forepaw

It is pretty easy to figure out if you go to the Tikka home page. The improvements are listed. Mostly they are variants (or the same) as the after-market parts offered by Mountain Tactical of Bozeman, MT www.tikkaperformance.com. At one time I knew all the upgrades that comprised the T3x, and thought about the advantages over the T3, if any. To me, they are mostly sales-appeal oriented, and almost but not quite, cosmetic. The interchangeable grip panels struck me as being just goofy. The stainless bedding lug sounds nice, I doubt if it offers much over the hard aluminum lug. The enlarged ejection port will make it easier to reach in and fiddle with cartridges, clean the chamber and throat, etc. I still don't think you can load into the detachable mag. from the ejection port, and this is a drawback of the design, though a minor one, as spare mags are easily carried.. The steel bolt shroud is also sort of a nice to have cosmetic item. There is nothing wrong with the high-impact plastic shroud, but folks like steel stuff which I can understand. The receiver scope mounting holes have been beefed up and this is probably a good thing, with the huge scopes that get mounted on lightweight rifles, but I have never had a bit of problem with the scope mounts on the two T3s I own. The improved molded "checkering" might be a slight improvement, or it might not. The hollow stock has apparently been filled with sound-deadening foam, which I did to my T3 as soon as I got it, and it helps a lot. Last but not least, Tikka claims to have a new, improved recoil pad on the T3x. This is no doubt an improvement, as the best thing to do with the factory pad is take it off and throw it away, and buy a pull-on Limbsaver pad. The small pad fits great and works well, and shortens the stock so that it is most useful when you have a jacket on and are wearing a pack - which you would expect to do with a rifle primarily intended for rough country and mountain hunting. That's about all I can offer. I haven't owned or shot a T3x and don't have any frame of reference for how much better they handle or shoot. Probably they are no worse than the T3, and if they are better, then I would expect them to shoot very respectably. Whichever you end up with, you should consider changing the OEM trigger spring for a Yo-Dave kit. It will improve the trigger, which is already pretty decent. forepaw

Stainless action and barrel will not be a problem. The finish on Tikka's is very low glare, almost a bead-blast finish. You can always cover with some camo tape. The worst glare comes from the polished bolt handle, which does not to be covered or painted. forepaw

I had to order mine from Whittaker Guns. They had a few both R and L hand, and also the best prices. Budd's Gunshop also had some. forepaw

That's a pretty nice package. Already set up defensive/practical pistol shooting. I know some shooters prefer the Gen. 3 over the Gen. 4. forepaw

100% agree. Good info. The twist in my barrel is 1:8, but it might not be enough for that long bullet with the moderate velocity of a 22" 6.5x55. Mr. Kenyon claims very good accuracy from his .260 Rem., which is not significantly different in terms of case capacity, but suspect he has a longer barrel. forepaw

Guys, Has anyone had decent results seating Barnes bullets with a 0.005 - 0.008" jump? I know the conventional wisdom is to start out seating from 0.030 - 0.070" off the lands and one or the other is generally predicted to be the sweet spot, or close to it. I have two loads for one rifle using the TTSX that I am jumping 0.060" with good results. A common claim is that 0.050" is a good all-around jump. I am currently using the .264 127 gr. LRX, and after having tried a couple of powders, primers and seating depths (0.027, 0.050, 0.059), I am not any better off. I was thinking of seating it just off the lands to see if it would improve accuracy, but with all the knowledge on this forum, thought it would be worth a try to ask around first. Cal. is 6.5x55. My match load uses the Nosler 140 gr. Custom Competition (jumped 0.025") and it shoots very well, but I am looking for a hunting load. Thanks. forepaw

Thanks to all for info. L Cazador, you have been at this a long time! But if you are like me, there's always something new to learn. Believe I will drop back 0.5 gr. and load some just off the lands and see how that does. I really want to use one of the Barnes bullets for hunting- the TSX and TTSX are good, but the LRX is the most efficient. At least while it's in the air. Thought about just loading a Berger Hybrid for both competition and hunting, but my hunting loads tend to be just under max., and it's nice to be able to shoot matches with something a little less aggressive. Still an option however. forepaw

www.advocare.com forepaw

Budd's Gun Shop on line has decent prices on Tikka mags, last time I checked. Occasionally Midway will have them on sale. forepaw

Do you know offhand what the eye relief is? forepaw

Assuming by "extended range" you mean beyond mid-range (about 600 yds.) then what I think you want is a rifle that will reliably make first shot hits on a target the size of an elk's vital zone between 600 and 1000 yds. Certainly there are rifles, and shooters who can do this, some right here on CWT (I am not one of them). To provide a frame of reference (maybe not the best one) let's think in terms of competitive shooting on a rifle range. I shoot a rifle that is in the price range you mention. At 600 yds. (F-Class, or mid-range), I can keep my shots in the 10-ring under good conditions, after I have had two sighting shots to dial myself in. In long range shooting, you can have a lot of fun if you can keep all your hits in the black bull. You won't be competitive, as this requires being able to keep everything in the 10-ring, but at least it is good practice. At 1000 yds. I can mostly stay in the black (sometimes better), but wind changes everything in terms of calling your shots and impact on target. I am not competitive at 1000 yds. with this particular rifle. In hunting, you don't generally take sighting shots, which means you are counting on a first round hit on target (a vital zone about the size of a football). Being able to stay in the 10-ring (even without sighters) may be good enough. Or it may not. Typically, a rifle capable of staying in the smaller X-ring would be preferable. So in considering dimensions, weight, etc. it might be possible to find something (possibly used) in your price range that with enough practice and load development, will meet your requirements. In light of all the things that can go wrong shooting at an unwounded animal from a field position, it seems your requirement might be optimistic, and would suggest reconsideration relative to reducing the requirement of shooting an elk (or other game) at extended ranges, or else upgrading to something heavier, bulkier and likely more expensive. Like a lot of things in life, finding a rifle that suits your purpose requires some compromise, as well as honest assessment of the rifle's capabilities, and yours. forepaw

Text inbound. forepaw

Sherman, is your intention a full power hunting load, mid-range practice, or target shooting? forepaw

I have used Fed. mag. primers w/ Nosler brass, no problems at all. When I tried to seat them in Lapua brass, they were way too snug, and I quit using them. Winchester and CCI seat fine in Lapua. There appears to be some issues with tolerances with recent Fed. 215 M primers. forepaw

Not sure what the problem was. Their comfort level with the 6.5 overall, and especially the mag. didn't seem too high. Years ago, when I was in high school I met Harry Lawson at a couple of AZ State Fairs. I always had an idea I would try to get one of those rifles. Of course by the time I inquired on a possible build, he had passed away, and his son, or sons, had taken over the business. I still ended up with a 6.5 (6.5x55) just not a Lawson in the mag. version. They used to have almost a cult following, but by today's standards, they seem to be more of a prestige item than a hard-core rough country medium range rifle. forepaw

Actually, this looks like it might be a better round. As I recall, you couldn't use 140 gr. bullets in the 6.5 RM as you had to seat them too deep (to feed from the magazine). They might have been ok if single-loaded in the Rem. 600, but most folks just used 120 gr. and seemed to do ok. At one time, I considered a 6.5 RM custom rifle using a long action, but the guys in that shop on N. Ritchey in Tucson discouraged the idea. The 6.5 and Rem. 600 was a very cool cartridge and rifle! forepaw

You are on the right track with considering a heavier field tip and broadhead. See if you can borrow a few, and number your arrows, then shoot groups at normal ranges. There may be a slight advantage with one weight over another. It might not be apparent right away, but keep shooting, and set aside the arrows that are consistently out of the group. At some point you will see that under most conditions and ranges, one weight will shoot better than the other. I have struggled with this myself, as I am right on the edge of the chart for spine and draw weight. I have one bow that shoots better with 125 gr. and one that shoots better with 100 gr. - small differences can show up by using different weight tips. Sometimes only a few pounds of draw weight or a different brand of arrow can do it. If you are lucky, you will find that one weight will shoot much worse, or much better. Then you can move on to other things like, grip, form, follow through, etc. forepaw

What do you know. Looks like the old 6.5 Rem. Mag. (ca. 1965) without the belt. forepaw

The old-time campers and cowpunchers used Thompson's Water Seal - possibly diluted 50:50 or so, and then brushed or sprayed on. I have only used it on a limited basis for canvas, and don't have any way to offer a recommendation. It was the gold standard years ago, and as I recall it seemed to work well both as a water repellent and a canvas treatment. forepaw

The USGS summary is referring to the Little Colorado confluence which is many miles downstream. The water conditions at LF are known to be poor for survival and reproduction of native warm water species like the humpback chub. So something else might be going on - possibly related to the tree-hugger enviro-whacko agenda, possibly not. The AZGFD fisheries person for that area can provide an update. forepaw

Pentax 8x43 DCF ED. Check amazon. forepaw

I understand wanting a .30 cal. magnum, but what are the uses intended? In some ways, they are not the best as an all around rifle, though they will pretty much do it all. It comes at a price though - more barrel wear; more noise and recoil; a heavier rifle in order to tame recoil; a longer barrel in order to take advantage of all that powder you will be burning; possibly a more critical choice of bullets, in order to find something that shoots accurately but also will hold together when a shot presents itself at close range; and etc. I am not anti-magnum, I just think it is worth being realistic about how much better off you will be with one. They will take game reliably at very long range, but if you don't practice, and tune your rifle and loads, and are tempted to try long shots, you could end up with long hikes after wounded critters, or find your wounded animal with someone else's tag on it. With rifles there is no free lunch. If one is light and handy and easy to carry, then it is difficult to shoot well from field positions; magnums can be heavy and bulky to carry, but settle down quicker from an improvised rest (assuming you are in good shape and get your wind back quickly). If you load for reduced performance, in order to make noise and recoil more user friendly, then you are right back at '06 performance - maybe not as good. With today's powder and bullets, the old traditional cartridges are still pretty useful, and capable of better performance than you might think. Some of the high-performance factory loads place the '06 in magnum territory, something you will know the second you touch one off. For longer range use in states like AZ, where there are no big bears, and using scopes with reliable elevation adjustments, you can do very accurate long-range shooting with lighter calibers. They are easier to carry and more fun to shoot, in general, and modern streamlined bullets arrive with enough energy to kill elk and mule deer as far as you can keep your shoots on a paper plate from a field position. .30 and .338 magnums will absolutely buck the wind, and hit hard at unbelievable distances, but you still have to put the bullet in the right place! Hope that helps. forepaw

Another thing to consider (and this is an advanced technique, and I have not tried it) is to use a reduced load of fast burning powder, say, SR4759, and use a wad of tissue paper or dacron fluff seated like the old overpowder wads on shotgun shell reloads. It sounds crazy but I have read of shooters using a spoonful of cream of wheat over the reduced charge to blow out and fireform the case. The trick is to just get enough pressure to extrude the sidewalls and neck. As difficult as it is to find brass in your caliber, it might be worth trying - depends on how desperate you are to shoot it. forepaw

If the only difference is neck diameter why don't you just fire form it using reduced loads? Those 7mm bullets will rattle around going down the bore but won't hurt anything. Use blem. bullets for economy. forepaw

You're getting some good advice here. I would only add a couple things before you lock yourself in to a ballistic program. 1. Conduct a tall-target test to determine your scope (reticle) alignment and whether or not your elevation turret over tracks or under tracks (or maybe is dead nuts), and 2. Conduct a trajectory validation. This will confirm your chronograph readings. Do these with the load you plan to use, and you will have utmost confidence in your numbers. forepaw