Want to buy a new rifle

[762X39]

Just looking for some input although my mind is mostly made up.I have been hunting all my adult life with a 1942 6.5X55 Swede. I love it to death but my eyesight isn't what it used to be so I am looking for a rifle I can scope. The short list is a Tikka with synthetic stock in 6.5X55. I have already chosen a suitable scope (1.75 to 4) that will meet my needs out to 500 metres.If there are any Tikka owners out there please let me know what you think.

[roamingaz]

I had a Tikka T3 tactical rifle, it was absolutly the finest shooting gun I have ever owned. I used it for predator hunting and some target shooting, Tikka is known for it's silky smooth action and solid performance. I sold my rifle last year to help fund my truck project and now hunting season is coming up I am really missing it. I had a Weaver long range sniper scope for long distance shooting.

[Martinjmpr]

I don't know what you're hunting but I had a 4x scope on my old Winchester M70 and hated it. I finally wised up and spent a couple hundred bucks on a nice Nikon 3 - 9 variable. I normally use it at about 6x for antelope hunting in Wyoming.

[F5driver]

I have a Tikka stainless 300 WSM. It's a great rifle. Light, fairly weatherproof and accurate out of the box.

[norshor]

One of the guys at deercamp has a Tikka T3 synthetic in 30.06. Great rifle, he really likes it. That thing is very accurate, and has been dependable.

[Jonathan Hanson]

You say your eyesight is going, and now you want a 4X scope to use out to 500 meters?

Man, you must have had some eyesight to start with!

[Mike S]

Why not just alter the bolt handle on the Swede and have it scoped. This will cost a fraction of the proce of a new rifle and quality scope.

The 6.5 X 55 is a great cartridge... better than the 7.62 X 39 IMO.

[ntsqd]

6.5 will have a better BC for same weight, not sure about muzzle energy/velocity comparisons.

7.62 x 39 in a .308 bore makes a great light short range rifle (think .30-30 with a better BC due to pointed bullets), but if not a perfect shot might be pushed pretty hard to make a clean kill at 500.

[762X39]

You say your eyesight is going, and now you want a 4X scope to use out to 500 meters?

Man, you must have had some eyesight to start with!

On the military range where I used to practice I could nail the #11 target at 500 metres with open sights and hit the moving targets at 400 metres.When I borrowed the 308 target rifles for the 800 metre range I would always dial down the scope to its minimum (usually about 6 power) and still be able to hit a ten inch circle which was good enough for me.I don't like the problems high magnification causes (small movements equal large,limited field of view and exaggerated heat mirage).
My typical range for a deer where I hunt is about 80 metres with the tree line varying between 156 metres to 203 metres and I have taken deer at both those ranges.So for me, 4 power is plenty.:coffee:

[gary in ohio]

Down our way in Ohio the rifle would not be legal for deer in addition to be underpowered for it.

[762X39]

Down our way in Ohio the rifle would not be legal for deer in addition to be underpowered for it.
Wow that is just weird, 6.5 is plenty for moose up here (and all Scandinavian countries as well.).:coffee:

[hillbillyjake]

Wow that is just weird, 6.5 is plenty for moose up here (and all Scandinavian countries as well.).:coffee:

+1. i know many guys who hunt with nothing but .222 and .223's for deer and are succuseful every year. shot placement, not caliber. 6.5x55 is more than enough for deer.

jake

[Colorado David]

. . . in addition to be underpowered for it.

I respectfully disagree. I think the Swede is fine for deer sized animals when the hunter does his part.

[ntsqd]

In Gary's part of the U.S I believe that anything other than a buckshot or slugs are illegal to use for fear of hitting something further down range. This is typical for a large portion of the highly populous Eastern U.S. In that circumstance it would be easy to come to think that anything less is not enough power since those are the minimum legal requirement.

[762X39]

In that circumstance it would be easy to come to think that anything less is not enough power since those are the minimum legal requirement.
Thanks for clearing that up.:coffee:

[Mercedesrover]

Tikka all the way. I have a T3 Hunter in .270 and it's the most accurate rifle I own. It wears a Nikon Monarch 3-12x42 BDC That I'm very happy with. I'm not a good shot and I can post 1" groups at 100 yards all day long with this gun. Something about it just makes me shoot it well.

My next long-range gun will be the same Tikka T3 Hunter but in .204 Ruger and will have another Nikon Monarch only this one will be 4-16x42.

I can't say enough good about these Tikkas.

[Mercedesrover]

In Gary's part of the U.S I believe that anything other than a buckshot or slugs are illegal to use for fear of hitting something further down range. This is typical for a large portion of the highly populous Eastern U.S. In that circumstance it would be easy to come to think that anything less is not enough power since those are the minimum legal requirement.

Here in CT it's shotgun and muzzle loader only on state land. On private land you can use a rifle. Must be 6mm/.243 or larger.

[Jonathan Hanson]

On private land you can use a rifle. Must be 6mm/.243 or larger.

That brings up the problem with one-size-fits-all caliber requirements - all loads within a specific caliber are not the same. A 6.5mm someone saddled with a lightweight, shoddily constructed bullet of poor sectional density to try to gain a flatter trajectory would be far less humane weapon than a 6.5 with the long, well-made bullets that commonly completely penetrate Scandinavian elk (moose) side to side. A whole bunch of African settlers used that cartridge on anything up to and including eland.

The poster boy for proper bullet construction is Roy Weatherby, whose early hyper-velocity loads earned his rifles scathing derision among African hunters.

[Mercedesrover]

I agree with you on that point, and the state tries to do what they feel is best when it comes to hunting laws, but they often fall short in their logic.

With modern "slug gun" shotguns, the rational of having a "shotgun only" season and no rifles on state land is hard to support. I don't really understand how a rifled-barrel shotgun is still a shotgun at all, but I don't make the rules.

Technology has propelled the muzzleloader light-years ahead of what legislators think they are as well. They're a far cry from grandpa's flintlock for sure.

Both modern slug guns as well as modern muzzleloaders are rivaling rifles in accuracy and I don't really see the point of excluding rifles in some areas or season dates, but that's another argument.

But getting back to your point about caliber being the rule instead of bullet weight. You're exactly right. I do hunt deer with a .243win (among other calibers) and I can buy ammunition from 55 grain to 105 grain in that caliber. I shoot 95 grain at deer and it works wonderfully. Making the rule read a minimum of say 80 grain would make more sense than a minimum caliber but would be difficult to enforce.

[Jonathan Hanson]

Yeah - I actually wasn't implying game departments could do anything differently; it's just a downside of cut-and-dried rules. Imagine trying to implement a minimum-sectional-density law . . .

The problem, as I see it, with archery and black powder seasons is that, originally, they were designed to offer some advantage to hunters who were using clearly "inferior" - weapons, i.e shorter range and requiring much more skill and practice to use. Modern, inline-ignition, scope-sighted muzzle-loaders, and compound bows with illuminated sights and God knows what else, have made a mockery of that concept. Most black-powder hunters these days have no connection with and no interest in the long hunters of colonial days; they just want an extra season. We need a flintlock-only rifle and no-training-wheels bow season!