Just looking at a few options in a new factory M98 outfit.

How do these 2 differ from the original M98, in 'design, safety & function'. And, which is more 'pure' Mauser?


Thanks again

The zastava, MKX, Daly, Interarms, Rem 798 are basically a comercial 98 just like the FN etc. Heck parts interchange. The CZ just has some 98 Characteristics

basically --- everything .. i don't think a single parts interchanges.

the zatava is a mauser 98
the CZ aint

Thanks for the info.

Another question. How does the safety work, in relation to blocking the firing-pin/striker on both models?

I think I remember the CZ having this? , but I have never owned a Zastava.

The basic Zastava action is a trigger safety. You would need to swap out the shroud and go with a lever, 2 or 3 position swing to block the firing pin

The cz blocks the firing pin. Some people have issues with how it functions.

Thanks for that info

How does the CZ550 vary(bolt design, bolt-stop, extractor etc) from the Zastava. Changes made?

340,
these aren't like comparing a z28 to a trans am (in the same year, likely that besides trim and sheet metal, 90% of the stuff interchanges) ... its comparing a mustang to a z28 ... basically, nothing interchanges.

for one thing, the mauser/zast/etc is all inch pattern threads, the cz is metric ... the cz is NOTHING like a mauser in actual details ..

Sorry, man, the differences are so much that there is no basis for comparison, other than mag feed turnbolt, non rotating claw extractor ... after than, everything changes ... just like comparing a mustang to a z28 ... both have ABC features, that do the same thing, but nothing interchanges of signifagance.

quote:

340,
these aren't like comparing a z28 to a trans am (in the same year, likely that besides trim and sheet metal, 90% of the stuff interchanges) ... its comparing a mustang to a z28 ... basically, nothing interchanges.

Jeff as Cool Hand Luke would say I think we have a failure to communicate. I agree a CZ is no more a Mauser than a M70 or Ruger would be. Before coffee only things that comes to mind for like characteristics on the mauser, CZ, M70 and Ruger would be CRF I'm sure there might be a couple more but just no worth thinking to hard this early in the morning.

I have a 70s vintage short magnum Mark X that is FN style without the speedlock. I also have the CZ 550 Magnum.

As previously noted, the Mark X is faithful in design and measurement to the universal M98, and is therefore an uncomplicated standard Mauser. The CZ is something different and is unique to itself. Comparing my CZ 550 Magnum to my J.P. Sauer M98 Mauser, the CZ has more parts in the trigger assembly alone than the M98 has in the entire rifle.

As to the safety, you have a boat load of options with the Zastava M98. The later speedlock Zastava may limit some options, but there are quite a few trigger and safety combinations available. My pre-speedlock Mark X has the adjustable trigger option with the slide safety. When the slide safety is engage, the slide locks the bolt and it also locks the sear while lifting it off the trigger. In addition, the slide flips up the trigger safety adjustment screw which locks the trigger. When everything is adjusted correctly, it is a very solid system, but you must take the safety off to operate the bolt, hence the hinged floor plate to dump the magazine. The later Sako improved upon this design with an aditional push button to open the bolt with the safety engaged.

To me, the biggest differences are M98 Mauser simplicity - advantage for the Zastava; while better handling of long magnum chamberings - advantage for the CZ. Therefore, for standard and short magnum chamberings, I give the edge to the Mauser. For long magnum chamberings, I give the edge to the CZ.

Best

quote:

but you must take the safety off to operate the bolt

The later ones removed the front tab on the safety allowing the bolt to open while on safe. I take a dremel to the old ones to remove the tab. I prefer the gun on safe while I eject using the bolt. I hate jacking with the floorplate. Or if you get in a real hurry and lift hard you can bend the tab.

I took the bolt out my daly,and it fit and functioned in a turk mauser,although the headspace may have been off.I didnt fire it.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:
I agree a CZ is no more a Mauser than a M70 or Ruger would be. Before coffee only things that comes to mind for like characteristics on the mauser, CZ, M70 and Ruger would be CRF I'm sure there might be a couple more but just no worth thinking to hard this early in the morning.

Duane seems to be of a different mind:

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
A commednt that was supposedly made by Tom Burgess " If these actions cost $2000.00, they sell like hot cakes"

They are pure Mauser... CZ just kinda got carried away with the trigger and safety

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Well...I kind of have to jump to the defense of the CZ. The receiver is a Mauser through and through. C ring, extractor undercut, third lug. It would probably get more attention if it sold for $2500.00 (To quote Tom Burgess).

Bolt travel?...come on...you pull the bolt back until it stops and push it forward until it stops...maybe I have to think about that a bit??

Although I see nothing really wrong with the seperate magazine...it IS made of rather flimsy material.

Our very next run is CZ bottom metal with an integral box..I like the idea better too!

Put a CZ bolt in a mauser. Doesn't work. Stock, same thing, bottom metal, to an m98, not even close. There's no reason to go on mauser inspired, okay, but not a mauser

Jeffe
Duane was talking about features(you know the things that actually matter), not direct parts interchangeability.

Using your logic, we could say that the Saterlee, GMA, Perchell, ect. are no more "Mauser" than a R700 or a Savage 110. And that would be B.S.

Using you logic, we could say that because a GEW98 bolt won't fit a Magnum Mauser, the Magnum Mauser is not a Mauser....

What makes a Mauser a Mauser are the features, not the dimensions. Feature wise, the CZ comes closer to the 98 than most all regular production rifles(M70, m77, etc.). The only one that is closer to the 98 is the current Zastva which is a pretty faithful reproduction of the FN which is a slightly dumbed-down 98(no c-ring thumb-slot, etc).

Hey I'll agree that the CZ, M70 any number of other actions including the ones Jason named are Mauser inspired. Heck call them a modern action based on the Mauser design I take no issue with it. When someone says Mauser action to me I think 98 and then the commercial versions. In trying to answer the orginal question the CRF Zastava actions are a modern manufacture of the M98 like a FN. The CZ is a mauser inspired. Let's go have a and argue about something else.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:
Hey I'll agree that the CZ, M70 any number of other actions including the ones Jason named are Mauser inspired.

IMO we are not "arguing", just discussing our differing points of view. Pretty healthy and I feel that I learn something every time. Often I learn that I am wrong.

IMO all(yes every one) of the current production rifles that we call "Mauser inspired" are more correctly dumbed-down mauser knock-offs. Every one has some feature that Paul Mauser that though was important enough to incorporated into his original design omitted to ease manufacture(read lower production cost).

On of the most common omissions is the under-cut on the claw hook. Cost is the only reason to omit this important feature, and most all of them(m70, m77, etc.) do. Duane Wiebe and Finn Aagaard have stated that this feature is important, FWIW.

All of the commercial 98s(FN, Zastava, etc.) retain this feature as does the CZ. The CZ also has the c-ring, while the FN and Zastava use the fully broached H-ring(to cut costs).

a mauser model 1898 is a thing -- and anything that isn't, well, isn't. a magnum mauser, for instance, NEVER WAS a" mauser 1898" not more than a push feed mauser 3000 is ... and don't bother digging up short and small ring mausers, those are other things, that share lots of design features, and are close, but aren't mauser model 1898 large ring standard length actions, by definition

a cz 550/brno 602 is no more a mauser than a ruger 77 mkii stndard action. and an rsm aint a model 77mkii nor magnum mauser

and some of the mauser clones do actually interchange some parts with the 98 ... most dont..

i'm a techie.. a thing either fits the spec and tolerence or doesn't, .. does that include highly modifed-to-be-a-model-70-clone? it depends ... and its always a modified mauser at that point ...

c ring? means nothing, as mauser licensed makers made them both ways...

quote:

and argue about something else

Poor choice of words. Let's debate something else.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
When they fully broach (H ring) those Zastava actions, is it because they use a broach that does both sides at one time, and therefore save money by only doing it once?

If so, why don't they just shorten the broach on the left side so it doesn't go all the way through?

You've got me there... I though I remember that the broach the H ring actions from the front, or something like that.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
a cz 550/brno 602 is no more a mauser than a ruger 77 mkii stndard action. and an rsm aint a model 77mkii nor magnum mauser

c ring? means nothing, as mauser licensed makers made them both ways...

The C-ring is there to block gas in the event of a case rupture. Paul Mauser employed the C-ring for a reason(safety). The knock-offs omit it for a reason(cost).

I believe the reason Duane called the CZ 550 "pure Mauser" Is because it retains so many of the important features.

Jeffe, think of it this way, Paul Mauser patented different features of his design not the dimensions. When the US had to pay for infringing on the pattens with the 1903 springfield it was because of features not dimensions. No one asked if the springfield bolt would fit in a Mauser, or if they shared the same barrel threads.

Jason,
the features copied, sued, and paid patent infringements are stripper clips and something else-- i think MIke can inform us. However, you have just disproved your own position, as a springfield is NOT a mauser, but has patent-infringable features .. shall we say inspired?

i think you are carrying on for form's sake.. and i believe duane meant mauser INSPIRED, as he certainly didn't mean they are perfect mauser reproductions ..

so, no parts interchange, no stock footprint interchanges, and there's strong design differences .. take the bolt assembly and trigger and ejector ..

the cz550 aint a mauser, though it might look like one, if you squint really hard ..

as for gas handling .. mauser also did the thumbcut for the same... as i said, it don't matter to the discussion of a cz550 vs an 1898


a 2010 shelby cobra kit car kinda looks like a 67 cobra .. but it AINT

quote:

Originally posted by 340Wby:
Just looking at a few options in a new factory M98 outfit.

How do these 2 differ from the original M98, in 'design, safety & function'. And, which is more 'pure' Mauser?

Jeffe

I didn't mean for this discussion to get contentious, and from my vantage point I don't feel that it has. Can't we just discuss our different positions? I always respect your opinion even though I often disagree.

Look at the original question. He asked about:
1) Design
2) Safety
3) Function
4) Which is more "pure" Mauser

I took #4 to mean "which is more true to the original Mauser design."
I felt that I answered based on these for points.

He did not ask about dimensions or parts interchangeability, but that was what you have addressed. Personally I feel your answer took things off on a tangent.

I think I might have an idea why you and I are so far apart on this discussion. I feel that the Mauser 98 is the pinnacle of bolt action design, and most every design that followed has been a step in the wrong direction. My guess is that you feel the M98 was a landmark action, but has been improved upon in the last 11 decades. Sorry to put words in your mouth, but am I correct?

Jason
I'll be facing pitchforks and torches again, but yeah, I think the 98 was a good place to start, but not the end all. Of course everyone that says different needs to only talk about their issue 98s, no changes. Of course everyone that adores the mauser modifies them..... Triggers..... Safeties, barrels, bolt handles, finished, scope bases, triggers and calibers. It the rare person that leaves them actual Mauser.

The z ain't a Mauser even though it has some of the same solutions for design. Aka inspired.

Yeah, I don't think Mauser is the end all, and most bench rest winners agree

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Jason
I'll be facing pitchforks and torches again, but yeah, I think the 98 was a good place to start, but not the end all. Of course everyone that says different needs to only talk about their issue 98s, no changes. Of course everyone that adores the mauser modifies them..... Triggers..... Safeties, barrels, bolt handles, finished, scope bases, triggers and calibers. It the rare person that leaves them actual Mauser.

The z ain't a Mauser even though it has some of the same solutions for design. Aka inspired.

Yeah, I don't think Mauser is the end all, and most bench rest winners agree

I won't be one of the ones carrying a pitchfork. Every man has his favorites. That's a right no one can take away.

I do notice that every item you mention, except the trigger, are items that are changed in order to mount a scope or utilize a different cartridge. All of these changes have a negative impact on the reliability of system to some extent. Also, none of these changes alters the internals of the system, which is where all the most important features are found.

JB,
barrels, safeties, calibers, scope bases, trigger, heck, even triggers, change the way the gun works .. when Mauser mounting scopes, none of these interacted with anything except stripper clip feeding... and the barrels where properly mounted, against the C ring, not on the receiver face .. triggers and springs frequently change cocking and lock time, scope bases drill and waeken the receiver, ina trivial way in SOME cases, bolt handles affect caming, safeties effect the entire safety of the gun, caliber change feeding, in most cases, and bolt face in some, and finishes... rust or hot bluing, requiring altering the surfaces ... bottom metal changes everything

and still all of those features you can swap around trigger, bolts, firing pins, safeties, stocks, etc, and it is at its core, an m98 ....

a cz, one can chane not one part with an m98...

the current 98 clone by zastava action can take 100% of the remaining milsurp parts and make a rifle... can't do that with a cz

I've got several '98 Mausers, and several CZ 550s in the medium action. I don't have any CZ Safari actions. Jeffeosso is right about the parts interchangability, but mostly it doesn't make a bit of difference. I can't exchange Mauser parts with my Winchester Mod 70s or Rugers either, but I don't downgrade the Win or Rugers or my Husqvarna 1640 because the parts aren't Mauser, so why should the CZ 550 be looked down upon? The CZ 550 is its own entity, like a Ruger 77 or Sako, or Mod 70 is unique. Doesn't hurt sales any or function.

The nice thing about the CZ 550 is that there is no need for parts swapping, and there most certainly is a need with the Zastava or Mark X action. I never liked the trigger or safety, and it costs plenty to replace them with proper parts. The fact that the bolt will operate with the safety on is a negative aspect to me - on a two-position safety.

Fact is that the CZ action is good to go right out of the box, but changing the safety to three-position is easy and relatively inexpensive, since CZ has a drop-in replacment safety lever. People complain about the number of parts in a CZ trigger, but so what? The trigger works like it was designed to work, and adjusts correctly and the set feature is nice IMO. I have had several CZ 550s bedded, and some other minor gunsmith work done, and they have been far more satisfying than any Mark X or Zastava rifle I've owned.

I used to get into the parts swapping thing with the Mausers, and I have several rifles and several actions to show for it. Just now thinking about it, out of all the Mark Xs and other Zastava actions I've had, including Charles Dalys, all I have left are two rifles. They both shoot pretty good, but they are not even close to a factory rifle. Custom triggers, three-position safety, custom barrels, etc., they should shoot well. I have less money in a CZ rifle, and it shoots just as well, and the trigger so far is just as good as a timney or Blackburn, and the CZ 3-position safety works very well.

It's basically very subjective, but IMO, the parts interchangability aspect of the Mauser is close to being not relevant to the decision of what to purchase.

I'll say it this way. I very much doubt that I'll ever buy or have built another rifle on a Zastava Mauser action. I may use a FN action. But if I wanted another rifle, a CZ 550 would be a top choice. I really like them.

Monday, I picked up the latest from the post office, which is a 35 Whelen built on a CZ 550 action, and bedded into a factory take-off American style stock. It feels good, functions near perfection. It's already getting smoother, with a little oil and working the bolt some. The trigger has been adjusted and feels great. Hopefully I'll get it to the range this weekend. The gunsmith trued the face of the receiver, and lapped the lugs, so I'm expecting great accuracy from this one.

KB

KB, i must be posting really badly, as you are saying 98% of the same as I have been, but you post sounds like you are disagreeing with me

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
I can't exchange Mauser parts with my Winchester Mod 70s or Rugers either,

because those aren't mausers

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
the parts aren't Mauser, so why should the CZ 550 be looked down upon?

its not looked down on... not by me. I don't care that its not a mauser, though it has some features i like.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

The CZ 550 is its own entity, like a Ruger 77 or Sako, or Mod 70 is unique.

ye, and certianly NOT a mauser 98

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
and there most certainly is a need with the Zastava or Mark X action. I never liked the trigger or safety, and it costs plenty to replace them with proper parts.

i think you misunderstood me .. you re talking about "upgrading" parts .. i am talking about fit of ANY parts. the same trigger you used, off the shelf, no mods, on a 98 will NOT work on a cz .. and the bolts won't interchange, not barrels .. i THINK the extractor collar might fit.. not even action screws interchange .. everything that you have said you can swap around on nearly all98 actions, THOSE SAME PARTS EXACTLY can't be used on a cz 550 action. plain as "can't use a ford 5 lug rim on a gm 5 lug car"
s

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
changing the safety to three-position is easy and relatively inexpensive, since CZ has a drop-in replacment safety lever.

which is NOT any parts that can be used on any mauser98, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

People complain about the number of parts in a CZ trigger, but so what?

if you are asking, why, its because the more parts in a system, the more failures likely and difficultly in properly cleaning the gun. complex triggers, with a tiny bit of dirt in them, result in failure to fire. the proper question is WHY so complex, rather than a defense of them

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

I used to get into the parts swapping thing with the Mausers, and I have several rifles and several actions to show for it. Just now thinking about it, out of all the Mark Xs and other Zastava actions I've had, including Charles Dalys,

and here has been my point .. not a single major part from all those 98 actions will interchange with any cz550 parts, you said it yourself, cz550 are unique

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
It's basically very subjective, but IMO, the parts interchangability aspect of the Mauser is close to being not relevant to the decision of what to purchase.

not a purchase decision, its an engineering question, and you've answered it very well.. mauser 98 actions are parts interchangeable with each other .. cz550 is NOT parts interchangable with a mauser 98

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
KB

KB, you said it proably better than i could.. mauser 98s interchange parts, the cz is unique, and not a mauser 98, with several examples of parts swapping and that the cz required different, non-interchangeable parts.

quote:

Originally posted by 340Wby:
Just looking at a few options in a new factory M98 outfit.
How do these 2 differ from the original M98, in 'design, safety & function'. And, which is more 'pure' Mauser?
Thanks again

Jeffeoso, thanks for the clarification.

Going back to the original question - he is considering the purchase of a "new factory M98 outfit", and talking about pure Mauser. Answering from that aspect, the Zastava is close to pure Mauser, looking at the parts interchangability. The speed-lock isn't "pure Mauser" as an example, but functions the same.

The CZ 550 also functions like a 98 Mauser. You are right about the parts - I doubt that any parts will interchange.

So, if a guy wants to stay with a rifle that's "pure Mauser", at the moment I can't think how that could actually be done. I suppose simply using an old military mauser, or a commercial rifle made by Mauser would do the job, but he's asking about new production. Anyway, I have several rifles that could be correctly called Mauser 98s, but they ain't pure Mausers, unless simply looking at it from the parts interchangability aspect.

If a guy wants to stay with the Mauser design and find benefit from the parts availability of 98 clones, and surplus, then the Zastava is correct.

The original question included "function and safety", and in that regard the CZ 550 is arguably better function and safety, IMO, or at least equal to a sporterized or commercial Mauser '98. For sure, the CZ doesn't require re-heat treatment, and I like the way the CZ reciever is grooved for ring attachment.

I discovered lately that the Winchester push feed, and the Ruger 77 MKII have the same barrel threads, and they both seat the barrel on the shoulder of the shank, and the face of the receiver, having no inner ring like the "pure Mauser". The CZ 550 is pure Mauser in function and safety regarding the way the barrel is installed. The threads, etc, although metric, work exactly like the original Mauser, seating the face of the breech end of the barrel against the inner C-ring, perhaps with slight seating against the receiver face too. There are many other examples of "pure Mauser" function re the CZ 550, even though the parts have slightly different specs.

When I have trouble with the CZ trigger, maybe then I'll complain about the number of parts, but so far I'm happy. For those who insist, Timney makes a replacment trigger that's much simpler.

LaPour makes a replacment three-position safety and shroud for the CZ, if one insists and doesn't mind the money. Talking about parts - there's an example of Mauser/Winchester/Mauser inspired non-pure Mauser interchangable parts, adapted to fit the CZ. AHR also offers a Winchester style 3-pos safety/shroud/cocking piece replacment for the CZ, and there may be others, but I found the factory safety to be so satisfactory that there is no need for replacment, IMO. In fact, I like the CZ factory three-position safety significantly better than any of the various Winchester style 3-pos safetys I've had installed on my Mausers - at over $200 each.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

The CZ 550 also functions like a 98 Mauser. You are right about the parts - I doubt that any parts will interchange.

So, if a guy wants to stay with a rifle that's "pure Mauser", at the moment I can't think how that could actually be done. I suppose simply using an old military mauser, or a commercial rifle made by Mauser would do the job, but he's asking about new production.

I really, really wanted to let Jeffe have the last word, but I think that you bring up some interesting points. What is "pure Mauser(98)"? If a GEW 98 is an example of a "pure Mauser(98)" then I guess a Mauser sporter built by Mauser, such as a type A sporting rifle in 9,3 is not a "pure Mauser" by Jeffe's definition as it has many parts that don't interchange with a GEW 98.

But we all know that this is splitting hairs. The truth is a Zastava interchanges many parts with an original pattern 98, but to say that makes it a "pure Mauser" is pure BS. The Zastava is missing so many Mauser 98 features that it would seem that, discounting dimensions, a CZ is closer to the original 98 system. I could list all the features a Zastava is missing but I would just be repeating what most of us know.

I would say that very few parts on a Saterlee action would interchange with a GEW 98 but, because it has nearly all the features of a 98, it is more "Mauser" than a Zastava or an FN for that matter. If any of you fail to see this I would guess that you don't hold the 98 in as high esteem as I....

But to each his own.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
I discovered lately that the Winchester push feed, and the Ruger 77 MKII have the same barrel threads, and they both seat the barrel on the shoulder of the shank, and the face of the receiver, having no inner ring like the "pure Mauser". The CZ 550 is pure Mauser in function and safety regarding the way the barrel is installed. The threads, etc, although metric, work exactly like the original Mauser, seating the face of the breech end of the barrel against the inner C-ring, perhaps with slight seating against the receiver face too. There are many other examples of "pure Mauser" function re the CZ 550, even though the parts have slightly different specs.

KB

Very well said!

is a cz a mauser?
No
it's mauser inspired

ALL the parts on a zastava interchange with the m98

dang, what's so hard to understand, as mauser also made pushfeeds, that "mauser 98" is a specific thing, and anything that aint.. AINT

Pontiac, a gm company, made a 350, and chevy made a 350 .. just take 1967 for example... same horsepower ranges, few econ, compression, and fit in F bodied cars ... and other than some bolts, as they were SAE, interchange, not ONE engine part interchanges between the two .. some accessories do, the carb might, but those motors are NOT interchangable

a pontiac 350 aint a chevy 350, now, is it?
That wasn't so hard to understand

and not even the screws, not ONE thread pitch, is the same on a mauser 1898 and a cz550 ... but EVERYONE of them are the same on a Zastava.

I give up .. some folks refuse to listen -- not a single part interchanges (possible exception, extractor collar) between them.. they aint even remotely the same.. no more than a vette is a jag .. though they have some of the same features.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:


and not even the screws, not ONE thread pitch, is the same on a mauser 1898 and a cz550 ... but EVERYONE of them are the same on a Zastava.

I give up .. some folks refuse to listen

Jeffe

Let's not let this get out of control. We are just discussing opinions on what makes a Mauser 98 a Mauser 98.

I have heard many gun-nuts say that the M98 is the best action ever produced. They gave many reasons to support their opinion, but thread pitch was never one of them.

Have you ever heard anyone say that the Mauser was their favorite action because it used 1/4x20 action screws?

The Zastava action is a M98 copy/approximation/knockoff, and a pretty poor one at that. Sure you can take most(not all) parts off one and bolt them on the other, but in doing so you many features that make a M98 a M98 are lost.

You can screw a Zastava shroud onto a M98, but you no longer have a safety.

You can replace a M98 receiver with a Zastava, but you no longer have a C-ring or thumb-slot(both are important for gas handling).

You can't put a Zastava trigger/safety on a M98 because the M98 does not have the slot for the bolt lock on the safety and the stock will not have the cut-out for the safety slide.

So, while I have never heard anyone say that the M98 is the greatest action because of the thread pitches used, I have heard many people mention the gas handling of the M98 as its greatest asset.

How much do the M98 and the Zastava have in common as far as gas handling features?

Maybe we can agree that neither the Zastava or CZ are true M98s. When it comes to features they both fall short of the M98, but in different ways. (In my mind the Zastava's lack of the inner C-ring places it at a big disadvantage in the "M98 clone" argument) When it comes to thread pitches the Zastava is an exact replica of the M98.

I'll let you have the last word if you'll let me buy the first drink when we meet-up.

I'm sure you guys have completely disassembled every piece, part, pin, spring, and retainer from both CZ550s and M98s, to include FNs and the older pre-speedlock Zastavas. I know I've done so, I've got two Mausers and one CZ torn down to every single individual piece right now that are current projects. Beyond any doubt in my mind, fewer and simpler parts on the Mauser than the CZ. CZ has a bunch of little parts compared to the Mauser which in my mind gives the M98 an advantage when it comes to a low maintenance backwoods wilderness or battle rifle. That's the biggest difference in my book when speaking in terms of standard and short magnum chamberings. Start talking about big long magnums, then the magnum CZ starts to look good.

Best

quote:

So, while I have never heard anyone say that the M98 is the greatest action because of the thread pitches used

really? Did i say that? that its the greatest action OR because of its thread pitch?

No, dang it, i said that to show the least relevent part in the whole gun doens't even interchange.

You can put a zastava trigger on a mauser.. any hobbiest can, and ANYONE can put a 98 trigger on a zastava .. hmm, original parts fit and function.. that makes it a WHAT? a 98 .. put EITHER trigger on a cz .. if you've ever had one apart, you'd know what a JOKE that comparison is.

I give up .. it obvious your mind is made up, and you aren't actually willing to discuss the matter. fine.. jason.. you are right.. its whatever the heck you say it is ... you are right.. though not a single dimension is the same, its OBVIOUSLY its a mauser, cuz jason says so.