Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Tikka T3 Ultra light scope and mounting ?????

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    433

    Default Tikka T3 Ultra light scope and mounting ?????

    So I went to sportsmans yesterday to buy some fuel for my jetboil..... Well by the time I left I bought a Tikka T3 ultra light in .270. Cant find much info on this rifle as it says it is exclusive to Sportsmans Warehouse.
    I have read a ton on the tikka t3 though.

    Am looking for suggestions on rings, mounts and a scope.

    It does come with rings on it but I want to use a detachable system. Recommendations?

    As for the scope, I am not sure if I want to go with a vari x3 2.5-8x36 or wait and look for a good ballistic compensating setup. Recommendations??

    thanks up front

  2. #2
    Moderator stid2677's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks Area
    Posts
    7,274

    Default

    I'm a Ziess guy myself, with that said I do own and like Leupold. You could contact Leupold at their custom shop and get an ultralight with a custom reticle. They also give military discounts. QD rings are much heavier than standard, I like Talley lightweights. The 2x7x28mm with range finding reticle mounted on some Talley lightweights would make a fine combo IMHO.

    Good Luck J

    Steve

  3. #3
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    you can pick up the leupy 2.5-8x36 with their B&C reticle if you want a range compensating scope. I am also a Zeiss guy and after a bunch of looking and considerable patience I picked up one of the discontinued zeiss 2.5-8x32 scopes. It weighs a couple more ounces than the leupy but I prefer them. I have one of each currently and one will wind up on top of a T3 in 270 win. The other will likely find itself on top of a Kimber 308 or maybe an AR project depending on what I strikes my fancy in the next several months.

    I also agree with the Talley rings. Does your rifle have Iron sights? if not I just can't see the benefit of QD rings. Just more weight and more stuff to go wrong.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks Alaska
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Get rid of the rings Tika supplies with the gun. They will not hold the scope securely enough to prevent the scope slipping in the rings under recoil. I didn't listen to this advise and had to prove it to myself! Cost me a bunch of ammo sighting in with the Tikka rings and then quality rings I purchased.

  5. #5

    Default

    gotta give another vote for getting rid of the Tikka rings. I'm a big fan of Leupold for rings and am pretty sure they have the "snap on/off" rings if you're willing to pay the right price. Suprise suprise I'm also a Leupold fan when it comes to scopes primarily for the quality of even the low end models and the lifetime warranty (get mad at a bad shot, beat the scope against a tree and they'll replace it kind of warranty)... that said I have to admit to complete ignorance when it comes to the Zeis (sp?) name.

    Hope some of this helps!
    -Justin
    Do something brave today... then run like hell
    ~~~~~~~
    The ideas of tomorrow are fashioned by those who challenge the ideas of today.

  6. #6
    Member Akgramps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last civilized place on the planet
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    I also recently purchased a Tikka T-3 in a 270, used it to harvest a Caribou 3 weeks ago.
    I have had no isuues with stock rings other than they are rather bulky, but do seem plenty secure, however the rings that came with my rifle do appear diffrent than the ones shown on Tikkas web site (Optilock).
    Why detachable? did your rifle come with iron sights?

    I put on a Pride Fowler 3 X 9 X 42 with their rapidreticle, graduated to 600 yards. P-F makes reticles for Zeiss, maybe not all but their rapid Z model anyway.
    P-F is the only scope maker that puts the reticle in the first focal plane, all others in the second, if interested you should do your own research as there is a lot more concise info out there, beyond what I can explain here.

    Short version is: with the reticle in the second focal plane there is typically a sweet spot (magnification) where the rifle is on. With the reticle in the first focal plane the rifle is "on" at all magnifications.

    The one minor drawback, and as far as I am concerned a non-issue, is the fact with the reticle in the first focal plane and when the scope is on a low magnification setting the reticle is small. Once you add magnification the reticle size increases to a sufficently. I suspect most scope manufactures choose the second focal plane because when the uninitiated look through a scope at low power and see the small print they could be deterred from purchasing.
    Anyway the P-F has been good for me so far, and others are happy with the Leupolds and Zeiss, both quality products as well.............
    http://www.rapidreticle.com/600lr.htm
    “Nothing worth doing is easy”
    TR

  7. #7

    Default

    Talley and a Zeiss 3X9 Conquest for $400. That Zeiss is very clear compared to an older Leupold VX III and also holds its zero after many sheep and goat hunts.

  8. #8
    Member 1Cor15:19's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dillingham, AK
    Posts
    2,482

    Default

    2.5x8 is a fine scope for a lightweight 270. As for a compensating reticle, less is more in my opinion. That is to say that the more lines, marks or circles you place upon the reticle the more confusing and less friendly it is IMO. Trying to use hash marks for shading targets in the wind is less than helpful in most circumstances and a properly loaded 270 allows zeroing for shots up to 350 yards w/o adjusting for elevation on deer sized game.

    Detachable rings serve some great functions, but unless you intended to swap scopes on the rifle frequently, or intend to install some type of iron sight on your rifle I would select a base/ring combo that is as permanent as possible. Permanent rings/bases are more dependable and should prove more durable IMO.
    Foolishness is a moral category, not an intellectual one.

  9. #9
    Member Akgramps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last civilized place on the planet
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Cor15:19 View Post
    2.5x8 is a fine scope for a lightweight 270. As for a compensating reticle, less is more in my opinion. That is to say that the more lines, marks or circles you place upon the reticle the more confusing and less friendly it is IMO. Trying to use hash marks for shading targets in the wind is less than helpful in most circumstances and a properly loaded 270 allows zeroing for shots up to 350 yards w/o adjusting for elevation on deer sized game.

    Detachable rings serve some great functions, but unless you intended to swap scopes on the rifle frequently, or intend to install some type of iron sight on your rifle I would select a base/ring combo that is as permanent as possible. Permanent rings/bases are more dependable and should prove more durable IMO.
    Right on about detachable bases, however I would disagree about graduated reticles, a 270 zeroed in a t 200 yards will drop 10"-18" in 350 yards. Depending what bullet you are shooting. Thats a lot to guess the holdover...........IMO. The PF Rapid reticle is very simple and is not "busy" especially so at the lower power settings. I took a grizz a couple weeks ago with a one shot kill thru the heart at 318 yards, took seconds to make it happen. My partner ranged the bear, and I put the 300 yard crosshair on his chest, just slightly to the right. shot the rifle (not even mine!) The bear ran 30 yards and was done! When i checked the shot I hit the top of the heart, small hole in, small home out and one shot kill.

    As always with longer shots there is a certain amount of "luck", but being able to know the distance and place the cross hairs where I wanted them quickly, thats worth a lot.....................
    “Nothing worth doing is easy”
    TR

  10. #10
    Member 1Cor15:19's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dillingham, AK
    Posts
    2,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akgramps View Post
    Right on about detachable bases, however I would disagree about graduated reticles, a 270 zeroed in a t 200 yards will drop 10"-18" in 350 yards. Depending what bullet you are shooting. Thats a lot to guess the holdover...........IMO. The PF Rapid reticle is very simple and is not "busy" especially so at the lower power settings. I took a grizz a couple weeks ago with a one shot kill thru the heart at 318 yards, took seconds to make it happen.
    No need to zero at 200. Move your zero to 250-275 yards and you'll be down some 4-6 inches at 350 with less than 4 inches of bullet rise before the zero range. For game under 350 you simply aim and fire. You can fire upon determining the target is within range and land within 1 MOA out to 350 yards which is faster and just as accurate as any reticle system. IME there are better options for firing beyond 350 yards that allow significantly more precision with nearly the same speed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akgramps View Post
    As always with longer shots there is a certain amount of "luck", but being able to know the distance and place the cross hairs where I wanted them quickly, thats worth a lot.....................
    Not to argue with you, but longer shots can be made with precision and consistency without any "luck" at all. LR means different things to different shooters, but it's too far when you are less than 100% confident you can make the shot. Even at 100% confidence there are some misses, but with less than 100% there is a ready made excuse and often poor results. YMMV
    Foolishness is a moral category, not an intellectual one.

  11. #11
    Member Akgramps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last civilized place on the planet
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Cor15:19 View Post
    No need to zero at 200. Move your zero to 250-275 yards and you'll be down some 4-6 inches at 350 with less than 4 inches of bullet rise before the zero range. For game under 350 you simply aim and fire. You can fire upon determining the target is within range and land within 1 MOA out to 350 yards which is faster and just as accurate as any reticle system. IME there are better options for firing beyond 350 yards that allow significantly more precision with nearly the same speed.

    Not to argue with you, but longer shots can be made with precision and consistency without any "luck" at all. LR means different things to different shooters, but it's too far when you are less than 100% confident you can make the shot. Even at 100% confidence there are some misses, but with less than 100% there is a ready made excuse and often poor results. YMMV
    I call it luck becuase I dont consider myself a "expert" marksman, but do attempt to be proficent as possible at the occasional long shot.........

    250-275 yard zero........Hmmmm...not a bad way to go, still at 350 yds its almost 10 inches low and 17 inches at 400 if shooting a 150 grain bullet. And once again there is no delay using the rapid reticle for quick acquistion..........

    I presume your other options for over 350 yards, would be to close the gap on the distance by getting closer to the game?...please clarify

    And if so I would generally agree. However there are situations where it is not possible to do so, particuarily when sheep hunting. Which the 270 is nearly a ideal rifle for.

    So now what happens? you see Big Otis at 450 yards, your sighted for 250 and your drop is over 25 inches? Do you take the shot? or do you pass?
    If not confident you pass.....IMO........however with the rapid reticle I would take the shot...........have done it before, will do it again.

    Everyone has to make that decision when faced with the choice. Or (ethically speaking) should at least be practiced enough to not be sending hail marys at the animal.............IMO
    “Nothing worth doing is easy”
    TR

  12. #12
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Why 150's? According to the winchester ballistics calculator you would be looking at +4 to -6.4 all the way out to 350yds launching 140grn accubonds at 2950fps w/ a 275yd zero.

  13. #13
    Member 1Cor15:19's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dillingham, AK
    Posts
    2,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akgramps View Post
    250-275 yard zero........Hmmmm...not a bad way to go, still at 350 yds its almost 10 inches low and 17 inches at 400 if shooting a 150 grain bullet. And once again there is no delay using the rapid reticle for quick acquistion..........

    I presume your other options for over 350 yards, would be to close the gap on the distance by getting closer to the game?...please clarify

    And if so I would generally agree. However there are situations where it is not possible to do so, particuarily when sheep hunting. Which the 270 is nearly a ideal rifle for.
    A mundane B.C. of .450 (@ 3100 fps) gives you only 6 inches of drop at 350 with a 275 zero and and a maximum zenith of 3.5 inches (very reasonable IMO) at around 150 yards. Just for argument sake the same bullet has nearly 9 inches of drift (@ 350 yds) in only a 10 mph breeze, so elevation is hardly the trick in LR shooting. Using a reticle can work, no doubt, but gauging 3-4 MOA of wind with a reticle can present significant difficulty for even a seasoned shooter. If shooting past 350 yards is desirable then turrets are simply the way to go. Know the distance & wind, spin appropriately, hold on the mark and take the shot. While it's not quite as easy as it sounds it's exactly that simple. Having a group of hash marks that tend to obscure the target and trying to determine how much reticle incorporates 1/3 wind value gets complicated, at least more complicated than it needs to be. IMO it's much simpler to spin and fly.

    So now what happens? you see Big Otis at 450 yards, your sighted for 250 and your drop is over 25 inches? Do you take the shot? or do you pass?
    If not confident you pass.....IMO........however with the rapid reticle I would take the shot...........have done it before, will do it again.
    Laser the range, determine the wind (realizing that a 10-15 mph wind will cause roughly 4 minutes of wind, say 20+ inches of drift) spin the dials, place crosshairs on the mark and make the shot with precision.

    Everyone has to make that decision when faced with the choice. Or (ethically speaking) should at least be practiced enough to not be sending hail marys at the animal.............IMO
    I try to make those decisions before I leave for the hunt. I know what my limitations are, at least I try to know, and as shots present themselves I hope to recognize that I either can or cannot hit the mark.
    Foolishness is a moral category, not an intellectual one.

  14. #14
    Member Akgramps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last civilized place on the planet
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    Why 150's? According to the winchester ballistics calculator you would be looking at +4 to -6.4 all the way out to 350yds launching 140grn accubonds at 2950fps w/ a 275yd zero.
    Why 150's? no good reason.......I was looking at Federals interactive ballistic chart (a very cool chart if you get a chance to download it sometime).
    I thought we were discussing standard 270, not Short mag or Weatherby?

    On the Fed chart I punched 150 grain accubonds with 300 yd zero and at 350-400-450 its: 4", 10" & 18" drop, at 250 zero 9", 16" & 24" (Feds chart wont let me do 275...? and here I thought it was so great a minute ago)

    And I agree at 350 its in the kill zone, but what about a chance at a 40 plus ram at 450? Are you saying to never take a shot past 350 yards?

    Point is why not use the tools available to make your shot count? And have the best advanatage possible. Wounded game sucks...... Graduated reticles do work but it is up to the man behind the gun to learn the rifle and the scope..................
    “Nothing worth doing is easy”
    TR

  15. #15
    Member Akgramps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last civilized place on the planet
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Cor15:19 View Post
    A mundane B.C. of .450 (@ 3100 fps) gives you only 6 inches of drop at 350 with a 275 zero and and a maximum zenith of 3.5 inches (very reasonable IMO) at around 150 yards. Just for argument sake the same bullet has nearly 9 inches of drift (@ 350 yds) in only a 10 mph breeze, so elevation is hardly the trick in LR shooting. Using a reticle can work, no doubt, but gauging 3-4 MOA of wind with a reticle can present significant difficulty for even a seasoned shooter. If shooting past 350 yards is desirable then turrets are simply the way to go. Know the distance & wind, spin appropriately, hold on the mark and take the shot. While it's not quite as easy as it sounds it's exactly that simple. Having a group of hash marks that tend to obscure the target and trying to determine how much reticle incorporates 1/3 wind value gets complicated, at least more complicated than it needs to be. IMO it's much simpler to spin and fly.

    Laser the range, determine the wind (realizing that a 10-15 mph wind will cause roughly 4 minutes of wind, say 20+ inches of drift) spin the dials, place crosshairs on the mark and make the shot with precision.

    I try to make those decisions before I leave for the hunt. I know what my limitations are, at least I try to know, and as shots present themselves I hope to recognize that I either can or cannot hit the mark.
    Turrets..............geez....of course they work, I for one dont want that type of scope when I am climbing around in the mountains after sheep........
    You didnt like a graduated reticle becasue of complexity and now you are suggesting adjusting turrets while you hope the animal holds posistion?
    I dont want to be messing around with my scope while on the side of a mountain with the chance of a lifetime shot in front of me.. Trying to tune for yardage and wind.......makes no sense to me...............
    I thought part of this discussion was about quick target acquisition?

    I dont mean to be abrubt or offend, but have you ever looked through a P-F scope (other than the picture on therir website?)

    I have never looked through my scope and wondered..........geez I cant see the target? or what does that line mean?
    “Nothing worth doing is easy”
    TR

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    931

    Thumbs up

    Going back to original posting....
    Tikka T3 Ultra light scope and mounting ?????

    The Tikka T3 Synthetic/Light/Stainless w/ Fluted barrel shares same receiver and barrel contour as any T3 model... it will come with lightweight Aluminum rings - specifiably/fittingly Tikka.

    The rings are what they are (light). However, contrary to some other posters (rather a preference)... they work just fine (plenty reliable enough) particularly on lighter to standard calibers while not running too much glass. In a .270WIN --- should not be an issue.

    Hard to go wrong with Leupold as a scope brand and customer service!!!

    By the way... food for thought PF is not the "only scope maker that puts the reticle in the first focal plane, all others in the second". NOT not an accurate posting --- fact is try this:
    http://www.leupold.com/tactical/prod...1-front-focal/

    I'd say running lightweight Talley w/ 2-7 idea and a BC reticle or similar might be the ticket.

    As to all the neat stuff jibber of bullet BC, ranging reticles, or doping drop and drift.......... bottom line --- focus on dependability, clarity, and suitability. I'd also give in-the-field merits to simplicity on all things rifle, mounts, and scope.


  17. #17
    Member Akgramps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last civilized place on the planet
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Richardson View Post
    Going back to original posting....
    Tikka T3 Ultra light scope and mounting ?????

    The Tikka T3 Synthetic/Light/Stainless w/ Fluted barrel shares same receiver and barrel contour as any T3 model... it will come with lightweight Aluminum rings - specifiably/fittingly Tikka.

    The rings are what they are (light). However, contrary to some other posters (rather a preference)... they work just fine (plenty reliable enough) particularly on lighter to standard calibers while not running too much glass. In a .270WIN --- should not be an issue.

    Hard to go wrong with Leupold as a scope brand and customer service!!!

    By the way... food for thought PF is not the "only scope maker that puts the reticle in the first focal plane, all others in the second". NOT not an accurate posting --- fact is try this:
    http://www.leupold.com/tactical/prod...1-front-focal/

    I'd say running lightweight Talley w/ 2-7 idea and a BC reticle or similar might be the ticket.

    As to all the neat stuff jibber of bullet BC, ranging reticles, or doping drop and drift.......... bottom line --- focus on dependability, clarity, and suitability. I'd also give in-the-field merits to simplicity on all things rifle, mounts, and scope.
    Brian, I stand corrected, I should have said "most" are in the second focal plane, and I dont know how big of deal that really is? I was just trying to point out there are some choices and diffrences. Things got a little carried away after that.............
    “Nothing worth doing is easy”
    TR

  18. #18

    Default

    Talley LW's and either a 3.5-10 or 2.5-8 and your done. Game, set, match.... go kill some critters.....

  19. #19
    Member 1Cor15:19's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dillingham, AK
    Posts
    2,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akgramps View Post
    You didnt like a graduated reticle becasue of complexity and now you are suggesting adjusting turrets while you hope the animal holds posistion? I dont want to be messing around with my scope while on the side of a mountain with the chance of a lifetime shot in front of me.. Trying to tune for yardage and wind.......makes no sense to me...............
    I thought part of this discussion was about quick target acquisition?
    If I don't have a significant amount of time to take a shot when the range exceeds 350 yards then I do not have a shot. Ample time is a necessary component to LR shooting. I must have a proper rest and an opportunity to read conditions as the range stretches. Hurrying a shot at 450 yards seems to invite failure, but to each his own. I also do not recall spooking game that far away so a few seconds here or there has not been an issue, but my memory is often fairly selective.
    Foolishness is a moral category, not an intellectual one.

  20. #20
    Member 1Cor15:19's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dillingham, AK
    Posts
    2,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finley View Post
    Talley LW's and either a 3.5-10 or 2.5-8 and your done. Game, set, match.... go kill some critters.....
    Sounds like a good plan to me...using the KISS method.
    Foolishness is a moral category, not an intellectual one.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •