The receiver on the Tikkas is reason enough for me to stay away. After looking at the one size fits all action and ejection "slit" I decided that as cheap as the gun was built is should be a lot cheaper than the price its selling for. Very cheaply built IMO....Im with OEH on this one. Looked like a very nice gun until I dug deeper.....brings new meaning to building "on the cheap". Again..if all you folks like your Tikkas..thats great and again this is JMO.
The Tikka secret formula to accuracy is a very stiff receiver that is that way because of that tiny ejector hole, the barrels are excellent hammerforged barrels that are screwed on right and headspaced correctly and crowned. Someone shoots them 3 times and they do an inch or they go back to find out what happened.I have heard of them not shooting well and for awhile there I was going to buy one but after seeing how many corners they cut on a gun that should be priced a lot cheaper I said no way. Then you hear the crap about polymers and such. I wouldn't buy the darn gun if it had bottom metal and a metal magazine and bolt shroud because of that tiny ejector port. It is even smaller then the one I had on a Steyr Prohunter I owned and I thought that was unsatisfactory. Problem with the article is it is right on the money andT3 owners do not like to hear the truth at times.Beretta has done a good job of passing out the Koolaid and evidently a lot of people bought into it.