For you guys that live in Alaska and especially for those that are guides or rough it in the outdoors. What has been your experience with the CZ550 series of rifles? Especially in the extreme cold and wet conditions. Are they prone to jamming, braking parts or failing in any way? What is your opinion of them? Do any of you have the CZ550FS with full length stock or the one with the plastic stock? I would like to know the good the band and the ugly about them.

Finally what is the real down and dirty opinion of the 9.3x62 cartridge on the bigger species of bears?

Please pull no punches or be politically correct on this.

Would you stake your life on one?

Off the shelf they are typically a bit rough but with a little attention they smooth up very nicely. The factory set triggers are bit too complicated by half but that too is no big problem to solve.
Otherwise they make a very reliable, accurate rifle and you would have to shoot an awful lot of bears in order to see any difference in performance between the 9.3x62 and the .375.

Thanks Phil, I have one too. I had Wayne at AHR put his single stage match trigger on mine and M70 style 3 position safety. If I ever come North again (I hope to) to hunt the great bears I will get it Cerakoted and put it in a synthetic stock. Someone told me the only way to shoot a 10' bear is not to shoot anything smaller. Now that I have my first bear, it's easier to do.

Thanks again,

Phil thank you for your answer, I have two further questions:

1-What trigger do you recommend for the CZ550 to replace the factory one?

2-The CZ550 is not a true Mauser, but a derivative design. Since you have considerable experience with your commercial Mauser .458 rifle, do you consider the CZ550, to be more of less equal to the Mauser in reliability or somewhat less reliable?

Thanks in advance for your advice.

quote:

Originally posted by JORGE01:
Phil thank you for your answer, I have two further questions:

1-What trigger do you recommend for the CZ550 to replace the factory one?

2-The CZ550 is not a true Mauser, but a derivative design. Since you have considerable experience with your commercial Mauser .458 rifle, do you consider the CZ550, to be more of less equal to the Mauser in reliability or somewhat less reliable?

Thanks in advance for your advice.

Jorge,

im a phil but not the Phil.

the commecial Mauser are less heavy than the cz550, you can use the trigger and adjust it very well.

in the other hand cz 550 are not bad too but i prefer the commercial 98 ...

Phil

Jorge if you are going to make a 9.3x62 the commercial 98 would be a much better platform to build it on than a CZ550, if your looking to build a 375 H&H the CZ550 would be better. You can even put an M70 style trigger on the 98 these days if that would be your preference.

I'd have to agree with 458Win, 550's are a bit rough but, still very useable out of the box. The more rounds I've put thru my 9.3x62 the smoother it gets but still not quite as smooth as some other rifles I own.

I will have to admit that I do like the set trigger especially in the set mode. Mine is plenty accurate and I really like the Kevlar stock option although, I think it may add a bit of weight.

I had AHR put their single stage match trigger and M70 style 3 pos safety on mine (their CZ No. 1 upgrade). My CZ 550 in 500 Jeffery is my favorite rifle and we have quite a few ...

IMO, the CZ 550 Medium action is the perfect size for the 9.3×62 . perhaps some of the commercial Mauser's are a small amount more dainty. But when the scope bases are put on the are very similar . .
I very much like the cz 550 action . I prefer it to all other with the exception of the Stainless Ruger M77 Mkll . . I'm not sure which one is more durable as they both are so durable you might well be very tired of rifle shooting by the time you wore either of them out. I think it would be awesome if the Ruger Hawkeye in Stainless steel was available in 9.3×62 . The MS stock on my 550 Medium 9.3 ×62 warped quite badly up toward the muzzle.

The 2 reason's I prefer the Stainless Ruger to the CZ 550 Medium action is the corrosion resistance and the safety. I prefer the Ruger safety to all other safeties made. I do prefer the bolt handle and extra round in the magazine of the 550 . I like both ring bases equally .
The Ruger trigger is vastly more fool proof . But , I've never had a CZ trigger fail me personally.

quote:

Originally posted by JORGE01:
Phil thank you for your answer, I have two further questions:

1-What trigger do you recommend for the CZ550 to replace the factory one?

2-The CZ550 is not a true Mauser, but a derivative design. Since you have considerable experience with your commercial Mauser .458 rifle, do you consider the CZ550, to be more of less equal to the Mauser in reliability or somewhat less reliable?

Thanks in advance for your advice.

Two dislikes I have with the CZ when it comes to using and maintaining the rifle when a long ways away from home or a workshop.

1. It's overbuilt with excessive steel, so it is indeed on the heavy end of the scale.

2. Though it is overbuilt, and one would think this automatically translates into super durable, but no. There are more tiny springs, pieces and parts within the trigger and sear assembly alone of a CZ than there are within an entire 98 mauser rifle. The head gunsmith with CZ had to send me a bushel sack of these little wire springs, which are not very robust, and its failure makes the entire rifle unshootable. If you look at a military 98 trigger and sear, you will immediately notice how large and robust the very few and simple parts are within the assembly. Same can be said for the Ruger, or the older M70 triggers. Very simple to keep running and to maintain when out in the middle of nowhere.

I do believe someone markets a more robust replacement trigger for the over-complicated CZ trigger. I know of several who keep their factory triggers running well, but I've had one too many issues with mine to ever again have enough faith to rely upon that trigger on a rifle that is to be maintained and used for long periods of time in remote wilderness areas.

Best

GarryVA thanks for the info. I agree with you about the Mauser 98 simplicity, they can be taken apart and reassembled in a few minutes and its ruggedness comes from being an excellent battle rifle.

The little spring you show on the picture is not even in the exploded parts diagram of the CZ550. It looks to me to be a spring for the sear, and not from the trigger assembly is that correct?

Also what was the nature of the problem you had with the little spring? Did it break or loose tension?

A spring or any other part that was made of substandard steel, or badly tempered will cause problems on any design.

You can see the spring here:

[/url]

I believe that when they engineered this trigger/sear design, they were in a head to head competition with Browning to win the Rube Goldberg over-engineered championship.

[/url]

Compare to a Mauser model 98 and it is easy to see that there are more pieces and parts in the trigger assembly alone of the CZ than in an entire 98 rifle. Many tiny pieces in the CZ are frail, whereas the few parts in the 98 are robust. In my opinion, that is why the Ruger 77 and the older "pre-Browning" Winchester 70s are more reliable and easier to maintain in rough conditions, because they have similar robust parts as the Mauser.

[/url]

The springs were no more than a glorified wire paper clip that failed from loss of tension. The then master gunsmith at CZ-USA, Mike Eagleshield, kept these springs on hand, as they were often being replaced at his shop. He sent me a sack full. If mostly used during times of good conditions and kept like a Swiss watch, it is a very nice gun for the money with the extra trigger functions. But if picking out a wilderness gun that can be easily broken down and maintained in the field, it is way too Rube Goldberg for my tastes.

Best

Trying not to throw you off your intent of a non-magnum 550 chambered 9.3x62.

The reason you don't see the spring in the schematics is that they never show a schematic for the magnum. Here is the standard 550, you can see it uses a small coil spring under the sear:

[/url]

The overall trigger system is still too complicated, in my opinion, and it will be no lightweight. But I have handled several of the factory full stock models that they sell with the Bell and Carlson composite stock, the CZ 550 Carbine Kevlar. Though crude, it is very useable, but I am once bit and twice shy reference the factory trigger. I can purchase the gun at dealer cost, which is fairly cheap, and have toyed with the idea several times, but always end up passing on the rifle. The overall concept of the gun, especially chambered in 9.3x62, is right up my alley. If building one from scratch, I'd use a model 70 classic as a donor, and build from there.

Good Luck

quote:

Originally posted by GaryVA:
You can see the spring here:

[/url]

I believe that when they engineered this trigger/sear design, they were in a head to head competition with Browning to win the Rube Goldberg over-engineered championship.

[/url]

Compare to a Mauser model 98 and it is easy to see that there are more pieces and parts in the trigger assembly alone of the CZ than in an entire 98 rifle. Many tiny pieces in the CZ are frail, whereas the few parts in the 98 are robust. In my opinion, that is why the Ruger 77 and the older "pre-Browning" Winchester 70s are more reliable and easier to maintain in rough conditions, because they have similar robust parts as the Mauser.

[/url]

The springs were no more than a glorified wire paper clip that failed from loss of tension. The then master gunsmith at CZ-USA, Mike Eagleshield, kept these springs on hand, as they were often being replaced at his shop. He sent me a sack full. If mostly used during times of good conditions and kept like a Swiss watch, it is a very nice gun for the money with the extra trigger functions. But if picking out a wilderness gun that can be easily broken down and maintained in the field, it is way too Rube Goldberg for my tastes.

Best

What's your opinion of the AHR single stage trigger? I have one on my rifle and like it, but am no Mauser expert.

Interesting. I left the factory trigger in both mine. I like the set function but it does seem complicated. What happens when they fail?

Haven't yet had a problem with either of my CZ 9.3s, did hurt my feelings a little when they decided to quit selling the 550 American. Had thought I was going to round up one in 6.5x55, they never even bothered to check with me first.. Moving on, think, can't quite remember for sure at the moment, that Morris at Alaska Arms makes a nice, Winchester style(older model 70..) trigger for the CZs...

Since I can walk into Timney and get triggers installed how is a timney on a 550?

quote:

What has been your experience with the CZ550 series of rifles? Especially in the extreme cold and wet conditions. Are they prone to jamming, braking parts or failing in any way? What is your opinion of them? I would like to know the good the band and the ugly about them.

Please pull no punches or be politically correct on this.

Would you stake your life on one?

Keep in mind my response was in the context of the original post. In that context, Yes, I do believe a good single stage trigger makes for an improvement.

I've used the Timney and the AHR (still have the AHR). Both are nice with less springs than the factory trigger. I like the AHR more though, which uses a few pieces of the original, modifies some pieces, then adds some of it own. Probably not selling it the best, but I find the AHR more robust than the Timney.

Muttly ; do you have any contact info for Alaska Arms?
My CZ 550 Medium FS in 9.3×62 was a pretty darn ideal general purpose hunting rifle. It needed a good laminate stock imo The Boyd's JRS Classic is my favorite, a military style trigger and CeraKote finish. But it fed, extracted and ejected perfectly. Was plenty accurate for big game hunting. Around 1moa . Some loads better than others. Sadly I no longer have that rifle as I decided to go all Ruger M77 Mk2. But if I came upon another of them in a gunshop It would come home with.me.

Jorge ,i live in Argentina and we have several czs rifles in our hunting business ,the rest are Mausers.
We use them in the water hunting buffalo and i every kind of terrain even swamps ,some of them in 308 have several thousands of shots fired and they continue working with a good accuraccy .I RECOMMEND THEM FOR PRO USING .

Cold Trigger Finger, you have a PM inbound!.

Juanpozzi, are your CZ rifles besides scope mounting stock or have they been modified or customized in any way?

Jorge as they are tools we just coustomize for each client with a bit of imagintaion so the cheek can be exactly where the shooter wants
Most of my african friends use czs too ,there is a very interesting article by my friend Don Heath on RIFA -RIFA examination that you must read too .He has czs on high regards czs are the glocks ofthe rifles they arent beautifull but they work .

My experience with CZ rifles are that they are rugged and dependable. I've used the CZ 550 Safari Magnum .375 H&H in Africa but I have yet to take it to Alaska. My usual Alaska rifle is the .338 Win Mag or the .45-70. I think the 9,3x62 would do an excellent job on the big bears up there.