Author Topic: A Tikka ? for Zachary and others interested. (Read 759 times)

John (Rojo) · « **on:** March 12, 2003, 04:00:27 PM »

Hi Zachary.
From some of your posts in the past, it's obvious you like and own Tikkas. I just picked up my first Tikka (NIB) "Master Deluxe" in 22-250. It has the extra fancy wood with the rosewood forend tip and grip cap, and a high polish blue w/matte receiver. Gorgeous rifle. Since it has the integral scope rails built in to the receiver, I ordered Tikka med. Optilock rings w/o the bases (which gives me the right height for the scope I want to mount) through Jon at the Optic Zone.

My thought was that if I used the integral receiver base, It would be a "cleaner" way to mount the scope w/o breaking up the nice lines of the rifle.
I would appreciate your input on the following questions:
1.) Since the rifle is not a "kicker" which is the most prefered way to mount the scope- with bases or w/o and why?
2.) Which set up would give the most latitude for eye relief?
3.) Which way do you go on your Tikkas?

John (Rojo)

Zachary · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2003, 04:44:38 AM »

John,

As to your question #1:
I can't say which is the most prefered way to mount a scope on the Tikkas, but I have used the rings AND bases from the optilock system. It cost a bundle, but they are rock solid. I did this at the advice of many gunsmiths. Then again, you have a .22-250 so recoil is not a factor. I have a .25-06 - which still isn't that much of a factor, but it's still money well spent.

As to your question #2:
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but actual scope mounts will have little, if not nothing, to do with eye relief. Now, some people may want the scope mounted lower or higher, but that has nothing to do with eye relief. Again, I may have misunderstood your question, so please elaborate if I am wrong.

As to your question #3:
see answer to #1.

Hope this helps.

Zachary

Zachary · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2003, 05:27:05 AM »

I just got off of the phone with Wanre manufacturing. They told me that they make Maxima rings for the Tikka and Sako, and that they attach to the receiver. They said that they are very strong and have done extensive research and customers have NEVER had any problems.

I own MANY Warne mounts on my other rifles and love them. The best part is that the rings cost about $40. That's a whole lot better than what I paid for the optilock.

I just ordered a pair of Warne rings because I am planning on buying another Tikka soon.

Zachary

razmuz · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2003, 04:37:19 PM »

I'm still working on what to put on my 7-08. The Tikka by Millet look great on the rifle, but I haven't got them right yet. The Warne are all steel, but don't offer a "low" mount . I hear the Opilock are the best (also no low mount), but they cost to much to get my attention. I've never had trouble with Weaver mounts and #61's will do the job. That's probably the route I'll take. Let us know what you do.

John (Rojo) · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2003, 05:51:50 PM »

Zachary, sorry if the question regarding eye relief was confusing. I will expound on the original question. I was wondering if I went with the rings that mount directly to the receiver, would I have more adjustment in moving the scope forward and back, than if I mounted rings to Tikka bases. It would seem that there is room on the rails to position the rings, whereas you are limited with the bases. Am I wrong? I am going with the Optilock med. rings. Also, after handling, inspecting and now owning a Tikka, there will be another in my future if it shoots near as decent as its quality and looks.

Thanks razmuz for your input also. Information is what it's all about.

John (Rojo)