Tikka?

Thanks scribe and spud attack for the good info on this thread.

Thinking about whether tikka is good or not - they are a benchmark; their features & quality are well understood. Some rifles are better in certain ways, many are worse. Each hunter needs to make their own assessment but here is an approach:

Most important
stock fit
trigger
barrel
tikka scores pretty high on these.

Major considerations
Length and weight
price
ruggedness and reliability
Fairly good on these too except for a couple of plastic parts. Price can be an absolute limitation but remember one good gun is better than two or 3 average so if on a fixed budget do it once and do it right.

Nice to have
Stable bedding
nice action function, top loading
metal dropout box magazine
scope mount options
Appearance and status
tikka is limited in these areas. In particular a 5 shot dbm must be challenging because it is the main difference from the sake 85 which costs twice as much. The scope mounting is good if you use optilocks.

I hope this gives people a framework for comparing rifles.

Ps it is possible to lose a tikka mag - found one in .270 on a track out of the kaimais last month !

Tikka CTR will change most considerations. Uses TRG magazines in a tikka...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stug

This might help you decide which calibre to get
7mm08 users mostly live in Parnell and Ponsonby and do most of their hunting online. Look - there's a couple online here right now.They compare gun magazines and buy the ones with the most gloss to the cover paper.
I have actually shot a couple of deer with a 7mm08, but it left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't know, I just felt ashamed.
.308 users are generally, well, how can I say this; simple folk. Salt of the earth. But not academically inclined.
.270 people are fairly stern sort of chaps. Not inclined to brook much talk about guns and calibers because, you know, they have got a .270. What more is there to talk about.
.25/06 people are just weird. I'm sorry. Its true.
.303 guys are cheap but have been doing it for a long time. They generally do quite well shooting deer for their daughters weddings and other social ocassions. They get sighted in for 25 yards, and shoot most of their deer at 15. A box of cartridges will last about two years. They often have deer parts in the back of the truck that they just forgot about.
.223 people are the ones that stand around the edge of the party grinning, but you don't really want to go and talk to them.
6.5x55 shooters are a touch intellectual, a little bit flamboyant, usually quite good rackonteers, but you wouldn't share a hut with them up the Karangarua in the rain.
.260 people are gearheads, usually young and quite defensive because the 6.5x55 is just prettier. If the cartridge came with teflon on it anywhere, they would volunteer to pay more for it.
6.5x47mm people are elitest know-it-alls - coupled with a real defensive attitude, because their cartridge is too small and puny.
.243 men are hunters. Full stop. You should aspire to their ranks.
7x57 same also. Touch of grey in the beards.
.222 shooters are fussy. I was going to use the word 'prissy'. There, I have.
.280 guys are weird as well, but weird scary.
7mm Remington Magnums are passionate hermits who solo hunt the big country. They couldn't tell you a story about what they did, because they are pretty much monosyllablic but if you look into their eyes you can see where they've been.
.300 and .338 magnum guys are the ones who camp next to you at Lake Waikaramoana and spend the whole night yelling and throwing beer cans, and then never get up the next day to go hunting. They spend the afternoon complaining about the .303 shooter who got all the 'easy' deer and then go home via Starbucks. Often live next door to 7mm08 people and lend each other "Survivor" dvd's.

---

Love it[emoji106]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudattack

So they were persisted with? Did anyone try and change the projectile they were supplied with? Would be interesting to know what the projectiles were?
Again it sounds like a poorly constructed bullet, something like a nosler partition that expands rapidly to a point and then holds together would have probably gone a long way to solving these issues as well as going to a 150gr bullet (u have no idea why anyone uses 130gr bullets in a 270 except for mono metals, 150s are just better!)

I see your point with the trebbly, small fast bullet through the ribs disintegrating and making a mess of the vitals and not exiting,perfect for what you were doing.

Wouldn't have been very reliable hitting heavy bone though! At least you were supplied good quality ammo for the 222.

---

It always amazed me as well why people would want to use 130 gr Projectiles too.

When culling the standard shot with the 222 was through the shoulder. This bullet was well able to punch through a stags near shoulder, crippling it, mashing the engine room and lodging in the far shoulder disabling that too, this happened up to a considerable range.

We only changed to neck, head shots when they paid 10cents a pound more. If too far away the target became the rib cage.

You could when close put a bullet into the chest through the little v at the bottom of the throat or straight up the date.
As long as the buyer could not find a bullet hole in the body you got the extra 10 cents a pound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudattack

So they were persisted with? Did anyone try and change the projectile they were supplied with? Would be interesting to know what the projectiles were?
Again it sounds like a poorly constructed bullet, something like a nosler partition that expands rapidly to a point and then holds together would have probably gone a long way to solving these issues as well as going to a 150gr bullet (u have no idea why anyone uses 130gr bullets in a 270 except for mono metals, 150s are just better!)

I see your point with the trebbly, small fast bullet through the ribs disintegrating and making a mess of the vitals and not exiting,perfect for what you were doing.

Wouldn't have been very reliable hitting heavy bone though! At least you were supplied good quality ammo for the 222.😊

---

Damn right, I shoot 150gn SSTs in my .270, a mild load, so easy on the shoulder and no blow ups. Drops them like a sack from 25m with Sika, to 325m on Reds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scribe

This doesn't quite answer the conundrum that has puzzled me for years. Why wasn't the 270 accepted in general by the culling fraternity. As you would go a long way to find a profession that took more pride in the tools of the trade and using the best available at the time.

We 222 users were happy to buy a sako vixen through the NZFS and thrived on three 222 rounds per kill. Mostly we were supplied with sako or Hertinberg Ammo. Very good stuff it was too but I think we mostly preferred the Hertinberg.

The only other Ammo supplied to shooters was 270, 130 gr, CAC. Most every shooter that took 2 270 round per kill then traded these packets of bullets for powder and projectiles and reloaded for the Sako Forester 243's they were all using.

These shooters could just as easily traded for Powder and better 270 projectiles (if that was the problem) and reloaded for the 270 if they found the calibre acceptable.

---

I think the fact that the 222 is so much more pleasant to shot than the 270 (if you are firing a lot of rounds) may have something to do with it too. I don't imagine too many cullers or meat hunters would like to admit they were recoil shy.
Have heard good things about the Hertinberg projectiles but never come across them.

imo tikkas are one of them guns you ether love or hate.... its all personal opinion..... I personally love them but I know others that wouldn't touch them
id go tikka over a rem 700 any day unless the Remington was accurized/customized a factory tikka will shit over a factory rem700 accuracy wise but if your not soo worried about accuracy and more a very hard as nails "tool" for bush bashing hard to go past a m700 or a ruger m77

that's a view coming from a guy who spends more time on the range than hunting.... and when I am hunting i am stuck in the open as wheel chair don't go too good in the bush so I am more worried about accuracy than hard as nails ruggedness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spook

Hell of a spiel for a .22 shooter...you should never have entered the "personal space" of a .270 shooter.

---

What spook said ! Mines a T3 Lite

I love the after market bits for the Tikkas there are Ffffffff all and look up the remingtons hundreds of bits the tikka will and dose out shoot many of the compertition they are a great rifle to shoot those that slag them off have never owned one

25-06 and 270 really shouldn't be compared as they are similar but very different in a few ways. I shot a 25-06 for a few years and loved it,light as hell recoil and excellent killing abilities within its limitations. Never owned a 270 and don't have a need for one so can't pass comment. Ryan Songhurst would be one to ask about the 270.

For rifles, pick one up and see which feels the best, ps which one is used by over 70% of LE and army sniper rifles world wide? The Rem 700... gives you a fair indication of how good it is aye!

The Rem 700 army snipers use are far from off the shelf , worked , trued, re-barrelled, different stock , bedded, trigger worked or replaced.... you could argue that any rifle that needs that much work to shoot straight is a piece of shit...I think the bolt handle maybe stock but I could be wrong on that:P

I was just stating a fact, but yes they aren't a standard 700 by any stretch of the imagination either