Thanks for the detailed reply. Cost isn't much an issue, more than likely going with the Tikka.One factor that may be contributing to the difference in opinion: It's guaranteed that anyone who recommends Tikka is aware that Ruger exists, but it's not nearly so certain that a Ruger fan -- especially in the USA -- has even heard of SAKO or Tikka.
So your request for opinions from people who own both may seem like a good way to get an unbiased answer. But there's a problem with that:
Whenever the RPR vs CTR-in-a-chassis or RPR vs Tac A1 question comes up, everyone generally agrees that both rifles are very good, with the Tikka having the edge in fit and finish while the Ruger has a definite cost advantage; the comparison is usually phrased as "The Tikka feels nicer, but is it $xxx nicer?" And so you might get a biased answer from people who can afford to own both, because they're probably not influenced as much by the cost difference and they may therefore be more likely to come down on the side of the Tikka.
If the cost difference doesn't matter to you, either, I say get the Tikka. It certainly won't shoot any worse than the RPR, and it really does feel nicer (in my opinion). Plus it's slightly exotic, which I personally find appealing.
But if the cost is important, then I think you'll have to actually see and hold (or shoot, if you can) both rifles to decide whether the Tikka is worth the money TO YOU. They're too close for anyone else to make the decision for you.
Best of luck.