Sauer 90 in 375 H&H and BRNO 602

[BeeMaa]

There have been other PF actions before remington.

I'd still rather be hunting.

 

[enysse]

I used a Sauer Model 90 30-06 on my last trip to Africa. That rifle was very nice! The action was smooth, trigger was wonderful and it shot tight groups.
I have shot plenty of BRNO 602 and they have been very accurate too. Not as pretty as the Sauer but very capable of carrying any hunt out without letting you down.

 

[SRvet]

View attachment 343554

I can personally highly endorse the BRNO ZKK series of bolt rifles . They are exceptionally accurate and reliable . Built like tanks . What I really love about them , is that they have the magazine floor plate release catch located OUTSIDE the trigger ... as opposed to conventional Mauser 98 action rifles.
However , I cannot speak of the Sauer Model 90 ... because I have no personal experience with those .

That looks like a well trusted friend-that has been carried for many miles and has been involved in many fine stories

 

[One Day...]

9.5 lbs was indeed more or less the traditional standard for most .375's, rifles that were designed for use with open sights. Today, with scopes, scope bases, ammunition holders on stocks (an addition I do not get), slings, and standard barrel contours we often end up with go to field weights closer to 11 to 11.5 pounds (that is not an opinion by the way). Your Sauer, on the other hand, all decked out for a day in the field will be right in line with that traditional weight. Just saying..........

You are right Joe. This is a very valid and factual point. I too do not get the ammunition holder on stocks, but there is no arguing that adding a scope and mounts typically adds between 1 and 1.5 lbs depending on how compact and recent the scope is. A scoped Sauer 90 is likely 8.5 to 9 lbs, and my scoped .375 H&H CZ 550 (with B&C stock, Leica 2.5-10x42 and Talley detachable rings) is exactly 10 lbs 9 oz. Good point.

If your hunt is built around long hours banging around in a land cruiser, the weight doesn't matter. If your hunt is built around long hours and miles on foot trailing eland or buffalo, you will feel a heavy rifle.

This one is more personal. Objectively, of course, a 10.5 or 11 lbs rifle is heavier than a 9 or 9.5 lbs rifle, but what effect this has on the hunter is deeply personal. I personally carry my rifle German style, on a sling on my left shoulder, rifle under my left arm, muzzle forward and upward; plus a small "possible bag" backpack (water canteen, first aid, headlamp, spare batteries, light rain gear, etc. etc.) and I am utterly incapable of distinguishing whether the rifle on my shoulder is 9.5 lbs scoped or 11.5 lbs scoped, whether after 1 hour or 10 hours walking. Conversely, I shoot noticeably better a heavier rifle that I find easier to steady on the sticks or off hands. I am sure that it can be the opposite for others, so I do not think that there is objective right or wrong regarding this item, just subjective preferences.

I would urge you to handle both rifles. They will both absolutely do the job ... I would chose the one that appeals to you.

Entirely agreed Old Friend. The rifle a shooter is likely to shoot best is the one the shooter likes and trusts, regardless of whatever opinion anyone around may have. In this case since both rifles are fully capable I do not think that the choice would have any bearing on the success of the hunt...

A personal philosophy...

I do not have several decades of experience hunting Africa, but I do have several decades of experience hunting Chamois on foot in the French Alps in conditions that are - in my modest opinion - much more trying for both equipment and people (I was/am a registered Mountaineering Instructor, graduated from the French National Alpinism School in Chamonix, so I tend to hunt Chamois where few people go); and I do have some experience with floatplane drop-in wilderness hunts in America/Canada where there is no 'back-to-the-shop' plan B when things fail. I learned the hard way to eliminate as much variables from the equation as possible. This is why I have come to prefer unbreakable kevlar over wood; integral scope bases over screwed-on bases; back-up iron sights that are actually reliable and regulated; non detachable magazines over detachable ones; steel over plastic; and yes ... CRF over PF; etc. no matter how rarely they fail...

One can safely call me a paranoid, near obsolete and over romantic dinosaur, but I like to play it safe and I end up loaning my rifle, flashlight, first aid kit, compass, spare batteries, paracord, rifle toolkit, spare rain gear, optics cleaning kit, etc. a heck of a lot more often than I need to borrow anything from anyone. I kind of like the feeling.

Granted, most of this is essentially irrelevant in modern pampered safaris where indeed more time is spent in the truck than in the bush, so most of my cautionary facts (with or without "") are likely extraneous, and my risk mitigation strategy probably useless, but it gets hard to teach old dogs new tricks...

 

[Red Leg]

You are right Joe. This is a very rational and factual point. I too do not get the ammunition holder on stocks, but there is no arguing that adding a scope and mounts typically adds between 1 and 1.5 lbs depending on how compact and recent the scope is (latest ones tend to be smaller and lighter).



This one is more personal. Objectively, of course, a 10.5 or 11 lbs rifle is heavier than a 9 or 9.5 lbs rifle, but what effect this has on the hunter is deeply personal. I personally carry my rifle German style, on a sling on my left shoulder, rifle under my left arm, muzzle forward and upward; plus a small "possible bag" backpack (water canteen, first aid, headlamp, spare batteries, etc. etc.) and I am utterly incapable of distinguishing whether the rifle on my shoulder is 9.5 lbs scoped or 11.5 lbs scoped, whether after 1 hour or 10 hours walking. Conversely, I shoot noticeably better a heavier rifle that I find easier to steady on the sticks or off hands. I am sure that it can be the opposite for others, so I do not think that there is objective right or wrong regarding this item, just subjective preferences.


Entirely agreed Old Friend. The rifle a shooter is likely to shoot best is the one the shooter likes and trusts, regardless of whatever opinion anyone around may have. In this case since both rifles are fully capable I do not think that the choice would have any bearing on the success of the hunt...

A personal philosophy...

I do not have several decades of experience hunting Africa, but I do have several decades of experience hunting Chamois on foot in the French Alps in conditions that are - in my modest opinion - much more trying for both equipment and people (I was/am a registered Mountaineering Instructor, graduated from the French National Alpinism School in Chamonix, so I tend to hunt Chamois where few people go); and I do have some experience with floatplane drop-in wilderness hunts in America/Canada where there is no 'back-to-the-shop' plan B when things fail. I learned the hard way to eliminate as much variables from the equation as possible. This is why I have come to prefer unbreakable kevlar over wood; integral scope bases over screwed-on bases; non detachable magazines over detachable ones; steel over plastic; and yes ... CRF over PF; etc. no matter how rarely they fail...

One can safely call me a paranoid, near obsolete and over romantic dinosaur, but I like to play it safe and I end up loaning my rifle, flashlight, first aid kit, compass,spare batteries, paracord, rifle toolkit, spare rain gear, optics cleaning kit, etc. a heck of a lot more often than I need to borrow anything from anyone. I kind of like the feeling.

Granted, most of this is essentially irrelevant in modern pampered safaris where indeed more time is spent in the truck than in the bush, so most of my cautionary facts (with or without "") are likely extraneous, and my risk mitigation useless, but it gets hard to teach old dogs new tricks...

I am also an old dog. I hold out hope for you.

And totally agree with respect to Alpine hunting - North America, Asia, or Europe - nothing is harder. Will be Austria next October (hopefully) hunting chamois.

 

[One Day...]

... to be honest the only negative I can come up with is the safety being the wrong way round. This will clearly take a bit of getting used to ...

You have indeed identified the one glaring issue - in my judgment - with the ZKK 602 / CZ 550. Thankfully it is easily fixable.

The ZKK / CZ safety (whether it be the older pull to fire or the more recent push to fire - this in itself is not such a big deal) is not the best possible design. It is better than many modern "safeties" that only block the trigger, but it is still an action-mounted safety, that blocks the sear. In case of a hard fall, it is possible, and it has happened, that the cocking piece jumps the sear and fires the rifle accidentally.

I absolutely recommend (here again, maybe I AM paranoid and over sensitive to risk mitigation ?) replacing the factory ZKK / CZ safety with a bolt-mounted, firing pin-blocking safety, typically referred to as the "3 position Winchester 70 safety." In the US American Hunting Rifle sell the parts for $225, and I am sure that others are also available in the UK - Rigby used a lot of these when they used the ZKK/CZ action to make their own rifles for the decades when the Mauser magnum-length action was out of production.

This is - in my view - the only mandatory work to be done on a ZKK / CZ. Deburring of a few critical parts (e.g. ejector), polishing of a few critical surfaces (e.g. underneath edges of the feeding rails) are certainly nice and will make a world of difference in smoothness, but the firing pin-blocking safety is really an improvement - I think.

WARNING: the safety must be installed by someone qualified and experienced who understands how it works, so that engaging the safety physically moves backward the cocking piece by about 1 mm or 3/64" to effectively disengage the sear. Luckily, England is not short of qualified rifle smiths who will know exactly what I mean and what to do

If you are also thinking about an upgrade to the stock, I highly recommend the Bell & Carlson stock:

The net outcome will not be as pretty as a Sauer 90, but you will in fact have in your hands the full functional (if not aesthetic) equivalent to a $15,000 Rigby rifle...

Not a bad place to be when booking your first Safari

 

[One Day...]

Case in point...

So..., last night I finished reading the book Kambaku! by Harry Manners, which, by the way, is one of the best African hunting books I have read, and this evening I was looking at a couple hunting videos shot in Mozambique to get a feel for the place (I have sadly never been to Mozambique), so this post was really not premeditated...

Lo and behold, one of these videos contained this very interesting footage. This Steyr Mannlicher Luxus is the 1970's contemporary / equivalent / competitor of the Sauer 90 Luxus, both gorgeous and glass smooth, with the advantage that the Steyr Mannlicher Luxus is - believe it or not - a CFR rifle (contrarily to what a lot of people think, the big Mauser external extractor is not a requirement for CRF). As a matter of fact, my favorite Chamois rifle is my original Steyr Mannlicher Luxus Stutzen .270 Win with claw mounts, rail 1.5-6x42 Zeiss scope - this one I will NEVER sell - so, Lord knows I love the rifle, but the point here is: observe the duct tape to prevent the loss of the detachable magazine in this video.

I have actually never lost the detachable magazine on mine, but I did come pretty close... I LOVE this rifle, but, objectively, whatever is detachable is 'loosable' and I reckon that I would prefer the rifle if it did not have a detachable magazine, although I have so much faith and memories with it that it is forever one of my favorites ... but I regularly check for the magazine and always carry a spare...

I also always carried a spare with my Sauer 90..........................

A much younger One Day..., circa 1980's with his beloved Steyr Mannlicher Luxus Stutzen .270 Win with claw mounts, rail 1.5-6x42 Zeiss scope, and a grand old Class III Chamois.

PS: As wise R8 owners like BeeMaa or Red Leg know, there is a small mechanical latch at the bottom of the detachable R8 detachable trigger mechanism / magazine to prevent it from being detached. I would personally always lock mine in the field

 

[Witold Krzyżanowski]

My proposition ZKK602.

 

[HWL]

Both rifles will do the job...

Non of them will let you down.

The Brno is just another piece of old iron, and ever will be.

The Sauer 90 is a piece of brilliant engineering,.... and ever will be.

Its a matter of what clothes you wear.

I would not hesitate....


HWL

 

[Bruce]

You have obviously never hunted with a BRNO rifle before.... Calling it a piece of old iron is worse than sleeping with your mother in law!!

 

[Pondoro]

These two "old irons" have accounted for 40+ elephant..

I Wonder how many Sauer´s and Blaser´s have accomplished that..?

 

[mark-hunter]

last night I finished reading the book Kambaku!

What a coincidence! Kambaku is the book, I have read last month! The latest of the Africana books I have read.

I have actually never lost the detachable magazine on mine, but I did come pretty close.

I did loose, but not due to rifles fault.
After the wild boar drive, (i vas in the drive) I went to the car, removed the mag from the rifle, and (I thought i did) I put a mag in the side jacket pocket to have rifle empty in the car, when going to meeting place, with other hunters
Once I got to the meeting place, I realized I dont have a mag in the pocket anymore
Went back, couldnt find it.

So, yes it was my fault.
But also, if the rifle had no removable mag, this would not have happen, as I would unload the rifle, in different manner.

Ever since, when removing the mag, i put it in the pocket of rifle bag, and make sure I close the zipper. And then - double check again.
Damage of mag lost for that rifle? cca 70 eur.
Lesson 2. learned:
Spare mag to be available in vicinity, on a place - well secured to prevent loss.

Removable mags?
Additional point to worry about.

 

[One Day...]

Gentlemen, we may have an innocent case of cultural difference...

I highly suspect that when HWL says "old iron," he means it the same way Americans would say "old warhorse," and I further suspect that HWL includes any and all Mauser 98 systems regardless of manufacturer, all the way up to $10,000 brand-new Mauser 98 magnum rifles themselves, in his denomination of "old iron." Heck, the design is indeed 122 years old!

I would wager that HWL did not intend any demeaning implication. I interpret it that he was just contrasting the "old" with the "new." Just like Americans will affectionately talk about the 1911 pistol (a 109 years old design) as the "Old Warhorse" or the famous geyser in Yellowstone Park as "Old Faithful."

By any definition the M9 (Beretta 92) is a much more refined "piece of brilliant engineering," yet a surprising number of "rough men stand(ing) ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm" have come back to the Old Warhorse after listening to the sirens of modernity...


Maybe that is a good analogy after all: the big bore 98 is to DG rifles what the .45 1911 is to pistols, nothing more, nothing less

 

[mark-hunter]

I Wonder how many Sauer´s and Blaser´s have accomplished that..?

Well, just sharing a thought. The times change. It has to do with changing time.

When mausers ruled African big game hunts, in terms of sheer numbers... well, the hunt was in many cases for ivory (motivated by income) - the more a hunter shoots, better for him, and secondly, for culling (under goverment game management programs).

Today, as it coincide with appearance of modern rifles - ivory hunts no longer exist, culling is not politically correct, and it is rarely done (if ever), and legal hunts are expensive for hunter.
So, modern rifles in general will have much less chance to accomplish what, for example Bells rifles did 100 years ago, with 1100 elephant in the bag.

How much would cost a hunter to shoot 1.100 exportable trophy elephants today, legally, in a of number of years?
Financially impossible, even if doable. Even with tuskless... And practically, impossible as well.

 

[Pondoro]

Well, just sharing a thought. The times change. It has to do with changing time.

When mausers ruled African big game hunts, in terms of sheer numbers... well, the hunt was in many cases for ivory (motivated by income) - the more a hunter shoots, better for him, and secondly, for culling (under goverment game management programs).

Today, as it coincide with appearance of modern rifles - ivory hunts no longer exist, culling is not politically correct, and it is rarely done (if ever), and legal hunts are expensive for hunter.
So, modern rifles in general will have much less chance to accomplish what, for example Bells rifles did 100 years ago, with 1100 elephant in the bag.

How much would cost a hunter to shoot 1.100 exportable trophy elephants today, legally, in a of number of years?
Financially impossible, even if doable. Even with tuskless... And practically, impossible as well.

Yes, yes...but still..it was done by Mausers..

 

[IvW]

Whatever rifle is used it needs to be properly and rigorously tested before taking it on any field drip, especially when hunting DG, no matter where. It often happens that hunters will purchase a new rifle for an upcoming safari and then only to discover some or other issue with the rifle when they arrive in the field.

 

[SRvet]

Whatever rifle is used it needs to be properly and rigorously tested before taking it on any field drip, especially when hunting DG, no matter where. It often happens that hunters will purchase a new rifle for an upcoming safari and then only to discover some or other issue with the rifle when they arrive in the field.

That is exactly what I wish to avoid. I hope to acquire a new (to me) rifle at least 12 months before venturing abroad. This should give adequate time to put a few hundred rounds down range, become accustomed to the rifle and get any problems ironed out. I would rather not find out there is a problem when there is a pissed off Dagga boy inbound at speed!! Thanks for all the helpful comments so far. I am really enjoying this forum, lots of great knowledge available.

 

[mark-hunter]

@SRvet,
We have same way of thinking. In addition to what you say, I was also considering to have two optical sights on QD mounts.
in case one gets damaged, or loose the zero, while hunting I can just take it out from back pack, and change during the hunt.

 

[Red Leg]

Gentlemen, we may have an innocent case of cultural difference...

I highly suspect that when HWL says "old iron," he means it the same way Americans would say "old warhorse," and I further suspect that HWL includes any and all Mauser 98 systems regardless of manufacturer, all the way up to $10,000 brand-new Mauser 98 magnum rifles themselves, in his denomination of "old iron." Heck, the design is indeed 122 years old!

I would wager that HWL did not intend any demeaning implication. I interpret it that he was just contrasting the "old" with the "new." Just like Americans will affectionately talk about the 1911 pistol (a 109 years old design) as the "Old Warhorse" or the famous geyser in Yellowstone Park as "Old Faithful."



View attachment 343887


By any definition the M9 (Beretta 92) is a much more refined "piece of brilliant engineering," yet a surprising number of "rough men stand(ing) ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm" have come back to the Old Warhorse after listening to the sirens of modernity...


Maybe that is a good analogy after all: the big bore 98 is to DG rifles what the .45 1911 is to pistols, nothing more, nothing less

They did indeed come back to the .45 - just not the Colt.

I suppose we should let HWL clarify his own remarks if he feels he needs to, but what I took away is that the standard out of the box CZ/BRNO is a very basic rifle with average at best fit and finish. If recent production, it may even have function issues. The Sauer is a more refined final product. I think that is true. But assuming the CZ/BRNO has no function issues, that refinement is largely irrelevant in killing a buffalo.

I personally appreciate the refinement of the Sauer, and they do not appear for sale everyday in .375. I also know from personal experience, the rifle in that caliber is a lovely combination of portability and accuracy for an African hunt combining a buffalo and plains game. However, it is perfectly ok for someone else not to appreciate that refinement, and prefer something less so.

As I noted earlier, the “if it was good enough for Blixen in ‘25, then it’s good enough for me” contingent will warmly applaud your selection of a CZ/BRNO. Though between the wars, Blixen and even game departments were armed with finely built versions of the Mauser produced by London and Birmingham makers.

Based on your comments, I assume this is an auction and you are unable to handle either rifle? If so, I would suggest making sure the seller has a three-day inspect and return policy. Ideally get to a range, but if that is not possible at least get somewhere you can safely point a loaded rifle, and cycle a full magazine of actual rounds through that rifle as quickly as possible. One of the more common CZ/BRNO issues usually shows itself in that drill if the rifle has a feeding issue.

Finally, play with that safety a bit and make sure you are comfortable with the way it works. Nothing is quite so embarrassing than standing over the sticks tugging on the trigger of a “safed” rifle unless is trying remember which way to push it with an inbound irritated buffalo.

 

[HWL]

You have obviously never hunted with a BRNO rifle before.... Calling it a piece of old iron is worse than sleeping with your mother in law!!

Do not worry about my sexual preferences.....

I do have a Brno in .375 H & H,..... but you do not have a Sauer 90!




HWL