And this wouldn't go for any rifle, why?

I can't honestly understand why anyone would think they should just buy a rifle, sight it in, then take it on an expensive hunt, particularly for dangerous game.

I've read reviews of John Rigby & Co. rifles that developed problems that required a gunsmith's attention. A few rounds to zero the rifle at the range may not reveal something you ought to know about your rifle before heading out. I wouldn't assume any rifle I bought was reliable enough to bet my life on regardless of brand name; it's going to have to demonstrate that fact.

The rule of thumb for a carry gun is that you must put at least 200 rounds of the load you intend to use through it, without any malfunctions, before you can consider carrying it. Personally, I don't think you need to expend as much ammo through a bolt-action rifle as through a semi-auto pistol before you can consider it reliable. The same principle applies; I'm not taking the rifle out after something that can hurt me until I know it works.

The fact is that no rifle is ready to go after dangerous game just out-of-the-box. It takes some shooting before it's ready.

This may be, but they're still sold as a CZ brand rifle, by a US subsidiary wholly owned and controlled by the Czech manufacturer whose name is on the entire product line. It would seem to me they could at the very least require every rifle sold with their company's name on it go through the same internal testing procedures. And frankly I find it amazing that the parent company would sign off on a project like this, to produce high-end special runs of their product, and abandon whatever quality controls it does have in place just for those products.