I've been reading a lot about the great quality of CZ rifles on many forums and have own a couple in the past. I was wondering about others experiences with these rifles. The ones I've looked at in the gunshop were mostly ok, but some were in the stock very crooked. I had a .223 that shot ok, nothing special, with a very rough bolt and would not feed out of the magazine. Also inserting and removing the magazine was very difficult. The bolt was very rough. Is this typical of these rifles? What's your experience.
Also as a side note, I've noticed the Tikkas I've looked at a lot of them are in the stocks crooked. What gives? I expect this from Remington, but not some of the better rifles.

I have a CZ 527 American in .22 Hornet. In my opinion, when considering the cost, quality, and out of the box accuracy it is a very solid choice.

As soon as the 527 in .221 Fireball hits the dealers shelves in November, I will own another.

I own 5 cz's and there my favourite rifles without a doubt, the best value for money going around.

I'll reply to some of the specific problems mentioned, mainly the roughness out of the box. It's a CZ 527 Varmint 223, Lam stock and black barrel.

I had trouble feeding from the mag so I ran some emery cloth over the feed rails. That solved the problem of both hard feeding and of scratched cases. The bolt was very rough at first, but after 100 rounds it was much smoother. After about 500 rounds it's "slick as a whistle."

The stock appeared to fit well with action and barrel, fully floated. It shoots very well. These rifles are obviuosly a little rough out of the box, but for $100s less than the competition you can take a little time to smooth it up a bit. It's worth it to me.

I'm not saying that CZ's are not a good value or that they don't shoot. I am saying that they require some work to get them to shoot well and to function smoothly. I've read a lot of posts griping about the fact that Winchesters, Rugers, etc. need too much work to get them to shoot. This is also true of CZ. My neighbor's 22 hornet shot poorly, and simply refused to feed out of the mag. I polished the lips of the mag to no avail. My own .223 heavy barrel, shot only fair, certainly nothing to brag about. I like the design of the guns, I just hate hearing all the trouble with the others and people saying CZ's are without flaws.
I guess the bottom line is, you can get a bad one of anything. I'd have to say that CZ probably shoot better than most on a regular basis. One thing no one can deny, is the CZ has a super trigger.

Bobby, I have a CZ-601 chambered in .308Win that shoots great. The action is incredibly smooth (surprisingly) and precision is 1MOA or even less. The only problem I have found are related to feeding, the feeding must be a rapid, nonstop movement or else it�s...fooked.
I am so pleased with the weapon that I am planning on buying a new one sooner than later.

Regards

I've been a big fan of the CZ since it was known as Brno, especially in the smaller calibers. They make a .22 Hornet that's to die for. Dollar for dollar they're hard to beat. This is especially since our American manufacturers have forgotten what quality control is all about.
Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

there are good rifles, and there are bad ones, but with the CZs, it seems there is more good than bad. I own two of them, one a CZ550 American in 7x57mm that will spit 162 grain Hornady SSTs in three shot groups from .216 to .431 inches. I also own a CZ 527 in .223 that will put five into a half-inch circle with sickening regularity. The CZ rifles are such a fine line of firearms that I recommend them to shooters, both friends and acquaintences. I talked my brother into a CZ 550 Full Stock in 7x57mm and his friend liked my brother's so much that he bought one. I could not be more happy with these rifles. Tom Purdom