CZ 452 vs Savage MKII

[andym79]

Hi guys, I am in Australia so first I want to say we generally get stung for rifles!

I am looking at a Savage MKII F and a CZ 452 American!

The Savage I can get for $295 the CZ $700!

Is the CZ worth that much more?

Just to add to the mix I am also considering the CZ453 American because the trigger appeals to me, but that is $900! Again worth the extra over a basic Savage?

 

[andym79]

Thanks for that mate, the MKII G is about $360 here, still that is X2 Savages for one 452 and X2.5 Savages for a 453!

Are CZ really worth two Savages?

 

[Gordon]

They are if you value machined steel instead of stampings. Some hand fitting versus slapped together.

 

[andym79]

So are Savages cast instead of forged?

Are CZ all steel as opposed to alloys?

 

[Gordon]

60 Year old Savages are beautiful ! 30 year old Savages can be nice. NEW Savages , especially bottom end .22s like discussed are pretty cheesy and not in a class with the CZ. The parts ARE STAMPED, when not made of plastic on that .22 , sorry that IS the way it IS today. Yes Savage 110 series Centerfire bolt guns are pretty accurate and the .22 barrels MAY be accurate but the overall package certainly does not inspire much pride of ownership like the CZ .22 may for some. I'd rather have a clapped out Martini .22 if I lived in Australia than than a Savage .22 thats for sure.

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

The only reason Savage isn't using a cast reciever is because their 80 year old design requires a tubular receiver, which is extruded in a similar manner to plumbing or electrical parts. That was the 'investment casting' of the 1930's; the cheap way to make things back in the old days.

I have owned both Savage and CZ, and I would buy both again depending on funds.

The thing you need to understand is that good and cheap are not mutually exclusive. The Savage is indeed a cheap gun that works ok and shoots accurately. But while it may be an example of industrial efficiency, it is not an example of craftsmanship.

 

[andym79]

60 Year old Savages are beautiful ! 30 year old Savages can be nice. NEW Savages , especially bottom end .22s like discussed are pretty cheesy and not in a class with the CZ. The parts ARE STAMPED, when not made of plastic on that .22 , sorry that IS the way it IS today. Yes Savage 110 series Centerfire bolt guns are pretty accurate and the .22 barrels MAY be accurate but the overall package certainly does not inspire much pride of ownership like the CZ .22 may for some. I'd rather have a clapped out Martini .22 if I lived in Australia than than a Savage .22 thats for sure.

Are Savage MKII really that badly built?

And still they are accurate?

How much does the B and the BT stock models cost there?

The BV is $500
The BTV $600
The BTVS $645

 

[LoonWulf]

They arent badly built, they tend to be solid accurate rifles. The CZs also tend to LOOK nicer and some times FEEL nicer. Ive got a 93r17 btvss, and compared to the CZ 453 a friend has its not nearly as nice looking, but its slightly more accurate. Both rifles are in .17hmr and both shoot under an inch, mine will consistently hold .5+/-.
I also found the set trigger on the 453 not to my liking, but i only used the rifle once.

 

[andym79]

I also found the set trigger on the 453 not to my liking

The trigger was the main thing that attracted me to the 453, a light set trigger at the range, with a heavy trigger for the field! Did you find the set trigger was too far forward?

 

[Geno]

The Savage Mark II's entire barreled-action is solid. Frankly, it's one of the most accurate .22LRs I've ever owned. Both the Mark II's trigger and its blued finish are far superior to my CZ's. Given that the Mark II cost me about $169.00, and the little Leupold 4X scope cost me about $200.00, I'd say I got a great price. Off the bench, this lil' Savage Mark II groups 10 shots into about 1.5" at 100 yards. At 25 yards, it groups 10 shots into a very small cluster, that easily can be covered by a dime. That far exceeds my needs. It's your money. For my money, Savage is a better value than CZ.

Welcome to THR.

Geno

 

[red rick]

I have both the Savage FV and the 452.

Savage F Pros:
Better trigger.
Accuracy.
You don't have to worry about scratching it up so much.
Cost.

Cons:
The synthetic stock feels like a toy gun.

CZ 452 Pros:
Accuracy.
Looks.
Feels like a real gun.
They will discontinue making it ( re-sale value ).

Cons:
Price.
It doesn't have open sights.
It is not drilled and tapped for a scope ( it has a grooved reviever ).
It's so pretty you might not want to take it in the brush.

 

[303tom]

I also have both Savage & CZ, if you are into the high polish & the perfection of fit & finish & are willing to pay for it by all means get the CZ, BUT if you are just looking for a nice rifle that shoots great for the money a Savage is hard to beat.........

 

[skoro]

Are Savage MKII really that badly built?

And still they are accurate?

I have both a Savage MkII BV and a CZ 452 varmint, which is 22wmr, not 22lr. So, it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. But both are heavy barrel bolt actions with wood stocks, so there are plenty of similarities. The woodwork and metal finishing on the CZ is clearly superior. It's like a nice centerfire rifle, aesthetically. The Savage is obviously cruder, but still fine for a lower price rimfire.

Functionally, the Savage performs extremely well. I have no complaints in that regard whatsoever. And the AccuTrigger is a very good feature, IMO. The CZ is a fine performer as well. I really like its Mauser-style action. It has a more solid feel and gives the impression of extreme durability.

Both are equipped with Weaver rimfire scopes, so the optics are essentially equal.

The bottom line is that both are very good rifles, but intended for different markets. The Savage is more blue collar, meaning that it'll serve well but isn't so stylish. It's a tool. The CZ not only serves well, but for the extra cost, it's a firearm you're more likely to bond to. It's like well crafted furniture.

 

[roc1]

CZ first and I love my Savages centerfires. I would get the Savage at that big of price difference probably myself. Good luck
Roc1

 

[dusty14u]

You don't gain any more accuracy for twice the price so I would go with the Savage. I do like the quality of the CZ but the Savage is the most accurate for the money.

 

[andym79]

I am still no closer to deciding, if the MKII only had a trigger lighter than 2 1/2lbs, like 1 - 1 1/2lbs! I would just get the Savage!

How much creep and over travel is there on the MKII trigger? I can accept reluctantly 2 1/2lbs, but not lots of creep or over travel!

 

[LoonWulf]

I didnt like the feel of the break on the 453s trigger, it didnt seem to break the same consistently. Im not saying that its not a good trigger, i just didnt get the feel for it during my time with the gun.

The accu trigger on my savage is quite lite (ive taken a coil off the spring and redone the seat) as i only use it for target shooting and not hunting. I dont have a trigger pull gauge but it feels as about the same as the 453 when set. For field use or even general use i normally keep my triggers in the factory adjustment range. My 93r17 is the only gun i have set bellow that, as i never use it for hunting, or even less formal plinking. I have other rifles that are more fun for that, but when hitting small targets from 50-150yds is the order of the day.......
I have gotten used to electronic paintball marker triggers where pull weight is measured in grams not ozs so i do know lightweight.

 

[red rick]

If its just the 1 1/2 lb. difference in trigger pull that is keeping you from getting the Savage over the CZ 453. Is it worth the difference between $900 and $295 for a 1 1/2 lb. trigger pull ? I would shop after market triggers. You will have $605 dollars to find one.

 

[dc.fireman]

Andy - I own the Savage Mk. II TR - with accu-trigger. It cost me $375 out the door, with a cheap chinese scope (included by Savage). It shoots fantastic - heavy barreled, it has a Boyds wood stock, which though functional, is somewhat lighter than I had imagined. It comes with a 5 round clip type magazine.

I was really wanting the CZ 453 varmint model, with the single set trigger - but I just couldn't come up with the extra cash, when I reasoned that if I'd bought the Savage, then every penny after that could be spent on ammo. I appreciate the CZ's for what they are - finely finished, well built, moderately priced rifles. I also appreciate the Mk. II's for what they are - moderately finished, well built, finely priced rifles.

Both are accurate - both have fans. Good Luck to you on your decision.
-tc

 

[Maverick223]

Are Savage MKII really that badly built?

And still they are accurate?

No, not by a long shot. Sure the receiver is a extrusion, and yes, some parts are cast/MIM. The Savage stock is horrible, but...it is a very solid rifle for the money. Particularly when it is far cheaper than the CZ you mention (which is a nice rifle). With respect to accuracy, the Savage has proven itself to be the equal of the CZ in match after match. Those two models (though in the case of the Mk. II it's generally one of the heavy bbl'd variants like the FV) often top the list. IMO the finishing and workmanship is nicer on the CZ, but the Savage has a better trigger (out of the box) and is a better value (particularly in your case). If I were in your shoes I'd buy a Mk. II-FV (IMO the heavy bbl is a worthwhile upgrade) and invest in a Boyd's stock if you can get one in AU (I own one with a "Tacticool" stock and I prefer it over most of the other options).

BTW, a 1.5lb trigger is mighty light (not particularly suitable for most anything but target work). I believe you'll find that a 2.5lb trigger with a clean break, like the Savage Accu-Trigger, will do just fine.

 

[Maverick223]

Some say their sporter barreled Savages shoot just as well as the varmint barreled models. I have no reason to doubt what they say.

They do...but they will also start to vertically string shots as the barrel warms. The heavy barrel variant is more consistent as it has a greater capacitance. IMO the added weight is a worthwhile trade.

 

[andym79]

If its just the 1 1/2 lb. difference in trigger pull that is keeping you from getting the Savage over the CZ 453. Is it worth the difference between $900 and $295 for a 1 1/2 lb. trigger pull ? I would shop after market triggers. You will have $605 dollars to find one.

Well that is kind of what I was thinking, but I can't find anything other than a rifle basix for the MKII, which isn't a whole trigger mechanism! and apparently will at best lower the pull to 1 1/2lbs! I am still unsure as to how much creep (take up) and more importantly over travel the trigger will have! does anyone know of any after market triggers for the MKII? How easy is it for a smith to do a trigger job on one?

 

[Maverick223]

That's what I figured Maverick. The sporter barrels are great for hunting but for continued shooting like at targets and varmints the heavy barrels are better. Plus it's probably true that the heavy barrels shoot just slightly better because they flex less. Flex plays a big role in the accuracy of any rifle including .22's. That's why all the BR guys use tuners.

Yep, and given the duties of the average .22LR I think the heavy bbl is a useful addition (I have everything from a pencil bbl to a .920in., but the heavies get more use). Harmonics certainly play a role, but that is a tertiary concern IMO (after overall bbl quality and fit to action/stock).

 

[DCoke]

For what you'd pay for the CZ....

I have the Savage Mk II BTVS and I routinely shoot 200 yds at prairie dogs with it. This pic shows my .22LR target at 200yds and my .204 Ruger at 200yds on a 20-25 mph L-R crosswind day. My first 4 shots with the .22 were high in the head (one miss). Adjusted my scope and my next 4 shots were low (one miss). I adjusted my scope again by splitting the difference and was on target (minus wind gusts for each 4 shot group as you can see). For comparison, I shot my .204 (single box of 32gr Hornady V-max) and scored the 20/20 (again shooting the first 3 shots high), adjusted and the 4th shot was low, so I again split the difference on my scope elevation. The Mk II BTVS is one accurate .22 rifle, and I am no marksman by any means. The pictures come out slightly larger than life-size. Oh yes, a simple Bushnell
3x9x40 scope.

 

[DCoke]

I almost forgot...the Savage Mk II BTVS has the accutrigger already....