T1x ACE in Hand - Review - Pictures - Info - Thoughts

[beetroot]

So I managed to pick up a T1x ACE, 22lr 20" barrel. A few arrived into New Zealand last week and managed to pick one up.
This was a rifle I was very interested in (along with many others) so thought I'd share my findings, there isn't any good reviews out there, just influencer BS and people reading off the spec sheet.

Barreled action:
It's the same as every other Tikka model; trigger, barrel, bolt, bolt handle (don't even get a free rubber ball!), it's basically just a T1x MTR in a chassis.
I have a much older T1x with the original spring ejector, I never had any issues with mine but I know others did, this rifle is the new version with the fixed ejector.
I don't like that the ejector is just plastic molded into the magwell, not sure if it'll ever wear out or break but seems pretty cheap. I put 150 rounds through it and it ejects and extracts with "authority" so I guess it's not a problem, for now atleast.

I haven't adjusted the trigger yet so it's a little heavy but it breaks just fine, no creep or grittyness, etc.

The action feels nice, not as smooth as my old rifle (to be expected) but it feels nice an snappy, same as all other T1x I guess.
Barrel is same as other T1x models, will see how it shoots in time.

Chassis General:
All screws in chassis are T25 Torx, they provided a T handle wrench which is nice (the only other thing provided in box was 2 QD swivels).

Unfortunately I'm not really a chassis guy so don't have any real chassis to compare it to.
However first impressions are that it's pretty well thought out, has all the features I'd want, including many that I've not seen mentioned anywhere before.

The over all weight of the chassis is 1.641kg (3.6lb) so about .207kg (.450lb) heavier than a KRG Bravo (1.434kg / 3.16lb by my scales).
Although it's a bit heavier than the Bravo it's actually better balanced, which was a nice surprise although it doesn't help balance this rifle out in the end.
The T1x Ace comes with the shorter Mlok forend (0.304kg / .67lb), the longer 7 slot forend will be a little heavier. I guess they didn't use the longer forend as it wouldn't work with 16" barrels, but this model really should've included the longer forend and not even offer a 16" barrel in my opinion.

Forend:
The Forend is very securely attached. It has 4 screws on the bottom and the two QD cups (not just the screws) go through the forend and give it almost no slop, even with the 4 screws removed. I know people were worried about this, time will tell if it's good or bad but initial thoughts are it's well thought out.

There is a lot of real estate on the inside of the forend for additional weight, Tikka say weights will be available that fit in the Mlok slots, they are 200g (about .4lb) each, so the 7 slot forend will be able to fit 1.4kg (3lb) of weight which is a lot. However they should just offer a steel forend (since they are swappable) could probably get it to weight around 2.5kg (5.5lb) and still keep the Mlok slots available for more weight.
I doubt this would ever be offered, but could be an aftermarket option.

Butt Stock:
The butt seems reasonably well thought out, cheek piece is only height adjsutable with no obvious way to modify it to have any other adjsutment.

The butt itself is fully adjustable; height, cant, and twist? (no idea why this is an option).
Initial reviews suggested there was no cant adjustment which is not true, there 100% is cant adjsutment.

The LOP is adjustable via spacers, not many are included which is odd, also no other length of screw is provided, so if you remove the two spacers the screws stick out and you loose the tilt adjustment (which I'm sure will no upset anyone). Removing the spacers was kind of annoying, was easiest done by removing the entire butt (which is loosened by a single screw in middle of butt pad).

The bag rider hook thingy is attached via Mlok, a proper bag rider accessory is meant to be available at some stage, but as standard it's fine to shoot with.

Chassis center section:
The pistol grip is plastic and feels kinda horrible, I decent grip would be a nice improvement.
It is adjustable forward and backward, doesn't really seem to have any cant available.

The thumb shelf is simple but seems to work ok.

The replaceable mag well is probably the most interesting thing about the entire rifle.
You need to remove the pistol grip and the action screws to get the mag well off, it's a little snug but pulls off easily.
The barricade stop is actually aluminum and separate to the magwell, it slots into the main aluminum "back bone" so isn't reliant on the plastic magwell for strength.

I do like the ability to change the magwell, for centrefire I much prefer CTR magazines over AICS but the ability to have both options (when/if AICS is an option) is nice.
If Tikka ends up offering a XM (medium 3.2" COAL) AICS option it could make this chassis a really sweet option for running short mag cartridges for comp use, for hunting you'll be able to use the normal Tikka mags obviously.

Overview:
When first released my initial thoughts about this rifle was that it was a bit of an afterthought, it's like they designed the chassis 80% for PRS in the T3x Ace Target, 20% for NRL Hunter with the T3x Ace Game, and then thought well just make a T1x mag well and chuck our standard barreled action in it and call it the T1x Ace Target, as opposed to T1x Ace Game which is really what it is.

I thought there is zero chance this thing will be close to a PRS/NRL balance with that pencil thin barrel.... and well, yeah, I was 100% right.
If you buy the longer forend and load it up with as many weights as possible, put on a light weight scope, bipod, tuner/suppressor it MIGHT balance ok, but this rifle needed a heavier weight barrel.

I put my other T1x barreled action into the chassis and it balances just (as in barely) in front of the barricade stop, that's with a 25.5" medium plama (ish) barrel which weighs almost 2x (1.030kg vs 1.980kg).
Unfortunately due to the way the T1x action made you are limited on how fat of a barrel can be installed. 23.5mm (.92") is the fattest straight taper you could go.

Messing around adding weight to balance to rifle, I concluded a .92" straight taper 24" barrel would be needed to get it balanced ok.
Companies don't seem keen to offer super long factory barrels but I think a 22" or 24" option would still appeal to the "uninformed" buyers out there. If they offered this rifle with the longer forend and a 22"+ straight taper barrel then I think it would actually be a sweet option.
As it stands it definitely leaves a lot on the table.

The balance point with no weights added....

Final rambling thoughts:
Should you buy this rifle? Maybe, if you have a bunch of T1x accessories already then it may make a good addition.
However for the cost you could buy a 20" MTR and and MDT ACC Premier, which I'm guessing is probably the better chassis.
For people in Europe this rifle might make a lot more sense, but even in NZ an MTR + ACC Premier would be similar price to this rilfe.
If the rifle came with a heavier profile barrel for the same price, I'd say it was worth it, but otherwise I'm not so sure.

The interchangeable magwell and forends do offer the potential for this chassis to give some real flexibility, more so in centrefire but even in the T1x a steel forend for PRS and a light weight one for hunting/4 position shooting is a nice option to have.

Although it's not at all balanced (for PRS/NRL) the rifle doesn't feel heavy to carry around, so I'll probably do some small game/varmint shooting with it too.

 

[beetroot]

Here are targets from first outing, conditions weren't great 5 o'clock wind around 6mph gusting 12mph+.

I hadn't lightened the trigger or spent anytime adjusting the stock (only cheek piece) and was a fairly rushed outing.

First 2 pictures are 10x 10 shot groups, all at 30m (33yards), vertical looks OK but horizontal not brilliant. The few good groups measure around .3" CTC.

(Top middle is zeroing)

Two 25 shot groups at 102m (111yards), horrible position, wind still giving grief.
I'd say some of the vertical is me but to be honest 2" 25 shot groups at 102m with CCI SV isn't too bad IMO.
The ES of the ammo is saying 5cm (2") difference at 102m in Strelok, so guess I can't complain.

Rifle is pleasant to shoot, bolt is getting smoother already. Chassis is comfortable and once set up properly should be very serviceable.

Cleaned the barrel before use, so far all shots from new over the chrony.

Will run a brick of CCI SV through it first, then start ammo testing.

 

[Emerson0311]

Thanks for posting. The groups at 102M are a bit tall, but not grossly so. I had real vertical problems at 182M with my factory T1X barrel. I’m curious what the Canadian price will be.

 

[beetroot]

Thanks for posting. The groups at 102M are a bit tall, but not grossly so. I had real vertical problems at 182M with my factory T1X barrel. I’m curious what the Canadian price will be.

My 16" T1x was never any good at distance, some ammo was ok but it was very picky on ammo (at distance).
Inside if 150m it wasn't too bad but 200m+ was never much fun.

The vertical matches the ES of the ammo, so it could just be the ammo sucks but also could be the barrel producer produces higher ES.

I have a lot of Velocity data from my 25.5" barreled T1x, and will eventually try some of that ammo in this rifle.
One of the main reasons for going so long on my custom barrel was the theory behind longer barrels having smaller ES.
I guess there are too many variables at play with just two data point but it'll be interesting to see none the less.

 

[HardRockARC]

Forend:
The Forend is very securely attached. It has 4 screws on the bottom and the two QD cups (not just the screws) go through the forend and give it almost no slop, even with the 4 screws removed. I know people were worried about this, time will tell if it's good or bad but initial thoughts are it's well thought out.

There is a lot of real estate on the inside of the forend for additional weight, Tikka say weights will be available that fit in the Mlok slots, they are 200g (about .4lb) each, so the 7 slot forend will be able to fit 1.4kg (3lb) of weight which is a lot. However they should just offer a steel forend (since they are swappable) could probably get it to weight around 2.5kg (5.5lb) and still keep the Mlok slots available for more weight.
I doubt this would ever be offered, but could be an aftermarket option.

Not sure if you have seen the weights tikka is selling, but each weight utilizes an mlok slot on each side. So if you did buy all the weights, you would have no Mlok slots available on the forend. I see the aftermarket making a simple steel or brass bar that slides in the forend and is secured from the bottom to save on mlok slots. Which was my recommendation to Tikka in the first place.

Also, did you attach any Mlok weights to the forend and try to utilize the Arca rail? That was a huge issue with my rifle. The Mlok slots were too low on the forend and both MDT and Gray Ops weights interfered with an RRS and Area 419 Arca clamp.

Good write up, everything you pointed out as being cheap or bad quality were all items I wrote up as needing to change after myself and another shooter shot these rifles in October at the Gap Grind. The pistol grip, butt stock adjustment, overall chassis weight, accessory attachment points, the arca rail issue I mentioned, barrel profile(for centerfire rifles), chamberings(again for centerfire), and more. All items I presented that needed addressing and I dont think they changed a single thing. But I dont know if I should blame Tikka for not listening or the Product Manager at Beretta for not pushing Tikka to really make the best chassis they could have. To me, this chassis is like the Christensen Arms MPR chassis. Its ok but not optimized for really anything in particular, its just a chassis.

 

[Emerson0311]

My 16" T1x was never any good at distance, some ammo was ok but it was very picky on ammo (at distance).
Inside if 150m it wasn't too bad but 200m+ was never much fun.

The vertical matches the ES of the ammo, so it could just be the ammo sucks but also could be the barrel producer produces higher ES.

I have a lot of Velocity data from my 25.5" barreled T1x, and will eventually try some of that ammo in this rifle.
One of the main reasons for going so long on my custom barrel was the theory behind longer barrels having smaller ES.
I guess there are too many variables at play with just two data point but it'll be interesting to see none the less.

My custom 24” barrel is a lot tighter vertically that my custom 20” was with the same ammo, but not really apples to apples; different chamber and different twist.

 

[beetroot]

My custom 24” barrel is a lot tighter vertically that my custom 20” was with the same ammo, but not really apples to apples; different chamber and different twist.

I know Orkan pushed pretty hard the idea that long barrels were more consistent, apparently had shot a lot of different lengths.
I've never seen anyone make a claim to the contrary, so put me in the camp of believing it now.

I was at a comp the other day and heard a couple of guys talking about it.
I don't think it'll be too long before you stop seeing any short barrels for comp use, even if just for the added weight.

 

[beetroot]

Not sure if you have seen the weights tikka is selling, but each weight utilizes an mlok slot on each side. So if you did buy all the weights, you would have no Mlok slots available on the forend. I see the aftermarket making a simple steel or brass bar that slides in the forend and is secured from the bottom to save on mlok slots. Which was my recommendation to Tikka in the first place.

Also, did you attach any Mlok weights to the forend and try to utilize the Arca rail? That was a huge issue with my rifle. The Mlok slots were too low on the forend and both MDT and Gray Ops weights interfered with an RRS and Area 419 Arca clamp.

Good write up, everything you pointed out as being cheap or bad quality were all items I wrote up as needing to change after myself and another shooter shot these rifles in October at the Gap Grind. The pistol grip, butt stock adjustment, overall chassis weight, accessory attachment points, the arca rail issue I mentioned, barrel profile(for centerfire rifles), chamberings(again for centerfire), and more. All items I presented that needed addressing and I dont think they changed a single thing. But I dont know if I should blame Tikka for not listening or the Product Manager at Beretta for not pushing Tikka to really make the best chassis they could have. To me, this chassis is like the Christensen Arms MPR chassis. Its ok but not optimized for really anything in particular, its just a chassis.

No I haven't tired any internal or external weights yet.
Sounds like the low Mlok slots are an issue on a few factory rifle chassis, definitely an oversight.

I'll try talk to Beretta NZ if I get the chance and let them know my thoughts, I know they were keen for people to start getting these rifles and for them to start turning up at matches. Here's hoping they can feed back to Tikka user reports.

 

[beetroot]

Looking at the forend, I think you could easily make a large steel weight, some laser cut mild steel wouldn’t cost much at all.
Not entirely sure how you would secure it, but it can’t be difficult.
A large steel weight in the short hand guard would be about 1.25kg (2.75lb) in the target hand guard it’d be around 1.4kg (3lb).

The longer forend adds a little bit of weight (75g) and moves the centre of gravity further forward.
A longer fatter barrel would be better as the COG would be a lot further forward, I’m sure you could come up with some creative ways to balance this rifle out (for PRS) but a longer, fatter barrel is the easiest and best way to do it.

You can end up with an over lighter weight rifle, with a better balance with a long fat barrel, I really see no downsides to offering it other than Tikka needing to add some more SKUs. I imagine a varmint profile barrel would be popular in the other T1x models also.

 

[ma smith]

Beetrood, can you balance the empty chassis? Curious to know where the balance point is without the BA.

 

[beetroot]

Beetrood, can you balance the empty chassis? Curious to know where the balance point is without the BA.

I'll try get a picture.
It was better balanced than my KRG Bravo, I think I'd be pretty easy to balance out the bare chassis.

I attached some of my KRG weights to it (14" steel ARCA rail and full length T slot weight) and the rifle balanced in front of the barricade stop, which isn't bad.
However to get a full 4" in front of the barricade stop is going to be tough without some sort of barrel weight screwed onto the end.

 

[beetroot]

Beetrood, can you balance the empty chassis? Curious to know where the balance point is without the BA.

I couldn't get it to balance on its own (chair is rounded on top) but balance point is under trigger guard.

 

[jbell]

I know Orkan pushed pretty hard the idea that long barrels were more consistent, apparently had shot a lot of different lengths.
I've never seen anyone make a claim to the contrary, so put me in the camp of believing it now.

I was at a comp the other day and heard a couple of guys talking about it.
I don't think it'll be too long before you stop seeing any short barrels for comp use, even if just for the added weight.

I have been in the 24”-27” barrel length being optimal for precision with the 22lr for about 15 years now. I have seen it play out time and time again over a crap load of both factory and custom builds that I have owned with various barrel manufacturers, rifling styles, and chamberings. It proofs out over a chronograph (more consistent velocity) and less ammo sensitivity. Not necessarily more extreme accuracy as I have owned some extremely accurate 18”-20” barrels once you find the ammo it likes, but rather the longer barrels shoot a wider variety of ammo, lot numbers, velocity etc accurately.

That said I currently have a V-22 with a 20” ACE that is a hammer. But it is a little particular on ammo.