Tikka vs Ruger

[whitedogone]

I have owned both.  Sold the Ruger.  Although, I liked the looks of the ruger better. The Tikka is higher quality even considering the composites.  Every one I have seen flat out shoots right out of the box.  One thing I didn't care for about the Tikka was searching for the ring/base setup.  There are quite a few options. But not on local dealers shelves.  Most likely you wouldn't have that issue with the Rugers.  As others have stated don't skimp on the scope!  I topped mine with a Bushy Elite 4200.  Very nice glass.

[GeoW]

You honestly don't know what a Neon is

I don't know what a Tikka is but I do know Beretta is the pits for service and support on my older Sakos.
Good luck, go Ruger or CZ.
GeoW

[Coyotejunki]

This thread is really getting funny.

 They are both nice rifles.  I believe either would make a fine, reliable hunting rifle. I honestly believe the Ruger to be a stronger built platform, plus I prefer the wood and steel over plastic or polymer or whatever the stuff Tikka uses.

 Now if you are wanting a rifle to shoot paper and impress people with small groups, I feel you are wasting your time with either rifle, when you can buy a factory Savage Varmint rifle for less money, or a Cooper for more money and either will most likely outshoot the Tikka or Ruger.

[Mr. Joe]

I dont know about typical results, but i have a M77mkII sporter.  Its stainless with laminate stock and chambered in .308 win.  Its not the target model, its standard sporter weight.  Before i ever shot it, i floated the barrel, and glass beded the action.  I had the stock trigger taked down to 2.5 crisp lbs.  With federal 150gr. NBT rounds, the gun has shot .6 inches at 100 yards.  This has been witnesed.  I cant ask for more than that in a hunting rifle.  Also, with the ruger scope mounting system, i can remove the scope and re install them later and not loose my poi.  Ive done this many times when transporting the rifle.

[Grubbs]

Mr. Joe, my 3 Tikkas shoot that way right out of the box, no modifications at all, with factory ammo.  Tha's why I prefer Tikka.

[Mr. Joe]

I dont expect anyone to put much worth on my statement.  Any riflemen you talk to has 6 guns that are sub moa, esp. on the forums.  Not calling anyone out or anything like that, but seriously think about it, how many online forums have you been to, were a sub moa rifle is the norm.  Sub MOA rifles are NOT the norm.  All im saying is that the best way i have found to see how various rifles shoot is to go to a sportsmens club with lots of guys shooting lots of rifles and see how they shoot.  Heck, ask to shoot a few and see what you think. 

BTW Todd1700...that is some fantastic shooting.  Nice work.

[HuntingGuy]

I have owned the T3, but not the M77.  I had a chance to handle the M77 yesterday and fell in love with it.  Smooth action, medium weight.  Owning the T3, mine was a 338 WIN MAG and extremely hard to shoot since it was the "Lite" version.  Last time I buy a light 338.  After giving myself a bloody nose, bruised fingers, decided to let her go - even though it was a beautiful set up.  I'd buy another one.. But I'd have to go with 7mm-08 this time around