View Full Version : Opinions on which Tikka T3?
Warchild
November 2, 2009, 09:12 AM
I'm presently looking into purchasing a Tikka T3, here's the decision I must make. I am left handed and there are 2 Tikka's I must decide between. I like the T3 Hunter because of the wood stock but the only T3 Hunter I can find left handed is in .270WSM, there are plenty of T3 Lites in .270WIN. Should I opt for the .270WSM or is it that much more expensive and difficult to find that I should just go for the regular ole' T3 Lite in .270Win and call it a day? Thanks in advance.
snipecatcher
November 2, 2009, 09:17 AM
I would go with a plain old 270 Win. just because the ammo is ubiquitous. I would also avoid a stainless Tikka because of rust issues. If I had it to do over, I would have got the blued version.
-Dan
Warchild
November 2, 2009, 09:51 AM
Thanks for the reply... I with you on the stainless but I'm looking on GB and the LH models are mostly stainless with the one I saw that was blued as a 30-06, nothing wrong with that but not a .270. I'm looking on GB as the firearms dealers in my area typical charge $75-100 more for the same firearm + state sales tax which I avoid on GB.
jmr40
November 2, 2009, 10:04 AM
Nothing wrong with the 270 win. Nothing wrong with the T-3 lites in stainless either. I prefer the lite versions because having a 6.2lb rifle is the biggest selling point in the Tikka in my opinion. I've had a stainless 30-06 for 5 years with no rust problems. They may not be the best rifles at rust prevention, but how is a blued rifle going to be better. Even the better grades of the T-3 are a working rifle so I'm not worring about it being a showpiece.
PTS1
November 2, 2009, 04:20 PM
Even though I have a 270 wsm (vanguard) and love it, I would go with the regular 270. Tikka is not a true short action and therefore little benefit for the wsm. The standard 270 will be a bit lighter than the wsm as the barrel is 2 inches shorter and has the plastic stock, if that is important to you.
Abel
November 2, 2009, 07:55 PM
Go to a gun store and have them order whatever caliber you want. They usually only want like 10% down. I'd get the 270 over the 270WSM.
ohen cepel
November 2, 2009, 07:58 PM
Another vote for the 270 over the WSM. I'm afraid that in 10 yrs you may have to look hard to get the WSM ammo. However, if you know that going in or are a reloader then go with the WSM.
sdj
November 2, 2009, 08:11 PM
Go to a gun store and have them order whatever caliber you want
+1 on this. In the event that your local store owner is unable or unwilling to order for you, you could always purchase what you would like from an on-line dealer such as budsgunshop.com. Please keep in mind that if you purchase from Bud's (for example), Bud's will need to have your local shop's FFL Certificate on file before Buds will ship to your local shop. This can certainly be a hassle. You can also contact Bud's (for example) and they can work with you to identify a local gunshop whose FFL Bud's has on file. Please bear in mind also that your local shop will charge you a transfer fee: that's usually somwhere between 35 and 50$US.
I have learned from my own experience: don't settle for what the local shop has in stock: get exactly what you want.
I have a Tikka T3 lite in 22-250. Very pleased with it; can't say a bad thing about it.
Enjoy.
elkman06
November 2, 2009, 08:26 PM
I agree on the .270 vs .270wsm. I still wonder about the extreme benefits of the short mags vs the standard calibers. Ammo will be cheaper and much more accessible. Also, I have known some folks who have struggled to build a good reload for this particular short mag.
I definitely agree on the opinion stated about it being a working rifle. Definitely not a show piece but very good at what they are.. a light, very accurate hunting rifle.
elkman06
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.