Which compact "carbine" would you choose?


PDA






PT1911
January 2, 2010, 06:55 PM
I have the CZ 527 Varmint in .223 and LOVE that gun... but I am looking at the possibility of getting a "stalking gun" in the form of a lightweight carbine... I pretty much have it narrowed down to two rifles each in its own caliber.

CZ 527 carbine in 7.62x39.
Ruger 77 hawkeye compact in 6.8 spc.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which compact "carbine" would you choose?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PT1911
January 2, 2010, 07:28 PM
the cz seems like an intriguing possibility and I love the triggers on the 527s in both the regular and set mode.... in 7.62x39 it seems like a promising deer gun.

I like the look and feel of the Hawkeye as well and the 6.8 spc seems like a very good performer on medium sized game overall.

Yes I have a 30-30 and a 45 colt (both levers of course.) This makes me lean a bit more toward the ruger as it extends the range without a much of a change in recoil or (SADLY) price of ammunition.

cowpoke
January 2, 2010, 07:49 PM
The Ruger. Because it is a fine U.S. Made rifle. And the 6.8mm makes a good deer round.

xanderzuk
January 2, 2010, 08:10 PM
Typically I support the buy American position the member above posted, however my patriotic feelings evaporate alongside Ruger's quality. While I think their rifle's are nicer than their pistols, I still believe their quality is mid-grade at best.

I believe that CZ produces very high quality products, at an excellent price, and it would be damn near impossible to argue with their accuracy.

I vote CZ.

rangerruck
January 2, 2010, 09:11 PM
Have you ever shot with a single set trigger- one that can be changed with a small screwdriver, from the outside, without taking apart anything?
If you have not, then you don't know what you are missing.
CZ is the way , the truth, ... you get the rest. Also, if you randomly pulled 10 cz rifles, and 10 ruger rifles, and did an accuracy test 1 for 1, the CZ'S will win every time...

Walkalong
January 2, 2010, 09:23 PM
I have been lusting for a CZ Carbine in 7.62X39, so that is how I voted.

FSJeeper
January 2, 2010, 09:26 PM
I have the CZ in 7.62 x 39. I love it. Before you buy, make sure you handle both of them. IMO, the Ruger is not in the same class of rifle. Plus with the CZ, you get old world craftsmanship and a mini masuer controlled round feed action.

PT1911
January 2, 2010, 09:27 PM
Have you ever shot with a single set trigger- one that can be changed with a small screwdriver, from the outside, without taking apart anything?
If you have not, then you don't know what you are missing.
CZ is the way , the truth, ... you get the rest. Also, if you randomly pulled 10 cz rifles, and 10 ruger rifles, and did an accuracy test 1 for 1, the CZ'S will win every time...

I have the 527 varmint in 223... the trigger is NICE... and it is well capable of .5 inch groups at 100 yds with factory PMC ammo....

ArmedBear
January 2, 2010, 09:31 PM
Similar weight, both CRF.

The CZ has a longer barrel, and AFAIK the 6.8's already-anemic performance suffers more with the really short barrel on the Ruger, than the 7.62x39 does with the CZ's barrel.

The CZ comes with irons, the Ruger doesn't.

The Mini Mauser action is neat, with one MAJOR caveat. It requires high scope rings, on a stock designed for irons. Not a good thing -- if you want a scope.

That's my conclusion: if you want to use iron sights, the CZ. If you want to use a scope, neither of the two choices.

oldfool
January 2, 2010, 09:33 PM
is it allowed to vote for both/any/all ????
:o

PT1911
January 2, 2010, 09:54 PM
The CZ has a longer barrel, and AFAIK the 6.8's already-anemic performance suffers more with the really short barrel on the Ruger, than the 7.62x39 does with the CZ's barrel.

The CZ comes with irons, the Ruger doesn't.

The Mini Mauser action is neat, with one MAJOR caveat. It requires high scope rings, on a stock designed for irons. Not a good thing -- if you want a scope.

That's my conclusion: if you want to use iron sights, the CZ. If you want to use a scope, neither of the two choices.

Damn Armedbear, I shoulda brought my umbrella!!!! You totally just rained on my parade!!!:neener:

black_powder_Rob
January 2, 2010, 11:15 PM
Have you seen the Ruger77/44 that looks interesting.

R.W.Dale
January 2, 2010, 11:26 PM
I have a serious soft spot for both rifles. But to me the ruger using a full sized action makes the lil CZ a natural choice

PT1911
January 3, 2010, 09:11 AM
the 77/44 is an interesting one as well... It is one I may have to hunt down once I have made this decision.

desidog
January 3, 2010, 10:05 AM
Alternative option: FR-8 in .308? and go buy some more ammo with remaining wampum...

chaseguitar
January 3, 2010, 10:13 AM
I voted CZ...I have one...it shoots pretty well...trigger is super...With just a little work you can mount lower rings on the rifle...I did the bolt mod myslef and I'm no gunsmith...I can't remember if I mounted low or medium rings...at any rate its a fine rifle...I use it mostly to get ready for deer season and shoot something besides a .22...Although I did shoot a doe with it last year...performed as you would expect....

chaseguitar
January 3, 2010, 10:16 AM
BTW I also don't thing that the Ruger is a bad rifle...I had a Ruger M77 Compact in 243 that was as good a rifle as I think I've had...I traded it for a new full size Hawkeye in 257 Roberts that may be a better rifle yet...So I don't think you'd go wrong with either....

Wanta B
January 3, 2010, 12:05 PM
I personaly have had LOTs of luck with Rugers but many need some finishing to be smooth.

I only have one CZ and its a .416 Rigby...Needed some action smoothing too.

If the little CZ does have a smaller reciever than the Ruger...I know it has iron sights,well I would go for that one.

I beleive Ruger is making a 7.62x39 again but...

7.62x39 ammoe is plentiful and cheap...

CZ and tellus how you like it!:D;)

Dr.Rob
January 3, 2010, 03:20 PM
To me the CZ wins hands down.

Ratshooter
January 3, 2010, 06:11 PM
Its not on your short list but one of the older Remington model 7s with either the 18" or 20" barrel will do the same thing as the guns on your list. I have both, the 18" has a walnut stock and the 20" has a laminated stock. Both have open sights, are lightweight and both will shoot around 1" groups at a hundred yards. Both are in 7-08 which is a very good round. I think its as good as the 260 and far better that the 7x39 round.

Of the two you listed I would like the CZ best if it wasn't for the single stack mag that hangs below the stock. Plus while everyone makes such a stink about mini-14 mags costing $30 bucks the CZ 5 round mags cost just as much. Heck their 22 mags are 30 bucks. I guess in the end I would pick the Ruger.

MJR007
January 3, 2010, 08:12 PM
CZ, would get my money.

19-3Ben
January 3, 2010, 08:52 PM
I have been lusting for a CZ Carbine in 7.62X39, so that is how I voted.

+1.

I almost always go for Rugers. There is something wonderful about them. But in this very rare case, I'm going to vote for the CZ.

Although the M77 Hawkeye in 7.62x39 tempts me as well. But not like the CZ. I think the CZ is a notch up.

52grain
January 3, 2010, 10:41 PM
Model Seven in .260.

Shadow Man
January 3, 2010, 11:17 PM
Can't really go wrong with CZ.

PT1911
January 7, 2010, 01:38 AM
I am pretty surprised with the majority here... doesnt even seem to be close... looks like there will be a new CZ making its home in my safe at some point this year.

rangerruck
January 7, 2010, 01:45 AM
there are very few rifles made today, in large quantities, that can come close to the fit, finish, trigger, and accuracy of any cz, and that includes pistols as well.
The late jeff cooper once said of the cz 75, that it may be the best 9mm pistol ever made. he handled a lot of pistols in his time.
go with the cz, you will never be dissapointed.

Clipper
January 7, 2010, 06:31 AM
I'd go with the Ruger, but I sure as heck would not go with 6.8...

PT1911
January 7, 2010, 08:15 AM
I'd go with the Ruger, but I sure as heck would not go with 6.8...

any specific reason behind that?

Jim Reaves
January 7, 2010, 08:30 AM
My money is on the CZ. I have four in my safe and they are all first class rifles.

kanook
January 7, 2010, 10:53 AM
Two completely differently different caliber choices .

PT1911
January 7, 2010, 10:58 AM
yeah...I know kanook, and if the cz was available in the 6.8 spc (it isnt that I am aware of), the decision would be an easy one. I think it is an overall neat and useful cartridge that i would like to add to my safe.

Why the 7.62x 39? well I have a 527 varmint in 223 and love everything about it.. the same action, trigger, etc in a carbine would be ideal and, well, the x39 would be a damn good deer cartridge inside 100 yds though factory hunting loads are pretty high.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 7, 2010, 11:10 AM
To my way of thinking, in a turnbolt rifle for hunting anything larger than pests/varmints, there's no reason to go to a smaller case capacity than a .308-based case, unless you're really really recoil-sensitive. You can, certainly, and it will work fine, but I'd rather have the added oomph (max PBR) of something like a .260 rem or 7mm-08 or .308.

7.62 and 6.8 spc. I'd reserve those strictly for trying to get a *lightweight* gun when you just HAVE to have a semi-auto. A turnbolt can still be made very lightweight with bigger chamberings.

Having said that, if you're just stuck on that choice, it's a tough call. I like the 6.8 spc round a lot better, but like the CZ rifle better. To my own surprise, I'd probably say the Ruger here, because I don't like detachable mags on a hunting gun, and I like the 6.8 spc better.

Wanta B
January 7, 2010, 12:13 PM
I would have to agree with the good DR. Tad,in that,for the most part,a bolt gun smaller than the .308Win. parrent case is not for me...Unless it is purely target or varmint in build. However I can easily see the advantage if a very light weight carbine for packing all over BFE,and I can also see the benifits of a detatchable magazine in a common military caliber.In wich case the 7.62x39 wins it for me,tho' I do think the 6.8spc has an edge on it ballisticaly.

Clipper
January 7, 2010, 01:20 PM
Well, the reason I don't like the 6.8 is ammo availability, and the fact that just because these are short-barreled rifles, don't make the mistake of thinking they must be short-range rifles as well. You can get the Ruger in great long-range, low-recoil calibers like .260rem. You're gonna feel mighty sheepish if you go to Upper Duckwater, Montana on a once-in-a-lifetime elk hunt, and find you lost or forgot your ammo, and the toothless old bugger at the local emporium says "6.8 what?".

And the time you hunt your cousin's place with a 7.62X39 and find the blinds are all overlooking a pasture, and all the deer are 250 yards or more away (ask me about personal experience).

I'd advise going with a easy to find caliber, that gives good range and a performance envelope that will cover the unexpected opportunity.

Gryffydd
January 7, 2010, 01:28 PM
You're gonna feel mighty sheepish if you go to Upper Duckwater, Montana on a once-in-a-lifetime elk hunt, and find you lost or forgot your ammo, and the toothless old bugger at the local emporium says "6.8 what?".
Who are these people that are supposedly constantly going on once in a lifetime hunts and NOT BRINGING THEIR AMMO? I hear this tossed around all the time, but who actually does that? It seems packing your ammo for a hunt would come before packing your boots!

I suppose I can see maybe having an airline lose your baggage or something...

ArmedBear
January 7, 2010, 03:03 PM
To my way of thinking, in a turnbolt rifle for hunting anything larger than pests/varmints, there's no reason to go to a smaller case capacity than a .308-based case, unless you're really really recoil-sensitive. You can, certainly, and it will work fine, but I'd rather have the added oomph (max PBR) of something like a .260 rem or 7mm-08 or .308.

Right on.

There is exactly ONE reason the 6.8 exists: it fits in a standard AR-15, without taking up too much space in a standard-length magazine. Its ballistics plain suck, when compared to run-of-the-mill short-action bolt cartridges.

I think Elmer Keith still has some good points about the rifle you want. He preferred a double rifle, or a lever gun, in larger, heavier calibers that would not be turned aside or blown up by a tiny twig.

Float Pilot
January 7, 2010, 03:47 PM
I have owned a few Rugers and they are a good work rifle , but not terribly accurate unless you put a bunch of money / work into them. Plus the 6.8mm SPC (270 short) is a much shorter round than the Ruger short action can handle.
For the Ruger compact or lightweight Haweye, you might as well get a 243win , 260 rem, 7mm-08, 308, 338 Federal or 358 Win if you are going to get that size rifle. (mine is a 350 Rem Mag)

The mini action length of the CZ more closely matches the cartridge length of the 7.62x39mm round. Plus the CZs are generally pretty accurate rifles right out of the box. Although you will have to hand load the 7.62x39mm in order to achieve any sort of accuracy.

Of course any the the cartridges mentioned in the line about Rugers, has more potential than either the 6.8SPC or 7.62x39.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which compact "carbine" would you choose?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!