Baretta Tikka 3 Lite in 30.06 vs. CZ-550 American in 30.06

[stinger 427]

Which one is the better rifle with more accuracy?
Between the two they both have different loading systems one the CZ has the floorplate type weighs 8 lbs. and Tikka 3 Stainless Lite has a detachable clip which I'm more used to and weighs 6.6 lbs. Considerable lighter than CZ-550 and easier to handle and hold. The Tikka 3 is probably better suited to the elements since it has a composite black stock with stainless steel barrel. CZ is traditional wood stock and blue finish barrel and CZ comes with very high recommendations and it is a Mauser design vs. the pusher design on Tikka but I don't think these differences affects accuracy. I do know that the Tikka 3 has the most smoothest bolt action for easy follow up shots.
Which one would you get and why?
Really not much of a price difference I found at this shop maybe $50 + and that's total price.

 

[.300 Weatherby Mag]

CZ by a mile.... Controlled round feeding, single set trigger, well crafted firearms... Whats not to love??

 

[stubbicatt]

Isn't the Tikka the rifle that had the issue with the barrels splitting? I seem to remember that... from one of these forums somewhere.

I have been very happy with my CZ's. I would not hesitate to buy another. If I were to get a dedicated hunting rifle, probably I would instead choose the CZ550 FS in 6.5 Swede, light, short easy handling and a real beauty.

Good luck in your choice here.

 

[Waterengineer]

Isn't Tikka the one with the plastic parts?

 

[Horseman]

Isn't Tikka the one with the plastic parts?

YEPP!

Isn't the Tikka the rifle that had the issue with the barrels splitting?

YEPP! A few years ago on this forum you couldn't get a post in without hearing how superior Tikka's are. Glad to see we're starting to get our feet on the ground again.

Tikka's shoot very well. There are other guns that shoot well too and may have other features that are preferred over the Tikka. CZ's are excellent rifles.

 

[kenjs1]

Stinger - go buy one already. No matter which one you buy you will automatically itch for the other. Just the way it is. We have been over all this before and you have my list of reasonings for one over the other but since you need more try this. I love shooting and the CZ will be a LOT more comfortable for extended range times. I like the CZ's set trigger for testing loads and for the pure fun of it -think of it as an enjoyment factor. It does help with your accuracy and very few rifles give you this. CZ's are a bit easier to load single rounds from the top, as I like to do at the range. Now I do have a lightweight rifle I love. It is a Browning but it is in 260 Rem not 30-06. By all reports a soft kicking round yet I found it still can get your notice in that factory stock. Enough so that I replaced it with a Bell and Carlson that improved it. Perhaps the Tikka stock dampens recoil better than the factory Browning, I don't know, but it can not be capable of matching the CZ in this regard. If weight is THE issue, and long hours of hiking up and down hills are in the forecast- then Tikka is the obvious answer. A better comparison might be made by asking about the Tikka Hunter and the CZ. Only one reason to get the Tikka Lite - is weight.

 

[FishEngineer]

If you do actually buy a Beretta you will need to learn how to spell it.

Either are a good choice - I would go with the CZ for the aforementioned reasons and those found on your other threads.

 

[sholling]

Isn't the Tikka the rifle that had the issue with the barrels splitting? I seem to remember that... from one of these forums somewhere.

CZ folk desperate to bash Tikka? Almost 10 years - yes almost 10 years ago - Tikka had one - count them one bad batch of stainless barrels from a vendor. Just about 10 years ago.

Let's put down the kool-aid (and other stuff) and come back to reality. Both CZ and Tikka make fine rifles. Both are some of the most accurate hunting rifles on the market. The Tikka has a smoother action and an outstanding user adjustable trigger that can be adjusted between 2-4lbs. The CZ has a SS trigger although I have no clue how often it get's used.

The CZ is beautiful depending on the luck of the lumber draw. On the down side is the the long bolt throw and heavy weight. I had one of their CZ453 22s and the bolt throw was so extreme that the scope had to be mounted rather high for the bolt to clear the scope.

Service is a wash. Tikka is supported by Beretta and parts availability can be spotty so don't lose the magazine. My experience with CZ is no better. My 453 didn't group - it patterned. It took them about 6 weeks from the time CZ got it back to replace it. I sold the replacement unfired.

Bottom line both companies make good rifles. Both are accurate rifles as long as you get a good one. Both are imports. The CZ is prettier, the Tikka is much lighter - my 30-06 is a hair over 7lbs with a 13oz scope and aftermarket rings installed. Pick the one that fits your needs.

 

[Horseman]

Let's put down the kool-aid (and other stuff) and come back to reality.

I couldn't agree more. Tikkas have been bathing in kool-aid on this forum for years. I own a T3 but have no delusions about it's superiority.

 

[kenjs1]

Kool-aid? Desperate Tikka bashing? Other than Horseman's obvious preference I think all responses to this poster's numerous threads on this subject have been answered pretty squarely to my knowledge. Recall no one calling Tikka junk and most given in the spirit of your accurate final summary statement.

 

[kenjs1]

......then again, a good "my rifle is better than your rifle" argument is always good for entertainment value.

 

[csmsss]

Hahaha. Funny thread. Kind of a Euro-take on Winchester 70 vs. Remington 700, ain't it?

I'm very partial to CZ rifles, but then again I'm partial to Mauser actions. The strength of this action is legendary. As far as the Tikka is concerned, I've only played with them at gun shops and they seem to be very well made too. The dreaded "plastic parts" thing doesn't worry me too much, and I don't think the T3 will be any more prone to failure because of them than any other rifle.

Go with the rifle that feels better to you. Shoulder each one and see which one holds and points more naturally. Compare the action and safety smoothness between the two and see which you feel more confident operating. Both should have excellent accuracy out of the box, so I'd say that should be of little consequence in making your decision.

In short, forget this whole brand identity thing and choose the rifle that makes the most sense to you - once you've had the chance to play with it and see how they compare to each other. In an objective sense, neither has a clear-cut advantage over the other, so it's going to be a question of your personal preference.

 

[Waterengineer]

Tikka would be a nice, a really nice rifle, in fact, if some aftermarket manufacturer would make steel parts to replace the plastic stuff coming from the factory.

 

[wyobohunter]

In short, forget this whole brand identity thing and choose the rifle that makes the most sense to you

Exactly! And, as somebody else said... Just buy one of the dang things man. Then you can post a range report instead of a what should I do?

If you plan to hike far and hunt hard, go with the Tikka T3 Lite.

If you plan to do long range sessions, go with the CZ.

If you plan to do both you'll have to make a compromise. Either you get worn out by a heavy packing gun or worn out by a hard kicking one. I do both and chose the lighter - hard kicking gun. Limbsavers makes a nice recoil pad for the Tikka, maybe I should get one. One more thing, if you get the Tikka make sure your scope has plenty of eye relief.

 

[sholling]

Kool-aid? Desperate Tikka bashing? Other than Horseman's obvious preference I think all responses to this poster's numerous threads on this subject have been answered pretty squarely to my knowledge.

When two people feel the need to go back that far to complain about one bad batch of barrels years ago to color every rifle built since that's getting desperate to share koolaid.

 

[Horseman]

When two people feel the need to go back that far to complain about one bad batch of barrels years ago to color every rifle built since that's getting desperate to share koolaid.

Since my posts seem to be the topic of discussion I will elaborate. I actually think Tikka's are pretty good guns. Lightweight, good triggers, and they usually shoot about as good as any factory rifle(even better than my Sakos). That said, they are not perfect and there are a few things I'd change about a T3 if I had the chance.

I found it refreshing to see some reality enter the thread after reading miles of threads over the years written by Tikka sunshine pumpers. Nuttin's perfect.....even a Tikka.

Now if I could just take a Tikka, replace the plastic parts and give it a classic stock like the new Ruger Hawkeye....we would be getting a lot closer to perfect for me.

 

[sholling]

I think we can agree that if there is something that you or anybody doesn't like about current production then that is fair game. My point is that going back almost a decade to one bad batch of barrels to paint a brand with a broad brush isn't.

This is the 21st century and high quality polymers don't bother me. If they bother you then I can respect that. That's absolutely legitimate. Polymers are getting popular for rifle magazines for both cost and durability - for example Magpul's PMAG for the AR15. Traditionalists don't necessarily like a synthetic stock or magazine and again I can respect that. I'm also 100% brand agnostic - function or history are what floats my boat. If a product is good I'll say so and if it sucks I say that to. You may of noticed that I gave neither brands high marks for customer service.

 

[Horseman]

I made no mention of barrel blow ups other than saying "yepp". The true problem there IMO was as you mentioned "poor customer service". Beretta knew what guns were affected and chose NOT to contact registered owners. They waited for consumers to call them IF they heard there was a risk.

My T3 is stainless and I have no fear it will kaboom. It's a non-issue to me other than the terrible way Beretta/Tikka/Sako handled it.

We can agree on the use of polymers being perfectly serviceable, but if I were to build the perfect rifle for me it would not have any plastic. I have seen 2 T3's with broken bolt shrouds and they both functioned fine without it.

For the record I don't think CZ's are perfect either. No kool aid here.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

Question about cz magazine

While we are on the topic how do those cz magazines work? I want a 550fs real bad in 30.06 but i have only ever used detachable mags before. Are these things a pain to load?

 

[Horseman]

My only experience with CZ is with the detach magazines. I actually prefer the latched magazine. I assume CZ's version will work as well as anyone elses.