I was looking at a CZ550 while killing some time in a gun store. I noticed these look very similiar to the Ruger I have, even the scope ring set up looks similar, aside from the bolt shroud and the saftey these guns looked a lot a like. I was wondering what the main differences are and what are the advantages to each type of action.

The CZ uses an original Mauser self-locking extractor (I believe it to be interchangeable with a model 98), the Ruger does not.

Also, the CZ is machined instead of using cheap castings.

I don't know - Ruger has done some pretty awesome stuff with "cheap" castings- I really haven't heard of any catastrofic failures due to being cast. Ain't saying it happened but it isn't an everyday occurance. Casting is one of the oldest forms of metal working! I owuldn't stray away from something JUST because it was cast - now if the action was all MIM - I'd think twice.

well this is telling, I didn't know the Ruger was cast. I would think this would lead to a weaker situation especially in a firearm. I am just trying to find out which is the better gun and why. machined metal in a gun sounds better to me. This 550 had a saftey similiar to the one on my rem 700, I have heard several complian about CZ's backward saftey, do all of their models work like this.

Can't be all that weak- Rugers have the notorious lawyer trigger yet chamber that "weaker cast" action in some pretty big magnums 458 win, 375 and 416 rig.

I am not an expert but I would think it depends on what you are casting them out of also what you machine it put of, I could machine a rem 700 action out of brass might be fully functional but I wouldn't want to shoot a hot load of 458 lott out of it.

I'm sure Mr. Williams could offer some insight- I don't want to come off as mr metalurgy here - just some observations.

The CZ 550 safeties are 3-position and work in the typical fashion. The older 600 series (marketed using the Brno name) have the reverse safety. However, some of the early 550 series were shipped out with the reverse safety and are still in distribution. Make sure you are getting one with the new safety, or you will probably have to pay CZ-USA for a refit.

Also, I have been under the impression that both Ruger and CZ are investment casting their receivers. I have never heard of either one failing.

this 550 I saw just had a simple back or forward saftey, pushed forward i believe it ment fire cause a red dot was exposed. It didn't have a 3 posisition winchester flag style saftey.

Whats the questioning about the ruger investment casting?
the Montana action is the same process, CZ might be too.

about $800....

the new cz have a wing safety... the older one's have a slide... the brno's have a backwards slide (back to fire)

jeffe

CZ is not cast. Leagcy Sports '98s are. With today's manufacturing abilities you give up nothing (regarding safety) with a properly cast receiver.

Casting still is the cheaper way to go and it doesn't (to me) show any way near the craftsmanship of a well machined piece of metal. Sort of like comparing walnut particleboard to a piece of real black walnut. Aesthetic differances apart,which would you prefer? Casting is a cheaper way of doing things and I don't believe the grain structure of the steel is optimum. Particle board is also strong and could be molded into a stock that would also have no grain structure. The new CZ 3 is an MRC action which is cast. The other ones are made the better way (machined).

i would think that these could be made with a CNC machine for a little added cost, What is the standard manufacturing process for remington and winchester, so is the new CZ wing style saftey backwards too?? What about the barrels who has the better barrel. I know my Ruger MK2's trigger pretty much sucks what about CZ??

I was refering to the actions made by CZ, not the MRC units they are purchasing. Craftmanship is not a result of a process but the craftsman. You must ride a horse to work; after all, horsemanship beats mass production any day.



Sorry Wiktor, didn'y mean for that to sound so tacky.

True that craftsmanship is a result of the process but only when the raw material is of such that permits craftsmanship. A horse also doesn't permit craftsmanship but I would take a handbuilt kevlar laminated Ferrari over my ford Taurus anyday! The CZ is probably actually cheaper to buy than the Ruger which is not the case with the cars.

Listen, I'm no metallurgist, but I do know a bit about metals and their respective strengths. Comparing walnut to particle board when it comes to the CZ and the Ruger is not really even in the same galaxy. Investment casting although "cheaper" than milled, gives away little if anything given today's technology. All other things aside, just get a Ruger and a CZ and compare them side by side. Then tell me about the CZ. The Ruger lends itslef very well to polishing and stoning and when done properly they are as smooth as glass. CZs are good strong actions but they need a lot of WORK to get them up to speed. Neither rifle is the "Belle of the Ball" but if the Ruger's the "fat girl" the CZs are the butt-ugly ones and I happen to like good looking fat chicks! jorge

CZ, so far, does not make a "wing" safety as on a M70, nor do they make a "flag" safety as on a M98.



The 2-position and the 3-position are both trigger-lock safeties like on a Remington or Sako. Some rifles with 2-position safeties have "backwards" motion, as on the 600 series.



This is a factory 3-postion safety in the forward "fire" position (the butterknife handle is aftermarket).







AHR makes a M70 style wing safety to fit the CZ550.

wiktor,
as i understand it, the ruger is DEFINATLY cast... and it looks far better than the cz

jeffe

For me the asthetic look of a Ruger is the best with Winchester in 2nd. If somebody would figure out a way to easily true up a Ruger they would be in the money.

Pseudo Mauser type action, awesome looks, and the intrigral scope rings, BTW being cast in the reciever there is no way they can be mis aligned over the bore (assuming the casting is correct to begin with) either ALL of them are correct or they are ALL wrong - no crapshoot like some others.

On the side has anyone had a problem with Ruger rings shooting loose? The rings themselves not the scope.

Andrew

Here's a CZ 550 Varmint. Looks good to me.



And here's how it shoots. 200 yard target. Out of the box with handloads.

I surely am not a metallurigst either, but isn't steel originally "cast" into a bar or a round, so if you machine on that bar or round you are machining on a piece of steel that has been cast and rolled.

And, isn't the grain structure (the transformation from ausenite to martensite or whatever) a function of heat treating rather than whether the product is cast or not.

I seem to recall from reading about this subject that one of the main problems with casting is not so much the quality of the steel, but rather the problems inherent in the molding process because there are minute changes taking place during the process that cause problems with parts being accurate.

Blue

Blue

Ok I think i am finally getting it. I saw a brno zzk i think it was gun for african game, i can definatly see what some have said by rough finish as it was pretty clear on the action. This 550 how ever had a very rich blue and looked just as well finished as a Ruger only drawback is that it has too much writing on the side of the action. if the saftey is a simple back and forward one and back is fire that would be confusing as all hell. What would happen if you let someone else hunt with the rifle and forget to tell them. Also are the Ruger and CZ true CRF guns??

The CZ550 is a CRF in every sense of the word, as it uses an original Mauser 98 self-locking extractor.

The Ruger does not have the self-locking feature. There are also numerous tales of the Ruger pushing the cartridge in with the extractor snapping over the rim only after the cartridge is chambered. This seems to happen when feeding from one side of the mag only, and not in every rifle.

This cannot happen with a CZ, as it would be impossible to do without pinching the extractor. Any such discrepancy would make the 3-shot test target impossible.

I don't get it yet...

KurtC, would you please explain the self locking thing in a bit more detail? It would help tremendously.

Thnx!

Cast, machined, whiteld out of jello , who cares, I have Ruger 77mk2RL in .257 roberts,LOVE IT,draw backs, trigger sucked, and I put a Timmney in it now its great ! I had to free float the barrel. A little sand paper and a dowl rod and now it shoots prety damn well.
I have a CZ 550 FS. just got it and i LOVE IT ! This one is a 7mm Mauser with a manlicher stock. Frankly it needs nothing
Both rifles look great to me. The trigger on the CZ is a single set, really nice but mabye more appropriate on a longer range rifle. But It is good and it shoots better than I would have expected. The Ruger is not quite as accurate but its lite as a feather and would drop a mule deer at 300 yards and recoil would not intimidate anybody. The CZ is a little heavier but it will carry well and I can't wait to get it to the woods ! In short get what you like they all make good stuff, you might need to tweek it a bit but it aint hard, buy a Modern rifle from a well known manufacturer and if you can't make it shoot, you probably are not trying hard enough, or need to talk to someone with a litte more experence. Most old timers at any range will be glad to help you. Shooters are some of the frendliest guys around and most like to put in there 2 cents worth.
...tj3006

About 1/2" behind the extractor claw, there is a guide rib that rides in a slot around the bolt. This guide rib has an undercut bevel on the forward edge. On the bolt, the forward edge of the slot has an undercut bevel to match.

As you pull the bolt to the rear, the undercut on the extractor rib slides into the undercut on the bolt slot, locking the extractor against the bolt (and the cartridge). The extractor cannot flex enough to ever jump over the cartridge rim during rearward travel of the bolt.

There is enough room in this slot so that the bevels do not engage as the bolt is pushed forward, allowing the extractor to be "pinched" over a rim during single round chambering.

(This is all rather difficult to describe without pictures)

The fact is that other "CRF" actions go so far as to mill this rib and slot, but do not take the extra step to include the undercuts. This self-locking feature is the heart of the Mauser extractor design and seperates the originals from the mauser "types."

I'll try to post some pictures, if the camera will allow close ups.

I'm not so sure that the dovetail for the extractor is the big deal many make it out to be , but for whatever it's worth , the M-70 Winchester doesn't have the dovetailed extractor either. Yet it seems they are held in fairly high reguard by many dangerous game hunters...........

The Ruger, while not a true 98 action ( neither is the Model 70 and I'll take it over a 98 any day) DOES grab and control the cartridge all the way into the chamber. The older pre- MK-II Rugers although they LOOKEd like a CRF weere not. THose DID push the round into the chamber. jorge

huh?



Realistically, just buy the gun you like and be done with it - pretty simple, huh?



Can anyone provide a CONVINCING argument that one is better than the other - ie based on actual evidence, rather than hearsay or 'opinion', or the crap about investment castings? Guys, there is a difference between WWII 'cast Mausers' and 2004 Investment cast rifles. Come on - get with it, learn something new, and for once, get a life, and focus on what matters. If that don't work, get another hobby! Let's face it, any rifle on the market today is well and truly capable of undertaking the job it is intended to do - and my ruger MkII in 270 (the REALLY inaccurate model, from a REALLY inaccurate manufacturer) will reliably put 5 shots into under half an inch at 100. Fired at hunting rates - not waiting 20 minutes betwen shots. I target shoot like I shoot in the field - and that can mean emptying the rifle as fast as you can shoot, reloading, and doing it all again, and again. No waiting for the barrel to cool down!!

I think we get to cussing and discussing the pros and cons of manufacture too much. Pick you rifle and shoot it. I'm a huge Ruger fan. I like the looks, the history, the function and respect the man. I own several, and they shoot very well. Just check out web page. I also like the CZ, but to be honest have had more troubles with CZ's than Rugers, but that's no scientific study of quality. They're both fine guns. I happen to like the American heritage behind Ruger, and it doesn't hurt any that most of the ones I've owned shot like custom rifles. That said, I would never trash a CZ, I've shot some that were super, although a bit on the heavy side.

I didn't get a clear answer on if the ruger is CRF so I decided to see for my self. I today compared it to a czech military mauser the defintion of CRF LOL. The Ruger is a 22-250. It doesn't grab the shell as fast as the Czech mauser but this may be the feeding properties of the short fat 22-250 case. occasionally if I strokked the bolt really slow the shell would pop out ahead of the extractor but If i was feeding fast or normal speed this would be a non issue. I then turned the Ruger upside down and would push the bolt nearly closed prolly within 1/4" of the point where you turn it down. The gun would feed and extract fine this way. So my conclusion is it is indeed CRF. As for the Ruger Extractor it looks pretty close to what mauser uses. It has a little lighter duty clip that holds it but it fits into a longer slot thus is more secure than the czech mauser's I don't think this makes a difference in operation. Much is made out of CRF and dangerous game. I would think Ruger would do well in this area, but most seem more worried about using other action platforms. Does anyone know why the Ruger isn't more popular for african hunting??

If the Ruger had a TANG SAFETY it's not a CRF. IT has to be on eof the newer MARK IIs and they are a true CRF. jorge

its a mk2 with winchester style saftey