Hi, Rick,
RE: the quality of the Zastava. Sorry if my conclusions about the quality upset you.
They are based on several sources, such as statements in Frank de Haas' book such as, "My first Mark X action was poorly polished. The floorplate was not level and smooth - it has several flat spots which can be felt and seen, as if extra polishing was done to remove deep tool marks from these places. The floorplate and the guard were polished separately instead of together, leaving the edges of the hinge joint rounded. The bolt-stop and the bolt-stop spring were also polished separately on a soft polishing wheel and their rounded edges certainly look out of place on a "custom" action. ...the sight-mounting screw holes are dished and the edges of the left receiver wall are rounded. ....the polishing was inexpertly done."
There is also an uncredited article from "African Sporting Gazette" titled, "Reigning Supreme - FN�s great action in increasing demand," which stated, "Between the millions of military actions and the tiny precious supply of commercial Oberndorfs lies a somewhat neglected area: commercial actions made elsewhere. Some were pretty questionable, such as certain periods from the Zastava plant in Yugoslavia, which produced the Mark X. Some of these were so roughly made as to be unsalvageable for a fine custom rifle, and many gunmakers flatly refuse to work on them.
Other commercial actions, however, were every bit as good as the German Oberndorfs, DWMs, and Sauers. These include actions made at the Czech Brno plant, and those made at Fabrique Nationale d�Armes de Guerre � FN � in Li�ge, Belgium."
Then there's an article by Don Heath, editor of "African Hunter", titled "Professional Hunter Proficiency Exam", which describes experiences with various heavy rifles in the yearly Zimbabwe Rifa Professional Hunter and Guides training/refresher course, and the actual proficiency exam itself. Here's what he says about the Interarms Mk X: "Apart from the fact that the barrels are soft and wear out very quickly, these are intrinsically sound rifles that are simply shoddily put together. They are famed for springing the magazine floor plate open and dumping the contents on the firer�s feet. Never seen one that wouldn�t feed reliably though, and with a little bit of gun smithing to make the safety catch more positive so that it doesn�t get accidentally swept on as the bolt is opened (or accidentally knocked off in the bush) and the stock properly bedded to cure the �magazine dump�� they can be made into very workable rifles. They are though, very definitely rifles that you take first to your gunsmith and only then into the bush as the two students at Rifa discovered."
In contrast here is what he said about original Mauser and FN rifles: "The remainder of the field was made up of Mauser actioned rifles. The original Mauser in .404 and the FN in .458 worked great, as expected. The trouble for a learner Hunter or Guide is that these makes are hard to come by. Original Mausers are beginning to wear out, and apart from .404 and 9.3x62, most are chambered for rounds unsuitable for serious hunting [note: this is in the context of a dangerous game rifle]. As soon as you see a Mauser chambered in .458 or .375 you know that it is a conversion (see my comments on custom rifles below). FNs are seldom seen on the second hand market. They represent the peak in the Mauser rifle�s development, and those lucky enough to own one seldom find a reason good enough to sell it."
So, while you have had good experiences with the Zastava, it appears that has not always been the case.
Last edited by Jlin222; 04/11/10.
