Screwtape, I'm not trying to be argumentative about this, and I agree with your assertion that the CZ/VZ rifle can indeed be scoped. Your statements are prefaced many times by qualifiers like "from reading about the issue", "so far as I can see" and "as I understand it" which tend to indicate that you haven't actually tried the idea. I have, in several different ways, and I must say that all these mounting methods share a couple of features: they all result in a rifle that technically has a scope attached to it, and they are all awkward and uncomfortable to use, not to mention often ugly and expensive. The mounts that allow use of a standard-eye-relief scope, in particular, make it almost impossible to touch the stock with any part of your face other than your chin. Are you shooting a scoped gun? Yes. Does it work well as a scoped gun? Sorry, no...not even close.
The cartridge, and the gun, are definitely capable of clean kills on coyotes out to 200-250 yards or more. Many folks, myself included, can use the gun at those ranges, but only with a scope, properly mounted. Now, I'll take my leave here, before some armchair commando leaps up and slaps my peepee simply because I don't share his combat-honed killer skills with iron sights. My comments are all my own opinions, as yours are yours. To the OP, good luck with your choice. Both guns are fun, but be aware that the mini (either the mini30, or the more long-range-effective mini14 in.223) is not nearly as universally despised as the CGN numbers might lead you to believe. A lot of us use'em and like'em.
Fair enough. I was just commenting that a lot of people had posted pictures of their scoped Vz58/Cz858 rifles in the sticky on the Red Rifle forum, and there seemed to be many ways to mount scopes and several commercial mounting kits available now. I didn't notice a lot of photos of target results though, so it's always possible that none of these rigs actually allow for accurate shooting.
A couple of things I have noticed about the Czech rifles, for what it's worth:
1. Compared to most rifles, the 858 has a very 'droopy' buttstock. In service, the advantages would be that it may help redirect and therefore reduce felt recoil when firing bursts, and it's makes the shooter more or less naturally hold the rifle high enough off the ground to keep the end of the long mag out of the dirt when firing prone. To compensate, the iron sights are very low over the receiver/barrel. An AR with its in-line stock by comparison has its iron sights set very high above the line of the barrel. The disadvantage of the Czech approach is that optical sights usually end up being mounted higher than iron sights, and from what you say, this makes a cheek weld on the original stock difficult. (The AR's approach causes the opposite problem, of course: because the sights are mounted high above the barrel, ARs have parallax problems at short ranges.)
2. Point #1 was probably never a noticeable problem with issue rifles, because the Vz58 went into service in 1958, and before the mid-1980s the problem of fitting optics on service rifles did not exist: snipers had special rifles fitted with carefully matched scopes, and everybody else used irons. In this respect, fitting a scope on a Vz58 seems no messier to me than trying to fit one on
any pre-Gulf War era service rifle from any country - they
all require special mounts and usually a gunsmith if the scope is to be mounted solidly and a proper cheek weld achieved. And even rifles with 'classic' wood stocks like the Lee Enfield or the US Garand usually had some form of higher comb added to the stock when they were set up as scoped sniper rifles (a screwed on wooden comb on the L.E. No.4 Mk.1(T) and a laced-on padded leather cheekrest on the US M1C or D).
BTW, have you ever really looked at the corrective solutions used on any Lee Enfield that's been properly set up with a decently mounted scope for hunting? From a military collector's standpoint, it's not a pretty sight... Butt-ugly Monte Carlo stocks in place of the original wood, holes drilled and tapped all over the bridge and barrel, often the height reduced by cutting the top of the original receiver bridge, stripper clip guide and rear sight wings off with a bandsaw... [shudder].
3. Following on from Points #1 and 2, I went back and looked at the Vz/Cz Optics sticky again, and it looks like
most people who mounted scopes or reflex sights on their 58/858 and were pleased with the result had
also done "upgrades" to the stock: most typically the installation of an M4-style in-line buttstock.
Finally, I would like to thank you and the others for this interesting and informative thread. I'm now looking for a Ruger. So far, I've noticed far more Vz58s and Cz858s show up on EE than Ruger Mini-14s or Mini-30s, and the Rugers also disappear a lot faster unless the prices are absolutely outrageous. I have also noticed that the Rugers tend to be pretty close to stock, while at least half of the Czech rifles have huge long lists of upgrades - although, to be fair, a lot of that seems to have more to do with a love of putting cool accessories on black rifles than with actual shortcomings of the rifles themselves.
