Chuck Hawks rips Tikka a new one

[skinewmexico]

I think the rampant elitism in the article is sickening.

No more so than the elitism in some of the replies. "No plastic in my guns"? Does that make you what? More of a man? Crap, what kind of car do you drive now, a 1959 Cadillac? Still using a metal fishing pole? You know what, if they shoot good, they're all good to me. Walnut, plastic, fiberglass, aluminum, it doesn't matter. My self esteem is high enough that I don't need a certain rifle to prop it up. If that's what you like, just say so,no need to imply everyone else is wrong.

 

[oledug]

Can't let this one go..even had to join up to have my say. I have a bunch of Sako's and the like from the 1960s and am an old died-in-the-wool walnut and blued steel rifle lover. Yes, these are rifles from another age when quality finish and craftsmanship were the rule rather than the exception. That said, I recently bought a Tikka T3 stainless synthetic 30/06. I would have preferred a 7mm/08 or 308 but the long action for a short cartridge bugged me, so I went for an '06. First trip to the range...well, I'm sorry, but a 6.5lb rifle that prints a 5/8" 3 shot group for its 1st 3 shots has my unabiding attention. So maybe we need to think outside the square on this one. Maybe these guys decided to give us an almost bench-rest style action with minimum magazine and ejection port cutouts and a meaty barrel and throw away weight in the floorplate, mag and stock knowing that they could then guarantee delivery of a lightweight, keenly-priced sub-moa rifle. And maybe they figured folks would see past a fully-machined steel floorplate and see instead an inspired piece of design that capitalises on materials that just weren't around in pre-64 Mod 70 days. I agree, the aesthetics are not the same...but I know which rifle I'd take if weght, accuracy and a constant POI were the main considerations. Yes, the action is designed for ease and economy of manufacture, but it is very nicely executed....smooth, slick, and with an excellent trigger.

 

[steverjo]

Tikka T3

I just bought a T3 Tactical. I couldnt ask for a better rifle. I have shot Rem 700's, and also custom snipers. This T3 Tactical is extemely accurate and well made. The plastic magazines work flawlessly and are much easier to use than the internal mechanism on others. Excellent trigger. Sub moa groups.

 

[KI.W.]

Tikka, new ones.

If I nee a new rifle, will to buy 98 Mauser and to have new barrel from Shilen or Lothar Walther. Tikka and Sako no more for me, because they are not Finns like I, but Beretta Yuo know.
Big price, low quality.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Lets be honest. All you need for dear hunting is a Mosin and a box of softpoints. I know I speak blasphemy but it is true. There are very view places where a 300+ yard shot at a deer will be made. The Mosin will take a beating that would snap one of these new plastic rifles in half. Same thing for the old Mausers and K-31s. You only need about 3 MOA for deer hunting anyway. Is the Tikka T-3 an accurate rifle that is more than good enough for deer hunting,yes. Is it made with cost cutting in mind,yes. Is it overpriced because of the Tikka name,yes.

 

[Ash]

To be honest, you are right. For most Deer hunting, a Mosin, or a 30-30 lever gun are all we need.

Ash

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Then that being the case anything over and above becomes personal preference. As much as I love a good rifle with engraving and nice wood, I'm not going to call someone less of a hunter if they can get the job done with something that is not that. I'm not a fan of Tikkas, Holland and Hollands, or even Kimber pistols. It is not because they are bad guns, and I would not turn one down as a gift. For me they cost too much for what they deliver. Remington, Rock Island, Glock, Savage, and others will always get my vote because they do the job well for a reasonable amount. If you want to put MOA holes in paper from 100 yards out, buy something that will do it. If you want to hunt with it too, thats fine. But don't assume you have to pay 5 or 6 hundred dollars for a good deer rifle.

 

[langenc]

No question about the plastic mags part-and they want $70 or so for one..

 

[plexreticle]

You can still buy a gun as expensive as you like with all the quality you want or you can get what you pay for. I don't see a problem with this.

 

[Hauptmann]

There are still plenty of well made rifles to be had out there. Weatherby is still producing their fine rifles for those that want them. However, I'm one of those guys that likes a good synthetic stock and all stainless steel parts. I've got a .270 Weatherby that is a beautiful rifle, but unless I'm hunting from a stand in good weather I'm too worried to take it out and get it scratch up. It is definately a work of art and unless you've held and shot one yourself, you can't appreciate it. It's like owning a Ferrari. Sure it's one hell of a car and you like to show it off and drive it one the weekends, but you're too afraid to use it in daily driving. I think most ppl are utility oriented and I like my stainless Remington 700 with sythetic stock for 90% of my hunting needs.

However, Chuck does have a point about the marketing and over pricing of polymer parts and cheaper manufacturing practices. Polymer is INCREDIBLY cheap to produce and make into parts. Firearms manufacturers are making massive profits by convincing the consumers that polymer parts are on par price-wise as steel or aluminum parts. This is a very big con by manufacturers and most consumers don't know any better.

 

[M1 Shooter]

I know exactly what he's talking about.
I once owned an old pre-war Winchester M70 in .30-06 with a Lyman reciever sight. No plastic parts, barrel not free floated, in fact the barrel is secured to the stock with a screw, and no scope. No it was not an MOA rifle, it was a 1.5 MOA rifle at best, so what? It was consistent, no matter what, clean barrel, dirty barrel, hot, cold, didn't matter. It always put its shots to the exact same place, day in day out. From what I've heard and read about rifles from that era, this was the rule, not the exception. Today you have the opposite. I have only owned one modern sporter that is as consistent as that old Winchester. All the others I've owned, or that friends and family own/owned, seem to be cursed with wandering zero problems. They will throw the first shot out of a cold, clean barrel to a different spot than the rest of the group. They spread their shots around as the barrels heat up, and other maladies. That old Winchester just didn't care. They knew how to build rifles back then, and unfortunately a lot of that knowledge has been lost or it is too expensive to do today and remain competitive. I wish I still had that old Winchester, I didn't really appreciate what I really had, so it wound up getting traded towards a shiney new sporter that proved disappointing. You live and learn.

 

[jpwilly]

Chuck said if you buy an inexpensive rifle with a plastic stock and free floated barrel your stupid!!! I GUESS I'M STUPID!! Several times over! I love my crappy, no good, poorly manufactured, can't hit the broad side of a barn, rifles.

 

[kidmugg]

I just got a new Tikka T3 7mm. Synthetic stock. Stainless steel. Follow this thread for three pages before noting it's a year and a half old.

I opted out of the walnut as it wasn't stainless.

I got it for accuracy and to take down deer and elk. I didn't get it as a gun enthusiast.

The stainless requires less maintenance.

I won't feel troubled when my synthetic get scraped and scratched in my Jeep. I wanted a gun I didn't have to baby.

The money I saved from buying a more expensive rifles that'll do the same job I put into my scope. My scope cost almost as much as my rifle.

Function, function, function for me. Like in the Jeeping world, if it doesn't get you to the top of the mountain any better, why waste the money... or unless you're trying to go in style or think of your arsenal as a monetary investment. I don't think of this gun that way. I like it as it is.

 

[kidmugg]

delete

 

[ArmedBear]

Chuck said if you buy an inexpensive rifle with a plastic stock and free floated barrel your stupid!!! I GUESS I'M STUPID!!

He does?

What he wrote was, "The T3's success is a tribute to the ignorance of the modern American sportsman--and the connivance of the sporting press upon which they rely for information."

The relevant definition of "ignorant" from Merriam-Webster is: "lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics>."

That doesn't mean "stupid." Therefore Chuck Hawks, whatever you think of him, never called you "stupid." Now I've never met him, so maybe he would think you're stupid for thinking he called you stupid, or maybe he'd think you were simply ignorant of the meaning of "ignorant."

Furthermore, he wasn't decrying the fact that you can get an inexpensive, serviceable rifle with the features in question. His whole point was that companies were making cheap rifles, and overcharging for them by passing them off as high-end. His anger seemed mostly directed at the shooting press that abets them by misinforming hunters who, mostly, aren't gunmakers or gunsmiths, and therefore can't be expected to know everything about gunmaking if they're being fed misinformation by the publications they trust.

So frankly, I'm not sure where you're getting that he was calling you stupid for buying a budget rifle that shoots well enough for your needs. I didn't get that at all.

 

[ArmedBear]

BTW what's interesting is that this article is somewhat dated.

Since he wrote it, a few manufacturers have designed and marketed new rifles with cost-savings in mind, but in order to pass those savings on to the consumer.

Mossberg, Savage and most recently Marlin have brought out inexpensive centerfire hunting rifles. Marlin's latest looks like it will retail for well under 300 bucks. Not bad. This provides serviceable rifles for hunters, at very competitive prices.

Now to bash these rifles, given their prices, simply for not being figured walnut with polished blue bedded actions and barrels, might be elitist. To compare them and to give an opinion about which is really the best deal is not elitist. To state that a specific $600 rifle is no better than what these companies will sell for half that, or less, is not elitist, either.

Clearly, Hawks was right. The fact that several companies have looked at the marketplace and said, "We can make a profit on these rifles at a substantially lower price than others are charging," confirms that, indeed, some guns have been designed with cost-savings in mind, but that the savings were not being passed along to the consumer.

 

[cracked butt]

As usual Chuck is full of....himself.

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.

I guess he hasn't actually shot a Tikka or if he has, simply doesn't have the skill to shoot 1" groups wiht a rifle. I shot two T3s last fall, both shot sub-moa. Chuck can have his 2 moa dee rifles with $800 worth of expensive engraved furniture on them.

I actually had to educate another poster on another site who had taken a Chuck Hawks article on Swedish Mausers as gospel late last week. Hawk's article was so full of errors and probably stuff that he simply just made up that it was a comical read.

 

[silverlance]

Here is my Tikka T3 Tactical.
Bought it used. Came with a SAKO muzzle brake and a TASCO Super Sniper 20x, $1070 shipped OTD. Had less than 100 rounds through it. I'll be first to admit that I don't know much about precision rifles. The only other precision rifle I've shot much is a Savage 10FP with a Bell&Carlson Medalist, SWFA SS 10x. So I'll compare the two.

Here's the simple truth.

1. The T3 Tac ($1100 MSRP) is not going to shoot significantly better than a Savage ($650 MSRP) at 100 yards using factory loads and with an average shooter behind the scope. 1", 1.5", 2"... Unless you are willing to get serious into reloading, and shoot extensively, it will all be the same.

2. It is much lighter than the Savage. The detachable magazine is a huge plus - many times my buddy cussed and swore as he tried to get misfed rounds out from under the scope. The action is also far smoother; the Savage is gritty. Both triggers are good.

3. The plastic is not cheap or flimsy. I think he's thinkign about Saiga stocks. Now those, they remind one of plastic milk jugs. It's also comb height adjustable as well as LOP adjustable.

Anyway, my only misgiving is that perhaps I should have bought a used T3 standard instead - I don't see that much of a benefit over the standard vs tactical. sure the rail is integral to the receiver, but is that really important? I don't know.

Here's a pic of two of my favorite rifles. T3 Tactical and Finnish M39 Sk.Y
I think the T3 Tactical is just as beautiful as my M39.

 

[atblis]

My opinion

That's all there is really, Opinions. Don't like something, don't buy it!

However,

I have 695 I bought a several years ago. Absolutely love that rifle. Fantastic trigger. Detachable mags that work perfectly. Stock has a palm swell, and is quite agreeable. Total class act IMO. Cost me $350 NIB.

I will not buy a T3. Very similar rifle, but it just seems like they crapped it up a bit. The rifle does seem cheaper. Nothing's changed drastically. The kicker is the price increase.

My Sako is over 8lbs before the scope and handles the 270 Wby recoil well.

270 Wby is not known for being a tack driving cartridge. It makes up for that though.

 

[ArmedBear]

I will not buy a T3. Very similar rifle, but it just seems like they crapped it up a bit. The rifle does seem cheaper. Nothing's changed drastically. The kicker is the price increase.

The same is said about a lot of what Remington makes, and rightly so IMO.

As usual Chuck is full of....himself.

That may be, but it doesn't necessarily make his opinion about cheapened rifles for inflated prices incorrect.

 

[cracked butt]

That may be, but it doesn't necessarily make his opinion about cheapened rifles for inflated prices incorrect.

True, but the good old days weren't always so good.

How much camparitively did a Pre-64 Mod 70 cost in the 1950s? A month's, maybe 2 month's salary for the average worker? Compare that to a Tikka or a Savage where a single paycheck from a McDonalds sandwich assembly technician could cover. There's something to be said about being good enough, unless Hawks expects every hunting rifle to cost at least as much as a Cooper or Sako.

 

[ArmedBear]

Oh yeah, and the good old days saw a lot of junk. Many rifles we haven't ever heard of rust away in barns and basements as we speak.

We remember the few good ones, and forget that the Winchester Model 70 was a premium rifle back then, not the rifle everybody took into the field.

That said, though, the new budget centerfire offerings from Savage, Mossberg and Marlin do suggest that, if you design something to be built cheaply and efficiently, you can sell someone an accurate, functional rifle for a lot less than 500 or 600 bucks

Furthermore, I have the same beef with Remington. The 7 or 700 CDL, which has a botched safety and does not have particularly nice wood or a nice finish or anything, is $800 retail here. It's the best argument for trying to get a hold of the reintroduced Model 70 Featherweight Deluxe, which is from all appearances a vastly superior piece for a few bucks more.

 

[cracked butt]

Furthermore, I have the same beef with Remington. The 7 or 700 CDL, which has a botched safety and does not have particularly nice wood or a nice finish or anything, is $800 retail here. It's the best argument for trying to get a hold of the reintroduced Model 70 Featherweight Deluxe, which is from all appearances a vastly superior piece for a few bucks more.

Yep and yeppers.

 

[igorts]

added another Tikka T3 to my signature.
Always within 1MOA, even in my hands. rugged hole when my buddy shots either of my Tikkas.
Chuck should change that line :

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.

Read it here, come to see and you might be able to repeat it

rigs:
Beretta 92FS INOX Brigadier
Remington 870
TIKKA-T3 30.06 /TIKKA-T3 22-250 Varmint
Sig Trailside 6" / Ultimate Ruger10/22
Ruger Alaskan 44mag

 

[Gator]

What do you guys think about what he has to say?

Chuck Hawks: Self proclaimed expert on guns, hunting, motorcycles, photography, astronomy, military history, travel, and fishing.