There is a current discussion comparing the Mauser '98 to the Winchester 70, which is pretty interesting and informative. I would like to read an informative discussion comparing the '98 Mauser, Ruger 77 MK II and the CZ 550, particularly relating to the gas handling issues.

For starters:
The CZ receiver is forged, small ring & C-ring. The Ruger is cast, and has a nice looking flange on the left side of the shroud, which I'm sure is a gas deflection safety feature.

Upon inspection of the Ruger 77 MK II short action that I have, there is no ring in front of the bolt, as there is on the '98 and the CZ. I never noticed that before.

The bolt release system on the Ruger appears to be similar to the '98, while the CZ is more like the Mod 70.

Of course, I don't fully understand the significance (safety & function) of the different features, and that's partially what I would like to read about.

Thanks,
KB

I'm pretty sure the CZ550 is a cast receiver, as were their parent 600 series.

I'm real sure that the CZ 550s are forged, and not cast. I don't know about the 600 series, but it wouldn't make sense for them to be cast and the 550s forged. The technology is too expensive for the change-over.

This forged vs cast business (or myth) with the CZ 550 is something I wish folks would get straight - once and for all. Brownells for example lists the action for sale, and in their description say it's forged. Chuck Hawks says it's forged, and there are other sources and reviews that say the same thing - it's forged. I can't find those words on the CZ web site though.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:


For starters:
The CZ receiver is forged, small ring & C-ring....

Thanks,
KB

Are you sure the CZ receiver is small ring? I think BRNO/CZ hasn't made small ring receivers since the early post-war period. I don't have a reference for the CZ550 action but certainly the models between the M21 and the 550 were large ring actions.


cheers, stu

The CZ bolt ejects cartridges much better the Ruger bolt does.I think this is because the exctractor slot is located further from the bolt face and therefore gives leverage to the process.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu C:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:


For starters:
The CZ receiver is forged, small ring & C-ring....

Thanks,
KB

Are you sure the CZ receiver is small ring? I think BRNO/CZ hasn't made small ring receivers since the early post-war period. I don't have a reference for the CZ550 action but certainly the models between the M21 and the 550 were large ring actions.


cheers, stu

The CZ looks small ring to me, compared to the FN '98 below. I know there are small ring Mausers, such as the '96, and VZ33, & G33-40. When I use the term, I'm talking about any Mauser type action or derivitive where the front ring is the same size as the rear, with no step up in diameter as seen on the regular '98. In my definition, the Win Mod 70, Rem 700, CZ 550 (medium), Husqvarna 1600 - 1640, Sako L57, Ruger 77 and others are small ring.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
The CZ bolt ejects cartridges much better the Ruger bolt does.I think this is because the exctractor slot is located further from the bolt face and therefore gives leverage to the process.

Here's a picture of bolt faces - Ruger 77 MKII on left, and CZ 550 (medium 06 bolt face) on right.

Is this what you are talking about, or did you mean to use the word ejector, rather than extractor?

injection molded would be a better term than cast for the ruger...

iirc, the cz medium uses a similar thread as the std 98, excet its fully metric .. but i am not certain, as i haven't rebarreled one

if you want a 98, the cz is closer

i prefer the ruger, largely because is ejects, feeds, has a 3 position safety, dual square bridge, return to zero QD rings, and comes from the factory setup to snap over a round pushed in ...

btw, i JUST 10 days ago, had to do that with my 7x64 m98 ... i was REALLY happy that i had changed the extractor to let that happen ...

quote:

Originally posted by Stu C:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:


For starters:
The CZ receiver is forged, small ring & C-ring....

Thanks,
KB

Are you sure the CZ receiver is small ring? I think BRNO/CZ hasn't made small ring receivers since the early post-war period. I don't have a reference for the CZ550 action but certainly the models between the M21 and the 550 were large ring actions.


cheers, stu

No large or small ring to the CZ550. It's not a mauser.

Terry

Kabluewy,
Thanks for the comparison photos. Do you have a CZ550 action handy? Would it be possible to measure the receive ring diameter and post the measurement here?

Also, I can't tell from that photo, is the ring flat on the sides or is it rounded?

cheers,
stu

[URL= ]CZ 550 magnum[/URL][URL= ]RugerMkII magnum[/URL]

The front ring of a CZ550 has a dia. of 1.400" from the loading port back the dia. is 1.340 +- depending on the finisher. I have had several 550 that are not perfectly straight because of the polisher.

I have done a lot of work with the 550 and I prefer it to the Ruger 77, but there is some thing I do not like about the 550. I like to change a few things to improve the 550 but it works great the way it is.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu C:
Kabluewy,
Thanks for the comparison photos. Do you have a CZ550 action handy? Would it be possible to measure the receive ring diameter and post the measurement here?

Also, I can't tell from that photo, is the ring flat on the sides or is it rounded?

cheers,
stu

1.345" diameter, and it's round.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

i prefer the ruger, largely because is ejects, feeds, has a 3 position safety, dual square bridge, return to zero QD rings, and comes from the factory setup to snap over a round pushed in ...

My CZs eject and feed most excellently, and I convert them all to three position with a factory safety part available from CZ, they come with square bridge, QD rings work well with the CZ, the extractor easily snaps over a round dropped into the chamber, and the triggers are far better than Rugers.

KB

the safety is a replacement ... i was correct flinchie when he said the ruger's don't eject..

i DISAGREE that the trigger is better, from the factory ... counting pins, there are 4 pieces to the ruger trigger -- TWO pieces to the ruger safety (mk II)

i think there's 6 PINS and spings in the cz trigger alone ..

which, in all honesty, is my biggest complaint about the CZ is the amazingly complex trigger design ..

This following thread wasn't asking about gas handling but did ask about how a Ruger feeds vs. Mausers and Win 70s.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...131087621#2131087621

I'm not sure how the CZ fits in this. Does it matter much? Maybe to some and I like to have my rifles control the round completely.

DK

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

i DISAGREE that the trigger is better, from the factory ... counting pins, there are 4 pieces to the ruger trigger -- TWO pieces to the ruger safety (mk II)

i think there's 6 PINS and spings in the cz trigger alone ..

which, in all honesty, is my biggest complaint about the CZ is the amazingly complex trigger design ..

I think the CZ safety is one piece, and the trigger is a fantastic piece of work when adjusted properly. It would be a shame if they discontinued it because of some misplaced complaints. The last one I got back from AHR, on which he simply adjusted the trigger, it really is nice. The standard pull is at the right weight, and it's crisp. The set trigger is just right too. Unless there is something that is not readily apparant to me, what's not to like about such a fine trigger?

KB

I have had no issues with the Ruger trigger(and safety).I like it very much.The factory CZ trigger is a joke.My Rugers cannot eject my rounds like my CZ can.I can dry fire the CZ that Ralph worked on,all year long,without oiling it and it will eject,cycle and fire without effort.This is not the case with the Ruger.After two or three sessions,the Ruger requires cleaning to remove the brass chips and re-oiling-or else it will get really difficult to open and cycle the bolt,putting a strain on pins all over..The CZ has a crappy striker spring that to the best of my knowledge,has no replacement.Same with matching a CZ mag box to the cartridge.If one replaces the striker spring and retaing pin on a Ruger,keeps the action clean and lubed,you have a rifle that is near perfect and a pleasure to own.It's just too bad it can't cycle and eject like my CZ.Speaking of striker springs,I called the head gunsmith at CZ-USA,Mr Eagleshield (lol),and discussed this with him.I told him it was a crappy spring and at first he denied it but I could've told he as we continued to discuss it,he didn't really believe it was the best spring.

Would someone please explain what exactly is the problem with the CZ 550 trigger? I know Jeffe says it has too many pins, and others just call it crap or a joke, but I want to know exactly what the problem is. Frankly, I don't count pins, but instead I go by how well the trigger feels in actual use. Excuse me please, if I'm just naive about this, but the triggers that I have on all seven of my CZs work very well indeed. It's not that I don't have lots of trigger time, or familiar with various triggers. I generally use Blackburn on my Mausers, or NECG triggers, but the one Timney is good too.

I used to hate set-triggers, a notion that stemmed from a bad experience with Canjar, but when I got used to the CZ 550 triggers, now I really like the concept. I use it at the range all the time, but don't use it at all in the field - so far. The way I think of it first it works, and second - think about how much it would cost to put a trigger that works that well on say a Mauser. I can just imagine $300 ++, and just imagine the bragging rights. As far as I can tell it looks like attitude rather than fact that's driving complaints. Frankly, i wish all my rifles had set triggers that work as well as those on the CZs. I think NECG makes a single-set for the Mauser, but look at the cost. I'll bet that sucker has 7 pins.

I've read here of those of you who talk about the Zastava commercial '98 action being such a good deal. In my experience it's not a good deal, when considering the safety and trigger mechanism which always needs to be replaced, and the gritty receiver. Also I've yet to see one that will feed a magnum cartridge really well. The magazine box is the same whether using it for a 30-06 or 300 Mag, which is not the case with Ruger or CZ, who use different magazine boxes, for 06 compared to 300.

IMO and experience, up until just lately, the Ruger 77 had the worst commercial trigger in the industry. Heavy and lottz of creep. Timney did/does a fine business selling replacments. Ruger finally got off their ass and put a half way decent trigger on the latest production as I hear it, but it's still not as good as a Timney.

Also, my CZs feeds 6.5x55 through 9.3x62 - all very well, and the 7 mag I have feeds all the standard belted magnums (2.5" +or- cases) Norma Mags too, very well. I don't see the problem there either.

My Rugers feed very well too, and I've never thought about the difference in Rugers and CZs of feeding or ejecting, since all of mine do very well in both catagories - about equal.

I actually like the CZ three-position safety better than the Ruger safety. For one thing, it's far more accessable to my thumb, and quicker on the CZ. Now that I do think about it, I believe the CZ perhaps feeds and ejects slightly better than the Ruger, but it's hard to tell for sure.

KB

I hope I didn't run everyone off. I would still like to read some comments about the safety features, and also in particular the lack of the traditional ring in the Ruger receiver for the barrel to seat against, as in the Mauser, CZ and Winchester, for examples.

KB

Ok, Zastava’s M98 (M70 or Z98 depending upon what part of the world you live in) and Rugers M77’s Mk II are junk but the CZ 550’s are pure joy right from the box.

I’m fairly new to the AR Forums but have been around long enough to recollect the issues that everyone had with the CZ 550’s a few years ago. Plus even today one of the first recommendations for a CZ owner having issues with his rifle is to send it to AHR for at least their Upgrade #1 service.

So from AHR’s website here are their CZ Upgrade Options:
Their Upgrade Option’s preceding comment, “All three packages include tuning and smoothing of the action so it feeds and functions every time”, followed by:
CZ Upgrade #1: $495.00
We install out 3-position safety and crisp single-stage trigger, then straighten and fill the bolt handle.
CZ Upgrade #2: $1,195.00
Includes Upgrade #1 plus the following:
* Re-crown barrel
* Install barrel band sling mount
* Install custom banded front sight with hood
* Install fixed / 1 folding rear sight blade
* Change factory recoil lug on barrel to AHR lug
* Glass bed action
* Gunkote all metal
CZ Upgrade #3: $2,895.00
Includes Upgrades #1 and #2 plus:
Re-stock with hand-picked AAA fancy English Walnut with four-panel checkering, African Blackwood fore-end tip, and cross bolts. The action is glass and pillar bedded for the ultimate in strength and accuracy.

So it appears little thought is given to spending $495 plus shipping to tune up your CZ, or perhaps $1195 to really get it ready to hunt, but then presume that the same amount of money, or perhaps a bit less, wouldn’t eliminate any issues you might be having with your Zastava or Ruger!

Or send the CZ to your local gunsmith for tuning, feed and function and then poor mouth the Zastava or Ruger because they’re not as smooth or feed as well as your CZ!

I’m not slamming AHR or any quality gunsmith, they provide a valuable service to use gun owners.

Some of you dudes just need to give it a break. All of the factories are run by the bean counters and their primary goal is to deliver a product at minimal cost and maximum profit. Unfortunately we’ve allowed them to deliver firearms in this manner for 40+ years and now we accept firearms that require post purchase gunsmith tuning for all but a rare few firearms right from the box. Unfortunately many individuals aren’t even aware that they have an issue with their new rifle until they get into an adrenaline situation then both they and their rifle fail to function properly.

My 2¢; either pay the factory for a semi-custom rifle right up front or send your new in the box rifle directly to your competent gunsmith of choice for action tuning and smoothing. But don’t complain if your rifle has some hiccups and you don’t have it tuned by your gunsmith; that is exactly the way the factory bean counters intended that the rifle be delivered to you!

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:
Ok, the CZ 550’s are pure joy right from the box.

My 2¢; either pay the factory for a semi-custom rifle right up front or send your new in the box rifle directly to your competent gunsmith of choice for action tuning and smoothing.

That's been the sum of my experience too, including the CZs. The main difference with the CZ compared to the others is the only part I've had replaced is swapping (drop-in) the two-position part for a three-position safety piece. The rest is just tweeking, laping, squaring, bedding, adjusting, polishing and honing parts, etc. Once done, the CZs have provided a very high level of satisfaction for me. A lot of rifle for the money, even with the extra tweeking charges.

AHR's list just gives us ideas on the extent one can go with upgrades, all the way to full custom, depending on how much money he's willing to throw at it. The nice thing too is that any competient gunsmith can do the work. Regardless of whether used right out of the box, or to the max custom job, the user satisfaction is there with the CZs. For me though, I can't remember ever being satisfied with any rifle out-of-the-box.

Thanks for the informative post.

KB

quote:

also in particular the lack of the traditional ring in the Ruger receiver for the barrel to seat against, as in the Mauser, CZ and Winchester, for examples.

No internal ring in the Winchester.

Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by bcp:

quote:

also in particular the lack of the traditional ring in the Ruger receiver for the barrel to seat against, as in the Mauser, CZ and Winchester, for examples.

No internal ring in the Winchester.

Bruce

So, why the big deal with all this talk about "C" ring vs "H" ring, if the actions such as Ruger and Winchester don't need a ring at all?

KB

I don't know the reason behind Mauser making the internal C ring in the 98. But one difference is that Mauser large ring, large shank military barrels seat against it and not the receiver front like other rifles. The small shoulder-appearing part of the military barrel is approximately the same diameter as the threads.

Was it about cartridge support, or simpler manufacturing, or something else?

See the top barrel (98 LR) in this photo. Lower barrels are like earlier Mausers and modern commercial actions that seat with a shoulder on the receiver front.