CZ-75 owners - do you know what you're talking about?

[SDDL-UP]

Excellent comments here so far guys!

browningguy,

I am just curious but why do you state that a CZ-75 would "surely" not be better than a Tanfoglio? I know some Tanfoglio owners prefer them to CZ's even though they are an evolution of the basic CZ-75 design. What about the Tanfoglio do you prefer?

Also have you ever tried a CZ-75 SA (single action)? I never have but then again I don't have a problem carrying the CZ cocked and locked either.

 

[lastresort777]

I`ve seen a lot of "my 1911" comments but I`m curious as to which 1911. The original or one of the hundreds of clones?

 

[briang2ad]

"Surely aren't better than HPs..."

That may depend a bit. If you have smaller hands, and if you install a different safety, maybe it is better for you.

But the CZ is a bit more versatile. It comes with a very well positioned and useable safety, provides C/L carry as easily as any 1911/HP, and CAN be carried DA/SA. It is easily as accurate, and is VERY consistent to POI with various rounds. The grip actually feels a little rounder and more ergonomic than the BHP - but the browning is a bit slimmer.

 

[armoredman]

I carried a Tanfolgio for 13+ years, the first 40 EAA Witness marked Tan to hit the US. I wish I hadn't sold it, but I can state it was a well made solid sidearm. My wife carried three Tans over the years, as well. I would not feel underarmed with a Tan. I just prefer the feel and action of the original, CZ.

 

[Baba Louie]

Do I know what I'm talking about? Probably not.

I do like my CZ75, just as I do like it's little brother the 83. The ability to do both DA and SA is I guess, nice, tho I only shoot it in SA, so I'll use that as the basis for comparison to...

Start with the BHP. Hmmm. Fit and finish go to the Browning, accuracy is equal. Trigger. It's not fair comparing a DA/SA to the HP's SA but then again I've left my HP trigger stock and you know what that means so we'll call that a push. If I had the mag disconnect safety undone and a trigger job on the HP it still wouldn't be a fair comparison so... push. Both fit me like they were designed around my hands or vice versa. Equal. Price point goes to the Czech. One was designed by JMB (sorta) one was designed using JMB's concept (sorta), we'll call that a push. So it's fit and finish compared to price point. Subjective point to the P35 since it came first.

Move to the Beretta 92FS. Similar trigger design one being internal one external. I'll lean to the CZ there. Barrel Lockup. CZ. Price point. CZ. Fit and finish goes to the Italian... but it is kinda blocky in my hands and I do prefer the 75. I don't care for slide mounted safety, hands down to CZ. My CZ is more accurate than my 92 (tho curiously, not to my Taurus 99). I'll lean towards the 75 and have often wondered how they might have fared (faired?) if they hadn't been a nasty Commie gun in the US trials of 84-85... but that's a moot point.

Next we'll compare it to the Glock 17. I like the 17. A lot. As a shooting device it's a simpleton's tool (hmmmm). It's accurate. Equal. It's ugly. 75 wins there. It's trigger is spongey but I know the reset and can shoot it fast if need be, faster than the CZ, so I'll give that to the 17 sponge or no. It does feel good in my hands and it points naturally for me. Push. When shooting it I look like I know what I'm doing. Push. Sure is lighter than the Czech, isn't it? I can carry it all day (in fact I have) 17 point. Glocks sure are easy to detail strip aren't they? I have yet to break down the 75 into many parts. I'll lean towards the ugly Austrian, knowing that others are in shock at my indiscretion and ignorance.

SIG 226. DAK. God I love that trigger. It's really a very good gun so I'll just say SIG and take the heat. It's probably what our soldiers should be using if they've got to shoot a NATO round.

Colt 1911 or 1991 or Combat Commander. Sorry. I'm predisposed to that design, the .45 and that trigger. For me it cannot be beat. I've never had a problem with Colt (well, I did lose a front sight once and had to get a new one staked on... and that was a wee bit annoying) Sorry CZ. I really wonder if given a chance to redo the 85 trials and leave the .45 in there as the basis for sending chunks o' lead downrange if... nah. Won't cry over spilt milk.

S&W 3rd gen. I'll just skip it and say CZ.

Choose not to do Ruger semi's. Got no basis for comparison. Sorry. Have to let others do that.

If I had to pit the CZ up against my S&W wheelguns, it'd lose. It might hold more rounds. It might be newer. But in my mind it isn't in the same race and if it was it'd need one hell of a head start and even then it would still lose. Call it prejudice or ignorance or me not knowing what I'm talking about. Or maybe call it day vs night, dog vs cat.

Don't know how it all came out. I do know that I typically have either a Colt Commander or a S&W 60 out and ready to use if need be while the CZ sits in the safe ready to go... right behind its Austrian neighbor, it's usually found in the on deck circle. If I'm going to carry that much weight around it'll be a Commander pushing a .45 caliber round down the tube or a S&W pushing another type of .36 pill albeit fewer of them.

But that's just me and I readily admit I don't know what I'm talking about. Just what I've grown up with and what I like. YMMV

 

[Hawk]

Handgun fit is a terribly subjective thing. In the dim and distant past I rented everything I could get my mitts on trying to decide on a carry piece. I could never warm up to the CZ-75 though I'm sure it's a fine handgun.

I did rather like the P-01 although why I would prefer it that much over the CZ alternatives is something of a mystery. Anyhow, in the spirit of the OP, what wound up in my "carry group" (those I liked well enough to buy a Sparks to carry it in) include:


A couple P7-PSPs, one of which got Roguarded / NP3'd.
An STI VIP in .40 S&W
A SIG P239 in 357SIG


Both the 357SIG and .40 are chamberings I swore I'd never own but caved when the gun I wanted that day 'came that way'.

The STI is a delight. The SIG is another "personal preference" mystery - I generally hate small-ish semis in snappy chamberings and (compared to the STI) crappy triggers but the P239 just flat feels and works right. I have no rational explanation. The fact that it's in the general CZ price ball park doesn't hurt. The same cannot be said for the STI.

The HK I like in spite of myself. I called HK to see if I could retrofit the P7M8 trigger heat guard to the PSP but they (with apologies to a certain mod here) told me that I sucked and they hated me.

Someday I'll own the P-01 or the RAMI or whatever that CZ thing is. The -75 has fallen smooth off my radar through no fault of its own. As much as I tried to like the CZ-97B, that will never happen either - seemed to make my G21 seem svelte by comparison but that's probably my genetically impaired mitts.

 

[Danus ex]

I had a strange experience with the CZ. For the record, my autoloaders are a BHP and a 1911.

The first time I had the opportunity to shoot a CZ-75, I had very high hopes. I knew it was supposed to be similar to the BHP so I figured I'd love it. However, when I grasped the gun, my immediate reaction was "Aaaack! Get it out of my hand!" I set the gun down and pretended to fiddle with it a bit before I picked it back up and shot it. I shot it no better or worse than other DA/SAs like the 92FS, but I despised the CZ's trigger.

I've never reacted that way to any handgun. It was like plunging into cold water. I'll wear a wetsuit next time.

 

[Zak Smith]

I've owned a variety of autoloading pistols, from $180 Makarovs up to $2500+ custom 1911s, BHPs, and raceguns. I've purchased 4 CZ pistols, compacts and full-size 75/85 models. I don't own any CZ pistols anymore.

The pistols I kept and shoot/train/compete with include: Glock 9mms; HK P7PSP; SV/STI "2011" double-stack raceguns.

Of the 4 CZs I bought, three did not operate properly from the box. A "1911-crisp" trigger will necessitate too little hammer/sear engagement. Placement of thumb safety is inferior to the 1911. The arugment for the CZ was that it was a "Great pistol for the money." While this is true at $300 or even $350 (if you don't put any more money into it), at $450-550, why not just buy a Glock?

When the cost of ammo, training, and travel is factored in, a purchase price difference of even $150 means little. That's 3 tanks of gas or less than a case of 9mm!