Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Tikka T3: Hunter vs. Forest stock and comb

I'll be lurking for a Lite SS in 6.5x55, but if I can't find one, may get impatient and settle for walnut, which would be OK.

The $100 difference between the two styles isn't as important for me as a functional difference. Haven't found any difference between them other than the stock.

Both are listed on Tikka's Finnish data sheets as 6 lb, 13 oz.

The line of the comb, when extended forward, seems to hit the bolt handle and stock bolt handle notch at the same point. LOP is stated to be adjustable with spacers, same as the synthetic stocks. So the difference would be the Forest having the butt hit the shoulder a little lower. I understand having the butt more in line with the action to manage muzzle rise on a heavy-recoiling boom stick, but on a softer shooter like a 6.5, I kinda like a more upright head position. I'm 6'4" and have a proportional neck, so it's a little longer than average.

Any thoughts or advice? Heck, maybe even experience with the two styles?

wow, tough one. Buy both and sell the one that you don't like here on the fire. It will be sold it 5 minutes flat, maybe less.

Forgot, in my experience the tikka t3 lite has the same stock lines and drop as the hunter. I do not know about the forest. Have you handled any tikkas?

I have handled a T3 Lite and really like it. The weight, and the way it balances, if practically floats in your hands. And the smoothness is nothing to sneeze at. I only see "domestic" calibers around here, though.

We have both the Hunter and Forest on the shelf. I handle them daily. I've owned both too and prefer the stock on the Forest. Higher comb, slight palm swell-- it just feels better to me.

I haven't handled both side by side to compare, but the first time I picked up a Forest, I really liked it and promptly ordered one in 6.5x55. No regrets...

May sound crazy but that gap space in the T3 forearm checkering always felt bizarre to me. Think I could like the Forester.

Went by the local big box store on the way home tonight. Handled a wood-stocked Hunter and a Lite again. It's amazing the difference that ten ounces makes. The Lite floats in your hands. It wants to fly from a low carry up to my shoulder. The heavier rifle is just slower. Might be better for more recoily calibers, though.

The checkering on the wood stock is definitely nicer, and the shape of the fore end is a little different, wider on the flattish bottom with slightly more fullness on the sides. I couldn't tell any difference in line of sight with a cheek weld.

I was also struck by the difference in sound and feel locking and unlocking the bolt. I don't know to what extent it may be due to a difference in surface finish and material properties of the stainless versus blued carbon steel. I think the damping of the wood stock is the bigger part. But while the blued/wood rifle was extremely smooth, it felt infinitesimally less smooth (maybe) and lacked the crisp feel/sense of mechanical precision and snappiness of the stainless. It's possible that the difference was entirely auditory and due only to the resonant properties of the composite stock. Just a subtle subjective thing. Some might prefer the wood's sound and feel - it may also be quieter in the woods.

Been doing more research on load data. I had been buying into the idea that because all T3s are long action, you might as well get the longer cartridge. However, while there are plenty of comments about it being safe to load 6.5 Swedish to higher pressures than SAAMI if you have a modern rifle, even load manuals that distinguish between vintage and modern load data for Swede generally give maximum velocities of the Swede significantly lower than .260 Rem with the same boollits. Most data sources don't distinguish, and just give really substantially lower speeds for the Swede. The result is that if I want to get the Swede to match the Rem, I am completely on my own in uncharted and recommended-against territory. I found data for pretty much all the same hunting boollits for both, including the big 160-grain RN Hornady. The only place I'd see a difference is in the extremely long-ogive target boollits like Berger and some of the Lapuas. Creedmoor will accommodate those if you have issues with your .260 chamber, but it seems likely you could play with magazines to do whatever you needed in that regard with a .260 Tikka.

So I'm back to looking at .260 Rem. Sadly, Beretta has no plans to import Lites in .260 Rem. It's crazy that they have the ultimate walking-in-the-woods rifle, in production chambered for the ultimate Goldilocks pigs-and-deer cartridge, and don't bring it here. Canadians, Australians, and Africans are all over it. It's like Beretta USA is consciously trying NOT to sell too many rifles or something.

Kinda like how they refuse to sell a variant of the 92/96 pistol with all the features desired by an enthusiast who has thoroughly researched the platform. You can have some, but not others, and have to decide what compromise to live with. Or pay double to triple the price it should cost to Wilson Combat for their special version.

It's really hard to like a company that has a strategy of not selling products configured in an obvious way that knowledgeable customers would want.