BRNO 602 modifications

[Mark A Ouellette]

I would not do that because the rifle BRNO ZKK 602 caliber 458 win mag is a traditional rifle with in the meantime a little history. For the price of such a doubtful modification, it is more advisable to get another rifle caliber 458 Win Mag with a Winchester-like safety and cross bolts.

Wow! I usually like your posts but the above is not logical.

If I or anyone else desires the large action and magazine capacity of a CZ 550 Safari Magnum or BRNO 602 but desires a Winchester style 3-position safety, why oh why shouldn't they modify their rifle. The key word in my previous sentence is "their". They can paint the rifle pink if that flips their trigger because it is their rifle.

Now, let's consider the advantage of a 3-position safety. These safety devices are safer than a trigger block safety because 3-position safeties physically block the sear. The sear on these bolt action rifles in physically part of or connected to the striker. Engaging these safeties pushes back the entire striker assembly so that it cannot fire even if the very rear end of the striker is smacked by a hammer! I wrote hammer, not sledgehammer!

On the middle position, the 3-position safety blocks the striker so that one can load and unload much safer than with a trigger block safety. Loading my own ammo, I often use the middle position to quickly remove the striker before chambering each of my loaded rounds as a pre-hunt verification.

There is also our subconscious mind that during a hazardous event such as mounting one's rifle to stop a charge of an animal, pushing a safety forward means "fire" to most or us, or at us Americans! I don't want a backward operating safety on anything, not even a target rifle!

As for a BRNO having historical significance, maybe. I could care less unless a rifle has historical provenance as being owned or used by a famous person. Otherwise it is not more relevant than a Winchester Model 73 or 94, or Colt Single Action Army. Great guns but individually they are just guns. To each their own.

Finally, I have a BRNO 602 being built as I write this. Yesterday I placed an order with American Hunting Rifles for their 3-position safety. I missed this note,
“During checkout please note whether the safety is for a CZ 550 or BRNO ZKK.” I should have indicated which rifle the safety was for in the Order Notes box during check out.

Within an hour or two Wayne sent me a text asking for which rifle the safety would be for. I responded and a couple hours later Wayne sent me a photo of the mailing label. Now that’s darn fine service!

 

[skydiver386]

Wow! I usually like your posts but the above is not logical.

If I or anyone else desires the large action and magazine capacity of a CZ 550 Safari Magnum or BRNO 602 but desires a Winchester style 3-position safety, why oh why shouldn't they modify their rifle. The key word in my previous sentence is "their". They can paint the rifle pink if that flips their trigger because it is their rifle.

Now, let's consider the advantage of a 3-position safety. These safety devices are safer than a trigger block safety because 3-position safeties physically block the sear. The sear on these bolt action rifles in physically part of or connected to the striker. Engaging these safeties pushes back the entire striker assembly so that it cannot fire even if the very rear end of the striker is smacked by a hammer! I wrote hammer, not sledgehammer!

On the middle position, the 3-position safety blocks the striker so that one can load and unload much safer than with a trigger block safety. Loading my own ammo, I often use the middle position to quickly remove the striker before chambering each of my loaded rounds as a pre-hunt verification.

There is also our subconscious mind that during a hazardous event such as mounting one's rifle to stop a charge of an animal, pushing a safety forward means "fire" to most or us, or at us Americans! I don't want a backward operating safety on anything, not even a target rifle!

As for a BRNO having historical significance, maybe. I could care less unless a rifle has historical provenance as being owned or used by a famous person. Otherwise it is not more relevant than a Winchester Model 73 or 94, or Colt Single Action Army. Great guns but individually they are just guns. To each their own.

Finally, I have a BRNO 602 being built as I write this. Yesterday I placed an order with American Hunting Rifles for their 3-position safety. I missed this note,
“During checkout please note whether the safety is for a CZ 550 or BRNO ZKK.” I should have indicated which rifle the safety was for in the Order Notes box during check out.

Within an hour or two Wayne sent me a text asking for which rifle the safety would be for. I responded and a couple hours later Wayne sent me a photo of the mailing label. Now that’s darn fine service!

I knda give this a yes, and a no.

From a purely mechanical standpoint, the safety that blocks the striker is better than one that simply blocks the trigger parts from movement.

From an ergonomic standpoint, a safety pulled to the rear makes more sense. Follow my logic and I'll explain why.

For hundreds of years, to use any firearm meant cocking an exposed hammer. It would have been just as easy to mount the hammer so that it was pushed forward to cock it for firing, but everyone agreed that a rearward motion made more sense from an ergonomic standpoint.

This is a Winchester 37A 12 ga single identical to the one I found under the Christmas tree when I was 12. Hammer pulled to the rear to ready the gun for firing. For me it was a very natural motion as the gun was brought from muzzle up/port arms position to muzzle level while cocking the hammer rearward with the thumb.

One of my first repeating firearms was a Winchester 97 pump. Hammer moved to the rear as the gun was brought to the shoulder.

This is a Marlin lever action similar to the one my Grandfather had when I was growing up. It was the first center-fire rifle I'd ever shot. Manual of arms similar to most hammer fired long guns, thumb movement to the rear.

This is a Marlin 783, which was my first rifle given at Christmas when I was 14. Notice the markings on the safety. Forward was SAFE, to the rear was FIRE. THIS is how it should be.

Tens of millions of firearms have been produced with safeties that moved to the rear. Replacing them with safeties that moved forward was just WRONG!

Although impossible to prove, I think the change in the U.S. and Canada came about with the WW2 generation and the Garand rifle.

The Garand used one of the first safeties that was pushed forward. Generations of Servicemen were trained on this rifle, and the M14/M1A that used a similar safety. For millions that were raised in Urban areas, this was the only firearm they ever knew, so in their eyes, this became right.

I agree that the OP should modify the rifle to whatever he wants. Right or Wrong is entirely dependent on what the shooter feels the most confident with.