I've decided that I need a 527 in 17 Hornet. I just have to decide between American or Varmint models.

My question is regarding the bolt handle clearance to the ocular bell. I've read that CZ may have started delivering the 527 with a new style bolt handle. If so, when did they start shipping the new style? The 17 Hornet is relatively new in the 527 so I was hoping that they would all have the new style from the factory. There are no stocking dealers near me to compare. New style handles can be purchased from CZ and I'm aware of the aftermarket options, just want to avoid that route if I can find a new one ready to go.

It's such an inexpensive and easy to install part, I think you should just buy what you can find at a good price and order one from CZ if needed. I don't know how many mounts are available for the 527 but that might be something to consider as much as the bolt handle. I know I don't like those big clunky ones supplied by CZ.

Any changes available for the 550 model?

For mounts, look at the Alaska Arms model....

I've got four 527s, including a .17 Hornet, and all have the same bolt handles on 'em.

I mounted a Nikon 6-18 Buckmaster on mine, and have no issues with bolt handle clearance (and it has a big ocular lens) with factory rings. Not much clearance, but enough to manage.

Got any pictures of it handy? I seem to remember the factory supplied mounts to be pretty high. I have often looked at getting a 527 in 7.62X39 with a small 36mm scope mounted as low as possible. The bolt handle, which may not be an issue anymore, and lack of low, light weight mounts always turned me off of it.

Thanks for the replies.

I will not use the CZ standard mounts. I can't get past the scaffolding look. I've seen pics of scope/mount combinations that are lower, just haven't taken the time to note what they were.

Sent the bolt handle on my 527 into James Calhoon www.jamescalhoon.com to have it modified and bought a set or his HUNKER mounts and I have been very happy with them

Leupold mounts on my 527 Lux with a Burris FFll 3x9....lots of room

I tried to mount a Nikon Monarch 4-16 on a 527 and the bolt wouldn't quite clear the ocular lens. The rings were purchased separately but are CZ rings. It looked like it was going to be a go till I tightened the rings down and the bolt rubbed against the scope.

Sorry, RH Clark, no pics yet, but thanks for reminding me I need to get busy and take some for insurance purposes.

Got kinda distracted by a redheaded woman since aquiring this rifle......

So, take some of her naked holding the rifle.

Can anyone refer me to a place that has the new and the old style pictured side-by-side? Cz shows a picture of the new style but it would be nice to compare it with the old one.

If I did something like that, there would be body parts for sale on ebay shortly thereafter. Since I have no surplus body parts, and I'm partial to my own initial-issue parts, I'll kindly decline to do as you asked.

In any event, the stock on this rifle looks like it was stolen off Ruger's woodpile, it's straight-grained and nothing special to look at. My .204 is the same way, straight-grained and boring, but nice and stable.