(Sorry, but another one on ...) Cz v. the Clones


PDA






yhtomit
July 16, 2008, 01:47 AM
Hi!

Inspired by another recent thread on the relationship among the various Cz clones out there (Tanfoglio, Armalite, the Turkish one I can't remember how to spell which actually *makes* the Armalite, Jericho, etc), I have a question I hope some of you can help answer, which is, which clone is (or which clones are) the "cloniest"?

That is, are there any of the so-called clones which can, say, take Cz mags? Other parts? If not, I daresay these are actually only *cousins* rather than clones, but I won't quibble over the word so much if I at least know the answer to this question ;)

Thanks!

timothy

If you enjoyed reading about "(Sorry, but another one on ...) Cz v. the Clones" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
briansp82593
July 16, 2008, 01:49 AM
i want to say the baby eagle takes cz mags, they are very robust pistols, i would have bought one, but alas, no rail, not common parts sights etc.

FEG
July 16, 2008, 02:11 AM
There is a wealth of information on this at the CZ Forum.

http://czechpistols82792.yuku.com/forums/27/t/CZ-CLONE-CLUB.html

Sorry, but I refuse to cut and paste myself more than ten times during any given 24 hour period. ;)

In all seriousness, there are a LOT of posts here and on TFL that would be answered by less than one minute of browsing on our site. You can kid yourself that other sites are more "objective," but check who actually answers, no matter where you may be. Trust me, there aren't that many people signing up for the username "FEG," just for example.

This site is very valuable, and obviously, I enjoy me time here. However, I really don't get why people seem to ignore resources like CZF and the S&W Forum, just for example.

Dobe
July 16, 2008, 07:00 AM
Many of the "clones" are not actually clones. A true clone will accept the majority of parts of the parent. Think of the 1911 and the AR-15 clones. This is not true of such handguns as the Armalite AR-24, which is more of a versioned copy than a clone. By the way, the AR-24 is a wonderful handgun. It will accept the Witness magazines also.

FEG
July 16, 2008, 10:31 AM
Short Answers:

1. None of the so-called clones are direct 1-for-1 copies of a CZ 75 series pistol. Pre- Series 88 Tanfolgios were relatively close to 1979-1985 production CZs. Their magazines will usually interchange, for example. The Series 88 Tanfoglios and Type B (1994 - present) CZs are now quite different.

2. Unless you are discussing the Tanfoglio family (Witness, Baby Eagle, AR-24, etc.), almost none of the clones interchange parts. Sphinx and ITM models probably share parts, as Sphinx bought ITM's tooling.

3. There is a nine page sticky thread at CZF outlining which magazines can be used with which models. If this is idle curiosity, I recommend satisfying it there. If you have a specific question, please ask.

4. Some of the Sphinx models are probably the closest thing to a "real" CZ these days, at least internally. Externally, they don't look much like CZs.

gopguy
July 16, 2008, 05:44 PM
Heck some times things built for the CZ wont work in another CZ depending on vintage. If you get the new magazines and try to stick it in a pre b, you may get it in there, but you will have a devil of a time getting it out... I advise you read the sticky at CZ forums too. ;)

wally
July 16, 2008, 08:33 PM
For 9mm or .40S&W just get the real deal CZ. But if you want a .45ACP, get the Witness Elite Match -- its what the CZ97 should have been. CZ97 and Witness .45 take the same 10 round mags.

--wally.

1 old 0311
July 16, 2008, 08:42 PM
Can you name ANY knockoff that was as good as the original?

ceadermtnboy
July 16, 2008, 08:50 PM
Sure the USFA single action army is considered by many to be better than the Colt.

Beagle-zebub
July 16, 2008, 09:19 PM
Can you name ANY knockoff that was as good as the original?

The H&K G3 is better than the CETME.

Valmets and Galils are better than Russian Kalashnikovs.

Certain companies' 1911s are better than a Colt.

yhtomit
July 17, 2008, 03:09 AM
"This site is very valuable, and obviously, I enjoy me time here. However, I really don't get why people seem to ignore resources like CZF and the S&W Forum, just for example."
FEG:

I appreciate your reply; let me give a serious response (which might not satisfy you):

1) Not trying to ignore obvious resources; there are a lot of Cz-related posts here at THR, and I have scanned them, and done some searches, over the course of the last couple of years. if I had seen one or ones which had answered my question, I'd have been happy not to ask. Here, it's a bit like visiting a large city -- seeking advice from friendly natives who have a clue beats wandering for too long, even if I *know* the answer's somewhere in the guidebook.

2) You mention CZF and the S&W Forum; I know there are a lot of specialized forums out there, including more than one for practically any gun manufacturer large enough to be known to the ATF. Are those forums you mention subforums of THR, or do you mean wholly separate sites? If they are subforums, please forgive my ignorance: I don't see any mention of how to reach subforums in the FAQ, or by searching for "CZ Forum" and I've assumed (when hearing various forums talked about, including the "Cz Forum," here on THR) that those comments referred to other sites entirely. If they're *not* subforums, perhaps this explains (at least for me) why not everyone reads them, which is that every online forum in the world requires a bit of time investment which limits the ability to delve into more than a fairly small number of them. I have already a larger tangle of [login-password-history] combinations than I would strictly prefer, and of the other gun-related forums I've looked at, none have come close to THR in my opinion, so I have not spent as much time reading them, the usual cycle of enforcement.

Thanks for the link to the CZ Clone Club, too -- interesting.

timothy

yhtomit
July 17, 2008, 03:16 AM
Many of the "clones" are not actually clones. A true clone will accept the majority of parts of the parent. Think of the 1911 and the AR-15 clones. This is not true of such handguns as the Armalite AR-24, which is more of a versioned copy than a clone. By the way, the AR-24 is a wonderful handgun. It will accept the Witness magazines also.

Dobe:

Thanks for that information! I wonder if the opposite is also true, but good to know in either case. The reviews I've read of the AR-24 spoke highly of it, and if I hadn't first found a Cz-75 at an excellent price, I might well have bought one to be happy about ;)



For 9mm or .40S&W just get the real deal CZ. But if you want a .45ACP, get the Witness Elite Match -- its what the CZ97 should have been. CZ97 and Witness .45 take the same 10 round mags.

wally -- Heh, that's I did, actually, picked it up last week (a .45 Witness Elite Match), and in about 2 weeks I hope to actually have the chance to fire it ;) (Travel-sans-guns intervenes, so I shall attempt not to tangle with ninjas, polar bears, aliens, or ruffians.) The Cz-97 mags work, eh? That'll be convenient if I find different prices / different bins at a gun show for each of those -- thanks.

timothy

Wolfman_556
July 17, 2008, 03:58 AM
The only CZ-ish "clone" I've ever handled was a coworker's Baby Eagle 9mm.

It was certainly accurate and felt very solid, but I still prefer the 75B because the ergonomics are much better IMO.

The B.E.'s ergonomics felt to me like a halfway point between a Hi-Power and a Glock. This isn't necessarily a good or bad thing; it just depends on your preference.

loop
July 17, 2008, 05:18 AM
I doubt you'll be disappointed in your Tanfoglio Elite Match. I have one in .45 ACP and it has continued a long string of IDPA wins that began with an EAA Witness steel model in .45.

I have made quite a few mods to the gun. If you are concerned about aftermarket parts check out: http://www.tanfoglioparts.com/

Henning Walgren is one of the top USPSA shooters in the world and stocks and sells many fine aftermarket parts for the Tanfoglio line. He's a little, thin on .45 because USPSA leans toward minimalist specs to make power floor, but he has access to a lot of nice parts and is very easy to talk to.

I've changed over to his aluminum mag basepads, grips, changed sights, grips, springs, firing pin, et al., and been nothing less than a happy camper.

I consider my Elite Match to be one of the finest handguns I've ever owned. Aside from being a competition gun that shoots one hole on paper out to 25 yards, it is 100 percent reliable. In the first 500 rounds I had six glitches. Three of them were due to trying to shoot 200-gr. SW that won't function out of any of my guns. Two were failures to return to battery (fixed with a Lee factory crimp die). One, well, I'm not sure. It was during the first match I shot it in and I cleared it so quickly I still had the best score on the COF.

It is now my "go to" gun when I want reliability or accuracy out of a .45 ACP.

Best of luck.

My only advice is to use a recoil spring that suits what you are shooting. My loads are a bit light so I use a 12-pound spring. Wolff makes a nice selection so you are not limited in that area.

Dobe
July 17, 2008, 06:49 AM
Thanks for that information! I wonder if the opposite is also true, but good to know in either case. The reviews I've read of the AR-24 spoke highly of it, and if I hadn't first found a Cz-75 at an excellent price, I might well have bought one to be happy about


If you are in the market for another CZ type. Try the AR-24. It is like an upscale CZ. It's a really nice handgun.

Big Gay Al
July 17, 2008, 07:36 AM
The H&K G3 is better than the CETME.
Um, isn't the CETME a copy of the G3??

AndyC
July 17, 2008, 01:56 PM
Nope - the Spanish developed the rifle at CETME ( Centro de Estudios Tecnicos de Materiales Especiales) and later licensed the design to Germany, who adopted it as the G3 (around 1959 or so).

JHansenAK47
July 17, 2008, 08:16 PM
The B.E.'s ergonomics felt to me like a halfway point between a Hi-Power and a Glock. This isn't necessarily a good or bad thing; it just depends on your preference.
I personally think of them as handling more akin to a Beretta with that slide mounted safety.
Nope - the Spanish developed the rifle at CETME ( Centro de Estudios Tecnicos de Materiales Especiales) and later licensed the design to Germany, who adopted it as the G3 (around 1959 or so).
Weren't a lot of their engineers from Germany using design ideas based on previous German rifles.(Stg 45 and Stg 44)

FEG
July 17, 2008, 08:30 PM
You mention CZF and the S&W Forum; I know there are a lot of specialized forums out there, including more than one for practically any gun manufacturer large enough to be known to the ATF. Are those forums you mention subforums of THR, or do you mean wholly separate sites? If they are subforums, please forgive my ignorance: I don't see any mention of how to reach subforums in the FAQ, or by searching for "CZ Forum" and I've assumed (when hearing various forums talked about, including the "Cz Forum," here on THR) that those comments referred to other sites entirely. If they're *not* subforums, perhaps this explains (at least for me) why not everyone reads them, which is that every online forum in the world requires a bit of time investment which limits the ability to delve into more than a fairly small number of them. I have already a larger tangle of [login-password-history] combinations than I would strictly prefer, and of the other gun-related forums I've looked at, none have come close to THR in my opinion, so I have not spent as much time reading them, the usual cycle of enforcement.


The CZ Forum is a separate website. I believe it has been around for a few years longer than THR.

http://czechpistols82792.yuku.com/

Well over 80% of the people who respond to the CZ questions here post at CZF. It could be even more, as I am only counting people who use the same username here and at CZF, such as armoredman, Stephen A. Camp, CZF, eerw, burningsquirrels, mbott, and a lot of other people I don't recall at this moment. My point is that you aren't getting a "different take" here, you're getting less of the same, from the same people.

Most of the questions asked about CZs here at THR have been covered in great depth at CZF. Usually, we even have FAQs on the subject with pictures, etc.

My intention is to point out that these resources (manufacturer specific forums) are usually the best sources for hard information like production dates, serial # ranges, parts compatability, etc. The best analogy I can think of is that a Pittsburgh Pirates fan is probably better off looking for info on the Bucs in a Pittsburgh newspaper, not U.S.A. Today. If other people don't agree, more power to them.

Wolfman_556
July 17, 2008, 08:48 PM
I personally think of them as handling more akin to a Beretta with that slide mounted safety.

I'm talking about how they "point" (ergonomics), not their controls. I've come to prefer the frame mounted safety/decocker of my CZ but my Beretta92FS and Ruger P97DC both have them mounted on the slide and it's not that big a deal.

Dobe
July 17, 2008, 10:11 PM
Can you name ANY knockoff that was as good as the original?

The AR-24 is as good or better than the CZ 75 B.

Kimber at one time (Pre Series II) produced an equal to or better 1911 than Colt. Colt did go through a rather quality slump. I realize they are back, and I would prefer the Colt at this time as their quality seems to have returned.

There are a number of AR-15 types which equal Colt at this time. I say this with complete appreciation for Colt's quality, but there are still others of equal quality.

The Ruger LCP is better than the original Kel-Tec.

JHansenAK47
July 18, 2008, 01:51 AM
I'm talking about how they "point" (ergonomics), not their controls. I've come to prefer the frame mounted safety/decocker of my CZ but my Beretta92FS and Ruger P97DC both have them mounted on the slide and it's not that big a deal.
I think they feel remarkably similar to my Beretta Cougar. The slide profile is definitely different though. On the older fixed sights I would sweep the safety racking the pistol but the newer ones with fixed novak looking sights seem to have eliminated that issue for me. I'm thinking of getting one in 45 with the new sights.

Wolfman_556
July 18, 2008, 04:18 AM
I'm not calling the Baby Eagle junk by any means, just to clarify.

The only criticism I could give it is Magnum Research should have marketed it under a different name. "Baby Eagle" IMO makes it sound wimpy and doubtless there are those who would pass it by simply because of the name and that's too bad for them. They should have called it what the Israelis call it: the Jericho.

Perhaps another good name would have been Desert Falcon?

I'm only making this critique from a marketing point of view.

(JMO)

Ergonomics aside, I thought the Baby Eagle I shot was a pretty good pistol overall. It was accurate and solid, and I have handled worse pistols as far as handling goes. For me, the CZ-75B fits my hand much better. YMMV.

JHansenAK47
July 18, 2008, 04:34 AM
The only criticism I could give it is Magnum Research should have marketed it under a different name. "Baby Eagle" IMO makes it sound wimpy and doubtless there are those who would pass it by simply because of the name and that's too bad for them. They should have called it what the Israelis call it: the Jericho.
I believe they did originally call it the Jericho. Another thing is the original pistols had frame mounted safeties more akin to a cz75 clone/tanfoglio variation. I think the name is more of a marketing strategy playing off the fame of the desert eagle pistol.

Disaster
July 18, 2008, 05:59 AM
For a twist to the question (hope the OP doesn't mind) who makes the "best value" in a clone? Doesn't have to match, part for part, just be machined well and be durable. Bears asking now that CZ's aren't as inexpensive as they used to be.

Dobe
July 18, 2008, 07:50 AM
I own CZ and AR-24. The AR-24 is more expensive, but offers more. For the price, the CZ is a very good handgun. So, in answering you question, it depends on how you define best value.

Pilot
July 18, 2008, 08:36 AM
The AR-24 is more expensive, but offers more.

What more does the AR-24 offer over the CZ-75B, SP-01, P-01, PCR or other CZ offerings?

FEG
July 18, 2008, 03:37 PM
I kind of cracks me up that anyone could ever call a Tanfoglio/Sarsilmaz pistol "upscale."

These are the "upscale" CZs...

SPHINX

http://www.sphinx-systems.ch/en/index_en.html

ITM

http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2200/2215.htm

Sphinx actually bought out ITM.


If CZ is a Chrevolet, then the AR-24 is at best a Buick (maybe more like a Pontiac). Sphinx is the Cadillac of CZs.

Dobe
July 18, 2008, 05:10 PM
What more does the AR-24 offer over the CZ-75B, SP-01, P-01, PCR or other CZ offerings?



Im sorry, if this post is becoming repetitive, but my reasons for stating that the AR-24 is a higher quality handgun is

Forgings: Both slide and frame are forged steel. The frame on the CZ is cast, and perhaps this is sufficient, but perhaps it may not be over time. Nonetheless, apparently CZ believes their forgings are stronger than their cast as they too use the more expensive forgings for their slides.
Extractor: The extractor is noticeably more massive on the AR-24 than on the CZs. I like the overkill. It gives one the feeling of wearing suspenders and a belt.
Firing Pin Stop: The AR-24 uses a 1911 firing pin stop instead to the roll pin used by CZ. I always felt the roll pin was a little cheesey. Anyway, if you dry fire, or simply like to be able to detail clean, or easily replace the firing pin spring, then youll appreciate this feature.
Ergonomics: The ergonomics to me are just a little nicer on the AR-24. I have always liked the ergonomics of the CZ, but the AR-24s back strap is a little more recessed. This makes it easier to reach the safety, and to pull the trigger in DA mode. The palm swell grips are a comfortable touch too.
Appearance: Im not particularly fond of a squared trigger guard. This is a personal taste of mine, so I was glad to see the AR-24 has a rounded guard. It looks a lot slicker. I feel this makes the lines a little more aesthetically pleasing.
Craftsmanship: You will find little or no tool marks on or in the AR-24. It is real old time craftsmanship.
Trigger Pull: The trigger pull on the AR-24 is simply better. There is no looooong camming sensation one experiences with a CZs trigger pull. Also, the firing pin safety spring actually releases when the trigger is pulled. The CZ design compresses the firing pin safety spring as the trigger is being pulled.

RPCVYemen
July 18, 2008, 06:39 PM
I’m sorry, if this post is becoming repetitive, but my reasons for stating that the AR-24 is a higher quality handgun is ...

Those are exactly the reasons I bought mine. I got back from a range session - I am coming to the bottom of my 1000 rounds of Georgia Arms ammo. I had a really good time at the range (I can go over lunch).

I am not sure that I agree with the Chevrolet/Buick analogy - or the Honda/Accord that I thought of. I think that Chevrolet and Buick share 95% of their parts, where there are no actual parts in common (I don't think) between the AR 24 and the other CZ clones.

I think of it as a different implementation of the same (or a similar) design. More like all the different 1911s out there.

Mike

FEG
July 18, 2008, 07:23 PM
I am not sure that I agree with the Chevrolet/Buick analogy - or the Honda/Accord that I thought of. I think that Chevrolet and Buick share 95% of their parts, where there are no actual parts in common (I don't think) between the AR 24 and the other CZ clones.


The analogy was referring to the price point and marketing, not parts compatability.

Whether or not the AR-24 is "better" than a CZ-75 is another discussion for another day (at least as far as I'm concerned).

The point is that I wouldn't call them "upscale" CZs when there are clones out there that sell for over $1,000.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just suggesting that most people don't consider Buicks to be particularly "upscale" when there are Cadillacs out there competing with them.

Wolfman_556
July 18, 2008, 08:52 PM
The opinion of a Cadillac being better than a Buick or other car is just that... opinion. It depends on what your definition of "better" is.

The same applies to firearms.

For example:

Firearm A has better machining than Firearm B. This means it's "better" even though Firearm B is just as accurate and reliable as Firearm A.

To another person, Firearm B is "better" because it's just as good functionally and costs substantially less.


Sometimes a clone is worse than the original. Sometimes the clone actually improves the design. Humans have always done this. The Europeans copied and then modified each other's weapons and armor for centuries. In the big picture, many important improvements and developments happened along the way. There were some mistakes and poor designs along the way too.

The CZ-75B is a clone of the Hi-Power somewhat. I'm a huge Hi-Power fan. I can compare my 75B to my FN Hi-Power and conclude (in my opinion) that the Czech clone of the Hi-Power improved the design greatly.

You might prefer the slide mounted safety/decocker of the CZ clones to be improvements and if these or other differences work better for you, then indeed they are.

Dobe
July 18, 2008, 09:23 PM
But a 1911 type slide stop is still superior to a roll pin type regardless if you call it a Buick or not. Same goes for many other traits of the AR-24. I'm still keeping my CZ, and it was worth the purchase. But my next CZ type will be another AR-24. I like the adjustable sight model.

atblis
July 18, 2008, 11:21 PM
The forging versus casting thing is a marketing ploy. CZs have been run through the ringer already and frame failures are far and few between (never seen one actually). Why spend more money on a process that is clearly not superior for the application? In fact, that is just straight up bad engineering.

LUPUS
July 19, 2008, 05:03 AM
In fact, that is just straight up bad engineering.

Are the firms keeping up with the forgings away back from the techological advances in metallurgical processes?

Disaster
July 19, 2008, 08:32 AM
Forgings: Both slide and frame are forged steel. The frame on the CZ is cast, and perhaps this is sufficient, but perhaps it may not be over time. Nonetheless, apparently CZ believes their forgings are stronger than their cast as they too use the more expensive forgings for their slides.

Those are two different parts with two different functions and very likely different loads applied as well. Cast can be as strong as a forging. Heck, cast parts are used in some very high stress applications like propellers.

It really comes down to which makes the most sense from a tooling and maching standpoint. It costs a lot of money to produce a casting mold. If the part would require enough machining operations and the volume is high enough, a company can amortize this cost....that is if they have the capital to pay for it. The slide vs. the frame are two really good examples of where the machining varies a great deal. The slide has a bunch of straight cuts and drill holes. It basically a bar of steel with grooves and holes. The frame, on the other hand can have a lot more curves and and cavities that can be difficult and expensive to machine.

One other thing to consider. If you cast the part can be very near finish tolerance, with only some minor despruing and polishing required. This means that the parts are consistent...one after the other. Machining is much more prone to quality manufacturing problems.

By the way, anyone who thinks cast is inferior should go out and try to destroy a Ruger P95 slide. I've never heard of one failing.

Finally, there is a little bit of marketing that goes on where forged is used to sell products. You can see the same thing with metal slide guides molded into polymer frames. A properly designed glass filled plastic slide guide will not fail...it absorbs impact and actually has lubricity properties. Again look at the Ruger P95. The plastic slide guides on their frame never fail.

Dobe
July 19, 2008, 09:05 AM
The forging versus casting thing is a marketing ploy. CZs have been run through the ringer already and frame failures are far and few between (never seen one actually). Why spend more money on a process that is clearly not superior for the application? In fact, that is just straight up bad engineering.

CZ uses cast frames for the same reason they use roll pin firing pin stops, and the same reason they leave tool marks. It's cheaper. No other reason.

Pilot
July 19, 2008, 09:09 AM
CZ uses cast frames for the same reason they use roll pin slide stops.

The CZ P-01 and SP-01 use forged frames. However, I have never heard any issues with problems with their cast frames. I don't think that should be a con to the CZ.

Dobe,

I appreciate that list. I did not know those other characteristics of the AR-24. I may have to find one to look at. While I won't be selling my CZ's it doesn't hurt to have other alternatives.

Dobe
July 19, 2008, 09:12 AM
I won't be selling my CZ either. I like it. I enjoy shooting it. But it is nice to have a platform like a CZ, which is just tank-solid.

Dobe
July 19, 2008, 09:19 AM
The CZ P-01 and SP-01 use forged frames. However, I have never heard any issues with problems with their cast frames. I don't think that should be a con to the CZ.


Whether or not it is a con, depends on your preference. If the SP-01 uses a forged frame, and we all know that forged frames are more expensive, then one must ask why? Someone is either demanding it from the market or CZ sees the necessity.

I don't wish for this to appear as an attack on CZ's. My post are meant to be objective; I have no stock in Armalite. I own no other Armalite firearm at this time.

CraCZ
July 19, 2008, 12:14 PM
Amen to everything Dobe says! Ive been a CZ nut for years and remember people allways asking "What the hell is a CZ?" Obviously I love the CZ platform and I love CZ's and still own a few but I got to tell you that AR-24 is one fine handgun. Im extremely happy with mine and will keep it forever. Just my 4 cents worth(adj. for inflation)

yhtomit
July 19, 2008, 06:18 PM
"For a twist to the question (hope the OP doesn't mind) who makes the "best value" in a clone? Doesn't have to match, part for part, just be machined well and be durable. Bears asking now that CZ's aren't as inexpensive as they used to be."

No, I don't mind that in the least -- that's exactly what I hoped some of these answers would cast light on. Thanks.

timothy

atblis
July 19, 2008, 07:53 PM
Where are you guys getting that the SP01 has a forged frame? Every indication I've ever seen has been that it's investment cast.

EDIT: Also, I was always under the impression that their slides are also cast.

eerw
July 19, 2008, 08:34 PM
I have been pretty pleased with the CZs I have..all seem strong, nicely done. The main reason I go with CZ over all the other clones better or not is that they support the games I shoot. CZ-USA is a big sponsor and supporter of USPSA, IDPA and Steel Challenge.
The other do not. CZ-USA fields a team of Angus, Matt Mink and Kelly Neal. In the US, Tanfoglio, Armalite, Magnum Research do not. The closest is that Henning Walfgren shoots under Tanfoglio..but the USA importer EAA does not support the action shooting sports.

So..that is my reason that CZ gets my nod. Just as STI/SV, Caspian and a few others.

FEG
July 20, 2008, 02:55 PM
The opinion of a Cadillac being better than a Buick or other car is just that... opinion. It depends on what your definition of "better" is.

The same applies to firearms.

For example:

Firearm A has better machining than Firearm B. This means it's "better" even though Firearm B is just as accurate and reliable as Firearm A.

To another person, Firearm B is "better" because it's just as good functionally and costs substantially less.


Sometimes a clone is worse than the original. Sometimes the clone actually improves the design. Humans have always done this. The Europeans copied and then modified each other's weapons and armor for centuries. In the big picture, many important improvements and developments happened along the way. There were some mistakes and poor designs along the way too.

The CZ-75B is a clone of the Hi-Power somewhat. I'm a huge Hi-Power fan. I can compare my 75B to my FN Hi-Power and conclude (in my opinion) that the Czech clone of the Hi-Power improved the design greatly.

You might prefer the slide mounted safety/decocker of the CZ clones to be improvements and if these or other differences work better for you, then indeed they are.

The CZ is not in any way, shape, or form a Hi-Power Clone. There is 0% parts compatability. They can't always use the same generic holsters, for crying out loud. According to CZ-UB, the inspiration for the CZ 75 was the S&W Model 59, not the Hi-Power or SIG P-210.

Again, people are missing the point. In the "CZ World," the Swiss pistols are universally considered the best CZ pattern pistols. Whether that is the case or not is open to debate. The fact that they get all of the "respect" is not open to debate.

If you enjoyed reading about "(Sorry, but another one on ...) Cz v. the Clones" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!