CZ/Browning versus The World


September 16, 2004, 01:27 AM
The lock-up used by the Hi Power and the 75 series from CZ offer a distinct advantage over the more popular Glock/SIG/HK/Ruger/etc. style lock up. Namely, you can use a slide that is thinner and can incorporate larger round contours at the top of the slide to cut down on its over all circumference. Comparing a CZ 75 with a Glock 17, with touted low bore axis, quickly reveals that the Glock has noticeably more girth and height than the CZ in the area of the slide and dust cover.

This of course begs the question: If you have the potential to make a more compact slide, and thus a more compact pistol overall, why wouldn't you? I would have said production costs, but CZ's do not exactly break the bank. So what is the deal? Are they just that much harder to design? Do they hold up poorly? Is it a pain to manufacture? The only thing I came up with was that most current pistol designs descend from designs in which the size of the slide, the concealability of the pistol, were no object.

I have been thinking about it some over the last few days and it just seems really odd that only the CZ, the Browning and ye olde 1911 seem to incorporate a lock-up that permits a slide that doesn't mirror the obesity epidemic suffered by American's and the rest of their pistols (the Kahr is a different bird entirely).

If you enjoyed reading about "CZ/Browning versus The World" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Black Snowman
September 16, 2004, 09:15 AM
The advantage of the Glock et al style lock-up is resistance to fouling with debris. Sand, mud, dirt, etc caught inside the action of the Browning style lock up is compressed into the locking lugs and may interfere with function where as in a Glock it will simply be pushed out of the way into the empty spaces in the slide or out of the various opennings.

I personally prefer the CZs pistol but it's more a question of ergonomics and value rather than anything to do with the specifics of design.

September 16, 2004, 09:34 AM
In one word it is tooling costs.
It is easier to make and maintain a set of tools to punch a big hole and some grinding compared to the cost of keeping cutters sharp to mill the lockup of slides and barrels with Browning parallel lockup system.


September 16, 2004, 11:10 AM
That's what I love about CZs, BHPs, and 1911s. The slides are slender and have some curves to them, which serve to make it not feel like a brick.

Very interesting thread.


September 16, 2004, 12:32 PM
I'll ask the dumb questions.

What is it about the lockup on the 1911, for example, that allows a more slender, rounder slide that could not have been done with a Glock design?

September 16, 2004, 01:00 PM
In the browning parallel lockup the barrel locks into 'grooves' cut into the top of the slide infront of the ejection port. Glocks uses a block that forms part of the chamber of the barrel to lock INTO the ejection port in the slide. This means that the slide have to be beefed-up around the ejection port to handle the stress of the barrel locking into the port.

September 16, 2004, 03:38 PM
Okay, thanks for the reply.

September 16, 2004, 05:46 PM
Thanks for the reponse. The bit about more resistant to fouling makes sense to me. I feel a little shame for not realizing it myself. I wonder what will happen when Kahr's patents expire.

September 18, 2004, 01:56 PM
Just to muddy the waters a little not all CZs use Browning style lockup. The CZ-40B,40P and 100 use Glock/Sig style lockup and they are indeed slightly thicker than traditional Browning lockup guns through the slide. On the other hand Kahrs use use the Glco type lockup and their slides are very thin indeed...:scrutiny: The later is certainly easier and cheaper to build but IMO both are equaly reliable and accurate when they`re properly executed. Marcus

September 18, 2004, 02:47 PM
Actual answers aside, you know that you can never judge the labor/cost that goes in to making a gun by the price tag on the shelf. I mean, everything being equal, I'm sure it costs about 10 times as much to make a CZ75, BHP or Springfield 1911 than it does a Glock but you'd never know from the price tags.

Some would say that the 1911 lockup is overkill and that the Glock is perfectly adequate and I would agree... But have you ever looked closely at the surface wear of most out of the box 1911s? Often, only one lug locks up and then, it is often minimal how much surface locks up. As an aside, things like this are what makes the best 1911s far superior to Springfields, Kimbers and Colts from the last decade or so.

If you enjoyed reading about "CZ/Browning versus The World" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!