Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Sako A7/Tikka T3

The Tikka's do shoot well I know but I agree with BWalker the Tikka's always looked mighty cheap to me, I don't know how you could make a cheaper looking rifle unless you made it totally out of plastic and that includes the Barrel. That might make it look a little cheaper than it already does..........547.

I suppose that Glocks might look plenty cheap given the abundance of polymer in their overall design, but one can't argue with their desirability regarding reliability, cost and function. Subsequent to the very warm welcome that the Glock received from it's very inception, every other handgun manufacturer now offers their own version of these unattractive "plastic" guns, with their sales/profits having also notably risen.

Being that most LE agencies in this country and many others have readily accepted this particular handgun even with it's obvious beauty "flaws", there seems to be more than a few reasons to do so aside from concerns from its detractors who seem to place attractiveness over function, accuracy, cost and reliability. Seems the Tikka's have garnered the same type of reactions from both sides of the aisle.

Note to self..........marry or date only women who fit the general public's definition of beautiful, 'cuz in the long run, the Brittany Spears and Lindsay Lohan's of the world will undoubtedly prove to be much more reliable and trustworthy....as opposed to those less attractive.

I don't think you can get much "cheaper" than an AR15/M16. Aluminum receivers, plastic stocks, grips, and some (Israel) even use plastic mags! Gasp.

I haven't seen any volume of groups posted by A7 owners yet, but the T3 provides tons of evidence that the T3 Tikka is equal if not beyond the accuracy that Remy 788's provided.

The fact is that the A7 is a modified Sako 75 reciever that's been put into a Tikka T3 rifle. It will be interesting to see the results.

Spot

Count me in as a recent convert to those "ugly plastic" mags, PMags to be specific..........and many thousands of other converts from what I've seen on numerous other forums espousing their attributes.......go figure.

Has nothing to do with the use of plastic.
Glock's do not look cheap, Tikka's do.
My comment about the Savage was in reference to value. If you want to spend the least amount of money possible and get the most for that amount of money the Savage trumps the Tikka.
Even though I need one like a hole in the head I am considering buying a A7 to use as a beater/truck/boat gun.

The "cheap look" must then be determined solely on the shape of the firearm, as the materials for both the Glock and Tikka's are essentially the same.

Actually, I could care less what people buy and/or spend their money on as it is of no consequence to me, but comments here and elsewhere have definitely targeted and singled out the cheap look component as reason enough for not purchasing or recommending this firearm or that. Seems silly when, since 1981 when Gastion Glock produced his first Nylon6 (polymer) framed firearm, all others have fallen in line to produce the same or made attempts to produce a better material.

If you go the A7 route, let us know how that works out for you. Still not much info out there due to it's newness, so any and all reviews are welcomed.

Thanks.

As I alluded to above, its not the materials IE plastic.
To be specific the wood(birch?) stocks and the way the action is machined looks very cheesy, as does the bolt.
A savage looks kinda cheesy as well, but is cheaper and shoots probably just as good hence my preference to go that route of price vs. performance is of the utmost concern.

Stocks are made of walnut. I can say there is no american mass produced rifle that has the consistent fit and finish of a Tikka rifle. Take apart the bolt on a Tikka and then take apart the bolt on a savage and tell me there is no difference or that the Tikka bolt is cheap or simpler and elegant in design. I was a doubter for a long time of Tikkas but not anymore. My t3 in 308 shoots better then a 308 heavy barrelled rem 700 I had that I thought was the best shooting gun I had ever owned up until I bought the T3 . I shot the remington with handloads and the tikka with hornady off the shelf 150 grain bullets. I am still in shock over the range sessions.

Your certainly entitled to your oppinion.... They still look like hell IMO.

Note to self..........marry or date only women who fit the general public's definition of beautiful, 'cuz in the long run, the Brittany Spears and Lindsay Lohan's of the world will undoubtedly prove to be much more reliable and trustworthy....as opposed to those less attractive.

[/quote] Huh? What the H&%!, Have I missed something? and who said anything about Glock's anyway....I own two Myself and I think they are beautiful..............547.

I thought it was pretty clear........your comments/post, just above where my Brittany Spears comment appears, seems to suggest that you base your ideas of a rifle's "worth" on how it looks rather than on how it performs. Your use of the word "cheap" and general dislike of the Tikka's, clearly would lead one to believe that assertion.

Being that your use of the word "cheap" seemed to have everything to do with the "plastic" contained within each Tikka T3 (ie: "they could only be made to look even cheaper if they made their barrels out of plastic"), I thought it reasonable (and still do) to throw another known "plastic" firearm into the mix to show that being supposedly cheap looking has absolutely nothing to do with function and performance, nor with how the majority of LE agencies in this country and many other countries, view what is truly important in a duty weapon. Therefore the reference to Glock. I didn't think it too much of a stretch.........still don't.

When a poster asks about what we think a reliable firearm (of any type) might be, I, for one, don't immediately start thinking about how cheap one might look as compared to another. The questions are generally about reliability, function and cost......as well they should be. I'm always amazed how people would rather take those opportunities to disparage a firearm that they likely don't even own and likely have never used ( also likely due to their stated dislike of the materials used in it's manufacture), as well as rating the attractiveness or cheapness of potential firearms that might very well meet the OP's criteria as a possible acquisition.

As to Glocks.....I own more than a few. Beautiful and do I care?.....nope. Do I trust them with my life.........you bet.

Bottomline.....which I hope clears up anything that you say you might have missed. Looks aren't everything and when we equate cheap looking with a products ability to perform as intended and then openly state as much to dissuade another due to our own likes/dislikes, we do a disservice to others that are merely seeking information on what the product (rifle in this instance), as a whole, can do.

As I said earlier, I don't care what people buy, but if they're seeking answers not specific to materials used, but rather performance of the product as a whole, we should simply give them, as best we can, the answers they seek. Beauty still remains in the eye of the beholder, as does cheap looking. But what is patently true is that neither has anything to do with function and performance, which was and almost always is, the question being asked.

No offense intended and no offense taken.....just a difference in how we look at things.

Good luck to you this season, whether you pack wood or polymer.

I enclose pics of my 243's. I can understand why people think the T3 looks cheap. I have however sold the CZ as it couldn't hold a candle to the performance or light weight of the Tikka. I am a hunter and shooter, not a sculptor. I understand the T3 looks are not for everyone, unlike my wife who is stunning!

Magnumb, I agree with you %100, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't think old Mr. Whitetail could tell the difference if you shot him with an A-7 or a T3 either...........Best of luck this hunting season...............547.