PabloJ said:
Stretch your budget a little and buy used Ruger SR9C, G26 or something similar. Much better guns than CZ82/CZ83.
I've had both, and still have an SR9c. That said,
I would dispute your claim that the gun listed are much better guns than the CZ82/CZ83.
While I still have an SR9c and traded away two CZ82s, it wasn't because the SR9c was a better gun, but because I wanted a more powerful round (9x19) for concealed carry, and the SR9c does that very well. While I've had several Glocks, and like them, I really don't care for their sub-compacts. (The G19/G23/G32 and G38 are great compact guns, but bigger. I still have a G38.) I also have a CZ P-07, and I have had a hard time deciding which should be my regular carry weapon. The SR9c may eventually win out, because it's a tad smaller, but the P-07 is very comfortable carried concealed and easy to shoot well.
If you like metal, hammer-fired guns, and are comfortable with the 9x18 or .380 (9x17) rounds, you'll be hard-pressed to find a better value for your money for self- or home- defense. Only the Beretta 84 immediately comes to mind. The CZs are small enough to carry comfortably (but not pocket carry), and the double-stack mags offer good capacity.
Most of the small 9mms cost a good bit more and few hold as many rounds -- I had a Kahr P9, a Kahr CM9, a Kel-Tec P11 and PF-9 before I got the SR9c. I've also had several .380s (LCP and P3AT, and tried others.) I don't have any of those guns any longer, either -- even though all gave me good service. The Kel-Tec P3AT and Ruger LCP, tend to be guns you won't spend a lot of time practicing with, while the CZ-83 is more pleasant (but much larger.)
If you're want a hammer-fired, metal-framed gun, the CZ PCR is probably a better gun, because of the more potent round (9x19); it has the same capacity, and it's and only a hair longer, a bit lighter (1/2 inch), less tall, and a bit less wide.
A CZ compact will cost you at least twice as much, even if used. And money does drive many gun-buying decisions.
.