M70 Safari Express 458 Win Mag vs CZ550 458 Lott

[CoElkHunter]

contrary to popular belief, epoxy bedding does not do a lot to strengthen wood stocks.
if it makes the recoil lug bear more evenly, this is more help than epoxy itself.
be aware that under recoil. the stock compresses and the action moves backwards.
thus the action screws must have clearance, or when they press onto the timber at their rear they can start splitting.
the rear of the rear tang needs clearance or it can split wood.
anything tapered at the rear if the action or anywhere else can split the stock with insufficient clearance.
bruce.

Thank you and everyone else here! I’ll check around locally and see who I can find to do the bedding. My father in law has a gunsmith friend here who builds custom rifles. He probably could do it. Thanks!

 

[One Day...]

Still from the analytical perspective...

There are typically three purposes to working on the stock/barrel action interface:

1) Float the barrel with the purpose to increase accuracy. It is generally the case that free floated barrels are more consistent because their harmonics (vibrations) are not interfered with, therefore they are repeatable. This does not necessarily make them more accurate. There is a well established school of though that maintains that a pressure point at the end of the stock make some barrels (especially lighter contour barrels) more accurate. However for this result to be constant the pressure needs to be constant. This gets us to point #2.

2) Glass bed the barrel channel to prevent shifts of pressure from the stock on the barrel. Relating to point #1, glass bedding the barrel channel is intended to prevent the natural expansion/contraction of the wood as it absorbs/release moisture, to affect the pressure exerted on the barrel. In the worst cases of stock warping, the stock may exert unpredictable sideways or upward pressure on the barrel. This may cause shifts of point of impact measured in feet at 200 yd. Fiberglass being mostly impervious to moisture and providing added rigidity, it counteracts the warping of a wood stock, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE that one would need a lot more than an 1/8th of glass bedding in the channel to prevent the warping of a wood forearm several inches thick.

3) Prevent the splitting of the stock under recoil. Under recoil, the recoil lug at the front and the tang of the action at the rear act as a maul trying to split the stock. This is why it is critical that the recoil lug rest evenly on the stock, and that a relief space be cut on the stock at the rear so that the tang does not bear directly on the stock, but instead the rear action screw distributes the recoil through the stock entire thickness. Glass bedding both the recoil lug and the rear action screw channel helps matting the surfaces exactly. Inserting a recoil bearing crossbolt for the recoil lug also helps a lot on high recoil rifles.

Synthetic/aluminum chassis stock vs. glass bedding.
It is an unarguable statement of fact that a full length aluminum chassis CNC machined and extending to the front swivel on one end and through the stock wrist on the other end, itself nested in a kevlar/synthetic stock molded over it, will be essentially impervious to atmospheric conditions (moisture, temperature, pressure, etc.) and will provide significantly superior stability and significantly superior mechanical strength. From a purely practical perspective, a Kevlar/aluminum chassis stock such as the Bell & Carlson (https://www.bellandcarlson.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=1099) is the best option available. It is no accident that armed forces have adopted this type of stock for the M24 sniper systems...

It is also an unarguable statement of fact that there is nothing more beautiful in the rifle world than a great walnut stock with a linseed oil hand rubbed finish on a rust blued custom rifle. This is where I personally believe that the future of glass bedding rests.

In so many words, if you want a walnut stock on your rifle, glass bedding is the way to go. If on the other hand you want as close to zero risk as possible with your stock, Kevlar/aluminum chassis is the way to go.

I was on the rust blue / hand rubbed linseed oil walnut bandwagon for a long time. Then I watched rust blue turn to rust and linseed oil finished French walnut turn to a warped gray plank on my $xx,xxxx custom Griffin & Howe rifle over the course of a 10 day non-stop rain in a fly camp in Newfoundland during a Moose hunt. I also saw a different day the walnut stock of my Sauer 90 Luxus 7mm Rem Mag break at the wrist for no apparent reason one dry day. So, I switched to the stainless steel & Kevlar/aluminum chassis bandwagon...

To me, Africa is too far and too expensive to take risks, so I put a Bell & Carlson on my CZ .416 Rigby. It is stronger and impervious to weather, but I fully admit that it is not nicer...

CZ 550 .416 Rigby Rifle

• One Day...
• Nov 16, 2018
• 1

 

[bruce moulds]

epoxy bedding will often improve grouping if done properly such that the action is absolutely stress free and also free to move back to original battery in relation to the bedding after recoil.
tight bedding precludes movement back to battery with consistency.
in fact, a correctly bedded rifle should allow the action to fall out of the stock when the action screws are undone and the rifle held so it can happen.
however the bedding should be a close fit.
where stocks mostly split is behind the rear tang.
epoxy bedding materials have great resistance to compression, but very little to tension, particularly in the thickness used in bedding.
epoxies shrink when they set on a percentage basis, so the thicker the use, the more shrinkage, and the less accurate the bedding job.
best things to avoid splitting are crossbolts, behind the recoil lug, behind the mag well, and behind the rear tang screw.
it is an urban myth that epoxy is a magic cure to add massive strength to stocks.
good wood is a far better method, as is correct technique of stockmaking, primarily clearance on the takedown screws.
when epoxy bedding, clearance on these screws is obtained by wrapping them in tape, which is removed when the epoxy has set up.
oil can soak into wood over time, and this is particularly so around the rear tang.
epoxy is more oil resistant than wood, and so helps here.
drilling the hole to a greater diameter, and filling that with epoxy is even better, as the epoxy is less compressible than wood.
interestingly, epoxy bedding in wood stocks needs to be checked every so often, as it can change.
what changes is the wood moving, taking the epoxy with it.
again, better wood moves less.
bruce.

 

[bruce moulds]

just saw one day's post.
while bedding barrels, or pressure on barrels, might tighten grouping on some rifles, it is a zig trying to fix a zag.
if that helps, something else is wrong, and should be fixed first.
while it might assist with tighter grouping, it is deadly to trying to hold a constant zero.
all wood, even the best, moves.
and if you rest the forend on something the rile will shoot away from that thing.
chassis in a synthetic stock is most reliable, but even that can benefit from also using epoxy in the bedding on top of the chassis.
some of the chassis systems even rely on bending the action to induce stress into the system.
another zig to fax a zag. commonly used by factories in conjunction with barrel pressure to avoidthe costs of building rifles properly.
bruce.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Still from the analytical perspective...

There are typically three purposes to working on the stock/barrel action interface:

1) Float the barrel with the purpose to increase accuracy. It is generally the case that free floated barrels are more consistent because their harmonics (vibrations) are not interfered with, therefore they are repeatable. This does not necessarily make them more accurate. There is a well established school of though that maintains that a pressure point at the end of the stock make some barrels (especially lighter contour barrels) more accurate. However for this result to be constant the pressure needs to be constant. This gets us to point #2.

2) Glass bed the barrel channel to prevent shifts of pressure from the stock on the barrel. Relating to point #1, glass bedding the barrel channel is intended to prevent the natural expansion/contraction of the wood as it absorbs/release moisture, to affect the pressure exerted on the barrel. In the worst cases of stock warping, the stock may exert unpredictable sideways or upward pressure on the barrel. This may cause shifts of point of impact measured in feet at 200 yd. Fiberglass being mostly impervious to moisture and providing added rigidity, it counteracts the warping of a wood stock, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE that one would need a lot more than an 1/8th of glass bedding in the channel to prevent the warping of a wood forearm several inches thick.

3) Prevent the splitting of the stock under recoil. Under recoil, the recoil lug at the front and the tang of the action at the rear act as a maul trying to split the stock. This is why it is critical that the recoil lug rest evenly on the stock, and that a relief space be cut on the stock at the rear so that the tang does not bear directly on the stock, but instead the rear action screw distributes the recoil through the stock entire thickness. Glass bedding both the recoil lug and the rear action screw channel helps matting the surfaces exactly. Inserting a recoil bearing crossbolt for the recoil lug also helps a lot on high recoil rifles.

Synthetic/aluminum chassis stock vs. glass bedding.
It is an unarguable statement of fact that a full length aluminum chassis CNC machined and extending to the front swivel on one end and through the stock wrist on the other end, itself nested in a kevlar/synthetic stock molded over it, will be essentially impervious to atmospheric conditions (moisture, temperature, pressure, etc.) and will provide significantly superior stability and significantly superior mechanical strength. From a purely practical perspective, a Kevlar/aluminum chassis stock such as the Bell & Carlson (https://www.bellandcarlson.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=1099) is the best option available. It is no accident that armed forces have adopted this type of stock for the M24 sniper systems...

It is also an unarguable statement of fact that there is nothing more beautiful in the rifle world than a great walnut stock with a linseed oil hand rubbed finish on a rust blued custom rifle. This is where I personally believe that the future of glass bedding rests.

In so many words, if you want a walnut stock on your rifle, glass bedding is the way to go. If on the other hand you want as close to zero risk as possible with your stock, Kevlar/aluminum chassis is the way to go.

I was on the rust blue / hand rubbed linseed oil walnut bandwagon for a long time. Then I watched rust blue turn to rust and linseed oil finished French walnut turn to a warped gray plank on my $xx,xxxx custom Griffin & Howe rifle over the course of a 10 day non-stop rain in a fly camp in Newfoundland during a Moose hunt. I also saw a different day the walnut stock of my Sauer 90 Luxus 7mm Rem Mag break at the wrist for no apparent reason one dry day. So, I switched to the stainless steel & Kevlar/aluminum chassis bandwagon...

To me, Africa is too far and too expensive to take risks, so I put a Bell & Carlson on my CZ .416 Rigby. It is stronger and impervious to weather, but I fully admit that it is not nicer...

CZ 550 .416 Rigby Rifle

• One Day...
• Nov 16, 2018
• 1

[/QUOTEF
From your photo, I think the stock on your Rigby looks VERY nice! I'm assuming it was "bedded" in someway? The reason I ask, is someone has a Interarms Mark X .416 Taylor (caliber I'm interested in) on Gun Broker for sale. The description states it has a Bell & Carlson stock and has about 100 rounds through it. BUT, the description also says that the stock has a "hairline" crack in the stock wrist. It's hard to see from the photos provided. I guess this stock wasn't bedded in some way? Thanks!

 

[One Day...]

From your photo, I think the stock on your Rigby looks VERY nice! I'm assuming it was "bedded" in someway? The reason I ask, is someone has a Interarms Mark X .416 Taylor (caliber I'm interested in) on Gun Broker for sale. The description states it has a Bell & Carlson stock and has about 100 rounds through it. BUT, the description also says that the stock has a "hairline" crack in the stock wrist. It's hard to see from the photos provided. I guess this stock wasn't bedded in some way? Thanks!

There have been several successive generations of B&C stocks, I am not sure which one would be on this Mark X. Likely an old one considering that it has been a while since Mark X actions were imported in the US, and darn few folks would now barrel one to the Taylor considering the wide availability of the Remington, Ruger, Rigby, etc. It remains a nice cartridge though

If it has cracked at the wrist, it most probably does not have an aluminum chassis and the tang area was probably not relieved enough. Classic mistake, which by the way does not indicate a gunsmith used to turn out dangerous game rifles. Beware the rest of the rifle work... With a full length bedding block that goes from wrist to swivel, almost the entire length of the stock is molded around the aluminum chassis, and the recoil on the aluminum is distributed to almost the entire stock material, hence it is not concentrated on just the recoil lug and tang areas.

The B&C I like was called the Medalist for a while but apparently not anymore.

https://www.bellandcarlson.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=1099

I do not "bed" these (I am not stocking benchrest rifles), I just drop the barreled action in them, half torque the screws, slams the butt pad on a concrete floor the sit the action in the bedding block and I torque to 65 inch/lbs starting with the front screw.
I have one on the CZ 550 .416 Rigby; one on a Win 70 .300 Wby; one on a Mark V .340 Wby; one on a Mark V .257 Wby; and gave one to each of my sons for their Win 70 7 mm Rem Mag. Nothing but happiness

 

[CoElkHunter]

There have been several successive generations of B&C stocks, I am not sure which one would be on this Mark X. Likely an old one considering that it has been a while since Mark X actions were imported in the US, and darn few folks would now barrel one to the Taylor considering the wide availability of the Remington, Ruger, Rigby, etc. It remains a nice cartridge though

If it has cracked at the wrist, it most probably does not have an aluminum chassis and the tang area was probably not relieved enough. Classic mistake, which by the way does not indicate a gunsmith used to turn out DG rifles. Beware the rest of the rifle work... With a full length bedding block that goes from wrist to swivel, almost the entire length of the stock is molded around the aluminum chassis, and the recoil on the aluminum is distributed to almost the entire stock material, hence it is not concentrated on just the recoil lug and tang areas.

View attachment 290368

The B&C I like was called the Medalist for a while but apparently not anymore.

https://www.bellandcarlson.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=1099

I do not "bed" these (I am not stocking benchrest rifles), I just drop the barreled action in them, half torque the screws, slams the butt pad on a concrete floor the sit the action in the bedding block and I torque to 65 inch/lbs starting with the front screw.
I have one on the CZ 550 .416 Rigby; one on a Win 70 .300 Wby; one on a Mark V .340 Wby; one on a Mark V .257 Wby; and gave one to each of my sons for their Win 70 7 mm Rem Mag. Nothing but happiness

Great! Thank you! I will look into this.

 

[bruce moulds]

chassis are good things for all the above reasons.
however I remember a time when torque wrenches were never necessary.
they came into vogue with chassis. (we are talking properly inletted stocks here as opposed to factory rubbish.)
very rarely will a chassis be an exact mirror of the action.
this being the case, the only way to get a consistent relationship between stock and chassis is to use a torque wrench the sane each time.
it then bends the action the same each time.
this works to some degree, but is not the best.
skim bedding done right so you get a stress free action is the fix.
you will never need a torque wrench to get the same zero each time or good grouping.
skim bedding does not mean putting the compound in the stock and doing up the screws.
it means sitting the barrelled action in the stock supported in such a way that it is fully relaxed.
you can preferably use guide screws or action screws not done up, and tape the screws so that clearance is provided for them when finished.
tape the bottom, sides, and front of the recoil lug as well.
and don't forget the release agent.
then if you get caught in the field with only access to a screw driver it is no sweat.
bruce.

 

[fourfive8]

For toughness and consistency, if that’s the sole objective, nothing beats a QUALITY synthetic that fits properly and is correctly bedded. But, there are plenty out there that fall far short on one or more necessary attributes... many to the point where a good wood stock is better all around. I think the hand laid Kevlar varieties are good, the old Brown while not aesthetic was excellent and the higher end McMillan comes to mind. Another excellent composite type is the HS Precision. And sometimes finding a good synthetic that fits a particular barreled action may require some homework.

I tried a BC Medalist on one rifle and even though the design proponents touted a rigid aluminum skeleton... I found the ONLY rigid part was that attached to the action. The thing was “floppy” ...variable forend pressure means variable barrel pressure- ugh. So down the road it went along with a whole pile of various other “take off” stocks from poor molded junk to warped, cracked wood to “floppies”. And so it goes... as with any education.

 

[CoElkHunter]

chassis are good things for all the above reasons.
however I remember a time when torque wrenches were never necessary.
they came into vogue with chassis. (we are talking properly inletted stocks here as opposed to factory rubbish.)
very rarely will a chassis be an exact mirror of the action.
this being the case, the only way to get a consistent relationship between stock and chassis is to use a torque wrench the sane each time.
it then bends the action the same each time.
this works to some degree, but is not the best.
skim bedding done right so you get a stress free action is the fix.
you will never need a torque wrench to get the same zero each time or good grouping.
skim bedding does not mean putting the compound in the stock and doing up the screws.
it means sitting the barrelled action in the stock supported in such a way that it is fully relaxed.
you can preferably use guide screws or action screws not done up, and tape the screws so that clearance is provided for them when finished.
tape the bottom, sides, and front of the recoil lug as well.
and don't forget the release agent.
then if you get caught in the field with only access to a screw driver it is no sweat.
bruce.

You know, these are ALL great points! I looked at the B&C "drop in" stocks as One Day suggested and they seem a very good value for the price. I don't want to (really can't) spend a lot of money making my CZ rifle an "AHR" special. I would love to, but I can't justify it to myself or my budget. Maybe glass bedding on the factory stock and buy the B&C stock if/when the factory stock cracks, and something to take the "creep" out of the trigger, AND the great white bead front sight as again One Day suggested. But, I haven't even looked at the scope and mount options yet, if I even do that. BTW, to all of you seasoned African hunters on this site, does most/everyone (including PHs) hunting in Africa, have their rifles bedded in some way, or do many just take their factory CZ or other brand of rifles out of the box and go hunting? I've never had anything done to my factory Winchester, Browning or Remington hunting rifles while hunting non DG in North America and have had ZERO issues. I guess I'm just naïve. Thanks to everyone for the information. Slowly, I'm learning from experienced people on this AH website on rifle issues I've never dealt with before.

 

[Scott CWO]

I am going to try to stay away from the "I like" this or that rifle argument, which is a purely subjective feeling, and look instead at a few objective data points...

1) The Win 70 has a true bolt-mounted firing-pin blocking safety. This is a plus. The Factory CZ 550 has a sear blocking safety. This is a minus. The CZ is easily retrofitted with a $250 Winchester type "3 position" bolt-mounted firing-pin blocking safety. This cures the minus. You can do it yourself if you know what you are doing. Wayne at American Hunting Rifles (AHR) can do it even better for you.

2) The CZ 550 has integral scope mount dovetails on the front and rear bridge. These are indestructible. This is a plus. The Win 70 needs scope bases to be screwed on the gun action. Look at it anyway you want, these are not as strong as integral bases and sooner or later they will loosen. This is a minus. This minus cannot be cured. Admittedly if your .458 Lott gets shot 10 rounds per year, as the vast majority are, this is not a problem. If you shoot it a 100 rounds per year, be ready to rework the bases every few years.

3) The CZ 550 has an integral machined dovetail in the barrel for the rear sight block. This is indestructible. This is a plus. The Win 70 has a screwed on rear sight base. Look at it anyway you want, this is not as strong as an integral dovetailed rear sight and sooner or later it will loosen. This is a minus. This minus cannot be cured. Again, if your .458 Lott gets shot 10 rounds per year, this is not a problem.

4) The CZ 550 has a barrel band front sight. This is quasi indestructible. This is a plus. The Win 70 has a screwed on front sight base. Look at it anyway you want, this is not as strong as a barrel band front sight and sooner or later it will loosen. This is a minus. This minus can be cured by adding a $250 barrel band front sight.

5) The CZ 550 has a 5+1 capacity in .458. This is a plus. The Win 70 has a 3+1. This is a minus. Truth be told, it is probably not as big an advantage for a client as it can be for a PH, but it is an unarguable minus for the Win 70. This minus cannot be cured short of extensive and expensive restocking, new bottom metal work etc.

6) The CZ 550 is a true Magnum length action. This is a plus and what allows it to be chambered for the Rigby and other large cartridges. The Win 70 is not. This cannot be fixed. Admittedly this is not an issue for the .458 Lott unless you intend to have hand loads that exceed commercial overall length for the cartridge. These will not fit in a Win 70.

7) Regarding feeding: there are occasional feeding issues with .458 Win conversions to Lott, because the cartridge length changes and ramps optimized for the short cartridge are difficult to modify for the long cartridge. There are also occasional feeding issues with .458 Win because of the short cartridge length makes it difficult to feed, especially with the heavy flat nose 500 g slugs. I have never seen (so far) .458 Lott feeding issue from a factory rifle (the additional cartridge length helps a lot), and I have not seen (so far) any feeding issue with any CZ factory rifle. Admittedly my statistical population is counted in tens, not hundreds or thousands... The CZ feeding issues DO exist, but invariably they are traced to "custom" rifles, a large number of which being the .500 put together by the CZ custom shop in the US... From there the rumor has been spreading far and wide, thanks to the magical internet and its endless legion of "experts"...


Arguably, the CZ 550 with the addition of a $250 true bolt-mounted firing-pin blocking safety offers numerous advantages over the Win 70, including some that cannot be matched even on a re-worked Win 70: integral scope bases, integral rear sight dovetail, and 5+1 capacity. To me the discussion stops there.

I had in succession two ZKK 602 (.375 H&H and .340 Wby) and one CZ 550 (.416 Rigby) and they are everything a DG rifle can be (cosmetics of a $xx,xxx custom rifle aside).

Yes, the CZ 550 is a tad rough off the factory but truly it is a 4 hour affair to make it as slick as a $40,000 Rigby built on the same action. Hint: there is a pretty darn good reason why Rigby used CZ action to built their rifles during the long period when Mauser true Magnum length actions were not available... You can slick it yourself if you know what you are doing. Wayne at AHR can do it even better for you. Alternatively, watch a movie on TV while cycling the action 10,000 times and it will be smooth as baby skin.

There is also a pretty darn good reason why Brno ZKK and CZ 550 are the workhorses of Africa. They are just plain indestructible, especially if you add a $280 Bell & Carlson synthetic stock with full length aluminum bedding block and pillars. Another hint: B&C are the ones who makes the factory CZ "aramid" stock...

All this being said, the imperfect rifle you like and trust is better for you than the perfect rifle you do not like, so to each his own...

I went with the CZ because of the extra capacity in the magazine and the other factors listed above. However, my CZ did have feeding issues so I sent it to Wayne at AHR and he did the upgrades and fixed the feeding issues. It’s not internet hyperbole- the rifle would jam and wasn’t feeding properly. It’s great now and I really like it.

 

[Milehighshooter]

Why spend a bunch of money to turn a CZ550 into a M70, when you can just buy the M70? Get the Winchester, have the conversion done, and use the saved money to tip your PH

 

[Hoss Delgado]

.458 Winchester Magnum M70
Pros :
1) The first American Big Game cartridge ( l don't consider .405 Winchester a reliable big game cartridge )
2) Has Taken all the big five since the 1950s
3) I find it a bit more versatile for all game compared to the .458 Lott , including felids.
4) Recoil is less than a .458 Lott.
5) The modern ammunition is very , very reliable .
6) From the '50s to the '80s , Game Departments had standardized the .458 Winchester Magnum as the caliber for elephant culls. They couldn't do this if it was so bad.
7) Model 70s shoot very reliably out of the box
Cons :
1) It's a hard fact that the early Ammunition in the '50s and '60s and '70s developed a well deserved loathsome reputation . Aside from the issues with the clump powder , the bullets were known for their erratic penetration. My Granddad ( who actually hunted in Kenya in '68 ) told me that during that time majority of the hunters out there loathed the .458 , but stuck with it , only because it was all they had available ( with Kynoch discontinuing cartridge production and all ) . He also did recall witnessing at least two failures of this caliber on the frontal brain shot for elephant . Needless to say , all this was fifty years ago .
2) It has less stopping power than the .458 Lott

CZ 550 .458 Lott
Pros :
1) More powerful than the .458 Winchester Magnum . Of course , this means nothing if you can't shoot properly
Cons :
1) Less Versatile than the .458 Winchester Magnum . It's more of a dedicated thick skin game cartridge
2) Higher recoil
3) Many of the CZ rifles need to have some work done to them when they are bought new. I have seen at least 3 or 4 of the big game calibers ones , which needed some gunsmithing to work properly after you bought them new.

 

[nksmfamjp]

How does the 458 lott choice improve or worsen when the rifle of choice b3comes the MRC African in 458 Lott with some minor customizations like 22” barrel, barrel band sling stud, xxx Turkish walnut stock, hooded front sight, cerakote black finish...

 

[Scott CWO]

Why spend a bunch of money to turn a CZ550 into a M70, when you can just buy the M70? Get the Winchester, have the conversion done, and use the saved money to tip your PH

I have a few M70 action rifles and I love them but went with the CZ for the extra magazine capacity for a dangerous game rifle in Africa and my brown bear guiding in AK. I did the AHR upgrades and had the feeding issue fixed but didn’t really have to do the upgrades. The feeding issue alone isn’t expensive to fix. For my specific use, the extra magazine capacity is important.

Converting the M70 to the Lott has some issues and can cause feeding issues because I have been told that the magazine can be a bit too small for optimal performance.

 

[Scott CWO]

.458 Winchester Magnum M70
Pros :
1) The first American Big Game cartridge ( l don't consider .405 Winchester a reliable big game cartridge )
2) Has Taken all the big five since the 1950s
3) I find it a bit more versatile for all game compared to the .458 Lott , including felids.
4) Recoil is less than a .458 Lott.
5) The modern ammunition is very , very reliable .
6) From the '50s to the '80s , Game Departments had standardized the .458 Winchester Magnum as the caliber for elephant culls. They couldn't do this if it was so bad.
7) Model 70s shoot very reliably out of the box
Cons :
1) It's a hard fact that the early Ammunition in the '50s and '60s and '70s developed a well deserved loathsome reputation . Aside from the issues with the clump powder , the bullets were known for their erratic penetration. My Granddad ( who actually hunted in Kenya in '68 ) told me that during that time majority of the hunters out there loathed the .458 , but stuck with it , only because it was all they had available ( with Kynoch discontinuing cartridge production and all ) . He also did recall witnessing at least two failures of this caliber on the frontal brain shot for elephant . Needless to say , all this was fifty years ago .
2) It has less stopping power than the .458 Lott

CZ 550 .458 Lott
Pros :
1) More powerful than the .458 Winchester Magnum . Of course , this means nothing if you can't shoot properly
Cons :
1) Less Versatile than the .458 Winchester Magnum . It's more of a dedicated thick skin game cartridge
2) Higher recoil
3) Many of the CZ rifles need to have some work done to them when they are bought new. I have seen at least 3 or 4 of the big game calibers ones , which needed some gunsmithing to work properly after you bought them new.

For the sake of debate, your #1 pro on the .458 Win Mag has no bearing on functionality and use of the rifle. Same for #2 because there are plenty of rounds capable of taking the Big 5. Neither cartridge is ideal for cats.

I would disagree with your #3 because the Lott can be loaded with 350gr and 400gr bullets for lighter work as well as the heavier 450gr and 500gr and is a much better choice for elephant and wounded animals that need to be stopped.

Your #4 is a good point but the Lott recoil is more of a shove than a sharp bite. Recoil doesn’t affect me and I have a .338 Win Mag that hits harder. None of these DG rounds are for recreational shooting.

Your #6 has nothing to do with functionality for me.

The Lott has a 5+1 magazine capacity and this is very important for a working DG rifle and for hunters that will hunt DG often.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Hoss Delgado]

For the sake of debate, your #1 pro on the .458 Win Mag has no bearing on functionality and use of the rifle. Same for #2 because there are plenty of rounds capable of taking the Big 5. Neither cartridge is ideal for cats.

I would disagree with your #3 because the Lott can be loaded with 350gr and 400gr bullets for lighter work as well as the heavier 450gr and 500gr and is a much better choice for elephant and wounded animals that need to be stopped.

Your #4 is a good point but the Lott recoil is more of a shove than a sharp bite. Recoil doesn’t affect me and I have a .338 Win Mag that hits harder. None of these DG rounds are for recreational shooting.

Your #6 has nothing to do with functionality for me.

The Lott has a 5+1 magazine capacity and this is very important for a working DG rifle and for hunters that will hunt DG often.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree and l would personally prefer the Lott myself . I don't find the recoil unbearable either.

 

[One Day...]

Reading the few above posts, it may be worth mentioning that the .458 Lott chamber fires the .458 Win ammo. If the discussion evolves toward .458 Lott vs. .458 Win, keep in mind that when you have a Lott chamber you de facto have a dual caliber rifle: .458 Win and .458 Lott...
Just FYI

 

[CoElkHunter]

Reading the few above posts, it may be worth mentioning that the .458 Lott chamber fires the .458 Win ammo. If the discussion evolves toward .458 Lott vs. .458 Win, keep in mind that when you have a Lott chamber you de facto have a dual caliber rifle: .458 Win and .458 Lott...
Just FYI

When I was looking for a DG rifle (potentially, if I ever hunt DG in Africa), I first looked at an older "rough" Ruger M77 in .458WM for a good price. I procrastinated too long, and someone else bought it. It had the "desirable" (as many Ruger for sale ads say) red recoil pad and top tang safety. Then I found out from OPs here, that the older Rugers were not actually true CRF rifles? So, I looked at the Winchester Model 70s. I have one in .270 Win from about 1974. Push feed. Many of the older ones ( from 1964-recently) I see for sale in great shape in models "Super Safari", "Super Classic", etc., are of the same push feed design? I got tired of emailing to the ads to see if the rifles were push feed or CRF. I couldn't tell from the photos. I mean I guess it matters when hunting DG, but DG hunters have been using push feeds for years. Anyway, I ultimately bought a CZ cause I knew it was a true Mauser CRF. Maybe other (aspiring African) hunters here on AH have been in the same dilemma, or not. But, I have always loved my Winchester!

 

[TOBY458]

When I was looking for a DG rifle (potentially, if I ever hunt DG in Africa), I first looked at an older "rough" Ruger M77 in .458WM for a good price. I procrastinated too long, and someone else bought it. It had the "desirable" (as many Ruger for sale ads say) red recoil pad and top tang safety. Then I found out from OPs here, that the older Rugers were not actually true CRF rifles? So, I looked at the Winchester Model 70s. I have one in .270 Win from about 1974. Push feed. Many of the older ones ( from 1964-recently) I see for sale in great shape in models "Super Safari", "Super Classic", etc., are of the same push feed design? I got tired of emailing to the ads to see if the rifles were push feed or CRF. I couldn't tell from the photos. I mean I guess it matters when hunting DG, but DG hunters have been using push feeds for years. Anyway, I ultimately bought a CZ cause I knew it was a true Mauser CRF. Maybe other (aspiring African) hunters here on AH have been in the same dilemma, or not. But, I have always loved my Winchester!

Winchester swapped back over to CRF around the mid 1990's I believe. It came out as the "Classic" action. For awhile, they offered both the push feed and CRF actions in different models.
Ruger swapped over to CRF when their Mark 2 action came out in 1989 I believe.
I've used all sorts or different designs over the years, and never really had any problems with push feed or CRF rifles. People make a big deal about it, but I don't think it's as big of an issue as it's made out to be. I have a few Sako rifles, and they are as reliable as any true CRF rifle I've owned. In my opinion, the main rifle that caused the debate between CRF and push feed is the Remington 700. It has a tiny extractor, made from a very thin piece of spring steel, held in place with a rivet. I've heard stories of those breaking and or wearing to the point that they won't extract a stuck case. But on the other hand, I've had one for 40 years that's never had a single problem. That said, I still prefer either the Sako extractor or a Mauser type extractor.