If I'm understanding what you're asking, then yes, that is normal. The bolt is unsupported in the rearward position, and lots of bolt action rifles have bolt play when the bolt is moved to the rearward position. The Tikkas are built on one action length (I believe), so the bolt throw is a bit longer in a .308 than it is in some other .308's. Perhaps you notice the "wiggle" more in that regard?
I somewhat agree with your sentiment in suggesting that too many shooters fail to invest properly in their optics (again, my optic cost FAR more than my rifle). But, I wouldn't downplay *some* of the cheaper scopes for a new precision shooter on a tight budget. My Weaver was a good scope for a few years, and I got a lot of mileage out of it. My buddy started with the Bushnell you mentioned, and he was happy with that scope as a starting place, too (they're very similar scopes except for the adjustable power on the Weaver).
Obviously neither of those choices (or any other $300 scope) is going to compare to a S&B, a Hensoldt, a Premier, a Steiner, a Nightforce, etc., but that doesn't mean that the OP can't buy one, gain skills, and have fun with decent results when starting out. The shooter always seems to be the weak point in the beginning anyway.
As far as the magnification, I definitely wouldn't call 10x ideal, but it is certainly usable at that distance (particularly for a guy on a tight budget who just wants to get started). Plenty of real-world sniper kills have been made at that distance (and beyond) using a 10x scope. Even a 12x S&B is still in primary use for that purpose today. Now, granted, the battlefield is a TOTALLY different environment, but I'm just pointing out that lower magnification scopes ARE often used at long distance. The range where I shoot usually shoot has really heavy mirage. We were shooting some p-dogs out there recently and I had to dial my S&B below 10x to really get clear shots at 600-750 yards.
Besides, "I want to shoot 1,000 yards" is the classic statement from every new precision shooter, and while there's nothing wrong with that desire, I think many new precision shooters often find themselves shooting at shorter distances for one reason or another. Even I find that I'm most often shooting to 600-700 yards, simply because that's the distance that is more readily available to me where I shoot the most. The OP may have a different situation, but that's also a factor worth considering.
I have nothing against budget optics, everyone has a different situation. But you have to choose wisely. Companies like Bushnell, Weaver and SWFA offer good quality for the dollar, while Millett, Barska and others are risky and often more trouble than they're worth.
In OP's budget, he's mainly looking at Savage and Remington. Both have remained relatively unchanged for quite some time so why buy a brand-spankin-new 700 when a well used example offers the same action and features at a deep discount? That's my rationale here; it clears up more money to be spent elsewhere on the system at the expense of a couple nicks and scratches.
OP, there are plenty of folks on here who made the mistake of overspending on the rifle and underspending on the scope, myself included. It can be very frustrating and it shakes your confidence. I'm encouraging you to learn from our mistakes and in time you will understand and appreciate the importance of a reliable and accurate optic. ColoradoCop is right, the 1,000 yard shot is so glorified that guys just wanna jump right in. I'm not sure if you've actually looked at a target 10 football fields away, be it with the naked eye or through a scope, but it's a long way out there. Don't get jaded by movies and television, it's an extremely difficult shot. Invest in the right places and you will increase your chances of success.
Last edited: