Ruger 77/44 (.44 Mag) vs. CZ 527 (7.62x39)

[minutemen1776]

For a shorter-range bolt-action brush gun, which is tops? Is it Ruger's 77/44, chambered in .44 Magnum, or CZ's 527 Carbine, chambered in 7.62x39? The Ruger runs about $575 and includes scope rings. The CZ is about $625 without rings. Ruger mags are a little cheaper, but, on the other hand, 7.62x39 ammo is also considerably cheaper. Basic specs (length, weight, etc.) are pretty close on these two models.

BTW, I know there are lever guns and semiautos that fill this same niche, but I'm interested in the bolt guns right now.

 

[Col. Plink]

Swami says he doesn't think the Ruger will be as accurate. My CZ 527 is 1/2 MOA and I'm not that good.

 

[kaferhaus]

buy the CZ

 

[CraigC]

You have some distinct advantages and disadvantages at work here. In general, the .44Mag is capable of taking much larger game but has much less effective range. The Ruger has a much faster twist than most .44 rifles and would stabilize even the heaviest of cast bullets but the magazine will limit the type and weight of usable projectiles. Cheap ammo for the 7.62 should definitely be a factor if you don't handload.

 

[HB]

In general, the .44Mag is capable of taking much larger game but has much less effective range.

I would say the 7.62x39 can easily take any game that a 44 magnum can. Just because people use a 44 handgun on elk doesn't mean its a cannon, it is less powerful than a 7.62x39 at all ranges. With a 154 grain bullet I don't think you are giving anything up to a 44 magnum out of a rifle.

I would take the CZ, but look into the issues of mounting a scope on that rifle.


HB

 

[R.W.Dale]

I seriously want one of the 77/44's but given my past experience with this action in the form of a 4moa ruger 77/22 HORNET target model I can't bring myself to pay any actual money for one.

Having owned the CZ you certianlly won't be led astray with one

 

[Jason_W]

What range do you consider close range? At 125 yards or less, I'd go with the .44.

There is more to a round's killing ability than velocity or kinetic energy.

 

[sappyg]

the CZ is worth $50 more than the ruger IMO. check again about the rings being included with the ruger. i don't think ruger includes them with rifles that come with iron sights. the CZ has a funky safety that's a bit odd but then again i'm not crazy about ruger's safety either.
personally i think the 7.62x39 outshines the 44 mag. in more ways than one. if i had a choice of a ruger in 7.62x39 and a CZ in the same caliber i would still pick the CZ if there were only $50 difference between them.

 

[ironhead7544]

I had the Ruger and liked it. But for hunting the 7.62x39 would be better. The main advantage to the Ruger would be if you own a 44 mag handgun. The 44 would also be easier to find reloading components for, if that matters to you. The 7.62x39 has some good hunting loads and practice ammo would be cheap. For me its close between the two but the 7.62x39 wins by a slight margin. Just my .02.

 

[R.W.Dale]

the CZ is worth $50 more than the ruger IMO. check again about the rings being included with the ruger. i don't think ruger includes them with rifles that come with iron sights. the CZ has a funky safety that's a bit odd but then again i'm not crazy about ruger's safety either.
personally i think the 7.62x39 outshines the 44 mag. in more ways than one. if i had a choice of a ruger in 7.62x39 and a CZ in the same caliber i would still pick the CZ if there were only $50 difference between them.

You got that the other way round. CZ doesn't give you rings when the rifle has sights. AFIK ruger does.

 

[stubbicatt]

Never had a Ruger bolt rifle, but I like their 10-22 and LCP. I think their stuff is usually pretty good, if not a bit pedestrian.

The CZ527 has a wonderful trigger and great ergos. There is a contributor, Krochus is his handle, who has managed to get some phenomenal accuracy out of the CZ.

 

[CraigC]

I would say the 7.62x39 can easily take any game that a 44 magnum can.

You would be dead wrong. All you need for elk is a 250gr Keith bullet. The .44Mag has taken every head of big game on the planet and out of a sixgun no less. With LBT cast bullets in the 330-355gr range, it can be used against the largest and most dangerous critters on planet earth. The problem is, like I said, that while the twist rate is fast enough to stabilize them, the magazines won't work with such long projectiles.

 

[HB]

You would be dead wrong. All you need for elk is a 250gr Keith bullet. The .44Mag has taken every head of big game on the planet and out of a sixgun no less. With LBT cast bullets in the 330-355gr range, it can be used against the largest and most dangerous critters on planet earth.

And a handloaded 150 grain bullet wouldn't kill an elk? It is nearly identical to a 30-30 in that loading and while it wouldn't be my first choice for large game, it has worked for many years in the past.

If you expect to shoot over 100 yards on deer, I'd go with the CZ.

HB

 

[minutemen1776]

Let me clarify my parameters. Between 80 and 90 percent of shots will be well under 100 yards. I doubt anything would exceed 125 yards. Also, the biggest game this would be used on would be whitetail and maybe hogs. This will not be an elk gun, so that's no consideration.

The Ruger definitely includes rings, and the CZ definitely does not. It's mostly academic, though, since I don't plan to use optics on a rifle like this. If I could use a peep sight, I'd consider that, but no scopes for the foreseeable future.

 

[Maverick223]

You would be dead wrong. All you need for elk is a 250gr Keith bullet. The .44Mag has taken every head of big game on the planet and out of a sixgun no less. With LBT cast bullets in the 330-355gr range, it can be used against the largest and most dangerous critters on planet earth. The problem is, like I said, that while the twist rate is fast enough to stabilize them, the magazines won't work with such long projectiles.

...and the 7.62x39mm is used for rogue Elephants. Neither being reasonably suitable for ethical hunting of large (much less large/dangerous) game. I guess I just appreciate the benefits of a discernible margin for error.

OTOH, either will take the average deer or hog with relative ease. I would give a slight edge to the better ballistics and lesser cost of ammo associated with the 7.62x39mm...and without a doubt choose the CZ for a better fit, finish, and standard of accuracy.

 

[CraigC]

And a handloaded 150 grain bullet wouldn't kill an elk? It is nearly identical to a 30-30 in that loading and while it wouldn't be my first choice for large game, it has worked for many years in the past.

I didn't say that but the operative word there is "nearly". You are at the absolute bare minimum for elk and the 7.62x39 is certainly not suitable for anything bigger. While the .44Mag is just getting started with the 250gr Keith bullet.

...and the 7.62x39mm is used for rogue Elephants. Neither being reasonably suitable for ethical hunting of large (much less large/dangerous) game. I guess I just appreciate the benefits of a discernible margin for error.

And state game officials use 7.62x51 for aerial culling operations but how relevant is that? It is not. You still won't find anybody that will guide a hunter after anything bigger than plains game with a .308, much less its little Russian cousin. While the .44Mag has been used to take every head of game on the planet and folks aren't afraid to talk about it. Although 'some' rifle shooters, hint, hint, are afraid to accept that it's suitable for such purposes.

Tell me this, if a 250gr Keith bullet at 1200fps is plenty enough for elk, what do you think a 355gr at the same speed is appropriate for???

We've been here before. I'll post example after example of heavy sixguns being used on the largest of game and you will just respond with, "no it can't". Life is too short to repeat the same arguments with the same folks who won't be swayed by the facts. I'll let you get back to your energy tables.

 

[GunTech]

Can and should are two distinctly different critters. Karamojo Bell killed over one thousand elephants with a 7mm Mauser (275 Rigby). Many hunters trying to emulate Bell ended up dead. Certainly there are some who can take large game with a handgun and many do every year. But the OP is asking about two specific rifles.

The only version of the Ruger I have experience with was a heavily modified, integrally suppressed gun shooting 44 spl. Fun, reasonably accurate and very quite. A sort of modern take on the DeLisle. But at it's heart it's a pistol caliber carbine. That's the extent of my experience with the Ruger.

The CZ is a handy little rifle, but very much in the European style. The stock has a lot of drop as it's really designed for iron sights. Unless you modify the bolt handle, you end up with the scope mounted very high, which combined with the drop of the stock makes it uncomfortable, particularly for Americans who are used to much less drop and low mounted scopes.

The bolt handle mod is very simple, and allows you to mount the scope much lower. Unfortunately, low rings are harder to find because the CZ-527 uses metric dovetails. There are weaver adapters however, which simplified things.

The nominal bore of the 527 is 0.3105, and in my experience it will shoot 308 or 311 bullets equally well, although you loose velocity with 308 bullets. If you don't handload, who cares?

Early CZ carbines had trouble with the hard primers of some surplus ammo, and you could put a heavier spring into the gun to fix it.

The single set trigger seems neat at first, but unless you really like set triggers, it gets old. You can disable the set trigger, or better yet, replace the factor trigger with one from RifleBasix and get a very nice adjustable conventional trigger with a clean break and decent weight.

The CZ is all steel, with a nice finish and wood that ranges from plain to really nice.

Here's a shot of the bolt clearance on a factory gun with a Burris 4x scope. You can see how high the scope has to be mounted for clearance.

A simple mod and you can drop the scope about 1/4 inch, which doesn't seem like much but makes a big difference.

I converted my 7.62x39 carbine to a 6.5 Grendel. I should have left it in the original caliber.

Here you can see the carbine stock with its bigger drop compared to a standard 527 'American' rifle stock that I replaced it with.

Anyway, if you have any specific questions about the 527, let me know. I've owned several, just about one of every model made. They are really nice little rifles.

 

[Maverick223]

...with the same folks who won't be swayed by the facts.

Fact is both the 7.62x39mm and .44Mag. have been used to take the largest land animals on earth...but that doesn't make either suitable for ethical kills (which is why you can go to prison for poaching if caught doing so). To believe otherwise is simply ignorant.

 

[minutemen1776]

Thanks for the helpful advice. I did not foresee all the digressions about ethically hunting elk and elephant.

 

[CraigC]

To believe otherwise is simply ignorant.

And what exactly do you base this on supposition on, muzzle energy?

Be careful with that word, even if used properly, some folks (you!) will take offense and complain to the mods.

So again (third time now!), if all you need is a 250gr Keith bullet for game as large as elk, what are those heavyweights for? What are they for if they are proven to penetrate twice as deeply as the vaunted Keith bullet? What are they for if they have been proven to penetrate several feet of Cape Buffalo or American Bison?

The bottom line is that somewhere, some short-sighted gunwriter looked at energy tables and decided that the .30-30 was better than the .44Mag. That they were suitable for the same critters but that the .30-30 shot flatter and had more range. It ain't that simple but folks believed it, obviously. In reality, it is simply untrue.

 

[Maverick223]

if all you need is a 250gr Keith bullet for game as large as elk, what are those heavyweights for? What are they for if they are proven to penetrate twice as deeply as the vaunted Keith bullet? What are they for if they have been proven to penetrate several feet of Cape Buffalo or American Bison?

They are of little utility, even the heaviest bullets for the .44Mag. have a poor sectional density which leads to poor penetration. Furthermore they are incapable of the necessary velocity for adequate penetration. Nor do they have the velocity required for hydrostatic shock (which isn't necessary, but very much appreciated with the largest brutes).

That being said the OP probably DOESN'T CARE...he just wants a brush gun for, in all likelihood, deer and perhaps hog. Either will do fine for that purpose. I have made it clear that I give the slight edge to the 7.62x39mm not because it is more powerful, but because it is less costly and has a little better ballistics. The real deciding factor is the rifle...I consider the CZ to be a much better rifle for the money, and chamberings are limited to .223Rem. and 7.62x39mm.

 

[kaferhaus]

I don't think the OP much gave a hoot about killing water buffalo or elk or moose or elephant.....

 

[CraigC]

They are of little utility, even the heaviest bullets for the .44Mag. have a poor sectional density which leads to poor penetration. Furthermore they are incapable of the necessary velocity for adequate penetration. Nor do they have the velocity required for hydrostatic shock (which isn't necessary, but very much appreciated with the largest brutes).

And what do you base all that on, wishful thinking? I was correct in my assumption that all your statements on this subject are made purely out of ignorance. You simply could not be more misguided and dead wrong. You really need to educate yourself on this stuff before commenting because it's readily apparent to me, once again, that you really have little knowledge and no experience on this subject.

I will simply point you to Linebaugh's writings on bullet weight, caliber and velocity:
http://www.customsixguns.com/writings.htm

Ross Seyfried's writings on Cape buffalo and the .45Colt:
http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?tocid=321&magid=24

Linebaugh's penetration tests:
http://www.handloads.com/misc/Linebaugh.Penetration.Tests.asp?Order=5

You will notice in the penetration tests how the 430gr .475 fared against many rifle cartridges. The velocity given for that load is 1272fps. The sectional density is comparable to a 355gr .44, which may also be driven over 1200fps out of a standard Ruger.

And I'll throw in a picture of Taffin's buffalo, taken with a moderate 410gr .480 load:

I don't think the OP much gave a hoot about killing water buffalo or elk or moose or elephant.....

I agree and stated in my first post that this was all moot, given the platform in question. However, in making a decision, the OP should have all the facts in hand. Rather than basing it on incorrect information and 30yr old prejudices based on energy tables and folklore.

 

[minutemen1776]

I don't think the OP much gave a hoot about killing water buffalo or elk or moose or elephant.....

That is completely true. Such game does not even live in my part of the world. If ever I get the chance to hunt such creatures, I expect I'll be in the market for at least a .338 Winchester Magnum, or something even bigger for pachyderms. At this point, though, that's all purely theoretical.

 

[Asherdan]

Either cartridge will meet the stated spec's, I prefer the CZ rifle over the Ruger and I prefer the x39 cartridge for affordable shooting over the 44 RM if one does not reload.

CraigC, please take this as constructive...you seem to have a decent depth of knowledge but the way you deliver your message in print form is caustic enough that...whatever your actual point is gets diminished by it.