CZ vs BHP

Which is the better pistol

  • CZ 75

    Votes: 50 52.1%

  • Browning Hi-Power

    Votes: 46 47.9%
  • Total voters
    96
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Ghostrider_23

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
413
Is there a difference between the CZ 75 and the Browning Hi-pOWER???

THEY BOTH LOOK THE SAME!!!!

What are the differences between the two???

Which is the better of the two pistols?????

Which one has better out of box accuracy???

Which one has fewer problems and would need more tweaking?????
 
If you mean they both have metal frames and triggers inside trigger guards and magazine releases where it should be . . . then, yeah, I guess they look the same.

Otherwise, they don't look the same at all. It's kind of like saying the Glock and Springfield XD look the same.
 
The BHP has one version of it. (thou i believe someone makes a compact one)With features added as it grew old, bigger sights, resized to allow hollow point. Was made in 1935 or was it 1939. Served in over 70 army's world wide. Still in use. Cast and Forged depending on year. Offered in 9mm for most of its history, now has 40SW. Has lots of history, battle tested and approved.

The CZ is new, looks likes a BHP BUT is different inside. Many many different types and flavors to choose from. Has a great fan club, many people love their CZ and swear by them. Some say its the best buy for a "cheap" pistol that works/functions like a high dollar pistol.

Both will do you right, both have areas that need attention when you buy them.
 
biggest difference offhand is the BHP (HP35) is a single-action auto, CZ is DA/SA action. Don't have a CZ75 but do have a different CZ model, lots of gun for the money, very good, solid, reliable weapon. Always wanted and will get a browning HP35, they are classics. You need to try and handle each, there are similarities but they are not the same gun.
 
I voted BHP. Just because I like the way it feels/handles just a little more.

I also own a 75-B and recommend it highly. I've owned it longer than the HP and haven't had any problems or complaints.

John
 
Both are great guns, and both feel about the same in your hands.

As mentioned, the CZ is double action compared to the single action BHP. Obviously this requires more parts. I like the BHP because I know how to work on one, for the most part. If I had a CZ that broke, I'd have to take it to a gunsmith.

Of course, both are very rugged guns and usually hold up very well.

Another difference I notice is that the slide on a CZ goes inside the frame instead of outside like the BHP. I honestly don't know which way is "better."

Get the one that suits your needs the best (DA or SA) and you'll probably be completely satisfied. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either to someone.
 
They do.

I think a legitimate question would be:

CZ vs. BHP: where's the $300?
 
BHP

BHP or FN, Hi-power is a lot lighter than the CZ. Stephen Camp in his book Shooters Guide to The Hi-power does a very good comparison of the two. FWIW- I was looking at the BHP and the CZ-75SA(Single Action) for a competition/carry gun and went with the BHP because,1) my wife liked the grip better and 2) John Browning had a large hand in its design like my 1911. Both are very good pistols!
 
I think the CZ is a much better pistol.

No magazine disconnect. No hammer bite. More standard capacity. Ironically better SA trigger pull than the SAO BHP.

I also think it is one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of small arms to say that the BHP was a heavily Browning influenced design. Perhaps the magazine was, but little else. It is well known by everyone save for certain "the BHP was JMB's greatest achievement" parrots, that the BHP prototypes built before JMB's death in 1926 bore little resemblance to the BHP finished off over the following eight years before 1934-35, six of which were in a period wherein Dieudonne Saive no longer had to work around expired Colt patents on the M1911, as Browning had to contend with prior to his death.

From striker fired to hammer fired. From sixteen rounds to thirteen. and a host of other design changes large and small, the P-35 is Dieudonne Saive's first great design far more than it is JMB's last.
 
I believe the quality control on the BHP is better, but I have never liked the trigger. I sold my BHP, and currently have a CZ. While I enjoy shooting it, there are things about it I do not like (under sprung, extractor propblems, etc.) I never had those problems with the BHP.
 
Yea he did not make all the design because he died, never had a chance to redesign it. The 1911 and the BHP look a lot alike. The guy that took over make the pistol look like a 1911.


No magazine disconnect. No hammer bite. More standard capacity.
Click to expand...

Yea the biggest problem with them is the Mag disconnect, but removing it gets you a drop free mag (which i heard the CZ does not have), and better trigger.

And mag capacity they make 15 rd mags for the Hi-power top quality too, that fit in just like the one made in 1935.

Hammer bit, only some get that, out of the 7 people who shot my BHP none got hammer bit. Also they have models with a ring hammer.
 
I like them both. The HP is much more expensive now, but I got mine for $400 from CDNN so I went with that. Otherwise I probably would have gone with the CZ75 or a G19.
 
What I meant was:

Both are some good guns. You'll find few people who have shot both and won't say they're both good guns.

So one question worth asking would be: assuming you didn't have an unlimited budget, would you pay the extra $300 to get a BHP over a CZ?

Why or why not?
 
Yea the biggest problem with them is the Mag disconnect, but removing it gets you a drop free mag (which i heard the CZ does not have), and better trigger.
Click to expand...
All you have to do is bend the mag brake and you've got nice, drop-free mags. Or, just do what I did and buy the CZ 75B SA, which come standard with no mag brake :D
 
What I meant was:

Both are some good guns. You'll find few people who have shot both and won't say they're both good guns.

So one question worth asking would be: assuming you didn't have an unlimited budget, would you pay the extra $300 to get a BHP over a CZ?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Thanks got it now. I agree with you $300 is a steep price, thats why i bought mine used for 450, with the mag safty taken out already. I don't like to buy new for the most part on guns and cars. I would of bought one from CDNN, but they don't ship to CA. If i could not of found a Hi-power used i would of bought a CZ. It took me 7ish months to find one used that i wanted and no one else got there before me.

There only $300 more because FN stopped shipping them to the USA under the FN name, they were selling for alot less about 200-300 less. But for some reason people liked buying the Browning version that cost more but is the same gun. So FN stopped shipping the FN version, CDNN had a closeout sale and sold them real cheap. Which i missed. After those were gone if you want a Hi-power you have to get a Browning that has a $200 more price tag because of there name. ECK Another reason why i could not by a new Hi-Power from Browning knowing i was paying $200+ just for what there name, give me a break.

CZ 75B SA, which come standard with no mag brake
Click to expand...
I wonder why that model they took it out, weird. :scrutiny:



Thats why i said earlier both have stuff that need to be done to them to make them the best they can be.
both have areas that need attention when you buy them.
Click to expand...
 
"...Is there a difference..." Yep. The CZ is a bit bigger. I would have one in a heart beat, but it's too big for my hand. The BHP is not.
 
I bought the BHP Standard (adjustable sights) and the CZ75BD (decocker,DA) in 2002. For the price of the BHP I bought the CZ and the Kadet Kit .22 conversion. Both are great guns. For me there is better value with the CZ, but there is a real elegance to the BHP. As usual, I vote both.
 
The BHP is a nice gun, but the CZ 75 wins, IMO. There are so many varieties of CZ 75 (full, compact, steel, alloy, decocker, safety, stainless, nickel, 2-tone, blued, etc.). They look nicer, IMO. They have the option of the Kadet .22 LR conversion kit. They hold more rounds in the magazines (16+1 for CZ 75B vs 13+1 for BHP). The SP-01 holds even more if you want it to. The CZ rubber grips are more comfortable, and the ergonomics are better, IMO.

That said, the BHP is a great gun, too. But since you asked, if two were on the table and I could only grab one, I'd take the CZ 75 (and I did just that when purchasing my gun).
 
I have both and like both. I think I like my compact CZ-75D PCR as a carry gun better than either my 75B or BHP. I voted BHP though as I would probably sell the CZ's before the BHP.
 
I also think it is one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of small arms to say that the BHP was a heavily Browning influenced design. Perhaps the magazine was, but little else.
Click to expand...

Actually the magazine was the first part of the gun completed and was made entirely by Saive. JMB had little use for "high capacity."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
HI Power or CZ 75SA?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
gengarnett
G
N
  • Locked
Which CZ?
Replies
16
Views
570
zamboxl
Z
R
  • Locked
CZ 75 vs. CZ 85?
Replies
11
Views
16K
Berg01
B
A
  • Locked
Should I get a BHP or a CZ-75
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
armchairQB
A
S
  • Locked
What's the difference between the CZ PO-1 and the CZ 75 compact (both having rails)?
Replies
14
Views
4K
CZF
CZF
Back
Top