the Kimber boys give me the atta boy, congrats bullshitt. Some of you might buy guns for collections that live in a safe for all I know, mine is going to get used and abused, in a river boat, on my back in the mountains, strapped to a 4wheeler,strapped to a frame pack and sometimes possibly used as a walking stick, thats just me. The only thing that matters to me is that its dependable, shoots good and its lightweight. The Tikkas have been the first rifles I have bought that didn't require a bunch of screwing around to make them shoot well. Dont even have to reload for them to hoot great, feed em what you 've got and shoot the [bleep] out of them. And the other comment that keeps driving me nuts is the bitching and complaining over a $60 replacement magazine thats made of the same material the beloved Glock pistol is made of, that there has not been one report of them failing, but the jackasses that will pay $50-$150 for a trigger job the day after they buy a $600-$800 Ruger, Remington, Winchester, Browning and several others. You guys kill me.

Great point on the magazines!!!! They're $70 for a magazine made out of the same material as a Glock (which isn't real beloved to me) .... Tell me then why do the Glock Mags only cost $21-23???? Don't recall taking any of my Weatherby's to get their triggers adjusted (or M700's for that fact), but no here is has said anything about the Tikka trigger ... have they ... oh yeah, I did, I said they were GREAT!!! (want to re-read my posts???)

So AC, I guess I need to ask why do you feel the need to RANT about your Tikkas, you love them & that should be good enough for you, but yet feel the need to defend them almost to the point of being venomous! I haven't seen anyone attack anyone here regarding their brand of rifle ownership. You like Tikka, someone else likes Kimber and I like something else (I like Tikka too ... again read my previous posts). RELAX my friend ... no one here (except for some serious rifle snobs ... and we know who you are <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) really cares what you hunt with, we just like to hear about rifles and huntin' stories.

avagadro, this last post was not directed at you, some of the points you were conveying may have been similar to some others that got me going but it wasn't directed towards you at all. It was a summation of all the bullshitt that has been thrown out here by some. I am glad to hear your M700 didn't need trigger work, every Rem I have owned including the one I just bought my son had 7-8lb triggers. I may sound like I may sound like I am ranting, If so i apologize, I have a tendancy to do that. I responded to this post when it first came out with just my honest evaluation and more liking of the Tikka which was my original intention, till the bullshitt hatred started spewing about tIkkas from certain indiviuals. then I got a little defensive.

George,

Changing the subject a bit, but when will you be joining us in the sunny TriCities?

Whats funny is the plastic that all the Tikka detractors are talking about isnt even plastic at all-its a composite material similar to lightweight graphite composites used in the airline industry. Yep, another campaign of dis-information from folks that clammer on about accepting advice from those not in the know. I guess there's some unknown brotherhood of knowledge sages that folks choose to believe becasue they come off all confident like they actually know what they are talking about. Hell, forget research just clammer on and deraille everything because you heard it from a credible source. That's what gets me.

David ..... to be honest, I don't really know. My prospective boss says he'd like me there by July 15th, that may be pushing it a little. We (my wife and I) were told we'll be receiving offers, but as of now we haven't heard anything offical. Once we get offical offers (that we can live with ... we honestly don't have a clue what range they'll be in), I'll have to talk with my current advisor and we'll talk about a date for me to get everything done! Don't worry, if I'm a comin' you and Daveh are gonna know, I'm going to be bugging the [bleep] outta you two trying to find out about hunting regs and protocols and where the decent rifle ranges (and golf courses) are located. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

AC .... I can understand your frustrations .... When I came here there were a few and very few Weatherby fans and many Roy bashers, seems like we're a tad bit more numerous, but when it comes to this Board, its a M700 kinda place. Kimber has developed a decent following lately and they are as adamant about their rifles as Conquest owners are about their scopes and their dislike of anything Leupold. Just the way it is. I gave up gettin' pizzed about Weatherby bashers (or those who think just 'cause a cartridge has a belt ... it has to be worthless and inferior ... never understood that twisted logic and NO ONE here has ever developed a good reason ... maybe some gunwriter said it so it must be true?).

Just gotta roll with it or ignore it .... I choose to ignore a lot now ..... now I may look at 10-15% of the threads here and now make comments on very few.

Good Day to you.

Mowzer, I like you a lot and have no beef with your rifle choice. I've never gone out of my way to knock another man's firearm and it's absolutely true that we all see any given topic differently and make different choices. As HoundGirl said, there's an ass for every seat (that' been a favorite saying of mine lately and she gave a chuckle hearing someone else use it).

However, one thing that hasn't been brought up is the fact that Sako (of which Tikka is part) let honest US consumers run around blowing up barrels for months without a word of warning in spite of knowing about the problem for an equal amount of time.

My belief is "F" em... I wouldn't own one of their damn products on that basis alone in spite of a pile of other misgivings about the T3. An honest opinion was asked for and I've tried to give my POV without trampling on anyone elses.

I say shoot whatever you want and rejoice with the weapon in your hands, In the end, for me, this is all about giving some big old bull a dirt nap and "on the hill" I tend to not care what's slung on my shoulder.

I still prefer the Kimber by a wide margin though (grin)...

I think Houndgirl has it right, might not be directly applicable to you but to the majority the price point is the key. In the end it almost boils down to dollars for most folks.

Regarding your other post about you not bashing Kimbers, who are you kidding. You jump right in to the post under "ask the gunwriters" and start with some smart a$$ comment about Kimber fine reputation in light of some guys bolt lift problem - unwarranted and really not useful to the original poster.

I like Brad also see the benefits of the Kimber and actually own a Tikka also. Mowzer you seem like a decent guy but you change your mind constantly and it seems that you'll defend your purchases to justify it in your own mind, relax.

Brad I agree with you 99% of the time, but I need to respectfully disagree with you on the Sako topic. They make a fine product!! I owned a kimber in 270 wsm and sold it because it fed like rocks. I realize, I probably had a lemon, as most feed pretty dang well from what I am told. Also, I sold a Tikka in 30-06 and in retrospect I still wish I had it; damn thing was a tack driver and it fed perfectly. But, I will say one thing, the Tikka's are cheesy looking!!! The stock and the plastic look really cheap, but the damn things sure seem to work well, at least mine did. The Kimber is a much better looking gun in my view and the Montana combination is a great little package as far as stock, weight, durability, etc. BUT, if it doesn't feed like butter, it won't last long in my gun safe.

The gun to get in my view is the Finnlite, it is about the same price as the Kimber. I know, BUT, what about the whole exploding barrel thing!!.......................................I am willing to bet the current production models of the Finnlite's are the safest guns on the planet at the moment after their exploding barrel fiasco. They won't let that happen again. I agree, Beretta totally [bleep] up the handling of the exploding barrels, but sako finland builds the gun and it is a fine product in my view. I looked long and hard at every dang gun under the sun in 300 wsm and settled on the finnlite. In 300 WSM it feeds better than any gun in my safe and I have a few customs and a pre-64 that feed shells like greased hotdogs. My 300 saum in 700 BDL was a total basket case, so was my Kimber 270 wsm, my buddies M70 featherweight 300 wsm feeds poorly and another buddy's a bolt in 300 wsm sucks as bad as the rest. Sako designed an action specifcally for the short fat mags, where most manufactures retrofit their existing short actions for the short mags. Additinally, you can stuff 4 shells in the mag. Not that one needs that, but not a bad insurance policy when elk hunting in Grizzly country..........I am pretty damn sure you can't stuff four in the belly of a Kimber. It is an awesome little combo and mine just plain shoots and recoil is just fine. You may want to try one before you throw it under the bus. One last thing and I will let it rest, the ergonomics of their stocks are second to none in my view. That palm swell and slight cast off is super comfortable.


Oh yeah, in case you are wondering, that little brown condom on the back contains a 3/4" pad to accommodate my 6"4" frame. They look much better without.

There's been a few Kimber pics posted recently, including a few of mine. As for the reason the guns were bought and pics were posted, you miss the mark by quite a ways.

As for putting the rifles to use, I wouldn't pat myself on the back too hard over that, either if I were you.....

I think most people who buy Tikkas over Kimbers do so because they cost less...

I could run with that.....

Poot Peak,

Thats a beaut, a buddy of mine got one in 270 WSM what a sweet rifle! They just didn't have one when I was shopping and couldn't even tell me when they could get one or I am pretty sure I would have gottena 300 wsm instead of a 300WM and it would have been a FinnLite.

It was a tough choice, it was down to the Finnlite and the Montana in the end. They are both really kickass guns in my view, but 4 in the belly, the fluted barrel, the smooth feeding, adjustable trigger (great trigger BTW) and the stock ergonomic iced the deal. Can't go wrong either way in my view, both are great products.

I am not a huge sako slut either, but I have yet to find one that didn't feed well.

We should all be happy that we have so many choices to choose from. There are a lot of darn good production guns being built these days!!

Finnlites are sweeeeet.......

If I were to buy another production rifle it would be a finnlite. They are definitely worth the $1150.00 they cost.

Hey, I appreciate everyone's opinion on this forum. I don't take any of this stuff personally in any way. And Brad, I have misgivings about the bbl fiasco too. But I have a tendency to agree with Poot on the likelhood that because they recently had a bbl problem-they are the safest bbl around now. Kind of like going to Jack in the Box to get a burger shortly after the E. Coli poisonings. For a considerable time they were (maybe still are) a safe bet to get an E.Coli free burger. I have read somewhere recently that The Tikka exploding bbl's are not the first case of that happening in the gun world. I read that it has happened before to some major rifle makers (unnamed) that settled it all quietly behind the scenes. Not to make any excuse for Beretta if they handled it poorly. But I'm sure the company followed the advice of legal counsel and it's hard to fault them for that. What would you do if your corporate counsel (assuming that you know absolutely nothing about legal issues) advised you as the owner of a company that was passed to you by your previous generation? Tell them to go take a flying leap? Maybe you would-but I doubt it. You would prolly tell them to handle as morally responsible and legally correct as their skills and your money permit. Unforunately by that time it's too late. By the time legal counsel has figured it all out then briefed you on what's going on entirely-you end up looking like an AZZ. Kind og like Dick Cheney after he shot his pal. His handlers had to brief him on what to say-and only then could he come forward to the drooling media. But by then it looks like he's covering something up. So its very hard to win in a situation like Tikka experienced. Not asking you to pity them in any way or make excuses. It's just life in the new millenium where guess who's running the world? Lawyers. Tikka most surely wanted to do what's right but also not expose themselves to any more litigation than should be expected with the issue. Therefore, they were prolly counseled to zip the lip and let the legal process play out. Should they have gone more public? Absolutely, but who knows? Maybe in the end they made it real right for the person(s) injured and corrected themselves and their supply chain and QC.

Well, after 7 pages of threats and name calling what did "joeshooter" actually decide? He started off leaning towards the Tikka, then Kimber, then HS Precision. Did he decide never to ask anyone again?

Think he's still in the process and doing research while he waits to sell his .284. Dang, I've always been intrigued with the .284 but I'm going down a different path right now. Plus, spent too much money on guns and stuff lately. Prolly need to wait about a month or so to seriously start considering the next acquisition.

Hard to beat Howa for the loot.

The new Tikka's are a cost cutting measure,that shows from stem to stern.

I can like the Kimber Montana.

I prefer old Sako's,to the newest variants.


The most for the least,is to simply build.....................

Well, I'm still thinking.... I like them both, and yet there are things about each that I dislike. The thought about purchasing an HS Precision was more tongue in cheek, but I have considered a few other guns. I have been looking for quite a while and have given serious consideration to the Sako. In fact, I would probably have purchased one but I can't find one in 300WSM. The only thing I don't like about the Sako is the stock. I'm not a fan of the gray rubber. Everything else however is really nice.

Thanks again for all the comments. Even the arguements were constructive to a certain extent. If I had to choose today, I have to say that I would probably chose the Tikka, despite it's misgivings. After speaking with a few local gunsmiths, they have seen too many Kimbers with issues lately, and that just makes me nervous. You see, I am a constant victim of Murphy's Law when it comes to purchasing lemons. You name it, I have had a lemon. TV's, Cars, even rental equipment has had to be returned because I somehow ended up with a peice of crap that didn't work. It's a curse, and it sucks. So far I have been lucky with guns. I'm afraid if I bought the Kimber, that might be like tempting fate. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

At any rate, I'll keep you posted and put up some pics when I finally get something.

Mucho truth here!

Poot, I absolutely never said Sako doesn't build a fine product so I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me this 1% (grin).

The Sako is a finely built rifle but I'm too old and set in my ways to change my tastes and I'll never like Euro rifle styling or Monte Carlo's. At heart I'm a CRF man and my prejudice is that it's the only proper rifle action. I'm not saying it's rational, just when push comes to shove that's my honest gut-level opinion.

Does that mean I don't like people that don't share my admitted biases? Does that mean a PF isn't a serviceable action? Heck no!

Another prejudice (yeah, I've got a lot) is having "Made in Japan" stamped anywhere on a firearm. Truth is though, the Howa is a heck of a rifle for the money and I'd personally rather have the Howa than the T3 (or Sako).

Poot, Kimber redesigned the feed ramp on the latest 8400's to be shallower. Across the board they feed consistantly well now.

Two years ago my first nice gun I bought was a 270WSM in a Sako Finnlight. I did like the gun and no doubt it shot nice, usually around 3/4" @ 100 yards with factory ammo. No complaints there. I actually used the gun on a Saskatchewan deer hunt and it served me well there. Short after my return from my trip I learned of the Sako recall on the barrels and really had a tough time dealing with Sako's customer service. In short I was really put off. Later I did find out my gun was not in the bad lot (that was defective) but given the attitude I got and furthermore the confusion surrounding the whole situation I elected to return the gun. I really wasn't comfortable that this gun was alright and I didn't want to shoot it. Luckly my dealer let me return it and exchanged it even up for a Kimber Montana.

Here is how I would compare the two . . .

-I like the lower bolt throw of the Sako, much nicer for scope clearance issues.

-Blind magazine and CRF on the Kimber are pluses - I really only unload my gun once a day while hunting therefore I'd rather not risk loosing a clip.

-Kimber does fit me better, the recoil was much sharper on the Sako - same caliber and ammo.

-Sako probably shot a little better but I can still get an inch or under with my Kimber.

-I like the talley lightweights as a mounting system better then the Optilocks - my 3x9x40 Conquest was still around 1/2" above the barrel with the Opti's - too high in my opinion and these were with the lows.

-Both guns feed the same, very smooth.

-Stock is far superior on the Kimber compared to the Sako.

In the end they are both nice guns and would dollars permit I wouldn't mind owning both. I will say if I ever buy another Sako it would probably be in a non magnum caliber as the stock seems to whack me pretty good - but it does feel good to me when I shoulder it.

I view a blind magazine as a blessing,myself.

Especially with a S/S guard that ain't going anywhere............

Gotta say I agree with that. I've had only five or six rifles with blind magazines over the years and have pretty well decided I like them best. They're one more way to simplify things...

They offer alotta "tough" for their weight and I can like that.....................

BS ... what "real" stainless ADL style guard to you suggest for a rem700? Williams, I would suppose ... but are there others that are worth it to buy?

JoeShooter,

Good luck on your decision, I went through the same thing several months back and its tough. I can tell you that I am very happy with my decision to buy another Tikka. I have a good friend that I hunt with ,he has a M70 S/S that has had the trigger replaced, the action bedded not once but twice and replaced the stock,and a list of other things that he has done, over $1400 in between gun and gunsmithing(scope not included) and every time we go to the range , he gets so upset because he cant figure out how my gun shoots soo much better than his and I have done nothing to my Tikka, but put shells in it,adjust the trigger weight down(which took about 15 seconds) and shoot. He always says I should sell this piece of [bleep] and buy 3 Tikkas, but his pride wont allow him to do it. Do not allow these guys opinions to obscure your desire for a reliable and super accurate rifle.As lemons go it seems you find them far more often in American products that in European, maybe they dont leave work early on Fridays at Beer 30 in Europe, I dont know. If you want to avoid a Lemon, I suggest you take a closer look at the Tikka. How many accuracy issues have you read about? How many broken parts have you read about? Dont reinvent the wheel dude, I have a lot of guns in the safe made by all of the manufacturers this is not my only rifle make, and I grab the Tikkas' everytime, they are like an old friend, or old reliable. I still like my Winchesters, Savage, Weatherby, and Remingtons but the Tikkas are a dream come true. Whats the accuracy guarantee on a Kimber? Or do they even have one? I would say you have to have some confidence in a company that gurantees you 3 shots under 1" MOA. After all isn't that why we buy rifles, to kill [bleep]? Good Luck.

Cub


Oh I forgot to add that I will surely update you guys on how the Tikkas push feed actions work for killing Brown Bear as my 300 and my buddies 338 will surely be put to the test after 2 weeks on the Alaska Peninsula. I leave in 19 days.

You said earlier that your 300 shoots every factory ammo under a half inch. Right?

Well apparently accuracy is contagious. Check it out. Every gun owned by every man on every gunsite shoots under MOA. If I was a gun manufacturer I'd give every soul who bought my rifle a MOA guarentee and an internet connection. Works every time. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Will

Dont know where you got that from, as I never said it shoots all factoy ammo under a half inch, It will shoot one inch groups with what I have fed it so far. What you would do and what the Gun manufacturers are doing is two totally different things. $800 rifles deserve to have been made with precision machining and that price tag warrants some kind of quality. If you dont want $800 quality buy a $275 Stevens with no guarantees other than bullets will fly out one end of the barrell. But if you are going to spend upwards of $700-800 for a rifle they ought to stand behind their product with something other than we guarantee that you your check will be deposited and or that your card will be charged. Thats just my opinion. And as for [bleep] working everytime, your damn skippy it better, when you are talking about a rifle. Mr Brown bear is not going to wait for you to send your Kimber back to the factory for feeding problems to be corrected and then mailed back to you so you can shoot him. The internet and mechanical tools are not a relevant analogy, but it was a good effort. As for all my guns shooting moa, I have a couple that dont , they are still good guns but I have less of a tendancy to grab them, a couple were family heirlooms passed down, I'll never get rid of them for that reason, but they are not Tikkas. I have a beautiful M70 XTR 300 WM wood/blued that I shot a bear and several moose with about 8-9 years ago, got a little surface rust on it, cleaned it off and retired it to the gun safe, It has value to me but is not the tool I use most often. It wont shoot 1" MOA more like 2"-2 1/2" moa and when I suspect to be in wet conditions or taking longer shots, I dont use it. I am superstitous about some things!

Please don't speak for me! Tikkas stink! I'd rather be shot by a Kimber than that shoddy plastic Tikka.

Just one bear's opinion.

MBB

Thanks for all your input on the Tikka. I hope your upcoming bear trip is a long one and doesn't afford you internet access, we're tired of your rants.

That is tooooo funny Mr. Brown Bear.
Am I still allowed to buy Kimber and a Tikka or do I have to choose only one? It seems to me they are both decent guns with each having something desirable to the buyer (wheather its price, accuracy, quality, wood, steel, etc). I would hate to live in a world that would force me to like only one rifle.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Oh now I see, if you attempt to convey your opinion from a diverse experience background, then your ranting. So I'll just do what the others do which is of no use to anyone, and when someone asks should I buy a kimber or a Tikka , I'll just respond by saying, Kimbers SUCK!!!!! Is that more to your liking cfran? Jackass!

Meastro , what you purchse only matters to you, I am sure Kimber makes some good guns, in this particular post we all start by expressing our choice in the two and then the gloves come off and the opinionated arguments started. thats the nature of the beast. Unlike many I never said the Kimber was a piece of [bleep] (except to respond to "IDIOT", formerly known as cfran), which is the term that has been used to describe the Tikka more than once in this thread.

On a side note and this might give all something to chat about (besides their personal preferences).

How many of you like to hunt with MK"s??????

Sorry couldn't resist!

Mark D

You are a piece of work, and thank you for the kind words. I'm sure others will read this long thread and laugh at it. In the interim it would do both you and Mowzer some good to kick your feet up and take your high blood pressure medication so that big vein in your forehead goes away!

Post deleted by Mr Brown bear

CFRAN- Hey I know you don't know me from just reading my posts. But you cited me as having a blood pressure problem and getting hot over stuff. Truth be known, I never so much as get even a smidge riled by reading the stuff on this site. I take it all in stride and really just have a lot of fun here. I have noticed that some seem to take it mighty serious, but I just derive an awful lot of fun here, and learn a lot too. Much of the stuff I have come to find is really just opinion anyway nad have learned that alot of us are really emotionally tyed to our firearms and gun choices. We are all passionate about our sport and can't speak for others, but I enjoy the opinion threads alot. I have learned much from them and the people here too. Even Big Stick's style is alot of fun to read and indicative that he believs what he says-which like it or not is to be respected. Anybody that takes all this stuff too seriously, should prolly check themselves from time to time, to realize that after all, it's just people and opinions. Sometimes that evokes fireworks, but thats what makes it interesting too. When you drill down to the real deal, which usually lies somewhere between extremes you can glean alot of usefull info from these threads. And, if your mind is at all open, come away better for it.

Mowser and Cub, I have enjoyed the Tikka posts. But I myself read topics that interest me. Topics or opinions that do not interest me - I skip right on past them.

I just put some Warnes on the Zeiss/Tikka. Will kill some paper tomorrow.

joeshooter - you must be laughing yer ass off at this thread ! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mowzer, I'm just going to take the high road on this. Perhaps we are both guilty to some extent. Either way, I agree good site with tons of useful info.

My next buy for the Tikka 30-06 will be some Talley's. Currently, I just have the factory mounts under my Swaro 3-10x42 AV Habicht. Have not had any problems yet (gunsmith told me he had seen no problems ever with the Tikka factory mounts) but ginna get anyway. My Rem 700 BDL has the one piece redfield mount with Leupy rings for the VX II 3x9 which may or may not be my back up rig to the Tikka. Gonna eventually pull the action outta the Rem drop it in a McMillan (or Borden) and attach a SS bbl for a pseudo custom jobby.

Sweet scope - I've got a Swaro 3x9x36 AV on my Montana and really like it. Good luck with your new rings, Talley makes nice stuff!

Man this thread is like the gift that keeps on giving...............anybody here have any penicillin <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Brad, I had heard that Kimber made some mods to the 8400 after some of the initial runs. I bought one of the first 270 wsm's off the line, therefore I likely had a model that was pre modification. I have no doubt that their current models feed really well, I just didn't want to risk it twice. However, I could have gone either way.

Just had to get the last word in didnt ya?

cfran and Mr. Brown Cub If you think that I got high bloodpresure over this silly little thread , you must not know what life is like living a firehouse, I have merely been expressing myself, thick skin is an important part of my world.I hold nothing against anyone. Just been expressing my opinion. Mr. brown cub, hope to get to know your kin well in the next month or so! Go Tikka!!

Remington cranked some S/S ADL guards out and Williams is always a good bet.....................

Poot, actually the only mods Kimber made was to loosen up tolerances and, a couple of month's ago, reduced the feed ramp angle. Otherwise, all's the same. Mine feeds like slippery sausages (for a short-fat) and definately shoots!