The whole thing with lightweight rifles is a joke. Honestly, if 1-2lbs is going to make that much a difference on a hunt for someone, to the point where they just aren't going to make it up the mountain because of it, instead of paying $1000 (a figure pulled out of the air) for a new lightweight rifle, they should spend it on a membership at the local gym and drop 20lbs of fat and be healthier for life. Then they'll be able to carry that 9lb combo that they couldn't bear to carry before.
Rant now over.
I think that light rifles are a mistake for the "once in a lifetime" hunts for sure, and a mistake for just all other hunting/shooting in general. Why? Well, when I'm out in the field, as far as I'm concerned, it's all going to culminate in one shot. Yes, light rifles can be very accurate. But for 9 out of 10 people, they aren't going to be able to shoot the light rifle as accurately as a regular or even a slightly heaver rifle. Part of it's physical, most of it's mental. I KNOW that I can shoot a heavier rifle MORE accurately than a light one, so that's what I want.
When I'm on a $5000 elk hunt, I want the ability to be able to make the most accurate shot I can, and the stability of a rifle plays a part in it. Yeah, I know that I'm going "carry it a lot and shoot it a little", but that shot is the sole reason that my VISA is maxed out and my kids didn't get new shoes for school.
It's going to come down to one shot, and my ability to carry the rifle has nothing to do with being able to make that shot. If all I wanted to do was walk up and down the mountain as easily as possible, I'd go hiking in a national park for free, and put the $5000 away for something else.
I've had a couple of T3's, one Lite in .223 and the stainless Lite in 30-06. For me personally, I couldn't tell a difference in felt recoil between my T3 with a Burris FFII 3-9x40 and a Remington 700 BDL with a Weaver Grand Slam 4.75x40, even though the Remington was heavier. But that's me, everything bigger than a .243 up to the 30-06 feels about the same when it hits my shoulder.
The T3's are very smooth, great trigger, and they have a nice barrel, a bit stouter than most factory guns. Neither of my guns would shoot 1 inch groups with any ammo I tried. They came close, which is good enough in all honestly. They were consistent with all ammo I tried as well. I had no technical problems with either of them. BUT, I also no longer own either of them. They just didn't impress me enough for all the hype about them. I've had many rifles that shot as well or better, including Remington, Savage, and CZ. I don't think that their synthetic stock is particularly durable, on my 30-06, after riding on a quad for a couple of hours, one part of the grip had all of the checking rubbed smooth. That's never happened with any other rifle stock for me.
I'm not Remington's biggest fan for reasons that I've stated before on other threads, but the 700 is usually a solid rifle and you can get them easily for decent prices. I think that once scoped, I definitely shoot one better than the Tikka and they feel better balanced to me. I do like the fact that Remington's barrels are a heavier contour than other factory sporter barrels. I don't always buy a Remington, but they are always in consideration. I'll also say that almost every person that I hunt with uses a Remington 700 or 710 (or a Marlin lever action). Myself and another fellow are always the odd guys out, with Rugers, Savages, CZ's, etc. But we are also both gun nuts and the other hunters aren't.
I will go on record and say that I've had several Savages, and they have all been superb, both brand new ones with the Accu-Trigger and older models without it. Not ONE single issue of any kind. I like them quite well.
I like Rugers too, but I wish the barrel was a heavier contour. If they put the Remington barrel contour on the Ruger action, that could possibly be the ultimate factory gun for me.
I'll tell you a gun that I'd take a hard look is the new Smith & Wesson I-Bolt. It's a bit light for me, but it balances and handles great, it's got a 23" barrel, and a user adjustable trigger. Prices are usually pretty good as well. Unless you've got a local shop that handles them, you'll be buying on-line though.
I've had a couple of Weatherby Vanguards/Howa's too, and they were great guns. Shot well, good balance, and just felt good.
The Wal-Marts that still sell guns and also special order most brands/makes of rifles as well, and the prices are generall y better than anywhere else. The reason that Bass Pro can't match Wal-Mart is that NO ONE buys as much as Wal-Mart to get the quantitly discounts that they do. (I spent 7 years with Wal-Mart). Bass Pro is a big box store, but they just don't have enough volume to get good buys to pass along.
After all the rambling I did, I'll sum up and say that for a $800 budget (if you don't want to buy a gun over the Net), I'd just buy the Remington SPS or a Vanguard over the Tikka and find the best scope deal you can for $300. I've had all of the major brands except the European ones, and you aren't going to go wrong with any of them. Pick the features that you want and run with it.
Barrel length on a rifle doesn't matter for woods, IMO. A lot the guys that I hear preach about that are the same fellows that take a 28" barrel 12ga pump into the woods for squirrel hunting. Or a side lock Hawken rifle with a 28"-30" barrel for blackpowder season. Where's the logic in their argument at?
