Got a new 9mm

AbleGuy

[Back] Roads Scholar
“21 head shots at 25 yards is laughably easy”

pfft!
21 head shots! Musta been shooting at Zombies.
Doncha know, with zombies headshots aren’t enuf, ya still gotta cut their heads completely off!
 
Last edited:

gspfunk

Member
Congrats! I love CZ. My uncle has a Tactical Sport with a pull so light it shoots when you just think about it. Obviously not a carry gun, but amazing none the less.
 

AbleGuy

[Back] Roads Scholar
with a pull so light it shoots when you just think about it.
Absolutely great description!

(The original CZ-75....one of the best, most affordable imitations of the old Browning Hi Power)
 
Last edited:

DaveInDenver

Expedition Leader
I hit the wrong button when editing.

Said: "LOL, if by imitate you mean change the slide from sliding outside to inside the frame, add double action, 2 more rounds in the magazine, eliminate the magazine disconnect and firing pin block."

Meant to add "They do share a breech lock though!"
 

AbleGuy

[Back] Roads Scholar
Good points made.

I always understood that the original CZ’s design was heavily influenced by and inspired by the Browning. It used the Browning linkless cam locking system, similar to that used in the Browning Hi-Power pistol, where the barrel and slide are locked together on firing, using locking lugs milled into the barrel mating with recesses in the roof of the slide. It also had a manual safety similar to that of the Browning Hi-Power.

FWIW, the Firing pin block was added in the 90’s, wasn’t in the original.

In any event, both are great classic 9’s and I’d happily take either one.

To be picky though, some of the stuff compared below is pretty generic. I suppose it just helps to show the importance of John’s original and enduring Hi Power design.

“Some similarities between the Hi Power and the CZ-75:
Both are chambered for 9mm. (Later versions of both are also chambered in .40 S&W.)
Both were conceptualized for military use.
Both are similar in size & weight, with the CZ being slightly larger.
Both have a 1:10 twist.
Both utilize barrels with locking lugs, which is straight from John M. Browning.
Both are recoil operated.
Both have the mainspring below the barrel.
Neither uses a detachable barrel bushing.
Both pistols' grip panels are secured with one screw each.
Both have external hammers.
Both have thumb safeties.
Both are capable of cocked-and-locked carry.
Both use detachable double-stack magazines.
Both use external pivoting spring-loaded extractors, although the early Hi Powers used an internal one.
Both use pivoting triggers.
Both have a relatively few number of internal parts compared to some other designs.
Both guns have lightening cuts on the front of the slide. (Later versions of the CZ-75 do not.)
Both guns (CZ-75 Pre-B) use a slide stop retaining plate to secure the firing pin and spring.
Both guns use a push-button magazine release located at the rear of the trigger guard.
Both guns originally came with ring hammers. (The Hi Power and CZ-75 were produced with spur hammers for a number of years. CZ went back to an abbreviated ring hammer. The Hi Power used the old factory ring hammer in the Practical model.)
Both use a one-piece feed ramp.
Both have been copied and used outside of their respective nations of origin.

So far it would seem that the Hi Power and the CZ-75 are like peas in a pod, but there are plenty of differences too.”
 
Last edited:

JakeH

Adventurer
I've always been a cz75 guy, this is my first polymer pistol ever. It doesnt feel as nice in the hand as my 75s do, but it's a lot better than some of the others I held. I was basically needing a rail & threaded barrel so I checked out the VP9 & PPQ, both felt nice but I wanted hammer fired, not a striker. I almost went with the SP01 but by the time you get a full magazine on board that thing it would be a shoulder workout. The biggest problem I have with this new p09 is that I need a bigger ammo budget! This thing burns through ammo super fast at 21 rounds per mag.
 

DaveInDenver

Expedition Leader
Good points made.

I always understood that the original CZ’s design was heavily influenced by and inspired by the Browning. It used the Browning linkless cam locking system, similar to that used in the Browning Hi-Power pistol, where the barrel and slide are locked together on firing, using locking lugs milled into the barrel mating with recesses in the roof of the slide. It also had a manual safety similar to that of the Browning Hi-Power.

FWIW, the Firing pin block was added in the 90’s, wasn’t in the original.

In any event, both are great classic 9’s and I’d happily take either one.

To be picky though, some of the stuff compared below is pretty generic. I suppose it just helps to show the importance of John’s original and enduring Hi Power design.

“Some similarities between the Hi Power and the CZ-75:
Both are chambered for 9mm. (Later versions of both are also chambered in .40 S&W.)
Both were conceptualized for military use.
Both are similar in size & weight, with the CZ being slightly larger.
Both have a 1:10 twist.
Both utilize barrels with locking lugs, which is straight from John M. Browning.
Both are recoil operated.
Both have the mainspring below the barrel.
Neither uses a detachable barrel bushing.
Both pistols' grip panels are secured with one screw each.
Both have external hammers.
Both have thumb safeties.
Both are capable of cocked-and-locked carry.
Both use detachable double-stack magazines.
Both use external pivoting spring-loaded extractors, although the early Hi Powers used an internal one.
Both use pivoting triggers.
Both have a relatively few number of internal parts compared to some other designs.
Both guns have lightening cuts on the front of the slide. (Later versions of the CZ-75 do not.)
Both guns (CZ-75 Pre-B) use a slide stop retaining plate to secure the firing pin and spring.
Both guns use a push-button magazine release located at the rear of the trigger guard.
Both guns originally came with ring hammers. (The Hi Power and CZ-75 were produced with spur hammers for a number of years. CZ went back to an abbreviated ring hammer. The Hi Power used the old factory ring hammer in the Practical model.)
Both use a one-piece feed ramp.
Both have been copied and used outside of their respective nations of origin.

So far it would seem that the Hi Power and the CZ-75 are like peas in a pod, but there are plenty of differences too.”
I'm most assuredly not an expert but I understand the reason people think the CZ75 and BHP are closely related is they do share a similar manual of arms and profile. No denying that. But I think there's enough differences to not call it a copy. I mean a lot of pistols before 1975 were inspired by the novel things John Browning came up with (Moses was his middle name after all). When you really boil it down there's not a ton of ways to improve upon the essentials of a tilting barrel, short recoil and breech lock he did with in the 1911 and the barrel bushing was one, which was changed in the Hi-Power.

So if you're making a single action, external hammer pistol it's *probably* going to work basically the same. For example that list of things could also be referred to call a SIG P210 a BHP copy even though it looks quite a bit different. None of them can share internal parts because a designer always thinks he has a better mousetrap for the trigger, sear and disconnector. It's the details of the tiny parts under the slide that functionally differentiate a S&W, SIG, Browning, CZ, etc. Interesting discussion!

FWIW: https://web.archive.org/web/20071119204325/http://larvatus.livejournal.com/33732.html
 
Last edited:

JakeH

Adventurer
I'll admit I was very geeked out about the Beretta Px4 rotating bolt system, I just never found any reviews that justified the complication of that system. Everybody says they're great guns, but...so are lots of other simpler systems. Plus I didnt need a decocker AND a safety in one switch.
 
Top