If you could choose: Brno Z, ZG 47, ZKK or Cz 550??

[Milan]

brno/cz never made a well designed stock until their "American".
too much drop at heel until then.
European rifles have suffered from this problem badly.
bruce.

I agree and disagree. What you say about the drop is true but I disagree that it is not good because the rifles had low open sights and the stocks were made to fit that. I never liked combs too high and/or the typical high open sights (at least they seem that way to me) on most US made rifles. With those, when you get low behind the sights, your cheek bone gets a walop. Or maybe it's just the horrible Ruger stocks. Don't know. I'd rather lift my head a bit to get on the scope. Don't get me wrong... I no longer have eyesight good enough to use open sights and I do like scopes just because, but when I can shoot open sighted rifle and see the target, there is something old school and romantic about that for me. I guess I'm used to lifting my head to compensate for scopes on hunting rifles. On target rifles I have the stocks made to fit me while using scopes, obviously. But in general, European stocks just fit me better. However, we're not all build the same either, so maybe that's why you may not like them. I also believe that a stock custom made for you is probably the best modification you can do to any rifle.

 

[bruce moulds]

trouble with drop at heel is that the gun climbs in recoil and the comb hits you in the cheekbone.
straighter stocks do require a little adjustment in shooting technique, in the you cannot use such an upright stance.
you lean into them a little.
montecarlo stocks come under the heading of too much drop at heel.
the old zkk monte carlo not only had about the worst form of monte carlo possible, but a too thin forend to grasp as it tried to tear out of the off hand going upward.
the old sako finnbear 375 was similar - thin square forend virtually ungrippable, and excessive drop at heel.
some of the newer sako classic stocks look a lot better.
the win70 and rem classic are not bad designs for factory products.
bruce.

 

[Milan]

You're right about the effects of too much drop. I guess I just do not find the old Brnos having that much drop. The Monte Carlo ones yes. Some of the hog-back ones, yes, but they do have a different pitch too. The straight, classic stocks, not so much. Coincidentally, I did have a Finnbear in .338...manageable but did kick a lot. The newer Sako Grizzly even more so and hit in the cheek, yet the stock would have suggested otherwise. Equivalent in discomfort to the classic Ruger stocks I despise. I love their look and feel when dry firing. That's about it. Same goes for Remington (other than the Hogue ones). All the new plastic stocks seem to absorb recoil through flex, so even the ones with drop at the heel do not seem to climb as much and none kick hard. I have a Vanguard II in .300 WM with the typical Weatherby styled (Monte Carlo) stock and do not find it climbing too much. But I bet it is tolerable only because it is plastic. This discussion makes me wanna find out by actually measuring some of the stocks so I have some numbers. I bet one might find that even numbers may not indicate how much effect these have, as again everyone is different. But physics cannot be fooled and so I like numbers. Maybe one day. Right now I just go by what I like for fit and feel. I tend to like smaller than properly fitting stocks too. For shotguns I like properly fitted stock, for rifles I seem to envelope or "cuddle" the stock more and don't mind smaller, shorter LOP, slimmer grips and forends. For harder kicking rifles I levitate more towards "shotgun-like" fit. But I do not shoot shotguns really, so all my life I guess I live and like slim Euro stocks that are too small and have some drop at the heel and a bit of cast-off.

Cheers.

 

[ZG47]

brno/cz never made a well designed stock until their "American".
too much drop at heel until then.
European rifles have suffered from this problem badly.
bruce.

Actually @Milan and Bruce, the stock on my ZG 47 is almost perfect for me, after getting a gunsmith to remove that weird butt-plate and shorten the stock so that with a Pachmayr pad the length of pull was 6-8mm shorter than original. I determined that to be correct because I knew that it was slightly too long for me and after trial-shouldering the rifle in multiple positions with that horrible butt-plate removed, the length-of-pull was correct for me.
The drop at comb, drop at heel and the pitch are perfect for me. The imperfect part is the pistol grip, which could be a tiny bit fatter to fit my hand better.
If I ever have a custom stock built for a hunting rifle, it will be pretty much identical to my ZG 47 stock, but with slightly fatter pistol grip and 1 to 1-1/2 degrees of castoff BUT it will not have an ornamental schnabel!
I find that a 90 degree pitch sends a hunting rifle skyward and bashes the top of my shoulder. It either fits or it does not!
WE are all different but to say the “American Classic” stock design is THE BEST is slightly dishonest. It can be useful but in 35 years of shooting (including 14 years running a Range complex) I have rarely encountered a shooter for whom it is the universal answer (mostly shorter, stockier shooters who avoid cartridges with more than 50 grains of smokeless propellant in the case).
The principal reason for general introduction of that style appears to have economic, i.e. less timber, cheaper injection moulding dies, smaller fibreglass moulds and fewer angles to compute, build and check.

 

[ZG47]

Bruce, I meant to say that the biggest problem with that ZKK fore-end is the profile but was called away to do something here at home. A rounded fore-end can be held by the hand BUT that type of fore-end can only be held by the fingers. Ergonomic NOT.
Good discussion, guys.

 

[Milan]

And I never said American Classic is best...I should have just used the term "classic" as Brno did use the term "American" for that Monte Carlo version as bruce mentioned. They must have tried to copy Weatherby at the time. While I do like classic (British style perhaps?), I really simply meant that was the best versions of the newer (1960s - 1990s) Brno stocks. Not necessarily best of all. I still prefer the very slim 1940s and 1950s 21/22 model stocks. Or commercial 1930s+ Mauser factory stocks. Or that on the Interarms Mark X. Of the modern ones I like the stocks on Martini designed Heym. Either way I actually like the slim grips, LOL. So like I said, it goes to show we are just different. No right or wrong here really...except some of those weird stocks like the Brno Monte Carlo, ANY Ruger stock (for me at least), Weatherby (ugly but they seem to fit well, hahaha), the schnabel on the ZG47 and slew of others. And hey if even those fit someone well and they like them, I'm not going to knock them...

 

[ZG47]

Yes, I also like those 1930s commercial Mauser stocks and the Ruger wooden bolt-action stocks are way too thin. The Ruger 10-22 RB stock is the only one they seem to have done right over the years. NB A functional schnabel on a single-shot falling block hunting rifle is a good thing. It is the ornamental schnabels on bolt-action rifles that I despise.

 

[Milan]

As far as schnabels go, I like some and dislike some. The one on old commercial Mausers, the folding single shots mentioned, ZKM 452, I like. The one on the ZG 47 I do not. Probably because the forend is long and the schnable end seems just wrong. I wonder if the ZKM 452 stock is actually shorter or not, but either way with the slimmer forend on it and also maybe because I'm used to the look of that rifle from since when I was a child, it works for me.

 

[colorado]

I'm pretty happy with my CZ 550

 

[ZG47]

Hard to argue with that! Nice pig. Who carried it out?

 

[ian-bradley]

I am still waiting to find a decent deal on a zg47, at this point I could care less about caliber.

 

[Witold Krzyżanowski]

A ZKK can be compared to a ZG but only if its a very very early production model. I have tried some 21`s and 47`s and they are truly great rifles although in their original stock configuration can take some time getting used to. I have a 602 from 67 with low serial number and I can promise that it can be compared to a lot of things It also have a couple of features that I haven't seen on a little later models (mid seventies if I recall right, also with the peep).
Anyways, as several have said in this thread, take em all

+1

 

[Accidental Villain]

I am still waiting to find a decent deal on a zg47, at this point I could care less about caliber.

Importing one would maybe be an option ? I know both ZG47`s and M21`s show up now and then in Sweden. But, they are recognized for what they are and are priced thereafter and some of them are in a very desirable calibre.

 

[Bos Javanicus]

The ZG 47 by far is the better action. The others really aren't in the race.

 

[Milan]

Actually @Milan and Bruce, the stock on my ZG 47 is almost perfect for me, after getting a gunsmith to remove that weird butt-plate and shorten the stock so that with a Pachmayr pad the length of pull was 6-8mm shorter than original. I determined that to be correct because I knew that it was slightly too long for me and after trial-shouldering the rifle in multiple positions with that horrible butt-plate removed, the length-of-pull was correct for me.
The drop at comb, drop at heel and the pitch are perfect for me. The imperfect part is the pistol grip, which could be a tiny bit fatter to fit my hand better.
If I ever have a custom stock built for a hunting rifle, it will be pretty much identical to my ZG 47 stock, but with slightly fatter pistol grip and 1 to 1-1/2 degrees of castoff BUT it will not have an ornamental schnabel!
I find that a 90 degree pitch sends a hunting rifle skyward and bashes the top of my shoulder. It either fits or it does not!
WE are all different but to say the “American Classic” stock design is THE BEST is slightly dishonest. It can be useful but in 35 years of shooting (including 14 years running a Range complex) I have rarely encountered a shooter for whom it is the universal answer (mostly shorter, stockier shooters who avoid cartridges with more than 50 grains of smokeless propellant in the case).
The principal reason for general introduction of that style appears to have economic, i.e. less timber, cheaper injection moulding dies, smaller fibreglass moulds and fewer angles to compute, build and check.

@ZG47...I bit the bullet and went for "cheap" beat up ZG47 in 30-06. The previously thought "one of ugliest CZ stocks ever made", is growing on me. It is clearly the predecessor of the ZKK classic style stocks. For ZKK they just chopped off that schnabel forend. The rest seems the same. I like the slim grip and may re-finish this one and put rubber pad on it as the plastic pad is chipped anyway. So I get you more now, having one myself. But again a 21/22 stock it ain't.

 

[colorado]

My CZ 550 is built like a bank vault, smooth and solid. Haven't had the others, but see no real room for improvement after Wayne did his CZ upgrade (trigger, 3 pos M70 type safety, and straighten and fill bolt).

 

[Milan]

My CZ 550 is built like a bank vault, smooth and solid. Haven't had the others, but see no real room for improvement after Wayne did his CZ upgrade (trigger, 3 pos M70 type safety, and straighten and fill bolt).

Well nobody is going to fault a 550, especially one improved with the mods you describe. But, the older actions were more Mauser like, thus simpler. ZKK and CZ have different extractors and bolt stops, both requiring additional pin, spring and they also use a small ball bearing. Same goes for the safety, not to mention their over complicated triggers. Something to be said about the VZ24, VZ33, Z (21/22) and ZG models...they had simple triggers and original, simpler Mauser ejector/bolt release and the safeties were simpler also. Even the ZG adjustable trigger is already too complicated for my taste. But it is adjustable and simpler than new CZ 550 trigger or even Timney (if I recall correctly).

 

[Witold Krzyżanowski]

Well nobody is going to fault a 550, especially one improved with the mods you describe. But, the older actions were more Mauser like, thus simpler. ZKK and CZ have different extractors and bolt stops, both requiring additional pin, spring and they also use a small ball bearing. Same goes for the safety, not to mention their over complicated triggers. Something to be said about the VZ24, VZ33, Z (21/22) and ZG models...they had simple triggers and original, simpler Mauser ejector/bolt release and the safeties were simpler also. Even the ZG adjustable trigger is already too complicated for my taste. But it is adjustable and simpler than new CZ 550 trigger or even Timney (if I recall correctly).

I think the same as you Milan.

 

[SteveMKentucky]

I found this thread doing an internet search for BRNO 21h and ZG47. I hope it's not bad form to jump right in with a post.

I bought a BRNO Mauser sporter today and am not really sure what I've bought. I dropped by my local gunshop to look for Kar98k's and found this rifle. There is no model indicated on it that I can find. At first I thought it was a 21h but from the thread above I'm thinking it's a ZG47. Any info that you folks can provide would be very appreciated. The following pictures are provided as they would likely be better than any description I could provide:

 

[sestoppelman]

Its a 21, not the ZG 47.