quote:

Originally posted by Tentman:
I have not had the opportunity to look at the CZ, but a question I would be asking concerns the extractor - is it turning in a keyed groove in the bolt or can it "jump out" and ride over a rim like many of the mauser clones with the supposedly infallible long non -rotating extractor. A 98 will NOT do this and I have never had a failure to extract, something that cannot be said for the BSA Royal/Hunter or the Pre 64 Model 70, both of which have given me grief with handloads.

Cheers - Foster

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
of the 2 choices, i prefer a ruger mkii or model 70

They weren't among the two choices.

all the same features and functions, and a 3 pos safety.

All my CZ 550s have three-position safties.

in other words, there's no meaningful difference in FUNCTION between those 4 ( or 400 variants) when only comparing to abstract of function. "is it crf, feed well, extract well, and have reasonable accuracy"? yep, all of them do.

IMO, function nor safety is not abstract. Rating a design as to whether the parts are interchangable with a Mauser is abstract to me, since it tells little or nothing about function or safety.

when asking which is better, the answer is, it depends on what you want.

What I want is the one that's better, as a matter of fact and design.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
They are a very good choice for a "workingman's custom" if you know what I mean.

quote:

So please, inform me - what exactly can and does a commercial or sporterized '98 Mauser do, (out of the box or tricked out with custom parts) from a function and safety point of view, that the CZ 550 can not do as well or better, and less expensively?

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
of the 2 choices, i prefer a ruger mkii or model 70

They weren't among the two choices.
apparently you missed my jest - if we are changing the debate, i can too

all the same features and functions, and a 3 pos safety.

All my CZ 550s have three-position safties.
but not all cz550s have 3 position safeties

in other words, there's no meaningful difference in FUNCTION between those 4 ( or 400 variants) when only comparing to abstract of function. "is it crf, feed well, extract well, and have reasonable accuracy"? yep, all of them do.

IMO, function nor safety is not abstract. Rating a design as to whether the parts are interchangable with a Mauser is abstract to me, since it tells little or nothing about function or safety.

in your opinion - when comapring which is mauser like, parts meeting spec is premier -- in an ABSTRACT like safety, which has next to no measurable units, it comes down to choice. Choice is largely based on abstract. Sorry man, written spec vs qualitative analysis. How in the HECK can the physical reality of bolt from one NOT going into another be abstract to you? I believe this to be a jest.

when asking which is better, the answer is, it depends on what you want.

What I want is the one that's better, as a matter of fact and design.

and i told you - it depends -- on what facts you which to use in your rationalization. there's ZERO meaningful DESIGN difference that could matter if they meet spec, provided the spec is wide enough. BETTER how, exactly? cost? safety? function? looks? nostalgia? it all depends, don't it? that's why we don't all drive dodges .. CHOICE -- which is the better dodge? the dodge, of course.. which is the better truck? undefined, need mroe input

KB

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
But a Mauser 98 can also, at no cost at all, fall on the wrong side of your US laws that ban any Mauser with a thumb cut-out?

And how does that affect me, "Mr Enfieldspares" if I want to come from England to hunt in USA?

Will my Mauser in 280 Remington be "banned" from enetering USA if it has that thumb cut-out?

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
It is hard to know where to start. From the standpoint of a truly foolproof, rough usage, hunting rifle, the Mauser has some obvious advantages. The bolt can be disassembled completely and the firing pin replaced without tools.
The original trigger is simple, foolproof and entirely suitable for field use.
The bolt stop is simple, rugged, attractively styled, and does not require the removal of a great deal of wood in the inletted stock.
The ejector is simple, rugged, and I've never seen one fail to work. When I was a kid, I thought the slotted lug was a big deal and a real design flaw. After nearly 50 years of familiarity with 98's, I no longer think so.
At the front of the receiver, there is no appreciable difference in the two actions. Breeching is the same. Barrel fitting is the same.
Some may prefer the CZ's less obtrusive bolt stop but I prefer bolt stops which have to pulled out rather than depressed to release the bolt. Some will prefer the CZ's ejector system but to me, it adds complexity for no real reason. In fact, it may be argued that the cut in the bolt face for the ejector's passage will direct gas right into the left locking lug raceway where the Mauser cut does not.
Some will be unable to deal with the two stage trigger and if this is the case, they can always buy a Timney. The CZ trigger is functionally decent but is complex. With complexity comes the potential for failure.
Understand, I don't dislike the CZ and I have always liked the ZKK's and have one now. The truth is though, there are nearly as many parts in the ZKK trigger, ejector, and bolt stop, as there are in the whole Mauser 98 action. What shortcomings do these extra parts address? None.
The Mauser action may not have achieved perfection, but it was on the road to that goal. Virtually all of the derivatives managed to make a wrong turn somewhere along the way. Regards, Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Monte,
You would be in error. Currently NO milsurp receivers are allowed into the country