CZ 550 .416Rigby

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can't rechamber a .416 to a .500Jeffery. It will have to be rebarreled. I'll probably have it built off a new bare action anyway. Rest assured the work will be done by a talented gunsmith who knows how to make them sing.
 
Very good looking rifles guys. It is nice of you to share these pictures with us. I would sure like to shoot a .416 or other big bore someday, just for the fun of it.

They are obviously not required for my usual white tailed deer hunting, but trying something different is always fun.

Ammo seems definitely out of my price range for target work though, I think I will stick to my .22 for now! :eek:
 
Just looking at the case makes me wince. Any cartridge that fires a 400 gr bullet at 2400 fps is going to leave a mark. Gorgeous rifles btw.
 
.404 Jeffery on top, .470 NE below. A Rigby would be a nice addition!

Bigborebeauty.jpg

The .404 is a Dakota M-76. The .470 is a Searcy.
 
Some mighty nice rifles pictured here . . . my largest is only a .375 H&H which worked just fine on a lion and a couple of Cape buffalo.

As for the .416 Rigby . . . what a fine cartridge! Plenty of power with low chamber pressure . . . and if you handload, you can increase velocity until it's treading hard on the heels of the .416 Weatherby. (Why anyone would want to is another question . . . )
 
Simon_Edmondson said:
You lucky devil, I snagged a .375 a few years ago and was saving for a 416 just 'because' and now they don't import them in Aus :(

Try some Trailboss in her, but don't lend it to anyone at the range or you won't get it back! Trailboss and cast is the cats meow for fun in a DGR.
Click to expand...

Shame they do not import the CZ 416 any more. I bought mine in WA in 1999 before I repatriated back to USA.
 
The .404 is a Dakota M-76. The .470 is a Searcy.
Click to expand...

That's a very beautiful pairing of DGRs, H&H. Thanks for sharing.

Not one of the big 40-something bruisers, but this is a 375H&H Brno 602, customized years ago by a well-known DGR 'smith.
Very accurate with most factory loads and with a wide range of bullet-weights that I've handloaded.

BRNO-3.jpg
 
Last edited:
How's it shoot? Recoil level? Is it bad in comparison to a .375 H&H? A 12 ga. shotgun with three-inch loads of heavy shot?

I agree about worrying about the stock splitting, but CZ rifles have a good rep. What's the weight of this rifle with 'scope?

I think a .416 is more versatile and useful than a .500. I think I'd leave this as a .416.

What factory ammo are you using?

An interesting rifle... I handled one in a store and it balanced very well. I thought it was light enough that it might kick a bit.
 
The older CZ big bores had a very bad reputation for splitting stocks. Not sure about the newer ones but as a general precaution I'd have anything over .40 cal professionally bedded. They already have cross bolts now which the older ones did not. That should help. The other issue that the heavier caliber CZ rifles have is a bouncing safety. They can bounce from fire to safe in recoil. I guessing that might still be a problem unless CZ modified the safety. There was a fix that wasn't to tough to do.
 
Some really pretty rifles in this thread. I always wanted a CZ in .375 or bigger, ended up with a Savage in .375 by happenstance.

.404 is a sweet caliber, and maybe on the high end of my tolerance-- but H&H will tell you the fit of the rifle makes a difference.
 
H&Hhunter said:
The older CZ big bores had a very bad reputation for splitting stocks . . .
Click to expand...
I can confirm that at least some did - my PH in Zambia had a pair of BRNO rifles (former name for CZ) in .458 and .375 respectively - they were the classic action with the pop-up peep sight in the rear receiver bridge.

I discovered that BOTH of them showed signs of lengthwise stock splitting on the bottom, ahead of and behind the magazine - needless to say, my PH was rather upset. (Not with me - he thanked me for discovering the flaw.)

Neither rifle had crossbolts - don't know if they had an extra recoil lug on the barrel ahead of the receiver.

Bouncing safety? Not familiar with this . . . but I believe H&H if he says so. Which just shows you really need to thoroughly test each rifle as it's going to be used before you hunt with it - that means loading the magazine to capacity, working the bolt smartly, etc.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by H&Hhunter
The older CZ big bores had a very bad reputation for splitting stocks .
Click to expand...

I can confirm that at least some did - my PH in Zambia had a pair of BRNO rifles (former name for CZ) in .458 and .375 respectively - they were the classic action with the pop-up peep sight in the rear receiver bridge.

I discovered that BOTH of them showed signs of lengthwise stock splitting on the bottom, ahead of and behind the magazine - needless to say, my PH was rather upset. (Not with me - he thanked me for discovering the flaw.)

Neither rifle had crossbolts - don't know if they had an extra recoil lug on the barrel ahead of the receiver.

Bouncing safety? Not familiar with this . . . but I believe H&H if he says so. Which just shows you really need to thoroughly test each rifle as it's going to be used before you hunt with it - that means loading the magazine to capacity, working the bolt smartly, etc.
Click to expand...

Regarding H&H's comment on the stock-splitting issue, I never heard about it on the pre-CZ magnum BRNOs, and it never happen on mine, even before my 'smith installed the cross-bolts.

Some years ago, however, I did read an unsettling number of accounts about it on CZ's early line-up of safari rifles, the ones built on magnum-length actions and chambered for a variety of the classic old Nitro cartridges.

Besides the complaints about cracking-stocks (or the stocks generally being ill-fitted to the barreled action), there were complaints about unreliable feeding - e.g., rounds jamming into the ramp or, in some cases, "jumping" out of the mag while the bolt was being cycled forward or rearward.

In short, these reports raised serious Q.C. and workmanship issues with CZ's DG rifles, and it was never clear (at least to me) how they were resolved.

As suggested, and I'm sure other BRNO owners will agree, except for not liking the factory "hog-back" walnut stock, the pre-CZ .375 and .458 magnum-action BRNOs were excellent DGRs out of the box, and they made perfect base rifles if you wanted to have a custom 'smith work them over. I've also read that in places like Canada and Alaska, an old BRNO action alone commands a premium, if you can find one.
 
Last edited:
http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1411043/m/272104902?r=272104902#272104902

The guy who posted this about the CZ safety is an engineer and a highly experienced elephant hunter. He designed a fix for the CZ 550 Safety. He explains the problem in detail. I don't know if CZ has fixed this problem with newer rifles or not. This not a big deal for the casual weekend "bawanabe" out busting rocks and punching holes in paper on the weekend. But for a serious DG hunter this safety issue could very well mean the difference between life and death. So these dedicated DG guys take any and all function issues pretty serious.
 
"I don't know if CZ has fixed this problem with newer rifles or not."

My 550 in .416 Rigby does the same thing as described by Will in the linked thread from 2005 and my rifle is dated 2012.
So go with "or not.".
-----krinko
 
No cracked stock on the Brno ZKK .375 I've owned since 1990. would be surprised if it did considering it has a barrel recoil lug in addition to the normal one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
CZ 550 Lux or 550 Standard in .308 - How Does A Guy Get One in the U.S.?
Replies
19
Views
4K
DougD
D
Back
Top