Jump to content
[[Template core/global/global/lkeyWarning does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
Retcop

CZ 457 American

[[Template core/global/global/pagination is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Recommended Posts

I want one !

 

https://cz-usa.com/product/cz-457-american/

 

Since the preceding models have been discontinued, this is CZ's attempt to give the American market what it wants, according to NRA,

how got excellent accuracy with three different loads (that were all 40 grain) in this month's issue. 

With 50 yard groups as small as .55 in at 50 yards, and overall for 3 loads no bigger than .75 average, it looks like a winner. 

With an MSRP of $467.00 I would imagine you could get one for just under $400.00.

 

I do have one question for our .22 rimfire rifle experts: (not to argue with success, just curious) 

Is a 24 + inch barrel really necessary to realize that accuracy and velocity in .22 LR ?  I would think a 22" would be a bit handier in the woods (20" ?)

and should bring the weight to under 6 pounds.  What's the scoop on a 24.8 inch long .22 barrel (including the chamber)  Thanks.   John

Did I mention I wanted one ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

As I understand it, the whole deal with the longer barrels besides having less "wiggle room" from the forward support point, is that the longer barrels actually slow down the bullet some so that they aren't transitioning to subsonic in flight, which could possibly disrupt the bullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Looks like a nice rifle!  You'll have to let us know how it shoots! :segrin:

 

Longhairs comment is news to me.  Never heard this before.  I'm always up for some learning though! :thumb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
49 minutes ago, newbe said:

Longhairs comment is news to me.  Never heard this before.  I'm always up for some learning though! :thumb:

Highest velocities are achieved with barrels in the 18-20" range. Beyond that you start to lose speed. Many match rifles are in the 24-28" range, and I assume it's for the reasons I stated in the above post.

If you do the math, a .22LR barrel that is a 1:16 twist, with a bullet that is moving 1200FPS at the muzzle, it's only spinning at 54,000RPM. Drop the speed to 1100FPS and you lose 4,500RPM. Drop it even further to 1050 to be sure it's subsonic, and it's down to 47,250RPM, or 6,750RPM slower than the 1200FPS pill. In other words, you're not losing much in terms of rotational stability, but you may find that it sacrifices accuracy less than the disruption of having the sonic shock wave catch up to it.

 

Now compare that to a .223 with a 1:8 twist moving out the muzzle @ 3200FPS.....it's spinning 288,000RPM. That additional initial rotational speed is why they are less affected by the trans-sonic phase than something like a .22LR bullet, even with longer time of flight. They don't shed rotational speed commensurately with velocity.

Edited by Longhair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Those are amazing rifles. I want one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
4 hours ago, Longhair said:

Highest velocities are achieved with barrels in the 18-20" range. Beyond that you start to lose speed. Many match rifles are in the 24-28" range, and I assume it's for the reasons I stated in the above post.

If you do the math, a .22LR barrel that is a 1:16 twist, with a bullet that is moving 1200FPS at the muzzle, it's only spinning at 54,000RPM. Drop the speed to 1100FPS and you lose 4,500RPM. Drop it even further to 1050 to be sure it's subsonic, and it's down to 47,250RPM, or 6,750RPM slower than the 1200FPS pill. In other words, you're not losing much in terms of rotational stability, but you may find that it sacrifices accuracy less than the disruption of having the sonic shock wave catch up to it.

 

Now compare that to a .223 with a 1:8 twist moving out the muzzle @ 3200FPS.....it's spinning 288,000RPM. That additional initial rotational speed is why they are less affected by the trans-sonic phase than something like a .22LR bullet, even with longer time of flight. They don't shed rotational speed commensurately with velocity.

 

Damn, this is interesting.  NEVER thought about sonic shock before.  Will have to do a little research.

Great looking rifle.... but, where are the sights? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
6 hours ago, Longhair said:

Highest velocities are achieved with barrels in the 18-20" range. Beyond that you start to lose speed. Many match rifles are in the 24-28" range, and I assume it's for the reasons I stated in the above post.

If you do the math, a .22LR barrel that is a 1:16 twist, with a bullet that is moving 1200FPS at the muzzle, it's only spinning at 54,000RPM. Drop the speed to 1100FPS and you lose 4,500RPM. Drop it even further to 1050 to be sure it's subsonic, and it's down to 47,250RPM, or 6,750RPM slower than the 1200FPS pill. In other words, you're not losing much in terms of rotational stability, but you may find that it sacrifices accuracy less than the disruption of having the sonic shock wave catch up to it.

 

Now compare that to a .223 with a 1:8 twist moving out the muzzle @ 3200FPS.....it's spinning 288,000RPM. That additional initial rotational speed is why they are less affected by the trans-sonic phase than something like a .22LR bullet, even with longer time of flight. They don't shed rotational speed commensurately with velocity.

Why not just make the barrels shorter?  You'll lose velocity that way too, and have a stiffer more accurate barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
5 hours ago, newbe said:

Why not just make the barrels shorter?  You'll lose velocity that way too, and have a stiffer more accurate barrel.

It won't necessarily be any stiffer, and it definitely won't be more accurate for the same reason that you don't want to mount your bipod right in front of the mag well.

Think of your barrel like a support structure for the bullet, similar to the bipod being the support structure for the barrel. The further away your distal support is, the more movement is required to shift POA/POI off target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
20 hours ago, Longhair said:

As I understand it, the whole deal with the longer barrels besides having less "wiggle room" from the forward support point, is that the longer barrels actually slow down the bullet some so that they aren't transitioning to subsonic in flight, which could possibly disrupt the bullet.

 

Very Interesting. I had not thought of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
8 hours ago, wish2no said:

 

Damn, this is interesting.  NEVER thought about sonic shock before.  Will have to do a little research.

Great looking rifle.... but, where are the sights? 

 

CZ's efforts to update their 400 series .22 bolt actions for the American market indicated that the overwhelming USA buys are going to put a scope on it, so the top of the receiver is grooved for the scope mounts. I'd like to have sights also, but it would be a pain especially to get a front sight installed, unless somebody knows of an easy fix. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

You can also buy a combo set that includes a .17 caliber barrel for those 1,000 yard shots.   :segrin:

I think I'd rather have .22 magnum for  second barrel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
3 hours ago, Longhair said:

It won't necessarily be any stiffer, and it definitely won't be more accurate for the same reason that you don't want to mount your bipod right in front of the mag well.

Think of your barrel like a support structure for the bullet, similar to the bipod being the support structure for the barrel. The further away your distal support is, the more movement is required to shift POA/POI off target.

You're not mounting the bipod to the barrel, you're mounting it to the stock.  The barrel sticks out way beyond the stock.  Not sure how it compares in this scenario?

 

And a shorter barrel is stiffer than a longer one all things equal.  There's less "whip" in a shorter barrel.  Longer barrels are generally used for gaining velocity.  

 

Thats Why I said the theory you presented was new to me.  Not necessarily incorrect, just not something that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
13 minutes ago, newbe said:

You're not mounting the bipod to the barrel, you're mounting it to the stock.  The barrel sticks out way beyond the stock.  Not sure how it compares in this scenario?

 

And a shorter barrel is stiffer than a longer one all things equal.  There's less "whip" in a shorter barrel.  Longer barrels are generally used for gaining velocity.  

 

Thats Why I said the theory you presented was new to me.  Not necessarily incorrect, just not something that makes sense.

Smaller diameter barrels are more prone to "whip", and are more susceptible to the effects of harmonics. However, beyond a certain point larger diameter barrels will reach a point of diminishing return in terms of rigidity.

And no, you don't mount bipods to barrels, but (for instance) a lot of newer precision rifles have handguards that extend further forward than ever, and even have rail extensions specifically so that you can mount the bipod as far forward as possible. This is done to reduce the 'wiggle" factor which negatively impacts accuracy. It's similar to longer handgun or rifle barrels with irons that have longer sight radius, in that there is less room for error with them being longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
18 minutes ago, Longhair said:

Smaller diameter barrels are more prone to "whip", and are more susceptible to the effects of harmonics. However, beyond a certain point larger diameter barrels will reach a point of diminishing return in terms of rigidity.

And no, you don't mount bipods to barrels, but (for instance) a lot of newer precision rifles have handguards that extend further forward than ever, and even have rail extensions specifically so that you can mount the bipod as far forward as possible. This is done to reduce the 'wiggle" factor which negatively impacts accuracy. It's similar to longer handgun or rifle barrels with irons that have longer sight radius, in that there is less room for error with them being longer.

But we're talking about retcops CZ and its longer barrel length.  I'm well aware of all those other things you've mentioned. I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the theory you presented.  Using a longer barrel to increase drag and slow the bullet down so it goes subsonic is news to me.

 

Do you have a link to any reference material on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
21 minutes ago, newbe said:

But we're talking about retcops CZ and its longer barrel length.  I'm well aware of all those other things you've mentioned. I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the theory you presented.  Using a longer barrel to increase drag and slow the bullet down so it goes subsonic is news to me.

 

Do you have a link to any reference material on this?

Interested I went looking.....so far one against....I'll update what I find.

https://ebrammo.com/info-tools/subsonic-rounds-and-long-barrels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
[[Template core/global/global/pagination is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/google does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • [[Template core/front/sharelinks/stumble does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...
[[Template core/global/global/includeJS is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]