At the moment I plan on getting what money I can for a Remington 700 sps tactical .308 and putting that towards a tikka t3x. My experience with the 700 hasn't been bad but there are a couple issues I have trouble getting bu. For 1, I don't like the finish on it, it feels so cheap. 2, the trigger is sub par. 3, the stock is not very good. 4, I prefer detachable magazine. 5 I can't stomach putting in 300-400 bucks to upgrade this rifle when I can just get a tikka t3x stainless (I know stainless isn't rust proof but it has to be more rust resistant than the 700) that is an upgrade in my mind in so many ways. I've heard very little critisim of tikka and the rifle seems like a great out of box shooter. Is this worth the upgrade? In my mind from what I know it is and I haven't heard really anything that makes me rethink it. Any thoughts on this?
Tikka t3x stainless vs Remington 700 sps tactical
- Thread starter Huh12345
- Start date
Blindstitch
New member
Get the Tikka. The Remington 700 has a great reputation but when you try to make it a hatchback to an indy car there has to be sacrifices in each model. Remington says there are 29 models available. Price ranging from $400 to $2900 with the model 700 tactical chassis.
How does your 700 shoot? To me thats the most important thing. Nothing worse then selling a rifle only to have the new rifle shoot bigger groups then the one you sold.
The way I see it they are both good rifles, it's really sort of a ford/chevy type of situation. Myself, I'm a "Remington guy" also. If you don't like the stock on the Remington it's a cheap and easy fix. One of my 700's, a .223, actually shoots better though in the cheap SPS stock then it did in another "better looking," "higher end," stock so thats what it wears. Another 700 advantage is that there are LOTS of parts and accessories that are available for the 700.
A friend of mine just sold both his Tikka and his Remington 700 SPS, both in 308. In this particular case the Remington shot better. Actually, the Remington was such a tack driver that I bought it. Could just be the luck of the draw, your results might differ.
Sounds like you've lost interest in the 700 though so if thats the case you might as well unload it and by the Tikka.
The way I see it they are both good rifles, it's really sort of a ford/chevy type of situation. Myself, I'm a "Remington guy" also. If you don't like the stock on the Remington it's a cheap and easy fix. One of my 700's, a .223, actually shoots better though in the cheap SPS stock then it did in another "better looking," "higher end," stock so thats what it wears. Another 700 advantage is that there are LOTS of parts and accessories that are available for the 700.
A friend of mine just sold both his Tikka and his Remington 700 SPS, both in 308. In this particular case the Remington shot better. Actually, the Remington was such a tack driver that I bought it. Could just be the luck of the draw, your results might differ.
Sounds like you've lost interest in the 700 though so if thats the case you might as well unload it and by the Tikka.
Last edited:
precision_shooter
New member
Tikka builds a better rifle than remington.
Fit and finish are better.
Trigger is one of the best factory, non-accutrigger style, triggers made.
Accuracy will be better as well in my experience.
The action on the tikka is buttery smooth with a short bolt lift, and the bolt handle/knob isn't brazed on like the Remington. It's actually dovetailed into the bolt body.
I know many people who are building more and more customs on tikka actions as well.
Buy the tikka, you won't regret it.
Here is a pic of my best group from the first range outing with my Tikka T3x CTR in 6.5 Creedmoor. Other groups were sub-moa as well.
Fit and finish are better.
Trigger is one of the best factory, non-accutrigger style, triggers made.
Accuracy will be better as well in my experience.
The action on the tikka is buttery smooth with a short bolt lift, and the bolt handle/knob isn't brazed on like the Remington. It's actually dovetailed into the bolt body.
I know many people who are building more and more customs on tikka actions as well.
Buy the tikka, you won't regret it.
Here is a pic of my best group from the first range outing with my Tikka T3x CTR in 6.5 Creedmoor. Other groups were sub-moa as well.
Last edited:
In the last 3 weeks or so I've shot 2 new Savage 6.5 Creedmores, a new Savage 308, a new Ruger Predator/American .243, and a new Remington 700 .223, none of which were mine. They were all brand new and ALL consistently shot sub MOA, 5 shot groups right out of the box. All with a mix of factory and hand loads. It's pretty amazing if you think about it just how good today's rifles really are.
The Tikka is a good rifle for sure but good shooting, sub MOA rifles are becoming more the norm today rather than the exception.
Last edited:
I'm from the days when 1.5 MOA was a keeper rifle, never to be sold. The last 3 rifles I've purchased have all done better than that, some much better. I don't own a Tikka, it is on my list though. I've heard very good things about them from trusted sources and more and more aftermarket items are coming out for them.
My apologies to the OP for getting a little off topic but I know exactly what you mean Allen. 30 years ago a 1.5 MOA bolt action deer rifle was a considered a perfectly good gun (still is really). I remember being really pleased when a .25 cal or larger rifle shot 1 MOA or for a sub .25 to consistently shot less then 1 MOA for 4 or 5, 5 shot groups. A .22 cal varmint rifle that shot .75 or less was a real keeper.
Now I have come to expect .25 to .30 cal, non magnum, standard weight/profile barreled rifles to shoot around 1 MOA. A .22 center fire, standard weight rifle that shoots .75 MOA is sort of the norm, middle of the road and .5 MOA the new .22 cal heavy/varmint weight barrel standard.
Last edited:
Get the Tikka if that's really what you want, just don't take it in the shorts getting rid of the M700. You can have two rifles for about $1200 if you buy the Tikka out right, or you can have Tikka for $900-1000 if you trade in the M700 at Gander Mountain. It's not my money and I can't tell you what to do, but IMO if you trade you're going backwards.
I've had several M700 rifles over the last 15 years mainly in .270, .30-06, and .35 Whelen, but now all I have is a .300 Savage and .223 Rem. I haven't had any that haven't shot well right from the start. All had factory triggers and none had any thing more than bedding done to them. In fact several weren't bedded at all. I've been very satisfied with Remington M700's but they aren't my favorite rifles to own and that's why they usually get sold or traded.
I've had several M700 rifles over the last 15 years mainly in .270, .30-06, and .35 Whelen, but now all I have is a .300 Savage and .223 Rem. I haven't had any that haven't shot well right from the start. All had factory triggers and none had any thing more than bedding done to them. In fact several weren't bedded at all. I've been very satisfied with Remington M700's but they aren't my favorite rifles to own and that's why they usually get sold or traded.
Last edited:
Don Fischer
New member
Tikka makes a better rifle than Remington? Actually I'm a Ford man!
precision_shooter
New member
I'm a Ford man as well, and Tikka/Sako builds a better rifle than Remington at any price point.
Apparently you're not too familiar with the definition of controversial. I'm quite sure there are LOTS of shooters who take exception to your statement.
con·tro·ver·sial
adjective
adjective: controversial
giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement.
Last edited:
precision_shooter
New member
Better = accuracy, aesthetics (though his is subjective), triggers (Remington can't build a good trigger if their brand depended on it), barrels, stocks, bolts, and the action is better in my opinion.