Was it really that big of a pain in the ass?Originally Posted by OlongJohnson
Also that link doesn't seem to resolve anywhere.
Was it really that big of a pain in the ass?
Also that link doesn't seem to resolve anywhere.
Last edited by mrozowjj; 07-27-2017 at 11:37 AM.
Overall build quality and fit and finish on the Savage were very poor. They had not cleaned all the steel shot blast media out of the scope mount holes on the receiver, so the screws that were holding on the factory-installed optic base were all jacked. They sent new screws, but I should have just asked them for a new rifle when I got to that point. I was able to chase the threads, but it's sub-optimal. I figure there's a limited number of remove/reinstall cycles on those parts.
Apart from that, I had to do a lot of cleanup and smoothing of the action. The plastic stock totally sucked, so I went Boyd's. I did the DIP bottom metal, and what showed up was poorly finished, needing a lot of deburring and spotfaces applied so the action screws wouldn't be seated on one edge of the heads. Totally underwhelming, and I could have made a similar part from scratch in only a little more time just starting with a piece of aluminum I have sitting under my work bench. The DIP aluminum trigger guard was nice. There's some guy on RFC who charges about $50, if I remember right, for about $3 worth of springs and widgets, and the Savage guys jump in line to pay it for their $200 rifles. That seriously bugs me. By the time I was done, the money and time involved just weren't worth it to me.
In contrast, you pretty much take a CZ out of the box, clean it and shoot it. There may be some slicking of the action to be done, but the parts are nicely made. The #144 spring costs like $0.87 or so at my local Ace Hardware. CZs don't start out embarrassing, and you don't have to replace a bunch of stuff with overpriced disappointment.
J&P has some weird coding on the site that I've never seen before. You can only go in from the main page and navigate from there. The link above is the correct URL for the CZ stuff, but copying from the page I'm looking at and pasting that address into another tab yields a blank page. So does attempting to open the page from the main page in a new tab. So just go in the front door:
https://www.jnpgunsprings.com/
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
My CZ bolt smoothed out real nice after I ran a few bricks of Wolf Match Target through it.I have a DIP rail on mine. http://www.diproductsinc.com/Products.aspx?CAT=3600
I've read that the Savage B22 series of rifles has improved fit and finish but you make a compelling argument for a CZ.
So I was looking up 10/22 barrels and Kidd has a guarantee of 0.5" at 50 yards with match ammo which got me asking what are the factory specs for some of these other guns so I started emailing companies to see what they say I can expect. Savage says 1" @ 100 yards for a bull barrel model or 1.5" @ 100 yards for a thin profile barrel with their rimfire bolt guns; the internet is divided on this some say that's about right and others say that's optimistic and it's still just as hit or miss as everything else in this price point. Ruger says 1.5" @ 50 yards for their American Rimfire bolt guns and 2.5" @ 50 yards for their Ruger 10/22. CZ says 1.5" at 50 yards (It might be meters actually now that I think about it.)
So that got me thinking it might be cheaper to buy a used Ruger 10/22 and buy a Kidd barrel for it and get a semi that can outperform any of the bolt guns in this price point. I pointed this out to a friend and he told me I should look into a dedicated 22 AR upper mentioning Nordic and JP so I contacted them and I got a response.
Nordic customer service rep said that with his personal upper he's getting half in groups at 50 yards and he expects it will do MOA at 100 yards but he personally hasn't shot it that far out because of the optic he has on his gun.
JP said they guarantee all of their rifles will shoot MOA but they pointed out that rimfire ammo is notoriously more finicky so they can't guarantee that with all ammo but if I'm using match stuff like Eley it should be one ragged hole at 50 yards.
While I would love to get a JP it's a bit outside my budget for this project... but the Nordic upper is right inside of it and I already have a lower lying and a bunch of BDM magazines lying around doing nothing... so now I am thinking that I just might get a Nordic upper. It's not a bolt gun but the only reason I was looking at a bolt gun was because I believed it was going to be the best performance in terms of accuracy. If I can get a semi-auto with MOA performance I don't see much of a point in getting a 22 bolt gun anymore. Though admittedly if you didn't already have an AR lower or an AR you could swap out with the bolt gun cost would still be lower.
I feel kind of bad since I recommended a CZ and now you aren't happy with yours. Before you throw any more money at this, would you try and shoot your CZ with a scope?
Companies can guarantee anything they want, but there are a lot of variables in shooting precision groups. I have a 10-22 with a bull barrel that guarantees a .5" group at 50 yards and has a target to prove it. But getting the gun to shoot that size group includes things like ammo, scope power, stock bedding, stability of the bench, type of bags or shooting rest, wind, etc.
I'm really surprised to hear the sights are bad. What makes them nearly unusable? What kind of sights are you accustomed to?
Not your fault at all. That said I am a pariah at the rimfirecentral forum because I dared to ask if the CZs are as accurate as they claim they are because the results of my targets when I used iron sights were less than impressive.
I guess my point earlier was I understand that I will be the limiting factor in just about any gun I buy but when I have 3 bolt gun companies saying the best they can do is 1.5" at 50 yards and I have a company that makes an AR upper telling me then can do 0.5" @ 50 for only slightly more money out of the gate why not take that option?
Imagine AK sights. However the rear sight on the CZ Training rifle is further from your eye than it is on an AK so some mixture of the ratio between that distance, the distance from the front sight to the rear sight in addition to the width of the front sight blade and the width of the rear sight notch in addition to the shallow depth of the rear sight notch made it hard for my eye to line up a shot. Basically while trying to focus on the front sight my eye would loose focus and start focusing on the rear sight so the front sight had a slight haze around it the entire time I shot with it. Possible it's just my eyes; I did have laser eye surgery 12 years ago but either way they just didn't work for me.
I'm more accustomed to pistol sights but on a rifle I mainly use AR sights; aperture rear and regular front sight post. Hell ironically the stock sights on my Scorpion were fucking great. I had this one 22 rifle once upon a time that had this great sight with a circle front sight and a aperture rear. That was the most intuitive sighting system I've ever seen. I don't know why more companies don't do that. Then again it was a rifle from the 40s so that's probably why.
Last edited by mrozowjj; 07-29-2017 at 01:46 AM.
I think what you are describing is the challenge of using tangent sights, not something unique to the CZ. Do you have any experience shooting milsurp rifles like Mausers, 1903s, or Enfields? I have a 452 Lux and the sights are almost identical to my Sako M39.
Tangent sights may not agree with your eyes but they are certainly capable of high levels of accuracy. If you prefer apertures then there are a few options for you to bolt onto the CZ. I ended up putting a Tech Sight kit on my 452 lux because I wanted a trainer for my AR. I was coming from the opposite direction where I had learned on tangent sights and the wide open picture of apertures felt very imprecise.
Iron sight shooting is difficult. I would experiment with target types to find one that agrees with your eyes. I'd also experiment with ammo. SK makes some great rimfire ammo. My 452 seems to shoot Geco and SK ammo exceptionally well.
I've shot a few Mausers and I had a K31 Swiss that I recall shooting well once upon a time, but that was before I was serious about shooting so I don't know how good I was actually doing vs my memory of the event.
I recall liking those sights far more. Same for AKs and well any rifle I can recall using with tangents prior to this experience. But again that might just be memory.
I don't think my eyesight is bad; I had lasek 12 years ago, I've been 20/20 ever since. I'm 34 now so I'd like to think I've got more time before they turn to shit but I've never been a lucky man so I suppose it's possible.
Regardless I've already sold the gun. Seems silly to get emotionally about steel and wood but it's also a hobby; one I'd like to enjoy and I was soured enough in the experience thus far that I thought I perhaps I was better off walking away from it and putting off my 22 precision rifle project for a bit. Shooting (rifles especially) is something I do to relax and decompress so when it begins to add stress to my life I have to step back for a moment. I've stopped shooting IDPA and USPSA entirely because my stress about trying to do good had completely removed any joy I once had about the sport. I don't know if that makes sense.
Last edited by mrozowjj; 07-30-2017 at 08:30 PM.
Reply With Quote