zastava opinion

Re-barreled 375 H&H Zastava to 416RM has single recoil lug & properly bedded. 458WM (Rem 798 = Zastava barreled action in Rem laminate stock) has dual recoil lugs. Either stocks no cracks so far so good.
 
Im planning a 6.5x55 build. I already have the gun and I want to:
Refinish the stock
Lap the lugs
Replace trigger/trigger job
Bed the stock

Did I forget something? Is anything else worth doing?
 
Sir Plus said:
...

Did I forget something? Is anything else worth doing?
Click to expand...

On my Zastava, after a couple years in cabinet in dry Manitoba, without ever firing full-house loads, the wood bulkhead between the magazine well and the trigger mortice was cracked all the way through. Was definitely not like that when I received it, dismantled and cleaned up the factory lube. I also played a bit with the bedding at the time - am quite certain that one got a thin Accraglas bedding, at the recoil lug area and under the chamber - because that boomer only had one recoil lug - "just because". Mine is a M70 bought new by me in 2013. There is no cross bolt ahead of the trigger, so really nothing holding sides of the stock together from front of magazine well to rear of trigger. Maybe not an issue in a 6.5x55, but well worth to look at??

Unless you know that there is significant uneven bearing between the two bolt lugs, not certain what lapping accomplishes?? I understand some rifles made with very thin case hardening, so do not want to wear through that, for no good reason? In perfect world, would have 100% bearing on both - in my world about 60% bearing on each seems to be "good enough". "0" contact on one lug is not a good thing - other one needs lapping, for sure. The issue could also be mis-aligned bolt raceway or receiver seats. It appears to me that some rifles, like No. 4 Lee Enfield have rounded rear face on the bolt lugs, so much, much less than 25% bearing appears to be "full contact". I do not know what kind of heat treat the Zastava bolt and receiver gets - so maybe that thin hardened surface is not an issue with them, but any "lapping" can only increase head space, which again, may or may not be an issue for your rifle? For certain, do not want to lap the main lugs so far that the third lug starts to bear within the receiver - its job is like a "tattle tale" - only actually takes the load when main lugs or receiver recesses have failed - had read it was a thing by some to lap main lugs to get that third lug bearing - on purpose.
 
Last edited:
m1978 said:
7x57 was what i was thinking of, since i already have a ruger african 9.3. 7x64 is maybe even better?
Click to expand...

You can look up 7x64 - will be very similar to North America 280 Remington - no doubt harder to find brass, I would think. So likely can be loaded to higher velocity / heavier bullets than 7x57, but only you can decide if that means it is "better". I have hunted last 20 or more years - Saskatchewan White Tail and Mule Deer - with 150 grain Partition @ 2,800 fps from 7x57 - no regrets, ever - many dozen head taken. You can read of the things that were done in Africa with 173 and 175 grain at 2,200 fps or so from 7x57 - hard to imagine how to get "better", but I suppose, some would think it could be done?

I am able to own more than one big game rifle, so I chose a 338 Win Mag, first, for hunting moose/elk "up north". I now also have a 9.3x62 which is what I took last time out. No doubt in my mind that 150 or 160 Partition in 7x57 or 7x64 would work fine for moose or elk, but I chose other rifles for that, because I could. If I only had one big game rifle - had to use for all game - it would be a 30-06.
 
Last edited:
7x64 is a great cartridge, Hornady, PRVI make brass, it can also be made from 280 brass just by sizing in the die.
Picked up a SS 7x64 from Gagnon's several years ago on clearance for $500, it's got a smooth action, accurate, and the synthetic stock is pretty decent.
20190807-173934.jpg
 
Last edited:
Im planning a 6.5x55 build. I already have the gun and I want to:
Click to expand...
Refinish the stock
Sure, there is more wood there than you need, the lenght of pull is likely too long for most, the action could use bedding.
Lap the lugs
Nope; you will increase head-space; let them wear in normally; better results in the long run.
Replace trigger/trigger job
What ever for??? Follow the instructions carefully to adjust, the trigger is just fine; but it's your money.
Bed the stock
See above

Sir Plus said:
Did I forget something? Is anything else worth doing?
Click to expand...

Yes, do to the rifle only what you need to do, see list above; get a good set of dies (collet neck sizing dies) a selection of bullets, start with a good, proven powder for the caliber (Like H4350) and spend your time on load development. This will show you the greatest gains in accuracy. If you are going to use a scope; buy the right bases, and put them on with a bit of removable locktite on both the screws and between the base and the receiver. Good rings, and a good scope, that is the right power for the ranges you will be shooting; don't buy a 1000 yard scope if you are only going to be shooting 100 with the odd shot to 300.

If you have a need to f*** with a rifle, get an older Carl Gustof or Huski and have some fun. That's what I am doing; building a Scout rifle with a Huski with a good barrel.
 
conor_90 said:
Medvedqc gives a pretty accurate review

I did have one that had a badly cut chamber and would not fire

That is 1/4 iirc. I would roll the dice again given the chance if I’m being honest
Click to expand...

It's true the chamber was cut deep on it and the shoulder angle was a bit steep, they must have had a bad reamer but with a few strokes of the file on the cocking piece and some fireformed brass with cream of wheat and a few grains of unique I figure I've got 9.3x62 improved that shoots lights out. Thank you again !!!
 
Out of the Zastavas I've had I've noticed:

Very solid actions.

All were accurate. Nice barrels.

Great looking bluing.

You will absolutely need windage adjustable mounts/bases because the holes are drilled so out of whack a couple failed to zero a Leupold scope. Not enough adjustments

Weaver bases will have quite a difference in height as well.

One had an extractor that didn't work.

One had an improperly cut chamber that left a slight "false shoulder" on cases, but was safe...and accurate

One could not be zeroed with the factory irons because it was way too low at 100 yards even with the rear sight cranked up to max.

Might wanna loctite your screws on the trigger group, had one fall out while hunting. It stayed in the rifle at least but there woulda been no trigger pulling that day.

Couple of em were fine out of the box. But I would not bet on it. Yeah they are great Mauser actions for the money. Sometimes they even work. I'd look harder at something like a used Win 70 TBH. YMMV and all that.
 
I learned my lesson that one BwanaDave. Never putting gunsmithing into a rifle without testing its function again
 
I owned a 9.3x62 stainless, I was not really a fan, Boyd's is now making stocks for them and that was one of the things I did not care for, if the price was right on a rifle I wanted I might reconsider. It is looking like Tradeex is out of them so they may be tougher to find.
 
I installed the inexpensive Weaver aluminum bases. I used QD rings with thumb levers - set bottom halves and snugged up - used 1" diameter lapping bar to verify that each ring half had full bearing on the scope - was very minor - do not recall a mis-alignment at all. Installed a 2 1/2 power Leupold, which just "barely" fit - to get that front ring behind the front lens, not around the lens. Seems fine - a 458 Win Mag bought from Gagnon's in 2013.

Further, I removed the rear barrel sight - drilled and tapped into rear face of rear base and installed a little Redfield "flip up" aperture sight. I am pretty sure those were #3-56 screws - pretty tiny taps, etc. for fat fingers, as I recall. So, idea is to have an aperture sight as backup for the scope - should it ever die, which I doubt will happen. I found my front sight ramp to be installed on a very shallow dovetail, then some sort of glue or epoxy - due to my own klutzy-ness in trying to take out the front sight element, the entire front ramp came off. The screw under the front sight element does not go into the barrel - it goes into a "top hat" kind of mount, that sits in a shallow dovetail on the barrel - ramp slides down over that top hat, plus some kind of glue - not solder. Took some commotion to reinstall - do not really trust it - I plan to get or make a banded front sight ramp for it - something that I will be more certain does not go flying off into the bush one day... Because of the cartridge, I also need to figure out how to install a barrel recoil lug and bed that into the stock - obviously needs doing before the front sight gets done.
 
I had tried that canti-lever front ring on another rifle. Set the barrelled action into a soft jaw vise - then set up dial indicator on top of the ring cap - did not seem to take much thumb pressure on the objective bell to get that dial to deflect. I did not like that - might not actually make a difference, but I prefer the front ring to be a more or less "solid" post down to that front receiver ring. And could have been that the ring had been previously abused, that resulted in that flexing. As if some scopes made "dumb" - can't properly mount or not enough eye relief to see through. Had seen some slo-mo video on Internet how much a big scope bell will deflect and "bounce" under heavy recoil, so prefer to use straight tube scopes with minimum forward of that front ring - on something with a bit of jump to it...

As well, I do not like scope base or rings encroaching into the magazine loading port. Maybe just a "predujice" of mine - seems to be a "make do" solution for installing a scope properly. Again, might be back to "dumb made" scopes, or perhaps scopes meant to be installed on smaller length actions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom