[3662]

All things being equal (actions, fit and finish, etc) which rifle would you choose and why- the 452 Lux or the Varmint?

I'm fond of open sights as an option (As unlikely as it is to happen; I'd hate a broken scope to ruin a good day of hunting..) The stock seems a tad weird to me on the Lux. Since I've never handled one, all pictures of it give the impression of a cheekpeice (?). How does the 'hump' on the Lux rate with you owners?

As to the Varmint...A heavy barrels purpose is to aide in consistent barrel harmonics (vibrations) as well as to lessen the affects of heat during prolonged firing. Does the heavier barrel make that much difference to those that have shot both to compare?

I'm leaning towards the Lux with a 4x fixed scope for my needs...

Tim

I'd be greatful to those who could post or email me pics of either rifle that aren't from the CZ web site...Since I have to mail order my rifle, I'd like to give it an all over visual check out first. Thanks.

 

[147]

I have a Special (Lux in Beech) and I shoot with both the iron sights and a scope.

The hogback stock is a little unfamiliar to American shooters used to a straight comb. My feeling about it is that it is very comfortable to shoot with - particularly offhand and especially with the iron sights. It does look a little strange but it feels nice. There is no cheekpiece - the buttstock is basically smooth. I have no complaints about it with either scope or iron sights.

If you are planning to hunt with it I would go with the Lux or Special. The iron sights are unmatched and once you calibrate them it is a simple matter to slide the sights to whatever range between 25 and 200 meters and be able to hit your target. More important they are much lighter than the Varmint and my guess is that they are much more comfortable to shoot under field conditions.

As reported by other posters in this forum there is no measurable difference in accuracy.

Hey, here's an idea: buy one of each!

 

[3662]

Thanks for your input Brookie.

You, along with others here, have extolled the virtues of the CZ iron sights. Strangely, being from Canada, I think I'll be able to work easily with calibrations marked off in metric. I've always had to work at guessing yards...metres, well thats what I was raised on in school.

Some additional questions:
What are the increments for the rear sight? 25m-50m-75m, etc?

The old BRNO I had bought used, apparently had some problems with the bolt clearing the scope (it was bent and ground down) which scope rings did you use, and at what height. As well, what type of scope do you use on your Lux?

And as to your coment about buying one of each...I'd love to, but I value my marriage too much to risk a divorce...LOL!...but if I space out the purchases....mmmmmm

Take care.

 

[147]

I haven't had any problems with the scope and bolt handle hitting. I have used high rings mainly with several different scopes - Simmons 1048 6.5-20x44AO, Weaver T-36, and Weaver V9 being the main ones. Currently I am using some of my own mount adapters with high Burris Signature Zee rings. That clears the sight base easily but the adapters add about 1/2 inch or 1.2 cm to the top of the receiver. I have also used BKL rings which are medium to high and Tasco 22 rings which are medium. Is is possible that the bolt handles are different?

The sight is marked from 25 to 200 meters in 25 meter increments. There is one stop between each marked increment so the increments are 12.5 m. I'm pretty sure these are in meters but I would guess that if you calibrated it to a distance in yards the settings would be close enough. I use a 10% conversion factor - 200 m = ~220 yards or 200 yards = ~180 meters - not perfect but good enough for most applications.

Another brilliant idea - buy one for you and one for the wife. Nothing promotes good marital relations better than shared activities.