Forums.NitroExpress.com

Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact NitroExpress.com: CZ vs Ruger

*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***

You are not logged in. [Login]

Main Index · Search · Active Topics
New user · Who's Online · FAQ · Calendar

Shooting & Reloading - Mausers, Big Bores and others >> Big Bore Rifles

Pages: 1

zephyr
.275 member

Reged: 20/09/05
Posts: 51

CZ vs Ruger
#165904 - 08/08/10 09:54 AM

Would like to pick up a .416 Rigby and looking at either the CZ or the Ruger, any thoughts....
Many thanks......Zephyr

Post Extras:

tophet1
.400 member

Reged: 15/09/07
Posts: 1873
Loc: NSW, Australia

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: zephyr]
#165907 - 08/08/10 10:48 AM

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads...sic#Post4270811

Post Extras:

Ben
.400 member

Reged: 22/08/08
Posts: 1917
Loc: Northern Territory, Australia

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: tophet1]
#165911 - 08/08/10 01:35 PM

I also have a CZ550 in .416 Rigby, and have made many happy memories with it. Although I like it, it was the best I could afford at the time, and it isn't without some faults. I'm about to send it away to get it worked-on by Alex Beer to make it really sweet. So, although I am very happy with mine and am about to have it made even better, if I am honest I must admit that if money had've permitted at the time, I would've preferred to buy the Ruger.

Post Extras:

mikeh416Rigby
.450 member

Reged: 24/02/03
Posts: 6051
Loc: The beautiful Oley Valley, PA....

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: zephyr]
#165938 - 09/08/10 06:12 AM

I have no experience with the CZ, so I can't speak to them. However, I have a Ruger 416 Rigby that I love. It's extremely accurate, has an excellent trigger and the rifle is heavy enough to hold steady for off hand shooting and control recoil. The action was very smooth right out of the box. It did need a better recoil pad...I put a decellerator pad on mine. I also didn't care for the small front sight, and replaced mine with a fiber optic sight from NECG.

Post Extras:

Rule303
.416 member

Reged: 05/07/09
Posts: 4919
Loc: Woodford Qld

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: mikeh416Rigby]
#166130 - 12/08/10 08:57 PM

I would of liked to try the Ruger but the CZ550 416Rigby was $700 cheaper and holds 4 rounds not 3. As Ben said it can be made a sweeter rifle. I too have put Recknagel fibre optic front bead on mine and the NECG peep sight. I have had the trigger smoothed up and the set position removed. The bolt on mine while not the smoothest I have used was nothing to be sneezed at.

I like the size of the 550. I am 6'2" so the length of pull is right. If I was to do more to it I would have the stock slimmed a bit and maybe 2" looped off the barrel. Mine shoots way better than minute of buffalo. I have not yet replaced the recoil pad and don't know if I will in the immediate future.

For the money you are getting a lot of rifle with the CZ.

Goota love the 416Rigby

Post Extras:

mauserand9mm
.400 member

Reged: 03/09/09
Posts: 1006
Loc: Queensland, Australia

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: Rule303]
#166131 - 12/08/10 09:19 PM

The CZ actions are very rough when new but they actually smooth out quite quickley with normal use (about 100 rounds?). I have 2 - a 375 and a 458. The 375 was brand spanking when I got it and the magazine guide rails scored the belt and rim of the cases badly but the problem dissapeared quicker than I could get motivated to do anything about it.

I seem to recall the action on my (15 year old now) CZ 22 was very rough when it was new too. Once again normal use got rid of the problem.

CZs are good value for money, but far from perfect for sure.

Post Extras:

controlled_feed
.300 member

Reged: 23/05/08
Posts: 227
Loc: NSW, Australia

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: mauserand9mm]
#166139 - 12/08/10 11:23 PM

I took a CZ550 .458 to Zimbabwe last year. Before I went I had the trigger smoothed out, bedded including the lug under the barrel and had the action lapped. I am pushing 6'5" and the rifle is just right for me. Everything I pointed it at died. I have a Ruger in 416 Rigby that I haven't done anything with yet. It too is a good fit for my frame. I might get it up and running, but I could be talked out of it pretty easily. I know where there is 416 Rigby CZ 550 for sale at the moment. I have a 550 in .375 H&H on the way as well.

This is what my 458 does at 50 yards with open sights over the bags. It shoots way better than I can.

CF

--------------------
I was born 100 years too late

Edited by CptCurl (31/08/10 10:58 AM)

Post Extras:

bigmaxx
.375 member

Reged: 13/06/07
Posts: 660
Loc: Bowling Green KY U.S.A.

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: controlled_feed]
#166150 - 13/08/10 02:35 AM

Ruger M77 Magnum for me. I have owned both. The CZ is a good rifle but in my book the Ruger is the most rugged dependable rifle available. I have heard of problems with some of the .416 rigby caliber rifles, but I think that has been cleared up. Mine is a .458 lott and has taken buffalo and hippo. It has performed flawlessly. It sports Warne QD rings and Leupold VXIII 1.5-5X20. I may change to a 30mm scope though. Im looking at Trijicon and the VX7 low power models. Obviously either rifle will get the job done! Good hunting.

--------------------
One day at a time...

Post Extras:

Huvius
.416 member

Reged: 04/11/07
Posts: 3529
Loc: Colorado

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: bigmaxx]
#166157 - 13/08/10 04:57 AM

I have my 416 Rigby Ruger for sale on gunsinternational right now.
They are great guns for the price.
I have never owned a CZ though so I have no basis for comparison.

--------------------
He who lives in the past is doomed to enjoy it.

Post Extras:

RigbyUser
.275 member

Reged: 23/11/08
Posts: 65
Loc: Victoria, Australia

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: Huvius]
#166216 - 14/08/10 06:46 PM

Ruger are better finished, CZ are a great design.
Both rifles are needlessly heavy and bulky which is a real pity since they are affordable big bores.

For the record I own a number of CZ's and Brno's never been motivated sufficiently to keep the Ruger. Very keen on the 416 Rigby for awhile, but couldn't get over the 11 pound naked weight!! Far to much for 416 Rigby, would end up 12 pounds + with a scope.

Limits it's practicality in my humble opinion.

Post Extras:

Huvius
.416 member

Reged: 04/11/07
Posts: 3529
Loc: Colorado

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: RigbyUser]
#166227 - 14/08/10 11:25 PM

RigbyUser, you are right on as far as the "feel" of the Ruger and the CZ.
There is a Ruger on offer somewhere on the net which has had its stock reworked to more of a traditional type A Mauser style. I think a good stocker could shave off a lot of wood to make a Ruger handle much better. I think it is not so much the weight but the feel that is weired.

Going from a proper 416 to the Ruger makes you wonder if the guys designing the Ruger had ever even seen, let alone held, an original era 416. No comparison.

--------------------
He who lives in the past is doomed to enjoy it.

Post Extras:

taw1126
.333 member

Reged: 24/07/07
Posts: 290
Loc: Texas

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: Huvius]
#166237 - 15/08/10 08:31 AM

Quote:

RigbyUser, you are right on as far as the "feel" of the Ruger and the CZ. I think a good stocker could shave off a lot of wood to make a Ruger handle much better. I think it is not so much the weight but the feel that is weired.

I agree 110%. I had a Ruger in 375 H&H and it just felt about 15% too big in every dimension. Which is a shame since they do such a nice job (for the money) with the quarter rib, walnut, etc. After the Ruger I bought a Winchester Custom African Express in .416 Remington and it felt "right". Huge difference between the two.

After owning the Ruger, my pick between the two would be the CZ and I'd put the price difference towards upgrades from AHR:

http://www.hunting-rifles.com/CZ/CZowners.htm

Post Extras:

zephyr
.275 member

Reged: 20/09/05
Posts: 51

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: taw1126]
#166514 - 20/08/10 07:47 AM

Thanks for all the good information.....
Hot Barrels... Zephyr

Post Extras:

333Jeffery
.300 member

Reged: 21/04/06
Posts: 103
Loc: Florida

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: zephyr]
#172644 - 05/12/10 09:19 AM

One thing to note: Ruger uses castings while CZ uses forged-steel in their construction.

Post Extras:

Homer
.416 member

Reged: 07/04/09
Posts: 3081
Loc: Canberra, Australia

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: 333Jeffery]
#172663 - 05/12/10 08:03 PM

G'Day Fella's,

333 Jeffery, to the best of my knowledge, CZ(as did Brno) still make their actions from the same Investment Cast/Lost Wax method, as Ruger do! ?

Doh!
Homer

--------------------
"Beware the Lolly Pop of Mediocrity,
Lick it Once and You Will Suck Forever"

Post Extras:

9.3x57
.450 member

Reged: 22/04/07
Posts: 5504
Loc: United States

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: 333Jeffery]
#172677 - 06/12/10 01:45 AM

Quote:

One thing to note: Ruger uses castings while CZ uses forged-steel in their construction.

There is nothing wrong with this.

Ruger actions are great actions, and frankly, don't get their just deserts IMO. A forged action can have flaws just as a cast one can.

I did...once...find an occlusion in a bolt knob I was flattening, however.

I've always wondered how they KNOW there are no occlusions in locking lugs...?

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras:

333Jeffery
.300 member

Reged: 21/04/06
Posts: 103
Loc: Florida

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: 9.3x57]
#172741 - 07/12/10 06:24 AM

Homer that's news to me, as CZ has always claimed forged receivers and bolts. No offense to folks that like castings, but for that kind of money I expect forged steel. Montana Rifle had some trouble with cast receivers cracking awhile back. Not good on a rifle.

Post Extras:

tkv000
.300 member

Reged: 02/01/08
Posts: 118
Loc: Canada

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: 333Jeffery]
#172770 - 08/12/10 12:43 AM

I have a Brno ZKK 602 in 416 Rigby, its my favorite gun. Handles nice, shoots better than I can. I would go CZ.

--------------------
"…and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him,"

Post Extras:

458ONLY
.224 member

Reged: 20/06/08
Posts: 24
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: tkv000]
#172870 - 10/12/10 01:12 PM

I wrote a rather detailed reply to this post only to have it rejected with this message : "The form you have used is no longer valid", or words to that effect. I have NO intention to try to repeat, or even remember what I said.

I think this forum, if it hopes to attain some status, needs a LOT of help.

I'm done with this forum.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

Post Extras:

mauserand9mm
.400 member

Reged: 03/09/09
Posts: 1006
Loc: Queensland, Australia

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: 458ONLY]
#172872 - 10/12/10 02:20 PM

I've had the same thing happen to me and it's a real pain. I'm cautious now and will type my responses in MS Word first and then paste a copy into my reply - has the added benefit of a spell check.

Post Extras:

CHAPUISARMES
.416 member

Reged: 16/01/08
Posts: 2908
Loc: DUBBO, NSW, AUSTRALIA

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: 458ONLY]
#172876 - 10/12/10 04:24 PM

Quote:

I wrote a rather detailed reply to this post only to have it rejected with this message : "The form you have used is no longer valid", or words to that effect. I have NO intention to try to repeat, or even remember what I said.

I think this forum, if it hopes to attain some status, needs a LOT of help.

I'm done with this forum.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

I agree with mauserand9mm and that's the way I do it if it is going to be a long entry. IF, you had have hit the "Back" button it would have all been there so you could "Copy" then "Paste" after you refreshed the page..

.

Post Extras:

mauserand9mm
.400 member

Reged: 03/09/09
Posts: 1006
Loc: Queensland, Australia

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: CHAPUISARMES]
#172878 - 10/12/10 04:53 PM

Actually, hitting the back button sometimes takes you back to a blank reply box ie all your typing (and effort) is gone.

Post Extras:

Paul
.400 member

Reged: 28/08/07
Posts: 1031
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: mauserand9mm]
#172881 - 10/12/10 07:23 PM

In regard to the receivers, 'Brno' used investment castings in the '60s according to the old 'Outdoors' gun guru, Colin Shadbolt, and some recent CZ receivers still had that same rough look.

Edited by Paul (10/12/10 07:31 PM)

Post Extras:

9.3x57
.450 member

Reged: 22/04/07
Posts: 5504
Loc: United States

Re: CZ vs Ruger [Re: Paul]
#172891 - 10/12/10 11:35 PM

Quote:

In regard to the receivers, 'Brno' used investment castings in the '60s according to the old 'Outdoors' gun guru, Colin Shadbolt, and some recent CZ receivers still had that same rough look.

So that's the reason for the gravel-sandblasted appearance. I always wondered, but didn't think investment casting was done then?

As for the long-winded replies, just click "Reply" and type. I've never lost a post that was made in the "Reply" screen, just those on the "Quick Reply" box.

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras:

Pages: 1

Extra information

0 registered and 35 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 9241

Jump to

NitroExpress.com

Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact