gator123

Ok after much research I am down to 2 rifles. The Tikka T3 My original favorite. The weaterby Vanguard sub moa, a late favorite. Out are the Kimber 8400; price, and the Rem 700. looking at the .270 as a good all around for antelope, muleys and elk. Trying to decide between the two. What does everyone else think?

stubblejumper

If I was going to get a Vanguard,I would buy the regular Vanguard,not the MOA.

VAhuntr

Both are excellent rifles and would more than likely be very accurate. I prefer the T3 just a little more than the Vanguard.

gator123

Ok why would you buy the regular vanguard and not the moa? why do you like the Tikka over the Vanguard?

driftrider

I'd pick the Tikka over the Vanguard, personally. I like the Vanguards ok, but I've owned a Tikka T3 and it was excellent both in fit and finish, the trigger is very good, and the accuracy was excellent. Handle both rifles side-by-side if you can and then pick the one that you like better. Both are good rifles.

Mike

VAhuntr

Should have stated "why" in my original post. IMO the Tikka has a better trigger(user adjustable 2-4lbs), has an extremely smooth bolt and feels better to me when shouldered. I also agree with driftrider and think the fit and finish is a little better.

The negatives about the Tikka would be the expensive and hard to get replacement parts, such as the magazine which is $50+, and just a general lack of available aftermarket parts(stocks, etc.).

BigTiny

I recently got the Weatherby subMOA. It seems to be very well made, and I like the synthetic stock it came with. The factory target they sent with it had one ragged hole. I found out they will only consider a rifle subMOA if it shoots under 3/4 at the factory. That way they can guarantee the 1". All Weatherbys have a 1.5 MOA guarantee. Life being what it is, I haven't even mounted the scope on it to shoot, so I haven't got it to the range yet to try for myself. Maybe in the next couple of weeks.

Dozen Arrows

I can understand the lack of customizability with the stock, if you are in to that sort of thing but the thing that I cannot understand is the complaints about the cost of the magazines? I mean, are they not durable and aren't they reasonably priced with the competitions? What am I missing here? That said, I haven't found a better value for the money that I spent! Savage is a close second but it's craftsmanship leaves something to be desired, IMHO.

VAhuntr

The last magazine I bought for a rifle was for a Remington 7400 and I paid $9 for it. A closer look for T3 mags says that I underestimated the cost....seems they are selling for around $70 now on the net. I would have to order one as there is not anyone within 100 miles of me who has T3 magazines. Seems like quite a bit to me for a polymer magazine.

I did not say anything about the magazines not being durable. My polymer Glock mags have taken a lot of abuse and still work as designed. Whether the T3 magazines are as durable remains to be seen.

stubblejumper

I would buy the regular vanguard because every one that I have fired would do better than MOA.Why spend the extra money?If you want a better stock,buy the regular Vanguard and put the difference in cost toward a Mcmillan.By the way,the MOA are restocked Vanguards that shot 3/4" or better as a standard Vanguard,not as a finished MOA rifle.The fact that the MOA rifle is only guaranteed for MOA(not even as good as 3/4") should tell you that they don't expect much of a difference between the two rifles.