Copy/paste from another thread:
https://www.africahunting.com/threads/375-rifle-options.54281/page-2#post-600803
The topic has been beaten to death, many times over I would add, but repetition is in the nature of the blogging beast, and you deserve just as much a quality answer as the legions of first-time safari goers who have asked the same question before you...
Also, a few one-sentence bullets could capture it all, and these would be enough for those who know both sides of the various arguments inside and out, but people who actually ask for insights generally tend to want detailed answers, and they often want the "why" in addition to the "what".
So, here it comes, and those veteran readers who have seen it a hundred times before, can skip the post to avoid repetition
CZ 550...
I hold the CZ 550 in great esteem. In my judgement, it is a true:
- double square bridge,
- magnum-length,
- controlled round feed (CRF),
- deep belly magazine,
- 100% forged steel,
- appropriate barrel contour,
- integral rear sight base,
- barrel-band front sight base,
tough as nails "Mauser" rifle; the true workhorse of Africa for the last 50 years.
There is simply nothing better in its price range, or even at five times its price, when it comes to combining functionality, reliability and safety for African hunting far from repair shops and with potentially dangerous animals. Every "modernization" that came after the Mauser 98 design, so far, has - in my opinion - generally compromised either functionality, reliability or safety, or all three of them.
CZ 550 vs. ZKK 602...
Aside from small differences (bolt shroud, trigger, etc. and the safety being one of them, but, in any case, you want to replace this safety - see details here under), these are the same action from the same machinery in the same factory. To summarize, BRNO was the brand and ZKK the designation under communist rule, Česká zbrojovka (CZ) is the brand and 550 the designation since the fall of the iron curtain.
The one difference that would require purchasing a ZKK 602 rather than a CZ 550 would be the integrated pop-up peep rear sight in the rear bridge. But these are rare, even on the ZKK series.
ZKK 602 with integrated pop-up peep rear sight (Picture: Guns International)
But not to worry, if you really want one, all you need to do is send your CZ 550 to Triple River Gunsmithing and they will machine one for you, for around $400 if memory serves (?).
ZKK actions have long been held to be smoother than CZ actions because in the communist days, labor being cheap, there apparently was an additional manual deburring step in the manufacturing process, which has apparently been eliminated since, so CZ 550 actions machined with fresh cutting tools are very clean, while those manufactured toward the end of cutting tools life tend to have machining marks and cutting burrs. These are truly easy to clean up and smooth in a few hours, but they have caused the spilling of oceans of ink (or electronic equivalent) for the last few decades.
It does not take much in term of machining marks and metal burrs in the inside of the rear bridge machining to make a bolt tight to slide, and it takes even less machining marks and metal burrs on the underside of the feeding rails to make a rifle difficult to feed, and some CZ have been rough out of the box, it is a fact, to the point that some folks go to the excess of deeming the CZ 550 rifles unusable out of the box. I, for one, cannot help but keep in mind that these burrs are all gone within half an hour with a few miniature files, and critical surfaces are all glass-smooth within one hour or two with fine and very-fine grit sandpaper, and this action must have some redeeming qualities otherwise I doubt that Rigby of London would have used it to build their $15,000 rifles for decades when the original Mauser magnum action was out of production between the 1950's and the 1990's...
CZ / ZKK vs. Win 70...
Ah, but another heated debate where injured pride often looms larger than facts...
- To be factual, both actions are forged steel, immensely strong, well designed, well proven, reliable actions fully appropriate for a DG rifle.
- Win 70 partisans always insist that the Win 70 is smooth and ready to shoot out of the box. Well...
- I can attest that one of my Stainless Classic New Haven-made Win 70 (limited series in .300 Wby) came out of the box with a safety that could not be engaged no matter how hard I tried. I had to take it apart to adjust the camming surface. No big deal when you know what you are doing, and I hold no grudge with Winchester about this (I had many issues over 40 years with many new rifles), but here goes the myth about the Win 70 always "ready out of the box."
- More to the point, there is no such thing as a DG rifle out of the box. Take any rifle in any caliber from any maker; one would be a fool to go DG hunting without testing it extensively and most likely ironing out a few details here or there.
- A few minutes with a precision caliper will promptly demonstrate factually and beyond doubt that the Win 70 action is not "smooth" but it is "loose." In other words, there is a lot of free room for the bolt to slide inside the action. The same exercise with the CZ 550 action will demonstrate that tolerances are much tighter between bolt and action, therefore there is clearly a break-in period with a CZ 550. Is it bad? I personally do not think so. You can compress the break-in process in one hour by dabbing the bolt with valve grinding compound and cycling the action a few thousand times while watching a TV show. You will be amazed at the outcome. By the way, how do you think the great gunsmiths "release" an action, wink, wink...
- What is absolutely inarguable is that:
- The CZ 550 is a true magnum length action. It is sized for the .416 Rigby and bigger cases. The Win 70 is not. Period. Yes, I know, one can cut about half the feeding ramp of a Win 70 to lengthen the magazine well, and modify the bolt face, just like Rigby did on Harry Selby's standard length Mauser action, to shoehorn a .416 Rigby in it (Winchester's custom shop did at a time), but fundamentally the Win 70 action is too short for anything bigger than the H&H parent case. Are you eyeing a .416 Rigby? If yes, no contest, CZ 550 wins. If no, Win 70 works just fine. But keep reading...
- The CZ 550 has a true double square bridge action with machined dovetails for scope mounts. It does not require to screw bases on top of the action to install a scope. The .375 H&H may be still OK, but many owners of Win 70 .458 Lott and .416 Rem (and .450 Watts, .416 Hoffman, .416 Taylor, etc. before them) have lamented that however tight one screws these bases on, even after re-drilling and tapping the holes to 8x40 and dabbing the screws liberally with Loctite, some are coming loose after 100 rounds or so. Dovetails machined in the bridge will never come loose. Does this matter to you? Your call...
- The CZ 550 has a deep magazine with 5 rounds capacity in .375 H&H. The Win 70 has 3 rounds magazine capacity. Further oceans of ink have been spilled over this one, including righteous arguments about who could ever need more than 3 rounds in a .375 H&H magazine etc. Do 5 rounds in the magazine matter to you in a DG rifle? Your call...
- What is factual too, is that the CZ 550 barrel has an appropriately heavy contour that soaks up recoil, an integral base for the rear sight, and a barrel-band mounted front sight. These will never fall of the barrel. The Win 70 has screwed-on rear sights and front sights. Can these come loose, and even fall off the barrel? Oh yes, it happens...
- On the other end, the Win 70 has a true bolt-mounted firing pin-blocking safety. The CZ/ZKK have an action mounted sear-blocking safety. Whether it is pull to fire, or push to fire does not matter much. The bottom line is that sear-blocking safeties are not as safe as firing pin-blocking safeties. In a hard fall the cocking piece could jump the sear and the rifle could fire. It has happened... The CZ / ZKK saving grace here is that one can easily retrofit a Winchester type safety on a CZ / ZKK.
It seems that a logical conclusion is that the Winchester 70 action is every bit as good as a CZ 550 / ZKK 602 action, but the CZ 550 / ZKK 602 action offers capabilities (cartridge length, integrated dovetail bases in the square bridges, magazine capacity) that the Win 70 simply cannot match. Do you need these capabilities? Your call... On the other end the objectively superior Win 70 safety can be easily installed on the CZ / ZKK.
A few thoughts re. purchasing a CZ 550...
1) Do not worry about the stock at all. CZ stocks do not use very high quality wood anyway; it is generally not dense enough. My recommendation is to replace the factory stock with a Bell & Carlson Kevlar stock with a full length aluminum bedding block. These are $300 well spent and you can do it when budget allows. It will never break or split (this happens relatively often with the CZ factory stocks) and it will never warp and loose zero. I have 6 or 8 of them on various rifles and have nothing but praises for them. By the way, the CZ "Aramid" factory stock is nothing else than ... the B&C stock...
Broken stock on a CZ 550 .404 Jeffery (Picture: Ronald Berry).
The B&C “American Safari” stock is a drop-in fit for the CZ 550 magnum action.
This is the stock B&C makes for CZ as the factory Aramid stock (Picture: Bell & Carlson).
2) Do not worry about the action not being smooth. They never are from the factory. If you are observant of contact points on the rifle, and willing to spend a few hours with the appropriate miniature files, fine and very fine grit sandpaper, and valve grinding compound, you will be positively amazed at how slick a standard 550 will become within a few hours.
Check specifically:
- how the central edge of the follower plate binds inside the grove for the ejector blade in the underside of the bolt (solved by rounding the central edge of the follower);
- how the burrs of the ejector blade grind inside the ejector grove of the bolt (solved by deburring/polishing the ejector blade);
- how the burrs of the lower rear bridge machining grind against the bolt (solved by deburring/polishing the machining of the lower rear bridge);
- how the forward edge of the extractor collar binds inside the upper rear bridge (solved by rounding the edges of the extractor collar and polishing the inside of the rear bridge);
- how the machining burrs on the inside and lower faces of the feeding rails grind against the feeding cartridges (solved by polishing carefully - but NOT removing material from - the feeding rails undersides).
- how the edges and the flats of the undersides of the front locking lugs drag on the action rails (solved by polishing the undersides of the locking lugs).
There never was any "magic" in Rigby of London turning the $1,000 CZ 550 barreled actions into their $15,000 rifles for the decades when the original Mauser magnum action was out of production between the 1950's and the 1990's; they simply spent hours polishing and smoothing them. You can do (or have someone do) exactly the same...
3) I would advise four other things on CZ 550’s:
1- As stated above, the CZ comes from the factory with an action-mounted safety that blocks the sear. This is not a true safety. In a hard fall, the cocking piece of the bolt could conceivably jump over the sear and fire. 90% of the ZKK 602 and CZ 550 in the field have this safety, and it is OK, but a true safety needs to be bolt-mounted and to mechanically block the firing pin, like the old "flag" Mauser safety did. I replace on my CZ 550 (and ZKK 602 previously) the factory safety with a three-position, bolt-mounted, firing pin-blocking safety (the so-called "Winchester" safety in America). It is not too expensive ($300 from Gentry or AHR) and you can do it yourself,
but you have to know exactly what you are doing when adjusting the camming surface that pulls back the firing pin from the sear when engaging the safety. If you do not know what I am talking about, then you MUST have a qualified gunsmith do it. To me this is the ONLY mandatory upgrade on the ZKK / CZ.
But the following upgrades are also nice to have...
2- I replace the factory set trigger with a Timney direct trigger ($100). The factory trigger is not bad. I replace it mostly because I prefer a traditional rounded trigger shape and I like the trigger to be in the back of the trigger bow, not in the center.
3- I also have a good gunsmith solder a barrel band front swivel stud ($100) and I remove the front swivel stud from the stock (I order the B&C stocks without a front stud). With a barrel mounted stud, you cannot cut your front hand on the stock forearm stud under recoil...
4- I have a good gunsmith weld full the bolt handle hole, and heat and straighten the bolt handle ($100). It makes it just a little more accessible.
Win 70 type safety; direct trigger; filled & straightened bolt handle; barrel band front swivel stud (Pictures: American Hunting Rifles).
All of this is what the people in the know refer to when they speak about AHR (American Hunting Rifles) upgrades #1, #2 and #3.
- Upgrade #1 gets you a 3-position safety, single-stage trigger, straightened and filled bolt handle, and an action job.
- The only part of upgrade #2 I truly care for is the barrel-band front sling mount.
AHR also cut and re-crown the barrel - some folks want it at 22" - change the front and rear sights, and glass bed the wood stock. I personally like a 25" barrel on a .375; I see nothing wrong with the CZ front and rear sights; and I do not need to glass bed the wood stock because I take it off...
- Upgrade #3 gives you a new wood stock (much better, higher density wood) or a hand-laid fiberglass stock.
Yet another ocean of ink keeps getting spilled about the outrageous need to immediately send a brand new CZ 550 to the 'smith get "fixed." I wholeheartedly agree with the aggravated folks, and it is quite beyond my understanding why CZ
- spend the additional money to drill the bolt handle and bend it;
- spend the additional money to install a set trigger on a DG rifle;
- do not spend what would be in the order of $25 (?) to them, to put a barrel band swivel stud on all their rifles;
- do not spend what would be in the order of $75 (?) to them to put bolt-mounted, firing pin-blocking safety on all their rifles;
- do not spend what would be in the order to $50 (?) to them to beburr and clean the action and feeding rails.
I agree, I don't get it! Why on earth don't they do it? They would "own" the DG rifle market...
On the other end, I keep in mind that if I spend $300 on a stock; $300 on a safety; $100 on a trigger; $100 on a front barrel band swivel; $100 to fill & straighten the bolt handle, and $200 (or my own few hours) to smooth the action, I get the functional equivalent to a $15,000 Rigby Big Game rifle!
That is the point that I think a lot of Win 70 folks miss. Spending $800 on a AHR #1 upgrade does not get you a $1,500 Win 70 equivalent; it gives you a $15,000 Rigby equivalent. Since I cannot afford a $15,000 Rigby Big Game rifle, but I recognize the century of hard learnt field lessons that went into it, I, for one, am glad to spend the time and modest money to tune up a CZ 550 to the functional level of the CZ 550-actioned Rigby rifles.
I certainly do not get the visual aesthetics equivalent, nor the prestige equivalent of a $15,000 Rigby rifle, but "functional equivalent" is good enough for me. Actually, it is even better because I am not constantly worried about scratching or damaging the rifle when hunting. I have been there before with a $10,000 Griffin & Howe .340 Wby full custom rifle made on a ZKK 602 action, and seeing the rust-blue turn to rust, and the hand-oiled French walnut stock turn into a warped gray plank over the course of a 10 day, non-stop rain, moose hunt in Newfoundland, was heartbreaking...
My own African safari "battery" is now made of three identical copies of B&C stocked, tuned-up CZ 550. One in .300 Wby; one in .375 H&H and one in .416 Rigby, in addition to a .470 NE "Big Five" Krieghoff. In truth, one of the .375 or .416 is in excess. I would likely, in the financially impossible dream of a full-bag 3-month Tanzania safari, take the .300 and the .470 for sure, and either the .375 or the .416. But I wanted both the H&H and the Rigby for the romance of it, and it will allow me to gift one to each of my boys...
A few words of caution regarding scope selection...
Regarding scope mounts, the double square bridge of the CZ 550 has a dovetail machined into it. You need neither swing mounts nor claw mounts, nor extra bases, etc. The strongest, tightest and safest scope mounts - detachable with levers, or not - (also the cheapest at $100) are those that clamp directly into the dovetails. Warnes are good but I prefer Talley. The rear ring recoil lug is located at the front edge of the ring on the Talley, so the Talley ring does not overhang over the magazine from the front face of the rear bridge, it is flush with it. The recoil lug is located in the middle of the ring on the Warnes, so the rear ring's front edge overhangs a bit over the bolt and the magazine. It has no bearing on strength, but I find the Talley mount a little cleaner.
Picture: Talley Manufacturing
The other big advantage of NOT adding swing or claw mounts, etc. to the CZ 550, and using the bridge dovetail for the rings, besides strength, is that it keeps the scope low over the bore.
However, there is a difficulty with true magnum-length actions. They are too long for the traditional 1.5-6x42 scopes. The length of the action bridge is longer than the section of 30 mm tube on these scopes, and the scopes do not fit over the bridge; they are too short. I will spare you a lot of time and frustration by sharing this little drawing I put together regarding the scopes requirements for the CZ 550 magnum-length action:
If the tube length "B" is not at least 5.31”/13.5 cm long, the scope is too short to mount over the CZ 550 magnum-length action with rings that clamp directly into the bridge dovetails. If the objective bell length "C" is longer than 4.9”/12.5 cm it will collide with the rear iron sights, with 1/2" high rings that keep the scope low over the barrel as desired. If the objective bell diameter "D" is wider than 2.25”/57 mm it will collide with the barrel, with 1/2" high rings that keep the scope low over the barrel as desired. If the ocular length "A" is significantly longer than ~4”/~10 cm, the risk increases for the scope to hit you under recoil.
The classic way to eliminate the challenge is to mount a straight tube scope that does not have an objective bell at the front, they all fit, but until recently, these scopes did not offer more than 4x magnification, with is a little low for the .375 H&H when used on PG. Variable scopes now exist with straight tubes and 1x to 6x variable magnification, so this solves this problem, however, and more importantly, straight tube scopes have by necessity very narrow objectives (typically 24 mm) and their light-gathering capability is minimal at dawn and dusk when a 42 mm objective is much preferred.
Based on my research, the desirable scopes with light-gathering, large diameter objectives for the CZ 550 magnum-length action include:
Straight tube desirable scopes for the CZ 550 magnum-length action include all straight tube scopes with ~1x magnification at the lower end of the variable range: Zeiss Conquest V4 1-4x24; Zeiss Conquest V6 1.1-6x24; Swarovski Z6 1-6x24; Swarovski Z8 1-8x24; Leica Visus 1-4x24; Leica Magnus 1−6.3x24; Schmidt & Bender 1.1-4x24 Zenith; Schmidt & Bender 1.1-5x24 Stratos; Schmidt & Bender 1-8x24 Exos; as well as a number of Leupold, Vortex, etc. scopes.
On my .300 Wby and .375 H&H CZ 550s I have two Leica ER i 2.5-10x42 because, besides being excellent quality scopes by any measure:
i) they have the magnification on the high end (6x) that I want on PG (I virtually never use 10x, but it does not hurt being there);
ii) they have a little too much magnification on the low end (2.5x) – but not dramatically too much - for the .375 H&H on DG, but I do not use the .375 on DG up close (that's why I have the .416 and .470), so it is OK. After all, the .375 is not a stopper for close-range charges anyway, so a 1x magnification at the low end is not critical;
iii) they have a 42 mm objective, which I want, because the .300 Wby and .375 H&H can be used at dawn or dusk (leopard on bait is the perfect reason why a 42 mm objective is desirable on a .375 H&H);
iv) they fit perfectly over the CZ 550 magnum action with 1/2" Talley rings.
On my .416 Rigby CZ 550 I have a Leica Visus i 1-4x24 because, besides being an excellent quality scope by any measure:
i) it has all the magnification at the high end (4x) that I could ever want on a .416;
ii) it has 1x magnification at the low end, which allows me to shoot very quickly with both eyes open up-close on DG;
iii) it only has a 24 mm objective, which is not great for light-gathering capability, but that it is OK because I will not shoot elephant, hippo, or buffalo at dusk;
iv) it fits perfectly over any magnum action with any rings.
Having two scope, one with a straight tube and one with a front objective bell, and having that second scope as a back-up makes a lot of sense, but I must confess that I do not do it. I use only Leica, Schmidt & Bender, Swarovski and Zeiss and I have never had an issue, so I do not carry backup scopes. What I do, however, is that I always bring two scoped rifles to Africa. I have already taken my American battery: 257 Wby/.340 Wby (PG only); I have already taken .300 Wby/.470 (PG and buff); I will take .300 Wby/.375 H&H this summer on PG; and I plan to take either .375 H&H/.470 NE or .416 Rigby/.470 NE next year on tuskless elephant. I like the redundancy of having two rifles. It does not cost me a dollar more to bring two rifles, and Africa is too far and too expensive for me, to run the risk of having a rifle/scope failure without a backup...
That was long,
Grizzly375, I apologize, but I hope that it was interesting and it should cover about every aspects of the question
