Tikka and Savage rifles (quality)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jamis:
I think that all rifles these days are exceptional so in choosing one, one might look at how it feels and handles, not to mention preferred features. I can't think of a rifle that I've shot that I didn't like. The Savage 10FP stock just felt right to me although some like a thicker stock (I like a thinner one) and I wanted a heavy barrel. The only other one that I found that had what I was looking for was from Howa. Tikka has a heavy barrel Continental Varminter, but I wanted a shorter barrel which Savage has by special order. I went with the Savage just because I was much more familiar with it as I'm sure that the Howa would've worked well as well.
So, how does it shoot? I'll put it up with the best of them. Of course, my little scope doesn't hurt. It just feels right to me, shoots exactly where it's aimed, has a trigger that I wouldn't want to improve and is a pleasure to shoot (the heavy barrel helps out there, I think).
I like this thread because my first choice of a range gun is the Savage 10FP and my first choice for a hunter would be the basic Tikka Whitetail Hunter (although I'd still look at some of the offerrings from Remington and Winchester).
So in summary: They all make the same hole and there are very few "inferior" rifles. Just get the one that excites you when you pick it up. Only you know what's best for you. You're good enough, smart enough and, darn it, people like you.
 
to Bob

What rifle did Carlos Hathcock take to the field? I'm thinking that the answer to that question would provide a little insight. Don't you?
Click to expand...

I am glad you asked that question Bob.

Carlos Hathcock used the orginal Model 70 winchester in 3006 springfield caliber.

After the war he trained and advised quite a few police sniper teams and he did not recomend the Remington 700 as the best. As a matter of fact he recommended the STYER syniper system as the rifle with the most consistant accuracy. W.R.
 
To Bruce

Thanks for the reply Bruce. I see that you truly are what you claim to be. A very experienced and knowledgable shooter.

I fell sorry for you guys down there having to spend so much money on weapons that cost a good deal less here in America. Hopefully you all have good high paying jobs so that you can go on enjoying your sport.

Good luck and Good shooting. W.R.
 
The Sniper rifle America should have

I believe that the standard sniper rifle for America should still be the highly modified M14. I believe the armed services calls it the XM21.

I base this opinion on the extreme accuracy that I have found in my own modified M14 rifle. I believe the survival rate of the trooper using a semi-auto is much higher due to the higher firepower he can use if he is in an emergency situation.

The M14 has proven to be an extemely reliable, powerful and accurate weapon even in its stock military configuration. When given the accuracy treatment it really comes into its own.

Picture yourself in a serious situation when suddely your weapon runs dry and you must reload in a hurry. I sure would not want to have to stuff cartridges in a bolt gun one at a time like you would in the current Remington 700. Of course you could use one of the detachable clip models but to my knowledge the military does not use this newest variation.

In tests that I have conducted we purposely put several people in hiding and then told them to fire just on shot at a distant target. All observers where able to see the man with the bolt gun work the bolt to chamber a new round while no one , I repeat no one was able to detect the man with the semi-auto rifle. Just another reason to stay with the auto v/s the bolt.

With the rapid advances in accuracy and trigger work that have come about in just the last few years the semi-auto rifle is now just as accurate as the various bolt guns. My personal AR-15 with its excellent Jewell trigger will group 3/8 of an inch all day long with a wide variety of bullet weights and loads. AS you all know the type of rifle is also available in bigger calibers like the .308.

In conclusion I see no reason to even consider using a bolt gun anymore as a sniper rifle in the military.

If some of the Military Neanderthals still demand a bolt gun then why not stick with some of the bolt guns that have proven themselves as oustanding military weapons. The 98 Mauser, 03 Springfield, 1917 enfield or even the original Model 70 Winchester than was so loved by Carlos Hathcock the Armed Services greatest all time sniper.

Let me clear up one thing before I sign off. The statement was made that most custom gunsmiths like to build rifles on the Remington 700 Action. True enough but this is due to the fact that the Remington with its round reciever is much easier to true up in a lath.

Also let me state that the Remington is a truely outstandingly accurate rifle right out of the box. The only beef I have ever had with it is one of reliablity and safety. W.R.
 
WR

Experienced? Perhaps .. with a limited range of firearms.

Knowledgeable? No, I bow to others in that regard.

I am, however, a realist (I hope).

Thanks for your support. :)

Salaries?? Well, we earn about what you do in the States for the equivalent job -- but our dollar's worth roughly half of yours. So, as a Chief Editor, I earn (about) $55k a year -- but that's only $27.5k USD -- and imports here are doubled in price (at least) from their country of origin. So my $1250 Savage should, if all things were equal, cost you about $650USD ... but I don't think it does.

Hey, what the heck -- I just gave up smoking after 35 years on the weed -- so I'm loaded. (Well, I will be when I can give up the nicotine patches :D )

Bruce
 
Man, it still amazes me as to how...

certain people have an almost cultish approach to brand names. I think it's most interesting that a character like Absolom simply chooses not to believe anything negative about his beloved Remington 700 and instead refers to it as "blather." Reminds me of a six-year old holding his hands over his ears and refusing to listen. I also think it's kind of funny that posters like Absolom and Glock4ever hushed up when WildRomanian and Bruce started presenting similar evidence about the 700.

Look Remington makes good rifles, but not perfect rifles. Those high grade match rifles as well as the military sniper rifles are modified far beyond anything that your average user is going to pull out of a box. If you want to spend the extra cash for modifications, fine. But then don't make comparisons to an unmodified Savage.

Savage, from most everything I've heard, makes good rifles as well. They just plain shoot, even if they're not the prettiest things in the world. What do I shoot now? Remington 700 in .308. What will my next rifle be? Savage 110 in .30-06. I imagine they'll both be keepers.
 
Absolom: I appreciate the more civil tone in your last post, and I will respond in like fashion. Seems like you would have gotten further faster if you'd questioned WildRomanian in a more serious fashion. Yes, he made the blurb of calling cast steel "cast iron," but he also presented some ideas that were worth discussion--if not here (where the question WAS Tikka vs. Savage), then at least in another thread.

As far as "evidence," I think that first-hand or even second-hand (I heard from my friend) accounts qualify as evidence in a forum like TFL. That's part of what this board is all about. I don't think most of us have the time or money to run "scientific" tests on rifles. At least as far as I'm concerned, I'll leave that to the manufacturers, military, and gun mags. I appreciate the fact that WildRomanian and Bruce are willing to challenge the revered status of the 700 and provide some accounts of what can and has gone wrong with these guns. Sure, you have to take personal experience with a grain of salt, but it's the kind of thing I'd want to know about if I were deciding on a rifle.

This thread speaks to the issue of elitism that sometimes comes up on this board. Some gun owners like to look down their noses at other because they don't have the same aesthetics. 1911 people scowl at Rugers, high dollar O/U people wince at the mention of an 870, and Rem 700 target shooters poo-poo any other base than the one they shoot. But as Bruce nicely points out, sometimes a rifle might not be as pretty, but it still gets the job done.

My main point was that some people tend toward only superlatives when it comes to a brand name in which they have a vested interest (ie. they own that model). I also like to hear about the downsides, even if it comes from Joe Schmoe who shoots his rifle once a year during deer season. Every little bit of info helps, and as far as I'm concerned, this "evidence" can sometimes be quite useful. For instance, I'm quite interested in the fact that all the members at Bruce's club have replaced the extractors on their target guns. These people shoot a lot, and I think it's telling that most of them have had to deal with this problem. If that ain't evidence, I don't know what it is.
 
I will grant that Savage triggers are mostly doo-doo, but mine (it was NOT a Sharpshooter) works just fine for me now after a gunsmith buddy stoned it just a smidge. It's a job that he would normally get about $35 for, and it basically amounted to running his Dremel over most of the engaging surfaces VERY lightly. It's now set at 3 pounds (I know that's probably heavy to many of you, but for what I want this rifle for it's perfect), and breaks very cleanly. And it makes 3-shot, 1-hole groups at 100 yards using PMC's loading of Sierra's 168-gr HPBT.

For the money I've got in it (less than $600, which includes the scope and a Harris bipod), I'd put it WAY up the chart as far as value goes (performance versus price paid). It's ugly and effective. (Sounds just like my Glocks! :D)

My best advice: Peruse the offerings out there, find what works for you, and go with it. Some folks want to pour a couple of thousand dollars into a rifle. That's cool if that's your bag. For me, price (with a wife and four kids, while serving in the Navy) was pretty high up the list of considerations. And I find that for the money, Savage and Tikka both offer very good to excellent products.
 
What suprises me is how people who post here don't read the topic thread...

To Guyon:
First off I did not hush up, this whole thread has merely become a childish off topic flamefest so I gave up trying to write to someone (W.R.) who could so obviously not understand what this thread is about. What is the point of talking to someone who does not read others post (this includes yourself Guyon). I stated that Tikka was a "better" quality (purely subjective) rifle than Savage and presented my experiences with it. W.R. than proceeded to present his view on Tikka rifles - based on evidence which was not true and with very little actual hands on experience.
I mean what is the point in discussing the failings of push-feed bolt systems and safeties which have become obsolete. Last time I checked the 700 has a safety which allows a person to unload with it "ON" and Tikkas and Savages both use a push-feed system. W.R. and yourself contributed absolutely nothing to this topic. I have owned rifles from all three companies and I really don't think any were "perfect" but realistically there was a difference in the quality of the various rifles. Sorry but Savage was at the bottom for quality. This does not mean that Savage does not shoot or is a POS. I merely stated that it lacked a lot of refinement that I wanted in a rifle.
But W.R. took this as some sort of personal insult - and proceeded to ramble incessantly about things that have absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Re-read his last three to four postings (if you even read them the first time) and you will see that all he does is attack Remington's quality as a rifle. What does this have to do with Tikka vs. Savage? NOTHING! So what is the point in trying to discuss this topic with him?
After reading his last post to me implying that physical violence was going to be the response I could expect from his friends for stating my opinions - what was the point in continuing? It is obvious that W.R. has a juvenile mentality and bases his opinions on hearsay and what little fiction he decides to read.
As to your comments about my "perfect" Remington, maybe you should read the earlier posts and my other posts - I do not think the 700 is perfect - I try to give a fair opinion of what my experiences are with these rifles are. Personally, I really like Sako and Browning a lot but they are a little pricey for me to get so I make do with my Tikka and Remingtons - if stating the that I think Remington and Tikka produce a better product (albeit at a higher cost) than I guess I am guilty of "thinking" that they are "perfect".
I stated earlier that I believe that you get what you pay for and I still stand behind it.
 
To W.R.:

As this will be my last post on this topic: Here are a few points I would like to mention.
1.) Pre-64 models and other claw extractor boltguns are more reliable but what is the point? The Savage and Tikka both use push-feed system so this really has no bearing on whether a person should buy one or the other.
2.) Remington CHANGED their safety in 1982 - so what safety concerns are you talking about in new off the shelf rifles? As well, Tikka and Savage both have the same safety so this really has no bearing whether a person should buy one or the other.
3.) Cast vs. Forged receiver is a personal preference, if you like one over the other FINE but please stop trying to create a myth that Cast receivers are timebombs waiting to occur - You may not like them but describing Tikkas as having Cast Iron receiver is major disservice to new rifle buyers especially when it is completely false.
4.) Talking about Sniper Weapons Systems really have no bearing on this Topic because The US armed forces do not use either the Savage or Tikka. But FYI, the armorers at Quantico CHOSE to use the 700 action not because it was the only one available but because it is inherently more accurate. If you know more than the armorers at Quantico than don't waste your time here posting and do your country a major service and redesign the Sniper Weapons System and try to win the next Small Arms Contract. As well, the semi-autos are not used by Snipers because:
a.) Extraction - you do not want brass spraying out revealing your position
b.) Accuracy - If you are trying to say that Semis are more or equally accurate to rifles that "military neandertals" choose to use proves how little you know about shooting.
c.) Velocity - Velocity is key Fixed actions have higher velocity PERIOD.
d.) Reliability - Drag a semi through the mud and guck for a couple of days on a stalk and than you get one shot. Still want your Semi?
But W.R. you have more knowledge than modern snipers and past that you can call them military neandertals? Do yourself and everyone here a favor and think before you post.
 
Hey Glock boy:

I read the posts. In fact, I don't reply without reading everything.

You're absolutely right. The question WAS Tikka vs. Savage. But it seems YOU are the one who pulled this thread hopelessly off base by mentioning your 700VS and making claims about Remington's trigger as compared to the Savage. Try reading your third and fourth posts, or do you even read what you write? No one had even mentioned Remington up until you interjected.

What did you contribute? You had some good arguments and some nice facts, but they were diminished by your hot-headed style. I quote:

I guess I better sell all my rifles and get a Savage, W.R. has reported that based off of a sample of 1 Savage rifle (new out of the box, of course) to which he does not know if the trigger has been replaced or monkeyed with that all Savage triggers are now "Improved!". O.K. excellent report!
Click to expand...

Now this was early in the debate before things started to really heat up. I ask you...what exactly were you trying to accomplish with such a smart ass tone? Do yourself and everyone here a favor and think before you shoot off at the mouth. It's not the sort of standard that TFL needs.
 
The junk Savage Issue is why I don't post

I understan that the Savage is toal junk....well, I am happy as hell with my junk when out of the box with a drop in SS trigger it shoots like this....

87927_110FPgroup.jpg

2.25 high at 100 in be on at 200......I guess I could have done better had i used good ammo. For break in I was just shooting some cheap UMC stuff.

Savage is not junk
 
Read my posts Guyon?

I don't think you did... I never once mentioned a Remington trigger in my 2nd, 3rd, or 4th posts. I mentioned my Tikka's trigger and the only time I mentioned the Remington was when I responded to W.R.'s claim of snob appeal. Please read my posts again. As to my smart aleck comments yes, it was smart-alecky and frankly I really don't care esp. considering that I have to read tripe about cast iron receivers and worthless updates.
Karsten I'm sure you are an excellent shooter but you are definitely a poor reader. No one ever says that Savage is total garbage or even that it is a poor rifle. Posters here have just stated that it is not as good quality as a Tikka - if you are happy with your Savage than fine but please don't try to fuel hotheads such as Guyon and W.R. who refuse to read complete posts with created lines such as
"I understan that the Savage is toal junk"
If you even read the earlier posts you would have seen that the only gripe with Savage is the trigger to which you have stated:
"well, I am happy as hell with my junk when out of the box with a drop in SS trigger it shoots like this.... "
 
I don't have a Tikka, but I do have a Sako.

Damn what a fine gun. I've handled the Savages, and while I've heard nothing but good things about them, they simply cannot match the quality and workmanship of my Sako (If anyone doesn't know, Tikka is a "value model" Sako).

The action on the Sako is unbeatable in my book. The Sako makes a Rem 700 feel like a cast iron receiver (sorry - just had too) :)

If the Tikka is 1/2 the rifle my Sako is, it's still be twice the rifle of any Savage - EXCEPT in the realm of prive and value for the money. Savage cannot be beat for the price.

-LevelHead
 
I've owned probably 10 Sakos through the years, all fantastic built guns. I once owned a Tika, but that was (probably) 15 years ago. I've "heard" the new Tikas have a lot of plastic on them. Which may or may not be a bad thing. I'm sure the Tika is a fine gun, but I'm sometimes weary of products that a high dollar company puts out when they try to produce a lower cost product. It seems sometimes the company just cuts too many corners when they try and make a cheaper product. However, I have no experience with the newer Tikas, so who knows??
 
b.) Accuracy - If you are trying to say that Semis are more or equally accurate to ri

b.) Accuracy - If you are trying to say that Semis are more or equally accurate to rifles that "military neandertals" choose to use proves how little you know about shooting.

To Glock:

In National Match shooting we consistantly hit targets out to 1,000 yards with the Semi-auto. The dominate rifle is the Semi-Auto in this kind of competition.

I guess you are telling me and thousands of Camp Perry shooters that you know more than the 1,000's of use serious full time competitors.

AS far as your comments about being able to spot a sniper by the flying brass cases, you did not read my comments about an experiment that was carried out to prove once and for all how rediculous that statement is.

Which is more easily spotted. A small cartridge case not much longer than appr. 2 inches or a person waving his arm around manipulating the bold on his rifle. I really do not think you thought this one through very well before making such a comment.

AS far as your comments on Cast recievers they must be made much heavier than forged receiver because of safety. Now before you go off professing to be the expert I invite anyone to look at a cast iron gun such as the various Ruger automatics or revolvers and then look at a forged revolver (S&W) for example and see the difference in the thickness of the metal.

Why is this so. It is because castings have air pockets in them. The frame must be made thicker for safety resulting in a lot of excess weight than isn't wanted.

Not to mention the aethetics of the piece.

Resale value is always less on the same model of weapon made originally in forged and then later to make it cheaper produced in cast. Try getting the same amount in resale from a cast weapon compared to the forged weapon of the same model. It just doesn't happen. Many people avoid cast guns like the plague.

Castings are more brittle than forgings. The forging will take a bad fall and not shatter into pieces as easily as the casting will.

In cold weather some cheaper castings are much more prone to crack.

There are many types of castings on the market some are much better than others and I admit I am sometimes much to critical about them. But lets face it. They were used to produce the gun faster and cheaper not better. This is why they are used and no amount of argument can change that fact. W.R.
 
WR, please tell me when any gun manufacturer started using "cast iron" for their guns! If you're going to argue a point, at least specify the correct material!
 
I vote for savage, I have the 110fp in 30-06 with a choate stock, lueplod 4.5-14 mildot 50mm and will out shoot any of you guys with win. or rem"s at 600 yds I get a 3" group at 800 I get a little over 7'' savage is dam good for the money, But all of us need to remember what our granddays used to say when we missed>>??? son dont blame the rifle!!!!!!!!!!!! P.S. how many posts does one have to make before he grows up from a junior to a member??
 
This thread has gone more than far enough with the off-topic backing and forthing.

Looks like Valiumn time to me!

:), Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top