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

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.