Chuck Hawks rips Tikka a new one

[Gewehr98]

Chuckie-poo's crabby and needs a little nap, it appears.

Free floating barrels, introduced simply to minimize the labor cost of precisely bedding a barreled action in a gun stock, are now praised as an asset by those who know nothing else. A perfect example of an economy shortcut becoming the new standard.

Sorry, Chuck, you lose. Free-floating barrels and bedded actions have been around for a long time, well before the advent of the synthetic stock. It's considerably easier to reduce group sizes by free-floating a barrel and bedding the receiver than it is to find and implement a consistent pressure point on a barrel's node.

My own father taught me that trick in the mid 1970s, and he'd known about it since Gawd knows when.

Now, I certainly think the flimsy synthetic stocks as found on Savage rifles need a bit of help, as delivered they twist like Chubby Checker, especially in the forend area.

As for Tikka, I am still willing to pay top dollar to get my hands on one of the older Tikka 595 Master Sporter rifles, especially in 6.5x55, as every one I've tried has been a sub-MOA gun straight out of the box, even though the barrels are free-floated.

The only reason I don't already have a Tikka 595 Master Sporter is I spent the money on a Remington 700PSS. You know, with the cheapo matte finish, lame-ass HS Precision synthetic stock w/wussy aluminum bedding block, and horrible free-floated barrel - just a disaster waiting to happen in Chuck's esteemed opinion. Funny thing is, the 700PSS shoots 1/2 MOA or better with boring regularity, even crotchety old flatulants like Chuck would have to notice that. As for the washer-style recoil lug, how many of those have been sold and shot over the decades with nary a problem?

Manufacturing techniques for firearms has changed, few shooters are willing to pay the labor to chuck up a billet of forged ordnance steel and machine away every thing that doesn't look like a flat-bottom Mauser 98 action or pre '64 Winchester action. That's life. Surprisingly, the tubular Remington 700/70and cast Ruger 77 actions have done very well for themselves over the years, and will continue to do so.

You want to grouse about something, Chuck, let fly about Accutriggers, crossbolt levergun safeties, tang-mounted levergun safeties, levergun safeties in general, horrendously long barrel throats in Remington rifles, and the necessity (actually, lack thereof) for the newer ShortFat magnums, which don't do anything their predecessors didn't.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Point by point:


"Like many old geezers"

He says it himself in the first line.

"In the quest for advertising dollars they have turned a blind eye to the constant cheapening of our hunting guns. Often they have merely parroted the promotional flack handed to them by the manufacturer's ad agencies."

We all know the gun rags are bunch of suck-ups----that's why we are all here on the forums.

"Thus flimsy, injection molded plastic stocks are praised as "lightweight" or "weather resistant" rather than criticized as the inferior bedding platforms that they actually are. Free floating barrels, introduced simply to minimize the labor cost of precisely bedding a barreled action in a gun stock, are now praised as an asset by those who know nothing else. A perfect example of an economy shortcut becoming the new standard."

This is such a load of bovine scat that does it really need to be addressed? Sure some outfits offer flimsy syn stocks--Tikka isn't one of them. Free floating is a time honored way of improving accuracy---not to cut production costs.

"The deficiencies of receivers that are simply drilled from bar stock and that substitute heavy washers for integral recoil lugs are never examined in modern rifle reviews. Often the loading/ejection port--merely a slot cut into the tubular receiver--is so small that it is difficult or impossible to load a cartridge directly into the chamber, or manually remove a fired case. But the implication of this drawback at the range and in the field is never mentioned in most rifle reviews."

Didn't know anybody had any problems loading and unloading Tikka's----washers or lugs-- who cares---as long as it works(and it does--very well)---if they save me a few bucks on the cost of rifle---great.

"In many cases, "short actions" are merely long actions with the bolt stop moved to limit bolt travel. The modern gun writers who review these creations likewise never mention that this defeats the fundamental purpose of the short action calibers for which these rifles are chambered."

Tikka is guilty of this and they really can't be defended on this one----they need to offer a short action receiver.

"The receiver holds the bolt, which brings up a salient question: does anyone really believe than a cheap multi-piece, assembled bolt has any possible advantage over a one-piece forged steel bolt except economy of manufacture?"

This one is really pushing it---it would be a point if Remingtons and Winchesters could outshoot Brownings---Savages and Tikkas with their multi piece bolts----problem is multi bolts will out shoot the solid bolts all day long any day of the week.

"The use of plastic, nearly disposable, detachable magazines and trigger guards is overlooked by the popular print press, or actually praised for their lightweight construction. Talk about spin, these guys could teach the Washington politicians some tricks!"

Plastic--if done right---is actually superior to metal-----the jury is still out on the long term durability of the Tikka mags.

"In fact, "lightweight" and "accuracy" are the buzzwords most frequently used to "spin" hunting rifle reviews in a paying advertiser's favor. (Cheap substitute materials are usually lighter--but not stronger--than forged steel, and most production rifles will occasionally shoot a "braggin' group" that can be exploited in a review.) Whenever reviewers start touting either, watch out! There may not be a lot to tout in the critical areas of design, material quality, manufacture, or fit and finish"

Not even sure what his point is here---EVERY Tikka I've ever seen will shoot MOA or better out of the box without even trying---Remingtons and Winchesters are at best a crap shoot and the 10+plus I've owned of either of them---NONE were MOA shooters out of the box.

"A rifle's lines and finish are largely cosmetic, but why should we be condemned to hunt with ugly rifles? Matte finishes on barreled actions are sold as a benefit ("low glare"), but in reality they are simply faster and thus less expensive for the manufacturer to produce than a highly polished finish. And the flat black color touted as a stealth advantage of plastic stocks over walnut is patently absurd. Why would a rational person believe that such stocks are any less visible to animals in the woods than a wooden stock?"

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder-- and to me--shiney Weatherby/Rem BDL looks are an abomimation

"Then there is the Tikka 1" 100-yard test. I have yet to see, or even read about, a T3 hunting rifle that will consistently meet Tikka's 3-shots into 1" at 100 yards accuracy claim."

This one is beyond the pale---hasn't even read about??? You can sit there on the internet all day long of guys telling you how well their T3 shoots. Come on now Chucky---you must have missed your meds the last few days at the rest home to come up with this one. What a load of BS!!!!!!!

"Now, unlike many gun writers today, I try not to over emphasize the importance of accuracy in big game hunting rifles. Big game animals are large and hair-splitting accuracy is almost never required. A rifle that will shoot into 2" at 100 yards (2 MOA) is accurate enough for most purposes. A hunting rifle that will average 1.5 MOA groups is a good one, and most T3 rifles fall into that category."

Well which is it?? In the very paragraph above you tell us accuracy is important---now you're telling us its not?? And again---EVERY T3 I've ever seen will shoot MOA or better.

Ran out of time---back with more later.

 

[ArmedBear]

I don't have a plastic anything in my gun safe

I do, and I prefer wood, usually.

Xytel is neat stuff, used appropriately. My 10/22 is plastic and blue; I can't see paying more than $180 for a non-customized 10/22, and Rugers base wood is nothing but a club with urethane sprayed on it. The plastic is nicer, more durable, with checkering and much better shape to the wrist! It's my plinker for our local rock-and-sand areas. Different strokes for different guns.

Some fiberglass stocks can be great. They're often more expensive than wood. Mcmillan stocks are not junk, whether you like them or not.

I will, along with the old geezer, vouch for the value of the Weatherby Vanguard. Mine is stocked in cut-checkered walnut and rosewood, though, as it ought to be.

 

[cyanide]

I hope someone remembered to tell my deer last year that it was shot by a CHEAP rifle.

It ain't about cheap or bucks spent for a firearm .

it is about what you spend and what you get

Savage is a fine rifle , better than most sold and it costs less.

and it beats a Rem model 710 -----not because the 710 ain't cheap, it is just a crap rifle not cheap , just cheaply made.

 

[Bobhwry]

If you read the article he didn't say it would not be appropriate for hunting. He was lamenting the trend towards cheaper is better and the downward trend in quality?

 

[cyanide]

exactly

 

[Pafrmu]

I think my biggest problem with Chuck's article is that he claims that Tikka's aren't worth the price.

 

[Bobhwry]

They may be worth the price for hunting purposes but the point he was making is to not mistake them as a finely crafted rifle? they are not!!What's really sad is seeing what once were a great manufacturer of rifles degrade their quality to appeal to the masses.Guess it's a sign of the times.Fewer of us around willing to pay for quality and more willing to accept less. I will not compromise on quality!!!

 

[beerslurpy]

Maybe things changed greatly since the previous generation of tikkas, but I was able to shoot tiny groups with cheap factory remington ammo.

 

[swingset]

Blowhard. That'sums up my feelings about gun snob writers who pine for the days of early weatherby rifles and fine sporting arms that cost $10,000 and shoot like one of today's $500 Savage bolt guns.

 

[Terrierman]

Say what you will about T3 but they really are butt ugly aren't they?

 

[hessy]

'Say what you will about T3 but they really are butt ugly aren't they'

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I actually like how my Tikka looks. I had mine for $435 OTD and will not hesitate to shoot it or put in a track. My buddy has a Kimber SuperAmerica and it happily sits in his safe as he is afraid to scratch the looks. It has a much creepier trigger than my Tikka at 3X the price.

 

[iamkris]

I like Chuck's articles and reviews (not enough to pay for them in the new structure) but I can't agree with him on the Tikka. Is it a finely crafted pre-64 Win 70? No but I only paid $400 for my tikka T3 Hunter (that's the wood stock version). It has a silky smooth action, awesome trigger and, even in .300 WSM caliber, is a sub MOA rifle.

Not sure what his standards are but that meets mine. I don't consider myself a "novice rifle buyer" (I have over 29 rifles many of which are finely crafted examples over 75 years old) either.

 

[Dionysusigma]

They do just fine for the majority of gun owners who can't buy a Holland and Holland double, an Accuracy International, or an original Sharps every season.

Individual standards are fine, but the instant anyone tries to impress theirs upon me (whether they want me to adopt theirs or conform to theirs) they lose my respect. I'd much rather take out a Savage Stevens .308 and a Sightron SII (for a total of ~$500.00 including mounts, rings, and an adequate box of ammo) and hold onto it than pay $600 for a gun that someone's going to preemptively whine about.

I've never paid over $400 for a gun, and what little I own is far more accurate, more powerful, and better built than a lot of stuff you see touted as the "best."

 

[browningguy]

It's hard to imagine comparing an HS Precision stock to the cheap piece of crap on the majority of factory rifles. HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE GOOD STUFF!!!

The last couple of weeks I've been out shopping with a friend who is just getting into shooting and wants to hunt this year. The Tikka, Ruger, Winchester, Savages, low end Remmys all had stocks that were made like resealable baggies. You can push them around all over the place. I can't imagine how someone that thinks this is a good thing, those aren't inexpensive, just plain cheap. If you sling up, or try to use an improvised rest there is no telling what the stock is going to do. And even though I'm in Texas, few of my shots are shooting off sandbags on a nice bench.

For me, the cheapest usable plastic stock is probably the Bell and Carlsen, around $200 and it's solid, I have one on my 7x57. If you want something less expensive that works well you can go to the Boyd Brothers laminate, I've got one on my 458 Win and for $89 you absolutely can't beat it. Yep, you'll need to bed your action to it because the inletting isn't very good, and you may have to look at a couple to find one with the barrel channel inletted perfectly straight, but that's relatively simple.

I'll wind up recommending the Savage, it's one of the most "consistently" accurate out of the box rifles, under $400, and has the accutrigger. I'd want to replace the stock on the more expensive guns anyway, beacause they are just as cheap. The Savage works as well as the other cheap guns, the only difference is they sell it for what it's worth.

By the way I don't even own a Savage personally, mostly because I'm a gun snob.

 

[ArmedBear]

One thing to remember...

Many common working guns of grandpa's day weren't exactly Dakotas, either, or even Model 70s. Wood stocks can be pretty crappy, too, and a lot of old ones are.

We remember the classics that many people couldn't afford. But the guns that many people used for meat hunting were often crude, too. Most of them have gone to rust in someone's attic or basement by now, with the other junk.

Most "regular guys" weren't shooting birds for dinner with Parkers, either.

I think the T3 is fugly, but others disagree. But when you consider percentage of median income, it probably offers a lot more than grandpa could get for his labor, way back when, even if it did have a wood stock.

 

[goalie]

He would have a point IF the rise of low-cost, accurate rifles such as the Tika, Savage, Mossy etc somehow stopped other manufacturers from making high-end rifles.

Last time I checked, Chucky can still drop a ton-o-cash on a high-end custom rifle if he wants. I guess he's just mad that someone more frugal can get a 3/4 MOA savage for a tenth the price of his 1/2 MOA custom.

 

[lawson]

someone should tell grandpa he shouldn't have put meat on the table with an Eddystone 1917, and a SxS 12 gauge with no markings other than "Made In Brazil".

i agree with some of the points about quality control, but if an affordable gun can shoot accurately, us working stiffs view that as a "good thing".

 

[LAK]

And nowhere is this devaluation of quality more evident than in 21st Century hunting rifles. (Actually, the slide started in the 1960's and accelerated toward the end of the 20th Century).

As a general statement - agreed.

While some or many recent production Tikka rifles shoot superbly, they are not half the gun they were some years back. Regardless of utility when new, plastic parts - mags, trigger guards etc - are not going to go the long haul IMO.

There are very few lower or even mid-priced modern production rifles that would tempt me to part with money; offhand, CZ and Weatherby being the only two.

--------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Karbon]

Opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one.

So, to each there own I guess.

I dare him to take a factory Rem 700, the equal Winchesters, the Rugers and the Savages and shoot them against the Tikka T3. Out of the box the Tikka will blow them away in accuracy and he will then see how sloppy and cheap the big 3 mfgs production rifles are. He'll then appreciate the slickness and performance he can get for $500. Hell, spend a few $'s more and get the wood stock and stop crying about cheap syn stocks. That's what I did. People who buy them are aiming for light weight, not looks.

I hope he convinces gullable people, that way I can pick up more Tikkas and not have to wait again.

Ugly Gun

 

[carterbeauford]

FWIW, I have a hard time understanding why my Mossy ATR-100 that cost 240 bucks and shoots 1.5 inch 100 yard groups with factory ammo is a bad buy for a beater hunting rifle?!?!?! Double so if the buyer is going to sight in a few times a year and just use it for hunting deer.

My only complaint about Mossberg is that they don't make more rifles in more calibers. It is fairly accurate, lightweight and reliable. Sure it's not a precision-crafted target rifle, but it goes boom when I pull the trigger and hits what I point it at, good enough for me for the price.

Mr. Hawks needs to understand this is the general trend with most consumer goods today, not just guns. He'd probably write a similar rant on buying a new chainsaw and finding it to be mostly plastic instead of all steel like in the good old days. Welcome to 2006.

 

[Karbon]

Well said in the above post.
Same could be said about nearly all consumer goods today.

Look at how much plastic is in your cars and trucks, especially the dash.
Is it cheap? Yes
Would wood or metal look better? Yes
Is it still functional? Yes
Will the auto makers do anything else? No

Go buy a Bently if you want the fancy wood, titanium and who knows what ever else for $250K.

Same goes for the rifle industry. My income dosen't allow me to drive a Bently, or even an Escalade for that matter... nor can I spend $3000 on a top end custom job or even a Sako..but I'm damn satisfied with my Tikka, as would most if they gave them a chance.

 

[ArmedBear]

My only complaint about Mossberg is that they don't make more rifles in more calibers.

I think that Mossberg is doing the right thing. By building only .270 and .30-06, they're cutting costs without cutting versatility. These are the least expensive and most versatile hunting rounds in America. Magnum rounds require a more expensive rifle, and 7mm-08 and .308 are redundant unless they make a significantly shorter, lighter rifle. The proliferation of calibers is fun for the connoisseur (a custom rifle is even more "special" if it's in a caliber nobody has ever heard of, that shoots 1/2" flatter than a .270 at 300 yards, and is only available in proprietary brass loaded by Swedish elves). But most of the countless available calibers from .257 to 8mm don't put any more meat on the table than a .30-06, particularly since Mossberg's target market isn't going on $20,000 guided hunts in Mongolia any time soon.

 

[roo_ster]

I really don't think y'all refuted any of Chuck's points. He readily admitted that folks will be happy with their purchases. Most will convince themselves that a marginal purchase is "pretty good" and a pretty good purchase is the "bees knees."

Also, he said that they would get the job done as bargain hunting rifles.

CH is spot-on WRT how rifles are made today. Go out and spend less than $200 for a Schmidt-Rubin K31 or $300 a Swedish mauser. Compare to your average $500+ Remchester. The difference is jaw-dropping. I compare them to the commercial rifles I have and I wonder what I was thinking when I thought the Remmy 700ADL was a quality arm. Quality? Nope. Adequate? Yes.

That's probably why I haven't bought a new sporting rifle in over a decade. I am too cheap to pay for the top-end and too discriminating for a Remchester.

CZ will likely get my dollars soon, however. They are very reasonably priced and provide value for those dollars, unlike most commercial rifles.

 

[Nortonics]

I generally agree with Chuck on this one. I looked at Tikka during a serious purchase decision back a few months ago - I left it on the shelf at the Sportsman's Warehouse because of his exact ideas - although it may shoot accurately, it felt and looked too damn cheap for my money to get thrown at it - much the same way I'd probably never buy a Taurus handgun - might be accurate, but has a cheap look and feel, and won't see squat for resale value...