pdosh
June 4, 2012, 07:47 AM
I'm thinking about a steel frame 9mm and these are the two in consideration. I have a SIG 226 in 40 so I can buy a conversion barrel for that if I want. Let's keep the discussion to these two platforms.
Browning Hi Power or CZ 75/85?
If you enjoyed reading about "Browning Hi Power or CZ 75/85?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bikerdoc
June 4, 2012, 08:26 AM
Cant speak to the Browning but I got 2 CZ 75's I absolutly love.
Wishoot
June 4, 2012, 08:44 AM
I have both. Frankly, I'd have a hard time getting rid of either. The fit, finish and quality makes the BHP really stand out. CZ's capacity is an advantage. Both are exceptionally reliable.
Husker_Fan
June 4, 2012, 09:03 AM
What's the capacity on the CZ? I use 15 round flush fitting Mec Gars with my HP.
wildehond
June 4, 2012, 09:06 AM
The the CZ75 will my first choice for a 9mm all steel gun. It was my first handgun and I loved it. Would still own it if the firearms laws was a bit more forgiving here.
wildehond
June 4, 2012, 09:11 AM
What's the capacity on the CZ? I use 15 round flush fitting Mec Gars with my HP.
The CZ takes 15 in the OEM flush fit magazines.
The CZ takes 15 in the OEM flush fit magazines.
Vonderek
June 4, 2012, 09:14 AM
Both are excellent. I guess it boils down to which trigger you want. The HP is single action and the thumb safety is smaller and not as positive as a 1911. The CZ75 can be carried hammer down in DA mode or cocked and locked in SA mode. Although I have not measure both's dimensions, the CZ seems bigger to me in size. The HP is excellent as a CCW piece if you are comfortable with carrying in Condition 1.
Walt Sherrill
June 4, 2012, 09:30 AM
Both guns are outstanding examples of their design. (SA and DA/SA) They look a lot alike but have little in common internally.
Buy whichever one you can afford, and then save up for the other.
The BHP may feel a bit narrower in your hand. The CZ mags hold more rounds, and some aftermarket mags will increase that, as well.
Both will arguably need trigger work to make them as good as they can be, if bought new. (The BHP magazine safety is irritating for some, and makes a good trigger a bit harder to obtain.)
I'd recommend buying either used; just watch for a bargain -- they can be found.
Buy whichever one you can afford, and then save up for the other.
The BHP may feel a bit narrower in your hand. The CZ mags hold more rounds, and some aftermarket mags will increase that, as well.
Both will arguably need trigger work to make them as good as they can be, if bought new. (The BHP magazine safety is irritating for some, and makes a good trigger a bit harder to obtain.)
I'd recommend buying either used; just watch for a bargain -- they can be found.
MrDig
June 4, 2012, 09:35 AM
I'm a Hi-Power guy all the way. No disrespect to the CZ's but of the two I would prefer the BHP.
Pilot
June 4, 2012, 09:52 AM
I also have both, and would be hard pressed to give up either. The nice thing about the CZ-75 platform is that you can also get the excellent Kadet Kit .22LR conversion for it and shoot less expensively on the gun. The kit is accurate, reliable, and a heck of a lot of fun.
That being said, my MK III BHP is my most accurate centerfire handgun. My CZ's are VERY close however, but I just seem to shoot the BHP a little better.
Hold both and see how they fit. I have relatively large hands and long fingers. The trigger reach on the BHP feels a tad short, but doesn't affect how I shoot it in the least. The trigger reach on my CZ-75's is perfect for me in both DA at the half cock notch and SA.
If I had to do it again, I'd probably get the BHP first then as soon as I could a CZ-75 variant.
That being said, my MK III BHP is my most accurate centerfire handgun. My CZ's are VERY close however, but I just seem to shoot the BHP a little better.
Hold both and see how they fit. I have relatively large hands and long fingers. The trigger reach on the BHP feels a tad short, but doesn't affect how I shoot it in the least. The trigger reach on my CZ-75's is perfect for me in both DA at the half cock notch and SA.
If I had to do it again, I'd probably get the BHP first then as soon as I could a CZ-75 variant.
Dentite
June 4, 2012, 11:10 AM
It might come down to which feels better in the hand and if you want DA/SA or SA only (I believe a minority of CZ pistols do in fact come in SA only and I believe you can do a SA conversion on a DA/SA but off the shelf most are going to come in DA/SA).
I've held the CZ in my hand but not shot it.
The proportions seem odd to my eye on the CZ...the very thin slide always looked weird to me.
The proportions of the BHP are beautiful to me but that's just a matter of taste.
I have two BHPs and like them but the out of the box trigger could be better.
I've held the CZ in my hand but not shot it.
The proportions seem odd to my eye on the CZ...the very thin slide always looked weird to me.
The proportions of the BHP are beautiful to me but that's just a matter of taste.
I have two BHPs and like them but the out of the box trigger could be better.
Ash
June 4, 2012, 11:42 AM
I own both, and the HP is shorter, from base of grip to tip of sight, and thinner, but they are about the same length. I prefer the CZ for a few reasons, but would be comfortable with the HP.
2zulu1
June 4, 2012, 11:58 AM
I prefer the SA for carry and the BHP is very accurate combined with superb ergonomics. For me it's the Hi Power with its very nice looking blue finish for IWB carry.
There's a nice, objective comparison between the two platforms at the hipowersandhandguns website.
There's a nice, objective comparison between the two platforms at the hipowersandhandguns website.
jmr40
June 4, 2012, 12:12 PM
BHP
The CZ's safety sucks as a SA and their triggers suck as a DA pistol. If you want a SA pistol buy a gun designed to be used as a SA. If you want a DA pistol buy one designed as a DA.
The CZ's safety sucks as a SA and their triggers suck as a DA pistol. If you want a SA pistol buy a gun designed to be used as a SA. If you want a DA pistol buy one designed as a DA.
daybreak
June 4, 2012, 12:22 PM
My opinion isn't worth much because I've never shot a BHP, but I can tell you that CZs shoot great and feel amazing in the hand. I recommend a model with the upswept beaver tail, like on a CZ SP01.
daybreak
June 4, 2012, 12:24 PM
BHP
The CZ's safety sucks as a SA and their triggers suck as a DA pistol. If you want a SA pistol buy a gun designed to be used as a SA. If you want a DA pistol buy one designed as a DA.
just an option, there is the CZ 75b SA (single action only) model.
The CZ's safety sucks as a SA and their triggers suck as a DA pistol. If you want a SA pistol buy a gun designed to be used as a SA. If you want a DA pistol buy one designed as a DA.
just an option, there is the CZ 75b SA (single action only) model.
dogtown tom
June 4, 2012, 12:45 PM
Vonderek.....The HP is single action and the thumb safety is smaller and not as positive as a 1911.
FN discontinued the small thumb safety three decades ago. Since the early eighties every Hi Power has had an excellent (and large) thumb safety.
FN discontinued the small thumb safety three decades ago. Since the early eighties every Hi Power has had an excellent (and large) thumb safety.
GZOh
June 4, 2012, 12:51 PM
Both are outstanding, classic pistolas... I own both, wouldn't sell either!!!
The CZ is a couple hundred $$ less, so you may want to start there...
Your objective... OWN BOTH!!
http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq112/geezeepix/CZ75BD002.jpghttp://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq112/geezeepix/ATIBHP010.jpg
The CZ is a couple hundred $$ less, so you may want to start there...
Your objective... OWN BOTH!!
http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq112/geezeepix/CZ75BD002.jpghttp://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq112/geezeepix/ATIBHP010.jpg
sub-moa
June 4, 2012, 01:11 PM
"The HP is single action and the thumb safety is smaller..."
The current BHP extended ambidextrious safety engagement surfaces are actually larger than those on the CZ75. BTW, they were intoduced in 1981 with the MkII and became standard with introduction of the MkIII in 1989.
In addition, the BHP safety is positioned such that there's more leverage available making manipulation easier, both on/off vs. the CZ 75, which is mounted much further forward...making it less than ideal for average hands and especially difficult for the digitally challenged ;)...
The current BHP extended ambidextrious safety engagement surfaces are actually larger than those on the CZ75. BTW, they were intoduced in 1981 with the MkII and became standard with introduction of the MkIII in 1989.
In addition, the BHP safety is positioned such that there's more leverage available making manipulation easier, both on/off vs. the CZ 75, which is mounted much further forward...making it less than ideal for average hands and especially difficult for the digitally challenged ;)...
greyling22
June 4, 2012, 01:12 PM
I've got the witness elite match, which is just a cz with a few more features. After shooting them both I preferred the cz platform. more bullets, better ergonomics, better trigger etc.
The HP is sexier, and I wanted to like it more, and I still want one some day, but the HP I would want would need four to six hundred bucks worth of work to make perfect. Out of the box the trigger needs a lot of work, and depending on the model, they need better sights and grips.
The HP is sexier, and I wanted to like it more, and I still want one some day, but the HP I would want would need four to six hundred bucks worth of work to make perfect. Out of the box the trigger needs a lot of work, and depending on the model, they need better sights and grips.
armoredman
June 4, 2012, 01:36 PM
The CZ standard magazine size is 16 nowadays. The CZ is available in DA/SA or SA only with a reconfigured trigger. Czech that the trigger reach is OK for you, some with short fingers might find it a wee bt long. If you like SA, the standard CZ 75B will cock and lock on single action same as the Browning. I also have to saw the classic P-35 High Power is one incredible pistol in it's own right. :)
Disregard jmr40, he's a classic brand hater, never backs anything he says with facts.
Disregard jmr40, he's a classic brand hater, never backs anything he says with facts.
Walt Sherrill
June 4, 2012, 01:58 PM
jmr40 never passes up a chance to slam CZs... just expect it, and don't consider his responses to be fair and balanced.
The safeties on many of the older BHPs are quite small, but I don't hear many people complaining about them; they're smaller than the CZ safeties. Of course, perhaps they just install after-market safety levers, as I did on my T-series BHP.
Most of the newer BHPs I've handled and shot didn't have great triggers, out of the box, either. Tuned, the BHP triggers can be excellent, if work is also done on the magazine safety.
As is the case with BHPs, CZ triggers can be quite good if tuned, and the guns can also be carried cocked and locked (like a BHP).
The CZ DA first trigger pull when starting from hammer down is long, but the gun can also be carried on the half-cock notch, That mode is perfectly safe, given the firing pin safety mechanism. Carried like that, the CZ DA trigger is both shorter and lighter.
Of course, if you're comfortable with SA carry, you can always go the CZ-75B SA route, and get the larger, ambidextrous safeties that are standard on that model.
As I said earlier, get both and shoot both. I don't see that much difference.
I have a CZ Clone -- a much-gunsmithed [custom] AT-84s -- that is far better than any CZ or BHP I've owned or shot. (It's a Swiss-made CZ clone based on the Tanfoglio version of the CZ.)
The safeties on many of the older BHPs are quite small, but I don't hear many people complaining about them; they're smaller than the CZ safeties. Of course, perhaps they just install after-market safety levers, as I did on my T-series BHP.
Most of the newer BHPs I've handled and shot didn't have great triggers, out of the box, either. Tuned, the BHP triggers can be excellent, if work is also done on the magazine safety.
As is the case with BHPs, CZ triggers can be quite good if tuned, and the guns can also be carried cocked and locked (like a BHP).
The CZ DA first trigger pull when starting from hammer down is long, but the gun can also be carried on the half-cock notch, That mode is perfectly safe, given the firing pin safety mechanism. Carried like that, the CZ DA trigger is both shorter and lighter.
Of course, if you're comfortable with SA carry, you can always go the CZ-75B SA route, and get the larger, ambidextrous safeties that are standard on that model.
As I said earlier, get both and shoot both. I don't see that much difference.
I have a CZ Clone -- a much-gunsmithed [custom] AT-84s -- that is far better than any CZ or BHP I've owned or shot. (It's a Swiss-made CZ clone based on the Tanfoglio version of the CZ.)
JTQ
June 4, 2012, 02:10 PM
If you are talking about the Hi-Power (and CZ in this case) you need to spend some time on the late Mr. Camp's excellent "Hi-Powers and Handguns" site.
Here is an article comparing the two pistols.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/CZ-75%20or%20BHP.htm
Here is an article comparing the two pistols.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/CZ-75%20or%20BHP.htm
Ash
June 4, 2012, 02:36 PM
I agree with Walt, they really handle like siblings. The 75 safety (and its derivatives) is easy to use.
rellascout
June 4, 2012, 05:57 PM
For me in the hand the BHP and the CZ 75B handle very differently. I have smaller hands and the DA pull on the CZ 75B is too long. It also in my experience is not very smooth/clean until it has a been tuned or shoot a lot.
The 75B feels thicker and taller in my hands. It never pointed as naturally as the BHP for me. This does not make is a bad gun. It just does not fit me as well as the BHP does.
If I were in the market for a CZ 75B again I would send it off to Cajun Gun Works to have a shorter reach trigger put on it and I would have the action the cleaned up. The other thing to look out for on 75Bs is the camming of the trigger action. It is always present in different degrees based on the pistol.
The BHP is not always perfect out of the box either. Trigger pulls normally are 6lb to 8lbs and the mag disconnect can give them a rough feel. I personally remove this feature from my BHPs which does not lighten the trigger but smooths it out IMHO. The way to lighten the trigger is to get better sear & hammer geometry and lower the mainspring weight.
In the end both are great pistols which can serve you well if they fit you. My advice would be to shoot them back to back if you can. Say 100 to 150 rounds out of each and one will pick you as much as you will pick one. :D
The 75B feels thicker and taller in my hands. It never pointed as naturally as the BHP for me. This does not make is a bad gun. It just does not fit me as well as the BHP does.
If I were in the market for a CZ 75B again I would send it off to Cajun Gun Works to have a shorter reach trigger put on it and I would have the action the cleaned up. The other thing to look out for on 75Bs is the camming of the trigger action. It is always present in different degrees based on the pistol.
The BHP is not always perfect out of the box either. Trigger pulls normally are 6lb to 8lbs and the mag disconnect can give them a rough feel. I personally remove this feature from my BHPs which does not lighten the trigger but smooths it out IMHO. The way to lighten the trigger is to get better sear & hammer geometry and lower the mainspring weight.
In the end both are great pistols which can serve you well if they fit you. My advice would be to shoot them back to back if you can. Say 100 to 150 rounds out of each and one will pick you as much as you will pick one. :D
bannockburn
June 4, 2012, 07:04 PM
I also have small hands and while I have both a Browning Hi-Power and a CZ P-01, my personal preference will always be with the Hi-Power. In my hands my MK.II, with its high profile sights, enlarged ambi safety, and surprisingly decent out-off-the-box trigger simply feels the best (and shoots the best), out of every high capacity 9mm. that I have ever encountered.
mavracer
June 4, 2012, 07:23 PM
BHP by the smallest of margins. I have both and love both.
Armed 24/7
June 4, 2012, 07:33 PM
It's almost too close to call, but I would vote for the Hi Power. I owned a Hi Power Practical, and currently own a CZ75 Compact. I really like my CZ, but I will definately buy another Hi Power. A Hi Power just feels absolutely correct when you pick one up.
larryh1108
June 4, 2012, 08:33 PM
I also own both and can flip a coin in which one is better. I happen to like the slide inside the frame fit the CZ offers for better accuracy, in my hands, and it seems to dampen the recoil a bit too. It just may be me. If given a choice I'd grab the Hi Power simply because it's a Hi Power. All else being equal, both guns seem equal.
tekarra
June 4, 2012, 09:00 PM
I have both and it is a close call, but I prefer the cZ.
browningguy
June 4, 2012, 10:40 PM
I have one CZ 75 and four BHP's, so I guess I lean toward the BHP.
pdosh
June 4, 2012, 11:42 PM
Great info. It might come down to the one I find locally in the used market. I really would like to find a used gun that I can put my paws on and eyeball real close.
Auto426
June 5, 2012, 12:20 AM
I prefer my Hi Power over the CZ based on the trigger reach. The CZ is a little on the long side in that department.
Ash
June 5, 2012, 06:35 AM
In cocked-and-locked scenarios, the triggers are very similar. True, the DA reach is considerably longer.
hAkron
June 5, 2012, 07:32 AM
Czech that the trigger reach is OK for you
I see what you did there :)
I see what you did there :)
Ash
June 5, 2012, 07:34 AM
Some of us know Armored and are used to it by now ;)
hAkron
June 5, 2012, 07:39 AM
I own quite a few CZ 75's and I've never had any issues with the triggers. That may be a perception, or lack of perception on my part, but I rather like the triggers on my CZ's, especially when they've been broken in. I've only ever shot one BHP. It's a recent model MK III I believe. What I didnt like was that there was no 'reset' on the trigger and it had to come all the way forward like on a revolver. The trigger pull was a little heavy. I also didn't like the feel of the plastic grips. These criticisms though are only what I dislike about the BHP as compared with the CZ 75. I think the BHP is a beautiful weapon. I would love to shoot one with the magazine safety removed to see how much better the trigger is without that nonsense.
Pilot
June 5, 2012, 07:52 AM
The trigger reach should not be an issue on the CZ if you keep the hammer at the half cocked notch where it belongs. That moves the trigger back a bit. It will definitely not be an issue if kept cocked and locked.
CZ's are designed to be SAFELY carried at the half cock notch.
CZ's are designed to be SAFELY carried at the half cock notch.
JTQ
June 5, 2012, 08:45 AM
Pilot wrote,
The trigger reach should not be an issue on the CZ if you keep the hammer at the half cocked notch where it belongs. That moves the trigger back a bit. It will definitely not be an issue if kept cocked and locked.
Ash wrote,
In cocked-and-locked scenarios, the triggers are very similar. True, the DA reach is considerably longer.
I'll agree with both posters comments that using the CZ75 in single action makes the trigger reachable. However, it doesn't move the position of the thumb safety. If you are going to use the CZ75B as a single action pistol, make sure you can easily operate the thumb safety. My hands fit a 1911 and Hi-Power just fine for trigger reach, and my thumb easily finds and operates the thumb safety on both the 1911 and Hi-Power. Conversely, the standard CZ75B thumb safety is a long reach, for me, and the rounded shape does not help my easy engagement/disengagement of the safety.
The trigger reach should not be an issue on the CZ if you keep the hammer at the half cocked notch where it belongs. That moves the trigger back a bit. It will definitely not be an issue if kept cocked and locked.
Ash wrote,
In cocked-and-locked scenarios, the triggers are very similar. True, the DA reach is considerably longer.
I'll agree with both posters comments that using the CZ75 in single action makes the trigger reachable. However, it doesn't move the position of the thumb safety. If you are going to use the CZ75B as a single action pistol, make sure you can easily operate the thumb safety. My hands fit a 1911 and Hi-Power just fine for trigger reach, and my thumb easily finds and operates the thumb safety on both the 1911 and Hi-Power. Conversely, the standard CZ75B thumb safety is a long reach, for me, and the rounded shape does not help my easy engagement/disengagement of the safety.
Ash
June 5, 2012, 08:48 AM
Comparing apples and apples, you can get bigger safety levers for the job on the CZ, too. The High Power safety in its original form was too small for me, and mushy without a confidence-inspiring click.
Still, I have no plans on selling mine.
Still, I have no plans on selling mine.
Pilot
June 5, 2012, 09:47 AM
Conversely, the standard CZ75B thumb safety is a long reach, for me, and the rounded shape does not help my easy engagement/disengagement of the safety.
No need to use the safety on a CZ at all if not carrying C&L. I carry my PCR and 75B at the half cock notch, no safety engaged. (The PCR is a decocker, so it doesn't have a safety). Trigger reach is fine at half cock, Double Action. Again, no safety.
No need to use the safety on a CZ at all if not carrying C&L. I carry my PCR and 75B at the half cock notch, no safety engaged. (The PCR is a decocker, so it doesn't have a safety). Trigger reach is fine at half cock, Double Action. Again, no safety.
Walt Sherrill
June 5, 2012, 10:42 AM
No need to use the safety on a CZ at all if not carrying C&L...
And, in fact, the CZ safety doesn't engage unless the hammer is fully cocked. (The Witness line allows the safety to be engagde with hammer down. The CZ doesn't -- if everything is working properly.)
And, in fact, the CZ safety doesn't engage unless the hammer is fully cocked. (The Witness line allows the safety to be engagde with hammer down. The CZ doesn't -- if everything is working properly.)
Swing
June 5, 2012, 10:48 AM
Tough pick. I guess I'd err on the side of the HP, but it is hard to go wrong with CZ.
InnerVision
June 5, 2012, 11:04 AM
So...Between the 75b and the 75bd (Decocker)...This is where I get confused.
The decocker has no safety and can be decocked...yet can not be carried C&L.
So the 75b can also be carried hammer down?? or Half Cocked??
How does one get the hammer down after chambering a round? Does the hammer fall down to halfcock position automatically? Or does the operator have to physically/safely lower the hammer while pulling the trigger??
The decocker has no safety and can be decocked...yet can not be carried C&L.
So the 75b can also be carried hammer down?? or Half Cocked??
How does one get the hammer down after chambering a round? Does the hammer fall down to halfcock position automatically? Or does the operator have to physically/safely lower the hammer while pulling the trigger??
JTQ
June 5, 2012, 11:08 AM
Yes, you need to pull the trigger to lower the hammer on the CZ75B.
There are a few different techniques for trapping the hammer to keep the pistol from firing.
There are a few different techniques for trapping the hammer to keep the pistol from firing.
viking499
June 5, 2012, 11:35 AM
Physically lowered while pulling the trigger.
InnerVision
June 5, 2012, 11:58 AM
Thanks^^
Not meaning to hijack the thread or anything, but I was going to post pretty much the same thread today.
I went about 10 different gun shops yesterday to get my hands on everything I could. I checked out a few BHP's which felt great, but I stumbled across one cz75bd out of all the places I went.
From what I can tell, this forum is partial to CZ's and so I've read many good things about them. Now I can see why..I instantly "fell in love" with the 75..And can't help but to sound cliche, but it felt like it was custom made for my hand.
I will definitely own one in the near future..Just have to decide between the B or the BD
Not meaning to hijack the thread or anything, but I was going to post pretty much the same thread today.
I went about 10 different gun shops yesterday to get my hands on everything I could. I checked out a few BHP's which felt great, but I stumbled across one cz75bd out of all the places I went.
From what I can tell, this forum is partial to CZ's and so I've read many good things about them. Now I can see why..I instantly "fell in love" with the 75..And can't help but to sound cliche, but it felt like it was custom made for my hand.
I will definitely own one in the near future..Just have to decide between the B or the BD
Pilot
June 5, 2012, 12:01 PM
The dangers of manually lowering the hammer on a CZ-75 or other pistol for that matter is greatly over blown, IMHO. Been doing it for years, just point it in a SAFE direction. I've never had an ND.
DaveShooter
June 5, 2012, 12:13 PM
I'll take a CZ 75B anyday over a Browning High-Power.. I have had both and always come back to the CZ line of handgun.
Captain Brown Beard
June 5, 2012, 12:19 PM
I will definitely own one in the near future..Just have to decide between the B or the BD
You can't go wrong with either one imo, CZ makes a great handgun. Keep in mind however, should you go with the decocker model, there are nary a gunsmith willing (or skilled enough) to do internal work on CZ's with a decocker. If you wanted anything like a trigger job you would probably end up sending it to CZ.
You can't go wrong with either one imo, CZ makes a great handgun. Keep in mind however, should you go with the decocker model, there are nary a gunsmith willing (or skilled enough) to do internal work on CZ's with a decocker. If you wanted anything like a trigger job you would probably end up sending it to CZ.
Walt Sherrill
June 5, 2012, 12:23 PM
The decocker has no safety and can be decocked...yet can not be carried C&L.
So the 75b can also be carried hammer down?? or Half Cocked??
Yes. As you say -- the decocker models can be decocked, but NOT carried cocked and locked. The non-decocker models can be carried hammer down, on half-cock, or cocked and locked (i.e., safety engage.)
You can decock any gun without a decocker by using various techniques. One way is to:
1) Point the gun in a safe direction (away from people and toward the ground), using the hand in which you normally hold the gun.
2) Grasp the hammer with the thumb and forefinger of your other hand, also putting one of your other fingers between the hammer and the firing pin.
3) Slowly pull the trigger while holding the hammer (to keep it from falling with force).
4) As the hammer is released by the sear, slowly lower the hammer to it's fully down position.
Doing all of this slowly makes the chance of a negligent discharge almost 0%, as the hammer must strike the firing pin with speed and force to send it forward with enough force to overcome the force of the firing pin spring.
If it sounds complicated, it isn't. And it's safe -- typically more safe than people trying to draw and fire from a holster. I've worked as a safety officer at IDPA matches over the years, and have seem many people decocking their weapons without incident. Fact is, I've never seen a negligent discharge while someone was decocking. On the other hand, I've seen many FIRST SHOTS (when drawn from the holster) go places they weren't supposed to go.
Decocking a gun is a basic gun-handling skill. If you get interested n Cowboy Action Shooting and have an older single-action revolver, you'll have to learn to do it.
So the 75b can also be carried hammer down?? or Half Cocked??
Yes. As you say -- the decocker models can be decocked, but NOT carried cocked and locked. The non-decocker models can be carried hammer down, on half-cock, or cocked and locked (i.e., safety engage.)
You can decock any gun without a decocker by using various techniques. One way is to:
1) Point the gun in a safe direction (away from people and toward the ground), using the hand in which you normally hold the gun.
2) Grasp the hammer with the thumb and forefinger of your other hand, also putting one of your other fingers between the hammer and the firing pin.
3) Slowly pull the trigger while holding the hammer (to keep it from falling with force).
4) As the hammer is released by the sear, slowly lower the hammer to it's fully down position.
Doing all of this slowly makes the chance of a negligent discharge almost 0%, as the hammer must strike the firing pin with speed and force to send it forward with enough force to overcome the force of the firing pin spring.
If it sounds complicated, it isn't. And it's safe -- typically more safe than people trying to draw and fire from a holster. I've worked as a safety officer at IDPA matches over the years, and have seem many people decocking their weapons without incident. Fact is, I've never seen a negligent discharge while someone was decocking. On the other hand, I've seen many FIRST SHOTS (when drawn from the holster) go places they weren't supposed to go.
Decocking a gun is a basic gun-handling skill. If you get interested n Cowboy Action Shooting and have an older single-action revolver, you'll have to learn to do it.
Certaindeaf
June 5, 2012, 01:23 PM
Though I've never fired a CZ and likely never will, I'd say either would serve you well.
Personally, I'd recommend the Hi-Power.
Personally, I'd recommend the Hi-Power.
jbauch357
June 5, 2012, 01:28 PM
My CZ 75B SA with competition hammer and matched sear is my absolute favorite auto-loader, not that great for carry since it's SA (I don't want to fumble with a safety nor needing to rack a round) but a blast for target or steel shooting.
Similarly I have a CZ SP-01 with the competition hammer, sear, springs - and it's not anywhere near as nice to shoot as the 75B but makes for a better carry gun.
The extra weight of the 75B and the dedicated single action trigger make all the difference for shooting enjoyability.
Similarly I have a CZ SP-01 with the competition hammer, sear, springs - and it's not anywhere near as nice to shoot as the 75B but makes for a better carry gun.
The extra weight of the 75B and the dedicated single action trigger make all the difference for shooting enjoyability.
jbauch357
June 5, 2012, 01:32 PM
the decocker models can be decocked, but NOT carried cocked and locked.
why is this? if you're carrying in a holster that protects the trigger from engagement, and with a pistol like the CZ with a safety block (in case you drop it) why can't you carry cocked and locked?
why is this? if you're carrying in a holster that protects the trigger from engagement, and with a pistol like the CZ with a safety block (in case you drop it) why can't you carry cocked and locked?
Captain Brown Beard
June 5, 2012, 01:36 PM
why is this? if you're carrying in a holster that protects the trigger from engagement, and with a pistol like the CZ with a safety block (in case you drop it) why can't you carry cocked and locked?
Because the decocker model does not have a manual safety. Typically it's not a good idea to put a cocked handgun in a holster with a light trigger and no other safety to speak of.
Because the decocker model does not have a manual safety. Typically it's not a good idea to put a cocked handgun in a holster with a light trigger and no other safety to speak of.
Walt Sherrill
June 5, 2012, 01:39 PM
the decocker models can be decocked, but NOT carried cocked and locked.
why is this? if you're carrying in a holster that protects the trigger from engagement, and with a pistol like the CZ with a safety block (in case you drop it) why can't you carry cocked and locked?
Because many decocker (CZ among them) models don't have a safety, so they can't be "locked" -- by definition. I don't know of a single decocker gun that can be carried cocked and locked.
Dropping the weapon isn't the primary concern. Some folks who must draw their weapon under stressful conditions are wary of handling a fully cocked weapon. They consider THAT situation as an accident waiting to happen.
With decocker guns, the guns are NEVER fully cocked in their normal starting position. (Some start from half-cock, or lower; some start from fully hammer down, just like a DAO gun.)
With a guns that starts from cocked and locked, you must disengage the safety before it can be fired, and that is generally done as the gun is brought on target, not while it's still in the holster.
why is this? if you're carrying in a holster that protects the trigger from engagement, and with a pistol like the CZ with a safety block (in case you drop it) why can't you carry cocked and locked?
Because many decocker (CZ among them) models don't have a safety, so they can't be "locked" -- by definition. I don't know of a single decocker gun that can be carried cocked and locked.
Dropping the weapon isn't the primary concern. Some folks who must draw their weapon under stressful conditions are wary of handling a fully cocked weapon. They consider THAT situation as an accident waiting to happen.
With decocker guns, the guns are NEVER fully cocked in their normal starting position. (Some start from half-cock, or lower; some start from fully hammer down, just like a DAO gun.)
With a guns that starts from cocked and locked, you must disengage the safety before it can be fired, and that is generally done as the gun is brought on target, not while it's still in the holster.
jbauch357
June 5, 2012, 01:43 PM
It works fine for striker fired pistols with short light triggers like the G35, why would it be any different for a DA/SA pistol with substantially more take up than the striker fired pistols?
I've been playing with the idea of carrying my CZ-P01 (called it an SP-01 earlier, oops) chambered with the hammer back, but haven't been able to get myself to feel comfortable with it - I'm not sure why, which is why I ask.
I've been playing with the idea of carrying my CZ-P01 (called it an SP-01 earlier, oops) chambered with the hammer back, but haven't been able to get myself to feel comfortable with it - I'm not sure why, which is why I ask.
mdauben
June 5, 2012, 01:59 PM
I don't have as much experience with the CZ as the HP (never owned either but knew people that did) and after shooting both I came away thinking the CZ was a nice gun but wishing I owned a HP. Purely personal but I really love that gun.
Walt Sherrill
June 5, 2012, 02:31 PM
I've been playing with the idea of carrying my CZ-P01 (called it an SP-01 earlier, oops) chambered with the hammer back, but haven't been able to get myself to feel comfortable with it - I'm not sure why, which is why I ask.
You shouldn't WANT to feel comfortable with it. You'd be doing something that is potentially VERY unsafe. That is NOT how that (or any) decocker weapon is intended to be carried or brought into play.
While the firing pin block prevents accidental discharges --from strikes or drops -- it can't prevent NEGLIGENT discharges. Try to draw and fire that weapon in a stressful situation (or simply when you're not paying full attention), already cocked, but not locked, and you are likely find yourself with a wound in your leg or foot, or worse.
A little bit of gun-handling training will let you get your weapon into action more quickly, and offset any need you might feel for that mere extra fraction of a second you'd gain from carrying a decocker gun fully cocked.
RE: why it's okay with a striker-fired gun but not with a hammer-fired gun: it's a fine point, but the striker-fired guns generally have a safety built into the trigger, and you can't fire the gun unless your hand is in the proper position on the grip and trigger, and you pull the trigger fully back. With a hammer-fired gun without that extra mechanism, particularly one with a short pull (as would be the case with a CZ P-01 on half-cock), you'd still need to pull the trigger fully to the rear, but the "pull" could be more easily accomplished by a glancing blow. The chances of an accidental discharge are much greater with a fully cocked hammer. The strikers aren't fully cocked in all of the striker-fired guns I'm aware of. The extra motion required of a striker fired gun can be done easily or casually.
You shouldn't WANT to feel comfortable with it. You'd be doing something that is potentially VERY unsafe. That is NOT how that (or any) decocker weapon is intended to be carried or brought into play.
While the firing pin block prevents accidental discharges --from strikes or drops -- it can't prevent NEGLIGENT discharges. Try to draw and fire that weapon in a stressful situation (or simply when you're not paying full attention), already cocked, but not locked, and you are likely find yourself with a wound in your leg or foot, or worse.
A little bit of gun-handling training will let you get your weapon into action more quickly, and offset any need you might feel for that mere extra fraction of a second you'd gain from carrying a decocker gun fully cocked.
RE: why it's okay with a striker-fired gun but not with a hammer-fired gun: it's a fine point, but the striker-fired guns generally have a safety built into the trigger, and you can't fire the gun unless your hand is in the proper position on the grip and trigger, and you pull the trigger fully back. With a hammer-fired gun without that extra mechanism, particularly one with a short pull (as would be the case with a CZ P-01 on half-cock), you'd still need to pull the trigger fully to the rear, but the "pull" could be more easily accomplished by a glancing blow. The chances of an accidental discharge are much greater with a fully cocked hammer. The strikers aren't fully cocked in all of the striker-fired guns I'm aware of. The extra motion required of a striker fired gun can be done easily or casually.
wally
June 5, 2012, 02:56 PM
Audience says:
Flip a coin and buy one, save up and then buy the other!
I'd look for the best deal of the two today and save up and buy the other. I have both and they are really great pistols, would hate to have to choose which to give up if it came down to it.
If a pistol has a thumb safety, its there for a reason, use it! or carry condition 3.
Flip a coin and buy one, save up and then buy the other!
I'd look for the best deal of the two today and save up and buy the other. I have both and they are really great pistols, would hate to have to choose which to give up if it came down to it.
If a pistol has a thumb safety, its there for a reason, use it! or carry condition 3.
Lothar
June 5, 2012, 04:27 PM
I own a BHP Mark III, and have shot a CZ 75B.
The trigger wasn't ideal out of the box on the BHP, but I was able to make it very nice without having to send it to a gunsmith, with a couple of simple modifications.
I had later researched a CZ 75 B SA Target, and was all gung-ho to buy one, until I finally found one in a gun store and held it. It just didn't have the perfect feel of my BHP, ergonomically. That particular CZ model had a custom-tuned trigger from Angus Hobdell's shop, which eliminated the dreaded camming action of that gun's hammer, but it still didn't feel quite as nice as my BHPs trigger pull.
I later had a chance to shoot a CZ 75 B at a manufacturer's demo day at my range. I was impressed with how accurately I was able to shoot it right away (at least after I figured out the proper hold for its sights), but I had thought the same thing about my BHP the first time I shot it too. They are both very accurate guns.
I think you'd be happy with either, and either way you could be confident that you bought an outstanding gun, but my personal preference is for the BHP.
The trigger wasn't ideal out of the box on the BHP, but I was able to make it very nice without having to send it to a gunsmith, with a couple of simple modifications.
I had later researched a CZ 75 B SA Target, and was all gung-ho to buy one, until I finally found one in a gun store and held it. It just didn't have the perfect feel of my BHP, ergonomically. That particular CZ model had a custom-tuned trigger from Angus Hobdell's shop, which eliminated the dreaded camming action of that gun's hammer, but it still didn't feel quite as nice as my BHPs trigger pull.
I later had a chance to shoot a CZ 75 B at a manufacturer's demo day at my range. I was impressed with how accurately I was able to shoot it right away (at least after I figured out the proper hold for its sights), but I had thought the same thing about my BHP the first time I shot it too. They are both very accurate guns.
I think you'd be happy with either, and either way you could be confident that you bought an outstanding gun, but my personal preference is for the BHP.
316SS
June 5, 2012, 04:32 PM
I recently bought a CZ-75B SA after considering a used BHP in very good condition. Things I liked/preferred about the CZ: full length slide-in-frame rails, ambidextrous thumb safety that I find excellent in terms of placement and function, and no magazine disconnect. I also changed out the plastic grips for the rosewood ones from czcustom.com, and I like the look, feel, and especially the lesser width. For me, the ergonomics are good with the BHP and better with the CZ.
I have shot HP's, and I would still consider buying one for the right price, but it was not a hard decision to go with the CZ.
My CZ 75B SA with competition hammer and matched sear is my absolute favorite auto-loader, not that great for carry since it's SA (I don't want to fumble with a safety nor needing to rack a round) but a blast for target or steel shooting.
I flat our disagree with this opinion; one of my intended uses was/is CCW. Personally I prefer SAO and I think the 75B SA is very well suited for that purpose. Mine is stock, and there is some camming, but for a CCW pistol that is fine with me. The trigger is otherwise excellent and I expect it will get better with use.
I have shot HP's, and I would still consider buying one for the right price, but it was not a hard decision to go with the CZ.
My CZ 75B SA with competition hammer and matched sear is my absolute favorite auto-loader, not that great for carry since it's SA (I don't want to fumble with a safety nor needing to rack a round) but a blast for target or steel shooting.
I flat our disagree with this opinion; one of my intended uses was/is CCW. Personally I prefer SAO and I think the 75B SA is very well suited for that purpose. Mine is stock, and there is some camming, but for a CCW pistol that is fine with me. The trigger is otherwise excellent and I expect it will get better with use.
ForumSurfer
June 5, 2012, 04:57 PM
I voted on the CZ with my wallet. I'm anxiously awaiting a CZ 75 compact PCR. I test fired a 75BD compact for around 100-200 rounds and it was love at first pull. Something about that compact size just feels right for my hands.
As for going with the PCR, it is an alloy framed model with decocker. It is lighter than the steel version, but noticeably heavier than the polymer guns I shoot...so light weight isn't much of a concern. As for the DA/SA trigger pull the jmr mentioned, I've felt worse trigger pulls. A well broken in CZ has a decent trigger IMHO. If you want a crisp SA trigger, 1911's are the gold standard and they are just almost impossible to beat.
I went for the decocker model. I don't care about the decocker, I just like the fact that there is no safety. I don't want a safety. If I'm forced to get a safety, I'm selling everything and going back to 1911's. As it is, I'm accustomed to shooting glocks, m&p's, xd's and their ilk so I prefer to not have a safety. The trigger felt great to me. Not like a highly tuned 1911, revolver or anything else...but pretty fantastic for an out of the box trigger with nothing more than some break in shots fired. Others say the decocker lever can cause you to decock it if you shoot high thumbs, but I didn't find that to be the problem.
All in all, picking up the 75 compact without having any preconceived notions about it was a pleasant surprise. I shot it well and had fun. Up until a few weeks ago I honestly had no idea they even made a CZ75 compact. I always ignored that section of the coun counter.
As for going with the PCR, it is an alloy framed model with decocker. It is lighter than the steel version, but noticeably heavier than the polymer guns I shoot...so light weight isn't much of a concern. As for the DA/SA trigger pull the jmr mentioned, I've felt worse trigger pulls. A well broken in CZ has a decent trigger IMHO. If you want a crisp SA trigger, 1911's are the gold standard and they are just almost impossible to beat.
I went for the decocker model. I don't care about the decocker, I just like the fact that there is no safety. I don't want a safety. If I'm forced to get a safety, I'm selling everything and going back to 1911's. As it is, I'm accustomed to shooting glocks, m&p's, xd's and their ilk so I prefer to not have a safety. The trigger felt great to me. Not like a highly tuned 1911, revolver or anything else...but pretty fantastic for an out of the box trigger with nothing more than some break in shots fired. Others say the decocker lever can cause you to decock it if you shoot high thumbs, but I didn't find that to be the problem.
All in all, picking up the 75 compact without having any preconceived notions about it was a pleasant surprise. I shot it well and had fun. Up until a few weeks ago I honestly had no idea they even made a CZ75 compact. I always ignored that section of the coun counter.
jbauch357
June 5, 2012, 07:56 PM
Quote:
My CZ 75B SA with competition hammer and matched sear is my absolute favorite auto-loader, not that great for carry since it's SA (I don't want to fumble with a safety nor needing to rack a round) but a blast for target or steel shooting.
I flat our disagree with this opinion; one of my intended uses was/is CCW. Personally I prefer SAO and I think the 75B SA is very well suited for that purpose. Mine is stock, and there is some camming, but for a CCW pistol that is fine with me. The trigger is otherwise excellent and I expect it will get better with use.
what part do you disagree with?
all of my other carry guns are GLOCK's or revolvers where I don't have to fumble with a safety, that's why I went with a P-01 with decocker for my carry carry CZ. even after getting it back from the custom shop I think the difference between double and single action pulls is awful, but at least I know it's going to go bang when I pull the trigger and there aren't any additional steps slowing me down.
all that said, the 75B with comp hammer is much more accurate and easy to shoot - just not a good carry rig for me...
My CZ 75B SA with competition hammer and matched sear is my absolute favorite auto-loader, not that great for carry since it's SA (I don't want to fumble with a safety nor needing to rack a round) but a blast for target or steel shooting.
I flat our disagree with this opinion; one of my intended uses was/is CCW. Personally I prefer SAO and I think the 75B SA is very well suited for that purpose. Mine is stock, and there is some camming, but for a CCW pistol that is fine with me. The trigger is otherwise excellent and I expect it will get better with use.
what part do you disagree with?
all of my other carry guns are GLOCK's or revolvers where I don't have to fumble with a safety, that's why I went with a P-01 with decocker for my carry carry CZ. even after getting it back from the custom shop I think the difference between double and single action pulls is awful, but at least I know it's going to go bang when I pull the trigger and there aren't any additional steps slowing me down.
all that said, the 75B with comp hammer is much more accurate and easy to shoot - just not a good carry rig for me...
jbauch357
June 5, 2012, 08:06 PM
RE: why it's okay with a striker-fired gun but not with a hammer-fired gun: it's a fine point, but the striker-fired guns generally have a safety built into the trigger, and you can't fire the gun unless your hand is in the proper position on the grip and trigger, and you pull the trigger fully back. With a hammer-fired gun without that extra mechanism, particularly one with a short pull (as would be the case with a CZ P-01 on half-cock), you'd still need to pull the trigger fully to the rear, but the "pull" could be more easily accomplished by a glancing blow. The chances of an accidental discharge are much greater with a fully cocked hammer. The strikers aren't fully cocked in all of the striker-fired guns I'm aware of. The extra motion required of a striker fired gun can be done easily or casually.
I get what you're saying, but comparing the two I think it's easier to ND the GLOCK than it is the CZ - just due to how long the trigger has to travel before firing a round in the CZ, and the CZ is only a pound lighter than the GLOCK at final pull. the little tab on the trigger of the GLOCK may provide some safety, but not much at all, and I have to try hard to snag the trigger on anything without depressing the trigger safety too...
either way, wanted to confirm that this is the rational, and that I still don't necessarily agree with it - but haven't convinced myself either way yet...
I get what you're saying, but comparing the two I think it's easier to ND the GLOCK than it is the CZ - just due to how long the trigger has to travel before firing a round in the CZ, and the CZ is only a pound lighter than the GLOCK at final pull. the little tab on the trigger of the GLOCK may provide some safety, but not much at all, and I have to try hard to snag the trigger on anything without depressing the trigger safety too...
either way, wanted to confirm that this is the rational, and that I still don't necessarily agree with it - but haven't convinced myself either way yet...
316SS
June 5, 2012, 08:20 PM
My CZ 75B SA with competition hammer and matched sear is my absolute favorite auto-loader, not that great for carry since it's SA (I don't want to fumble with a safety nor needing to rack a round) but a blast for target or steel shooting.
I flat our disagree with this opinion; one of my intended uses was/is CCW. Personally I prefer SAO and I think the 75B SA is very well suited for that purpose. Mine is stock, and there is some camming, but for a CCW pistol that is fine with me. The trigger is otherwise excellent and I expect it will get better with use.
what part do you disagree with?
I disagree that the CZ 75B SA is not suitable for CCW because it is single action only. You may not choose to carry a single action pistol, and of course you shouldn't if you don't want to. But for someone comfortable carrying cocked and locked, and assuming that one wants to carry a full-size all-steel pistol (such as the 1911 or BHP, to give a couple popular examples) the CZ 75B SA is an excellent choice for CCW.
I flat our disagree with this opinion; one of my intended uses was/is CCW. Personally I prefer SAO and I think the 75B SA is very well suited for that purpose. Mine is stock, and there is some camming, but for a CCW pistol that is fine with me. The trigger is otherwise excellent and I expect it will get better with use.
what part do you disagree with?
I disagree that the CZ 75B SA is not suitable for CCW because it is single action only. You may not choose to carry a single action pistol, and of course you shouldn't if you don't want to. But for someone comfortable carrying cocked and locked, and assuming that one wants to carry a full-size all-steel pistol (such as the 1911 or BHP, to give a couple popular examples) the CZ 75B SA is an excellent choice for CCW.
19&41
June 5, 2012, 08:31 PM
Try each. Don't just trust the opinions. It is worth the time and effort.
Jaymo
June 5, 2012, 08:32 PM
Having owned both, I can honestly say that I like them both very much.
You really need to hold and handle both. Whichever one feels better in YOUR hand is the one YOU will be more comfortable with.
I miss my BHP and need to get another one.
They are both VERY nice pistols.
There are enough aftermarket parts for either to enhance the grip and improve the trigger pull.
Not that either one has a bad trigger pull.
Neither one has a trigger that feels like those old suction cup dart guns.
You really need to hold and handle both. Whichever one feels better in YOUR hand is the one YOU will be more comfortable with.
I miss my BHP and need to get another one.
They are both VERY nice pistols.
There are enough aftermarket parts for either to enhance the grip and improve the trigger pull.
Not that either one has a bad trigger pull.
Neither one has a trigger that feels like those old suction cup dart guns.
bikerdoc
June 5, 2012, 09:10 PM
CZ 75 BD
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg134/bikerdoc1948/Untitled-4.jpg
CZ 75 compact
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg134/bikerdoc1948/002.jpg
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg134/bikerdoc1948/Untitled-4.jpg
CZ 75 compact
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg134/bikerdoc1948/002.jpg
Cactus Jack Arizona
June 6, 2012, 08:17 AM
Why not get one of each? You don't necessarily have to get one over the other, right? Also, you don't have to buy a Browning to get a Hi Power. Try a FEG or an Arcus. They may not look as glamorous as a Browning but they are fun to shoot for at least half the price of a Browning. Just something to think about. ;)
mdmorgan
June 6, 2012, 08:20 AM
I don't own a hi power, but I love them. That said I do love my CZ 75.
DesertVet
June 6, 2012, 08:46 AM
My Browning Hi Power is one of my favorite pistols.
KevininPa
June 7, 2012, 10:49 AM
........I had a CZ75 Compact (just a little shorter in the grip and barrel but otherwise the same gun) and currently own a FEG HP clone. Sold the CZ because I found it more than filling the hand. Felt like the trigger was way out front for my smallish hands to feel comfortable with. I find my FEG to be a perfect fit. Both guns are well made and if you have larger mitts than me I think you'll enjoy either one.
sixgunner455
June 7, 2012, 04:23 PM
Walt said: I don't know of a single decocker gun that can be carried cocked and locked.
I once shot a Taurus clone of a Beretta 92 series that had a dual function safety/decocking lever mounted on the frame. It was fully capable of being put on safe (in the all the way up position) whether cocked or decocked, and then pushed all the way down (three position safety) it would decock the piece.
I personally prefer the full-sized CZ to the BHP. It comes with a beavertail, so no hammer bite, and while the BHP feels quite nice in the hand, the CZ fits me even better.
I once shot a Taurus clone of a Beretta 92 series that had a dual function safety/decocking lever mounted on the frame. It was fully capable of being put on safe (in the all the way up position) whether cocked or decocked, and then pushed all the way down (three position safety) it would decock the piece.
I personally prefer the full-sized CZ to the BHP. It comes with a beavertail, so no hammer bite, and while the BHP feels quite nice in the hand, the CZ fits me even better.
Walt Sherrill
June 7, 2012, 05:27 PM
I once shot a Taurus clone of a Beretta 92 series that had a dual function safety/decocking lever mounted on the frame. It was fully capable of being put on safe (in the all the way up position) whether cocked or decocked, and then pushed all the way down (three position safety) it would decock the piece.
Nice correction. I guess it could be difficult, if carrying cocked and locked, and you pushed the lever just a bit too far, in a tense situation. (I remember once handling such a gun; I don't think that mechanism lends itself to C&L carry, but do agree that it had that functionality.)
Nice correction. I guess it could be difficult, if carrying cocked and locked, and you pushed the lever just a bit too far, in a tense situation. (I remember once handling such a gun; I don't think that mechanism lends itself to C&L carry, but do agree that it had that functionality.)
Furncliff
June 7, 2012, 10:36 PM
If you have big hands the grip on the HP is going to feel short. I liked the HP but the one I tried had a brutally strong recoil spring and my pinkie finger fell off the bottom of the grip. I've had a CZ 75b for some time and it's one of my favorites. The only thing I would change would be to switch to the SA model since mine is strictly a range gun.
peacebutready
June 8, 2012, 10:35 AM
The CZ handles +P loads fine in 9mm. The HP has had trouble handling NATO ammo, which I think is equivelant to +P. The hotter loads have broke some HP's in Europe. I don't know if the HP has been updated to handle +P loads in recent years. I know their .40 model was strengthened. I don't know if they are available, though.
The HP in blue is classy looking in my opinion.
I have the CZ and have read about both. Seems like you can't go wrong with either for non +P loads. The CZ is a few hundred less in price.
Good luck.
The HP in blue is classy looking in my opinion.
I have the CZ and have read about both. Seems like you can't go wrong with either for non +P loads. The CZ is a few hundred less in price.
Good luck.
rellascout
June 8, 2012, 01:36 PM
The CZ handles +P loads fine in 9mm. The HP has had trouble handling NATO ammo, which I think is equivelant to +P. The hotter loads have broke some HP's in Europe. I don't know if the HP has been updated to handle +P loads in recent years. I know their .40 model was strengthened. I don't know if they are available, though.
You can shoot +P out of any BHP. The MKIIIs have no issues at all the older BHPs can also handle it but if you are shooting a ton of +P you will see accelerated wear. I shoot +P out of this BHP with no issues. I swapped out the recoil spring and it has been good to go. I do not shoot tons of +P out of it but I would estimate it has over 500 rounds of +p through it. Rails and barrel lugs are just fine no rounding.
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t213/rellascout/wwg-bhp2.gif
This gun is a Isreali defense force gun and saw NATO pressure rounds for most of it life. Rails and barrels lugs are just fine.
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t213/rellascout/jew-power.gif
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/BHPandHighPressureAmmo.htm
You can shoot +P out of any BHP. The MKIIIs have no issues at all the older BHPs can also handle it but if you are shooting a ton of +P you will see accelerated wear. I shoot +P out of this BHP with no issues. I swapped out the recoil spring and it has been good to go. I do not shoot tons of +P out of it but I would estimate it has over 500 rounds of +p through it. Rails and barrel lugs are just fine no rounding.
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t213/rellascout/wwg-bhp2.gif
This gun is a Isreali defense force gun and saw NATO pressure rounds for most of it life. Rails and barrels lugs are just fine.
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t213/rellascout/jew-power.gif
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/BHPandHighPressureAmmo.htm
sixgunner455
June 8, 2012, 03:47 PM
Nice correction. I guess it could be difficult, if carrying cocked and locked, and you pushed the lever just a bit too far, in a tense situation. (I remember once handling such a gun; I don't think that mechanism lends itself to C&L carry, but do agree that it had that functionality.)
That was why I didn't buy that gun.
That was why I didn't buy that gun.
JayPee
June 8, 2012, 04:37 PM
pdosh, if you are going to use your purchase for defensive purposes, you need to start with shootability in your hand and end with shootability in your hand. If, after the wealth of opinions expressed here, you are still unable to make a decision, have yourself a "shootoff" with both guns the way the military has a "flyoff" of competing aircraft, and go with the one that shoots the best for you in your particular application.
I've owned 2 BHP's and 3 CZ 75B/85,85B pistols. The CZ performs better for me in my particular defensive application, so I will always choose it first over the BHP. But when defense is not an issue I often pet my Browning and shoot it some just for the joy of holding such a beautiful piece of workmanship in my hand.
FWIW.
JayPee
I've owned 2 BHP's and 3 CZ 75B/85,85B pistols. The CZ performs better for me in my particular defensive application, so I will always choose it first over the BHP. But when defense is not an issue I often pet my Browning and shoot it some just for the joy of holding such a beautiful piece of workmanship in my hand.
FWIW.
JayPee
Ash
June 8, 2012, 07:43 PM
FN did go to a cast frame, which was more durable than their older forged ones - at least that is the excuse for going cast.
sirgilligan
June 8, 2012, 07:54 PM
If the price of the BHP makes you hesitate then go and get the CZ and save up for the BHP down the road.
I guess I have to be honest and say I vote 2 to 1, BHP over the CZ. Why do I say that? I have two BHP's and only one CZ. Someday it will be a tied vote. :)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-13IHx-64zPc/Tr7xfrB3UWI/AAAAAAAAAlY/kXKc7DiCIvA/s1600/ThreeAmigos_1.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vhz8IcUQ6go/Tr7xbHmLBOI/AAAAAAAAAlQ/UecFOuSxEgM/s1600/TwoAmigos.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_3KW2lQM6Qk/Tr7xagDK-OI/AAAAAAAAAlI/eSs11R8aDj0/s1600/TwoAmigos_RearSights.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KHkXA5IhQ64/TxHjgnjkREI/AAAAAAAAA58/Pi9QqztVnGs/s1600/1.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LYIq1CAsfdo/TxHjmj9cj4I/AAAAAAAAA6k/j9Ck_iK7rUs/s1600/IMG_2326.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--ZlC5fRnurI/TxHjpnEoimI/AAAAAAAAA60/tdlrZgq3MAs/s1600/IMG_2317.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Qphq6bFCr1I/TxHjrG27NgI/AAAAAAAAA68/BJxUVyhm458/s1600/IMG_2316.JPG
I guess I have to be honest and say I vote 2 to 1, BHP over the CZ. Why do I say that? I have two BHP's and only one CZ. Someday it will be a tied vote. :)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-13IHx-64zPc/Tr7xfrB3UWI/AAAAAAAAAlY/kXKc7DiCIvA/s1600/ThreeAmigos_1.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vhz8IcUQ6go/Tr7xbHmLBOI/AAAAAAAAAlQ/UecFOuSxEgM/s1600/TwoAmigos.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_3KW2lQM6Qk/Tr7xagDK-OI/AAAAAAAAAlI/eSs11R8aDj0/s1600/TwoAmigos_RearSights.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KHkXA5IhQ64/TxHjgnjkREI/AAAAAAAAA58/Pi9QqztVnGs/s1600/1.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LYIq1CAsfdo/TxHjmj9cj4I/AAAAAAAAA6k/j9Ck_iK7rUs/s1600/IMG_2326.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--ZlC5fRnurI/TxHjpnEoimI/AAAAAAAAA60/tdlrZgq3MAs/s1600/IMG_2317.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Qphq6bFCr1I/TxHjrG27NgI/AAAAAAAAA68/BJxUVyhm458/s1600/IMG_2316.JPG
Walt Sherrill
June 8, 2012, 10:01 PM
FN did go to a cast frame, which was more durable than their older forged ones - at least that is the excuse for going cast.
They did that only after the early "forged" .40 models had problems. The cast frame was stimulated by that need -- and arguably had nothing to do with weaknesses in the 9mm version.
Interestingly, I think I saw something recently about FN discontinuing the .40. If that is so, it may have more to a lack of consumer interest than problems with cast frames in general.
They did that only after the early "forged" .40 models had problems. The cast frame was stimulated by that need -- and arguably had nothing to do with weaknesses in the 9mm version.
Interestingly, I think I saw something recently about FN discontinuing the .40. If that is so, it may have more to a lack of consumer interest than problems with cast frames in general.
rellascout
June 8, 2012, 10:10 PM
They did that only after the early "forged" .40 models had problems. The cast frame was stimulated by that need -- and arguably had nothing to do with weaknesses in the 9mm version.
Interestingly, I think I saw something recently about FN discontinuing the .40. If that is so, it may have more to a lack of consumer interest than problems with cast frames in general.
I also believe that cost was an issue. They could have made a forged frame that would have done the job but the cost would have been higher than the cost of the cast version.
The 40 S&W never sold well and I believe the rumors of its demise is true. It was developed for the US LEO market but the US LEO never bought it. The success of the Glock killed the BHP in 40 S&W IMHO. On top of that it simply does not balance as well as a 40 S&W as it does in 9mm IMHO.
Interestingly, I think I saw something recently about FN discontinuing the .40. If that is so, it may have more to a lack of consumer interest than problems with cast frames in general.
I also believe that cost was an issue. They could have made a forged frame that would have done the job but the cost would have been higher than the cost of the cast version.
The 40 S&W never sold well and I believe the rumors of its demise is true. It was developed for the US LEO market but the US LEO never bought it. The success of the Glock killed the BHP in 40 S&W IMHO. On top of that it simply does not balance as well as a 40 S&W as it does in 9mm IMHO.
Ash
June 9, 2012, 06:57 AM
My point was not weakness of the Hi Power design in 9mm. Rather, it is that the cast frame HP's, being stronger, would have no issues with ammo. Too few words - two kids throwing up at one time limits what you say, I suppose.
searcher6
June 10, 2012, 05:28 PM
I have an FN High Power that came from the factory with the SFS option (Safe Fast System) from Cylinder and Slide. Simply rack the slide and push the hammer forward manually until it is down on the frame. The trigger stays in the rear (cocked) position. The safety is automatically engaged when you push the hammer forward. Disengaging the safety automatically causes the hammer to spring back to the rear (cocked) position, ready for single action fire. Works great. Looks beautiful with the deep blueing job and wood grips it came with. This one was actually made in Belgium (last ones available new in U.S.).
Walt Sherrill
June 10, 2012, 06:32 PM
Since the safety must be disengaged before the gun can be fired (when using the SFS mechanism), how does it improve on the more conventional cocked and locked approach? (The hammer can't catch on clothing or dig into your side?)
searcher6
June 10, 2012, 09:33 PM
No tactical advantage I know of. Just more politically correct to people who might see a cocked and locked gun and freak out. Maybe a little more snag free on the draw. I bought it because it was only available that way and most of the High Power gurus said they were reliable.
I believe it was the late Lt. Colonel Jeff Cooper who, when asked if his cocked and locked 1911 .45 wasn't dangerous replied, "Damn right it is."
I believe it was the late Lt. Colonel Jeff Cooper who, when asked if his cocked and locked 1911 .45 wasn't dangerous replied, "Damn right it is."
Kiln
June 11, 2012, 04:56 AM
I get what you're saying, but comparing the two I think it's easier to ND the GLOCK than it is the CZ - just due to how long the trigger has to travel before firing a round in the CZ, and the CZ is only a pound lighter than the GLOCK at final pull. the little tab on the trigger of the GLOCK may provide some safety, but not much at all, and I have to try hard to snag the trigger on anything without depressing the trigger safety too...
either way, wanted to confirm that this is the rational, and that I still don't necessarily agree with it - but haven't convinced myself either way yet...
I wouldn't suggest it. The CZ75 with decocker is not safe when carried cocked at all. Just do the smart thing and either carry hammer down and learn to use DA for the first shot or practice cocking the gun on the draw during drills.
either way, wanted to confirm that this is the rational, and that I still don't necessarily agree with it - but haven't convinced myself either way yet...
I wouldn't suggest it. The CZ75 with decocker is not safe when carried cocked at all. Just do the smart thing and either carry hammer down and learn to use DA for the first shot or practice cocking the gun on the draw during drills.
Walt Sherrill
June 11, 2012, 07:15 AM
And, as I noted in an earlier response, with Glock and other striker-fired guns with trigger safeties, it takes a direct pull to the rear to release the striker, disengaging the trigger safety mechanism a glancing blow won't do it. With a gun like the CZ decocker models, ANY movement of the trigger -- not just direct movement to the rear that includes the trigger safety lever -- will release the hammer.
You can argue that a push is a push, but there is a meaningful difference -- as a wider range of motion and applied force will make the CZ-style mechanism go boom than will make a Glock (or similar weapon) go boom.
(Note: I have several Glocks and love them at the range and in IDPA, but when things go thud in the night and I feel the need to get the gun and light and electronic muffs hearing protection out of my small bedside gun safe, it's a gun with a safety I feel most comfortable using. That's just me and NOT a condemnation of striker-fired trigger mechanisms. I'm often slow to wake and just not always as alert as I should be in those situations. The gun in the gun safe is almost always a SA weapon, cocked and locked.)
You can argue that a push is a push, but there is a meaningful difference -- as a wider range of motion and applied force will make the CZ-style mechanism go boom than will make a Glock (or similar weapon) go boom.
(Note: I have several Glocks and love them at the range and in IDPA, but when things go thud in the night and I feel the need to get the gun and light and electronic muffs hearing protection out of my small bedside gun safe, it's a gun with a safety I feel most comfortable using. That's just me and NOT a condemnation of striker-fired trigger mechanisms. I'm often slow to wake and just not always as alert as I should be in those situations. The gun in the gun safe is almost always a SA weapon, cocked and locked.)
dogtown tom
June 11, 2012, 01:15 PM
searcher6 ....This one was actually made in Belgium (last ones available new in U.S.).
ALL FN/Browning Hi Powers are made in Belgium and assembled in Portugal, but only the HP's imported by Browning Arms are marked "Assembled in Portugal". Other than the rollmark, there is zero difference between the HP's imported by FNUSA/FNMI and those imported by Browning.
Walt Sherrill Since the safety must be disengaged before the gun can be fired (when using the SFS mechanism), how does it improve on the more conventional cocked and locked approach? (The hammer can't catch on clothing or dig into your side?)
Exactly.
The SFS hammer is tiny, making it virtually snag free.
ALL FN/Browning Hi Powers are made in Belgium and assembled in Portugal, but only the HP's imported by Browning Arms are marked "Assembled in Portugal". Other than the rollmark, there is zero difference between the HP's imported by FNUSA/FNMI and those imported by Browning.
Walt Sherrill Since the safety must be disengaged before the gun can be fired (when using the SFS mechanism), how does it improve on the more conventional cocked and locked approach? (The hammer can't catch on clothing or dig into your side?)
Exactly.
The SFS hammer is tiny, making it virtually snag free.
JTQ
June 11, 2012, 01:59 PM
And the SFS, with the hammer down, looks less "scary" to those afraid of single action autos.
HorseSoldier
June 11, 2012, 06:54 PM
The HP has had trouble handling NATO ammo, which I think is equivelant to +P. The hotter loads have broke some HP's in Europe.
US M882 9mm ammo is a +P-ish load which conforms to NATO specs and puts a pretty good battering on pistols it is used heavily in (speaking from the experience of watching it smash a small mountain of Beretta locking blocks to pieces back when I was in a unit that trained extensively and hard at pistol work).
The full story on the High Power and NATO ammo is that in the late 70s/early 80s (IIRC) the SAS had a similar problem. SAS troops who were putting a lot of rounds through their issue WW2-vintage P-35s started having major mechanical failures. This was almost contemporaneous with the USN SEALs eating a few Beretta slides from catastrophic failures of the early M9 slides due to the mix of possibly spotty heat treatment on the slides and unquestionably heavy round counts through the guns.
Long story short -- if you train hard enough with any firearm you'll break it eventually. As noted up thread, any design issues with the WW2 vintage High Power was addressed in later marks of the pistol. However, unless you're planning to use the purchased pistol to become an IPSC Grandmaster or prep for national asset level Direct Action missions, you could probably safely run +P ammunition through High Power serial number #1 the rolled off the assembly line in 1935 or whatever and have exactly zero issues with it for the duration of your ownership of the pistol.
US M882 9mm ammo is a +P-ish load which conforms to NATO specs and puts a pretty good battering on pistols it is used heavily in (speaking from the experience of watching it smash a small mountain of Beretta locking blocks to pieces back when I was in a unit that trained extensively and hard at pistol work).
The full story on the High Power and NATO ammo is that in the late 70s/early 80s (IIRC) the SAS had a similar problem. SAS troops who were putting a lot of rounds through their issue WW2-vintage P-35s started having major mechanical failures. This was almost contemporaneous with the USN SEALs eating a few Beretta slides from catastrophic failures of the early M9 slides due to the mix of possibly spotty heat treatment on the slides and unquestionably heavy round counts through the guns.
Long story short -- if you train hard enough with any firearm you'll break it eventually. As noted up thread, any design issues with the WW2 vintage High Power was addressed in later marks of the pistol. However, unless you're planning to use the purchased pistol to become an IPSC Grandmaster or prep for national asset level Direct Action missions, you could probably safely run +P ammunition through High Power serial number #1 the rolled off the assembly line in 1935 or whatever and have exactly zero issues with it for the duration of your ownership of the pistol.
If you enjoyed reading about "Browning Hi Power or CZ 75/85?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
