Thinking about getting a stainless synthetic rifle and have it boiled down to these two, I really like the fact that the Ruger is US made and incredibly rugged, but the light weight and the acuracy guaranty on the Tikka make it a strong contender. Opinions?

I have a T3 Lite SS .243 and I love it.

I never have been able to fall in love with the Ruger.


That safety especially is a real booger for my big ape hands.

One is built to take a beating and be reasonably accurate, the other to save weight and maximize accuracey. Pich which atribute matters most to you in a synthetic stainless rifle.

444Matt, Are you saying the Tikka won't stand up to hard use? On what do you base your opinion? (Not challenging you, I just would like to know)

One thing I should add, is I generally only find accurate rifles interesting.

I actually had a good, hard look at both these rifles when buying a new 270 Win. Both were around the same price, but the ruger had the slight edge with the rings included in the price. I did go for the hawkeye (stainless with the synthetic stock) but i have since tossed the factory stock and fitted a Hogue unit with the full length bedding block.

But both rifles are good 'uns.

Gus

Gus, what kind of accuracy were you getting with the factory stock?

Rings come with tikkas as well

Do they? My dealer must be doing the "shaft"????

Gus

Not good - shots tended to string vertically once the bbl heated up.
Wasnt floated or bedded from the factory.

Gus

Gus, thats really my greatest fear with the Ruger. I've had several Rugers over the years and not all were great shooters. I've got one now in .223 that is a great shooter, but when I spend the kind of money that a new rifle costs I don't like to think that I'm rolling the dice as far as accuracy goes.

I have a friend who has a Tikka, it shoots, its light weight and he likes it. That being said it has plastic parts and quite a few of them at that. Magazine, trigger guard "bottom metal", etc.

If you are going the stainless/synthetic route for durability doesn't plastic kinda sink that ship before it ever sails? Those plastic clips are $50+ to replace.

From what I have heard and from my own observations (I have yet to shoot one but make it a point to feel one up every now and then when in the gun store) they are rugged, highly functional, dependable rifles. Even if you do have accuracy issues it seems a good bedding and trigger job will fix it. For the cost the Ruger is the better buy accuracy guarantee or not.

I've had both and to me there is no question at all.

The Ruger is a real rifle.

The Tikka T3 is IMO a very very bad joke.

Can't think of three things I liked about my T3. Can sure think of a lot of things I hated about it though.

The T3 does have some very satisfied owners however.

Gus had the same problem I did with my Hawkey All Weather rifle. I remember when he bought that hogue stock and I walked him through bedding it as I've done to all of my rifles. Rugers can be very accurate rifles but they are more for the tinkerer to be honest. The actions can be made to be very smooth (almost like a good model 70), the triggers can be lightened with a little stone work and a lighter trigger spring. I just shot mine yesterday with a friend who shoots a very accurate savage 270 and the Hawkeye just shoots circles around it. I shot some sub moa (.75") 5 shot groups with it and handed the rifle to my friend and said here why don't you see how it does for you and he shot a nice 1" 5 shot group. He was shooting his 270 like crap for some reason, now he wants a 308 . I was actually impressed with his shooting with the hawkeye since generally his groups are around 2-3" 3 shot groups (which that's what his groups were with his 270). I shot 5 offhand at 100 yards with the 308 Hawkeye that landed into 2". They can be great shooters if given the proper attention. If you arn't a tinkerer then you may be better off buying the tikka. I also did like Gus K and put my hawkeye all weather in a different stock (factory hawkeye wood stock), bedded it and freefloated it just like I did to the synthetic stock and it shoots lights out. Here's how she looks now and an old target I shot with it when it had the synthetic stock on it (I like the looks of the wood better so that's how it's going to stay), it still shoots just like this with the wood stock too.:




Here it is bedded/freefloated and sealed up with tru oil.....


So my suggestion is if you are a tinkerer then get the Ruger, if not get the Tikka....

I think 444Matt states the case well. I'd also add, if for some reason the Ruger doesn't shoot, I'm sure it's nothing that wouldn't be cured by simply bedding and freefloating it.

You are da man bsa..............

Gus

By all accounts the Tikka rifles are very accurate but they look cheap as all hell with all that "plasteek", the Ruger looks better built overall and should shoot plenty good. I like to take a little pride in the looks of all My guns so I have no Tikka rifles in my safe.....Good luck.........Hb

Get the Tikka. Shoot small groups. Save $and/or time by not having to work the action, or mess w/ the trigger.

Matt has it summed up nicely. It's like Granny Smith vs. Golden Delicious. They are both apples, but one is better for baked pies and the other is better for fried pies.

Ruger.


Travis

Tikka.


John






.

Tikka - (and its not even close) for me.

Ruger

Ruger.

Get Ruger's version of the tikka, the American, best of both worlds. LOL

Plus you'll save a couple three hundred bucks.


Pete

I hadn't thought of that but the comparison seems about spot on.

Same here. It's also the same old bravado from folks who've never seen a Tikka, much less owned one...."plastic, blah, blah, blah....". Now it personally makes me no difference whatsoever, but I've beaten the piss out of my Tikka for 12 years now, plastic and all, and it remains a premium shooting, accurate rifle, plastic and all, no mods, tweaks, bedding, etc.

My hunting guns are just a tool. I don't stare at them and think how beautiful they are. They better produce, or they go down the road. I like Rugers too, just not my numero uno choice. Just my opinion. If I were as talented as BSA, I wouldn't be afraid of any of them.

I did the same thing to a Mark II .243...I sold the boat paddle to another member here and it now lives in a Hawkeye stock, floated the barrel and sealed it up, no bedding needed. The thing shoots like crazy as it sits. And it sure looks nice sitting in the wood.

I'd go the Ruger route. I've never personally warmed up to the Tikkas. But that's me and YMMV.

If you need something to anchor a boat, pound tent pegs or beat a grizzly to death, buy a Ruger. If you need a rifle, get the Tikka.

Plenty of plastic on my Tikka and my Glock, neither one has ever given me an issue to be concerned about...

As previously mentioned - if you want a rifle that you will have to work on in order to get smooth feeding and resonable accuracy then get the Ruger. If you want a rifle that will come ready to shoot get the Tikka.

I have owned 5 Tikkas, mostly 223's and a couple of 243's, and they all shot around 1/2 inch 5 shot groups out of the box, no muss - no fuss.

drover

I've got the Hawkeye in 223. I like it's looks and the stock but it required some bedding, trigger work and load development to shoot the way I thought it should. It also seems heavier than a 223 sporter needs to be.

About six months back a friend that's a dealer said he'd gotten some kind of stainless, synthetic stocked Tika in 223 as part of a trade. He's in his 60s and a lifetime Remington, walnut & blue fan so I commented I was surprised. He advised it wouldn't be his for long.

I was over at his shop the other day and he's still got it; said it's a shooter, is light and handles well, said the more he shoots it the better he likes it. I think I might be getting baited into a deal but I picked it up and have to admit I like the light weight and balance of it. Not a bad trigger either.

[quote=JGRaider It's also the same old bravado from folks who've never seen a Tikka, much less owned one...."plastic, blah, blah, blah....". [/quote]

I've owned a T3, used it, inspected it and otherwise closely regarded it and one is all I'll ever own.

Nothing about my T3 was exceptional, mediocre accuracy, ridiculously slow barrel, a trigger no better than any number of others I own including the unloved 2 screw Savage trigger, the bolt throw felt like a toy, the tinkertoy bolt assembly is inferior to the tinkertoy bolt assembly on my Savage, the snythetic stock was a bad joke in appearance and in ergs for me.

Let us not forget the chickenshiit slot that engages a tiny piece of steel set into the stock that they optimistically refer to as a recoil lug!
Luggette is more like it.

Then the plastic mags that cost $60 to buy and $3.00 to make, the 3/4" bolt stop which costs $50 to buy and $2.00 to make.
Then there is Beretta and we know how well they do CS.

Like I said, I can't think of three things I liked about my T3 and I only paid $400 for it brand new.

It wasn't an expensive lesson but it was informative.

nsaqam, you've obviously owned one, and have your opinion, so I wasn't referring to you. Your opinion is as qualified as mine as far as I'm concerned, albeit a complet 180* opinion but that's fine. Not sure what caliber you have, but my 2 that I've chronoed are within 50 fps of mfg stated velocities. That's interesting yours are so slow. How did yours shoot? You're probably well aware that the Tikka barrels are the same ones that go on their $1500 Sakos? Did yours just fall apart, or is it that you just weren't thrilled with it's construction? With such construction, how is it they are so superbly accurate? Just curious, that's all.

I bought one of each in 270.

The Ruger was 1-1.5 from the factory. I had it bedded, floated, trigger job, and a pad. It went sub-MOA. What I didn't like was the finish. I could scratch it off with my finger nail. (I'm not exaggerating. Maybe I got a bad one?) I also didn't like the weight. IIRC it was 8 12 all up.

On the Tikka I replaced the pad and factory rings, then floated the barrel with a dremel. It is REALLY accurate. Same scope and sling, it goes 7 pounds 7 ounces.
I do like the more rugged features of Rugers, but I have had no problems with the Tikka. (It has taken three elk.) I also like the feel of the stock better.

Yesterday morning a friend and I went shooting. (Super light head wind, a rarity for around here.) He was shooting his 300 T-3, I was shooting my 270 T-3. We shot over his truck hood and lead bags at 2,3,4,5, and 600 yards. Both rifles shot sub moa all the way out.

I have to like that.

JG, I had a LH T3 Lite (CM not SS) chambered for the 270 WSM.

I struggled mightily to get that T3 to shoot any bullet really well and the best I got for accuracy were a few loads which went MOA barely. Most were 1.5+ MOA.
At the time I had a great 700 KS with a 24" barrel chambered for the 270 Winchester. This barrel is admittedly fast but when this 270 Winchester can push every bullet weight to within 50 fps of the velocities achieved by the larger WSM I failed to see the point of the cartridge. I could barely get to 3300 with a 130 and that only with a lot of Magpro. Case life sucked because I was pushing the cartridge to the limits and the primer pockets began to enlarge.

My T3 never failed in any way. It always fed, ejected and fired when it was supposed to, no worries there.

I take all my rifles apart when I get them and the T3 was no different. Taking apart the bolt, that dovetailed handle held in place by the FP spring didn't inspire confidence in me. Nor did the feel of the bolt throw. It was too slick and the tolerances were too large for my liking. Some feel the silky bolt throw is an asset and it may be for them but not for me, it felt too toylike.
The feel of the stock also left me wanting. It felt like cheap brittle plastic in my hands and the ergos didn't suit me (very few stocks suit me as well as that 700 KS stock).
The action length compromise, the inflated parts prices, and the fact that they are imported by Beretta also weighed negatively.

I will freely admit that the vast majority of people who own or have owned T3's think they are the cats meow with a blend of accuracy and lightness that few can match.
I just didn't happen to scratch my itch.

I second the idea of trying a Ruger American. The couple reviews I've read stated around MOA accuracy with factory ammo, if you handload I'm sure you could do better. They run about 6 1/2 pounds, so that's a nice low starting weight - you can always add more weight with a heavy scope, sling, ammo band etc. if you want a heavier feel.

You didn't mention what chambering you're after but the American will be available initially in .243, .270, .308, and .30-06. A few in the .30-06 variety are available on gunbroker.com at around $350...I'm sure you'd be able to sell it again if you don't like it without losing more than a few dollars.

I really wasn't even considering the Ruger American beecause to the best of my knowledge it's not available in stainless steel. As I mentioned in my original post I was looking at stainless synthetic rifles. The biggest negative I can see about the Tikka is that pos plastic detachable mag, it protrudes about a half inch below the bottom of the stock and that's where I grip my rifle when carrying it one handed.

I agree about the magazine protrusion being a negative about the Tikka. I have a T3 Lite Stainless in .270 and a Hawkeye All-Weather in 7RM. The T3 is lighter, more accurate (thus far), and has a better factory trigger, in my opinion. However, the Ruger definitely seems to be more rugged and constructed of better quality materials. I can't see the Tikka still being around in 15 or 20 years to give to a child, neice, nephew, etc, while the Ruger might just be getting broken in by that point. I still have more experimentation to do with the Ruger. It's shooting about 1.5" groups at this point, but I've only tried a few loads thus far. I've also done nothing with bedding or floating it. At this point, I'm inclined to suggest the Ruger, as it seems to be sufficiently accurate with the potential to become much more so, is American made, and should be durable enough to use for several generations. I just think that you get more for your dollar with the Ruger. Tikka prices have gone up too much in the last few years.

Very true.

At $400 I was willing to give the T3 a shot and did but I don't know if I would've had the rifle cost $650+.

I have hunted my Tikka at -35F and at +95 in dust and blowing sand with zero negative impact. Good trigger, excellent accuracy and so far good reliability. I bought it as a backup rifle without caring for it asthetically, but it has really grown on me. Ugly is as ugly does and this rifle has wormed its way into a favoured status.

I am a blue steel and walnut sort of loonie, so this rifle has had an uphill battle with me since it is synthetic and stainless.

Until this thread, I wasn't even aware of the Ruger American. Be interesting to see how it does in the market place, and whether Ruger adds a stainless steel model in the future. I see that Ruger differentiates their model from other manufacturers with a rotary magazine which looks to be flush. It's not exactly my cup of tea, but they needed to compete in that market segment and looks to be as likely a choice as the other econo-line rifles.

I was concerned about that too when I bought mine. FWIW, mine seems to balance a bit further ahead than most rifles ('heavy' barrel/light butt?) and the mag protrusion isn't really noticeable to me. I'm thinking my last 2 fingers seem to fall on the protruding part, not the palm of my hand.

Dale

Tikka

I've had both. T3 hands down!

Plenty of hunters my way bring home the meat with both of these fine rifles, year in & year out.....But I can tell you now the Tikka outsells sells the Ruger 10 to 1. There is a reason for that.....

I have never been one to care what a rifle looks like. If I did I would of never hunted with R93 & R8's LOL(ugly but extremely functional rifles) ...Just as long as they function 100% OUT OF THE BOX without smith work, & SHOOT around 1.5" with 3 at 100, that'll do me

PS- plus the T3 is lighter, slicker & they all shoooooooooooot lights out!

Melvin,
yep, the Blaser's surely are a nice rifle and they work.

In my old age (if you can call 42 old!!) i tend to steer towards ligther rifles and the T3 Lite surely would be nice - even better a Sako A7 . The Ruger in its current form sure is nice but a tad heavy - the reason I only use mine from my truck at night.

But another gun would mean another safe to buy - yep, yep, yep!!

Gus

Not all of them apparently.

After my experience with a T3 you'd be hard pressed to give me one.

I'd like to see some supporting documentation that shows the T3 outselling the M77 10-1. I'm thinking the ratio would be reversed with the name recognition of Ruger.

My hunting buddy has a 338WM SS T3, which cost $600 less than my Montana's. And as much as I think the 84's Montana's are a incredible rifle for the bills$$$, IMO the T3 has no peers when you think about what you get for $$!
Plus you can beat the crap outa those em & not have to worry about scratching it up at that price$...... If it lasts 5 seasons, it's done the job. Bin it & buy a newby LOL

Perfect solution for a disposable rifle.

HAA but I guess that opening was there

Except they sell for over $620 to $700 on gunbroker at least. I'd hardly call that a disposable price when you can go Savage or Remington for around $300 or so. If you don't expect more than five seasons, why would stainless even be a criteria?

Exactly GL.

The T3 is no longer an inexpensive choice.

Exactly. When I owned mine it was a 270WSM Lite(blued model). I guess for my buddy it's a BLING thing LOL

I agree here, no way Tikka outsells Ruger rifles 10 to 1 get real I know a bunch of hunters and can't think of one that runs a Tikka, a local gun shop did have a T3 lite Stainless in .308 Win (long action to boot)that sat on his shelf for almost a year before it sold, he hasn't stocked another since..........Hb

In Australia they popular like you won't believe. As are Rugers..... but at my LGS it's Rems & T3's that sell best.

Tikka=accuracy.

As far as the polymer mags go, my brother dropped one on the frozen ground, didn't see it and ran over it with his plough truck. Picked it up, dusted the snow and moisture off it, and good to go. Hard to convince him that they are fragile.

My neighbor just bought a T3 7-08 for $495, black/blued.

I have seen dozens of Rugers at the Ranges I frequent and only one Tikka. I would bet that M77's out sell Tikkas 5 to 1 or more in the Northeast.

I haven't seen a Tikka on the used rack either, and while some might think that makes them a keeper, there are lots of other "keeper" rifles on the used racks around here.

Try that with a sheet steel detachable mag and see what happens.

I wouldn't call T3's disposable as they are as rugged as any other rifle out there. Cabela's is/was selling A7's for $650 if the plastics worry you too much.

None of the rifles in that price range are going to have a great stock. T3 is no different. I don't have any regular synthetics myself; one blued Hunter, one SS Varmint and one blued Varmint.

Get a blind mag and you don't need to worry about lost or broken mags.

As well as a stronger and easier to carry rifle.

I've got a blind mag rifle {savage} and think it's a PITA. I currently have 6 rifles with detachable mags and have never lost a magazine in 40 years of use. I much prefer the convenience of the detachable over top loading.

Guess that's why they make both I suppose.

My personal preference is a blind mag but I'm glad they make detachable mag rifles for those who prefer them.

This would be a boring ass world if we all liked the same things.

Rugged as any rifle out there ? Not with that extraction and ejection system they aren't. Rugers are the closet actions out there that copy the old 98 Mauser design.
If you insist on an all weather and conditions rifle, the Rugers along with the Classic or pre-64 Winchesters and rifles made with the old 98 Mauser action are right at the top for reliability.
If a T3 is good enough in your experience fine. I insist on an edge as my rifles spend alot of time in bad conditions and don't always get the best of care. E

I take 3 weeks vacation during deer season every year and hunt every day rain, snow, sleet or shine. Never had a single "in the field" malfunction or parts breakage with any CF rifle or shotgun in 40 years. That includes 12 years and counting with my Tikka 595. My Win 94 and Marlin 336 have now been through 4 decades of use totalling several hundred days afield with zero failures. Ditto for my old 12 gauge Mossberg 500 and that has been abused unmercifully while waterfowl, predator and deer hunting. I have had a few parts failures over the years though. An 870 firing pin, an extractor on a much used Marlin bolt action .22, a couple bolt buffers on Marlin semi auto .22's, a firing pin on an old Stevens 15 .22 and probably a couple more that escape memory at the moment. I do know all happened while at the range/Plinking and all broken parts were made of steel with the exception of the Marlin bolt buffers. Bottom line is I don't worry in the least about failures afield just because I'm not carrying a Mauser design rifle or a gun with some plastic parts.

I'm a Ruger guy, haven't had one that wouldn't shoot at least 1 1/2" groups. More than accurate enough for hunting. Sounds like lots of computer experts that haven't had many Rugers on here. I've had at least 25 of them over the years. They just work.

Tube socks trump Tikkas!!

Buy the Ruger!!

The polymer detachable mags...........they are great - especially if you loose one.

Went deer hunting with my mate who has a nice T3 in 300 Win Mag. Alas he lost the only mag he had.....he pinpointed the location where he "could" have lost it and spent an hour trying to find it in the dirt.....only to discover he had it all along in his jacket pocket!!!!
Detachable magazines - great things, made to drive you around the bend if you mis-place them

Gus

I want to thank everybody for their thoughts on which rifle to choose. I'm leaning pretty strongly towards the Ruger, right now.

I've owned Mausers, Springfields, Winchesters,Remingtons, Savages and Rugers. On all of them (even my Savage with it's detachable magazine) I've been able to reload from the top with an open bolt.

I don't know if I could learn to remove the mag, reload the mag and reinsert the mag all under the pressure of a hunting situation. I guess I don't know if this old dog could learn this new trick.

Anyway thanks again everybody for you thoughts, I appreciate them.

They do and you could probably attest to them working in some pretty extreme conditions.

My T3 in 270WSM was a sub MOA shooter. My two T3's in 6.5x55 shoot about half again better than that. I've never had a Ruger shoot as good as a T3 and I've had many more Ruger's than Tikka's.

I've got two Hawkeyes and have owned six others.
The new rugers are very accurate.
I have a problem with overseas parts supply.
Some are good, some aren't.
Just a thought.
Also, look at aftermarket parts.
Remington 700's and Ruger 10-22's are on the top of the heap. IMHO