90° seems to be difficult for folks nowadays to be able to work but it has been standard on 2 lug systems since the 98 Mauser at least. The advantages, which you didn't go into, are a smoother mainspring compression and more powerful primary extraction and locking cams. The Remington also encloses the bolt face into the barrel, which the Tikka does not, which makes your unsupported cartridge claim moot. I have both. Tikka are great as are Remingtons (at least the early and one being produced now-not the Freedom Group guns which were a hit or miss on quality). You obviously prefer the Tikka, which is fine, but trying to make a point by implying a problem with case head exposure really isn't valid--that same seating depth/bolt face has been used since the 721/722--how many problems has it caused?
I dont prefer Tikkas over the Remington pattern, built many rifles on both, own and shoot both in competition, just showing the differences, neither are perfect, while the Remington bolt does create a labyrinth seal at the breech it will not prevent a case head blowout, only contain it, as I stated this would only be of interest to those who shoot cases with relatively thin wall bases like the BR's
Have Tikka, Borden, Impact. The Rem700 pattern is great in the hands of masters like Borden, but for factory low cost actions, nothing beats Tikka. This is why I compete with Borden and Impact while my hunting rifles are all Tikka (plus a Barret Fieldcraft). Why so many hunters here in Sweden keep spending custom gun money on Blaser and Sauer is beyond me.
@@garyeliseo1775 I've been shooting a Rem 700 in 270 for nearly 40 years. No problems with "unsupported" cases yet. The Tikka looks awesome. I've been looking to buy a 243.
90° seems to be difficult for folks nowadays to be able to work but it has been standard on 2 lug systems since the 98 Mauser at least. The advantages, which you didn't go into, are a smoother mainspring compression and more powerful primary extraction and locking cams. The Remington also encloses the bolt face into the barrel, which the Tikka does not, which makes your unsupported cartridge claim moot. I have both. Tikka are great as are Remingtons (at least the early and one being produced now-not the Freedom Group guns which were a hit or miss on quality). You obviously prefer the Tikka, which is fine, but trying to make a point by implying a problem with case head exposure really isn't valid--that same seating depth/bolt face has been used since the 721/722--how many problems has it caused?
I dont prefer Tikkas over the Remington pattern, built many rifles on both, own and shoot both in competition, just showing the differences, neither are perfect, while the Remington bolt does create a labyrinth seal at the breech it will not prevent a case head blowout, only contain it, as I stated this would only be of interest to those who shoot cases with relatively thin wall bases like the BR's
Have Tikka, Borden, Impact. The Rem700 pattern is great in the hands of masters like Borden, but for factory low cost actions, nothing beats Tikka. This is why I compete with Borden and Impact while my hunting rifles are all Tikka (plus a Barret Fieldcraft).
Why so many hunters here in Sweden keep spending custom gun money on Blaser and Sauer is beyond me.
How does bolt face depth relate to head space, or does it?
no effect on headspace, just the amount of unsupported case hanging out of the chamber, thanks for watching ;)
@@garyeliseo1775 I've been shooting a Rem 700 in 270 for nearly 40 years. No problems with "unsupported" cases yet. The Tikka looks awesome. I've been looking to buy a 243.
tikka all day over remington
Remington is tried and true. From military to hunting. Tikka hasn't even touched the surface where Remington rifles have been and what they have done