Author Topic: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American  (Read 79806 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline HotRod9mm

  • Posts: 25
CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« on: June 14, 2010, 12:30:46 AM »
First off I want to let everyone know I started this as a side-by-side comparison only to realize that that would be
 a disservice to both the CZ 452 American we have all enjoyed over the years and to the New CZ 455 American. I think CZ
 missed the boat by calling the 455 a “replacement” to the 452 rather they should have left it as the end of one model
 and the beginning of a new one. That said I’m going to try and compare them only to show, in my opinion, what I think are
 improvements and differences rather then stating what I think CZ did wrong or messed up.



Nothing stellar about the stock as it is still just a plain CZ. I’m sure there will be a few that pop-up with some nice figure to
 them sometime in the future. One of the first things you notice when you pick up the 455 is the barrel channel looks real wide
 and it is. CZ made sure the stock no longer touches the barrel anywhere on the underside or as with a lot of the 452 models,
putting pressure on the left side of the barrel.



The channel in the stock is tapered all the way to the end so it would take a little work to “drop in” a straight bull barrel.
 The next thing about the barrel is the contour is tapered from the receiver all the way to the end of the barrel. The other
 thing about the barrel it is no longer polished and shinny but has more of a dull satin finish that way the critters are less
 likely to see something shinny when you are in the woods.

The receivers are different as pointed out in some of the threads on the forum. The receiver has some subtle but to me some
 nice changes, most of the edges have a nice radius and with far less tool marks then the 452. The ejection port shape has changed
 slightly as well as the receiver now has a 11mm dovetail.



 The back of the 455 is squared off and thicker for the single lug bolt, and the non-dovetail rear action screw.



Turning the gun over CZ reshaped the tin trigger guard trying to make the rolled steel a little more palatable.



Gone is the 3 hole guard, it is replace with just 2 action screws, the wood screw was left out.



The #30 Torx action screw is a nice improvement over the old slotted screws.


Working the bolt on the 455 was a little disappointing on the one in the photos. It was very rough feeling. A little
polishing should make a BIG difference. The trigger pull is not much different then the stock 452, long, gritty and at 3lbs 12oz
 for a 10 pull average on my digital Lyman gauge right out of the box.

Removing the two Torx screws(47/57), it looks like CZ purchased them off the shelf rather then make them in house(just guessing).



The receiver(15) slides out of the stock with ease and everything stays together until you turn the receiver on its side,
 the “Magazine Housing Insert Pin”(13) falls out.



 With the receiver out it looks like the stock should be a lot easer to bed or install pillars if you are so inclined. Both the
action screws thread directly into the receiver making the stock fit seam a lot more solid.



The trigger is about the only thing that looks the same as the 452. Not sure if the magazine well(16) is the same as the 22MAG/17HMR
 other then the hole for the “Magazine Housing Insert Pin”(13). The angle of the trigger rod/spring is different also.





Wanting a little better trigger pull for the “test” target I pulled the sear out, only to find it is different then the 452 sear that
 came in the 22Mag so I modified one of mine because I wanted both to have adjustable sears with about the same pull weight
 for the target testing.



 I do not recommend the modification(wait for the new adjustable sear) as it does not keep the bolt from sliding out of the
 receiver when pulling it open every time. The adjustable sear dropped the trigger pull to 2-lbs 10oz with the stock spring
 at the factory setting, backing the spring nut off I easily achieved 2-lbs and that is where I had hoped to end up so both
 rifles would be about the same.

I left the barrel in the receiver because I wanted to see how it would group out of the box without changing too much. I’m
 sure some will say that the threaded barrel in the 452 is FAR superior to the 455s set screws and to that I would just say
 then that would make my Anschutz somewhere near the bottom quality wise because they used a pin to secure the barrel.

The bolts are noticeable different in that the 455 had to accommodate both 22lr and the 22Mag cartridge.





As pointed out the single lug of the 455 allowed CZ to thread the action screw directly into the receiver having the extra thickness
 in the bottom of the receiver where the second lug used to be.



I’m not sure why yet but the magazines are slightly different in that the end has a “U” shaped notch where the cartridge exits.



I did notice when shooting the test targets that some of bullets were getting shaved slightly. That may be why the magazines
 are different, as I did not notice if the old mag was the only one shaving the bullet or not.

After putting the 455 back together, installing a standard picatinny mount and tossing on the old Tasco 6-24 AO scope, I grabbed my portable bench and a few sand bags then headed out to punch some paper.

I got the scope close and shot about 20-30rds chasing hulls out to about 75yrds so the barrel would be fouled a little.

First group was Federal 510 and it was, well, ok for Federal.



Next I shot some CCI subs as that is what I like to use in my can, the group tightened up rather well.



After that I tried some Winchester SS ammo I picked up on a road trip through Tulsa, OK. I think the stringing might have been
 from not shooting enough through the barrel before moving to the paper.



 Next I shot 10-15rds of Wolf MT before moving to the paper. This is where I noticed, like most any of my other I own, CZ 455 liked Wolf MT.



All the 5 shot groups(except the Win-only 4) were done at just short of 50yrds and I think they are plenty good for minute-of-squirrel.

Overall I don’t see many people being disappointed with the 455 as a first purchase. I’m sure because it is a “first model year”
 there will be some small things show up but for the most part,  for me anyway, it’s another CZ to add to the collection.



 8)

Offline viking499

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2064
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2010, 12:39:50 AM »
Very nice comparison.  Love all the detail and pics.

If you went with only one, would it be the 452 or 455?

Offline Golfbuddy45

  • Posts: 3
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2010, 01:03:21 PM »
I am also interested in what viking499 asked - if you could only by ONE which would you choose. 

My other question is - Do you plan to get the new barrels in .22WMR and/or .17HMR?  That is my main reason for considering the 455 over the 452.

 ;D

Offline viking499

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2064
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2010, 02:00:32 PM »
The barrels are a consideration, depending on the price.  I have not heard anybody say what they will cost.

Offline Golfbuddy45

  • Posts: 3
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American additional Barrels
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2010, 10:09:38 PM »
I sent a message to CZ yesterday asking if they know when the new CZ455 barrel conversions will be available and a possible cost. 

No answer yet. 

Offline HotRod9mm

  • Posts: 25
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2010, 02:43:50 AM »
......If you went with only one, would it be the 452 or 455?....

If the extra barrels were available then it would be the 455 all the way. Then I would not
 worry so much about ammo supplies running low.




 8)

Offline Dr.Nick

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2010, 01:33:52 PM »
Thanks for the review, from a newbie point of view, there seems to be alot of variants of the 452.

Offline accuracy

  • Posts: 1
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2010, 06:26:18 AM »
Do you know where i can found the same picatinny base for a 455 ?

Excuse my bad english...

Offline blaufisch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2010, 09:08:27 AM »
Great review HotRod9mm!
I have a couple of questions / comments if wouldn't mind taking a stab at answering.  I am seriously considering buying a CZ American but not sure to go with the 452 or 455.  I have the CZ 452 Special Military which I had scope and I recently took off the scope to try out the iron sight.  Once I did, I fell in love.  It was like I rediscovered a whole new gun.  I love the iron sights so much I have a hard time imagining putting the scope back on.  So here is my dilemma, I still want a scoped CZ .22lr but don't want to put back the scope on my CZ 452 Special Military.  Clearly, the only way to resolve this conflict is get a CZ American which was built for a scope where as the LUX / Special Military was not.

Here are my pain points:
1.  Obviously the CZ 452 is a proven commodity.  I am not sure I would grant this status to the CZ 455, would you?
2.  I am a firm believer in simplicity.  The 452 tries to be nothing more than what it is where as the 455 "might" be trying to do to much.  Having the ability to change barrels and caliber is nice and all, but if you put the 2 models side by side in a .22lr configuration which is the better gun.  (Little bit like a Swiss Army knife, can do a bunch of things but at the cost of being a good knife).  Said another way, if your asking the two models to do one thing which is better?
3.  You made a very interesting comment "I think CZ missed the boat by calling the 455 a “replacement” to the 452".  Back to the simplicity principle, if it aint broke don't fix it.  The CZ 452 American has legendary status.  Do you envision the 455 being able to live up to that?

Thanks for you help.

Regards,

Matt
« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 09:10:48 AM by blaufisch »

Offline manofsteele69

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2010, 08:36:15 AM »
wow I dont know how I missed this,  great review and very much needed, thank you for all the information.

Authorized CZ dealer
Accept Credit Cards no fees
www.steelefirearms.com

Offline HotRod9mm

  • Posts: 25
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2010, 11:05:53 AM »
1.  Obviously the CZ 452 is a proven commodity.  I am not sure I would grant this status to the CZ 455, would you?
Tough call. It would all depend on your needs and the laws. In the UK & AU you are limited on the firearms you can own so the ability to switch barrels might be a huge plus. If you wanted a "bug-out-gun" then maybe the 455 would be better because of the chance to have 3 different types of ammo? Plus its a little early for the 455 to make the call.


Quote

2.  I am a firm believer in simplicity.  The 452 tries to be nothing more than what it is where as the 455 "might" be trying to do to much.  Having the ability to change barrels and caliber is nice and all, but if you put the 2 models side by side in a .22lr configuration which is the better gun.  (Little bit like a Swiss Army knife, can do a bunch of things but at the cost of being a good knife).  Said another way, if your asking the two models to do one thing which is better?
I like both and that could be a problem. I can see spending a day at the range swaping barrels, taking notes so I know where the scope is for each one, making the barrel swap a no-brainer for the most part. The 455 also makes production easer, something that all big companys are doing these days.


Quote

3.  You made a very interesting comment "I think CZ missed the boat by calling the 455 a “replacement” to the 452".  Back to the simplicity principle, if it aint broke don't fix it.  The CZ 452 American has legendary status.  Do you envision the 455 being able to live up to that?
Like anything it’s the end of one model and the beginning of another. I would guess that when the BRNO was closed out, and the 452 started, people said the same thing asking the same question. I don't see it as a step backwards or forward but as, a company streamlining production to stay in business and competitive. 



.

Offline blaufisch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2010, 10:17:17 PM »
Thanks for the response.  I am not going to buy one for a little while (XMAS time).

I never thought of the 455 as a loophole to being limited to the number of guns you can own.  Lived in the UK for 2 years and was gun-less the whole time.  No such problem here in Texas.

Still debating between the American and the Varmint and the models 452, 453, or 455.  I don't much about the 453 other than that it comes w/ the single set trigger.  Need to do some research their.

Part of my decision will be based on what they have on hand at http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/ here in Houston or if I can get a good deal on gunbroker.com .  Sometimes they will give me a little discount at Collector's Firearms on a gun since I am such a good customer  ;D

Thanks again,
Matt

Offline Bushpilot

  • Posts: 2
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2011, 11:55:23 AM »
Frankly, I'm sorry to see the general direction that the CZ rimfire rifle line is headed.  Although the 455 is, of course, being heralded as an improvement, it really is just a cheapening of the product.  It kind of reminds me of the whole "pre 64" and "post 64" Winchester model 70 debacle without the dramatic cosmetic change.  I'm sure the 455 will perform adequately enough to satisfy some buyers, especially those with a penchant for gimmicks. This brings me to the ability to swap barrels.  I believe this design change is more of a means to speed up and simplify the manufacturing and assembly process instead of a design improvement.  However, this cheapening of the rifle is being marketed as a selling point which in my opinion isn’t any real benefit for most shooters. Who really wants to re-sight their rifles every time they swap the barrel? And, more importantly, rifles with threaded barrels are, more often then not, going to be stronger and more accurate then those that use some sort of clamping mechanism. Also, changing the barrel on a 455 isn't like swapping a shotgun barrel.  How many times can this be done before the fit of the rifle becomes sloppy.  The other major change, removing the second locking lug, reminds me of the various cheap bolt actions single shots that utilized the bolt handle as the only locking lug. Two symmetrical locking lugs, which support and lock the bolt more evenly, are better then one from an accuracy standpoint.  Is all of this absolutely necessary on a sporting class rimfire rifle, probably not. But that is precisely what made the 452 such a great rifle The 452 was built to a higher standard, better then it needed to be.  Just the opinion of one proud owner of 4 CZ rimfire rifles who is happy to have bought them before they were replaced by the 455.

Offline Nupes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2011, 11:41:53 PM »
Well Bushpilot I respect your opinion but I believe it is a bit tainted from your obvious love for the 452. From my personal experiences with both the 452 and 455 I see no noticable reduction in the quality of the newer kid on the block.  In fact, many of the parts are more finely turned and polished than the 452.  No more lopsided fits of the barrel in the stock, smooth breach faces and much nicer finish on the metal.  The barrel swap was not intended to be done thousands of times but decent pillars and bedding avoids wear and tear on the wood if one were inclined to do so.  Many fine high end target rifles incorporate the same barrel swapping method as the 455 and will outshoot most threaded barrel sporters and target rifles.  The fit of course must be very close and the one on my 455 is.  The single barrel lug is also of little concern.  The design of rimfire cartridges does allows for repeated centered positioning in the chamber because of some small play around the rim on the bolt face before lock up.  It has been proven long ago from many comparisons that the low pressures of the 22 LR cartridge in no way whatsoever require a second lug for any purpose and it is the male/female bolt fit itself that keeps chambering consistant between shots. This fit is tight and the bolt cycling is smooth as silk on my 455 (after a few hundred break in shots).  Some experts argue that eventual uneven wear on opposed lugs actually reduces accuracy in the long run and that machining tolerances cannot be held so precise where both lugs are in full contact anyways.  Its more a function of extra security which the CZ people obviously feel is unnecesary.  Manufacturing often elimanates needless things and devouts their efforts in improving the things that matter instead. 

I haven't shot too many varieties of target quality ammunition through my 455 varmint since I've only had it a little while but several members of my club have tried mine and have put in orders for one after seeing what it is capable of.  One of them regularly shoots Brno model 3's and 4's and says my rifle is as good.  Maybe its a ringer, but either way its a bit unfair to lump so many negatives against it based on theories and suppositions.   

Offline Bushpilot

  • Posts: 2
Re: CZ 452 American vs. CZ 455 American
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2011, 11:50:04 AM »
Well, Nupes, you’re right that I am really fond of the 452. So much so that the last one I bought I chose to buy used rather then a 455 new.  I couldn’t find a new 452 new in the caliber that I wanted and I have no regrets in doing so.  I clearly stated in the previous post that most of the things that I really liked about the 452 over the 455 probably weren’t absolutely necessary in a sporter weight rimfire rifle.  But this is why I liked the 452, it was made better then it needed to be, which is very unusual in affordable firearms today.  The CZ 452’s were built, dare I say, more like a “real,” rifle, not just to the standard of an ordinary rimfire rifle with clamped or pinned barrels and single locking lugs ect. The fact the 455’s and some target rifles get by with these I’ve never denied.  Heck I’ve seen some pretty amazing groups shot with heavy (clamped) barreled Ruger 10-22’s (which I think is a fine rifle within it’s intended purpose and own a couple of “stock” ones myself) but just because some of them can really shoot doesn’t mean I think they are equal to or within the same “quality” realm as a 452.   

As far as the repeated barrel swap is concerned, did you read the entire post?  I thought the post was exceptionally well done except for the fact that the author mentions switching barrels back and forth while noting the scope settings so he can return to zero without sighting in.  This, in my opinion, is never going to work beyond possibly keeping it on the paper and implies that repeated barrel changes are apparently an expectation by 455 owners, which is why I mentioned the wear factor in the first place.  As far as sloppy fitting barrel channels in 452’s, I have not seen or heard of this personally but implying that it is corrected because the 455’s are free floated isn’t really fixing the problem but eliminating the symptom, plus its “cheaper” then making the barrel actually fit the channel.  And, “Yes,” I know some rifles shoot better with the barrels floated but very, very few owners complained about how 452’s shot without having the ugly 1/8 of an inch gap around the barrel channel. One problem that I have heard of in the in 455’s is with the  ”one size fits all” magazines not feeding properly. Feeding was not a problem in the 452’s.

As far as the single locking lug is concerned; Again, I stated in my previous post that multiple locking lugs weren’t absolutely necessary on a .22 rimfire. But, I simple do not agree with the claim that a single locking lug is an improvement over multiple, symmetrical, locking lugs, all else being equal. Not to say that one locking lug isn’t equal to, or better then two lugs that aren’t fitted properly, but then this is not really a fair comparison when you start off by assuming that one lug fits and that the two lugs don’t  (and you say I’m relying on theories and supposition?).  Why do you think CZ put the second locking lug there in the first place?  Do you think that one of the biggest arms manufactures in the world has been spending the time and money incorporating a second locking lug on 452’s all this time for no reason at all?

As with the single locking lug, simply because some rifles, including some target rifles get by without a threaded barrel doesn’t mean that the clamped barrel system is better?  Cheaper? Yes. Easier to manufacture and assembly? Yes. Stronger? No. Better? Well, maybe better for CZ but probably not better for the owner.  If some target rifles with clamped barrel systems outshoot others with a threaded barrel it isn’t because of how the barrel is attached. The explanation is elsewhere.  Again, this isn’t to say that this barrel system doesn’t work but in my opinion, I don’t consider it to be as “high quality” of a system as a threaded barrel.

Anything that increases the strength, rigidity, symmetry and the weight (although in this case weight isn’t a factor of course) of a rifle usually has a positive effect on accuracy, all else being equal and following the laws of diminishing returns. Now, while some of this may not be absolutely necessary in a rimfire sporter from a strength standpoint, when CZ or anyone else claims that any of these factors have been lessened and the result is a more accurate rifle I am strongly inclined to disagree.

So you claim that CZ eliminated “needless” things and “concentrated on what matters.”  Well I’d like to know where the improvement is beyond CZ’s vague claim of “tighter tolerances.”  I have been around enough gun shops (the oily, greasy part not just the sales floor), tool rooms and manufacturing plants to recognize that what CZ concentrated on was eliminating and simplifying as many machining and assembly processes as they could without dramatically impacting the function, performance or appearance of the rifle from what it was.  Top quality is in the details and is not the result of cost cutting and streamlining. It’s still a decent rifle but it isn’t quite as good as it was.  If yours shoots great and you are happy with it then I’m happy for you but CZ’s marketing department telling us that this rifle is better then the one that proceeded is not true in my opinion. I would have preferred they just left it alone and raised the price or made it a separate model.

Well, Nupes in the final analysis we all have our own opinions about what constitutes a quality rifle from others that are less so.  I will be the first to admit that in retrospect some of areas where we disagree are drawn along some pretty fine lines.  However, as I said before, quality is found in the details. Ultimately, time and the market will tell whose opinion is more correct by seeing the kind of reputation, sales and following the 455’s earn compared to the 452’s which has been pretty stellar. So far I’ve yet to see anyone trade in their 452’s for the so called “new and improved” 455. 

 

anything