T3 vs 8400

[Dance&Sting]

I have been debating with myself for quite some time now. The choice of caliber I'm aiming at is .300 WSM because I feel it is effecient and proper for my type of hunting. My decision was the Tikka T3 at first after researching with little questions asked, if any at all, but I also kept the Kimber 8400 in mind too. I cannot decide which one to choose and my money is starting to hate that awful leather smell in my back pocket. I hear that the T3 are "bang for the buck" accurate right out of the box, but then again 8400 were made specifically for the short magnum family. The stock shouldn't even be questioned to see which one is better. What exactly is controlled round feeding? Are T3s bedded? Does anyone here know?

What I am most concerned about is which one, and price is definitely an issue, can shoot more accuratley at 200+ yards? I havn't heard much from Kimber's side when it comes to shooting distant shots except for the fine claro walnut/synthetic, match grade barrel/chamber/trigger, its lightweight, and its reputation. Maybe I am not looking in the right place, but the information I find about the T3 are unbelievable only when it comes to shots under 100 yards.

Should I save the extra $300 on a scope or do you think it'll be worth it? If I can have the accuracy I desire out to 250-400 yards I am definitely willing to pay extra for a little more *umpfh, but if the T3 can do the same thing as an 8400 but costs less due to stock, name, features, etc. I'll be more than happy to pay less for similar performances. I am trying to grab a centerfire rifle for eliminating those pesky creatures at a few farms this march. With a tripod stand nothing can go wrong

Either one I grab I'm planning on mounting Leupold's 4.5-14x40mm VX-III long range with Boone & Crockett's reticle. If not it'll have to be a 6-18x40mm VX-II wide duplex because there is a significant difference in their prices

Any suggestions, comments, or objections are welcomed. Thanks all!

[cynic]

The control round feed refers that as the cartridge leaves the magazine it is held in place by the bolt and can not fall out of the chamber even upside down. I believe that the kimber rifle will be made with a mauser action. Many of the guns have adopted the control feed that was famous in the Winchester model 70 Pre-64. Personally I have taken a real interest in the Savage rifles for there accuracy and durability. I have rifles in several makes and models including a Win pre-64 but for the money Savage has one of the finest shooting rifles on the market custom or otherwise. I know that wasn't your question but don't overlook them

[progers]

I will admit, when it comes to accuracy, it's hard to outshoot a Savage! I will never buy another Remington again!

Savage's are lighter and I have never shot the 300 savage so, it might have a little kick to it!?!

[Dance&Sting]

I will admit, when it comes to accuracy, it's hard to outshoot a Savage! I will never buy another Remington again!

Savage's are lighter and I have never shot the 300 savage so, it might have a little kick to it!?!

Really...? I think you're just looking at the wrong section of Remington. I mean, Savage's aren't bad at all, but when compared with such a name like Remington you'll definitely have something to argue about.

I do agree though. Those cheap synthetic Mach II Savages shoot as straight as a $500 rimfire rifle.

[DocHolladay]

I am a Remington man, but two of my buddies bought the Savage combos from Wal-mart. I know they arent the most expensive rifles, but once sighted in, both left holes in the paper that touched. One was a .270 and the other was a .30-06. It made me have second thoughts about my next rifle purchase being a Savage. Good luck in your decision.

[progers]

I have had many Remington's. Always been a Remington man myself. But, after the last couple years of using a Savage and shooting them both, the Savage *ALWAYS* shoots tighter groups more consistant. I was shooting a Rugar 270 the other day, sighting it in for a friend, and it would not shoot tighter groups than the Savage.

They are cheaper in price but, that is it. To me, accuracy is the most important factor in a rifle, no matter what! The Savage, well, you can't get much better than that. Like Doc said, they will touch on the target. I can vouch for that one. Mine does it, too!

[cynic]

(Really...? I think you're just looking at the wrong section of Remington. I mean, Savage's aren't bad at all, but when compared with such a name like Remington you'll definitely have something to argue about.

I do agree though. Those cheap synthetic Mach II Savages shoot as straight as a $500 rimfire rifle.)

Now That is funny.....I will compare it to any stock pre-64 Winchester along with a Remington 700adl and bdl with same barrel length and caliber and that says a lot. Remington makes an excellent affordable rifle but the Savage in the past couple of years has produced the rifle to accuracy standards of bench rifles. The improvement that I would like to see is in the finish of the barrel. I have bought sold and traded in the neighborhood of 100 or so rifles. 5 in the last year are Savage I kept a 7mag for myself gave my dad 30/06 who has a collection of some of the finest shooters money can buy, my brother a 270 the other two are now in possession of close friends and all were bought at walmart and have been some of the best shooting rifles that I have ever shouldered. I will never give up the Remingtons or winchesters that I own because they are keepers ,but I also went thru many to find them. The savages were the first 5 that I bought and they all are keepers that says alot..