Zastava M85 carbine

[CHeatermk3]

After reading posts here about mini mausers in 30 Russ short I went to J&G sales and they have several cals. and configs. in stock

I have a CZ 527 LH in 223 and have been wanting one in 7,62x39 ever since I had to choose between the 527 in 223 and the russian round.

That was years ago and the $$ they want for CZ rifles these days is off-putting to me (I paid just over 325 for mine OTD).

Well they shipped my rifle and tracking says it'll be delivered "Before the end of business" tomorrow.

Mold should be here tomorrow too and my pkg of brass and dies should be here Monday.

Still plenty of the M85's in 222, 223, 22lr and 7,62x39 in stock at J&G. LH too in 223 & 30short russ.

Go for it!



Note the 22lr is not an M85 but a "CZ99"...

[Prospector Howard]

I saw one of the M85 .223's at an LGS recently and noticed that it had an action and bolt that seemed undersized to me. I had a MiniMark X years ago in 7.62x39, but sold it. I just never felt comfortable shooting it with the tiny bolt that felt like it belonged on a .22. Curious to see if the M85 in 7.62x39 is built the same way. When you get it, let me and others know what you think. Thanks.

[CHeatermk3]

]Thanks for the reply Howard.

Yes it does have a small bolt; it is the same size as the bolt my CZ in 223 has. Part of the mini mausers' charm is their small size.

I will say that I was initially kinda bummed when I first got it out of the packaging because the stock is quite long (for me) at 14-1/2 inches LOP.

It has a thick butt pad that I'll be removing and without the pad the LOP is almost right for me--I'm thick in the chest and short in the arms I like 13.25" for LOP.

Maybe I'll post some pix a bit later--the wood itself is nice Walnut and very closely fitted to the metal which is flawless as far as I can tell.

EDIT:
Here's a coupla pix--

It's waiting for threadlocker to fully cure and a new buttpad (wanna have it in hand before I cut the wood back) also as you can see I like my workspace cluttered!

Don't know if it shows up but there's a bit of fiddleback in the cheekpiece and yes it's left handed.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]136994[/ATTACH

[tdd4570]

I picked one up also. I thought fit and finish was pretty good. Checkering was a little shallow as I had heard other places.
I would have preferred the stock be a little trimmer, but overall I'm happy with the one I got.
First range session, I got it on paper and shot about 10 rounds. I had my two sons along so I didn't get any accuracy testing done.

[CHeatermk3]

Well the loctite is fully cured so I got a scope out to mount for load testing and found a problem--the scope is way crooked and out-of-plumb.
OH NO thinks I --looking closely at the bases, the rear base looks to be out of line slightly front-to-back--lucky I didn't cut the stock this unit may hafta go back to where it came from. I tried to put a level on the rings but it's obvious that the rear base is not only mis-aligned but about 1/16" too high.

So, as I'm wondering if I should send the rifle back(NO NO) or just lap the rings in(way too much material would need to be removed) it occured to me that I really needed to determine just where the problem( s?) really were.

I got a piece of string and made a loop in it and put the loop over the rear sight(I fired 4 rounds the day I got it and it's shooting straight), lined it up with the notch and pulled it tight over the bases--screws are all in line. WHEW--it's the rear base that is too thick and drilled off-center.

I'll call Century International arms tomorrow and report back on how I they handle this.

Also, I may not be the first guy to have had these rings & bases--there was dried blue loctite in one of the 4 threaded holes in one of the rings--the other 7 were like you would expect to see--just a bit of oil on clean threads.

[35 shooter]

Well the loctite is fully cured so I got a scope out to mount for load testing and found a problem--the scope is way crooked and out-of-plumb.
OH NO thinks I --looking closely at the bases, the rear base looks to be out of line slightly front-to-back--lucky I didn't cut the stock this unit may hafta go back to where it came from. I tried to put a level on the rings but it's obvious that the rear base is not only mis-aligned but about 1/16" too high.

So, as I'm wondering if I should send the rifle back(NO NO) or just lap the rings in(way too much material would need to be removed) it occured to me that I really needed to determine just where the problem( s?) really were.

I got a piece of string and made a loop in it and put the loop over the rear sight(I fired 4 rounds the day I got it and it's shooting straight), lined it up with the notch and pulled it tight over the bases--screws are all in line. WHEW--it's the rear base that is too thick and drilled off-center.

I'll call Century International arms tomorrow and report back on how I they handle this.

Also, I may not be the first guy to have had these rings & bases--there was dried blue loctite in one of the 4 threaded holes in one of the rings--the other 7 were like you would expect to see--just a bit of oil on clean threads.

Would any of the Burris rings with the inserts in them fit? Just thinking you may could get enough lee-way to line things up?
I just bought one in .308 and the stock on it is a bit long for me like yours. It's way too high for iron sight use. My question is when you took the butt pad off could you line the irons up then? I was going to sand mine down some but noticed if i crawled the stock a bit i could almost get them to line up.
Haven't scoped mine yet so i guess i need to check the line up on mine.
Hope you get it worked out easily!

Ok i just re read your post and it's the base that's off not the receiver holes on the rifle...my mistake.

[CHeatermk3]

35-
When I took the pad off I could see the sights OK. I won't be taking wood off the cheekpiece, just shortening the Butt about 1/2-3/4". The "recoil" pad is attached with standard-type wood screws (flat bit). Just push your screwdriver thru the little bulls-eyes and find the slot then turn lefty-loosie. Mine also had a weak contact cement holding it on but came right off with a little persuasion. The rubber closed right back up...I'd use the same pad except I would need to remove too much wood so I'll be finding a thinner one--meanwhile I found that Weaver #23 mount is listed for the mini mauser and per reviews on Midway may need minimal lapping in to match the contour perfectly.

The rear base is so cockeyed that a piece of 1/2" dowell laid on the rear base points enough to the left to miss the rear sight completely.

I messaged J&G sales asking for a call tag/refund or replacement product. Meanwhile the Weaver #23 bases sell for $4.99 here so I may just go get one of those so I can get going on load work. I'll be hunting with the factory irons unless I can find a suitable rear peep setup.

[35 shooter]

CHeatermk3 Thanks, i'll take off the pad later tonight and check the iron sight alignment again. Sounds like we like about the same amount of pull length so that should work for me too. I'm pretty sure i'll wind up cutting off the stock and looking for another pad or re-shape this one to fit.
I'll be using a scope mostly, but want it right for irons if i'm on a hunt and have scope problems. Or if i just want to take the scope off and hunt with irons.
Other than the do it yourself stock they put on them i'm pretty impressed overall and happy with the Zastava. Of course i'll know more when i actually get to shoot it, but have seen lots of good reports as far as the accuracy of them.
Glad to hear the scope base problem sounds like an easy fix for you even if you have to get more bases. The peep sight sounds like fun too!!

[CHeatermk3]

35-
What caliber did you get?

[35 shooter]

35-
What caliber did you get?

It's a .308 in the full size M70. Academy Sports ran a close out on them and then put them on sale again on the 31st of last month, so it was too good to pass up. The close out price was 350.00 and now they're 274.00.
I got it with the idea of a .358 re-bore, but the rifling looks so good in it i think i'll give it a chance as a .308 first. Especially if it turns out to be a 1/12 twist like the CZ .308's, haven't checked it yet though.
Wish i had ordered two of them now!!

[CHeatermk3]

I got out to town and found Weaver base for the rear and some Weaver rings. Swqpped out the Chinese rear base for the Weaver #23 and all is good. When I laid the scope into the bottom half of the rings it fit with no play and straight so rifle is good to go.

Edit
I just checked my inbox for the 1st time since early this AM--J&G sales replied to my request/complaint about the mounts and there was a message that they'll be sending another set and also a UPS call tag for the first set. Good on them for customer service kudos.

[35 shooter]

Don't forget a range report lol. May be a while yet before i get everything together to try my .308 out. Id like to know how yours works out!

[TheGrimReaper]

I got a Interarms MarkX Mini-Mauser in 7.62x39 wearing a Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40. It likes 31.5grs of H335 and a Horn 123gr SP. Shoots one ragged hole at 100 yards. I have taken 3 deer with it.

[tdd4570]

I put the weaver bases on mine. About $5 each and they work just fine.

[CHeatermk3]

I didn't know what bases would fit, having never seen one in person--The Weaver bases do fit perfectly and Weaver rings look much better than the China-made ones from CAI/J&G sales. No reflection on either outfit the mounting package sold for $23 and the screws that came with it are the best part of the package they're torx-drive steel. I'll reserve judgement on the bases until I see the replacements they send me.

I'll be making some ammo soon--I suspect the bore/groove dimensions may be pretty tight but a fired steel case will accept a .313 dia boolit as-cast, with a bit of persuasion so I'll be starting with as-cast boolits over light charges.

[Prospector Howard]

Thanks, CH3. I kind of figured it would be made the same way. I'll agree that part of their charm is the small size, but I think it would be smart to make the bolt and action a little beefier. If I make it to Vegas this summer I'll have to stop by J & G on the way home and look them over. I sort of wish I hadn't sold the Mini Mark X now. I just figured there would be alot of manufacturers making bolt action rifles chambered in 7.62 x 39. Let's see, that was over 20 years ago and I'm still waiting.

[GabbyM]

Howa is coming out with a small action. Three lug short bolt throw. http://legacysports.com/mini-action-rife

Looks interesting.

[gloob]

I picked up an M85 in 223. Unfortunately, mine had some feeding issues. After some digging around, I replaced the mag spring with the spring for a 223 Remington 700. Some dremeling on the spring is required. The Remmy spring is stronger and more compact. It fixed the feeding problems I was having, and as an unexpected bonus, I can fit 1 more round in the mag. In my 223, that means I can get 6+1 in the gun. I can actually fit 7+0 in the mag. I dunno if this will increase the capacity of the 7.62, but if you have any issues with your spring, you know where to get a replacement, now.

Also, FYI, the user manual recommends flaxseed oil for the stock. Mine looked pretty darn dry out of the box, and I happened to have some boiled linseed oil on hand, so I had at it. It drank up 6-7 coats pretty readily. You new owners might want to check and sort out the finish sooner rather than later, lest your stock pick up some dark spots where you handle it. That would be a shame, considering the quality of wood.

I've had mine out maybe 4 times, now, putting some two hundred shots downrange, mostly cast loads. I have said to my GF more than once that this is the best money I have ever spent on a firearm, and I might even mean it. The stock fits me like a glove, just the way it is. I want all my rifles to fit and feel like this.

[CHeatermk3]

Update--
Well I'm still having alignment issues with my Carbine. I mounted a new target-type scope in weaver grand slam rings after replacing the rear base with th Weaver #23. It lined up great with the front mount for height but when I bore sighted it at 50yds, the scope points 20 inches to the left with the barrel pointed at a 3-inch orange dot centered in the bore.

So, still believing that the mounting holes were in the right places (string trick) I obtained a Weaver #71A base and went through the drill all over again--this after mounting and re-mounting several times trying reversed front ring, rear ring, swap front to back ring, etc...Still no joy.

In fact this scope is about 19" long overall and eyeballing it in relation to the barrel it does indeed point to the left, just barely visibly.

So, today I wrote a nice letter to J&G sales explaining the issue. They were prompt to respond to my earlier complaint regarding the rear mount in the package they sent with the purchase of the rifle. They sent a call tag for the first set and a replacement set as well. Unfortunately the replacement set had the same issues as the first--the radius on the bottom of the rear base does not match the contour of the rear of the receiver, as though it was shaped for a much smaller receiver. The Weaver #23 fits very well and resolved the height issue.

So, I'm waiting for tomorrow when I'll call J&G sales and see what they say. I asked for either a replacement rifle, a refund, a check for $$ to weld up the holes and re-drill, or (best option in my view) a credit for the purchase price applied to the purchase of another rifle.

[Twmaster]

Ugh.

I've got an M85 in 22 Hornet. I cannot remember exactly what scope mounts I ordered. (I'm sure they are Weaver branded and I *think* they were for the Remington 799 version of this rifle) The holes were already drilled and filled with dummy screws on my rifle.