Thoughts on CZ 455 22/17 combo

[the possum]

You get fifty shells in a box of .17hmr and only 20 in a box of 223.

The only .223 I've ever bought came in a 1000 round box, with 50 round sub-boxes (Fiocchi). But I was referring to the price per round, either way. My brother bought a .17 HMR and was talking it up to me, but I figured if a .22lr wouldn't kill it, my SKS or Mosin -Nagant would kill it just as dead with cheaper ammo.

If you're using it for hunting and not shooting off a hundred at tin cans, the 17hmr is a much better choice.

And right in the OP, he said:

I likely won't be hunting with it, it's more for target use.

So yeah, .17 isn't the best choice here. Either way, I do like to shoot my hunting guns as much as possible. Keep in practice, and all that.

 

[OhioGuy]

I have 2 CZ 452s. They are good but don't expect mystical accuracy. They compare to the better mainstream 22lr rifles. As stated above they are not Anschutz. My American is more accurate than my Ultra Lux. I shoot 50 centerfire and 100 rimfire per week. Good rifles but don't drink the koolaide. Nothing mystical based on my sample of 2.

The Ruger American seems to be well reviewed too. Comes with a fiber optic front sight, and the wood stock option is less expensive than the 455.

I have a romantic attachment to CZ simply because I like their handguns so much. I'd like to get a bolt-action .22 with open sights, to which I can later add a scope, that I can use for learning rifle marksmanship. Eventually I'd like to teach my sons to shoot (the oldest is just turning 10 and is about 4'10"...tall kid for his age...probably can handle one of these rifles OK).

The Savage rifles I've held have felt a bit chintzy. If a Ruger American gets me where I want to be, for less money than the CZ, then I'm not opposed to getting that one instead. I'd opt for the wood stock in any case, though, because wood stocks are cool

 

[NoSecondBest]

And right in the OP, he said:
Quote:
I likely won't be hunting with it, it's more for target use.

Read the entire OP and he's looking for a rimfire. The .223 regardless of cost of ammo or the ability to buy a thousand in a box isn't what he was asking about. Heading out in the direction of a centerfire in regard to his post is like asking someone for the time and they start telling you how to make a watch. Focus on the OP's question.

 

[Areoflyer09]

I’ve been happy with my Ruger American, though mine wasn’t notiacbly cheaper than a CZ455 at my LGS. I picked up one of the Talo Editions with the stainless barrel and a walnut stock, so I paid extra for some pretties. The American Target would probably be worth looking into.

I’ve only gotten to go to the range with it once so far but I’m quite enjoying it. Keeping in mind that I had never shot for group size before and my local indoor range only goes to 25 yards. The first ten shots from my Ruger American came in at .4” @ 25 yards. Not as impressive as it would be at a longer distance or with a skilled shooter, but I left range happy as could be.

 

[Kvon2]

I have a pre-accutrigger savage mark ii and its an awesome rifle. Trigger is a best heavy but wonderfully crisp. I will say my CZ 527's single set trigger is one of the best I've ever felt. Its crazy light.

Both savage and cz are great options for what you're trying to accomplish IMO

 

[the possum]

Read the entire OP and he's looking for a rimfire. Heading out in the direction of a centerfire in regard to his post is like asking someone for the time and they start telling you how to make a watch. Focus on the OP's question.

??
He sounded grateful that someone pointed out the relative costs of the ammo, since he apparently wasn't aware of it.

 

[OhioGuy]

??
He sounded grateful that someone pointed out the relative costs of the ammo, since he apparently wasn't aware of it.

It did put the cost in perspective. I didn't sense anyone was trying to steer me away from a rimfire rifle...just pointing out that the 17 approaches centerfire cost territory.

 

[RC20]

I think what you need to do is sort through the type of rifle you want first.

The CZ while not mythical is good, its also a carry .22, its not a true target.

The Savages in the Target Version with the heavy barrel is more stable. Stable means you can get the best accuracy. Add in a very good trigger. The CZ is ok, just not a Savage trigger.

So if you want to shoot targets, then comparison should be a CZ heavy and a Savage Heavy.

The CZ heavy I saw had a composite stock (laminated)

So does the Savage. Tho0se are nice stocks and the ones on my rifles look like real wood. They don't have the true wood look with the grains exposed, but they do looks nice and certainly a vast improvement over the ugly composite plastic and fiberglass.

Try both, get which one you like. You will shoot up vastly more ammo than the $150 difference in price.

Thanks for all the responses!

I've been seeing some good reviews of the Savage Mark II .22lr also. Looks like I can get these for $150 less than the CZ. I'm not familiar with Savage other than their reputation for being a more budget-oriented option, but the rifles seem well reviewed.

Is the CZ better enough (better built, more durable, more accurate, more accessories, etc.) to warrant the price increase? I do happen to like the real wood stock, and I know the CZ trigger is supposed to be one of the best stock triggers on a .22 bolt action.