Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles CZ 30.06 VS Ruger 30.06.

Has anyone used these two, 30.06 rifles.If so what are the pros and cons of CZ vs the Ruger.I was looking at the Ruger 77 and the CZ 30.06 American.Would appreciate your input,thank you.

I've got a Ruger M77 Tang Safety in .30-06 that has been reliable for me. It's taken several moose and deer without a hitch. I haven't shot the CZ so I can't compare directly.


SS

I'm much more familar with Rugers than CZ's, but from what I've seen it would be a tough call. E

I have rugers and CZ's The CZ 550 is a rifle with tons of potential, however Its not taken advantage of in factory form, the stocks are very bulkly, IE the stock needs a serious diet. I don't particulary care for the saftey, However the CZ has the best trigger in the business. In some cases the stocks are finished with something akin to elephant snoot

The ruger is a rifle that seems to have it all, 3 pos saftey, hindged bottom metal, the wood is usually finished pretty good, The stocks are a ncie design, however the triggers suck.

Overall I think the CZ will prolly shoot better, albeit somewhat more crude to operate. If I was looking for another hunting rifle, I would buy a kimber without a doubt, The have tons of class, come bedded So it should be out of the box and shoot, with kimber I don't know why they haven't put sako and weatherby out of business

I have owned three Rugers, two of them Ruger Model 77s and one a Mark II, I own two CZs, one a CZ 550 American, the other a CZ 527 Lux/American, and I have worked extensively with a two CZ 550 Full Stocks, all but the CZ 527 were in 7x57mm and one .284 Winchester, and I have worked with my brother's CZ 550 American in 9.3x62. I liked them all. The CZs are a tad heavier than other rifles, but my hunting is stand hunting. As far as which one I like better, I won't do it. That is up to you, to handle each and find out which one you like better. CZ and Ruger offers good rifles. Tom Purdom

I am gonna split hairs a little on this one. If you are considering the standard "sporter" model, I would prefer the Ruger.

If, however, you are contemplating a mannlicher stocked version, I prefer the CZ. I had one of those in a 9.3x62, and much prefer the CZ to the Ruger mannlicher if for no other reason than the CZ has a 20" barrel to the Ruger's 18".

There. I am sure that helped a bunch <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for the reply's. So far,CZ has the better trigger.Ruger has the better safety.CZ maybe a little bit heavier than the Ruger.But the heavier weight is not a problem.Makes shooting the gun more pleasant.Is the Ruger bolt action smoother than the CZ's?.Are the magazine box and trigger guard on both of these made of steel.Please do keep posting your impressions,thanks.

CZ's are machined steel, Rugers are cast. Personally, I'd go with machined steel every time.

Why?

I'll take the Ruger over the CZ. The Rugers just feel & function better to me than the CZ. The CZs I have used have left me unimressed.

I have had great luck with the Ruger triggers. Even though they are "not adjustable". At least not adjustable through turning screws........but a good smith can tune the factory ruger trigger into a sweet piece for little money. And I own 2 that are very nice as they came from teh factory. Mo adjusting neccessary.

It is true that Ruger actions are investment castings. But this is not really a disadvantage. They work well & are fully capabale of handleing even full house hand loads in complete safety. I even read a a report comparing the Ruger actions to machined aactions that stated that the Ruger action was even STRONGER when tested to destruction. So it is not as if you are dealing with "cast iron". I'll see if I can find the link again & post it.

I just like machine work better. It's a personal thing for me, I'm not into castings, that's one of the reasons I enjoy old guns. I like things made the way they used to be before the bean counters got involved.

I don't particularly like either. My choice would be a Sako or a Kimber.

Take your choice - pushfeed or crf No gunsmithing reqiured with either rifle.

I've had a single Ruger and a single CZ ... I'd be happy with either, but it would slightly depend on how I intended to use the rifle ...

As has been said here recently many times ... the CZ is a heavier, milled action, with a full inner receiver ring ... very tough action, but not finished as well as it should. Don't get me wrong, it functions fine ... I never had mine act up at all ... it could just use a bit of polishing and tweaking to get it "like butta" ... The CZ 550 rifles (at least the American model) are kinda heavy, but not boat anchors ... they just have a fat stock and a "magnum contour" bbl instead of a tad more "sporter" style ... Like the Ruger, it's got the integral dovetailed base, and is a true CRF with a very hefty extractor claw ... in fact, mine would not allow me to push feed a round because the extractor would not pop over the case head rim ...

The Ruger I had was a tang safety, and was a push feed ... it had the large external claw, as do most all Rugers that I'm aware of. It never failed me at all, it handled well, balanced well, and shot ok ... Simply put, it was precisely what you'd expect from a Ruger built in the mid 80's ...

The CZ was a .30-06, the Ruger was a .270 ... the CZ was more accurate, but then again I probably shoot better now than I did back then ...

I've never owned a Ruger bolt gun, but the closer I get my little CZ project together the more excitied I am getting with them. Heck I carry a CZ pistol everyday in case God forbid I ever have to use it to save my bacon...I've owned about every gun brand there is and think VERY highly of CZ's products.

This is slightly off topic, but this is what I've been doing recently to keep myself out of trouble. I bought a CZ 550FS in 9.3x62. I love the looks of the FS, but it had more drop then I could like for scope use, so I sent a blank I got from Sitka Deer off to AHR rifles to turn for me. I'm not sure I would do that again, but I thought I would give it a try once. I'm not super crazy about AHR's pattern as it came, but I've got it about slimed down to where I want it. Stuck and old Tritium front sight from my CZ pistol in the front and it works just swell, even if it has a tiny bit of fore and aft play. I just had the trigger apart today due to a tiny bedding mishap...read MarineTex EVERYWHERE! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />, and noticed that there is a spring that helps out in the saftey system. Well that little spring was heavy as heck and looked a lot like the spring out of an ink pen. Presto I had a pen apart and the saftey is real nice and light now and seems to still function well. Further testing though is certainly required before I recommed that modification.

I guess to sum it all up...I certainly would not got through all this trouble if I didn't think the CZ was going to be a real shooter. I haven't gotten to shoot mine yet, but I have never had anyone mention one that wouldn't shoot. As mentioned I think the American pattern CZ rifles felt chunky...BUT it my world that's not necessarily a bad thing, because I've known to get a little wild with a rasp and at least they've already got the inletting done for you. I mostly went with the fullstock because I wanted the open sights and shorter barrel. I've not been able to warm up to the Ruger's I've handled, but you may be wired different then myself.

Biathalonman: there is a gent who posts on GraybeardOutdoors.com who bought a CZ 550 Fullstock in 9.3x52 and has been shooting his. You'll find his comments on the CZ Forum in GraybeardOutdoors. It might be worth a read. My brother had a CZ 550 American in 9.3x62, but he also has a CZ 550 Fullstock in 7x57mm. That is one sweet little rifle. AS far as the fullstocks go, go to www.serengetistockworks.com and then click on the services and prices bar. Go all the way down where it says mannlicher in blue and click on it. That is one sweet little rifle to be sure. Anyway, have a tolerable day. Tom Purdom <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

IMO, Rugers are better rifles than CZs. They are lighter, feed more smoothly, look better, and are MADE IN AMERICA. The full-stock Rugers are shorter and WAY lighter than full-stock CZs. CZs are heavy and the bolt binds badly.

Rugers are investment cast of very strong steel. Don't see the word "cast" and think of cast iron. It is a different animal altogether. Ruger makes some of the strongest, most dependable fireams ever made. There is good reason Ruger has gone from new company to Americas top gunmaker in only 57 years. They make good guns.

I think one of the reasons the CZ is heavier is the bbl is 2" longer as well.
I just went through this my self, but for a 300 win mag, and ended up buying the CZ.
I look at it as a good place to start, and to end up with it exactly like I want, the CZ was better for me.

Big Redhead

The bolt binds badly???

I have one and it operates just like any other bolt gun I've ever used.

How much do you consider heavy? Ruger MkII weighs 7 1/4 lbs

CZ weighs 8 lbs...not much difference to me

It's the "MADE IN AMERICA" thing again...

The rest of it is just window dressing.

So what about SAKO and TIKKA then?