The Accurate Reloading Forums
CZ 550 Factory Scope Rings: Do you recommend them?

This topic can be found at:
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4711043/m/60410677

02 February 2003, 15:03
<Buliwyf>
CZ 550 Factory Scope Rings: Do you recommend them?
Gentlemen:

Do you use the CZ 550 factory scope rings or other on your CZ 550's? I would appreciate hearing your general comments on the factory CZ rings.

Thanks in advance.

B
02 February 2003, 15:40
ALF
/
02 February 2003, 17:16
nextjoe
Buliwyf-

The factory CZ rings are well made, but they're somewhat high and pretty heavy. If they came with the gun, I'd use 'em. If not, I'd buy Talleys instead. Talleys are available in either fixed, QD lever, or QD screw configurations. My .416 Rigby will wear a set of the QD lever rings.

Best,
Joe
04 February 2003, 06:32
Recono
quote:
Originally posted by nextjoe:
The factory CZ rings are well made, but they're somewhat high and pretty heavy.
That's how I'd call it, too, except that I consider somewhat high and pretty heavy both to be positive qualities, particularly the latter.
04 February 2003, 07:00
nextjoe
quote:
Originally posted by Recono:
That's how I'd call it, too, except that I consider somewhat high and pretty heavy both to be positive qualities, particularly the latter.
Recono-

I think that excess height and weight are both negatives, particularly for a big-bore. The higher and heavier your scope and mount, the more stress you place on the mounting system during recoil. I think huge scopes and high mounts are just plain ugly, too [Smile]

Best,
Joe
04 February 2003, 10:28
PC
I have a set of CZ 550 Magnum mounts for sale for $35.00US + postage if anyone is interested.
04 February 2003, 15:00
CZ 550
They're good, but not great. Use em if you got em. If not definitely go with Talley.
Andy

[ 02-04-2003, 06:01: Message edited by: CZ 550 ]
04 February 2003, 17:24
<Buliwyf>
Are Millett scope rings used by anyone?
04 February 2003, 18:12
ALF
/
04 February 2003, 18:35
<Kboom>
I Emailed Leupold last Dec. and they said they would have rings for the CZ by February or March '03.
04 February 2003, 18:58
RIP
Kboom,
Hurrah for Leupold! We'll see what they are like, eh?

Since I have had good luck with the Warne QD and Warne Fixed rings as well as the original old BRNO 602 and the newer CZ 550 factory rings, I am happy with any of these. I have not bothered to get some Talley rings yet but might try them, along with the new Leupolds.

I have the Zeiss 4X scope with the integral mount that Alf has pictured for us above. It came "used" with my BRNO ZKK 602, and is a serviceable QD affair.

No Millett please!!!

[ 02-04-2003, 09:59: Message edited by: DaggaRon ]
04 February 2003, 19:31
ALF
/
04 February 2003, 20:20
RIP
There are similarities between the Lynx system and the Sako Optilocks.

Alf, thanks for a look at the Lynx.
05 February 2003, 09:18
375HH
Where can I by the Lynx mount for Brno?

/JOhan
05 February 2003, 09:21
KMuleinAK
quote:
Originally posted by nextjoe:
quote:
Originally posted by Recono:
That's how I'd call it, too, except that I consider somewhat high and pretty heavy both to be positive qualities, particularly the latter.
Recono-

I think that excess height and weight are both negatives, particularly for a big-bore. The higher and heavier your scope and mount, the more stress you place on the mounting system during recoil. I think huge scopes and high mounts are just plain ugly, too [Smile]

Best,
Joe
Hey there nextjoe - I don't believe Recono was referring to scope or mounts; I interpret his statement as a comment on breasts.Course, it could be that january is alaska is getting to me............just guessin'
05 February 2003, 03:29
ALF
/
05 February 2003, 04:27
375HH
Thanks Alf
Do you knew if Lynx have a homepage?
Where are they manufactured?

/Johan
05 February 2003, 06:28
Thomas M
Just don't get the Millet stuff. You could as well throw away the $$.
05 February 2003, 09:19
Recono
quote:
Originally posted by KMuleinAK:
Hey there nextjoe - I don't believe Recono was referring to scope or mounts; I interpret his statement as a comment on breasts.Course, it could be that january is alaska is getting to me............just guessin'
Good call, KMA. I think like that and write like that, but I wasn't quick enough this time. I was actually talking about mounts (oops, didn't mean to bring that up [oops, another]).

I have no argument with nextjoe's thinking, although possibly it applies even more to bases with tiny screws. It's still correct. However, everything has a cost. The CZ mounts ARE strong, the weight should be welcome in a heavy-recoiling gun, and it's not where it upsets the balance. However, this thread is not controversial enough, so I'll point out that the high mounts make it easier to carry your rifle by the scope, as Alf recommends.

Carry on.
05 February 2003, 11:15
<Buliwyf>
Is there a tendency for the scope to slip forward under heavy recoil if the rings are heavy in weight?
05 February 2003, 13:00
ALF
/
06 February 2003, 02:26
Recono
quote:
Originally posted by Buliwyf:
Is there a tendency for the scope to slip forward under heavy recoil if the rings are heavy in weight?
Increased mass of the rings does not increase the force pushing the scope forward IN THE RINGS. The mass of the rings DOES have an effect on the force pushing the rings and scope forward on the rifle. However, the CZ rings have a rather large lug fitting into a recess in the rear bridge. On my rifle it fits quite well. I believe that this more than makes up for the weight. This forum has had all sorts of stories about various mounts failing with .416 Rigby (and other .416's). I don't believe that any of them have been about CZ rings.

[ 02-05-2003, 17:28: Message edited by: Recono ]
10 February 2003, 23:16
375HH
Alf
I get no response from the Lynx company regarding my mount questions.
Do you recommend Lynx or Warne?
How high are the lowest Lynx mount.

Have you ever seen a M21 or a ZG47 with front sight hood?

Regards

Johan