Tikka integral dovetail mount, pic rail or 2-piece bases + rings?

S

Skydog

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Dec 11, 2024
Messages
266
I'd like to be educated on the pros/cons of each of these mounting systems:
  • Tikka's integral dovetail mount with the UM rings (or similar rings)
  • Pic rail
  • Traditional 2-piece bases and rings (e.g. Warne bases with Mountain Tech rings)
It seems like the integral dovetail option would eliminate some additional components and therefore eliminate some additional potential points of failure (i.e. the bases/pic rail and the base/pic rail screws). So, it seems like this would be the most solid/fail proof option for maintaining consistent zero. However, it seems like most folks on this forum prefer the pic rail. Is there some inherent disadvantage/weakness to the integral dovetail system that I am overlooking?

I do like the advantage of the pic rail for the additional flexibility it provides for adjusting the positioning/eye relief of the scope. However, I do not need the ability to swap scopes between rifles. Nor do I need the additional elevation adjustment of a 20 MOA pic rail. I guess my only concern with trying a pic rail is it making the scope sit higher, but is this anything to worry about?

This will be for mounting a Trijicon Huron 3-9 X 40 (1" tube) on a Tikka Hunter .243. Eastern whitetail hunting out of tree stands, most shots within 100 yards, max 300 yards. I suppose I qualify as a Fudd since all I've ever used is traditional two-piece bases and rings, but I'm definitely open to trying the integral dovetail or a pic rail if that is the best way to go.

This will be my first Tikka and my first foray into shooting deer with small caliber/light bullets. Baby steps for a Fudd...;)
 
I would (and did) use either UM or Sports match rings for that use. As you say, if you don't need extra elevation or easy scope swapping, the pic rail has very little benefit and substantial potential downside for a normal dimension scope like the Huron.
 
eric1115 said:
I would (and did) use either UM or Sports match rings for that use. As you say, if you don't need extra elevation or easy scope swapping, the pic rail has very little benefit and substantial potential downside for a normal dimension scope like the Huron.
Click to expand...
Is there any potential downside to the pic rail other than the scope sitting higher?

I guess it could come down to a trade-off between optimal scope height (integral dovetail) versus optimal eye relief (pic rail), and which one of those is more critical to consistent shooting/accuracy?
 
Scope sitting higher may not be all that bad within reason depending on what you’re going to use for a stock.

Picatinny rail is the most adaptable and heaviest. I would buy an area 419 rail and bond with with loctite 380. Pic rail is also nice because if you have other rifles with picatinny you can easily swap stuff.

Um rings are nice, solid and would be a good choice if you have a scope that works with the spacing, and are okay with 0 moa. I’d also mount it with the plans of never taking it off that gun, ie no swapping.

I personally like the Spuhr tikka direct mounts. I have a few but I’m not sure they make all of them anymore. I use these for my hunting guns so swapping around is easy if needed.

I have had a few different sets of rings that only attach with the little 6x48 screws. I’d avoid those.
 
UM direct mount high rings work well for me. I typically run 1.50 mounts on all my match rifles which get way more reps than the hunting rigs. I'm used to higher setup, so that was the highest option for a direct mount solution.
 
I really like the UM rings and they will give you more flexibility in ring position than Sportsmatch.
 
I like Talley one-piece light mounts in low.

If you can find a milled set that fits over the dovetail, buy them.

IMG_5514.jpeg

IMG_0343.png

IMG_2234.jpeg

IMG_0605.jpeg

All my centerfire Tikkas wear them.





P
 
Skydog said:
Is there any potential downside to the pic rail other than the scope sitting higher?

I guess it could come down to a trade-off between optimal scope height (integral dovetail) versus optimal eye relief (pic rail), and which one of those is more critical to consistent shooting/accuracy?
Click to expand...

It's another thing to buy, another thing that could come loose unless you bond it to the action, another thing adding weight.

For a scope with a short mounting surface, those downsides could be worth it but the trijicon you're mounting has plenty of length to put it where you need it.
 
UM or sportsmatch are the best options due to simplicity and reliability. My tikkas have area 419 rails bonded on only because I had a spell where I was doing a ton of scope swapping trying to figure out why one rifle wasn't shooting well.
 
I use area 419 rails and NF UL rings. Bond the rail.

The only reason to use a pic rail is to make swapping scopes easy between T3x, T1x, AR, and TC Encore so I can play around.

UM rings ar cheaper than my set up ($130 vs $260) and Sportsmatch rings work well too and are even cheaper still.

Rings directly to the rail are the most simplistic, most cost effective, and most reliable option.
 
I could be wrong an havnt looked into it, but I thought the UM were all 30mm and the huron was a 1 inch scope. I went with the sportsmatch on mine with a accupoint and it worked well. If I do another one I will prob go with 2 piece mounts.
 
I have 2 Tikkas w/ UM rings, another Tikka w/factory rail & NF rings. I feel the UM rings are the best option available for Tikkas. The very best would be if Tikka would have an integral picatinny.
UM does offer their rings in 1" also.
 
Thank you for all the responses. It seems like using the UM or Sportsmatch rings and the integral dovetail mount makes the most sense for my intended use. I see that the UM rings are twice as much as the Sportsmatch rings. I have no issues whatsoever with paying the $130 for the UM rings as long as there is a benefit/reason for doing so. What advantages do the UM rings offer over the SM rings? Is the UM better quality, more reliable at maintaining zero, etc.? Just wondering why there is such a difference in cost between the two?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NSI
Skydog said:
Thank you for all the responses. It seems like using the UM or Sportsmatch rings and the integral dovetail mount makes the most sense for my intended use. I see that the UM rings are twice as much as the Sportsmatch rings. I have no issues whatsoever with paying the $130 for the UM rings as long as there is a benefit/reason for doing so. What advantages do the UM rings offer over the SM rings? Is the UM better quality, more reliable at maintaining zero, etc.? Just wondering why there is such a difference in cost between the two?
Click to expand...
The UM rings have more mounting options with a recoil lug due to having threaded pins for the thread mount holes in the action and having 3 slots for a pin on the bottom of each ring.

The UM rings also have nitrided components, so the screws don't rust.

Sportsmatch rings are perfectly serviceable. I have used both, I prefer the UM rings, but don't think they are twice as good. It really comes down to how tight your budget is. If you have extra money, go UM, if pennies count, go Sportsmatch.
 
bnsafe said:
I could be wrong an havnt looked into it, but I thought the UM were all 30mm and the huron was a 1 inch scope. I went with the sportsmatch on mine with a accupoint and it worked well. If I do another one I will prob go with 2 piece mounts.
Click to expand...
Just curious...Why did you say that you would probably go with 2-piece mounts if you do another one? If the SM rings on the integral dovetail worked well, why would you do it differently on the next one? Is there something about the direct mount to the dovetail that you don't like?
 
One of my Tikkas uses SM mediums on the dovetail with a SWFA 3-15. This is perfect for me and my daughter.

My other Tikka had damaged rail when I bought it, and it wears a SRS 20-MOA rail. I bonded it with Loctite 380 and slapped on a set of SM lows for my SWFA 3-9. It's a great setup and I've had no issues.

EDIT: I had to go back and look at my 25-284, and I did not use SM lows. I went with SWFA SS TAC 30mm lows.
 
jjohnsonElknewbie said:
One of my Tikkas uses SM mediums on the dovetail with a SWFA 3-15. This is perfect for me and my daughter.

My other Tikka had damaged rail when I bought it, and it wears a SRS 20-MOA rail. I bonded it with Loctite 380 and slapped on a set of SM lows for my SWFA 3-9. It's a great setup and I've had no issues.
Click to expand...
Did it come damaged from the factory on a new gun, or was it damaged by a previous owner on a used gun?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Torque Recommendations - Tikka + Sportsmatch + Trijicon
Replies
8
Views
392
Skydog
S
T
Tikka mount failure stories
Replies
13
Views
960
Marbles
Marbles
S
Electronic level onto tikka dovetail
Replies
4
Views
239
lintond
lintond
cal30_sniper
Any interest in a Tikka 11mm Dovetail Rail
Replies
8
Views
539
guitarpreston
G
onlybrowning
Pic rail or not
Replies
3
Views
460
C__blank
C

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top