# Rifles



## codfish (Mar 22, 2006)

What are the following rifles like for hunting:

Ruger 77LR Mark II Standard Rifle 30-06
Tikka T3 Lite DM 30-06


----------



## RiveRat (Sep 19, 2004)

I cannot speak for the Ruger 77, but I do have a T-3 lite stainless and it is great to hunt with, that is it is great for me. We seldom speak of rifle fit as much as we do about shotgun fit, but I feel that it is pretty important. You should shoulder both and see which one fits you best, which one gives you the fastest target acquisition, has the most convienient safety for you to operate and the weight and balance that you like. They are both great rifles.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

If your criteria is out of the box accuracy, the Ruger M77 can't carry the Tikka's jockstrap. Tikkas are arguably the best production rifles out there. They have a great trigger that comes out of the box at about 3 lbs, with instruction on how to *ADJUST IT *if you so desire! They are one of if not the most accurate and consistent production rifles, as well. I've never seen or shot one that wouldn't produce MOA or better out of the box...


----------



## Dave_w (May 25, 2005)

I'll agree, the Tikka's trigger is superior to the Ruger's, but I'd make it a smidge heavier if I were to take it in the field.

My only objection to Tikka is the fact that they're so damned hard to find. And around here, dealers actually mark up from the MSRP because we're loaded with target shooters.

Do you really need to be sub-MOA accurate? Honestly, can you place you shots within a 1-inch square at 100 yards in the field, under stress, and after hiking around all day? If not, buy a slightly cheaper rifle and spend the rest of the money on ammo to practice with. I hear the same stuff over and over again...guys go out and buy or build rifles ridiculously better than they are, and then complain that they STILL can't drill decent groups.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Do you really need to be sub-MOA accurate? Honestly, can you place you shots within a 1-inch square at 100 yards in the field, under stress, and after hiking around all day? If not, buy a slightly cheaper rifle and spend the rest of the money on ammo to practice with. I hear the same stuff over and over again...guys go out and buy or build rifles ridiculously better than they are, and then complain that they STILL can't drill decent groups.[/quote]

With all due respect this is some flawed logic. Now matter how you cut it this doesn't make a lot of sense. If you go cheap, you get cheap, and no amount of practice will make an inherently less accurate rifle shoot better...


----------



## tgoldade (Jul 28, 2004)

It also depends on what kind of hunting we are talking about, stand hunting or walking and flushing, and at what ranges your going to take a shot. If you stand hunting and wont take a shot over 200 yards, sub moa accuracy isnt that big of a deal. However, if you going to shoot beyond 300 yards then it become a huge deal.


----------



## natemil373 (Dec 3, 2005)

T-3 all the way baby!!! I have one in .308, and it is one of my favorite guns. With the right load it will group under 1/2in all day long. I personally have had zero luck with Ruger's accuracy wise. I don't generally sell rifles, I look at them as a long term investment. I have owned a 77 and a No1, and sold both of them. I literally could not hit a barn with them. Granted, I bought both of them used and you always take some sort of risk when you do that, but I can't have a rifle that is hard pressed to group inside a foot. Bad luck? Maybe, but they were literally the two worst shooting guns that I have ever owned. My cheap $150.00 Hi-Point carbines will shoot inside 3 or 4 inches at 100 yards. I consider this the minumum in accetable accuracy.


----------

