Ruger Vs. CZ in .22 Hornet

A

Amphibious

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
149   0   0
Location
Edmonton
being as there is a $280 difference in the two (added cost of rifle and rings to the CZ), which would you choose? to be reamed to K-Hornet upon purchase. any CGN lads have experience with these two? I don't care about much, but Accuracy is my main consideration.

thoughts

(and no I don;t want a POS Tikka or savage in .223 because it's better or shoots faster, etc.... so thanks ;) )
 
I have had two Ruger Mk.II 77's - one in .223 and the other in .300WSM. Both were extremely accurate and functioned flawlessly right out of the box. However, both had crappy triggers - one creepy and the second with the usual lawyer CYA trigger pull weight. The new ones are supposed to have this problem eliminated. At the worst you could make it a $220 difference and have the trigger touched up. Also, IMO, I find the styling, finish and wood /metal quality nicer on the Rugers.
 
Can't speak to the rifes, other than what I have read and the nod would go to CZ on that. You can find lots of good things about the CZ and mixed results from the ruger.

But I can talk about about the k-hornet conversion I had my handi done last year but I am no longer convinced it is worth while, yes the is a performance slight boost. More for me before hodgdon came out with lli'gun loads and 50 grain heads, but not that much anymore 100-200 fps ish. When there was a 400 fps difference (again 50 grain head) it was worth it for my application I am not sure if the cost/benifit is there anymore.

Even though the chamber turned out good the smith still recommended to fireform the cases before use so that add an annoying step for me. And slightly altered reloading procedures will midigate the problems inherent with the hornet case.

With either the CZ or ruger it you want to use really pointy bullets you'll need to swap out the stock mag with one from James Calhoon which allows for a longer COL.

I like my k-hornet I liked it while it was a plain hornet, it has it's place and does what I want it to do nicely.

One thing, if you do still want to go ahead with the conversion RCDS and redding both make k-hornet dies but they use different shoulder angles, remember to match up your reamer.

When I looked there where at least 5 different variants people called k-hornet.
 
From what I read when searching on the same topic, there may be some issues with the ruger bolt design (2 pieces) that needs to be shimmed to help accuracy.

Another reason, perhaps more important, to "K" a Hornet is to extend brass life. If you want faster velocity go for a 204 or 223. A Hornet is what it is.
 
I have the ruger, first thing I did was install the riflebasix trigger, very handy little acerage rifle. almost bought the CZ but the ruger is a bit handier and holds more rounds. Haven't done any serious range work with it yet. Have heard they can have flyer issues. Nice action, feeds perfectly. So far so good. I also have a cz 527 in 223 that I am quite pleased with, so theres my 2cents.
 
I have a 527 hornet and it is a very accurate and great handling little rifle.The trigger is easily adjustable. The wood is excellent and metal fit and finish is great. I'd stick with the factory chambering,but it is up to you. I have shot a friends Ruger and far prefer the CZ. It is not as over-engineered as the Ruger. Good Luck picking a winner.
 
I've got a CZ and a Ruger (not the models you are mentioning) and I would pick the CZ over the Ruger pretty well every time in a situation like yours.

Rugers are a good gun but if CZ has a similar offering their European take on firearms and detailing are what I will go for. Either will probably need a little trigger work or fine tuning to really be a good shooter.

I'm jealous thou. I've always wanted a Hornet but always have too many other things on the list ahead of of it....
 
I like the Hornet, but I am curious about your comment about accuracy and wonder if your expectation concerning an off the rack Hornet will match the reality. If it was me I would choose the CZ 527 FS, but if accuracy was my primary concern I think I would look for one in .222 rather than the Hornet.
 
Amphibious said:
being as there is a $280 difference in the two (added cost of rifle and rings to the CZ), which would you choose? to be reamed to K-Hornet upon purchase. any CGN lads have experience with these two? I don't care about much, but Accuracy is my main consideration.

thoughts

(and no I don;t want a POS Tikka or savage in .223 because it's better or shoots faster, etc.... so thanks ;) )
Click to expand...

I have had both the Ruger varmit stainless in hornet & a CZ 527 & while the Ruger has it hands down in the magazine dept-- If you stick to blunt bullets there is no real comparison with the CZ in terms of accuracy fit & finish.

If I may make a suggestion go for a 527 in 221 Fireball, or 222 or 223 & if you want to download to Hornet noise & velocity use reduced Blue Dot loads-- they're very accurate & pleasant to shoot-cheap too!
I have been downloading 222 with 12 grs Blue Dot & accuracy is great with the noise & recoil of the Hornet;)--- the brass is a lot easier to work with is one big advantage & if you want have some full power loads with you they shoot pretty much same POI @ 100yds:dancingbanana:

Just my .02

Good shooting:D
 
boss-hog2 said:
I have had both the Ruger varmit stainless in hornet & a CZ 527 & while the Ruger has it hands down in the magazine dept-- If you stick to blunt bullets there is no real comparison with the CZ in terms of accuracy fit & finish.

If I may make a suggestion go for a 527 in 221 Fireball, or 222 or 223 & if you want to download to Hornet noise & velocity use reduced Blue Dot loads-- they're very accurate & pleasant to shoot-cheap too!
I have been downloading 222 with 12 grs Blue Dot & accuracy is great with the noise & recoil of the Hornet;)--- the brass is a lot easier to work with is one big advantage & if you want have some full power loads with you they shoot pretty much same POI @ 100yds:dancingbanana:

Just my .02

Good shooting:D
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
Cz vs Ruger in 22 Hornet

I have had one of each of these rifles, and still have the CZ. I like the magazine, I like the single set trigger, I love the pretty wood, I love the accuracy. Have I forgotten anything? FS
 
there are two possible advantages of the hornet vs bd (blue dot) 223 loads.

1. The BD loads are unpublished, they do work I have used them, but by definition there is inhernet risk. Here is the question I am asking myself

BD is also very useful in 308 based rounds so do I use it to develop a low recoil load for my 12 year old or do I used the published loads for h4895 even though the bd will has slightly less recoil and most definetly better accuracy.

2. 50 hornet rounds fit in you jeans pocket, comfortably if you are out for a low volume shoot.

Case life has not been great with my k-hornet, nowhere near what modern rounds can do.
 
Aulrich,
Reduced velocity loads are found published in a various manuals including the Speer, and Lyman manuals. I see no inherent risk greater than using any other published data, although there are enough mistakes in the new Hornady manual as to make one nervous.
 
I didn't like the way either of them felt on the shoulder nor the actions, I went ahead and got the Remington 799 in 22 Hornet, and anyone that knows me, knows just how hard it was for me to buy a Remington. I liked the Savage but it is a single shot, not digging that at all. The 799 is called the mini-mauser. Les
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom