Looking at 30-06 rifles, Tikka? or something else

So, Reynolds, did you replace the stock with a Walnut stock, or plywood, or synthetic? If wood, wanna share a picture? Was there anything wrong with the original stock other than being plastic? My previous post was my viewpoint and opinion. My main shooting buddy loves black-plastic stocked rifles. He couldn't resist getting the Ruger American in 308. He likes it and hasn't had any problems with it yet. I have heard that the original plastic magazines were problematic and had to be redesigned. If the rifle is popular enough there could be a lot of after-market replacement parts to make it a better rifle. Clearly, you've seen fit to replace the stock on yours.
 
I think it would be more realistic to compare the Ruger M77 to the Tikka. the merican is their budget line. they have plastic stocks, trigger guards, and magazines. they are good rifles and a lot of people that get them come back here posting sub MOA groups from the factory, but the large amount of plastic in their construction turns a lot of people off. the M77 however has a lot of options I have one in 30-06 and it is great. my younger brother has used it for his deer and elk hunting for the last 2 years... I heavily recommend them. also right there in that price range is the ruger gunsite which is only in 308(there is a smaller 223 version now as well but not likely something you would consider), but it also has pici rail on top for easier scope mounting and detachable mags.
 
Pathfinder, I replaced it with a Boyds Laminate for two reasons.
1. The factory plastic stock is so flimsy that it negatively impacted accuracy. The rifle had to be held perfectly to group. Even with mods, the factory stock was junk.
2. The magazines easily fall out of the factory stock. The aftermarket stocks allows you to correct this problem, or make it worse if you do not know what you are doing.;)
 
Ok, Reynolds, as the fog lifts, here's how the view is shaping up from my vantage point: Based upon what you wrote, the Ruger American can't be recommended without the caveat that the stock is junk and needs to be replaced. As is, new from the store, the rifle is not really good to go. Considered as a project gun that one intends to modify immediately upon purhase, then OK, it could be recommended to the right person. So, Boyd's lists a laminated stock for it at about $113 plus shipping, whatever; add that to the cost of the rifle. MSRP for the rifle is $459; on gunbroker, $369 plus shipping. the link you previously posted for the M77 looks like a good deal on a lot better rifle.
I like Ruger products, generally, but they do make some items I can't approve of, even one that's utterly worthy of ridicule. But that one is off-topic.
I like a project as much as the next guy and it sounds like your American has become a lot nicer with the new stock. Got Pix? I think Ruger would do well to offer the rifle with some better options for stocks. Plain Walnut, anyone?
 
Pathfinder, I got a good deal on my Ruger American.
Rifle $250
Stock $150
If one wants a pretty rifle, then the 77 is the way to go. If one wants an accurate rifle, they will have to roll the dice. The 77 is hit or miss. Ruger has NEVER turned out rifles that were consistently accurate in the 77 line. The American on the other hand is seeming to be more accurate as a whole than the 77. Add the custom stock, and the American seems to in general be the way to go in the Ruger line.
I have a 77 Ruger custom shop 6PPC that will not shoot the groups this .243WIN American is shooting. Sporter barrel American Vs Full Bull 77. The Cartridge advantage even goes to the 77 yet a $1500 custom shof 77 can not outshoot and entry level product of the same manufacturer.
I guess my point is that unless the extra money spent buys an accuracy guarantee, then the money spent may just be money out the window. Price does not always equal performance.


Due to my size, all the rifles I buy have to either have custom length of pull stocks or have to be modified. I really can not pick up anything off the shelf and shoot it properly.
 
I actually like a longer length of pull than standard; it seems to reduce perceived recoil for me. Not that I'm all that tall, just 6'0". A slip-on recoil pad usually makes it just about right for length.
Ya know, back in the 70's, Remington made a pretty good cheapo- bolt gun, the model 788. Neither beautiful nor ugly, plain wood and blued steel, it had a reputation for better accuracy than a lot of rifles costing substantially more.
These days, I usually find older rifles to be a lot more interesting than most of the new ones. Exceptionally, I find the new Model 70 Alaskan in 30-'06, very appealing. However, it's not an inexpensive rifle.
 
the Ruger American can't be recommended without the caveat that the stock is junk and needs to be replaced.
Click to expand...

BS. The Ruger or any other of the budget guns shoot just fine with the cheaper stocks. Most folks are reporting sub MOA with them. I have 2, a 223 and 308 that shoot .5-.75 MOA. No way I'd spend money to fix what ain't broke.

The action is bedded in the metal V-blocks inside the stock, this is the key to accuracy. The fact that the forend will flex is irrelevent. It has no impact on accuracy as long as it doesn't touch the barrel. And it doesn't with normal shooting. I can squeeze it tight enough to make it touch. But I can do the same with the wood stocked rifles I own as well as the 5 McMillans and Brown Precision stocks in my collection. Or any other aftermarket laminated stock. And none of those are junk.

I have quite a few better guns, and have already stated in an earlier post that I think the Tikka is a better gun. But the Ruger, as is, is the better value. Start throwing money at it that will neither increase value or accuracy and you no longer have a good value.

The Ruger is on the low end of the scale where aesthetics are concerned, but It'll shoot with any of them costing 3X as much. Not pushing the Ruger American. It is what it is. If the OP wants a better looking gun then there are a lot of viable options in his price range.
 
Reynolds, if your custom shop 6ppc wont out shoot an entry level rifle I'd deal that one off, or have a lip pulling contest with that shop....
Dan Newberry has already proven that the American can shoot, and I believe it was a .243 they tested out there to 650, or even farther..,.
I'd go with a Savage Long Range Hunter in 3006,7mm rem mag, etc....
 
Hooligan, Ruger is not going to do anything about a 5/8 MOA rifle. What it needs is a better quality barrel. The barrel they used is not of high enough quality. I am getting my dollars worth out of it punching paper and killing small critters. When I shoot the factory barrel out, I will put a Lilja on it and then it will shoot like it is supposed to. I was going to shoot it production bench rest, but it is definitely not up for that challenge.
 
JMR40, the foreend flexing has a huge effect on practical accuracy. As I said earlier, shoot it the same way every time and it will group. Shoot it from varying positions, what you will do hunting, and it throws bullets considerably.
 
I'm back.... Well, JMR40, I don't know how it could be B.S., as Reynolds clearly stated his stock was junk. I'm taking his word for it. Besides, they look like it, too. However, I saw an ad in Shotgun News this evening that showed a Ruger American in a Boyd's laminated stock. It was just a B&W photo, but looked decent. Perhaps your's had better stocks than his...... I'm guessing that a large part of Boyd's business is based upon providing substantially better stocks than original.
 
with all due respect to fellow members here.
I have read a single person's account claiming that the stock on the american is junk and I'm sure you can guess the member. there are many people who are not fans of the plastic stocks but I have not seen a single person save one, who had issues of any kind with their stock on their american rifles. I doubt, heavily, that a stock would be so flexible as to cause differences in accuracy depending on how the rifle was held unless the shooter uses a sling and exerts a large amount of force on the sling, in which case even wood stocks will flex and bend given the proper force. after hearing such reports, I have taken it upon myself to check the stocks on americans I see sitting on the shelves and I have not found a single one that flexes using force which would routinely be exerted on a rifle.
 
Right Reynolds, I was thinkin already custom barrel, my bad, 5 eights aint bad for factory though.....
I think it was RCfab that worked his American synthetic stock over and made a real shooter out of it....you can search for thatvthread maybe for insight..
 
Thanks Hooligan. I did the same Mod that RC did and it helped a lot, but the Boyds completely cured the problem.

To anyone who questions the stock issues of the American, just look at all the old threads on here about the American.

If anyone wants to observe how bad the flex is, go to your favorite gun shop and mount a bipod on one. Sitting on the counter, minimal force on the back of the stock will twist the foreend of the rifle like it is a wet noodle. It can be shot from a bipod accurately, but you have to be extremely careful with it.

For the record, I do not dislike plastic stocks. I have several plastic stocks that work just fine. It seems that the stock on the American is of a grade of plastic that even Rubbermaid would throw in the reject pile.
 
Get the Tikka T3 in SS or the Ruger Hawkeye in SS. Either one will give you what you want. As for stocks, I'm a fan of light rifles, so the original stocks on both rifles suit me just fine. I did relieve the Hawkeye stock to float the barrel. And I might have the Hawkeye barrel shortened to 20 inches one of these days.

Both rifles shoot great, but I found the magic load much faster with the Tikka.

If I could have only one of them.....geez, I don't know.
 
I'm getting the Ruger American. My kid changed my budget s good bit. Being a single dad is tough sometimes. I'm guessing a nice Hawke scope for it now.
 
I think Tikka sells a lot of rifles because their bolts feel slick when you work them at Cabela's/Sportsman's Warehouse/Bass Pro/etc. And they have decent triggers.

To me there is more to a gun than that. Maybe it's because I'm a bit more of a hunter than a range shooter. But I tend to favor more solid actions - Ruger M77, Winchester 70, Weatherby Vanguard, etc. There's nothing wrong with the Tikka, but I prefer a bit more steel in my guns.

People bemoan the accuracy of the Ruger M77s. But we have a lot of them in my family, and we never seem to miss anything we shoot at.

I guess I would rather have a 1.25 MOA M77 than a 0.75 MOA Tikka. Even at 300 yards, that 0.5MOA doesn't mean much. A good rest, a lifetime of practice, and steady nerves matter a lot more when you're pulling the trigger on a big buck.

SR
 
I have many .30-06 Rifles. A couple Ruger 77s that I have no complaints about, Winchester 70s of different varieties, which I also no complaints about other than they were more expensive than the Rugers.

Several Semi Autos, as well as Browning A Bolt, Savage, etc.

Here's the funny thing. My favorite is a Husqvarna 640 made in 1954. It has a FN Mauser 98 commercial action that is about as slick as goose snot, Swedish steel, and it is the most accurate .30-06 rifle that I own. It was $350.00 shipped from Simpson Ltd.

Hard to imagine a better bolt rifle at 3 or 4 times the price. They have apparently recently imported a bunch of them. They aren't made any longer and they will dry up quick. Take a look before they are all gone.

They have many model 1640s, also a very good rifle.

If you don't have to have a brand new rifle, that would leave enough money to buy a very good scope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top