Dekers Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 What should I get?..... it's like asking who you should marry! Get what you want, but you will never NEED anything more than a CZ! This is my American (WMR) looks the same as the HMR. ATB! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat g Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Ahem... Weihrauch anyone? Weirhauch are quality as are Annshutz. Compare them alongside a CZ and you will realise, but as has been said a CZ will do the job and last a lifetime if looked after properly. Have a look at them all and see what you feel more happy with,but you wont go wrong with a CZ, cracking workhorse ATB, pat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barney 66 Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Anschutz 1517,love mine but also liked my cousins T bolt havent tried anything else,but wouldnt change anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 This is my CZ American varmint, 16" barrel. I agree with some earlier posts that the varmint barrel is not really necessary in HMR, but the extra weight isn't really noticeable, especially in a 16" barrel. It's a bloody brilliant rifle, laser accurate and reliable. The trigger was good on mine from new and improved even more with a trigger kit. I also have a Weihrauch HW60J in .22 LR so can draw some comparisons. The hogs back stock on the HW60 takes some getting used to. The trigger pull is good, very adjustable and feels a little nicer than the CZ. But I have had a few problems with mine, if you don't get the over travel adjuster just-so - it occasionaly fails to cock when you close the bolt. I think I have it sorted now, but it took a lot of fiddling. It's a lovely light and pointable rifle and does feel "quality". But to be honest, not significantly more than the CZ. Another downside to the Weihrauch - spare mags are like rocking horse poo and cost over fifty quid for a 5 shot one. So overall, whilst the HW60 is nice, I'm not sure it's better than a CZ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shropshire_Lad Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 This is my CZ American varmint, 16" barrel. I agree with some earlier posts that the varmint barrel is not really necessary in HMR, but the extra weight isn't really noticeable, especially in a 16" barrel. It's a bloody brilliant rifle, laser accurate and reliable. The trigger was good on mine from new and improved even more with a trigger kit. I also have a Weihrauch HW60J in .22 LR so can draw some comparisons. The hogs back stock on the HW60 takes some getting used to. The trigger pull is good, very adjustable and feels a little nicer than the CZ. But I have had a few problems with mine, if you don't get the over travel adjuster just-so - it occasionaly fails to cock when you close the bolt. I think I have it sorted now, but it took a lot of fiddling. It's a lovely light and pointable rifle and does feel "quality". But to be honest, not significantly more than the CZ. Another downside to the Weihrauch - spare mags are like rocking horse poo and cost over fifty quid for a 5 shot one. So overall, whilst the HW60 is nice, I'm not sure it's better than a CZ. A great post and thanks for an honest write up. With Rimfires there is no doubt that the top makes are more refined, that goes with all things in life but if you are on a budget the little CZ will get you great results. A little while back they were unbeatable value for money but they have shot up recently. atvb Paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougy Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 What about a Ruger 77/17 :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.I.A Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 I'm in the hw60j camp, far far better than a cz in my opinion Get one, you will not be disappointed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 I'm in the hw60j camp, far far better than a cz in my opinion Get one, you will not be disappointed I would disagree with that, and I own both. Which for the OP, just goes to show it doesn't matter what other people think, as we all have different views and preferences. It's what you like that matters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 I'm in the hw60j camp, far far better than a cz in my opinion Get one, you will not be disappointed Personal opinions are always interesting but I hear phrases like this all the time. I'm not trying to start one but please enlighten me as to what FAR FAR BETTER means, in which way is it FAR FAR BETTER? Is it more accurate, is it more reliable, will it last any longer, will it stop more bunnies.....NO! Is it more expensive, is it heavier, is it better made ......... very possibly! So, by what definition is it FAR FAR BETTER? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Personal opinions are always interesting but I hear phrases like this all the time. I'm not trying to start one but please enlighten me as to what FAR FAR BETTER means, in which way is it FAR FAR BETTER? Is it more accurate, is it more reliable, will it last any longer, will it stop more bunnies.....NO! Is it more expensive, is it heavier, is it better made ......... very possibly! So, by what definition is it FAR FAR BETTER? It has better woodwork, better finishing, slicker action, better engineering all round, a better trigger and a general feel of better quality. The FAR FAR bit is likely to be personal enthusiasm. The degree of 'better' is actually quite small. But it should be better, it costs more. Whether any of this matters in real life is entirely subjective. The only thing that's certain is that both rifles will shoot better than the person shooting them. Other people's opinions, in either direction, are a guide only. Go and try before you buy, or at least handle before you buy. If you you can't live without the Germanic refinement of the Weihrauch, buy the Weihrauch. If £200 is too much to pay for a bit of luxury, buy the CZ. Either way you'll have a fine rifle and if you're pleased with it, feel you've made the right choice and you enjoy owning it you'll have confidence in it, and confidence makes all the difference in the field. I agree with Blunderbuss about Weihrauch spares. They're too expensive and hard to get. If Weihrauch are reading this they should take note. Weihrauch make an excellent adjustable butt pad for their air rifles. I'd like a couple of those for my HWs but you can't buy them. Why don't Weihrauch make their excellent quality accessories readily available? And if you're a bipod addict the schnabel tip of the HW60 is not the best fore-end. The HW66 would be better but costs more again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Goodshot Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 I have recently bought a HW60j .17 HMR. The process I went through to arrive at the Weirauch as the weapon of choice was long winded affair, comparing, trying out etc.. as they all basically achieve the same results in the field, accurate kills. Now where it changed was in the finish,the action and positive bolt throw, the trigger (two stage), over all look. The HW60j had a definite edge, so you blow the budget and get something that looks the dogs danglies, gives you the confidence to shoot at quarry beyond 150m... result!! scrape the dosh together, they are good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROWalYeLikUrDEAD Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 I have a CZ .17 HMR my first rifle and I never regretted it once very flat firing rifle brillant from 60-140 yards - will and does kill to 180-220 yards but I just don't need that sort off distance and wud need to improve me aim to do so!! I'm now looking a .22 and CZ Is I only make I'm going for again- u will not be disappointed my friend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Goodshot Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Pictures of said weapon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shropshire_Lad Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Pictures of said weapon... very nice no left hander though. nice to see some pics of peoples rifle, always enjoyable. atvb Paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweedledee Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 hw are definitely better built.either as accurate as each other.sadly cz don't have a trigger like the hw.that's where the hw wins .you can fit trigger kits all day long to the cz and it don't come close Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Another point that hasn't been mentioned is that a rifle should be a reasonably fit and feel comfortable. I could have foregone the silkier feel of the HW and bought a CZ with a trigger kit if it had not felt small, cramped and undersized. The Weihrauch had CF proportions in comparison. Sakos and Annies are 'adult' sized as well. The Ruger rimfires, semis and bolt action feel a bit on the miniscule side, and so do T-bolts. Or they do to me. It doesn't matter how swish and pretty you rifle is or how good value it is if you have to contort yourself to shoot it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillmouse Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 I started my sporting rifle career 32 years ago with a BRNO .22 Since then I have tried and owned several makes, Sako, Ruger, Tikka, Mannlicher, BSA, Parker Hale, Weirauch Anschutz etc. There are many smoother, lighter, slicker, better finished and definitely more expensive rifles than the CZ, but for accuracy and VFM none touch the CZ. Workmanlike and functional, pretty enough, nice wood on some pictured on here, but if you ding, it dent it or scratch it it isnt the end of the world and you can spend a few hundred more on a better scope. I have a CZ thumbhole .22, 16" barrel. First chgance I get the Ruger 77/17 all weather is going and the CZ thumbhole in .17HMR is filling its place. I did fit a trigger kit and it has made a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pickle! Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 T bolt and sak mod I ve had mine 2 months now and u get 2 ten shots mag with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbiter Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 ive just bought a cz 455 thumbhole .17hmr and love it already,my mate likes it so much hes putting in for a variation to get one aswell...good luck with whatever you decide to get... DAZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 I've recently bought a second hand 452 set up and I love it. The HW and Annie look beautiful but I'm a bit of a tart and would cry if I dinked the stock, I've always been like this lol. The 452 is affordable, more than fit for purpose, and I won't cry if I knock it I've got an HW100 though and it's so, so good. Amazing piece of kit so I understand why people rate the make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 It has better woodwork, better finishing, slicker action, better engineering all round, a better trigger and a general feel of better quality. The FAR FAR bit is likely to be personal enthusiasm. The degree of 'better' is actually quite small. But it should be better, it costs more. Whether any of this matters in real life is entirely subjective. The only thing that's certain is that both rifles will shoot better than the person shooting them. Other people's opinions, in either direction, are a guide only. Go and try before you buy, or at least handle before you buy. If you you can't live without the Germanic refinement of the Weihrauch, buy the Weihrauch. If £200 is too much to pay for a bit of luxury, buy the CZ. Either way you'll have a fine rifle and if you're pleased with it, feel you've made the right choice and you enjoy owning it you'll have confidence in it, and confidence makes all the difference in the field. I agree with Blunderbuss about Weihrauch spares. They're too expensive and hard to get. If Weihrauch are reading this they should take note. Weihrauch make an excellent adjustable butt pad for their air rifles. I'd like a couple of those for my HWs but you can't buy them. Why don't Weihrauch make their excellent quality accessories readily available? And if you're a bipod addict the schnabel tip of the HW60 is not the best fore-end. The HW66 would be better but costs more again. No specific argument in any of that, and I'm not looking for an argument at all..... but it doesn't answer the question ... the primary objective of a rifle is to shoot straight and accurately and repeatably and be reliable. My point is, which part of that does ANY rifle do over a CZ, and apparently make it FAR FAR BETTER? You don't hear people say I missed because the woodwork was rubbish on the CZ, I missed because the finishing is terrible on my CZ, I missed because the engineering isn't up to it, I missed because of the general feel and quality, ..people DON'T miss with a CZ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) No specific argument in any of that, and I'm not looking for an argument at all..... but it doesn't answer the question ... the primary objective of a rifle is to shoot straight and accurately and repeatably and be reliable. My point is, which part of that does ANY rifle do over a CZ, and apparently make it FAR FAR BETTER? You don't hear people say I missed because the woodwork was rubbish on the CZ, I missed because the finishing is terrible on my CZ, I missed because the engineering isn't up to it, I missed because of the general feel and quality, ..people DON'T miss with a CZ! My point was that those things you've highlighted matter to some people and not to others. The only way those with little or no experience of rifles can decide whether they'll matter to them is to go and handle a few different makes for themselves. CZs aren't the only make of rifle in the world and if someone likes the idea of a bit of polish on their otherwise servicable and accurate rifle are they are happy to pay a little exra for it then why shouldn't they? It is still in theory a free country. Aesthetics matter to some people while others couldn't care less. We are all different and we have different tastes. You must not let the fact excite you. Oh and people do miss, even with CZs. I've seen them do it. Edited June 11, 2012 by Gimlet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 My point was that those things you've highlighted matter to some people and not to others. The only way those with little or no experience of rifles can decide whether they'll matter to them is to go and handle a few different makes for themselves. CZs aren't the only make of rifle in the world and if someone likes the idea of a bit of polish on their otherwise servicable and accurate rifle are they are happy to pay a little exra for it then why shouldn't they? It is still in theory a free country. Aesthetics matter to some people while others couldn't care less. We are all different and we have different tastes. You must not let the fact excite you. Oh and people do miss, even with CZs. I've seen them do it. I'm not getting my point across well, I accept that there may well be rifles that have better woodwork, engineering, action, triggers, whatever, than the CZ, and I have no problem with people wanting that. That does NOT make them a FAR FAR BETTER rifle, and they will not stop any more bunnies or be more reliable or last any longer, thats what I was trying to get across. I simply struggle when people make blanket comments that its a FAR FAR BETTER rifle, measured on what parameters? Certainly NONE that have any effect on its performance in the field! WHY does better wood, or feel or whatever make it a FAR FAR BETTER rifle when they give absolutely no increase in overall performance, simply asthetics. A CZ is an effective field tool that will last the vast majority of people a lifetime, if I needed another rifle it would be a CZ, buying anything else will not give me any advantage in the field. If I wanted nicer wood, smoother action, better trigger then I may well invest in a different rifle, but it will not be a better or more efficient shooting tool and will NOT be a FAR FAR BETTER rifle, it will simply have a bit better wood etc, there is NO practical gain, simply asthetics. Again I stress, I have no issue with that whatsoever, but lets be careful about terminology, if my CZ could shoot 1-10 rabbits and a Sako could shoot 10-10 rabbits then I'd say it was a FAR FAR BETTER rifle, but it won't. Thats my point, probably still not making it clear! I refer to my original post...... Personal opinions are always interesting but I hear phrases like this all the time. I'm not trying to start one but please enlighten me as to what FAR FAR BETTER means, in which way is it FAR FAR BETTER? Is it more accurate, is it more reliable, will it last any longer, will it stop more bunnies.....NO! Is it more expensive, is it heavier, is it better made ......... very possibly! So, by what definition is it FAR FAR BETTER? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 It has better woodwork, better finishing, slicker action, better engineering all round, a better trigger and a general feel of better quality. The FAR FAR bit is likely to be personal enthusiasm. The degree of 'better' is actually quite small. But it should be better, it costs more. Whether any of this matters in real life is entirely subjective. The only thing that's certain is that both rifles will shoot better than the person shooting them. Other people's opinions, in either direction, are a guide only. Go and try before you buy, or at least handle before you buy. If you you can't live without the Germanic refinement of the Weihrauch, buy the Weihrauch. If £200 is too much to pay for a bit of luxury, buy the CZ. Either way you'll have a fine rifle and if you're pleased with it, feel you've made the right choice and you enjoy owning it you'll have confidence in it, and confidence makes all the difference in the field. I agree with Blunderbuss about Weihrauch spares. They're too expensive and hard to get. If Weihrauch are reading this they should take note. Weihrauch make an excellent adjustable butt pad for their air rifles. I'd like a couple of those for my HWs but you can't buy them. Why don't Weihrauch make their excellent quality accessories readily available? And if you're a bipod addict the schnabel tip of the HW60 is not the best fore-end. The HW66 would be better but costs more again. Sshh. Breath deep think calming thoughts. ^_^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweedledee Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) the hw is superior no doubt, i know i have both.anyone saying cz secretly wishes they went the extra mile for the hw lol Edited June 11, 2012 by tweedledee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.