Thread: Whats up with T3 sellers on trademe?

Originally Posted by rambo-6mmrem

the issue is a lot of peope struggle to shoot moa accuracy in the 1st place and that's its even harder with a light gun
if you clamped a t3 found its ammo it likes it would shoot moa if not quite a bit better
people buy a tikka chuck a 3-9x40 shitter on it grab a couple of packets of the cheapest ammo they can find
shoot off a shit rest and expect it will do moa accuracy it wont

trust me the rifles capable with the right ammo, a good optic and a shooter that knows his/her stuff

I am confident that this is the case with almost all new hunting rifles these days, except perhaps the 'economy' ones e.g. Mossberg ATR, Savage Axis (maybe), Remington 770 etc. I feel like if you have $1000 or thereabouts to spend on a rifle these days you are spoilt for choice, and most are capable of MOA with a factory load they like, and almost all with a handload they like. I still don't see why Tikka's are so popular though, for a cheap rifle they sure cost a lot. Plastic bolt shroud, shit rings, one-size-fits-all action/bolt/mags (albeit the small cartridge mags have an insert) they seem to have cut so many corners with production and yet they cost more than a standard Remington 700 or Savage 10. Not sure if it's still the case you you used to be able to get a Savage 16 or 14 for considerably less than a Tikka T3, and I'd wager that they shoot better, even though they aren't guaranteed to. @Pixie Z had a Savage 116 in .270 that shot under MOA out of the box with Highland (PPU) ammo right out of the box.

Originally Posted by tommygun

I am confident that this is the case with almost all new hunting rifles these days, except perhaps the 'economy' ones e.g. Mossberg ATR, Savage Axis (maybe), Remington 770 etc. I feel like if you have $1000 or thereabouts to spend on a rifle these days you are spoilt for choice, and most are capable of MOA with a factory load they like, and almost all with a handload they like. I still don't see why Tikka's are so popular though, for a cheap rifle they sure cost a lot. Plastic bolt shroud, shit rings, one-size-fits-all action/bolt/mags (albeit the small cartridge mags have an insert) they seem to have cut so many corners with production and yet they cost more than a standard Remington 700 or Savage 10. Not sure if it's still the case you you used to be able to get a Savage 16 or 14 for considerably less than a Tikka T3, and I'd wager that they shoot better, even though they aren't guaranteed to. @Pixie Z had a Savage 116 in .270 that shot under MOA out of the box with Highland (PPU) ammo right out of the box.

I seem to get a lot of these cheaper rifles to look at that won't shoot well.
I have got to the stage of telling them they are wasting my time and their money so send them of to buy a tikka and a decent scope hardy can and job done!
every body happy except the deer!
Yes I am a tikka/ sako lover but there's a reason for that as owned the rest and Tikkas the best!

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by tommygun

I am confident that this is the case with almost all new hunting rifles these days, except perhaps the 'economy' ones e.g. Mossberg ATR, Savage Axis (maybe), Remington 770 etc. I feel like if you have $1000 or thereabouts to spend on a rifle these days you are spoilt for choice, and most are capable of MOA with a factory load they like, and almost all with a handload they like. I still don't see why Tikka's are so popular though, for a cheap rifle they sure cost a lot. Plastic bolt shroud, shit rings, one-size-fits-all action/bolt/mags (albeit the small cartridge mags have an insert) they seem to have cut so many corners with production and yet they cost more than a standard Remington 700 or Savage 10. Not sure if it's still the case you you used to be able to get a Savage 16 or 14 for considerably less than a Tikka T3, and I'd wager that they shoot better, even though they aren't guaranteed to. @Pixie Z had a Savage 116 in .270 that shot under MOA out of the box with Highland (PPU) ammo right out of the box.

The cheap non accustock 10,11,16 stocks suck, they shoot but are IMO a step down in fit and finish to a tikka. Not that the tikkas are uber flash, but its all relative. An accustocked savage, or stainless remmy are around the same price as a tikka anyway, and at least with the tikka you get a guarantee. They are getting up in price but I wonder how much of that is the cost from factory, and how much is it beretta reaming us for a few bolt on improvements.
I like the 10 series savages and will own another one at some point but personally I feel the tikkas are a better rifle overall.
I paid $900 for mine virtually brand new and with an ok scope

Originally Posted by Nick-D

The cheap non accustock 10,11,16 stocks suck, they shoot but are IMO a step down in fit and finish to a tikka. Not that the tikkas are uber flash, but its all relative. An accustocked savage, or stainless remmy are around the same price as a tikka anyway, and at least with the tikka you get a guarantee. They are getting up in price but I wonder how much of that is the cost from factory, and how much is it beretta reaming us for a few bolt on improvements.
I like the 10 series savages and will own another one at some point but personally I feel the tikkas are a better rifle overall.
I paid $900 for mine virtually brand new and with an ok scope

They do have an accuracy guarantee for the Tikka but have you actually looked at the fine print? I did and it said the guarantee was that it would shoot their factory ammo at their factory range. One of those "not worth the paper it's written on" guarantees, so effectively the same as everyone else. But as stated, everything else in that price bracket that I've come across will shoot to the same accuracy as the guarantee anyway.

Take your pick from whatever is available that fits you and 'floats your boat'.

Originally Posted by Nick-D

The cheap non accustock 10,11,16 stocks suck, they shoot but are IMO a step down in fit and finish to a tikka. Not that the tikkas are uber flash, but its all relative. An accustocked savage, or stainless remmy are around the same price as a tikka anyway, and at least with the tikka you get a guarantee.

Personal taste is a funny thing - using a T3 back to back with one of my Savages left me wondering why anyone would prefer the T3 at the same price, let alone a few hundred more. Action feel, trigger, safety, accuracy were all wins to the Savage. T3 was lighter to carry though as I was comparing with a wood stocked Savage 14.

I guess the T3 stock is a bit better finished cosmetically than the basic synthetic Savage stocks, but it still feels plastic and there is no advantage in function unless its a personal fit issue.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Personal taste is a funny thing - using a T3 back to back with one of my Savages left me wondering why anyone would prefer the T3 at the same price, let alone a few hundred more. Action feel, trigger, safety, accuracy were all wins to the Savage. T3 was lighter to carry though as I was comparing with a wood stocked Savage 14.

I guess the T3 stock is a bit better finished cosmetically than the basic synthetic Savage stocks, but it still feels plastic and there is no advantage in function unless its a personal fit issue.

Its a shitload stiffer. My savage needed sanding ti freefloat. All symantics really, but from my perspective the savages finish just isn't quite as good. Doesn't stop them being good rifles though, I will be buying a 12 or similar at some point as an entry level target rifle for f tr