Rob,
You are right about putting shitaway back on ignore.
He just isn't entertaining anymore.
He is funny, but funny the wrong way.

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Jjs. I stated my opinion. If you have another that is perfectly fine. I don't prefer to waste money for zero, repeat zero functional difference. But hey I drive a cross over suv that ain't a Porsche. Other than hp rating it is , within useful tolerances for a daily driver, the "same" but cost 1/4 as much.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however you took a "jab" at those that make a choice alternative to your own,

you are free to read into it what you feel like.. just remember, anything YOU read into it, you put into it

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:

if the "jab" is at me that's just fine.

didn't read your post, i answered the man's question. as we'll see in a second, there's NO functional reason to spend the money for a gma

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
As I said in my original post on this thread, I have owned several CZ 550 and they work just fine....

agreed

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
Your suggestion or statement that there is no functional difference between the two action is subjective

subjective.. funny negative connotation word... how many rifles have you PERSONALLY built from an action? ever taken a mauser, an enfield, springfield, heck, even a winchester, installed a barrel, whittled a stock, fine tuned the feeding, polished the action, blued, inletted, and then finished the wood? I have worked on mauser, springfield, enfield, winchester, remington, savage, bauska, cz, national ord, krag, and smle (the other enfield).. and know what I am looking at to make it work. I have NOT, nor do I intend to, work on an GMA, as they are NOT "HH fine" from the factory. This is a question of subjective EXPERIENCE vs "my check book is my gunsmithing tool"

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
...spend a bit of time and do a comparison on specs of each including options regarding action specs, ie length / size options, bottom metal, safety, etc.

fairly arrogant of you to assume i haven't.

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
Certainly, these differences will effect the function of a finished rifle.

of course they well.. a daisy 22 can't become a 505 gibbs action .. but a cz and a gma, compared spec for spec, is pretty darn close.. now go dig up some esoteric difference to throw at me

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
..If you see no value that's just fine....

and if you hadn't kicked sand at me for stating that, we wouldn't be having this discussion

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
I am not going to get into a "back and forth" with you here,

seriously? you already have

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:

as the choices are up to each individual

the man asked for eval, i gave mine. i've built more than a few rifles, and for the money, there's no meaningful difference other than ego

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
...value and utility are subjective.

no sir.. value could be subjective, utility is objective.. however, at 4 times the price for ZERO functional difference, the value of value is vanity

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
Certainly what you drive is of no concern to me

so, analogy is lost on you?

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
and I do my best not to judge or characterize others by what they purchase

why? where's the moral high ground here.. this is like saying you don't judge someone by their actions.. which is what purchasing is ..

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
...cars, rifles, etc...but we all fall short from time to time...

i provided my opinion, you took exception.. let it be and i shall.. feel free to have the last word in the conversation

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Jjs. I stated my opinion. If you have another that is perfectly fine. I don't prefer to waste money for zero, repeat zero functional difference. But hey I drive a cross over suv that ain't a Porsche. Other than hp rating it is , within useful tolerances for a daily driver, the "same" but cost 1/4 as much.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however you took a "jab" at those that make a choice alternative to your own,

you are free to read into it what you feel like.. just remember, anything YOU read into it, you put into it

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:

if the "jab" is at me that's just fine.

didn't read your post, i answered the man's question. as we'll see in a second, there's NO functional reason to spend the money for a gma

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
As I said in my original post on this thread, I have owned several CZ 550 and they work just fine....

agreed

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
Your suggestion or statement that there is no functional difference between the two action is subjective

subjective.. funny negative connotation word... how many rifles have you PERSONALLY built from an action? ever taken a mauser, an enfield, springfield, heck, even a winchester, installed a barrel, whittled a stock, fine tuned the feeding, polished the action, blued, inletted, and then finished the wood? I have worked on mauser, springfield, enfield, winchester, remington, savage, bauska, cz, national ord, krag, and smle (the other enfield).. and know what I am looking at to make it work. I have NOT, nor do I intend to, work on an GMA, as they are NOT "HH fine" from the factory. This is a question of subjective EXPERIENCE vs "my check book is my gunsmithing tool"

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
...spend a bit of time and do a comparison on specs of each including options regarding action specs, ie length / size options, bottom metal, safety, etc.

fairly arrogant of you to assume i haven't.

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
Certainly, these differences will effect the function of a finished rifle.

of course they well.. a daisy 22 can't become a 505 gibbs action .. but a cz and a gma, compared spec for spec, is pretty darn close.. now go dig up some esoteric difference to throw at me

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
..If you see no value that's just fine....

and if you hadn't kicked sand at me for stating that, we wouldn't be having this discussion

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
I am not going to get into a "back and forth" with you here,

seriously? you already have

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:

as the choices are up to each individual

the man asked for eval, i gave mine. i've built more than a few rifles, and for the money, there's no meaningful difference other than ego

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
...value and utility are subjective.

no sir.. value could be subjective, utility is objective.. however, at 4 times the price for ZERO functional difference, the value of value is vanity

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
Certainly what you drive is of no concern to me

so, analogy is lost on you?

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
and I do my best not to judge or characterize others by what they purchase

why? where's the moral high ground here.. this is like saying you don't judge someone by their actions.. which is what purchasing is ..

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
...cars, rifles, etc...but we all fall short from time to time...

i provided my opinion, you took exception.. let it be and i shall.. feel free to have the last word in the conversation

You have got to be kidding..

What a waste of time and effort you put must have put into that..and totally missing the mark..

Kick sand in your face....read the full thread.

quote:

Originally posted by xile84:
Which is the better quality action?

A simple question is deserving of a simple answer, GMA.

For 416 Rigby/378 Wby case size or even 375 H&H with a longer magazine than standard I think it is very hard to go past either the CZ or Wby Mark V.

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
As nice as the GMA actions are they still take some work to make sure they work 100% with whatever cartridge you choose. Add to that the wood, price of stocking, barrel, sights and quality labor and as everyone says you are pushing $10,000 +

A CZ like this one on the left, built by Lon Paul and used on a spring bear hunt a month ago,can be had for half of that. This one is a .370 ( aka 9.3x66) rather than a 375.

(see pic above)

The rifle on the right is my 9.3x62.

I have seen pictures of several of Lon Paul's rifles but never had the pleasure of handling one...quality looking work!

In addition to the quality, Lon certainly knows how to make a wonderfully lively rifle (even something as porcine as a .416Rigby on an Enfield). IIRC, that .370 is a rebuilt factory 9,3x62 with a reshaped stock and opened chamber and other fine tuning. Pretty slick "conversion"!

My own experience with both actions provides some pro's and cons. For the .600Ok the first one was built on a CZ550 requiring bolt face machining, mag box mods, feed ramp and rail mods a new follower and fooling with the mag box. I got it to feed double stack but would only hold two down in the box and it was not an easy thing to accomplish. Later I worked with AHR to develop a single stack mag box that really worked well and solved the feeding issues completely. I met mike Rodden at SCI in 2001 and talked to him about the GMA action and bought one. In theory the GMA fixed too issues I had with the CZ and the .600Ok. Seemingly too thin bolt face rim and only a 3 round capacity. I gave him a .600OK case and asked that they set the action up to feed it. He agreed as a condition of sale. he also gave me a good deal on the action as he really liked the .600OK. They tried and it didn't! I found that in the end that it took about as much work to get the GMA to work as it did the CZ550. The GMA is made from hardened 8620 and it takes carbide tooling to work it. No big deal, but machining talley dovetails in a GMA can be interesting on a $3500 action. It also required that the rear sight bridge be opened up for positive extraction. The advantage was I was able to get 3 cartridges down in the mag box. The downside was the cartridge noses got smashed to hell in the magbox and I had to install a teflon buffer to fix that. In comparing the two guns made from each action, I like the CXZ550 based one more. Overall I came away with the impression the GMA was a good action and well made, but cost more money than it was worth. If AHR didn't offer the single stack magbox option for the CZ, the GMA would undoubtably be the better choice for the biggest of cartridges. For a .375 class cartridge, its advantages are irrelevant. Just my opinion and whichever you chose, you'll have a first class rifle.-Rob

I,ll be damned. Chalk it up to ignorance on my part, but I,ve got a few CZ,s and I was under the impression that they fed, cycled and shot just fine staight out of the box. Sneaky bastids must have corrected the sights to shoot around the bent barrel on the FS. Probably in cahoots with Leupold, for some odd reason the kevlar 9.3 seems to hit right about where I aim it. Course, I am Canadian, and I probably just don,t know any better.
As for the original question, I have no clue as to which is the better quality action, I have no experience with GMAs.
My experience with CZs, on the other hand, has been positive.
I buy guns to shoot em. If I don,t like the way one feels or functions, or if its just not talking to me, I get rid of it. So far, Ive only gotten rid of one CZ, a little .22 FS with light coloured, plain wood, with an upgrade to one with dark, figured wood. And the pretty one,s a shooter.
Like the CZs, look at other guns, but mostly stick to CZs for rifles.
Should you be sorry?

No.

Like it or lump it, the only way you,re gonna know for sure which one you like better is to build, or have built, one of each.
Get rid of the one you don,t use.

I was inclined to think that the GMA action would be better for the 505 Gibbs and 600 OK because of the larger bolt face but no one probably knows more about this than Rob.

Dave- That was my initial feeling too and one of the two reasons I bough a GMA in the first place, however, to my knowledge no one has ever had a problem with the thin rim and even CZ offers a factory 505 Gibbs boltface. My .600Ok #1 has over 1000 rds through it and the rim has never been an issue. Non- existant problem in reality.-Rob

A few years ago I had a pair of Rigby built best bolt guns, a 416 and a 450. Both were built on CZ actions and were gorgeous and worked like Swiss watches. They were well north of $10K each so I'm sure a lot of work went into tweaking the actions to Paul Robert's satisfaction. If they were on Prechtl actions, I would still have them. I guess I'm a snob but a CZ action did not seem appropriate on a pair of guns like these. I sold them!

Those actions are nice, CZ and GMA are like
the BBK I have my 585HE in.

But a different perspective, You know
I like brand E so to speak, of them all,
the right one in first picture.
In a few ways even better than my PHs,
better bolt handle style when sporterized,
can be single fed easy, cocks on closing which
I like best, longer firing pin fall for big or hard primers,
no goofy mauser wall in the middle to make it
hard to do real big cases easy.Or harder to
gunsmith on.The Ruger 77 new and old, has my
same high estimate as that Enfield. I even did one
PH with swept back bolt handl and fixed it to
single feed by just droppingin the round.Ed