1shotwonder
Member
- Location
- Northwestern Ontario
What does everyone think of the 455 and 457 models of CZ rimfires? Are they as good of a rifle as the old 452?
CZ Rimfires
- Thread starter 1shotwonder
- Start date
I have 9 455's. 2 17hmr's, 2 .22mag, the rest .22lr. They all shoot better than what I am capable of. I've had them all out in the gopher fields at one time or another, and they do the trick. All but one .22mag have smaller Leupold scopes. I also have a 452 FS .22lr with a smaller Leupold scope.
Ahh, but what do I know.
I was awfully tempted to spring for a 457 Canadian .22lr, and still might. Then down the rabbit hole I go - 457 American, Canadian and American .17hmr and .22mag, Canadian .17hmr, plus another half dozen Leupolds.
Seriously, I have not had any problems with any of the 455's. They all work just fine.
Ahh, but what do I know.
I was awfully tempted to spring for a 457 Canadian .22lr, and still might. Then down the rabbit hole I go - 457 American, Canadian and American .17hmr and .22mag, Canadian .17hmr, plus another half dozen Leupolds.
Seriously, I have not had any problems with any of the 455's. They all work just fine.
For what it's worth, there are a number of successful entries for CZ bolt rimfires on the "1/2" at 50 Challenge" thread here on CGN. The majority are various 452 models, while many of the 455's have custom barrels (which are not easily available for the 452 models). Of the approximately ten CZ bolt action rimfires I've had, I found that on average my models with the fixed barrels, the 452's and 453's (which are essentially the same as 452's but have a different trigger), shot better than the two 455's and one 457 I had.
Of course, the barrel quality of a rifle is all important, and all CZ rifles' barrel quality will vary between rifles of the same model and between models. In other words, generally speaking it will be luck of the draw between individual rifles whether it's going to be a very good shooter, average, or unsatisfactory. The vast majority will be average for CZ, which is in the end a mass produced factory rifle.
If I was getting another, I'd probably choose a 452 rather than a 455 or a 457. The latter have more appeal for those who wish to get an aftermarket barrel and/or put the barreled action in a chassis.
Of course, the barrel quality of a rifle is all important, and all CZ rifles' barrel quality will vary between rifles of the same model and between models. In other words, generally speaking it will be luck of the draw between individual rifles whether it's going to be a very good shooter, average, or unsatisfactory. The vast majority will be average for CZ, which is in the end a mass produced factory rifle.
If I was getting another, I'd probably choose a 452 rather than a 455 or a 457. The latter have more appeal for those who wish to get an aftermarket barrel and/or put the barreled action in a chassis.
I can't speak for the 452, but I got the 457 american .22lr recently and oh is it nice.
The finish and feel are very nice. I have shot about 150 rounds of CCI standard and either I am getting better or the rifle is becoming more accurate as I put rounds through it... (the latter.)
If debating between the 455 and 457, I would recommend the 457 simply because of the adjustable trigger and the 60deg bolt.
The finish and feel are very nice. I have shot about 150 rounds of CCI standard and either I am getting better or the rifle is becoming more accurate as I put rounds through it... (the latter.)
If debating between the 455 and 457, I would recommend the 457 simply because of the adjustable trigger and the 60deg bolt.
I've never owned a 455 or 457, or, shot either model. I've owned 3 x 452s, a BRNO 2E, and still have the 2 x 452s. When the 452s stopped being produced and the 455s started showing-up, I did handle a few of them and sort of thought they didn't look quite as nice as the 452s. I also never believed what CZ tried to sell as the reason for the changes=DIY barrel swaps. My assertion is that it was a cost-saving measure, and a cost-saving measure alone. How many shooters are re-zeroing a scoped gun because they want to shoot 22WMR instead of 17HMR for the afternoon? lol Nobody I know! At the time, I also heard of accuracy issues with the 455s, the kind of complaints you'd have a hard time finding owners of 452s having. Or at least, mentioning online and asking about, etc. I can't comment on the actual quality or accuracy of a 455-I have no experience shooting them. I've spoken to owners of 455s who seem to, overwhelmingly, love their guns. At one time, I wondered if it had to do with the fact that the 452 barrels are threaded onto the receiver vs. being held in place by grub screws..and that may be part of it. However, as a relatively new Tikka T1x owner, I can't argue that point. I love almost everything about that gun and it's accuracy with a wide variety of ammo is commendable. Does not have a barrel threaded onto the receiver.
The 457s I've held in stores-absolutely beautiful guns but as mentioned, no experience owning/shooting them. I would love to shoot a 457 Varmint
I have a variety of 452/453/455/457 models, even a 513 Farmer. They are all shooters and live up to and beyond my expectations. As mentioned above, the 457’s with their adjustable trigger and 60* bolt are really great rifles. My current fave is the 457 Pro Varmint.
Money well spent. Don’t have my book with me so can’t give accuracy numbers. There is two models Vrs 1 has 2 recoil springs ,Vrs 2 has one and grooved edge on bolt release. Have #1 and have had no maintenance problems or breakages. Trigger pull is a little heavy and haven’t found any after market parts. Bolt handle is plastic[?] and some people source a spare. Spits out empties from everything but the 710fps CCi.
That pretty much sums it up. I like the 455 action, they're pretty well made. I want to try a 457. I don't like CZ factory barrels, but you can get a lot of bang for your buck with a custom barrel on a CZ. I like CZ's as a platform to build off. My 455 Full Stock in .17HMR is entirely serviceable as a hunting rifle, it's the .22 LRs that let me down in the accuracy department.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Maybe want to consider the CZ predecessor. I started a small collection of rifles made same year that I was - 1955. For a rimfire, I found a made-in-1955 BRNO #1 - about only issue with it, the CZ 452 Silhouette and the CZ 452 Scout is that the safety lever is backwards - forward is safe, pull it back to fire. Not really good for muscle memory, at all, if you have other North American style rifles. I do not know if that has been "sorted out" on the "newer than 452's" - I never handled any of them.
It seems a totally natural movement to pull back the hammer to #### a hammer gun, as it is put into action - but I have to "think" about it, if happens to be one of the BRNO/CZ that I grab to deal with obviously rabid skunk or whatever. That safety just feels "wrong" to this prairie boy!!! It works and functions perfectly, just exactly as it was designed to do - just it induces any number of "operator errors"!!!
It seems a totally natural movement to pull back the hammer to #### a hammer gun, as it is put into action - but I have to "think" about it, if happens to be one of the BRNO/CZ that I grab to deal with obviously rabid skunk or whatever. That safety just feels "wrong" to this prairie boy!!! It works and functions perfectly, just exactly as it was designed to do - just it induces any number of "operator errors"!!!
Last edited:
I have a CZ 452 and 455 (both Lux models), with the famous CZ safety that us North Americans think might be backwards.
However I like it!
Both of these Lux models are hunting rifles, and I am guessing (I don't know) that they designed the safety to be relatively more bombproof, super safe with no likely chance that a stick or clothing snag, or taking a tumble and banging the rifle are going to click it off. The push-forward safety requires alot of thumb push force to click it in, so you definitely are thinking about what you are doing. The thumb pull release force on my CZ's again requires alot of force - its not coming off safety without a forceful thumb pull, so again I am thinking the designers wanted you to think about it a little more than a quick muscle memory move.
The safety is on top of the back of the bolt, in line with it and not out to the side. I don't know if this improves the safety switch against accidently snagging on something, but I think it might.
The motion of forward on, backward off works for me. I use my 455 for grouse hunting (with scope, head or neck shots only), and have managed to train my brain to make it work.
Interestingly the safety on 452/455 is also a pin that holds the bolt together. Takes a bit of practice to learn how to assemble and disassemble the bolt, the pin being a little fiddly until you learn how it works.
Last edited:
- Location
- Western Manitoba
One of those things - what we get used to, I guess. We have three Winchester Model 70 with horizontal three position safeties. I installed a Gentry on one Mauser and a Dakota on another - all are "push forward" to fire. Like the No. 1 and No. 4 Lee Enfields. Like the P14 and M1917. My shotguns - a Browning BPS, I used to own a Citori, a "Boito" and a Ruger Red Label - even the CZ Redhead - push the safety forward to fire. The Remington 788 was pushed forward to fire. And so on. I can see getting "used to" pulling it back to fire, but in my mind, after all these years, it is still "backwards" to me.
As far as force required - not so sure about that? I never really measured the force required, but I would be thinking an "effort" that is noticeable to engage or disengage a safety might be a sign of some mis-adjustment or mis-fit of parts? And, all coming from "old days" - my Dad's Cooey 60 - have to grab the cocking piece knob, pull back slightly and rotate the stud out of the notch to take it off "safe" - probably why I usually carried it with the bolt open - I found just as easy to simply close the bolt, as it was put into action. Never did, and still do not, use the "safety" on that Cooey. No doubt an absolute "bomb blast proof" safety system, but that engineering lead to using another way to be "safe".
Also, not sure about the accidental bump thing - on the others, the rifle safety is "on" when the lever tucked back along the cocking piece. On the CZ .22's, the safety lever is sticking out sideways behind the bolt handle when "on safe". Not sure which ends up being easier to "dislodge" by brushing or bumping against something?? As we learned as kids with small hands and new-to-us No. 4 Lee Enfields, often just as easy to ignore the safety and keep the bolt open - have taken some really good slips and tumbles like that - no issues about whether the rifle was "safe" or not. Bolt action rifles simply do not fire when their bolt is open.
OP originally asked if 455 or 457 still "as good as" the older 452. I thought to point out that safety lever thing. From Post #19, sounds like the 455 has same safety design as the 452. I do not know about the 457 - never handled one. (or a 455, for that matter).
As far as force required - not so sure about that? I never really measured the force required, but I would be thinking an "effort" that is noticeable to engage or disengage a safety might be a sign of some mis-adjustment or mis-fit of parts? And, all coming from "old days" - my Dad's Cooey 60 - have to grab the cocking piece knob, pull back slightly and rotate the stud out of the notch to take it off "safe" - probably why I usually carried it with the bolt open - I found just as easy to simply close the bolt, as it was put into action. Never did, and still do not, use the "safety" on that Cooey. No doubt an absolute "bomb blast proof" safety system, but that engineering lead to using another way to be "safe".
Also, not sure about the accidental bump thing - on the others, the rifle safety is "on" when the lever tucked back along the cocking piece. On the CZ .22's, the safety lever is sticking out sideways behind the bolt handle when "on safe". Not sure which ends up being easier to "dislodge" by brushing or bumping against something?? As we learned as kids with small hands and new-to-us No. 4 Lee Enfields, often just as easy to ignore the safety and keep the bolt open - have taken some really good slips and tumbles like that - no issues about whether the rifle was "safe" or not. Bolt action rifles simply do not fire when their bolt is open.
OP originally asked if 455 or 457 still "as good as" the older 452. I thought to point out that safety lever thing. From Post #19, sounds like the 455 has same safety design as the 452. I do not know about the 457 - never handled one. (or a 455, for that matter).
Last edited:
