Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Ruger or Tikka??

i decided that i want to get a 338 win mag and theirs a couple rifles im looking at. Im looking at the ruger m77 stainless synthetic, ruger m77 stainless laminate, and the tikka t3 stainless. I already have a tikka t3 stainless in 7mm so thats why im kinda leaning towards the ruger cause i dont have a ruger and i really like them. what do you think would be a better gun in a 338 win mag and why?

I have both guns and honestly don't know which one I would pick again either, the tikka will need nothing out of the box, and will in almost every case be more accurate than the ruger, however I don't like clips. the ruger has an internal mag, a good fitting at least to me stock, and the best safety on any current gun. I guess I would like how the ruger would turn out but, it would take a smith to work on the trigger, glass bed and free floating of the barrel to get it where I want it. the tikka doesn't need that, so it comes down to what features you need most, even after gunsmithing I bet the ruger still doesn't shoot as good as the tikka, but if you are hunting 1 moa is likely all the accuracy you can use anyways.

I would go with the Ruger and not look back just to prove CumminsCowboy wrong.

I owned a Ruger M77 338 Win for several years and obtained hunting accuracy out of the box 1 1/2 " groups at 100yds with it. Did not try to make a varmint or bench gun out of it. I do not have enough knowledge or expertise to question why the R&D dept. of Ruger does not do a complete barrel float. They have sold thousands of rifles with tension on the forend...people keep buying them.

Loaned the rifle with some stout Speer bullets loaded in Win cases to my brother and he could shoot 1" groups at 100yds. He took elk, brown bear and moose and has never given it back to me.

What are brothers for?

The only thing good about todays Tikkas are the barrels.The Ruger for a 338 hands down.

Ruger.

Just 'cause... but if you need a reason, Tikkas are butt-ugly in comparison, IMHO, YMMV.

Rugers stir my blood and Tikkas leave me cold. I have a No. 1-A, No. 1-B, M 77, and a Hawkeye. All four shot 1 1/4� groups out of the box w/factory ammo. A trigger job all of them to 1� or less and with handloads even less.

Just sold a 338WM SS HE. Nice but too heavy, IMO. A friend has the T3/338WM. IMO the T3 is a better rifle.
I had to polish my HE feed-rails & work the action somewhat, until it cycled the way I liked. My old T3/270WSM fed like slick snot, as have all of my Sako's! But that's common with Finnish rifles. Out of the box = Buy, scope & shoot, without tweaks.
T3 all the way. But I'm a LW rifle sl#t

ruger would be my pick.

After fooling around with 4 Hawkeyes I don't think you can go wrong with Ruger. They look right, feel right, and shoot right.

I have a stainless Tikka T3 .338 Win Mag and it is my favorite rifle. This gun is lite weight and real accurate. I have been shooting .338 calibre rifles for 30 years but my Tikka that I bought 3 years ago is my favorite.

I have owned a boatload of Ruger's starting with a 77R in 270 I bought in college around 1973. I have loved the 77 for years. I have owned some Winchesters and Rems too. I bought my first Tikka last fall. It is a stainless synthetic T3 in 300 Win Mag. I LOVE it. It does not need bedding or trigger work and shoots any load I have tried well. If you want a gun to tinker and play with don't get the Tikka. If you are a hunter who just wants to shoot and hunt get the Tikka.

2 Ruger rifles in my safe. 300 win mag shoots MOA w/hand loads, 7mm mag hawkeye shoots 1 1/2 so far with factory ammo. Friends who have the Tikka's love them. Very accurate and dependable. I'm not impressed with the stocks, they feel brittle and cheap. For me it's a Ruger hawkeye.

Ive had 7 or 8 Ruger M77 MkII's and Hawkeyes but only one Tikka T3 Lite. I think they are both great rifles for different reasons.

Considering the type of game possibly hunted with a 338WM, I would opt for the Mauser style action offered in the Ruger. Cant speak to the stock, never handed a Ruger synthetic. The laminates are a bit heavy but good quality stocks. Ive put fiberglass stocks on a couple that I like too, cheers.

JW

I had some problems with a Tikka T3 lite synthetic stock. The forend warped and started putting pressure on the barrel, slight but it was touching. Also the butt end sling stud was stripped out by a gunsmith, so yeah, I would say the quality of the stocks and included rings are marginal.

Enjoy Classic stuff that needs tweaking? Get the Ruger.
Enjoy small groups and laziness? Tikka.
Besides, The magazine will work in your 7mm Rem Mag also, save you from buying the $65 spare we all think we need.

Don't let the name Ruger scare you off in the accuracy department. My current M77 MKII shoots into less than 1 inch at 100 wtih my handloads (.425" to be exact). I've won some offhand competitions with my 300 win mag and it's pet loads, yes it is a Ruger M77 MKII. My current Hawkeye shoots 1 1/2 inch groups with factory loads and with very minimal load development one day a few weeks ago I got some .80 inch groups (it's a .223, yeah I expected a lot better accuracy out of it but oh-well). Most ruger 338's I've had have shot into less than 1 MOA. with my handloads. Be carefull with getting a light 338 like the tikka because it is going to kick. The nice thing about the Ruger with the laminated stock is it fits good and it is a little heavier and soaks up the recoil very well. Like some have said, the trigger is crap!!!!! You will need to have it worked over (I do mine in 20 minutes start to finish). All my Rugers have trigger pulls around 2 - 2.5 pounds with no creep (very crisp and light, the only way to have them). One more thing, the hawkeyes have a cheap matte finish which wears off and scratches very easy: I'd stay away from them if it were me.

Rugers can't shoot for sh1t and I've often posted pictured of my targets to prove it.

Like the .257 Roberts, haven't been able to beat .232" at 100 yards for 3 shots. The .22-250 can't do better than 0.5" for 4 shots at 200 yards.

Last weekend I was shooting clay pigeons at 600 yards with the 7mm RM. Took 4 shots (had never shot that rifle or load past 500 before) and only hit one bird...

Yup, that sums it up alright.

There is one thing I hate when I buy a new rifle. Having to fix/tweak

Had a few different brands over the years. Sako, Tikka, Sauer & Blaser provided me with 100% complete 'out of the box' satisfaction.

PS-If you can stretch yourself further$$$, buy the Sauer 202 & be done with it. Most certainly the finest rifle that has ever passed through my safe!!! Although my R93 was my pet before the 202. But that darn straight-pull action gave me nightmares

Coyote hunter, sounds like you need to trade those POS rugers in for some good shooting remington 700's. You know the push feeds are known to be more "inherently" accurate. Just my .02.

Nonsense -- unless you just had bad luck. That's a rediculous generalization.

For hunting purposes, my Rugers come up just fine in the accuracy department. I have only two in my collection, but they're both winners. One, in 338 Fed., shoots 1/2 MOA all day long with 185 grain TSX. The other, in 338 RCM, shoots one inch groups consistently with 225-grain SSTs -- and that's barely broken in and tested with only one load to date. In either case, that level of accuracy is obviously more than acceptable for hunting, and considerably better than I've seen in some far pricier rifles.

In truth, I have a confirmed case of MOA disease and will not own a scoped, bolt-action centerfire rifle for very long if I can't make it shoot MOA or less when I do my part. The two Rugers are not the most accurate rifles in my collection -- that honor goes to my predator-sniping rig -- but neither rifle will ever be sold by me.

And I'll take them in a heartbeat over any butt-ugly Tikka (with appologies to Tikka owners... JMHO).