I'm in the market for a 416 bolt rifle. I really don't care whether it's the Remington or rigby. I figure the action size will determine which. I see no reason to have the Remington in a rigby size action.

The rifles I'm looking at are the M70 safari, ruger RSM, kimber caprivi and the CZ American safari and magnum express. Not interested in a M700 or Mark V.

I'm really leaning to the ruger RSM. Anyone have experience with all these that puts one well above the others?

I put the ruger and winchester above the CZ. CZ's can have feeding issues, and are a lot more rouch around the edges where the winchester and ruger are more refined.

pm sent

I had one of the very first RSM rifles imported into Canada, purchased here in Vancouver and then modded to be a "working rifle" for use on "fire lookouts" in the Canadian Rockies, while alone in Grizzly country.

A couple of friends bought these in .416 Rigby and I have shot them and thus have some experience to form my opinion on.

I do NOT care for these and would never buy/own another for several reasons.

I also have handled and thoroughly examined the first Kimber Caprivi .416 Rem. brought into Vancouver and consider it to be poorly finished and over-priced; I WAS going to buy it the year before last, UNTIL I checked it out. The retail here at that time was $3895.00, IIRC and 12% taxes on that...much too costly for mediocre quality.

The Classic Mod. 70 requires some serious mods, but, with these done by a GOOD smith, it can be an excellent piece in ANY of it's chamberings and with these, is probably the most "cost effective" of your options.

I have a CZ-550 American, 9.3x62, just now being finished as a "customized" hunting/working rifle and most of those I know here with these rifles, seem very satisfied with them. I have had 20+ of the older Brno ZKK, 21/22 and ZG rifles and they can also be simply outstanding with some mods, quite simple ones, actually.

So, I would tend to lean to the CZ-550M in .416 Rigby, WITH some "tuning" AND a synthetic stock for your "best" choice and the Mod. 70 would be my second choice here.

While, some CZs CAN have ...feeding problems..., SO can ANY rifle ever made; I bought a lovely Dakota 76-.338WM, made under the supervision of Don Allen, in the late '80s and it would NOT feed the last two of the three rounds in the mag......this is supposedly THE finest US-made rendition of the Mod. 70, etc, etc and after "massaging" by the gurus of Martini Gunmakers, IS NOW what it SHOULD have been when I paid big bux for it.

So, while I would choose a custom CZ-550M in .404J for what you perfer the .416s for, this is how I would approach your choice, if, definitely limited to the rounds you prefer.

If, I WAS going to get a .416 Remmy, I would have a STS Classic Mod. 70 done with a 4+1 capacity, Recknagels, Talleys, Leupy 4x-HD and whatever plastic handle you like and then learn to use THAT ONE rifle as though it were an "extension of my arm". I had a much modded P-64-70 like this in .375 H&H for some years and then traded it and built one much the same, except it wears a 20" STS Classic tube and shoots far better than I now can at 67.

Just some thots, HTH.

Well mine is close and SS was not a need given where it will be used.

I have a Ruger RSM in 375 H & H. It is a beautiful rifle and I cannot find anything that needs "fix'n" before it is used unlike all of the other rifles mentioned above. Mine cost me $1880 including a Leupold VXIII 1.5 to 5 scope. It is a bit heavy, perhaps a pound or so but it is beautiful and the action works like the traditional greased pig thru a pipe. The weight helps tame recoil. The action is extremely smooth and appears to have everything a dangerous rifle should have.

Option 3 would be the Stainless Ruger Alaskan in 416 Ruger. Short and handy 20" barrel, standard length action, controlled round feeding, 3 position safety, synthetic stock and factory ammo/components available at a "reasonable" price. Same ballistics as the rem/rigby. The Alaskans in 375 are a big seller here in No. West Montana and there are actually quite a few 416's as well (I have one of each). Definately worth a look, good luck with whatever you decide!

I really like the RSM and figure the weight will be less of a problem for the 416. The current ruger offerings in 416 ruger do not appeal to me at all. Maybe if I was getting them for use in the alders, but this will be an Africa gun.

I have a CZ 550 in 500 Jeffery and love it. I had the action worked on a bit and the magazine follower plus a little polishing of the rails and feed ramp. It is flawless, and shoots one hole groups with 570g TSXs at 2300 fps I can go faster, but then she starts to hurt me a little.

Had a Ruger RSM in 416 Rigby, there built like a tank, mine never showed any functional problems, in fact, I shot it so much I smoked the throat and had it re-bored to 505 Gibbs, still got it to this day.

Gunner

I've got a new production M70 in 416. It needed nothing out of the box, other than to be shot a few times to smooth things up. It is accurate with all bullet weights I've tried, with very minimal load development. I dont have any experience with the ruger or kimber, but the cz safari mag I handed just seemed "cheaper" and way too heavy. I didn't shoot it though, so I can't comment on it any further.

OTOH, I have shot a cz 550 american in a non-magnum caliber, and it seemed to be a very nice rifle. I also own a cz 22 rimfire bolt gun, which is also top notch.

My problem is I have only shot the RSM. I have handled the RSM, CZ and M70. The M70 feels best but man I like the looks of the RSM. I'm still trying to track down a Caprivi to see how it handles.

Most of the time, a solid, used DG rifle will have pristine rifling for obvious reasons.

Except for Gunner. He's the only guy I know who actually shoots out a big boomer, .416R barrel...

Then, bores it out to an even bigger round...

That boy ain't right...

DF

I bought my CZ 550 .416 Rigby slightly used in 2002, and it needed a little smoothing of one edge of the feed ramp and a stronger magazine spring to work perfectly. It has done so ever since, even with flat-nosed solids from more than one manufacturer. Never had any trouble with the nice walnut stock splitting, either, unlike many who buy the walnut-stocked Rugers of any variety chambered for .375's on up. In my limited experience, however, the Rugers don't usually need any adjustment to feed right out of the box.

Had a .416 Remington Magnum Model 70 Classic for a while too, and it fed perfectly with most ammo. It did break a glass-bedded Boyd's laminated stock (busted out the recoil lug area) so I put one of D'Arcy Echols' McMillans on it, which solved that problem.

Have noticed a lot of CZ's in the hands of African PH's, which says something, but dunno if Rugers are available over there. The cheapest solution would probably be an Alaskan model Ruger, as they feed well and the synthetic stocks won't split.

Well dang DF, I didnt want to cut the barrel up and weld it on for a headgate handle.

Gunner

Well, that would work, too.

I've worked my share of those things...

DF

I knew ruger had a problem getting a 416 ruger with a wood stock that wouldn't split, but did that also apply to the RSM? The 458 lott must really be bad if that is the case. I would assume ruger will not fix a split RSM stock since they are out of production?

Is the stock and bedding on the new M70 adequate?

They make an attempt at bedding the lug.

It's for sure adequate when I get done with it, as I Steel Bed the lug. I've not had one mess up and don't think I will.

DF

Me too, and had a set of bruised ribs to go with it.

Gunner

How about this lug on the barrel?



Does it really add to the strength of the stock? I assume it would have to be bedded as tight as the action recoil lug. Does it affect accuracy having the barrel with a bedded recoil lug? Is that glue on the factory stock?

I have a CZ in 375H&H. It's a big rifle, probably a bit to big for the 375 but perfect in the Rigby.

Mine feeds perfect. Shoots very well.

I have put a few rounds through Safarimans CZ Rigby. Very comfortable to shoot.

I would go CZ and send it to AHR for at least the #1 package.

Send Mark(Safariman) a PM. I'm sure he'd be more than pleased to talk to you about his CZ Rigby and the mods he's had done to it.

Yup, again, I doubt that you CAN find anything better or even equal in this price range and the options in respect of having just what YOU want are extensive and well worth the cost.

The RSM, to me, after using one as such a rifle is intended to be used, is too heavy, very poorly balanced, the bolt handle is too short AND the knob too small and the safety, while functionally great, has this sharp, little lever that just does not work well for me.

The bedding/recoil lug(s) are too complex and heavier than need be and the accuracy of the 4-5 of these in both .375 H&H and .416 Rigby that I have had experience with has not been very impressive. The recoil pads were inadequate and the front sight bead is far too tiny.

Yeah, I KNOW that these issues CAN be addressed and I had mine modded to meet some of my standards, but, a modded CZ costs less and my experience with many CZ-Brno rifles has made me quite a "fan" of basic, customized "bush rifles" slightly modded from these as they come from the factory.

I also just think that the shorter, less abruptly shouldered .404 case is a superior design in this sort of rig, but, I bow to the guys here who have more experience with the Rigby,etc, that I ever shall. I would kinda like to have a CZ-Rigby modded by Ralf Martini.......maybe matching .375 H&H and .450 Lott. rifles in fine Bastogne........rust blued, ......you know.........

Throw the M70 in a magnum fill McM and leave the barrel lug free, untouched, as well as the barrel. This I did as directed by both D'Arcy Echols and McM. Figuring they have it right.

My .404J is in a regular fill McM made Legend. D'Arcy put in cross pins and I Steel Bedded the lug. The barrel is free floated with no barrel lug. D'Arcy said that would hold and I think he's right. But, the .404J isn't the recoiling round like some others.

DF

Any experience with the Montana dangerous game rifle? Looks to be about the same price as buying a CZ and sending it to AHR?

http://www.montanarifleco.com/custom.rifles.html#DangerousGameRifle

Don't have one, but did seriously consider them when I started shopping for DG rifles. They seem to be well done with good reports.

I even heard that Pine Tree Casting makes the receivers for MRC. So, if that's true, they're "Ruger cousins".

DF

I like these people THAT DONT GET INTO THE MEAT > If you want a 416 and your happy with 2400 ftps then rem is the way to and thats it.Brass has gone through the roof and rem will be the cheapest to shoot. And the other is as I see it the Rigby, I have a ruger Rigby {AND its very Heavy} I shoot a 400 bullet just under 2600 ftps and Im happy with that. They make the brass so soft today that I dont want to take it up much more. The Brass is very expensive and If I want to juice up over 2600 I can but Im sure the brass will suffer! Enjoy.

Before my cape buffalo hunt I looked at the Ruger and CZ in .416 Rigby and chose the CZ. It pointed more naturally for me and I wanted a true Magnum size double square bridge action.

Yes, the action needs to be smoothed a bit, but when you are done you have a real DG rifle. If you are not inclined to do this type of work yourself, send it to AHR:

http://www.hunting-rifles.com/CZ/CZowners.htm




I noticed this as well. There were a couple apprentice PHs in my camp and they both aspired to own CZ rifles in 416 Rigby. They both carried Rem 700s in .416 Rem at the time.

405wcf

Buzz Charlton was carrying a .416 Rigby Ruger RSM back in 2009. It was very well worn, but it worked like a charm on dangerous game.

KodiakIsland,

The Montana actions are very good, but one difference between them and the CZ is the lack of the wedging bevel between the bolt groove right behind the face, and the front end of the extractor. This is a feature of the original 98 Mauser that a lot of people don't understand.

In any typical CRF action there�s a slot around most of the bolt right behind the bolt face, where a tab (or �tongue,� as Stuart Otteson called it in his fine book THE BOLT ACTION) of steel on the extractor fits. This slot and tab keep the extractor from sliding on the bolt body.

In the 98 Mauser the back edge of the slot is undercut at an angle, and the back edge of the tab is angled rearward to match the undercut. When a fired cartridge case resists extraction, the angled rear edge of the tab wedges into the undercut, forcing the extractor even tighter around the rim of the case.

In most other CRF bolt actions, the slot and tab are square. As a result, when a case sticks in the chamber, the extractor hook can jump over the case rim, leaving the empty round in the chamber. I�ve owned a bunch of CRF bolt rifles over the decades, including 1903 Springfields (a not entirely successful version of the 98 Mauser), pre-�64 and post-�90 Model 70 Winchesters, Ruger 77 Mark II�s, and Montana 1999�s. All have square extractor slots and tabs, and at one time or another I�ve seen the extractor jump the rim on a fired case on all those actions. It doesn't happen often, and can even happen with a worn extractor in a 98, but happens less with the 98-style bolt than any other.

Aside from both commercial and military 98 Mauser actions, the only CRF bolt I�ve encountered with the angled slot and tab is the CZ 550. This makes perfect sense, because CZ manufactured quality 98 Mauser actions for decades, so knew every reason it worked so well.

I'm always kind of puzzled why so many people have CZ 550 actions modified, when the original safety, bolt handle and trigger work very well. The safety is a 3-position type that, like the Model 70's, holds the firing pin back, but it far less obtrusive and doesn't have to be moved as far to work. The 550 triggers have a lot of parts, because they're set triggers designed to be adjustable, but if you adjust them to a primary pull of 3-4 pounds the light, secondary pull goes away and the parts involved are much fewer. I've used two 550's, a 9.3x62 and a .416 Rigby, in varying conditions over the past decade-plus and never had the slightest bit of trouble with either the safety or trigger. And none of the PH's I've run into with 550's have had any of the modifications made that many Americans apparently feel are absolutely necessary. They just go out and use their rifles--and the rifles work.

I have a .416 Taylor in a VZ-24 Mauser action. Can anyone tell me why I should NOT take it to Mozambique in 2015 to kill a Cape Buffalo. It has been flawless in my back yard and shoots 400 grain solids very nicely.

Thanks. donsm70

I think it would be hard to come with a "why not" on that one...

DF

Muledeer
Thanks for the reply. I don't know that I understood all of it, but got from it the CZ is good enough. The more I hear and read about PHs using the CZ, the more it has made my mind up. I'm pretty sure I'll be going with the CZ. I still like the RSM but am scared of the stock.

I've had my cz550 in 416 Rigby for quite some time. Tom Burgess had an idea for a CZ550 trigger and asked to borrow it to build a trigger for. What a wonderful trigger it is. He put an Oberndorf style bolt handle on it for me for lending him the rifle. I love that rifle and have had no issues with it. But, it is a heavy rifle. That's great when I want full power loads as recoil is very manageable. However, I also wanted something that would throw a 400 grain bullet at more like 2250 to 2300 fps and in a smaller lighter package. Basically, a 404 Jeffery.

Not long ago, I finished building a .375 Ruger on a Mk X for a customer and was very impressed with the ease of the conversion as well as the performance of the cartridge. So much so, that I shelved the 404 notion and instead built myself a .416 Ruger. I love it.

Basically, the extractor has a dovetail on the leading edge of it's foot that rides in the groove on the bolt. The groove also has dovetail. It is there so that when the extractor claw tries to pull real hard, like on the rim of a stock case, the dovetail pulls the extractor down toward the bolt body instead of letting it flex away, thus ensuring a positive bite on the case's rim. I'm not aware of any other CRF claw extractor with that feature other than the Mauser which it was borrowed from.

Tom Burgess trigger and Oberndorf bolt handle sounds a lot like what AHR does with their CZ work.

Can you post a picture of the CZ that Mr. Burgess worked on. I really like to see his work.

DF

I'll try to dig it out of the safe this wekend and snap a few pics. I assure you the AHR work pales in comparison. Tom built the entire trigger assembly from scratch. AHR simply straightens the handle, they do a nice job of it though.

That, I can believe, although AHR stuff is pretty good. I love to look at photos of Burgess smithing. It is top of the line, no doubt.

DF

This is an excellent, concise and precisely accurate explantion of the TRUE Mauser 98 "CRF" and, IMO, NO action without this as well as ALL of Mauser's other features IS a REAL "CRF" one. This is open to subjective interpretation and is not intended as some sort of denigration of any other action that others may prefer.

Very simply, I understand and accept MD's point concerning the 550 safety/trigger, however,I HAVE changed ALL, except one of my currently 30+ bolt rifles to the "Mod 70 type".

My simple and, sadly, very pricey motive for doing this is that I LOVE rifles, have owned and used scores of different ones in the past almost half-century and would have many more, except for this little issue, $$$$$$$. I also worked, alone, in Grizzly country for many years and would carry a rifle "just in case" most of the time.

Much of my employment was "seasonal" and entailed sudden changes from living in "university towns" and being totally focused on that sort of environment, which tended to keep me from much if any gun handling and shooting to being totally alone in some of BC's most remote wilderness and with a rifle(s) at hand pretty much 24/7. So, this would mean that I needed to make a very abrupt switch in my concious daily routine and it COULD mean that any problem in doing so might result in danger/injury to me.

I very soon came to realize that, especially under the stress of a sudden, unexpected and very close range encounter with a bear while burdened with my packboard and watercan, I could and did fumble for the safety as I checked it on a rifle I had not really handled much for several months. I had, even in those years, several different rifles with different "controls" and this could cause confusion as above.

So, I bought my first "big" rifle, my beloved P-64 Alaskan-.338WM, some few months after my first long stint alone in the bush and found that it suited ME just fine. Consequently and influenced by "J'0C" as were 99+ of the young "gun nuts" I knew, I bought more P-64s and still have quite a few.

After, I bought my first Brno 21H, I became a fan of the older Brno models, especially the superb ZG-47, my favourite bolt rifle and I also got a custom with a stock from Biesen's shop which had a Jantz safety on it. That, was IT, I could now use the Mausers I prefer and also the safety I was/am most used to and have done for 30+ years.

So, while I certainly would never say that MY choice is "the best" or any of that horsesh!t, I will say that I now will not hunt in bear country without a rifle with this safety and I almost never use one that is not "CRF". This makes ME feel good and that is what is important, to me. YMMV, each to his own and many other rigs are as good and maybe better, but, I am too old to bother changing and I also dislike small, side safeties in cold weather, the HVA is the worst, IME. That said, I knew one particular hunter with great experience and success in my hometown, located in one of the premier hunting regions of the globe, who preferred the HVA to all others....

The cost???? NOT "cheap" and few 'smiths in Canada, can do this RIGHT, but, mine from the shop of "Martini Gunmakers" and, recently, Ralf's former employee, Jan Kolenbrander, of Cranbrook, BC, have done what I wanted them to do.....and, if you can show me a BETTER BC hunting/working "all-around" rifle than my pair of factory original Brno ZG-47s, 9,3x62, good synthetics, Talley QDs, Recknagel "peeps", and Satterlee safeties, I will be very surprised.

I have no problem with the 1917 type safety or the CZ type safety. They both work well and are efficient.

Like you, I've used M-70's for years and have "muscle memory" with that set up and for that reason, i have the M-70 swing safety on as many rifles as possible.

I do have several Rem 700 type trigger/safety fire control set ups, including HS Precision, Shilen, Timney and Jewell. But, not on DG type guns.

DF

Am I missing something as the CZ 550 I have is a 2 position safety but Mule Deer you mention a 3-position?

The CZ-550 rifles have been produced with BOTH "2" and "3" position side safeties.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

I like the CZ safety, other than that, it's just aesthetics for me. I like the straighter bolt handle, barrel band etc..

Here's the pic of the Burgess handle. I should have taken it from farther away, sorry.



This is a pic Tom sent me while he was doing the work.

On the CZ-USA website, it says the current 550 has a 2 position safety. Are there some models with a 3 position or was that just on older models?

The 3-position was on older models. My 1999 .416 Rigby and 2002 9.3x62 both have the 3-position, but my recent .270 Winchester American has the 2-position. I don't know exactly when they made the change; maybe somebody else does.

The two main mechanical things about either version are that when the safety's on "safe" the firing pin is locked back and the bolt handle locked down--unlike on many other rifles made these days. It's also in a very handy place and doesn't have to move a vast amount to go from safe to fire.

I'm very happy with the three position safety on my CZ550. However, I understand why someone would convert it to a Winchester type bolt mounted safety. Familiarity under stress. Or simply personal preference.

Thanks, I love looking at Tom's work. He was the best.

Here's a picture I got on line, showing a Tom Burgess .404J, Enfield. Really nice.



Here is AHR's version of the CZ

I am fairly certain that I recall that Burgess rifle as one built by him and stocked by some guy called "Echols" or something like that? I seem to remember it as listed for sale on Maurice Hallowell's site several years ago and it started at about 8K, but, was subsequently priced at $6995.00, a STEAL for a rifle like that.

I also seem to recall that it was a .416 Remmy, but, this was circa 2006-2007, IIRC and I might be mistaken. In any event, it is a simply stunning example of what a "DGR" can be and I lusted after it!

Fortunately, as I have NO use for a rifle like that, it would cost several hundred $$$ over the list price to import it into Canada, and while my wife has been a tremendous supporter of my "gunaholism" as few I know of have been, she also queried my "need" for it. However, it made me then and still does, go a little weak in the knees!

That four letter word, "NEED" gives me the jitters...

But, our ladies are usually right. Sorta aggravating that they're right so much...

But, as John Keats, the Scottish poet wrote many years ago in his Ode on a Grecian Urn, "A thing of beauty is a joy forever".

Maybe if ole John was still around he'd write an Ode on an Untimate Rifle...

DF

No 'why-nots' available here, I have one on a VZ action as well, very accurate and recoil is much lighter than a comparable 416 Rigby.

Gunner

That type of rifle, while gorgeous and a masterful example of the American "best" in gunmaking, is not very useful or practical here in BC. It is too heavy for a "mountain rifle" and "kicks" too hard for the "beanfield" shooting which does exist in a limited way in some regions here.

I can certainly understand and empathize with any obsessive "gun nut" who would buy it simply to own and admire it, but, all of my rifles are, have been and will continue to be strictly practical and "working" guns. I can see buying an Echol's "Legend" or one of Simillion's rifles of a similar type and using it for almost all of my hunting---if, I were 15-20 years younger---, but, my fascination with wooden stocks,etc, has long since disappeared and so that one caused "lust", but, was never something I would actually buy.

Each to his own, what works for me and I prefer may well be much different than another's cherished and well-used favourite piece.

BTW, no offence, I was an "English major", long ago and also owned my own bookstore for a few years, so, am "interested" in literary matters. John Keats, was not a Scot, he was a "Sassenach" born in London, England and as English as his fellow "Younger Romantics."

Thanks for the correction. I must have dozed in English class.

Can't blame me for trying to make him a Scotsman.

DF

One minor point but, I think, a valid one.

For some reason, many smiths who convert the bolt handles of CZ 550's and other rifles tend to make them 90 degrees from the bolt body. But there is a real reason for the bend in the bolt handle of the 550, FN Mauser commercial actions, Model 70 Winchester,Remington 700, etc: It places the knob further back, where it's easier to raise when a quick second shot is needed. Your arm doesn't have to stretch as far forward to find it, so your hand can grasp the handle faster and more easily.

This is one of the basics of bolt manipulation, and one of the reasons the Lee-Enfield is one of the fastest and easiest bolt actions to cycle, and the Mannlicher-Schoenauer one of the most awkward. Yes, the LE's service bolt handle is at 90 degrees from the bolt body, but the handle itself is further toward the rear of the bolt than on a Mauser, Model 70, Remington 700, etc. Which is why some hunters who don't care for the curve in the bolt handle of the FN Mauser or CZ 550 have them replaced with a Model 70 type handle, rather than just having them bent straight.

My Mk V bolt knob bumps my trigger finger just above the 2nd joint. Aggravating.

My 90* AHR CZ and Oberndorf style Mauser handles, don't. I don't find 700's or 70's, with their swept back bolt handles, to be that bad. I even thought about having the Mk V handle bent forward, but haven't pursued such a radical idea. I don't want to mess it up and the McWoody stock may not accommodate an altered bolt handle angle.

DF

Yeah, the bolts that whack your finger are annoying!

One reason I like the factory handle on my CZ .416 is it doesn't bump my finger, but can still be works really fast--and I've had to, once or twice.

Will the CZ allow you to put a round in the barrel and close the bolt over it or does it have to feed from the magazine?

You can put a round in the chamber and close the bolt.

Which is why so many people replace the swept back handle with one that is more perpendicular. Some folks just hold a rifle differently such that the same rifle you can shoot comfortably whacks them in the finger. Those are the folks that come to me requesting I change the handle.

Different strokes.

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.

Good point on Talley levers. I had to take material from the inside curve of mine (CZ version) and smooth them up, to keep them from digging into the stock.

DF