Author Topic: Tikka T-3 vs Weatherby Vanguard Sub MOA (Read 4744 times)

TxRiverman · « **on:** October 02, 2007, 03:46:49 PM »

Ive narrowed my new rifle search down to these two. I think there both good rifles,but which one will have the better accuracy,the better fit and finish?

TxRiverman · « **Reply #1 on:** October 02, 2007, 03:48:17 PM »

I failed to mention the the rifle will be in .300 WSM.

TxRiverman · « **Reply #2 on:** October 03, 2007, 10:52:42 AM »

Come on now,somebody has got to have an opinion on these two rifles.

safetysheriff · « **Reply #3 on:** October 05, 2007, 03:07:50 PM »

the 'plastic' box magazine in the only T-3 i ever really checked out was a final nail in the coffin. i don't want a plastic box. the aesthetics were tolerable, and the weight of the rifle was ok.

the vanguard i own, not a sub-moa, shoots like a champ! its stock is a very functional synthetic in my opinion; but some don't like them. i've never shouldered a rifle and had the scope line up as well as it does on that vanguard synthetic. they are a bit on the heavy side, however. the bolt is smooth, and the trigger is somewhat adjustable. it is not fully adjustable without metal work. i'd definitely buy another vanguard, but probably in a .30-06 or a .308 the next time. mine is a .270.

i think the vanguard in stainless is the way i'd go if i was you. i got mine on a wal mart clearance a few years ago for $250 + tax!

such a deal!

but they only had them in blue. otherwise mine would be in stainless.

take care,

ss'

wareagleguy · « **Reply #4 on:** October 05, 2007, 03:20:45 PM »

I have a T3 light and love it. I have never owned a vanguard but have shot one. I like the action on the Tikka better. Also, think the Tikka is more accurate. As for the plastic mags I would not think twice about it. It's not plastic but polymer. I remember seeing my first Toyota as a kid and everyone talking about all the cheap plastic. Darn if the things didn't run forever and now about to be the biggest car maker in the world.
Trigger adjustments are easy on the Tikka. For me the Tikka wins hands down.

cccombo · « **Reply #5 on:** October 06, 2007, 08:53:06 PM »

this thread might help you out

http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,122675.0.html

safetysheriff · « **Reply #6 on:** October 08, 2007, 07:12:04 AM »

bd'

if that plastic/polymer box mag' was made of stainless steel the rifle would have much more appeal to me. that polymer was extremely thin, which means that it is cheaply-made to me.

i'll stick with the Vanguard, the Model 700's, or the Ruger Model 77's.

take care,

ss'

Casull · « **Reply #7 on:** October 08, 2007, 07:30:24 AM »

Think I'll agree with the sherrif on this one. The Vanguard is a solid, accurate, well made rifle. Forged receiver, hammer forged barrel, and all around solid gun. I have one in .338 WM and the thing is accurate too. Also have two Howa 1500's (same gun) in .223 and .243, and they are also more accurate than a $450 rifle should be.

Ahab · « **Reply #8 on:** October 08, 2007, 08:06:57 AM »

Go for the sub MOA Vanguard.

Questor · « **Reply #9 on:** October 08, 2007, 09:51:34 AM »

We looked at both too and picked the T3. Nice gun. We got the Lite model. I prefer the box magazine, either that or a blind magazine (ie, without floorplate). The Weatherby is, and appears to be, a low cost option. The Tikka is a more on par with the higher end rifles. The prices reflect the difference.

Casull · « **Reply #10 on:** October 08, 2007, 01:48:45 PM »

The Weatherby is, and appears to be, a low cost option.

Quote

Questor, that simply is wrong. The Vanguard (and Howa's) are better built than the "plastic" Tikka. They are built out of proportion to their cost.

Omaha-BeenGlockin · « **Reply #11 on:** October 09, 2007, 06:40:55 AM »

Have owned both---still own a laminated stock Tikka T3-------simply the better rifle all ways around.

wareagleguy · « **Reply #12 on:** October 10, 2007, 05:57:22 PM »

I replied to this but for some reason my post disappeared. I have a Tikka with a plastic mag and I will place mine on the ground and stand on it (all 230 pounds) if anyone with a stainless steel mag will do the same. Any takers!

Questor · « **Reply #13 on:** October 11, 2007, 04:16:30 AM »

Plastic or not, the stock on the Tikka is superb functionally. I can't believe how light the recoil seems in such a light .308 rifle. My CZ American in .270 has about the same power, is much heavier, yet seems to have heavier recoil.

We've had it long enough and shot in enough different weather to be convinced that the rifle holds its zero. When actually using the Tikka everything about it has been excellent. It all works very well. Quality is better than my custom shop Remington 700 (which cost a lot more.)

IRA51 · « **Reply #14 on:** October 11, 2007, 09:11:45 AM »

you would't think twice about the plastic/composit on a Glock ,I hear they are very good. I have a Tikka T3 hunter in .243 and it is a great rifle

klt1986 · « **Reply #15 on:** October 11, 2007, 04:13:45 PM »

Quote from: Casull on October 08, 2007, 01:48:45 PM

The Weatherby is, and appears to be, a low cost option.
Quote

Questor, that simply is wrong. The Vanguard (and Howa's) are better built than the "plastic" Tikka. They are built out of proportion to their cost.

I'm not saying the Vanguard is cheap but it is Weatherby's entry level rifle. Kinda like the Tikka shares many parts with Sako. IMO the Tikka is the better rifle....atleast to me anyway!

Old English · « **Reply #16 on:** October 12, 2007, 01:15:40 AM »

I own rifles from many major manufacturers in wood, laminate and synthetic. Why people feel the need to bash the "plastic" Tikka is beyond me. The Tikka stock is incredibly strong, weather resistant and rigid. The magazine is far stronger than steel and a lot less likely to make noise when hunting than a steel one. They both shoot superbly and have the best triggers I own.
This is 2007!! All synthetic materials are not the same. I changed the "tupperware" stock on a Savage, it is admittedly junk. The only resemblance to a Tikka stock is the color black. I don't bash people for buying an old fashioned wood stock, POI changes with the weather, why would they bash my plastic Tikkas? I have 4 rifles with wood stocks, 4 synthetics and 2 laminates so I don't think I'm being biased here.

Questor · « **Reply #17 on:** October 12, 2007, 02:06:23 AM »

Old English:

Amen! I'll go farther and say that I'll never again buy a wooden stocked rifle. There are just too many advantages to a synthetic stock.

Also, I don't know where the concept that Tikka's are manufactured in such a way as to be of lower value than they are charging. I think the price is fair and the quality and features are better than most rifles that are more expensive.

safetysheriff · « **Reply #18 on:** October 12, 2007, 12:29:57 PM »

something has gone very wrong here! i'll take a 'plastic' stock anytime......over the problems with wood.....if the 'plastic' is strong enough. but tikka's synthetic mag' just strikes me as cheap. period. it's thin and it's cheap....in my opinion.

i don't stand on mag's; i put 'em rifles. i'll take the stainless steel if i can get it!

ss'

wareagleguy · « **Reply #19 on:** October 13, 2007, 07:24:17 AM »

When people use the term "looks cheap" or "cheap in my opinion" that tells me this is a person not willing to try anything different. There are benefits to steel and plastic. To me, if it works and doesn't cause any problems then I am happy.

Cheap, yea it may cost less to make. But the plastic will continue to work when the steel mag fails. That isn't opinion, it's fact.

My offer still stands, anyone think the steel mag can withstand more punishment than my cheap plastic Tikka mag I'll be more than happy to take your money.