Just got back from the second range trip, got it properly sighted in and ran a solid 100 round through it (140 total now). The action and trigger have smoothed out as expected. The trigger is a fair bit lighter out of the box than the old 455's. It's also very crisp, really a nice trigger. I'm a proper trigger snob btw, learned to shoot with Anschutz 10m match air rifles. I try not to compare everything to that standard, but it is my background and so I do know what a truly great trigger is.
The free floating of the barrel on mine needed attention with sandpaper wrapped round a dowel to remove some wood, then I'd to reseal with some tru oil . . .was accurate after that
CZ 457 exhibits ultra fine workmanship, accuracy is on a par with match gold by Wolff holding 1/2" group at 50 meters via Leopold 3-9x40 rimfire scope.
You're absolutely 💯 % right about cz trigger compared to Anschutz trigger. I loved my Anschutz 1712 AV SS and 1727F trigger they're no another rimfire trigger compared it.
I like the 457 Trainer better bc. the buttstock has more DAH so u can keep ur face-neck vertical rather than crouching down. Dat's just like a good shotgun mounting onto ur shoulder. No straining. Too bad datto current trend is to make any rifle, carbine, assault guns, and even shotguns to be like straight pipes. It maybe good to control recoiling muzzle but u always must strain ur neck n eyes. Nut natural pointing. I tried my friend's .22 in a shape of AR-16, a straight pipe like gun. He got a Red Dot sight on it and the red dot LED was way up on the scope and i had to strain my eye n neck down 2C the dot. Stoiped design!!!
RU-vid and google in general are more than a little notorious when it comes to anything even remotely firearms related. So I marked it as 18+ even though it's really not.
I like it. BTW, I successfully removed the rear tangent sight but had to use the screws from the sight base as filler screws. I also installed a very low picatinny rail. Using medium 0:31 rings, I tried to mount an Athlon Neos 4X12 scope. I was more than a little disappointed that I would have to use High rings. I guess the extra fitting in the saddle of the scope prevented me from squaring the crosshairs. Live and learn. I was extremely pleased to win the stock lottery. The wood is great.
I like it. BTW, I successfully removed the rear tangent sight but had to use the screws from the sight base as filler screws. I also installed a very low picatinny rail. Using medium 0:31 rings, I tried to mount an Athlon Neos 4X12 scope. I was more than a little disappointed that I would have to use High rings. I guess the extra fitting in the saddle of the scope prevented me from squaring the crosshairs. Live and learn. I was extremely pleased to win the stock lottery. The wood is great.
I just purchased one of these yesterday for a bit over $500. It was a .17 HMR, but didn't have the barrel threading or the fiber optic front sight. I'm sure it's a 457 premium, but do you know why this difference exists between the .17 and the .22 model?
It might have been a lux model, they are very similar but I dont believe the lux is threaded. That would also explain the price since the premium guns cost $700 but the 457 lux guns run around $500
Rear is, front might be, never tried. I can say most LVPO's work pretty well on it. Traditional scopes can be a bit trickier but I've managed to make up to 50mm objectives work, though it does look goofy.
It's something I'm looking but haven't found anything I like yet. I also do like the iron sights on it, so would want something quick detach so it could be used either way.
Little update, I tossed my Leupold 4x rimfire scope on it with some QD low mount rings and that fits it pretty well. With an aftermarket pic rail, I can still use the irons after popping the scope off. I'm looking for a better option though. Maybe the Vortex Viper PST 2-10x32mm. This thing has a truly excellent trigger (it's smoothed out now) and the barrel is very accurate. I'm actually thinking this might be the better competition gun now compared to the T-Bolt.
@@beastybaiter7378 thanks for the update. I picked one of these up and am trying to get proficient with the open sights. Mixed results so far but I'm sure that I am the weak link at the moment. Let me know if you do find a good scope/ring combo.
@@beastybaiter7378I’ve owned several anschutz rifles and currently have a 457. For the cost difference I’ll take the 457 all day ! My 457 MPR shoots just as good as the Andchutz’s I’ve had.
The core difference between the "training rifle" and "Premium" is the stock. Not sure if the current 457 trainers have a threaded barrel, so that might also be a difference.
This training rifle lable on these cz rifles is a load of nonsense. Myself and most of Europe have been using these rifles for decades for hunting and general shooting applications. The term training rifles only came onto scene when the cz 452 453 455 model's became popular in the US. More than likely these older cz model's were used as military training rifles for the purpose of cheap and safer training sessions. Is your standard Savage 22lr a training rifle or even a Ruger American 22lr a training rifle🤔. My point is let's call a spade a spade, the cz 452 453 455 and 457 are just 22 sporting rifles at the end of the day. Don't get me wrong I love CZ firearms, I have three and love them all.
You didn’t mention that the safety has been changed to what we are used to in the U.S., push forward to fire. In the 455, you pulled the safety back to fire.
