Kimber Montana vs Tikka T3 Lite

Wife bought me a Tikka T3 Lite in .223. Exactly what I wanted for a coyote gun, light, accurate, and I don't have to worry about scratching the stock, or "dinging" it up". I bought a RRA a few years ago for coyotes, but is getting heavier and heavier every time I carry it. If I wanted a pretty, or nice gun for coyotes, I could carry one of my Coopers...NOT.
I just don't think you can beat the Tikka for an out of the box accurate rifle....and the price! My Coopers don't have much of an accuracy edge over the Tikka's either, or at least my guns. Guess it just comes down to what you want for your particular need.
 
Originally Posted By: SlickerThanSnotOriginally Posted By: Redleg84I don't consider them budget entry level rifles. Considering how consistently accurate out off the box they are, having the smoothest action, and having probably the best trigger out of any factory rifle in the price range, makes them worthy of a little higher price in my opinion. Not to mention the factory stock, while not everyone's favorite, is much better than what you get on an entry level rifle elsewhere.





yes to all of above.

NO to all of above.

I will not get into a Tikka vs. the world here with the Tikka fans. BTDT. But for those who asked my opinion:

When short action cartidges only come in long action rifles, when receivers are enclosed, when bolt shrouds and magazines are plastic, when recoil lugs are free-floated AND made out of aluminum, and stocks are tupperware, you CANNOT say it isn't a budget rifle. You can't. To say it is not is ludicrous. There is not ONE reason (other than import fees) why a Tikka should cost more than a Ruger American, Stevens 200, Howa/Vanguard, Marlin X7, etc. And IMO and IME, those rifles all shoot very well also. They just cost hundreds less.

Tikkas have excellent triggers. Stocks are no better than any other tupperware IMO, and no more costly to produce. Barrels are hammer forged. Again, nothing fancy or expensive to produce.

Couple that with the fact that factory supplied rings SUCK, customer service SUCKS, and replacement parts are WAY over priced. And you see why I will NEVER buy a Tikka.

I don't dislike Montanas. They had "issues" for a while that seem to be ironed out. I like my 700s, and also like the looks of the new Vanguard and Howa offerings for 2015......
 
Originally Posted By: 2muchgunOriginally Posted By: SlickerThanSnotOriginally Posted By: Redleg84I don't consider them budget entry level rifles. Considering how consistently accurate out off the box they are, having the smoothest action, and having probably the best trigger out of any factory rifle in the price range, makes them worthy of a little higher price in my opinion. Not to mention the factory stock, while not everyone's favorite, is much better than what you get on an entry level rifle elsewhere.





yes to all of above.

NO to all of above.

I will not get into a Tikka vs. the world here with the Tikka fans. BTDT. But for those who asked my opinion:

When short action cartidges only come in long action rifles, when receivers are enclosed, when bolt shrouds and magazines are plastic, when recoil lugs are free-floated AND made out of aluminum, and stocks are tupperware, you CANNOT say it isn't a budget rifle. You can't. To say it is not is ludicrous. There is not ONE reason (other than import fees) why a Tikka should cost more than a Ruger American, Stevens 200, Howa/Vanguard, Marlin X7, etc. And IMO and IME, those rifles all shoot very well also. They just cost hundreds less.

Tikkas have excellent triggers. Stocks are no better than any other tupperware IMO, and no more costly to produce. Barrels are hammer forged. Again, nothing fancy or expensive to produce.

Couple that with the fact that factory supplied rings SUCK, customer service SUCKS, and replacement parts are WAY over priced. And you see why I will NEVER buy a Tikka.

I don't dislike Montanas. They had "issues" for a while that seem to be ironed out. I like my 700s, and also like the looks of the new Vanguard and Howa offerings for 2015......

Tikka triggers alone make them far better than the other makes you mention. Many guys buy X-brand rifles with the intention of paying and replacing the trigger assembly but don't mention the added cost.
The Tikka/Sako factory barrels have a great reputation.
I do wish wood stocks were readily available.
There are those of us that have experienced premium customer service from Beretta/Tikka/Sako.
I have experienced the Weatherby/Howa/Vangaurd rifles and was not overly impressed with the rough action, poor trigger or the weak resale.
 
Premium CS from Beretta. Really? They are well known to be HORRIBLE to deal with.

I have a half dozen Rem 700 triggers here that are set at 2 lbs (some even less) and break like glass. What extra cost? And the action of my Vanguard is smooth.

I would consider the factory Tikka rings an added cost. They blow. And quite possibly the bolt shroud as well.

You would buy a Tikka based on the 1 good part of the rifle, given concessions have clearly been made/corners cut in every other aspect?

Not me.

Anyway, that is just me. We all know what opinions are like.......

 
Originally Posted By: 2muchgun

NO to all of above.

I will not get into a Tikka vs. the world here with the Tikka fans. BTDT. But for those who asked my opinion:

When short action cartidges only come in long action rifles, when receivers are enclosed, when bolt shrouds and magazines are plastic, when recoil lugs are free-floated AND made out of aluminum, and stocks are tupperware, you CANNOT say it isn't a budget rifle. You can't. To say it is not is ludicrous. There is not ONE reason (other than import fees) why a Tikka should cost more than a Ruger American, Stevens 200, Howa/Vanguard, Marlin X7, etc. And IMO and IME, those rifles all shoot very well also. They just cost hundreds less.

Tikkas have excellent triggers. Stocks are no better than any other tupperware IMO, and no more costly to produce. Barrels are hammer forged. Again, nothing fancy or expensive to produce.

Couple that with the fact that factory supplied rings SUCK, customer service SUCKS, and replacement parts are WAY over priced. And you see why I will NEVER buy a Tikka.

I don't dislike Montanas. They had "issues" for a while that seem to be ironed out. I like my 700s, and also like the looks of the new Vanguard and Howa offerings for 2015......

Have you owned a T3 that had a failure of the plastic or aluminum parts?

I did a lot of research on the Tikka before deciding on one. The fact is there are a lot of people who are wary of many of the cost saving parts on the T3, yet very few (actually none with real proof) that I found actually had something fail. Sure they could have made parts more robust, but then you'd be buying a Sako and they'd be neglecting a market that simply can't afford a rifle like that.

IMO, for its price point ($400-700 range) the T3 is lighter and for most intents and purposes, more accurate than it's similar priced competition.
 
i find the factory tikka t3 stock to be MUCH better than any of those other rifles mentioned. for how i use the rifles there is no reason to buy different stocks.

can you get to a 2 pound trigger with a recent bought Remington? with that x mark pro trigger or whatever it is? 4 pounds is as low as 2 of mine would go.
 
No, I have not owned a Tikka and had it fail.

But I did not buy a Yugo either, and wait for it to break down so I could tell folks on the internet "I told you so".

It offers nothing to make me want to buy it.

That said, I have seen a buggered up recoil lug where it was twisted and embedding itself in the stock. All the while making the slot in the stock larger. Both in person, and in internet pictures. In fairness, this seems to only happen in the larger, harder recoiling chamberings.

Have also seen pics /read about broken bolt shrouds.

I am sure for some, the Tikka works just fine. They also shoot well. But for the price, I feel one's money can be better spent on other offerings. And I'd rather not have to deal with Beretta "customer service" ever again.....
 
Originally Posted By: SlickerThanSnoti find the factory tikka t3 stock to be MUCH better than any of those other rifles mentioned. for how i use the rifles there is no reason to buy different stocks.

can you get to a 2 pound trigger with a recent bought Remington? with that x mark pro trigger or whatever it is? 4 pounds is as low as 2 of mine would go.

Just this week a guy whose opinion I respect (and has no reason to lie) told me had to mess with 3-4 Tikka stocks and float barrels to get them to shoot. Another who is a HUGE Tikka fan has admitted to having accuracy issues based on the poor recoil lugs. But he still loves them and gets them to shoot very well.

As for the Rem triggers, I have no reason to lie:

One X-mark is set at 2-2.5 lbs and was trouble free. The X-mark I bought before that was replaced by an old school 700 trigger. It was perfectly acceptable for hunting, but would not go down low enough to stay in the heavy barreled target rifle.

I have worked on many 700 triggers and am familiar with them. Have a box of parts on my bench. 3-4 lbs is usually obtainable, and can usually be done by an amateur. Anything lower than that requires work. For myself, that work is free. For some it may not be.

The trigger on my Sako Finnlight is set at 19 ozs. and required no work......
 
Originally Posted By: 2muchgunPremium CS from Beretta. Really? They are well known to be HORRIBLE to deal with.

I have a half dozen Rem 700 triggers here that are set at 2 lbs (some even less) and break like glass. What extra cost? And the action of my Vanguard is smooth.

I would consider the factory Tikka rings an added cost. They blow. And quite possibly the bolt shroud as well.

You would buy a Tikka based on the 1 good part of the rifle, given concessions have clearly been made/corners cut in every other aspect?

Not me.

Anyway, that is just me. We all know what opinions are like.......


Yes PREMIUM.
I have not had to buy rings as the factory supplied rings have worked trouble free for me. How is that added.
You state on my behalf that I purchase a Tikka based on one part. Rediculous
Tikka rifles have proven their worth and climbed the popularity ladder in a relatively short time.

Frankly your incessant rants get old, this year Tikka, last year Browning. What brand next year.
Although your rants seem to be taming a tiny bit it doesnt portray your wealth of knowledge in a good way.
 
I clearly stated that my "rant" was in order to give info to the OP, (and another who asked) who asked for my opinion, because he is, as of yet, unfamiliar with the rifles.

The problem comes in when guys like you, who have already hashed over the same things over and over, can't seem to not interject. As usual.

It is YOU who has taken issue with MY opinion, which clearly was not aimed in your direction.

Get it?
 
There you go, sports fans..... the man has educated you once again. Why don't all of you (me included) just listen to reason from a very reasonable man and stop the Tikka buying madness?

I have bought 4 Tikka rifles in the past 5 years and they all function flawlessly and shoot great with no modifications. Guess I've just been lucky in light of all the "facts" to the contrary.

If you're interested in "fondle factor" in a rifle along with good performance, the Kimber will provide that, especially in a wood stock model. I own 7 Kimber rifles and they are all great light weight hunting rifles.

Btw....my one experience with Tikka, customer service was for a forward action screw that I buggered. 5 days later a set of action screws arrived at my front door, free of charge. I've never taken a hammer to any action parts to see how tough they really are, but so far they've survived some serious use on 4 wheelers without a problem.
 
Quote:I clearly stated that my "rant" was in order to give info to the OP, (and another who asked) who asked for my opinion, because he is, as of yet, unfamiliar with the rifles.

The problem comes in when guys like you, who have already hashed over the same things over and over, can't seem to not interject. As usual.

It is YOU who has taken issue with MY opinion, which clearly was not aimed in your direction.

Get it?

I too have posted for the OP poster benefit.
It was YOU who took issue with it and tried to put words in my mouth as usual.
For you everyone can only consider what YOU like and nothing else.
You state things as if there is no other way and it is not possible for anyone to experience anything but.
Get over yourself and let people experience objective reality of ownership and dealings.
In a perfect world you would not be posting in this thread.
 
Come on, tripod 3. Don't you realize you're just supposed to remain silent and listen when a white tail hunting guru of all things is speaking.

How dare you assume that your experiences might trump what Too Much has cut and pasted add nauseum for years every time he sees the word Tikka. All without never having owned one. The man is obviously a genius of special proportions.
 
Let me guess, the googlemaster is at it yet again. Once again running his mouth at someone he knows damm well has had him on ignore for over 3 years due to the mods request.

I was politely asked to quit making you look the fool that you are. And told in no uncertain terms that you were fully capable of doing that all on your own.

Yet you continue to follow me around sniping like a little puppy dog.

I'm flattered, per usual.

Get a life.........
 
Too Much, I love your special brand of insecurity that constantly forces you to rant at anyone who disagrees with you and how you justify it with validation from others. It's cute. Predictable, but cute...
 
2Muchgun, I respect the [beeep] out of your opinion, I think your a pretty knowlegeable guy. I also think that you have some valid points on the Tikka as far as some small improvements that could be made. Overall though, for an out of the box rifle that I would absolutely lay my hard earned money on to shoot great and function flawless, Its tikka every time. Remington makes a great action but their QC is not very good, and their cost is Pretty spendy as well. I've had some of the other "budget entry" rifles as well, and they just didnt seem to be as good of an all around great rifle ad the tikka. I do wish they would improve the stock a bit, and put a better shroud on it. Other than that, I don't mind the longer action or plastic mags or the enclosed receiver. If anything the receiver enclosed gives it more rigidity, IMO. I guess I'm just a Tikka fan and have had great experiences with them. To each his own I guess..
 
And make no mistake, I value your opinion as well. Only you have to be happy with what you shoot.

None of the cheaper rifles are perfect out of the box IME.

I am glad lots of options exist.....
 
Back
Top