CZ 600 Trail - Interesting Details!

Euro gun companies must hate making money if they keep coming out with switch barrel rigs

That or the needs of the European consumer differ from the North American…

Applying loctite to the exterior of the screw instead of the threads seems like a “wink, wink, don’t remove it” to me
 
Bartok5 said:
We shall see - that's what investigation is all about in the coming days and weeks. Hopefully someone will have the necessary machining skills to produce a Barrel with three integral Locking Lugs. Worst case, I would sacrifice my .223 Barrel to create a Barrel Extension of sorts with the locking lugs for the replacement .300 Blk Barrel. Same .223 Bolt Face, cartridge case, magazine, etc. All that changes for a swap to .300 Blk is the calibre. It ought to be quite simple, really....
Click to expand...

Did you take a photo of the barrel locking lugs? As long as it can be cut with standard tooling and doesn't require EDM it should be relatively simple and cheap once a manufacturer gets the CNC program dialed in. I've seen people use a T-slot cutter to machine undercut geometry. Then a small diameter endmill to cut the lugs and away we go!
 
The Kurgan said:
I agree. For me, barrel removal just allows for easy cleaning and storage. Whether or not CZ offers replacement barrels remains to be seen. Even if they are only offered to Smith's, it would be a very low cost job to replace a barrel and bolt head. I can see alot of future barrel and bolt head trading.
Click to expand...

Low cost in doubt, probably close to the price of another rifle.
If the aftermarket barrel makers take a run at it, might be a bit cheaper, but OEM CZ stuff for centerfire are not cheap.
 
conor_90 said:
Euro gun companies must hate making money if they keep coming out with switch barrel rigs

That or the needs of the European consumer differ from the North American…

Applying loctite to the exterior of the screw instead of the threads seems like a “wink, wink, don’t remove it” to me
Click to expand...

I think it is because in some European countries they have limits on the number of rifles you can own, so having a rifle you can change the caliber of makes sense
 
If you really think about it, approach of Blaser, M66, Steyr monobloc, even Beretta BRX1 make more sense for an actually practical switch barrel setup because they all have optics mounted on a barrel. Such that you change barrel with the optics attached and keep zero, which will never match another significantly different caliber. M03 and Sauer were a step backwards.

If you exclude R8 for a reason of "I'm not having a straight bolt flying in my face". Monobloc is a more attractive proposition than BRX1, but you need to make it cheap enough to make it viable. But it is obvious that making a monobloc is not an easy task.

Now what is ACTUALLY interesting idea to toy with is to have CZ 600 receiver and barrel sold together, assembled at a factory, but sold as a unit. If you can make it cheap enough and add a more choice of stocks and chassis it could be very cool. Then only thing you need for that is to make trigger assembly easy removable, like BRX1 for instance.

PS
More and more attractive the more I think about it. Half of 600 series is aluminum receivers. Very primitive compared to AR 15 shape. And ar15 stripped is very cheap even at retail. The only problem is legal issues of what is registered tracked firearm.
 
Last edited:
rhino62 said:
I think it is because in some European countries they have limits on the number of rifles you can own, so having a rifle you can change the caliber of makes sense
Click to expand...

Yes that is what I’m alluding to.

We can talk about how dumb it is, and how hard it is to get barrels etc. But presumably it is not in the places where these guns are popular.

I don’t know how many hunting rifles barrels you guys burn through; but 1-2 should do it.

Switch barrel rigs like Thompson centres and R8 have a following for a reason

CZ tried to bring it in at an attractive price point; but comparing them to straight pulls and kipplauf with multi barrel sets is apples to oranges. The scope problem remains as owlowl alludes to. But if there is good repeatability with the barrel a good scope in a pair of QD rings, or even non QD rings if you own an Allen key set, can solve this “issue”.

Honestly the swapping never did much for me; I’d rather have a barrel nut and a cheaper gun. Don’t think it would work with an alloy receiver and bolt head locking into lugs in the barrels chamber for strength though.

But I’m a North American, with North American “needs”.

Something to be said for the idea of a 223 or 7.62x39 for training on a platform that can swap to a big game or even big bore calibre when hunting season comes

Would have liked to see how light an alpha could get with a pencil barrel and alloy receiver too. Probably in Kimber territory considering their current weight with the lead pipe on the end
 
owlowl said:
..... Now what is ACTUALLY interesting idea to toy with is to have CZ 600 receiver and barrel sold together, assembled at a factory, but sold as a unit. If you can make it cheap enough and add a more choice of stocks and chassis it could be very cool. Then only thing you need for that is to make trigger assembly easy removable, like BRX1 for instance.

PS
More and more attractive the more I think about it. Half of 600 series is aluminum receivers. Very primitive compared to AR 15 shape. And ar15 stripped is very cheap even at retail. The only problem is legal issues of what is registered tracked firearm.
Click to expand...

The CZ 600 Trail Receiver is actually quite complex in terms of its billet machining compared to an AR15 Receiver set that starts out as a forging, with much of the material removal already done. In fact, I'd argue that machining the CZ Receiver is the more complex undertaking in terms of separate machining operations and their relative difficulty. But I m no machinit, so am commenting based solely on the apparent and relative complexity of the parts in question.

On top of the above, it makes little sense to me to design a Quick-Change Calibre (QCC) system, and then completelly ignore it by selling only complete Receiver/Barrel Assemblies. This would be a case of fundamentally conflicting design (and marketing) priorities.

Sorry, but I fail to see the advantage of selling Barrel/Receiver sets over having the increased flexibility of offering separate Receivers and Barrel Weights/calibres. The latter makes far more sense to me from a potential sales perspective.


20230219-010656.jpg
 
Last edited:
rifleman762 said:
Did you take a photo of the barrel locking lugs? As long as it can be cut with standard tooling and doesn't require EDM it should be relatively simple and cheap once a manufacturer gets the CNC program dialed in. I've seen people use a T-slot cutter to machine undercut geometry. Then a small diameter endmill to cut the lugs and away we go!
Click to expand...

Here you go:


20230219-010837.jpg



20230219-010846.jpg



Don't mind the Dog hair.... ;);)

You can see a distinct line on the exterior of the Barrel in the area that would normally be cut for a separate Barrel Extension. It now appears to me that the CZ 600 Trail may in fact have a separate Barrel Extension screwed on (note the Wrench-Flat), which could simplify acquiring parts from CZ and/or machining such Extensions.
 
Bartok5 said:
Sorry, but I fail to see the advantage of selling Barrel/Receiver sets over having the increased flexibility of offering separate Receivers and Barrel Weights/calibres. The latter makes far more sense to me from a potential sales perspective.
Click to expand...

I have to agree, I went too far.
 
owlowl said:
I have to agree, I went too far.
Click to expand...

The free exchange of reasonable but novel ideas is what keeps me coming back to threads like this one. Going too far is oftentimes the risk we take in formulating and presenting our ideas. Please don't self-regulate to the point of stifling your thoughts, lest we lose the benefit of your free-ranging input. That would be a much bigger shame than you thinking outside the box....
 
Last edited:
rhino62 said:
I think it is because in some European countries they have limits on the number of rifles you can own, so having a rifle you can change the caliber of makes sense
Click to expand...

Lots of European hunters travel across borders, too. So, they do paperwork for one rifle instead of two.

They also need to carry only one set of tools $ parts, like firing pins, springs, etc. by only using "one" rifle...
 
Bartok5 said:
Here you go:


20230219-010837.jpg



20230219-010846.jpg



Don't mind the Dog hair.... ;);)

You can see a distinct line on the exterior of the Barrel in the area that would normally be cut for a separate Barrel Extension. It now appears to me that the CZ 600 Trail may in fact have a separate Barrel Extension screwed on (note the Wrench-Flat), which could simplify acquiring parts from CZ and/or machining such Extensions.
Click to expand...

Definitely looks like a separate barrel extension! Which is good news. If you look at where the barrel face meets the extension that appears to be not a machined corner as it would be if the extension was machined into the barrel itself. And they totally designed the lug cutouts to be machined with a standard endmill. It's cheaper for CZ, too! The aftermarket can easily make barrels and barrel extensions even with manual machine tools. I might have to buy one of these rifles! But with the 7.62x39 bolt face. I want a 6mm ARC on this platform.
 
Would anyone happen to have a picture of the bolt face you could share? I am curious if there is enough material to open it up for a larger rim size of .492
 
Brian46 said:
Would anyone happen to have a picture of the bolt face you could share? I am curious if there is enough material to open it up for a larger rim size of .492
Click to expand...

Here you go...


20230219-193622.jpg



I don't think that you would have sufficient material around the circumference to provide the necessary raised "Shoulder" that supports the Caritridge Rim half-way around the circumference of the Bolt Face. I measured the radius of the Bolt Face at its narrowest point between the Locking Lugs (across from the Ejector Plunger) and it came out at .250", meaning that doubled, you only have a potential Bolt Face diameter of .500" to work with. With a rim size of .492 that leaves you only .008 for the thickness of the raised Shoulder at that narrowest point on the Bolt Face. I don't think that is enough material, assuming that my calculations are correct...

I think that you need to start out with the larger 7.62x39mm Bolt Face and modify from there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom