CZ 512 - good?

I had one of the normal wood stock version and found it possible to easily do 4 of 5 in an inch-ish. Nikon scope. heard the iron sights are on point I'm not the best shot my far. I have not shot the 512 carbine model i have yet. 16 inch barrel. I will let you know if i remember.
 
If you use premium ammo I bet you can get to a half @ 50 pretty easily. I dont have target pics handy, but mine smokes my old savage and ruger sr22 for accuracy....and reliability...and all-the-way-full magazine ability. Its light, shoulders nice, and runs exceptionally. Fit and finish is on point. My favourite 22 i own, hands down. My Sr22 doesnt even have a scope on it now and it just sits in the back of the safe. Mags arent cheap though, but that thing never let me down gopher hunting like my ruger...

I cannot vouch for the tactical as ive never handled one. Hope that helps.

Duff
 
I think the take down method is different for the wood version versus the tactical. I have the wood version with the 2 bolt springs. It likes sv ammo and hates the the suppressed loads (710fps) they’re not strong enough to cycle the action. Mine will groups 2 inches at 50 with some practise and a lot of ammo testing.
 
Yes, I have seen the videos. The take down with the traditional stock looks like a doddle but it's more of a "disassembly" with the tactical. 2" at 50 doesn't compel me to spend that amount unfortunately...!
 
ddtank said:
2" at 50 doesn't compel me to spend that amount unfortunately...!
Click to expand...

Like all CZ's, accuracy of any individual rifle you get is highly variable, the "accuracy lottery", if you will. This is from a post on RFC, guy's 512 shot with cheap Federal ammo.



That's better than any of the three bolt action 455's I've bought, which is to say again that CZ accuracy is a total toss up. *Cue the swarm of zealots insisting that CZ's are amazing and you "can't go wrong"* :rolleyes: Hey, I get it, when they're good, they're good, they just have no quality control to maintain any kind of consistency.
 
Interesting you say that. I had a cheapo Marlin 795 in mind for a while, fully expecting to play the lottery for something that happened to be good or not but was hoping to avoid that sort of thing if paying for something 3x the price...
 
The consensus on the internet is 455s shoot consistently well. Mine shoots well, like all my CZs, but one person's experience, good or bad, does not give a large enough sample size to judge a whole line.
 
RabidM4U5 said:
Like all CZ's, accuracy of any individual rifle you get is highly variable, the "accuracy lottery", if you will. This is from a post on RFC, guy's 512 shot with cheap Federal ammo.


That's better than any of the three bolt action 455's I've bought, which is to say again that CZ accuracy is a total toss up. *Cue the swarm of zealots insisting that CZ's are amazing and you "can't go wrong"* :rolleyes: Hey, I get it, when they're good, they're good, they just have no quality control to maintain any kind of consistency.
Click to expand...


Lol so correct. I have had 3 CZ's all shot differently. CZ, Savage, Marlin, ruger ect... it doesn't matter its just a lottery. You get one that shoots or you dont... Or you find the ammo it likes, or you dont.

Its a deep dark sad and painful rabbit hole full of thorns the path to rim fire accuracy
 
I bought my wife the 512 tactical because she is 5' nothing, and needs a small length of pull. We bought a Nikon 3x9 for it and we're off to the range. Bought just about every brand and velocity ammo I could find to figure out what it liked, even tried match 22lr.
We found that the rifle liked federal premium target. We bought the rifle just so my wife could shoot a maple seed with me and only shooting about 6 times previous, and two of those times were with that rifle my wife shot a 206 she is a natural good shot but I think having such a nice rifle really helped.
The fit and finish is very nice on the rifle, and should be for an $800 22lr although the takedown for cleaning is a little more involved than a 10/22 or 597.
It is nice to have the option of 5,10 and 25 round mags
it's a lightish 22 the forend is all aluminum and is very solid. There is no movement in the collapsible but stock and the adjustable cheek rest works but a little higher would be better.
If you like the AR look and don't mind taking a little more time to clean a rifle the 512 tactical is a very good rifle, that is very accurate with higher end ammo and still pretty accurate with cheaper ammo.
I would buy the rifle again but maybe for me this time lol
 
cam1936 said:
The consensus on the internet is 455s shoot consistently well. Mine shoots well, like all my CZs, but one person's experience, good or bad, does not give a large enough sample size to judge a whole line.
Click to expand...

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=927745&highlight=455+accuracy+poll

A polling of 96 CZ 455 shooters provides a statistically relevant sample size. Results indicate what I've said, performance is variable. You can get one that shoots 0.2's (unicorn), or anything in between up to groups exceeding 1" at 50y. They seem to bell-curve around mid 0.5's based on the poll results. Bottom of the first post links to the same poll taken but for the 452.

I don't really like talking about my bad CZ's anymore, so I'll just bring up my best one. It has taken a lot of work to get it to this point: pillar/bedding, re-crowning (factory crown was brutal), striker tip re-shape and bolt polishing, over 1000 rounds fired for "break-in", ammo testing. It came to me shooting over 1" out of the box, now I've got it under 3/4" avg. If I were to vote in the poll, based on my target below showing a 10 group average of 0.663", my vote would have gone to the 0.6" group.



Now with 11-degree crown. Amazing how I could cut a better crown in 30 minutes at my kitchen table with the Manson crowning tool than CZ could in their industrial production facility.





Just my experience tinkering with this line of rifles :) You can mod these guns to shoot right up there with the finest Anschütz, the 455 action isn't bad, it mostly has to do with the barrel quality, and with everything that I've seen I wouldn't call CZ a premium barrel maker.
 
Canada tail said:
I was gonna buy one but after I had it in my hands I realized the bolt rides on plastic lower receiver. Weak design wasn't worth the money.
Click to expand...

Does the bolt actually ride on the glass and poly lower?

For those of you with the 512 Tactical, i am assuming you have to zero the sights each time after disassembly since you're removing the rail from the receiver?
 
I scored one in wood with sights for a very good price on EE looks nearly brand new. Seller stated only 50rds and from picks id believe it's under a couple of range trips. I was saving for a Lux 2 bolt action but couldn't pass up that smoking deal. I would not pay full price but wow for just a little more than I paid for a 10/22 takedown. Can't wait to get it out to the range. Will I even want the 10/22 after this?

I have heard good things about these rifles. What sort of rings are best/compatable for the rail? CZ or Leopold only again?
 
Last edited:
philhut said:
I scored one in wood with sights for $485 on EE looks nearly brand new. Seller stated only 50rds and from picks id believe it's under a couple of range trips. I was saving for a Lux 2 bolt action but couldn't pass up that smoking deal. I would not pay full price but wow for just a little more than I paid for a 10/22 takedown.

Anyone selling a Lux 2 for firewalls pricing too? I'll bite ;)

I have heard good things about these rifles. What sort of rings are best/compatable for the rail? CZ or Leopold only again?
Click to expand...

They will accept scope mounts for the 11mm dovetail - same as most CZ rimfire's. Burris, Warne, Leupold and of course CZ all have compatible rings.

I have a set of 1" Leupold's that just came off a CZ 512 (possibly the same one you bought) since I recently bought a take-off scope from the EE. Let me know if you're interested they're mint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom