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

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