Tikka T3x Super Varmint

[4g64loser]

Thank you so much that again, I am always a high shoulder shot, but typically am pushing a 30 cal or larger through the animal. I wouldn’t be above a SC sized deer with it at all. Good to know to treat it like a bow so to say. Avoid the breaking of bones and destroy tissue. Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doing high shoulder for a mobility kill on smaller deer would be valid. I don't know if I still have the x rays of a human torso that took one. Similar in size to a mature deer. Pretty messy but at very close range.

Your preferred shot would favor the 60 partition, the 64bsb or the 70accubond. Guaranteed exits.

 

[Doco Overboard]

I know a guy who does deer culling on his farms with a Tikka.
Loves it. 22/250
Has it with him all the time.

 

[trickg]

I'm jumping into this thread, mostly to follow it.

I think it's kind of neat where we are with rifles these days. Back in days of yore, Townsend Whelen made the statement that "only accurate rifles are interesting." These days there are a lot of options for shooters with rifles and factory ammo that give you solid performance out of the box.

I also wanted to comment on the scope. I have an Arken EP5 too, and it has been pretty solid, but I don't know much about true high quality glass, and my rifle hasn't been used at distances much more than 200 yards, but overall I haven't been displeased with it. All the same, I'd really like to maybe get my hands on something else - Vortex Razor, Nightforce NX8, Kahles K525i - something like that.

 

[Brent]

Doing high shoulder for a mobility kill on smaller deer would be valid. I don't know if I still have the x rays of a human torso that took one. Similar in size to a mature deer. Pretty messy but at very close range.

Your preferred shot would favor the 60 partition, the 64bsb or the 70accubond. Guaranteed exits.

Neck shots waste less meat
Tell ya, cast bullets waste the least! You can basically eat right up to the hole.

Good to know the 70 accubonds do their job well in that arena. Terminal shock is a greater asset than penetration for the white tails around me. They’re quite small compared to the MD deer I used to chase. Excited to get to the point of tailoring hunting loads. Specially with easy access to testing mediums these days!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brent]

I'm jumping into this thread, mostly to follow it.

I think it's kind of neat where we are with rifles these days. Back in days of yore, Townsend Whelen made the statement that "only accurate rifles are interesting." These days there are a lot of options for shooters with rifles and factory ammo that give you solid performance out of the box.

I also wanted to comment on the scope. I have an Arken EP5 too, and it has been pretty solid, but I don't know much about true high quality glass, and my rifle hasn't been used at distances much more than 200 yards, but overall I haven't been displeased with it. All the same, I'd really like to maybe get my hands on something else - Vortex Razor, Nightforce NX8, Kahles K525i - something like that.

I gotta admit. I’m pleasantly surprised with the Arken! My eyes, with correction, don’t notice too much chromatic bleed at 25x, and shooting on 20x seems ideal for “max zoom” so to say. The construction is sturdy, and what little box tracking tests I’ve done have proven close to me. Excited to stretch the distance a smidge. There’s a 500y range about two and half hours north of me that I have future plans with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[4g64loser]

Neck shots waste less meat
Tell ya, cast bullets waste the least! You can basically eat right up to the hole.

Good to know the 70 accubonds do their job well in that arena. Terminal shock is a greater asset than penetration for the white tails around me. They’re quite small compared to the MD deer I used to chase. Excited to get to the point of tailoring hunting loads. Specially with easy access to testing mediums these days!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My friend all but decapitated a doe with 69 Noslers I loaded up in 223 for him. He got a last second chance to rifle hunt (normally he bowhunts due to his location) and I threw fifty of my old high power loads together fast. He's not a rifle geek like me so he didn't do any post shoot analysis but the pictures showed a high neck shot from behind. Probable spine impact. Most of the head gone. Shot taken from inside 100 (he didn't range it but it was with his duty rifle) on mature doe. Estimate weight 175 or so on hoof.

Nosler jackets come apart (on their custom competition and various varmint projectiles) at high speeds.

 

[Brent]

My friend all but decapitated a doe with 69 Noslers I loaded up in 223 for him. He got a last second chance to rifle hunt (normally he bowhunts due to his location) and I threw fifty of my old high power loads together fast. He's not a rifle geek like me so he didn't do any post shoot analysis but the pictures showed a high neck shot from behind. Probable spine impact. Most of the head gone. Shot taken from inside 100 (he didn't range it but it was with his duty rifle) on mature doe. Estimate weight 175 or so on hoof.

Nosler jackets come apart (on their custom competition and various varmint projectiles) at high speeds.

Those 69’s you mention, are they the CC line of Nosler? The rifle doesn’t spit the 69’s all that bad and with tinkering should settle in just fine. I see that line comes in 77 as well.

A 175# deer down here is a heck of a buck! Miss my Maryland woods and fields to be honest. Much better hunting in my opinion than the swamp down here. Deer get stacked just as well, but I prefer a rifle to a shotgun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gwchem]

Neck shots waste less meat
Tell ya, cast bullets waste the least! You can basically eat right up to the hole.

Good to know the 70 accubonds do their job well in that arena. Terminal shock is a greater asset than penetration for the white tails around me. They’re quite small compared to the MD deer I used to chase. Excited to get to the point of tailoring hunting loads. Specially with easy access to testing mediums these days!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I always get more meat from a buck's neck than the middle of the shoulder. Am I doing something wrong?

 

[Brent]

I always get more meat from a buck's neck than the middle of the shoulder. Am I doing something wrong?

Depends how ya like your cuts! Or where you place your shot. When I say neck, think the skinny part under the head. I wouldn’t take a neck shot that wasn’t as close to ideal as can be, I’d choose another POA. We like those whole shoulders and hams for BBQ’s. All things considered though, I’d prefer to toss a .30 ca high shoulder all day. Don’t have to chase it like a heart or lower lung, though those are plenty excellent places to hit!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[4g64loser]

Those 69’s you mention, are they the CC line of Nosler? The rifle doesn’t spit the 69’s all that bad and with tinkering should settle in just fine. I see that line comes in 77 as well.

A 175# deer down here is a heck of a buck! Miss my Maryland woods and fields to be honest. Much better hunting in my opinion than the swamp down here. Deer get stacked just as well, but I prefer a rifle to a shotgun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes the 69 and 77 custom competition bullets.

I have NOT tested the .224 RDF pills in any media or live yet so I can't comment. I have shot a couple of critters with 140rdf from a 260 but that is a lot of bullet for a groundhog so I can't comment on it's real potential relative to a Berger 135 in the same bore diameter.

 

[Brent]

Yes the 69 and 77 custom competition bullets.

I have NOT tested the .224 RDF pills in any media or live yet so I can't comment. I have shot a couple of critters with 140rdf from a 260 but that is a lot of bullet for a groundhog so I can't comment on it's real potential relative to a Berger 135 in the same bore diameter.

Thank you again. Add those to the list


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Russ D]

I'm jumping into this thread, mostly to follow it.

I think it's kind of neat where we are with rifles these days. Back in days of yore, Townsend Whelen made the statement that "only accurate rifles are interesting." These days there are a lot of options for shooters with rifles and factory ammo that give you solid performance out of the box.

I also wanted to comment on the scope. I have an Arken EP5 too, and it has been pretty solid, but I don't know much about true high quality glass, and my rifle hasn't been used at distances much more than 200 yards, but overall I haven't been displeased with it. All the same, I'd really like to maybe get my hands on something else - Vortex Razor, Nightforce NX8, Kahles K525i - something like that.

I love my EP5. When the light is good, it’s nearly as good as anything under 1200$. In lower light it falls off a little, but you’ll have to spend a grand more to get an improvement that makes much of a difference. I mainly shoot at 400 yards, and can easily see where I’m impacting steel.

 

[Brent]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[trickg]

Which rings did you use? Are those the Arken rings, or did you use something else?

I used a set of Athlon low rings - they sit at .96" which is a touch higher than the .92" of the Arken low rings, but a bit lower than the 1.26" of the medium.

My concern, which I thought was warranted, was that with the varmint profile barrel on my build that the .92" was going to be a bit too low. As it is, I have just enough room between the barrel and the scope to put a scope cap on without touching. Initially I had an SH4 with the 50 mm objective rather than the EP5 with the 56 mm objective, but the Athlon .96" rings worked well with both.

 

[Brent]

Which rings did you use? Are those the Arken rings, or did you use something else?

I used a set of Athlon low rings - they sit at .96" which is a touch higher than the .92" of the Arken low rings, but a bit lower than the 1.26" of the medium.

My concern, which I thought was warranted, was that with the varmint profile barrel on my build that the .92" was going to be a bit too low. As it is, I have just enough room between the barrel and the scope to put a scope cap on without touching. Initially I had an SH4 with the 50 mm objective rather than the EP5 with the 56 mm objective, but the Athlon .92" rings worked well with both.

You know, I went ahead did the NSF package option in thoughts of giving the Arken Med.’s a try. I was pleasantly surprised by these little boogers. When I do go to swap them, I’m waiting to try the ARC M-Brace series as mentioned up thread by 64. They look and sound like an excellent solution. As it stands though, I don’t feel under served with the Arken’s!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[trickg]

You know, I went ahead did the NSF package option in thoughts of giving the Arken Med.’s a try. I was pleasantly surprised by these little boogers. When I do go to swap them, I’m waiting to try the ARC M-Brace series as mentioned up thread by 64. They look and sound like an excellent solution. As it stands though, I don’t feel under served with the Arken’s!

I thought that the Arken rings were decent enough - the only reason I didn't use them on my rifle build was because I was looking to keep the scope as low as possible. Their lows didn't offer the clearance for the EP5 with the rail and varmint profile barrel on my setup, and I thought their mediums might have been a bit too high, although looking at yours, I'd have been ok with that much clearance. I'm a touch closer with mine, but not appreciably - I've seen setups where the scope sits a lot higher than where you have yours.

This is the clearance I have with my EP5 with the Athlon .96" rings - I mistyped it above as being .92" the second time I typed it, which is the measurement on the Arken lows.

 

[Brent]

I thought that the Arken rings were decent enough - the only reason I didn't use them on my rifle build was because I was looking to keep the scope as low as possible. Their lows didn't offer the clearance for the EP5 with the rail and varmint profile barrel on my setup, and I thought their mediums might have been a bit too high, although looking at yours, I'd have been ok with that much clearance. I'm a touch closer with mine, but not appreciably - I've seen setups where the scope sits a lot higher than where you have yours.

This is the clearance I have with my EP5 with the Athlon .96" rings - I mistyped it above as being .92" the second time I typed it, which is the measurement on the Arken lows.

View attachment 420297

I too was nervous on the height, figured I didn’t have much to lose as they came with so to say.

I much prefer the clearance you have on your objective / barrel. Like you said, mine’s not overly high though. Went up a couple clicks on the comb, and all was well. I appreciate you chiming in though, I now know that .96” would likely have me in a similar situation as you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[trickg]

I too was nervous on the height, figured I didn’t have much to lose as they came with so to say.

I much prefer the clearance you have on your objective / barrel. Like you said, mine’s not overly high though. Went up a couple clicks on the comb, and all was well. I appreciate you chiming in though, I now know that .96” would likely have me in a similar situation as you!

Finding those were the trick. I agonized over the height because I didn't want a lot of clearance, so I did the math, factored, this checked that, etc.

The measurement of those Athlon rings, if I recall correctly, wasn't a common ring height. That, or they were the only ones I was willing to spend the money on that fit what I was looking for. They are not expensive rings by any means - just $53 for the set on Amazon - but they have done pretty well and don't seem to be detrimental to accuracy at all.

Amazon product ASIN B08SSDC2YS

 

[Brent]

Finding those were the trick. I agonized over the height because I didn't want a lot of clearance, so I did the math, factored, this checked that, etc.

The measurement of those Athlon rings, if I recall correctly, wasn't a common ring height. That, or they were the only ones I was willing to spend the money on that fit what I was looking for. They are not expensive rings by any means - just $53 for the set on Amazon - but they have done pretty well and don't seem to be detrimental to accuracy at all.

Amazon product ASIN B08SSDC2YS

I appreciate you chiming in, Trick!

Been trying to find some videos of the 77CC’s in ballistic gel. There was one a fella was using an SBR and Mid Length AR. Heck even the 16” showed good performance. A max cavity of .73 . What I’m most curious is to see wound channels from distance…reckon when I get to loading for this and dial a load in, I’ll do my own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[frdfandc]

I used to have a Tika T3 Lite in .270. Very nice rifle. Dime size groups at 150 yards.