clover

Thanks guys for giving me an easier ride over this than I've given myself. The barrel has been thoroughly cleaned and hopefully protected with an oiled patch. If anyone subsequently reading this is in any doubt about an appropriate bore cleaning regime; I've learnt the hard way that it should be cleaned until spotless after every use; which is certainly the route I'll be taking from now on.

Hi guys - it's been a while! Sadly yesterday's gloriously sunny Bisley trip was spoiled by the usual pre-shoot dry patch through the bore coming out brown. Long story short the gun still shoots well (actually potentially better than it has with 8 ex 10 shots into around half a minute at 300yd and plausible excuses for the other two) but the bore scope shows many fairly small, isolated areas of black corrosion inside. I'm still relatively new to CF cleaning and from memory the rifle had an oiled patch (then maybe a dry one..) put through it after the last time it was used in August last year. I take pride in looking after my gear so obviously I'm pretty ashamed that I've allowed this to happen. My inevitable questions are how can I best remove the existing corrosion, and how can I prevent this happening again in future? For now I think I'm do a good few passes with an oiled PB brush followed by some dry patches and finally a liberally oiled one while I decide how best to proceed. For what it's worth the rifle is a stainless Tikka T3x in .223, the internal bore finish is (otherwise) good and typically collects very little carbon or copper fouling. The humidty in the cabinet it's kept in ranges from maybe 45-65% and there is no other corrosion evident on the rest of the gun that I can see, nor on the other two blued firearms that share the cabinet. I'm thinking this might be a good excuse to lead-lap the barrel..

Thanks for the confirmation I could try GMK however after previous experiences with them I'd rather not if I can help it tbh. I'll certainly take a look on ebay (I'm a big fan of sourcing standard-spec components from third parties to avoid obscene wholesaler margins on "official" parts) however it seems that these screws are propitiatory to Sako/Tikka and as such I'm unlikely to find any off the shelf..

Sadly my old Finnfire pre-dates the period when I learnt about proper hollow-ground screwdrivers, so the slot-head stock bolts are a little worse for "wear" (stupidity).. As such I'd like to replace them; preferably with some socket-head alternatives to facilitate accurate stock bolt torque. I thought I'd struck gold when I stripped my Tikka T3x as the screws were very similar (same M6x1 thread, apparently same head profile, Torx fitting as opposed to slot) however the lengths are different. Even more irritating, the longest T3x item is around 2mm shorter than the longest Sako bolt so modifying the Tikka items would be out of the question too. A pic for reference - the Sako bolts (top) are a nominal 41 and 45mm long, while the Tikka equivalents are 32 and 43mm: I'd happily pay the $25 asking price for a set of J&P Custom socket bolts, however I'm much less enthused by the prospect of a further $38(!) on top for postage from the US.. I was wondering if there might be any socket cap screws from later Sako / Tikka models (that would have had socket cap or Torx bolt by default) that might fit; it appears that the Quad has / had slotted screws while the current Finnfire II may well have Torx fixings, but I don't know how long they are.. anyone with a Finnfire II want to get a quick measurement for me next time their rifle's out if it's stock, please? From the J&P site it appears that all the Sako 995/75/85 and Tikka 595/T3/T3x screws are all the same size, so no chance of sourcing anything from these guns. All that said new OEM might prove too expensive anyway; if the (admittedly extortionate) Brownell's price of £68 for a pair of Sako stock bolts is anything to go by (this being the only price I can find online). Failing all that is there anyone else interested in a group buy on these bolts (or anything else) from J&P to help make the postage more palatable? Ta!

I'd advise you stick with the heavier mod until you've tried it as it'll probably be massively arse-heavy so any additional mass at the front will most likely aid stability..

FWIW I get the impression that the hotter (centrefire) .17 calibre rounds aren't really well-suited to any UK species - overkill for bunnies and a bit short on projectile mass for fox. Conversely the yanks seem to have a lot more stuff (namely marmots) whose size is far better suited to the larger .17 cartridges. Personally I love the idea of the .17 Hornet, but would have absolutely no use for one..

Consider a used, higher-spec 10x42 (or thereabouts) such as an SWFA or Sightron? I have the Sightron SIII 10x42 on my .223 T3x and it's good to 600yd (and the rifle wouldn't stretch much further tbh). The SIIIs seem to come up used for £300-350 while the SWFAs seem to be in the £200 ballpark; although I was tempted by an (admittedly cosmetically worn) example recently for £120. I have no personal experience of the Optisan 10x44 but have used a fair few scopes in this sort of price range and usually find they're let down by the linearity / repeatability of their adjustments, which is obviously far from ideal if you wish to dial for elevation and/or windage. I had a look through a clubmate's S1 4-12 and wasn't blown away if I'm honest; (narrow FOV compared to the Hawke Panorama it was slated to replace and I didn't like the MOA-based ret) although I suspect it was probably built better than the Hawke so may have tracked better (something the Hawkes really aren't too hot at IME). Unfortunately at this price point I think accurate / repeatable tracking is the elephant in the room and rarely gets discussed or tested because it's often bloody awful. Coming from a background in airguns it's shocking how much sub-par crap is palmed off onto unsuspecting / duped punters in this market (which is where your two suggested scopes are firmly aimed). If you're happy with the compromises of a fixed mag you'll definitely get more for your money by forsaking the zoom models.

I found this too on my (so far) only stint in the butts on Century; was bloody knackered afterwards! By contrast I shot at Otmoor recently and the mechs were much easier to operate; perhaps unsurprisingly as each carried two frames (one up, one down on each actuation) and as such appeared a lot better balanced. My only experience of using a paid marker on Century (as booked by my club) was very favourable; however I can appreciate that the talent will vary and this was bourne out to some extent by the praise heaped on our marker by my more experienced club members. I guess the usual caveat applies regarding peanuts and monkies; although tbh I can think of worse ways to earn minimum wage if I was local to Bisley

Thanks - I appreciate my thoughts being validated by someone who probably has more experience in the field than I do

Thanks - wasn't aware of that! On the subject of the OP's needs, IMO this looks like a nice buy (note that it's the earlier T3 not the current T3x as implied, but the differences are fairly minimal).

A few thoughts you may or may not be aware of... If you want to shoot TR you'll be looking at a rifle in .308 only with aperture sights and a sling. If you want to shoot F-TR you'll want a scoped sporter / target rifle in .223 or .308 with a bipod. As others have said the smaller is realistically limited to 600yd and suffers far more wind drift than the .308 so won't be competitive; although you will get cheaper ammo and less recoil. If you want to shoot F-class with any calibre other than .223 or .308 you're into F-Open territory where it all gets very exotic and expensive. So, while the external ballistics of a 6.5CM will knock spots off a .308 in isolation; with a .308 you'll be competing on a reasonably level playing field against other guns of the same calibre in F-TR, while going 6.5CM will put you up against rifles chambered for hotter, more long-distance-capable cartridges in F-Open. Take this as coming from a self-confessed Tikka nut, but this seems like a strong case for a used T3 (or the later T3x if you can find one) Sporter in .308. This will give you excellent build and a nice trigger out of the box, plus a nice traditional-ish laminate stock with adjustable cheek piece and butt pad. The Finns apparently use these for target shooting with iron sights (as illustrated on this site) so it appears using these rifles with such sights is possible. Countryway in Kent apparently have a new one in at £1520 (image is of a LH one, although nowt in the text suggest it's LH), while I reckon you'd get a used one for ballpark a grand if you bide your time... Also, I believe the case head diameter of the .308 and 6.5CM are the same, so I think you could conceivably re-barrel the rifle from .308 to 6.5CM (or vice-versa) in the future if desired.

I always fancied the look of the target model with the heavy barrel and laminated stock, although as others have said it's worth considering the liklihood of replacing most of the gun with go-faster bits since most of the original parts seem to be "acceptable" at best.. I guess it depends on what you expect from the rifle and your chosen application, however after a bit of a look for potential mini-rifle candidates the thought left in my mind was to look out for a used rimfire magic rifle and swap anything I didn't like rather than slowly replacing the whole gun peace-meal.

Thanks - so we currently have one for cleaning after every use and one for not 😛 How often are you "deep cleaning" the barrel? How many rounds are you getting out of it before accuracy falls off? I'm currently not doing much to the rest of the gun barring brushing off any contamination and a light oiling of the metalwork, but then so far it's only seen the range in good weather so thankfully hasn't (IMO) needed any attention beyond what it's had.

Love that - looks grand. Nice work

Nice work - nice to see a custom build on a Tikka action and that looks immensely capable! From my limited experience with CF rifles I tend to agree - the Tikka seems to tick a lot of boxes from the off; enclosed / stiff-looking action, long barrel tenon, continuous integral scope rails, nice recoil lug setup, competent trigger / safety and everything works very well out of the box. I was reading this Chuck Hawks piece which bemoans the cheapening of modern firearms and the manufacturers' audacity in attempting to spin many of these cut-corners as positives; using the Tikka range as an example. While I totally agree with the general sentiment I think singling out Tikka is unfair and somewhat misses the point; IMO they've done an excellent job of creating a "poor man's Sako" without sacrificing anything that really matters. All the frilly bits have been binned but the guns remain solid, accurate, reliable... none of the functionality or ability of the important components have been compromised in the name of cost cutting. I'm a very picky sod and I couldn't be happier with mine. I totally agree about the Remington 700; which seems inferior to the Tikka in pretty much every technical aspect. I think the only reason they continue to sell so many in the US is due to range of models available, price, buyer patriotism, nostalgia and range of aftermarket bits available; although the amount of T3-compatable gear seems to grow by the day..