Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles New mountain rifle Tikka t3x superlite or savage 110 ultralight?

Tikka

Agree, this would not be an upgrade in any way. Keep the beauty rem mountain rifle and buy the tikka. Then sell the tikka down the road.

I would get the Tikka but id keep the Mountain Rifle 👍....Tikka's shoot good but thats really about it, Tikka's are a dime a dozen, you can find them at any local Bass Pro shop in the price point rack right next to the Ruger Americans and Savage 110's..Tikka rifles have no soul like a vintage Model 700 Mountain Rifle does. When you hunt a Tikka nobody looks twice ( or gives a rip) but if your packin a 90's era Remington 700 Mountain rifle other hunters will take notice with envious eyes at your rare and beautiful classic hunting rifle 😁....Hb

I would hold out for a new browning coming out for the faster twist rates in 270, can shoot the longer heavier bullets than in the other two mentioned

Tikka

If your set on a lightweight mountain rig, watch for Rem 700 titanium. Their rare but out there. I have one in 260 rem that weighs in scoped at 6lb even. Great handling and shooting classic. They were years ahead of their time when they were introduced. Guess I’m partial to good solid classics with metal trigger guards.

Take a look at scope, rings, bases, and your stock.

And schidt extractors and horrible triggers. But to each their own..

I don't think that the Savage can even be compared to the Tikka.

I’ll take your so called horrible trigger behind a metal trigger guard over a molded in plastic trigger guard on a whimpy plastic stock any day. Some components on todays firearms may be considered upgrades. But not enough for me.

My thoughts exactly. But what I’ve come to realize is the new age hunters haven’t got a clue what the “class” is we’re talking about. It’s funny you mention the part about looking twice. I used pretty much the same analogy with a son in law who is just getting into hunting. He didn’t quite understand what I was trying to get at until I compared it to his high end golf equipment. Like showing up at the club house with Kmart clubs. Then he got it.

I'm genuinely curious why the Tikka is supposedly so much better than the Savage (aside from folks just not wanting to say they shoot a Savage... and I'm talking about 110/10 vs. Tikka not the Axis line)? They're both plastic. They're both known to be MOA or better out of the box. They both *used* to be known as dependable budget options, though the Tikka price keeps going up in spite of nothing changing about the rifle itself... and guys replacing lots of factory parts anyway.

Is it weight? Twist rates? What makes the Tikka so much better?

I think part of it may involve the resale value. Savages don't hold up as well in that department.

Good question. I’ve noticed the same. I can’t say for me one is any better than the other. Tikkas have a growing fan base, which I’m sure they love.

I’ve got 3 of those older ‘90 era R700 mountain rifles. (270, 25-06 & a converted 338-06) and yeah they are good for the time but each one has required a little/alot of work to get shooting to my standards. My ‘C’ prefix .270 has a rough spot in the barrel but still shoots ok somehow.

As for Savage 10/110/Stevens 200: I’ve only owned two or three and none now. The stock triggers are garbage to me. I’m not an accutrigger guy. The overall fit/finish/bluing are lacking and generally they feel clumsy in the ergo department. The action always reminded me of a slightly refined Arisaka and to my design eye seemed over engineered but in a rough way. Granted I never owned a modern version or what they may declare as an upscale version but they still use the same basics as I understand.

Directly comparing them to a Tikka T3x is silly to me though. My first Tikka was a T3x Superlite 308. First time I shot it with factory WW power point 150g it clustered 5 shots into 3/4” @100. Bought a 6.5 Creed Superlite and worked up to MuleDeer’s load of Hunter under a 129gr Hornady Interlock. Literally every test group was 1/2”-3/4”. I just picked the one that gave me the best velocity. Next I bought a 300 Win Superlite. 180gr & H4831 had me in the same accuracy range right off the bat. Then I picked up a T3x compact on 6.5CM and with the same load mentioned above it’s same accuracy. I now have a .223 & .308 compacts all shooting similarly.

Honestly I’ve owned/own far more Remington 700’s over the years and never - I mean never has any one particular rifle been so accurate with so little work as the Tikka. Winchester 70 is about the next closest in my experience to similar accuracy but even those needed a little tweaking.

I fully get the wood/blue romance but dang the accuracy & ergo are ridiculously good. Not perfect but for the price? Very good with the T3x despite its plastic nature. It’s the Glock of the rifle world.

My .02 - not hating on anyone or anything but sharing my honest appraisal

Good stuff Pinto. Thanks for your input. Helped me with my direction........................

I've never owned a Tikka but I've used a T3x at the range. I owned one Savage (an American Classic in 243). So my 2 cents might only be worth a penny! That said...

To me, the Tikka stock is pretty flimsy *for what they cost* at present. When you pay $450 for a Ruger, you expect MOA and a garbage molded stock. The Tikka is nicer, obviously, but not almost twice the price nicer. That's sort if where I'm coming from with the Savage comparison. Tons of guys on here defend Tikka "because the rifle is a tool and it's accurate out of the box"... which is a diplomatic way of saying it's ugly and plastic but it shoots great. But then the diehard Tikka guys never seem to want to apply that criteria to other rifles that are ugly but also MOA from the box.

I’m a fan of Tikka but also a realist. Plastic is plastic for sure - comes down to aesthetic preferences & Tikkas are of a design that fit me well. I’ve also got a couple Ruger American Ranch rifles. They are indeed much rougher than a Tikka but dang they shoot very good - still cost me $575 for the Grendel so not super cheap. I picked up my compact .308 for $659 during a sale. Not even $100 difference but Tikka is much better to me.

Thing is though - a guy can change the stock easily but not the action & design. That could be good or bad depending on how a guy looks at things.

I’m actually a Sako AV & Kimber 84 fan - I’m reasonably new to Tikka - just full disclosure.

Pints

"The action always reminded me of a slightly refined Arisaka . . ."

Maybe a late war 99. My M38 carbine is beautifully machined and slick as schit through a goose.

Also have the Savage.Predator in .223. Very accurate but the action seems rough but works.

I also have a ruger American, bought it for $100 with redfield 2-7 scope. It weighs the same as a tikka superlite

Trigger adjusted down nicely, and I polished the bolt with lapping compound for 5 minutes. Not a big deal.

It shoots everything into less than 3/4 of an inch.

Compared to the Tikka:
The American is an actual short action so weighs less and is shorter/more compact than the standard tikka.

The American has a faster 1:10 rifling twist rate.

The American has a better bedding system, that doesn't fail like the tikkas.

The American holds more rounds, and flush fitting for carry at the balance point.

Mine is sighted for 220 grain nosler partitions over 45 grains of lever revolution,for 2480 fps.

It's a loaner rifle for guests that come moose/caribou hunting with me.