anyone own or have shot either of these rifles? the tikkas are much more affordable than the sakos but even the sako can be found for just over a grand. from the same family. it's about time to retire the trusty old ruger m77

I have recently bought my Dad a T3 .300 win Mag and set him up with a Zeiss 4.5-14X44. Right out of the box that gun was a sweet shooter. Beings that they are a division of Sako, it has a great action and extractor. As far as shoot ability goes, it's a great shooting gun. Even with factory loads he can shoot 3/4" groups at 100 yards all day through this gun. I'm not sure why but between this gun and a Remington 700 BDL .300 Win, the Tikka in my opinion packs a lot more kick. I would have to check on the weight differences, as I do not know that off the top of my head. Just know it has a bigger punch on the shoulder.

I have had a M77 30.06, and there is no comparison between the two guns. Night and day in my opinion. Better action, better feel. After buying the T3 .300 Win for my Dad, I took a guy that I work with down and he got a T3 30.06 with the same scope. Absolute tack drivers.

In my opinion, these are probably $ for $ the best straight out of the box shooters.

I have two Tikkas and they both shoot.
I shot a half inch group with cheap factory ammo just to check zero before elk season.
Great, smooth action.
Light weight.
Get an SVL recoil pad right away.
If you want to shoot mine, let me know.

Tikkas seem to be worth their weight in gold

The Tikka is a good rifle, the Sako is a great rifle. They both share the same barrels, hence the excellent accuracy turned in by both. There are a few things about the Tikka that I find undesireable in a hard core hunting rifle: Plastic parts are not for me (Magazine and trigger guard), detachable magazine (some like them, I find them a nusance and liability), and the seperate recoil lug (that one's just personal). They do shoot well, and the adjustable trigger is nice. For a rifle that's not doing to get beat on I think the Tikka will do well. But, for a rifle that's going to ride around in a sadle scabbard or get strapped to a backpack for days on end I'd go with the Sako. ~josh

The extra money on a Sako that will get beat on? Not sure I understand the thinking in that. Possibly I am misunderstanding your point.

My take is the Sako is a better built gun and less likely to get broken from rough use hence is worth the extra $$$.

It's like tools man... you don't expect a Black and Decker cordless drill to hold up like a Dewalt. If you're going to abuse one, pay the money and get the one that can take the abuse. If a rifle(or tool, or whatever) is going to fail it's almost always going to fail at the most inopportune time... that Murphy is a real azz hole that way! ~josh

ah, I got ya

I was reading it as. "If you are going to beat the hell out of it, buy a nice one"

But I agree with you, get what you pay for. Longevity.

Also, in regards to a previous post of the plastic magazines they have....

One would think that with all the great features that Sako has along with the Tikka, they would have engineered something a little better than a plastic magazine. Possibly my least favorite feature on those guns.

thats been my reasoning for not buying one...aside from the crap scope rings they come with.

imo a rugger is a better gun as far as holding up to the abuse. i love mine, although its a little heavy at 7lbs without the scope.

The stock is junk on the Tikka too... but so are all the synthetic stocks that come on pretty much all factory rifles. I love to beat on rifles, nothing looks better to me than battle scars on the stock and a muzzle that's rubbed from riding around in the truck. Townsend Whelen said "only accurate rifles are intersting." I say, "only hunted rifles are interesting" ~josh

I don't want to hijack this post, but as far as the synthetic stocks go, I have a Remington Syn stock that I kept when I had my gun changed over to a Christensen Arms .300 Ultra Mag. I have been pretty happy with this stock and do not regret not changing it over with the custom build.

i've got a stainless ruger m77mkII in 7mm rem. it's got the laminated stock. very pretty gun. shoots 3/4" groups no problem. weighs in at about 9lbs! add a full magazine and a sling and we're talking 10lbs. definately not your pack gun. i love it tho....



willy

I agree with the stock Tikka rings being the weak link.
I will replace them someday.
The stock is fine, no loss of accuracy and my 300WSM has some (ahem) recoil.
I love the detachable mag for hunting.
Plastic mags don't rust or dent.
Tikka does make a laminated stock and it adds a little weight.
Depends on what you want.

I have the T-3 .270 Short mag and I love it!! I thought the clip was cheesy at first but it is indestructable and it is light. I wouldn't change my T-3 for anything. They are great shooter and smooth. I dont know anything about the other gun but I know the Tikka is worth buying.

Whats wrong with the stock? I love mine and it shoots great!! I would take a good shooting gun over one that has a so called better stock that didn't shoot as good.

id go with a tikka t3 7mm mag. one of my buddis has one, one if the best guns ive ever shot.