Today decided to experiment a bit. I own two CZ457 rifles (well three but one belongs to my kids).
One started life as a 457 Canadian with a 20” sporter barrel. The other a 457 Thumbhole laminate. Last fall I put that Thumbhole laminate into a MDT Oryx Chassis along with adding a yodave trigger spring and firing pin spring. Then Over the winter on a whim I picked up a new MTR barrel and put it on. Well then I decided why not swap the heavier barrel onto the Canadian 457 but I didn’t want to sand down the fore end so it ended up in the Thumbhole laminate stock lol. So all that to say I now have two 20” heavy barrel 457 rifles both with muzzle compensators (I think they look cool lol).
So today wind was low temperature was about perfect at 17*c and I had a few hours to burn. So I went to the range with 4 different ammo’s, both rifles and my Athlon range craft chronograph. My objective was to compare what you get with the MTR I’ve the varmint barrels on the same day with the same box of ammo in two rifles very comparable (to be fair the varmint barrel has thousands of rounds threw it and I figure the MTR has less than 500 for what it’s worth). Both rifles were freshly cleaned. Both rifles have decent mid range glass the the MTR wears a 5-25 discovery and the Thumbhole wears a 6-24 Bushnell match pro. All rounds were fired at 100 METERS.
Ammos were all shot from same box’s. Every ammo’s shot 15 rounds from each box. 5 shots to foul and sight in ans 2 5 shot groups. All 15 rounds were caught on the Chronograph.
First Ammo was RWS Rifle Match.
MTR barrel: AVG Velocity 1116.8fps
VARMINT: AVG Velocity 1054.1fps
Second Ammo SK Standard +
MTR barrel: AVG Velocity 1096.0fps
VARMINT: AVG Velocity 1066.7fps
Third Ammo Aguila Standard Velocity
MTR barrel: AVG Velocity 1156.0fps
VARMINT: AVG Velocity 1138.9fps
Last Ammo was CCI Standard Velocity
MTR barrel: AVG Velocity 1100.9fps
VARMINT: AVG Velocity 1083.6fps
Accuracy was comparable honestly both doing OK but more rounds need to be fired to make a true comparison and both rifles is like to try more ammo’s in.
One started life as a 457 Canadian with a 20” sporter barrel. The other a 457 Thumbhole laminate. Last fall I put that Thumbhole laminate into a MDT Oryx Chassis along with adding a yodave trigger spring and firing pin spring. Then Over the winter on a whim I picked up a new MTR barrel and put it on. Well then I decided why not swap the heavier barrel onto the Canadian 457 but I didn’t want to sand down the fore end so it ended up in the Thumbhole laminate stock lol. So all that to say I now have two 20” heavy barrel 457 rifles both with muzzle compensators (I think they look cool lol).
So today wind was low temperature was about perfect at 17*c and I had a few hours to burn. So I went to the range with 4 different ammo’s, both rifles and my Athlon range craft chronograph. My objective was to compare what you get with the MTR I’ve the varmint barrels on the same day with the same box of ammo in two rifles very comparable (to be fair the varmint barrel has thousands of rounds threw it and I figure the MTR has less than 500 for what it’s worth). Both rifles were freshly cleaned. Both rifles have decent mid range glass the the MTR wears a 5-25 discovery and the Thumbhole wears a 6-24 Bushnell match pro. All rounds were fired at 100 METERS.
Ammos were all shot from same box’s. Every ammo’s shot 15 rounds from each box. 5 shots to foul and sight in ans 2 5 shot groups. All 15 rounds were caught on the Chronograph.
First Ammo was RWS Rifle Match.
MTR barrel: AVG Velocity 1116.8fps
VARMINT: AVG Velocity 1054.1fps
Second Ammo SK Standard +
MTR barrel: AVG Velocity 1096.0fps
VARMINT: AVG Velocity 1066.7fps
Third Ammo Aguila Standard Velocity
MTR barrel: AVG Velocity 1156.0fps
VARMINT: AVG Velocity 1138.9fps
Last Ammo was CCI Standard Velocity
MTR barrel: AVG Velocity 1100.9fps
VARMINT: AVG Velocity 1083.6fps
Accuracy was comparable honestly both doing OK but more rounds need to be fired to make a true comparison and both rifles is like to try more ammo’s in.
Attachments
Last edited:
I think . . .
