New 22 rifle

[Olympus]

If only CZ would FIX that stupid azzbackwards safety!!

DM

It's funny how people have such a problem with that on the CZ rifles, but nobody seems to mind it on the pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters.

 

[mudstud]

It's funny how people have such a problem with that on the CZ rifles, but nobody seems to mind it on the pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters.

Huh?

 

[dranrab]

Savage is the best value in a rimfire period. They aren't pretty. The synthetic stocks are flimsy. The magazines are cheesy. The triggers are fine, and they are typically incredibly accurate. They hit what you shoot at, and that's what it's all about.

 

[Olympus]

Huh?

Look into it...

 

[Ibmikey]

My Ruger American compact came with two cheek pieces a low one for open sights and quickly replaceable unit for raising the cheek weld for a scope. I have only shot mine with bulk box ammo and have not tried it off a rest but it shure does knock cans and rocks all over the place.

 

[OldBrownDog]

It's funny how people have such a problem with that on the CZ rifles, but nobody seems to mind it on the pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters.

I'm sitting here with a pre-64 M70 from 1950 in my hands. The safety isn't backwards. Back is safe, middle unlocks the bolt, forward is fire. Only the pre-WWII M70's (1936-1941 or so) were configured like the CZs, which require the safety be back to fire, forward is safe.

 

[Txhillbilly]

I think some of you guy's would argue with a stump! Entry level firearms will never have everything that a shooter wants them to have,that's why there is an aftermarket for them.
You get what you pay for!

 

[Olympus]

I'm sitting here with a pre-64 M70 from 1950 in my hands. The safety isn't backwards. Back is safe, middle unlocks the bolt, forward is fire. Only the pre-WWII M70's (1936-1941 or so) were configured like the CZs, which require the safety be back to fire, forward is safe.

So like I said....

 

[CraigC]

So like I said....

No, you said pre-64's, which would be all of them.In truth, it was only the first 5yrs out of 28yrs of production.

And I intentionally did not bring up the backwards safety on the CZ's and have trivialized the bolt clearance issue.

YBut you missed the point where I mentioned that I'm a dealer.

No, I didn't miss it. Apparently you put a lot more stock in that than I do.

More later.....

 

[DM~]

SO, what happen is, the first pre 64's were assbackwards, Winchester finally realized the mistake and FIXED it.

So, when will CZ wake up and FIX "their" MISTAKE??

DM

 

[CB900F]

DM;

As CZ is a European company, they cater to the world market. Although they certainly realize that the U.S. is a major segment of that market to them, they do not regard it as the tail that wags the dog. They obviously don't regard the positions of the safety as being broken, ergo they're not going to "fix" it. Some of us are adaptable people, some of us aren't, or can't do that.

900F

 

[DM~]

True story... AND that makes the AMERICAN made Ruger, look even better!

When "I'm" the one with the money in my hand, I don't have to be "adaptable"...

I just give that money to a company that does it RIGHT in the first place, and WANTS my money...

DM

 

[CB900F]

DM;

Yes, it is your opinion, your money, and you have the right to spend it where you wish to. But do realize that many of us also feel that CZ is the superior product for the money, despite your reservations.

OTOH, have you tried to buy a new vehicle with a door lock on the passenger's side? Or with a non-electronic key lately? How about a new pickup truck that actually has a full 8 foot bed? Be glad that there are choices in the firearms world, we're sure getting restricted in other places.

900F

 

[CraigC]

The CZ 'may' be a slightly superior product but it also costs more.

Regardless of fanboy rhetoric, the backwards CZ safety is an issue for many. I reckon that's why diehard CZ fans don't own anything else.

 

[CraigC]

I have a large number of rimfire rifles in my personal collection...

As do I, about two dozen of them in fact.

...my opinion is that while they are accurate, they leave a LOT to be desired in terms of fit and finish.

And I do not agree, especially for their modest price. Again, you act as if there is a huge gap between Savage and CZ and I just don't see it. IMHO, both rifles are accurate and good values. Neither is perfect.

I actually own Savage centerfire rifles personally also and have no problem recommending them.....I get it. You're a Savage fan and you actually own the gun in question so it's only natural that you're going to defend your choice of purchase.

I'm not a "Savage fan" and I'm not here to defend my choice. I'm not so small-minded as to think that my choice is the only valid choice and that statements denigrating my choice should be taken personally. I just guns based on merit, not emotion. That said, I don't care for their centerfires at all.

But you missed the point where I mentioned that I'm a dealer. I have owned FAR more examples of rimfire rifles than a vast majority of members here. I sell pretty much every brand, including Savage, so I have no dog in this fight. I'm just providing my opinion based on my years as a dealer and all of the countless rifles I have seen come and go.

As I said, you obviously put more stock in that than I do. Having worked n a gun shop in my youth and been to countless shops in 37 states, I see little reason to value a dealer's opinion over any other. That's not an insult, just an observation.

And you've directly contradicted yourself in reference to you comment about the stock and bottom metal. Your comment was, and I'm directly quoting here, "you will always be able to get your money back." Then in your last post, you acknowledge that a person will lose some money trying to resell a stock and bottom metal. So you can't get exactly get your money back if you're taking less than what you paid for something.

I have contradicted nothing. Being a dealer, I should not have to point out that used merchandise sells for less than new merchandise. Your comments suggested that you wouldn't be able to sell off the stock and bottom metal at all and that is just not true.

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

I too own several different brands of .22 rifles, and have owned an even wider selection. When you spend your money & voice an honest opinion, it isn't "fanboy rhetoric", it's a personal fact. The inability to allow another opinion reflects poorly, also in my opinion. International trade is an established fact. Differences in product are a good thing, it allows us choices. You pays yer nickle an' you makes yer choice. Decrying other choices is rather narrow minded.

And I'm done here.

900F

 

[CraigC]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. CZ makes a fine rifle, I have two and my .416 may at some point become an high dollar custom .500Jeffery. It's a fine choice. My only point is that it's far from the only valid choice.

 

[DM~]

CZ's would probably worth a few extra dollars, IF they would fix the assbackwards safety...

I'd just rather pay even more, and buy an Anschutz, at least they got it right!

DM

 

[Olympus]

DM;

As CZ is a European company, they cater to the world market. Although they certainly realize that the U.S. is a major segment of that market to them, they do not regard it as the tail that wags the dog. They obviously don't regard the positions of the safety as being broken, ergo they're not going to "fix" it. Some of us are adaptable people, some of us aren't, or can't do that.

900F

That's a good point that is well made. If the direction of travel for the safety is enough to keep you from buying a gun, I'd be more inclined to think that's something like a woman's reasoning. I suspect it has more to do with people "trying" to find something negative to say about CZ, but you'd NEVER get someone to admit that though. But that's my person opinion. Point out the fact that Winchester used a backwards safety on their Model 70 and you see people immediately trying to rationalize it by, "well it was only for 5 years" and "they realized it was a mistake and changed it" or even attempting to differentiate the backward safety version as not really a pre-64 model, even though 1938-1941 were definitely PRE-1964 and so would still qualify as such.

But if that example wasn't enough, here's another one for you. The Ruger SR-22 pistol has a backward thumb safety, yet thousands have been sold and you don't hear a peep about that one either. But go ahead and keep acting like the CZ safety is such a huge factor. I, for one, have a pretty good idea what the actual issue really is.

And I'm an actual owner and not just some gun shop employee. I spend a LOT of time handling, inspecting, and shooting my guns. If you don't value the opinion of someone who has more hands-on time with guns any more than the average person, that's certainly your choice. Apply that same logic to something not related to firearms and it doesn't hold water. If you get diagnosed with a rare disease, you'll value the opinion of your child's pediatrician as much as a specialist? They're both doctors right?

 

[CraigC]

No, it's what's called objective criticism. The Winchester safety may have been backwards for 5 short years of its 26yr production run but that was 75 friggin' years ago. The guns are still in production and they're still made like the improved version, same as Ruger 77's. The CZ safety is an issue. Not a huge one on a rimfire but it can be annoying, because it's COMPLETELY counter-intuitive relative to just about every other safety on the market. Funny that it's not like that on my 550 .416Rigby. I wouldn't have bought it if it were backwards. Might kinda sorta be an issue when you're stalking Cape buffalo.

No, I don't place much value on the opinion of your average dealer or gun shop employee. Working in or even owning a shop doesn't make one an expert, no matter how many guns you "handle". Same for ANY other kind of dealer. Sorry if that bursts your bubble but I have yet to encounter anything to make me change that opinion.

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

I let a buddy shoot my CZ 455. He commented on the weird safety. Then he started driving tacks with it and the safety lever never got mentioned again.

 

[DM~]

I've spent much of my life hunting DG, and when I shoot my 22's, I want them to "improve" my muscle memory, not screw it up with a azzbackwards safety!

Seems the guys on here that don't give a darn what others thing about a CZ safety, sure get worked up and take the time to defend them! lol

BTW, I practice what I preach, and bought the Anschutz. lol

DM

 

[Olympus]

I've spent much of my life hunting DG, and when I shoot my 22's, I want them to "improve" my muscle memory, not screw it up with a azzbackwards safety!

Seems the guys on here that don't give a darn what others thing about a CZ safety, sure get worked up and take the time to defend them! lol

BTW, I practice what I preach, and bought the Anschutz. lol

DM

Yeah, I can see the how the large number of dangerous game hunters who like to practice with a 22 might have an issue with the opposite safety travel. So that's definitely something to point to a new buyer....you know...in case they are also a dangerous game hunter and not some Average Joe looking for a 22 plinker or squirrel hunting rifle.

 

[DM~]

Yeah, I can see the how the large number of dangerous game hunters who like to practice with a 22 might have an issue with the opposite safety travel. So that's definitely something to point to a new buyer....you know...in case they are also a dangerous game hunter and not some Average Joe looking for a 22 plinker or squirrel hunting rifle.

I'm just an "average Joe", but when I started out hunting DG, it sure was an advantage to have my "muscle memory" already on the right track.

Perhaps that's not important to you, but it is to those of use that want to be the BEST that we can be, especially when my life in on the line, and my life has been on the line!

Just like when I'm training for self defense, I want the "muscle memory" with my weapon, to be the absolute best it can be!

I train with a 22 for that too...

DM

 

[CraigC]

This is what I'm talking about. 'Some' folks act as if CZ is the only valid choice and arbitrarily dismiss any discussion of their potential shortcomings.

It's not just dangerous game hunting. For all of my teens and early 20's, I was shooting the hell out of .22 leverguns. That practice translated directly to my centerfire levers. Enough so that when I popped two deer one cold morning, my hunting partners thought it was somebody else with an automatic.

It matters. When I start preparing for my Cape buffalo hunt by practicing with my .416, I won't go near my 452 for months prior.