Quote:

---

Regardless, give yourself lots of time to MAKE sure the gun works before buying a special rifle for an expensive hunt.

. . . Don't buy one of these guns and have your heart set on zeroing it in and heading for Africa in a week.

---

Quote:

---

They do build 416 in their own magnum range at cz so its not that strange, but i think peter is right about the big ones.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

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

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

All guns have warts, but to give a specific example, my Rugers have had far fewer warts than my two CZ's, and from what I have read and from what I have seen from handling others, CZ's seem to have allot of warts.

They can be cleaned up, but require allot more "Compound W" than my Rugers, SAKO, Remingtons, Savage, Mausers, Marlins, Winchesters, etc...

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

[quote
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 guess because it has been done this way for about 100yrs.
Not defending this, just an observation.
I doubt much of the world's aristocracy took the time to run 200 rounds through their rifle prior to going out after tiger, lion, buffalo or elephant.
Of course they had the luxury of buying the best, which the CZ is obviously not. Not a dig at CZ, they are building to a price and handwork costs $$$. Probably not many out there willing to part with $10K for a CZ IMO when you can pick up a Mag Mauser for that.
Speaking of the newer Mausers, anybody here have one in 500Jeff. or 404? Any issues?

---

Respectfully. I think we should get away from the ides that all of these rifles that we treasure now were owned at some time by the aristocracy or the landed gentry.

Many, if not most of them, were owned by army officers, civil servants, farmers, Ph's ect.
Their salaries were comensurate with people of similar status now. Most were just working grade guns. They were relativly expensive, but people generaly owned only one or two guns. The tales of PH's of the time owning cabinets full are I believe eronious. If you read Taylor sometime , add up the value of the guns he "owned" it comes in modern money to millions of pounds worth.

If you bought a gun from a decent maker you should be able to take it out of the case and just go hunt, personally I believe that it should still be like that. It should have been sighted in by the maker prior to giving it to you. The reason was fairly simple, people then in the majority knew damm all about guns, same as now realy, except they saw no shame in letting their gunmaker do the technical part for them. There was no handloading and they let the maker choose the cartridges for them based on where in the world they were going to use the product. For all that they killed a hell of a lot of game. They treated these guns as the tools that they are.
Now it is different, they are objects of desire and recreational items in the majority. People want to tinker with them, make them shoot bullets and loads that they were never designed for etc.etc.

It is now a sin for a gunmaker to actually shoot the product prior to dispach. I had a new Marlin traded to me. BNIB, I ran a mag full through it for function. When I went to trade it out I could only sell it as used. I have been told that if you turn the cylinder on a colectable SAA you can half its value

So the question is really, do people want a "New" gun or one that works. A novelty item, or a tool all be it a beautiful one, they cant realy have it both ways. No maker can supply a bolt never turned BNIB gun and guarentee that it will work.

Regards

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Those new mausers are just glorified by their names not even owned by mauser anymore they are owned by the same company that owns blaser

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

[quote
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 guess because it has been done this way for about 100yrs.
Not defending this, just an observation.

---

That's the legend. Once you start looking at the past without rose colored glasses, you'll find the reality of the situation to be quite different.

CZs wouldn't be the first mass produced, affordable rifle intended for Africa that doesn't function as the buyer would hope 100% of the time. Other British, American, and European makers pioneered the concept long before the internet was invented.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

If you bought a gun from a decent maker you should be able to take it out of the case and just go hunt, personally I believe that it should still be like that. It should have been sighted in by the maker prior to giving it to you.
...So the question is really, do people want a "New" gun or one that works. A novelty item, or a tool all be it a beautiful one, they cant realy have it both ways. No maker can supply a bolt never turned BNIB gun and guarentee that it will work.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you bought a gun from a decent maker you should be able to take it out of the case and just go hunt, personally I believe that it should still be like that. It should have been sighted in by the maker prior to giving it to you.
...So the question is really, do people want a "New" gun or one that works. A novelty item, or a tool all be it a beautiful one, they cant realy have it both ways. No maker can supply a bolt never turned BNIB gun and guarentee that it will work.

---

I mostly agree with this with the exception of the notion that a cycled action is no longer "new".
IMO, cycling and test firing is all part of the pre-sale preparation of any gun. Would the London proof house pass the 505 discussed here? NO WAY!
Would you accept a new double rifle which is off face or needs to be smoked and fit simply because it is not "cost effective" for the maker to do the hand work?
Of course not.
BTW, many of us have comparatively high dollar guns, but $2000 or so for a CZ is still not cheap - especially when you consider further work needed to bring it up to scratch.
$2K should get you an "out of the box" gun ready to go anywhere IMO.

---

I absolutly agree with you. I think that the notion of BNIB is silly, but I understand, that it is what "collectors" expect.
What I was attempting to do was to point out the dicotomy of the situation.

And I also agree with you that I would never send out a gun in that condition, nor would I accept one. As I said in my first post 4 pages ago, I would be banging on the dealers desk by now.

Yes $2000.00 is not cheep, but it is IMHO not enough money to make a bitch of a cartridge like a .505 chamber well, it needs to be hand fitted not a mass produced item. So in that respect it may be too cheep for what is an exotic item. I have never heard anything but praise for CZ's rimfire range for example, it seems just to be that because of the market demand they have overreached in the cost-v-quality equation.
It seems to be prevelent with guns, one just has to look at all the discussion when Winchester closed, to expect manufacturers to produce hand fitted and finished guns for a few hundred dollers (or pounds) when at the same time 1 hours labour at a service department of a factory car costs $ 100 perhaps (here it is £120.00 per hour). It just cannot be done and stay in business.

Regards

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

at the same time 1 hours labour at a service department of a factory car costs $ 100 perhaps (here it is £120.00 per hour). It just cannot be done and stay in business.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Sorry to rain on your parade guys but I just wanted to mention the safety aspect.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I have asked a few people about this and haven't had an aswer yet ? Maybe they had both been out
of whack to start with.

any ideas, best, Mike

---

That's not unusual at all and, in fact, is quite common. It's all about relative head position on the stock in relation to the scope and reticle, and how you pull the trigger. Since no two people are built exactly alike or pull the rigger in exactly the same way, the rifle will typically shoot differently for each individual. If you are relatively tall and the PH you borrowed the rifle from was short, the difference is that much more pronounced.

This is quite an interesting thread!! I wonder if any of the folks from CZ USA have peeked in?

--------------------

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Bramble, I don't think you mean you can expect a rifle sighted in by someone else (single barrel rifle) to be accurate for a different person do you ?
any ideas, best, Mike

---

OK, I was being a little naughty.

With open sights/aperture it is extremely likely that a gun will shoot as near POI for the vast majority of different people as to make no difference at hunting ranges.
Yes as has been pointed out above, hold will make a difference to some extent as will gross differences in eyesight.

Scopes can be more problematic for some. Scopes effectively have a short sighting plane. ie the distance between the rear lens and the reticule. This magnifies errors in. Head position, eyesight, and hold. It is a bit like trying to shoot tiny groups with a handgun like the ones it can shoot from a machine rest. It is not a problem with the accuracy of a fine revolver but the short sighting plane. Where you eyes occular centre is can make a heap of difference as can astigmatism etc.

Also there is a bit of psychology involved. If you never shot your rifle on paper and every time you took a shot at an animal it fell over you would never question if it was shooting 2 or 3 inches off. That was exactly what people did. Now we are much more critical about our shooting but hunt less. It is like shotguns, how many people ever pattern them or have one fitted. Most people are happy with theirs, it goes bang and things drop out of the sky. I bet a fiver that 90% don't shoot to POA for their owners.

The difference you experienced in Africa is I believe at the extreme end of what can be anticipated so gives lie to my theory. In that case I think it is hold and recoil reaction/barrel lift. That the 375 had twice the error of a 25-06 is I believe the clue here.

Regards

Edited by Bramble (10/02/09 10:26 AM)

Post Extras: