CZ600 recall was a Mistake

[@PolenarTactical]

I feel the need to make these explanations🙌: - CZ600 rifles are completely SAFE TO USE, even if they are in pre-recall configuration - CZ600 quick change barrel system is perfectly good, very similar to Barret MRAD - the quick change system did NOT fail - the screws did NOT fail or come loose, they were not tightened/engaged at all - red loctite is now installed to prevent users tampering with the system, not because screws might get loose - CZ quality control didn't fail, it caught the wrongly assembled rifle but unfortunately in the last step which resulted in injury - no CZ600 parts were defective, failure was 100% result of wrong/incomplete assembly Yes, despite a lot of comments trying to convince me otherwise, i still think a complete recall of the rifles was a big mistake, especially from a PR point of view. My solution would be to include additional instructions regarding the quick change barrel system and a warning that not tightening the screws to correct specification can result in serious injury or death. If recall was mandatory, then i would at least do the same thing as Sig Sauer and called it a "voluntary upgrade" 😆

[@micahh108]

One guy shit his pants, everybody puts on a diaper.

[@Kodreanu23]

Phenomenal!!!

[@y0h0p38]

True men shit their pants without a care in the world

[@hoppinggnomethe4154]

XD

[@joe125ful]

What?

[@micahh108]

@@joe125ful is a dysphemism we used to use when I was in the service. One guy made a mistake and everyone else is punished for it.

[@Uncle_Roadkill]

As Clint Eastwood once said - I remember going to a huge waterfall on a glacier in Iceland. People were there on a rock-platform overlook to see it. They had their kids. There was a place that wasn't sealed off, but it had a cable that stopped anybody from going past a certain point. I said to myself, you know, in the States they'd have that hurricane-fenced off, because they're afraid somebody's gonna fall and some lawyer's going to appear. There, the mentality was like it was in America in the old days: If you fall, you're stupid.

[@88kar88]

IMO, scummy lawyers and courts willing to entertain frivolous nonsense killed America

[@sorenlilienthal1368]

If you make something idiot proof, somebody will come up with a better idiot.

[@tombowombo-]

Unfortunately we Americans are known to be overly litigious and rely on corporate or state power to settle things instead of individual "common" sense. It's probably why we've seen such a massive decline in personal responsibility, since you can act any way you want and then blame another party for the repercussions.

[@ratagris21]

Thank a Democrat for common sense anything.

[@tombowombo-]

@@ratagris21 I might from time to time, but basically never if it's anything firearm-related.

[@markjones2859]

You nailed it.🎯👍

[@totenfurwotan4478]

@@ratagris21😂😂😂😂 “if we call it common sense retarded dem voters will just go with it “

[@sonickautschuhe]

That’s why America shouldn’t exist.

[@AdamOwenBrowning]

This was just user-error. "I didn't properly assemble the gun, loaded and fired it". Well, whose fault is that? You didn't properly assemble the firearm!

[@vladimirmihnev9702]

True. But unfortunately there are plenty of idiots who got a nice payday after getting hurt doing something stupid beyond imaging. And that issue in particular is why rifles have a out of battery safety, something that is missing in this design.

[@kino_61]

The devil's advocate would say that a dangerous item as a gun shouldn't become an hazard so easily. I don't really agree but I can comprehend why. Think of your house's electric system: if you connect a faulty device or just short circuit it the breakers come in action and prevent deaths and fires; even when it's your fault. For any reason the screws could come loose on their own (e.g. vibrations due to firing or carrying), break or corrode.

[@PolenarTactical]

@@kino_61 The screws and the system are not a problem. The screws are not coming loose and since those are not even pressure-bearing, it would work even with just one that is barely tightened, just enough to keep the barrel in the receiver. The issue was a complete user error, with both screws not even engaged so the barrel could move freely from the receiver. Thi is the same as if you would install an AR15 barrel without torqueing the barrel nut and then tried to shoot with it...

[@88kar88]

to be fair to the worker who was injured, he may not have been the one who assembled the gun, he may have just been the guy who test fires the guns.

[@kino_61]

@PolenarTactical I have never handled that rifle so I speak from what I've seen in your video (which is high quality as always) and my little experience in mechanical engineering. I've not seen any anti-loosing mechanism for those screws so they may come loose after many years of use. If they have a hidden gasket (like the blue one found on some nuts) then there's not a problem and I have to admit that I'm wrong. As I already said I didn't agree with the choice but I can see why it was taken. You know, lawyers want to stay on the extra-safe side and prevent ever going to court 😅. Anyways ciao by one of your neighbors

[@BlokeontheRange]

TBH, and independently of the "incident", you know that if CZ offered .300 BLK barrels in the US, Bubba's gonna end up screwing up and putting a .300 BLK down a .223 with hilarity ensuing... I wonder whether CZ taking so long to release a Trail in 300 BLK alongside .223 and 7.62x39 wasn't due to worry around that? We actually had a .300 BLK in .223 incident at the weekend in an AR, and the user has no idea how he managed to get a 300 mixed in there... When I pop my .300 BLK cherry I'm going to try to be as 'tistic as possible at keeping the ammo separate...

[@DannyGraves1775]

Mike (or Fabian, not sure who's talking on the account); how in the name of Satan's left nut did that other guy confuse .300blk with .223rem ? The size of the bullet alone should have been a dead giveaway he had the wrong ammo, let alone the fact the chubby little buggers probably won't even chamber correctly... On a scale of 1-10, how red faced was the poor guy?

[@robertjensen1438]

A grandfather sits flustered in his workshop, unable to recall where he left his toolbox. He calls over his grandson and asks him, "Son, what's the name of the German that keeps stealing my tools?!" "Alzheimers granddad, Alzheimers."

[@jazon9]

So, all the advantages of this rifle just disappeared. - now CZ600 dont make sense.

[@xWhiteRice]

I got one. 4 selectable trigger weights. sub MOA. $400 when I bought it. makes more sense than the ruger american in my opinion and those things sell like crazy

[@CalzaTheFox]

If you think the barrel changing was the only advantage, sure. lol

[@bradjohnson5323]

The red locktite part is fine, but not selling the barrels is BS. Just sell them with a huge red disclaimer it voids your warranty, CZ is not responsible blah blah blah.

[@PolenarTactical]

That's what really bothers me, they have the barrels but will only sell them to a certified CZ gunsmith

[@Tuulos]

Red locktite is bullshit too, blue would have been enough.

[@Y34RZERO]

The whole reason why I wanted this rifle was the replacement barrels. I never ordered one because of the change. I have no desire for another bolt action with a fixed barrel. I have 2 Ruger Americans for cheap cheap. One in 5.56 using stanag magazines and one in 7.62x39 that I have bought the ar magwell for, uses mini 30 magazines and I have a magwell to use my AKM magazines.

[@sunbrah]

I'm gonna promote this man! He's from our country. A Slovenian guntuber. Something I wanted to see ever since I got into guns

[@madmaxd1]

I think the recall wouldn't be a bad idea if CZ manages to improve on the design to avoid catastrophic failures in the future, if the same scenario occurs. Maybe disabling the firing pin, if the bolt is not properly locked/seated. On the other hand here in the US, CZ-USA lately have gotten a bad reputation by not initially handling a design flaw on US model EVO 3s, which were causing OOB (out of battery) discharges. These discharges typically ended up in catastrophic failures, damaging the upper receiver (serialized portion) of the platform. For years CZ-USA refused to admit liability while other 3rd. parties, found evidence of using substandard softer alloy on their BCG. The softer metal would suffer from deformed pinning, which would eventually render the firing pin locking block useless. It's now most recent where their BCG are harder, therefore showing less deformation and pinning but they never admitted nor took care of the many that have suffered OOB discharges on their older EVO 3s lineup. Although I agree that sometimes US laws and liabilities are unreasonable, sometimes they do keep corporations & companies in line.

[@gundamned4879]

i believe the out of battery safety was removed on US model scorpions because the ATF arbitrarily decided that it was too related to the autosear of the automatic models

[@madmaxd1]

@@gundamned4879 The out of battery safety you're talking about is the auto sear, which is part of the select firing group. Yes it was removed to pass ATF inspections but the firing pin block is an out of battery safety in semi-auto models and this is what I'm referring to.

[@DannyGraves1775]

I had the CZ600 on a short list for my next hunting rifle, because of the easy barrel swap they originally advertised... But if I'm going to splurge €1600 (or more) on a rifle, it had better be REALLY damn good, and have some good features to justify the price, and quite frankly, the CZ600 doesn't meet those requirements anymore. It's a shame, but the shareholders spoke... And proved they don't understand the company's products, nor their appeal.

[@erggml1887]

As an alternative, Savage makes the 110 pcs as a competing product. The Savage 110 is a bit overkill for the 223 and 300 blk round. The 110 is made as a pistol thanks to the NFA. It has a pictinny rail to attach something to the back of your choosing.

[@nirfz]

I think it would make sense to change the barrel changing mechanism in a way that it locks in place without the screws, but to be able to sell in on the civilian market (the AUG in some markets like austria itself can't be sold with the springloaded thumbdingy for the barrel change) there could be e cover plate that is held in with a screw where you need a tool to access it maybe.

[@hsngm33]

But the guns get shipped out assembled right? So the point of the recall is that if CZ assembled a rifle incorrectly, and they didnt tighten the screws properly, then it could explode in the users face, and that would be CZ's fault. So the recall part makes sense. The only part that doesnt is them stopping the sale of barrels and voiding the warranties.

[@PolenarTactical]

Guns get shipped out assembled and EVERY gun is live fired. So that's their ultimate QC The guns shipped out of the factory right now are still COMPLETELY THE SAME, only with red loctite applied to the screws so they will see if you tried to untighten them. CZ officially removed the quick change barrel system (functionally the feature is still there) and they do not offer user replaceable barrels anymore because they are afraid that a user would try to change the barrel himself, not tighten the screws, get hurt and then sue them

[@brownrecluse3772]

@@PolenarTactical Yeah, ......I was really looking forward to it but then I learned why the recall happened, I actually learned about while backpacking through the EU and when I rested in Brno. I visited their shop outside the factory and had to use Google translator to have a conversation, lol. I have since put gun money into converting my SAKO 85s and CZ 550s to switch barrels with 2 and 3 barrels each, respectively. It is really not that difficult to do; not sure why some companies and gunsmiths want to charge so much to headspace and put a set screw in the action to lock the barrel. Now, I have extra actions to sell and recoup the cost of the work. 😊

[@SVD_NL]

​@PolenarTactical it's crazy to think the US is so litigious that a single failure at QC warrants a recall. It's literally what QC is for, and they even test the rifles out of spec, so one rifle failed with out of spec rounds. Does it warrant an investigation into the QC process? Sure, those screws should've been checked before firing. But this is just crazy.

[@G5Hohn]

CZ made a mistake in catering to nongun people over their loyal customers. I LOVE CZs but I’ll never buy a 600.

[@milanvrekic1209]

This is an European way of thinking that works for me, however, North Americans are different. The expectation is that the design of the firearm is such that firing is impossible if the barrel is not locked in position. Essentially, the law here basically says that you need to show a reasonable effort to protect the user from themselves :) Remember when Glock famously said “(stupid) Americans are using the box wrong” after a few lawsuits where Americans where putting loaded handguns back in the case that had a protrusion that goes into trigger guard to keep the gun from moving around in the box. People will forget. People (no matter where they are geographically) tend to be dumb so design should have incorporated a mechanism that blocks the firing out of battery, or at least handles catastrophic failure better.

[@PolenarTactical]

Personally i am a proponent of removing all safety warnings and let Darwin sort things out...

[@milanvrekic1209]

@@PolenarTacticalI mean we have “caution HOT” labels on obviously steaming hot cups of coffee.

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

​@@milanvrekic1209not on every cup. Far from it

[@axis5519]

External safety ftw

[@jonathansmith7306]

On M240, M249, M2a1, the barrels will just fall out if you don't install them correctly.

[@Proton_Decay]

There's a way to do this solving both problems, but for a future model only as it requires an additional cut in the receiver, and a pin: add a piece of sheet metal shaped like the cartridge stop in a tube fed shotgun, which blocks the bolt from moving forward and rotating when the barrel is not fully seated. Basically, even with a loose barrel and no screws, this approach should allow the bolt to lock into the barrel for safe firing as long as the barrel and bolt are mating up and locking lugs are properly engaged, or prevent the bolt from advancing any further if that condition is not met.

[@arthurc7191]

The trail model will probably be easier to machine the internal lugs for since it only has a single set and I bet you could fudge the geometry a bit. It has some ramps for primary extraction that will be a little tricky to do blind, but that's what CAM is for. BTW, the lug lockup on my 600 Range is downright concerning, like a full 1mm of play in the lugs without the firing pin installed (in the lugs, not from the replaceable bolt face). It's not a precision fit by any means. You can probably get away with all manner of sins as far as reverse engineering the lugs. I would also recommend anyone with a 600 to check their barrel screws. I hit them with a wrench yesterday and the red loctite was doing absolutely nothing, they came out with no effort at all.

[@qcontinuum514]

A better design would require the barrel to be turned when installing because of locking grooves on the outside of the barrel.

[@skydivingcomrade1648]

The problem is with the tester, not the firearm... i hate lawyers

[@greygunner]

The problem is with the low paid assembler smoking too much weed and passing his work off as completed.

[@88kar88]

assembler not tester.

[@SurmaSampo]

Assembler then the quality control person who should check the guns before they go to fire testing.

[@joe125ful]

But tester/shooter need check screws too when it have quick change barrel option...

[@skydivingcomrade1648]

Testers' job to check assembly and functionality.

[@JohnZ556]

I think anyone who owns an LMT or from LMT is going to laugh their a** off hearing this. All of their MPR uppers(which is nearly all of their rifle offerings) have two screws to change the entire barrel assembly, including the gas system. Never heard anyone blow it up.🤣 But to be fair tho, the front screw on the MPR system is notched into the barrel extension, so the barrel can't go forward as long as the screw is still there.

[@PolenarTactical]

There is nothing wrong with 2 screws to secure the barrel in the receiver as the bolt locks directly into the barrel. The issue is if the user is retarded and doesnt install or tighten the screws after a barrel change. Same result would be if you do that to any AR15, dont tighten the barrel nut and then proceed to fire it

[@JohnZ556]

@@PolenarTactical Very true on the retarded user part. But probably won't be as dangerous in an AR since it is properly designed to take a catastrophic failure like such. At least nothing should be shooting back at the user. 😨

[@Quicks1lvr]

That's a shame because it is easier than the barrel change system on my 455. Also in the states using that "If you remove this screw warranty is void" may not work either. That used to be the norm on video cards as well, until the FTC started cracking down on that sort of thing. But idk, as I'm not a lawyer.

[@PolenarTactical]

It will probably stop a lot of idiots tinkering with their rifles... what bothers me is that they decided to not sell replacement barrels in different calibers for CZ600

[@Quicks1lvr]

@@PolenarTactical that to me sounds like they don't want people to change them at all sadly. Which is a shame when the change from .223 to 300 blackout isn't any different than my 455's changing from a 22lr to a 22 magnum barrel. That's honestly the main reason why I bought the 455 in the first place was because I could shoot 2 different calibers without spending $500+ on another rifle. CZ is losing out on potential sales by doing this, but to them it's better than a potential expensive litigation I suppose. Unfortunate series of events

[@BigBadBalrog]

While it's a given that the end user needs to maintain and verify their own gear, especially after changing something, I also think there should be an engineering solution that makes it impossible to fire if it's improperly assembled. Some kind of out of battery system or trigger disconnect would be more than enough to be (mostly) idiot proof.

[@PolenarTactical]

If we apply the same logic, why are millions of AR15 also lacking this feature?

[@BigBadBalrog]

I think the fact that since it's a lot more involved to change the barrel on an AR15 (you generally need a vise, a block, and a special wrench, as opposed to one torx bit screwdriver on the Trail) that makes the threshold for making a dangerous mistake much higher on an AR15. Anyway, I agree with the video and I also think CZ is way overreacting. Sorry if I came off as contrarian or combative, I love you guys and I'm just throwing in my two cents!

[@R1NR4N]

@@PolenarTactical Because an Ar-15 doesn't have a non-captive bolt pointed at it's user's throat like the CZ600. AK's and AR's fail in a way that doesn't kill the user holding it.

[@randylahey2242]

@@PolenarTactical lol the ar is idiot proof, there is no way to put it back together in a dangerous configuration. It either works or it doesn't.

[@PolenarTactical]

@@randylahey2242 you can easily test your assumption if you have the balls - unscrew the barrel nut on an AR15 as you would need to change the barrel. Then do not tighten it and try to shoot 🙂

[@stephanematis]

The recall and the loss of the barrel swap feature made stop considering this rifle family.

[@Maddog3060]

Yanno, I was considering getting a bolt-action rifle sometime, and I was wondering which brand to bank on. I am rather fond of CZ after getting a CZ-75 pistol (Yes, the BD version. I'm sure the purists as seething but I'm fine with it) and learning about the company, but the recall happened and I didn't hear much on the details. (I'm sure I could have learned more but I'm still kind of new to actually owning guns so I was still awash in new data at the time.) If what you're saying is true then I'm definitely leaning towards a CZ600 as my first bolt gun because I don't intend to screw around with the barrel. Sadly the recall sounds like it was a good idea, regardless; the litigation situation in the US has reached ridiculous levels. Too much greed from sleezy lawyers and stupid mouth-breathers they have for clients. It probably saved them money in the long run.

[@I_am_Signal]

You have to admit tho, this is a rather poor design for a “quick change barrel” and should have included instead a latching system for the barrel to stay in place instead of a couple screws.

[@PolenarTactical]

How would that make it different? Not tightening the screws is the same as not tightening the latch - result would be the same. A lot of other good manufavturers use a very similar system for a quick barrel change and it works fine

[@wlewisiii]

@@PolenarTactical If it's stupid and it works, it's still stupid and you got lucky.

[@haydenwalton5139]

The desert tech rifles have a similar system for barrel changes albeit with the addition of a cammed locking lever. They have had a few accidents which occurred in the same way (barrel not fully locked and fired out of battery leading to the bolt embedding in the shooters arm). I don’t think a recall is the right move but a redesign to make the same system better and safer is the only smart way forward.

[@PolenarTactical]

A lot of similar systems are on the market today - the issue is user based. Also calling it a recall was a mistake, especially as there was nothing really wrong with the rifles... But then you have Sig Sauer that had pistols that could fire without pressing on the trigger and instead of a recall, they did a "voluntary upgrade" :D

[@audikid89]

I was really hopeful for the CZ 600 trail when it first came out, but when I finally got my hands on one, the stock in particular was so loose, rattled so much and felt so cheap. I did not feel comfortable with, or Safe purchasing and firing one. Now I feel even more justified.

[@ANV1832]

Just a little correction : it is Colt that is a part of CZ not the other way round.

[@lumajs]

Excellent details and thoughts. Greetings from a Czech Colt CZ shareholder. Not sure whether you understand it, the majority owner of the Colt CZ group is a Czech man. I was very afraid of the recall but although I think that Americans sue too much, I think it just makes sense to impose this protection if an accident could happen in CZ controlled facilities. There are many perfectionist people there but it still happened, so it may happen to regular users, too. Whether or not the judge would upheld the complaint, I would just feel bad about a potential injured man. And even if there were none, I would be annoyed that many may feel that CZ is OK with selling weapons with features that were unsafe.

[@PolenarTactical]

Yes, i full understand the potential legal issue... But the feature is completely safe, as long as you do it correctly. Similar to a Glock - it's safe until a user makes a mistake and shoots himself or someone else. I also understand that its' better to be extra safe then get sued in the US but on the other side i think that CZ lost a lot of respect and trust from people after they saw a recall for "potentially unsafe" rifles In a mind of a future buyer that sounds like CZ made shitty unsafe rifles and had to recall then which is absolutely not the csae. Look at Sig Sauer -they had a pistol that would fire by itself and even they didnt make a recall, just a "voluntary upgrade"

[@lumajs]

​@@PolenarTacticalI see it mostly as ethical issue, not a legal one. If things were done perfectly, the world would be perfect and people would be immortal. The point is that this mistake could have happened in the truly professional environment of Cz and its test shooters.

[@DannyGraves1775]

You, Sir, are a prime example of why companies need to *_stay away from issuing shares._* You do not fundamentally understand the original reason for the rifle's existence (nor the underpinnings of the quick change barrel system), or you would have voted against the recall and the changes. You care about looks, and share value, rather than value of the brand and it's goods to consumers. And that, Sir, WILL be the undoing of the company in the long run. As Žiga so aptly pointed out, the one stand-out feature the system WOULD have had was the easy, user servicable barrel that would even allow for caliber changes within minutes, and without the need for much (if ANY) re-zeroing of the rifle. These features are normally only seen with extremely expensive American rifles that cost upwards of €6000, and thus pretty much unattainable for the average European shooter, and CZ *_could_* have really cornered a whole new niche in the market. Instead, these functions are now GONE, and with it the one reason why I would want to add one of these rifles to my hunting permit... because if I have to take the rifle to a gunsmith for a barrel change, to the tune of another €200 (or more), plus cost of the barrel, then what's the point? Sure, you've saved the company from a bunch of stupid users, but you've also completely dissolved the one unique selling point, meaning there's no reason to buy this €1600 rifle over a Winchester, Tika, or even any other CZ rifle that's half the price...

[@lumajs]

@@DannyGraves1775 Dear Danny, every sane shareholder cares about the stock price. I also care about everything else and observe the products, transactions, reviews of products, and financial reports. One could argue that my having earned about 100% return on Cz, as well as on the stock portfolio as a whole, has something to do with my being such a deep and ingenious shareholder. I understand that some people would prefer the recall not to have happened but I still think that the perfectionism is such a part of the Cz brand that to say that a serious injury inside the Cz facilities is Nothing to be seen here... simply doesn't work for us. You seem to be a better fit with less celebrated brands or amateurish guns. Also, on the purely practical side, I believe that the number of users who actually find the switching of the barrels on Cz 600 to be important is tiny and inconsequential for the revenue. Sorry but it is mostly a useless activity by which some people show that they are better at gun mechanics than most.

[@wlewisiii]

@@DannyGraves1775 And people like you are why we end up with POS like GLOCK being praised to high heaven. Morons everywhere.

[@Watercarrier]

No Žiga, the „recoil“ is not wrong! Love your accent. And your content. Of course.

[@Nickrioblanco1]

My Sig MCX has a very similar barrel change system. I do not believe the rifle will hold zero when you change the barrel. I ended up just getting another receiver and making a separate upper which does hold zero and allows me to use a different type of optic more suitable for the way I am using the rifle in that configuration.

[@dbmail545]

What a shame. I would love to have been able to fit a pencil weight barrel or a 6.5 Grendel barrel on my 600 Trail in 7.62x39. The medium weight barrel deflects less with a suppressor on the end but a pencil weight barrel seems more in line with what the gun was designed for: a backpack gun.

[@PolenarTactical]

I'm looking to make short 300 blk barrels to use with suppressors. Also trying out a lightweight carbon fiber handguard for CZ600 Trail that will be free-floated

[@jeep13ca]

If that's all it was recalled for it should not have been done. Would be nice to be able to change the barrel like that

[@CARL_093]

good job bro and i think it had that featured CZ 600 rifles were designed to allow the users to replace the barrels themselves to change the caliber. CZ-USA has learned that if the barrel is improperly installed, it is possible that the rifle could still be fired, but potentially result in a catastrophic failure.

[@PolenarTactical]

Yes, your statement is completely true but also is valid for any AR15 rifle on the market - "improperly installed" means that the user doesnt tighten the barrel screws and tries to fire

[@jeffscaparra6985]

@@PolenarTactical if the bolt also locked into the receiver and couldn't fly backward this would be a lot safer. Also AR-15 companies don't advertise quick change barrels so I am not sure this is an apples to apples comparison. To change caliber there I just change the upper.

[@Bojangles6]

I knew this is exactly what happened when they announced that they werent going to have the change barrel feature.

[@HowItChewsToGum5Feels]

"Legal shit shows" are exactly why we cant have nice things. Guy messes with thing, thing gets him hurt, company making thing is sued for the damages. Happens wayyyyy more often than you'd think.

[@marinioaweischo6614]

A difficulty in making such barrels could be tolerances. There are tolerances in the bolt and there will be tolerances in the barrel. You won't get around hecking Headspace and proof testing with the intended rifle

[@dbmail545]

I have a 600 Trail and I would be very hesitant to buy an aftermarket barrel from anyone other than CZ. Unlike an AR the barrel lugs are not a separate piece pinned on the end of the tube but precisely machined into the barrel blank. Not sure I could trust a barrel that had been "reverse engineered" without the benefit of the TDP (which I don't expect CZ to release)

[@marinioaweischo6614]

@@dbmail545 It must be done by a experienced company, there are a bunch of companies which make barrels with the locking part in it, Rössler for example and i think an austrian company which makes R8 barrels.

[@tacticalmanatee]

The easily changed barrel was the big draw of the 600 series. Now it's just another meh bolt-action rifle.

[@meansofproduction4213]

This is the equivalent of forgetting what powder you’re using during reloading and blowing your own face off. All serious gun people accept risk for their actions and hobby. It’s on you if you want to explore the hobby beyond the FUDD level.

[@icy3-1]

I just came gere to watch and listen to Ziga rant. I enjoyed it :)

[@icy3-1]

Here* Fat fingers

[@SpartanONegative]

Thanks for sharing with us. God Bless 🙏 Stay Frosty

[@marcaurel6087]

I would buy your 300BLK barrell for sure!

[@IamONaLIST]

I recently found a 223 version on sale for $750 and I think a 300blk would be great but I am also thinking about a 6mmARC. It would be nice lightweight deer, hog, or varmint rifle.

[@laughingsaladfarm]

If I can get that rifle, i would definitely want to be able to swap out the barrel. it's the whole reason I wanted one of those to begin with.

[@Argentum7756]

I have been a CZ owner and fan for many years but buying the Colt group to get into more military contracts was a huge huge mistake. Colt is notorious for being mismanaged by multiple parties (which is why they constantly face bankruptcy) and I have it on good authority that the CZ-USA plant in Kansas was shut down and operations were moved to Colt. In other words on the US side Colt is CZ now, some buy out huh. Which is completely backwards and aggravating to me as I am trying to get spare parts for my CZs. Really dumb corporate move CZ. Talk to your people on the floor and talk to your customers, don't just talk to people in suits in a Board Room.

[@gfreeman5568]

I agreed even before your video. I was set to pick up one up, but when the recall came out and the quick barrel feature was removed . I was no longer interested. Bad move CZ. I suspect sales are sucking.

[@PolenarTactical]

The sales are definitely lower because of it but also a lot of people lost trust in CZ because they thought there was a serious issue with their firearms... When you do a recall on something people immediately assume you made a shitty product

[@s.d.bobplissken5674]

This is why we can't have nice things. Accidental stupidity and intentional stupidity. Bringing lawyers into it makes it intentionally stupid. And being able to swap this to a 300blk just makes sense.

[@teddyrasputin3850]

You'd think there'd be a practicle difference between manufacturing something for safe ease of use and dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator. But apparently there isn't, and this is why we can't have nice things.

[@matthewspeller]

I totally agree, and it prevented me from buying a CZ600. It will be much easier with a Tikka or Savage or Rem700 clone. Prefits exist for them and they are common and cheap.

[@kevinwolfe5448]

LMT has had a quick change barrel system for 20 years and it’s been fine, haven’t been sued. This is silly.

[@MatoVuc]

The tester is lucky to be alive, but i don't understand why he was firing an over pressure proof load while shouldering the rifle. Isn't that what leade-sleads are for?

[@PolenarTactical]

Its a normal procedure with all proper gun manufacturers. The 30% hotter round is still in allowed pressure range and serves as the final QC

[@tomass8425]

I was looking at buying one till now. If there were barrels available from cz or aftermarket of go ahead and get one, but not without the ability to switch barrels.

[@PolenarTactical]

That's what sucks right now, CZ has canceled the option to get aftermarket barrels from them directly as an end customer. Only certified CZ gunsmiths can buy and install one... This sucks for all of us because i dont care about the warranty and i would like to have a swappable barrel, but at the moment i cant get one

[@CrashingPotatoEngineer]

Well that's a bummer. This one was on my to-do list. Now it seems like it's too much trouble unless like mentioned we can get barrels after market.

[@Vin_San]

For me the whole interest was to be able to switch from 222 to 300 (both C cartridges there, unlimited amount buy able per year) to 223, so, ehhhh :(

[@PolenarTactical]

Yeah, mee to, especially if i could get a short 300 blk barrel with a suppressor

[@88kar88]

Its very frustrating when a promised feature like this just "disappears" and not only that, but now you are punished for removing the barrel? ridiculous. CZ could have shipped it Loctite-ed or included some extra warning paperwork or something, and not punished owners for servicing their own property by voiding their warranty. I am upset by a trend of bad warranty and QC and Customer care issues in the gun industry as a whole, and not happy about the way CZ is moving lately.

[@riflemanm16a2]

Accuracy International rifles have the same barrel change system except it’s just one screw, and I don’t think it’s been a problem.

[@PolenarTactical]

Nothing wrong with the system or rifles, they are just afraid to get sued. Also i think calling it a recall was a bad move because people thought there were real safety or quality issues... they should do something similar than Sig Sauer and call it volountary upgrade :D

[@mat3716]

How did the firing pin reach the primer if the lugs didn’t lock up? Edit: turns out it is a controlled round feed, I assumed push feed. It’s me, I’m the problem.

[@PolenarTactical]

It's a legit question For the first two rounds the bolt was able to lock into the barrel normally but on the third one, the round seemed to get caught by the extractor and held on the bolt face - but when the bolt went forward it pushed the whole barrel out and away from the bolt instead of locking it. So the round detonated without proper support of the chamber

[@brownrecluse3772]

Me too! I was sure I read that the 600 was a push-feed style bolt. Time to re-educate myself there.

[@HammondArmory]

CZ also stopped selling to home based FFL dealers. Although I like CZ products I will never buy/sell another one

[@miroslavmajer5155]

I think you missed the main point of that. The main reason is beacuse CZ know that the assembly line is not so goot and therefore that mistake can occur with a gun assempled from their factory. I live in CZ and I have couple of guns from CZ. It's a common "thing" that some of their guns are badily assembled, even though it's the same dun. It happend to me with the P10 gun that I bought direcly from CZ and the aiming sites were badly glued. After shooting 1000rounds it lost it's zeroing. I actually know another guy that had the same issue with the magazine bolt, and another had to return his bren2. So, that's the main reason - it could happen with the gun sold directly from their factory.

[@williamflowers9435]

They need to figure out which employees are not doing their job properly and fire them. Idk if that’s still possible in Europe but in the USA incompetence is no longer a fireable offense, unfortunately. Lawyers and HR departments have ruined everything.

[@miroslavmajer5155]

@@williamflowers9435 we have a different law. You can't fire anyone that easily here.

[@williamflowers9435]

@@miroslavmajer5155 that’s unfortunate. Doing a half @$$ed job should not be acceptable, especially when you’re working in the firearms industry

[@lurebenson7722]

As a rifle builder what he described the barrel moved forward and that bolt locks into the barrel it would be impossible for a firing pin to touch the primer to set it off. If the bolt was locked into the barrel, it would be just the same why as an AR 15 locks up and if the bolt isn't locked up into the barrel it can't set off the primer.

[@PolenarTactical]

As a rifle builder you then should have no problem understanding this - imagine you forget to screw a barrel nut on an AR and the barrel can move freely. When the bolt goes forward it strips a round and when tying to chamber it, instead of bolt lugs going into the locking piece, they push the whole barrel out of the rifle a bit - but since there is some pressure on the bolt from the barrel, it will still rotate into the "locked position", correct? So now you have a loaded round on the bolt face, bolt in locked position but completely outside of the barrel extension. So if i press the trigger now it will go kaboom

[@nunyabeeswax2575]

@@PolenarTactical one other po8nt the OP might have missed is that CZ 600 bolt face isn't a simonpure push feed or controlled round feed system, I believe it is a hybrid system. Would that be correct Jiga?

[@ivanov-sl1cj]

Я думаю что ствол при установее должен поворачиваться вдоль штифта и фиксироваться пином. Тогда не будет ошибочно при установке.

[@josephwilding5142]

id definetly want one in 300 blk. but since you cant find them, a 556 and a 300 barrel would be nice

[@PolenarTactical]

300 blk is definitely coming - some are already available in europe

[@josephwilding5142]

@@PolenarTactical had a couple available here in Canada, but they are sold by now

[@lucasblanchard47]

I can’t even imagine any situation where I’d want a “quick change barrel” on a bolt action rifle. Edit: I would ABSOLUTELY buy one in 300BLK!

[@xshorty117x]

I worked with a guy that bought an AR with a loose barrel nut. He asked me if the barrel is supposed to wobble. Lol Thankfully he didnt try to shoot it yet.

[@Cyan25]

love ur videos guys

[@vislor1]

All they had to do was to copy the solution from the Sauer 202 where there is a latch that prevents reinstalling the forend if the latch isn't closed into the barrel. Also the receiver is so tight, you have to pry it in order to pull the barrel out. Basically foolproof. But noooo... They had to make this absolute mess, that is the CZ 600 series. I had to change the barrel screws in the first few Lux models that came with the first batch. When I removed the stock screws on the very first one and tried to pull off the stock it came off with a sudden cracking sound. I thought I broke the wood somehow, but it was the sound of the varnished and tight fit wood separating from the steel. They stuck together. From time to time I get a phonecall where people tell me the bolt is broken. It always turns out they were messing with it and it just fell apart. When you hold a 600 by the empty magazine and open the bolt it rolls on the feeding lips, chipping the plastic. It is a very rushed design pushed by the marketing department.

[@Almost_Made_It]

The recall was probably not because of what can happen if an end user doesn’t install the barrel and screws right, but because they realized that if those screws have even the slightest possibility of backing out on their own, someone could be killed and it would absolutely be on CZ for not making 100% positive that those screws can’t come out accidentally

[@PolenarTactical]

That's the thing, the barrel screws are not pressure bearing and ther is no way for them to get just loose. Even one galf tighten screw would work perfectly because the bolt locks directly into the barrel. The issue is if you change the barrel and dont install or dont tighten the screws. CZ installed red loctite only as a means to prevent people from removing the barrel themselves and preventing legal issues

[@servicerifle16]

I was really interested in the barrel swaps because I want to get the Lux version in 30'06 and pick a 6.5x55 or 8x57 barrel since CZ doesn't ship those caliber rifles to the US.

[@billpark8988]

Here in the US if you get a fart crooked you sue. Never your own fault. Lawyers ruin everything when they get involved.

[@dylankroll]

I’d buy one.

[@justinsteele8613]

I would love to see replacement barrels especially in 6.5 Grendel

[@k10sh1r0]

I have one in 7.62x39. i wanted to get a 16" 6.5 grendel. That would be my perfect wood deer rifle.

[@malcolmkermode9794]

It's a design flaw. Actually two design flaws.There should be a notch in the barrel where one of the clamping screws goes through the receiver. That way even if the screws come loose from firing or not being tightened enough in the first place the barrel still can't slip forward. Secondly there is no safety lug at the rear of the bolt. In the event of a failure, over pressure from a cartridge being loaded with the wrong powder. A squib or far more likely if someone was to load a 300 blackout round into a 223 barrel, a safety lug would prevent someone from being severely injured or killed. It's a very dangerous design and should be either fixed properly or recalled entirely. Anyway that's my take on it.

[@prfwrx2497]

This is a stupid recall, and one that will cause more accidents. See, when you red loctite the screws from the factory, it creates a false sense of security. It becomes impossible to check whether the barrel securing screws were even torqued properly in the first place. Basically, now you just ensured such future screwups are harder to detect until it goes kaboom. Every end user should check their barrel nut or barrel securing screw torque. This change in assembly precludes that possibility of end user safety check.

[@cburn-YT]

I would say that I'm not a BIG fan of that barrel change system, look at your LMG's and the like, they have that big handle to twist and pop out the barrel and if thats not installed properly you can tell just at a glance, you can't really do that with screws, I like the idea not the execution and honestly if a mistake, and this WAS absolutely user error on the guy who installed the screws, NOT the shooter, but if a mistake like this was this easy to make the system is flawed in my opinion, I'm not a mechanical engineer I cannot give any sort of sound SOLUTION but I hope this whole concept isn't scrapped

[@PolenarTactical]

Nothing is scrapped, the rifles are the same, only with red loctite added and officially with quick barrel change feature "removed" This system is as flawed as any AR15 - the same will happen if you install the barrel in your AR but forget to torque the barrel nut. When you fire it it will go kaboom :D

[@cburn-YT]

​@@PolenarTactical which I agree but AR Barrels are not advertised as quick change because its not all that QUICK to change them, especially versus this system where other platforms it does take longer to do caliber swaps, if somehow czechnology could have some sort of indicator that's shown after both screws are tightened I'd love it, especially with the overall lightweight sleek design. Side note HI Ziga you're probs my faviorate gun-tuber hope you're doing well!

[@Feniu2412]

Add a step to the QA process to make sure the screws are properly tightened? Nah, lets get rid of a good feature instead... What if they don't screw it in properly from the factory again? Doubt red loctite will help much.

[@PolenarTactical]

The issue is not in the factory because the ultimate QC is live fire - and CZ will live fire all their guns without exception. What they want to prevent is users removing the barrel themselves and then forgetting to tighten the screws... which could cause an accident

[@M8Military]

What's interesting to me is that they didn't do the same thing to the cz 457. It's really the same thing in terms of barrel retention. I wonder why the 457 is different in this scenario, it's not like 22lr is safe to detonate out of battery

[@PolenarTactical]

Bren 2ms also can have the barrel changed by removing 2 screws, the difference is that they dont advertise it as a "quick barrel change" feature and they also do not state anywhere that it's user replaceable. It's not about safety but potential lawsuits

[@tuberaider]

The recall seems like an overreaction. Lawyers want companies to make products that are foolproof. They could have just shipped the rifle with preset torque wrenches for those screws, made the side of the screws hi viz so that it would be easily visible if they ever back out, put cross pins on those so that if the pin cant be inserted, then the user would know that the screws are out - I dont know. Like the saying goes: You can try to make things foolproof, but they keep making better fools.

[@PolenarTactical]

Functionally the system is still there and works, just screws are glued in with red loctite so they see if you messed with them. The quick barrel change system is good and the screws cant just get loos by themselves. They were just afraid that a user would change the barrel, forgot to tighten the screws, get injured and then sue them In europe that would not work but in the US you can get millions in damage costs that way...

[@kmom777]

It is Deffently great to have replacement barrels.

[@erniedesantis597]

I think the fact that the gun could go off while it was technically "out"of battery is a little more concerning. If the front lugs were too far away from the locking recesses that are allegedly on the barrel how could the bolt face have been in contact with the cartridge case enough for the firing pin to ignite the primer? If the case was held in place by the extractor I could see it as a possibility but if pushing thr bolt home pushed the barrel forward enough to miss the lugs the case should have separated because it was un supported or the barrel should have blown forward. Sheering the safety lug/bolt handle and expelling the bolt rearward is not what I would have expected...even with a proof round. But I wasn't there and haven't handled one of these rifles so I'm just speculating.

[@nivo177]

The short action has 2 sets of lugs, it may have partially locked in to the second set 🤔

[@modegamingsukses189]

Good Guns 😮❤🎉

[@chrisdt2297]

maybe their lawyer just said: You'll need a screw safety to win in court

[@philipwilkin2667]

Sorry to disagree, but this is not how risk management / usability engineering works. An error that occurs while the user is trying his best to use the product correctly is within the responsibility of the designer. Imagine I would sell a rifle with a big red button on the side, that if it is pushed makes the rifle explode. Now I hand everyone a manual saying "you can use the rifle normally, but never push the button". Then you go ahead and sell 100.000 rifles. I know it is an extreme example, but the designer of the product is liable in both cases.

[@PolenarTactical]

Nothing wrong with disagreeing but with your logic, how do you explain the millions of AR15 that are in the civilian market at the moment? Vast majority of them can have the barrel replaced by unscrewing the barrel nut, changing the barrel and then re-tightening it. Guess what happens if you dont screw in and tighten an AR15 barrel nut and try to shoot it...

[@philipwilkin2667]

When it comes to the legal side, there is something called the "intended use" of your product. This is what you advertise your product as being able to do in your instructions for use and marketing material. CZ intentionally included this as a feature in their intended use and is therefore liable for it if something goes wrong on the usability side. The difference is an AR manufacturer does not advertise this and it is not part of the intended use of their product. Doesn't make it less dangerous if you fuck it up, I agree. However the company is not liable. When doing risk management during product development, you ought to add a functionality to the gun that stops it from firing if the screws are not tightened as a risk mitigation. As they failed to do that, the only other option is to do this ""recall"" and remove the quick change feature from the intended use. And yeah, not tightening the screws is turboretarded. Greetings from Germany brother.

[@PolenarTactical]

@@philipwilkin2667 nothing was removed from the gun, same system is still there as you can see from my video - i removed the barrel. What CZ did was purely legal in nature- they put red glue on the screws and said that if you temper with them, you void the warranty. This is only to protect them legally. You can try to make something super safe and idiot proof, but the issue is that there will always be a bigger idiot... Just look at Glock and all of their internal safety features but people still manage to shoot themselves and others "accidentally"

[@philipwilkin2667]

​@@PolenarTactical Yes, exactly what I am trying to say. This is purely legal in nature, but it is not CZ doing a dumb thing, it is just how the law works, so from CZs perspective it is now the best thing they can do. CZ failed to design the rifle in such a way that it cannot fire if the screws are not tightened, this is the actual big fuck up on CZs side. It is a failure of proper risk management in product design. This should have been avoided. They have a risk of people firing it in an unsafe state, from the legal perspective they are now exposing users to that risk by selling the rifle and promoting barrel changes as part of their intended use. By saying this is not a(nymore) part of the intended use, it is reducing this risk, but still not a great place. Everybody that has this rifle, blows themselves up and claims they have only seen old Marketing material praising the quick change barrel feature can sue the shit out of CZ.

[@เซิ่นแซ่จิ๋นเซยซึเดะ]

⛽🛢️🌍⛲🚙🚫🏴‍☠️🎌🇮🇳🇺🇲🇹🇻รู้สึกสบายใจ​ที่ห้ามมนุษย์​เอเชียใช้รถยนต์​

[@bagel411]

Hey Look! Comments are allowed

[@PolenarTactical]

For now...

[@bagel411]

@@PolenarTactical appreciate all the steps you took for the community

[@bolajieniwaye4220]

Can you do a slower disassembly of the barrel? is it just the pressure of the screws on the side holding it together or are they screwed into the barrel, want to know understand how it came apart. Also can you let me know when you make the barrels? i would buy one in 223.

[@gillieshooter4742]

wonder about a failsafe to prevent firing pin contact with primer if the lugs arent engaged. and YUP the US very often legislates against USER ERROR. We protect idiots from themselves a little too much.

[@RonOhio]

Can't call it user error if it was misassembled in the factory by one worker, and maimed some other worker who's job was to test fire it. That is a bad design, screws loosen, it is in their nature. Mauser put locking screws in his screws for a reason.

[@deadmangarcia]

I agree!

[@Element_punk]

Stupid recall.

[@MrMatzinc]

surprising than safety risk on production line like the torque from threaded parts holding the barrel are not on the cz quality control list

[@bonoandlavin]

I totally agree with you but you expect a country where they have to print 'CAUTION: This coffee is hot' on the cup has any common sense left? ;) I think a better design would be some spring locking mechanism to keep the barrel place where you have to press down twist to pull out the barrel would be better. In that case you don't need any tool and it is locked in place without worrying screws might strip in the future.

[@PolenarTactical]

The screws do not strip or back out by themselves. To explain my point, same issue would happen with a spring locking mechanism - imagine that the shooter would take a rifle with the spring locking mechanism open (analogy for not tightening the screws) and then firing the rifle that would explode. Who is it to blame? - the faulty CZ mechanism that actually worked as it should, or the person that didnt CLOSE that mechanism?

[@fireteammichael1777]

*someone fails to follow proper installation and torque procedures* "Let's initiate a recall campaign, sounds like a legit manufacturing flaw."

[@PolenarTactical]

Yes, that's my point. It made people think that there's actually something wrong with these rifles or that they are potentially dangerous. Very bad PR And ironically Sig Sauer only made a "volountary upgrade" and not a recall when their pistols could fire without a trigger press :D

[@texbullington9979]

Ppl will say they didn't touch the screws when they actually just forgot to tighten them and sue cz

[@jmullner76]

Happy Birthday Ziga!

[@LaughingMan44]

They're concerned that a rifle without tightened screens could have made it into the hands of a customer

[@PolenarTactical]

Didnt you watch the video? The recall doesnt solve that, it only officially "eliminates" the quick barrel change option. CZ was affraid that a customer would change barrel, not tighten the screws and then get hurt

[@velvetant]

I wounder if they could have incorporated a saftey mechanism in the bolt that would prevent the firing pin from moving with the bolt isnt engage in the barrel? Either way, i hate ideas like this. It like how guns have warnings imprinted on them that "This firearm my cause serious injury or death".

[@PolenarTactical]

Yes, they could but same thing would happen - even if you try to make something idiot-proof, they will just make a better idiot

[@velvetant]

@@PolenarTactical so true.

[@MalikEl-leissy]

Aside from the bolt, what stops the barrel from moving forward when the bolt is not engaged? Do the torx screws only hold the barrel on with clamping force or is there a pin that stops the barrel moving forward?