Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Express Rifles and Big Bores Only which 416?

Once the bolt handle slot is cut and can't be refinihsed, like a McWoody, a radical bolt angle change isn't feasible. What can be done to flair the bolt slightly, moving it out enough to miss the trigger finger without changing the bolt handle slot?

DF

That's a hard question to answer and depends a lot on the original handle and it's geometry.

On the CZ for example, even though the factory handle is swept back, there is a goodly portion o fit that hangs straight down before the sweep begins. Thus, the notch in the stock is straight up and down. This makes it easy to either install or straighten the bolt handle. No mods are required to the stock.









If the handle sweeps back from a point close to the root it is more difficult, the sooner the sweep begins the more limited you are. The ball end can be moved forward to gain some extra clearance and still leave the majority of the handle in the notch. In an extreme example a handle like the Rem 30 or 1917 Enfield could be employed. Certainly not pretty but they work.

Best advice is to choose the handle before restocking.

I'd rather get bolt bump than go Enfield ugly...

I think one could bend the bolt slightly up and forward without getting out of the slot. Don't think it would take much.

DF

Hah! I like the Enfields!

I think that's why I like the CZ safety, reminds me of the Enfield safety.

The Enfield safety I could live with. That awful dog leg
bolt handle would have to be fixed.

DF

It doesn't look any more swept back than a M-70 or M-700, but bumps worse than both.

DF

Thanks to DF and Gunner for their responses. If all goes well I will be very pleased to report my experiences after the hunt.

donsm70

Have owned an RSM in 416 Rigby and a 550 in 416Rigby. The RSM was MagNaPortedand i slimmed the stock down considerably and installed a new straight longer bolt handle. It shot very good small groups. But I sold it to guy who took it to Africa and took an elephant with it. I still have the 550. I installed it in a Brockman Laminate (an early one with no cheekpiece) and took the kink out of the bolt handle (I personally don't like the looks of it and find no advantage to the kink). It is fully bedded and the barrel has been cut to 21" as is my 602ZKK 375H&H and a masterpiece ramp with adjustable fiber optic sight has been added. Also added a barrel sling swivel. Scope is a Swarovski 1.5x4.5 in CZ rings. I used it on my final safari to take a nice elephant. I much prefer the CZ550 to the RSM. I totally dislike the Ruger stocks and find the bolt handles unsightly and too short. The safties are awkward for me at the least. In other words The only thing I find attractive about the RSM is the circassian stocks are very nice wood. The only modification to the CZ550 was some grinding on the follower to smooth up the feeding of the last round,otherwise the operation is without flaw. Incidentally I have never had a problem with the safety on either the C550 or the 602ZKK which has the 'backward' safety. It has never given me cause for concern and I have hunted dangerous game with both numerous times.

One more question. Does the bolt allow for a low scope mount? My CZ527 has to have high rings for the bolt to clear the scope.

Any recommendations for quick release rings? I plan on mounting a leupold 1.75-6X scope. I don't think I need the 6 power, but this is the scope on my 358STA and I like it.

We'll be looking forward to a full report [with pics ] in the African hunting forum.

Gunner

Talley QD's for the CZ seem solid and work pretty well. These are 30mm but, of course, you can get 1".

DF

Alaska Arms also makes excellent QD mounts for 550's.

My best buddy got a pair, we did not like them as well as the Talleys, which I have/am putting on my pair of original ZG-47, 9,3s, my ZG carbine in 7x57, the custom CZ-550 9.3 in that absolutely superb Micky formerly used by AHR for their rifles and several Brno 21/22s I have.

I have tried quite a number of different mounts on the various Brno/CZ rifles, 21s, ZGs, ZKKs and now 550s and I have not found any that equal the Talley QDs. They do cost a bit more, but, they lock on there like grim death and they are SO good looking on these fine rifles,so, I can't see buying any others.

Another bonus to the Alaska Arms mounts is that they actually make a true Low mount. Yes, one will have to have the bolt handle scalloped in order for it to clear the ocular bell of a scope, but it's much lower than the lowest mount that Talley makes. My one complaint about Talleys are that they are a very tall mount, too tall for my liking.

I had a set of Talleys on my ZG47 7x57, but the Alaska Arms product now lives there.

Good point, as it happens and after a LOT of different rifles, combo guns and the odd shotgun with scopes, I do not really care for "low" mounts and tend to like higher rings than many shooters seem to.

But, I am a "squarehead" and it really is about what fits the individual shooter. I have several pairs of "low" Talleys on some pretty fine customs and am going to change these to "mediums", but, I do have rather "high combed" synthetic stocks on all my using rifles and find that the "low" rings just make me squash my head down too much.

What is your impression of the "AA" rings vs. the Talleys in terms of quality of fit, finish and the placement of the levers and recoil lug?

On the AHR CZ pictured above, the comb is about right for the rings and lower would present a problem, especially with the Oberndorf style bolt handle. I have a 98 FN Mauser with a very nice three panel Oberndorf handle that required at least a medium ring to clear.

I can see lower rings being nice with a lower comb for irons and scope. The above comb works for irons, but requires a firm cheek weld. Same thing with the Echols Legend stock, irons and scope. A comb can't be perfect for both.

DF

Actually it can--but the irons have to be higher than most shooters like.

I had D'Arcy put a set of fairly high NECG sights on my Mark X .375 H&H, and they're the same height as the center of the low-mounted scope.

Also depends a lot on the shooter and their physical makeup.

High sights are not a bad thing, especially if you have to look over scope bases. Higher sights are a lot easier to acquire when looking over a scope base.

I'm in the process right now of replacing the sight blade and bead on my 9,3x64 so they are easier to see over the scope bases.

Bases, especially Talleys, are pretty tall. I put med NECG sights on my Legend stocked .404J M-70 because of the Talley peep, which comes in one size. I don't use irons that much, so this set up will have to suffice. They are tall enough to see over the Talleys.

I could see taller irons working better with the Legend, wouldn't need a tight cheek weld. D'Arcy said it was designed primarily for scope use, but can be used with irons. It's a compromise.

DF

I really don't see much of a difference between the quality of the two - they're both machined and finished well. I'm not at home right now as I answer this, so cannot hold them side-to-side at the moment to compare recoil lug placement, but I don't recall any significant difference. One more thing that I really like better on the AA mounts are the throw levers themselves - I've always found that the levers on Talleys have very sharp edges, and would greatly benefit from the edges being rounded off. In fact, I had one gun case in which the sharp edges of the Talley's wore a hole in the lining. The AA levers are nicely rounded and don't dig into anything, one's hand or clothing included.

It would be nice if AA would offer a "lever-less" ring though, for those that don't necessarily require a QD capability.