Is a Browning HiPower Worth $300 More Than a CZ?


PDA






Tecolote
August 5, 2012, 09:13 AM
Comparing prices on GunBroker and places like Buds, NIB Browning MkIII HiPowers average $300 more than NIB CZ75Bs. I understand manufacturing costs, labor costs and taxes add to the Browning's price, but from a consumer's point of view, is it worth spending the extra money for a Browning?

If you enjoyed reading about "Is a Browning HiPower Worth $300 More Than a CZ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
velocette
August 5, 2012, 10:27 AM
Tec;
Functionally no. From an investment point of view yes. From an aesthetical point of view yes.
BHPs have and still are slowly going up in value. New ones are hard to find to nonexistant and are expensive. Used ones have almost doubled in price in the past few years.
BHPs are the final product of John Brownings genius. (with some help from a Frenchman)
They can be made to be quite accurate and can be convinced to have a good trigger pull. (neither as good as a 1911 but better than a CZ75)
One pistol is a classic the other is good pistol.

YMMV
Roger

berettaprofessor
August 5, 2012, 11:37 AM
Every time (almost)

MrDig
August 5, 2012, 12:50 PM
Why yes it is.

towboat_er
August 5, 2012, 12:58 PM
Nope, I don't think so.

I like the CZ better than the HP.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w285/towboat_er/CZ75B026.jpg

RickMD
August 5, 2012, 01:18 PM
Assuming equal condition, yes.

Certaindeaf
August 5, 2012, 01:22 PM
Hi-Powers have always been expensive. If you don't want one, don't buy one.. they cost what they cost.
I'm just glad they're not like $2-3000 like many 1911's.

SharpsDressedMan
August 5, 2012, 01:29 PM
Is a blonde worth more than a brunette? Value is in the eyes of the beholder. Personal taste might easily make one worth more than the other.

jungle
August 5, 2012, 01:30 PM
Careful shopping can get you an almost new BHP for about the same price as the CZ. Buy what you like, I prefer the BHP and slightly used examples represent a real bargain.

PRM
August 5, 2012, 02:07 PM
Would I rather have the Browning - Yes

There are some bargains out there. Coles Distributing has a lot of the recent FN Browning High Powers (Israeli Imports) on Gun Broker. I picked mine up for $459 in excellent condition. So far I've bought two guns from this vendor. Super to deal with, accurate descriptions, and they stand behind what they sell.

Rembrandt
August 5, 2012, 02:10 PM
No question the high power is a step up.

nathan
August 5, 2012, 05:47 PM
I dont have the original BHP but a clone, Hungarian PJK 9 HP. Mine is exact copy and very accurate. The finish is dark polished blue and rougher in the edges.

jmr40
August 5, 2012, 05:51 PM
I don't think you'd have to pay that much more. Based on what I'm seeing $150-$200 more is at most what you'd pay. But yes, I'd gladly pay $300 more for a BHP over a CZ.

Claude Clay
August 5, 2012, 06:03 PM
certain items are worth the extra. a S&W vs a charter arms. today pay $100ish mor for the smith but in 5+ years the smith will return all the dollars; the CA, perhaps half.
GHP, unless your going to use it roughly, yes.
and if all you want is a hammer, than get the CA or a glock.

armoredman
August 5, 2012, 06:24 PM
No, I don't think so, but that's just me. To me the Hi-Power would be a great range gun only, well made and reliable, but I don't like single action only for carry.
I prefer CZ pistols for carry, as they fit me like a glove.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/CZ%20posters/commonsenseguncontrol.jpg

hso
August 5, 2012, 06:28 PM
Depends

miles1
August 5, 2012, 07:37 PM
Unable to answer the OP's question as ive only held a BHP,but sure felt like holding a CZ.

miles1
August 5, 2012, 07:38 PM
Nope, I don't think so.

I like the CZ better than the HP.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w285/towboat_er/CZ75B026.jpg
And it looks like i have found my next purchase...........

hAkron
August 5, 2012, 08:04 PM
One pistol is a classic the other is good pistol.

Roger

You could argue that the Hi-Power is a classic also




:evil::evil:

beatledog7
August 5, 2012, 09:01 PM
If you're selling a BHP it's "worth" a lot more than if you're buying it. Same with a CZ-75.

How much a thing is worth depends on the buyer and the seller and on what number they can agree. Both can assess the thing's condition and research recent similar transactions ad nauseum, but ultimately the thing's worth is always unknown until they shake hands on a number.

Walkalong
August 5, 2012, 10:07 PM
I like them both.

Whether a person will pay more for the High Power is a matter of personal preference. They are both fine guns.

chris in va
August 5, 2012, 11:01 PM
That polished stainless 75b is absolutely gorgeous. It's the only gun I would consider selling my BD to fund.

Litlman
August 5, 2012, 11:54 PM
Like em both, have them both.

Furncliff
August 5, 2012, 11:55 PM
The HP might be worth more if it fits you. I went to a CZ 75b because it fit me better. If you have big hands the HP may be too small. After using my CZ for the last six years (and the Kadet conversion for it) I have near zero interest in an HP.

Gordon
August 6, 2012, 12:04 AM
All 6 of my BHPs are locked in safes (but one in the holster on war belt) , my P01 is bedside (with a TRL2 light on it) loaded with Ranger 127 grain +p+ tho....

Oldnoob
August 6, 2012, 12:15 AM
Yes.

Own both.

BHP C series
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f185/johell/My%20gun/BHP.jpg

CZ75B SA
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f185/johell/My%20gun/CZ75BSApointdown.jpg

Fishslayer
August 6, 2012, 02:54 AM
Oh man. Don't really know (or care) about value or worth of one against the other but THAT is one beautiful piece of iron. :drool:

Nope, I don't think so.

I like the CZ better than the HP.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w285/towboat_er/CZ75B026.jpg

Dr.Rob
August 6, 2012, 03:43 AM
I'd consider the CZ75 SA if if was just blued or stainless rather than that polycoat stuff.

Functional accuracy for most shooters? I'd say about the same. DA/SA vs SA.. I'll take SA every time.

CZ makes a great gun. Is the BHP worth 300 more? If your pockets are deep enough.. maybe.

Auto426
August 6, 2012, 04:25 AM
When I was looking into getting a Hi Power I took a good hard look at the CZ's. They are nice guns in their own right, but I ended up with the BHP in the end and I'm happy I did. I bought a new Mark III with the epoxy finish and replaced the stock plastic grips with Hogue rosewood pieces. The gun is smooth as glass and is a great shooter.

Ash
August 6, 2012, 08:08 AM
No. There's nothing about the reliability, accuracy, accessories, build quality, or design that makes the Hi Power worth $300 more.

I've owned them both. I still own CZ's.

As far as investment, neither is a good investment. No handgun or firearm is a good investment. Only a few arms, such as Finnish Mosins which have tripled in value over the last ten years, or the super rare varieties that can be encountered among other arms represent good investments. As investments, firearms are lousy.

But, they are adequate hedges against inflation and as a general rule keep their value if purchased used.

LNK
August 6, 2012, 10:13 AM
No. There's nothing about the reliability, accuracy, accessories, build quality, or design that makes the Hi Power worth $300 more.

I've owned them both. I still own CZ's.

As far as investment, neither is a good investment. No handgun or firearm is a good investment. Only a few arms, such as Finnish Mosins which have tripled in value over the last ten years, or the super rare varieties that can be encountered among other arms represent good investments. As investments, firearms are lousy.

But, they are adequate hedges against inflation and as a general rule keep their value if purchased used.
Don't tell my wife that firearms are not a good investment ;-) .

LNK

PabloJ
August 6, 2012, 11:57 AM
Comparing prices on GunBroker and places like Buds, NIB Browning MkIII HiPowers average $300 more than NIB CZ75Bs. I understand manufacturing costs, labor costs and taxes add to the Browning's price, but from a consumer's point of view, is it worth spending the extra money for a Browning?
No.

jim243
August 6, 2012, 12:21 PM
Worth $300.00 extra NO. Only to a collector.

Jim

strykerfire
August 6, 2012, 12:23 PM
No. There's nothing about the reliability, accuracy, accessories, build quality, or design that makes the Hi Power worth $300 more.

I've owned them both. I still own CZ's.

As far as investment, neither is a good investment. No handgun or firearm is a good investment. Only a few arms, such as Finnish Mosins which have tripled in value over the last ten years, or the super rare varieties that can be encountered among other arms represent good investments. As investments, firearms are lousy.

But, they are adequate hedges against inflation and as a general rule keep their value if purchased used.
there is a lot of reason why it cost more. It's historic value alone demands that premium. Firearms Not good investments??? You should by quality guns. Thats the worst statement i've ever read. Tell that to my High-Power Inglis. And all my other "investments" i have. I can hear them all laughing at your statement in my gun case... Make the voices stop!

TJx
August 6, 2012, 12:24 PM
Yes, the CZ75 is underpriced for what you get and the BHP is overpriced compared to many firearms if you look at it that way.
If you look at it from the standpoint of it as something that through normal use will last you a lifetime, then BHP's, Sigs, HK's, etc are not overpriced.
Browning/FN could be charging less for the Hi Power, sell a lot more of them and make as much or money but they treat it as boutique gun, charge $900, which discourages many new buyers from trying out the gun.
I have not bought an new BHP since I paid $377 in 1990 but will eventually pay the Browning ransom and buy a new one so I have the latest example of it.
I just bought a new CZ75B for $442.99 and am amazed by it, accuracy, ergos, the way the DA/SA is set up. It is the best DA/SA I have ever owned which includes Sig, HK, Beretta. It completes my trifecta of Nines I will always have and never sell. The other one being my Gen 2 Glock 19 bought in 1995.
Find a way to own both the CZ and HP.

12131
August 6, 2012, 01:51 PM
Is a Browning HiPower Worth $300 More Than a CZ?
Not to me.

zbird
August 6, 2012, 01:54 PM
Yes a Browning High Power is worth $300.00 more then a CZ.

Ash
August 6, 2012, 02:00 PM
strykefire, I have been buying and watching guns for decades. Guns are not good investments as a general rule. Quality guns, in fact, often make the WORST investments. Let's say I bought a quality Finnish Lahti back in 2000 for, say, $1,000. That's a quality, valuable piece. Today, it's worth somewhere around $1,500 to $1,700. That's between 3 and 4% return. How about a nice Springfield M1A. I bought on in 2003 for $1,300. The same one sells, used, for around $1,600 today. That's 2% return. Take an M1 Carbine that in 1998 was worth $400 before the Saving Private Ryan and Call of Duty price increase of $900 today. Big jump, right? Nope, that's just 5%. Check out that Hi Power that cost $450 back in my 1995 Guns Annual that costs $800 today. That was an outstanding 3.25% Take out inflation and you grew a whopping .5%. That cheap Finnish 1927 Mosin-Nagant stepped barrel that I paid $50 for brought me $450 ten years later. Now that was 24% return. But, the cheap Norinco SKS I got in 1998 for $99 that I sold for $250 last year earned me 6%. Firearms are not good investments. They are good hedges against inflation.

As far as history with a High Power? What history, pray tell, is there in an FN Hi Power made, say, in 2010? 1995? 1980?

NIB, there is nothing about an FN Hi Power that makes it worth (or even cost in manufacturing) $300 more. OR can you tell me how one cast-frame, fixed barrel-bushing, single-action medium-capacity pistol can be worth $300 more than another cast-frame, fixed-barrel-bushing double action high-capacity pistol? FN had more history than CZ? Really? Read your history and come back. Belgians better than the Czechs? Really? When FN started operation, Belgium was lumped with Spain when it came to cheap arms. Shotguns, revolvers, and autos from either nation were poorly-regarded in the world. Belgian copy and Spanish copy were dirty words. Like FN and Astra, both countries could make quality products, but history if anything shows the opposite from both nations.

Vonderek
August 6, 2012, 03:25 PM
Hey Ash, those returns are actually pretty good for these times! And at least they're consistent. Ask a guy who bought a house in Miami or Las Vegas in 2006 if he wishes he had bought a crate full of Lahtis instead. Or someone who put his 401K into NASDAQ stocks in 1999. I guess the point is, a quality firearm will at least hold its value and perhaps rise over time. Which is more than can be expected from an investment in say, automobiles. But I do understand and agree with the point you are making.

Bottom line, guns should not be looked at as 'investments' in the traditional sense as assets one buys and expects to grow (unless one buys and sells transferable machine guns.) Getting back to the topic..will a BHP throw a 115 or 124gr piece of lead $300 better than a CZ? No. But for someone who wants one and is willing to pay the premium, why not? And in 20 years if he wants to sell it, it will probably still be worth at least $300 more than the CZ.

Disclaimer: I own both and am not willing to part with either. They are both wonderful handguns and a pleasure to shoot.

sabre2
August 6, 2012, 04:36 PM
For some reason Browning Hi-Powers and Cz-75s have been lumped together as similar guns. Other than that they both are generally 9mm and the bullet comes out the front they are quite unalike. If you like either of them and like the price, buy them. Both are fine firearms.

Dentite
August 6, 2012, 04:59 PM
For some reason Browning Hi-Powers and Cz-75s have been lumped together as similar guns. Other than that they both are generally 9mm and the bullet comes out the front they are quite unalike. If you like either of them and like the price, buy them. Both are fine firearms.

I agree that there are some that think they are more close related than the really are. That being said in a world of polymer framed pistols, the CZ75 and BHP are both all steel pistols of similiar dimensions, capacity, chamberings, etc. I think that's one reason they are frequently compared.

Whether the BHP is $300 better is only up to the person paying the money.

Some of the BHP mystique is not in it's ability to through a 9mm round downrange but in the history, pedigree, etc. Only some will appreciate that and be willing to pay for it.

Some may actually find the BHP a better shooter than the 75 and some will find the opposite.

I personally think the esthetics of the BHP and history surrounding it (I'm from Browning's hometown for Pete's sake) trumps the CZ 75 so I chose the BHP and enjoy the two I own.

Wags
August 6, 2012, 05:53 PM
BHPs are the final product of John Brownings genius. (with some help from a Frenchman)
Roger


Dieudonne Saive was from Belgium, not France. But it was France who contracted FN to build a pistol that became the Hi-Power which France never adopted. Easy to get confused.

I'd own a Hi-Power over the CZ 75 myself.

StrikeFire83
August 6, 2012, 06:04 PM
Is a Browning HiPower Worth $300 More Than a CZ?

Nope. At least not to me.

dogtown tom
August 6, 2012, 06:41 PM
CZ had forty years to come up with something that was a substantial improvement over the Hi Power........didn't happen.

Bigger and heavier do not a beauty make.;)

Ash
August 6, 2012, 07:40 PM
How many people copied the Hi Power? How many the CZ? Seems like firearms engineers across three continents prefer the CZ.

In any case, I consider them equal, with each having an advantage depending on use. As such, the Hi Power is not worth $300 more.

And, firearms are not a good investment. They are a hedge against inflation - which means they will not lose their real value over time as a general rule.

MrDig
August 6, 2012, 07:46 PM
The Hi-Power and the 1911A1 are the two designs that are the most copied.
The Hi-Power was the original "Wonder" 9, How can I possibly say that? it has been produced longer than any other "Wonder" 9 in existence.
Sorry to burst that bubble but the CZ 75 began production in 1975. The Hi-Power began production in 1935.
So with 40 years of production experience who copied who?

ATLDave
August 6, 2012, 07:55 PM
If you're going to compare a BHP and a CZ, why not compare apples-to-apples. Look at one of the SAO CZ's. Those are often set up for competition, as well as general use, and the cost is pretty comparable.

I do think it's notable that CZ's (in either SAO or DA/SA configuration) can be competitive in the action pistol games. BHPs are generally not.

BTW, I think they're both terrific guns. The ergonomics and control layouts are similar, they are both somewhat slim (the HP more so, but at the expense of some capacity), they both have those lightening profiles to the slide near the muzzle... and both of them generally come with a less-than-stellar trigger that can be made very good with some work. I've shot a couple of tuned-up CZ's that had absolutely awesome triggers.

SharpsDressedMan
August 6, 2012, 07:59 PM
I have both, love both, but carry the Hi Powers more. Size and weight are the main factors. They both shoot great. All 9mm.

Ash
August 6, 2012, 08:44 PM
The CZ-75 is no copy of the Hi Power, except perhaps for the barrel. The trigger is largely their own design, but give credit to Walther for the double action auto pistol not Browning. The slide is more related to the SIG 210, and the safety is entirely CZ's.

But, shall we list those who made Hi Power copies versus those who made CZ copies (or had them made)?

Hi Power
John Inglis
FEG
Kareen
Arcus
FM
Norinco

CZ-75
Tanfoglio
ITM
Sphinx
ASAI
Israeli Military Industries
BUL Transmark
Springfield Armory
Armalite
Sarsilmaz
Canik
Stearling
Rock River
CZ-Strakonice
Gamba
Bernardelli
Norinco

What is that I hear, a bubble bursting?

Still, I consider them equal designs and still consider $300 too much an increase for an FN product.

SharpsDressedMan
August 6, 2012, 09:05 PM
Now do the numbers. The HP started 77 years ago, and has been produced every year since them, sometimes on several continents.

Carter
August 6, 2012, 09:34 PM
I'll take a stainless CZ, cajun gun works upgrades, and a few other accessories over the HP.

More rounds, less cost, CZ customer service, already familiar with the platform, and I really like the slide inside the frame design.

wow6599
August 6, 2012, 09:36 PM
Harry's tired of this argument. Just get a Hi Power and move on......


http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm31/wow6599/harryinterview_468x619.jpg

Ash
August 6, 2012, 09:36 PM
And over 77 years, only a few companies actually bothered to mess with them - and John Inglis bowed out immediately after WWII. The Swiss didn't mess with them, neither did the Italians nor did the Germans (except as in import name - I forgot Mauser briefly put their name on FEG Hi Powers).

Now, a huge number of nations issued the Hi Power to their armed forces, and nobody would argue that as a design it has not proven itself. It is an outstanding handgun.

In a short 36 years, however, everybody and his brother latched onto the CZ design - at a time when nations in droves were beginning to move away from the Hi Power.

Still, don't get me wrong, the Hi Power is an outstanding design. But, the CZ is an outstanding design entirely in its own right. Indeed, the CZ-75, along with the Beretta 92 and the Star 28, did something the Hi Power didn't - they offered a double action service auto in 9mm with a high capacity magazine.

As a result, I still maintain that there is nothing about the Hi Power that justifies an additional $300.

jungle
August 6, 2012, 09:38 PM
Sir, could you tell us which large military and police contracts the CZ has won?

Ash
August 6, 2012, 09:42 PM
And how many, pray tell, military accounts did the Hi Power actually win after 1976?

By the way, do read my post. I already said "a huge number of nations issued the Hi Power to their armed forces, and nobody would argue that as a design it has not proven itself. It is an outstanding handgun."

And still, I maintain the Hi Power is not $300 more pistol than the CZ.

wow6599
August 6, 2012, 09:46 PM
I still maintain that there is nothing about the Hi Power that justifies an additional $300

I know the timeline between Browning and Saive....no need for a history lesson, but maybe $300 is worth it because this man had a hand in making it. I know it means something to me :cool:


http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm31/wow6599/picture-20308.jpg

jungle
August 6, 2012, 09:47 PM
Forty years worth in more than 100 countries for the BHP. I think CZ did get a Czech(surprise!) contract for about 5,000 pistols, but the details are sketchy.

Glock, SIG, Beretta and H&K seem to have cornered the military and police market these days. Not a knock on CZ, but it does make a statement.

Ash
August 6, 2012, 09:49 PM
Browning had nothing at all to do with current production Hi Powers. All the machinery he touched is gone, the tooling replaced, nor any Hi Power ever made possessing his finger prints. So, while he was a design genius and I have credited him much with his work, I doubt you will find that he has touched any of those on the market.

By the way, Rhodesia issued the CZ-75 in 1976. The Turks also issue it, ditto for the Israelis.


And that STILL fails to deal with the question as to whether or not the Hi Power is $300 more gun.

It isn't.

verdun59
August 6, 2012, 09:50 PM
Not to me.

jungle
August 6, 2012, 09:55 PM
But how about the question of worldwide military and police contracts?

It has much to do with design, quality and production/support.

Where and who exactly are the buyers of these products?

Rhodesia-no longer a country. Turkey issues a variety of pistols, and Israel has more Glocks and BHPS than you can shake a stick at among many others.

Why no large contracts with major players for CZ?

FN is no longer a major player in the worldwide military/police pistol markets-the BHP is not even listed in their latest military offerings, but they do maintain the lions share of worldwide Western military small arms contracts.

Ash
August 6, 2012, 10:21 PM
And still, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Hi Power is not $300 more gun than a CZ.

wow6599
August 6, 2012, 10:32 PM
Browning had nothing at all to do with current production Hi Powers.

But they still bear his name.....and just like a nice 1911, maybe sometimes the name means a little more than it should. I paid $800 for a NIB Hi Power in 2010....worth every penny.
I would pay $550 for a NIB CZ 75, and it would probably be worth every penny.

But a Hi Power is "special" to me. And it's my money.

jungle
August 6, 2012, 10:34 PM
The price difference exists for one reason: Browning is marketing an FN product, open the contract bid between CZ and FN and CZ will be crushed every time.

CZ clearly cannot compete with FN in small arms, nor with Glock, SIG, Beretta, or H&K in the worldwide pistol market. Just the facts.

This is not meant to slam CZ, it is just a comment on the current state of the trade. Glock started as a small, obscure manufacturer too, but their product grew to dominate the markets. Firstest with the mostest and all that.

Ash
August 6, 2012, 10:39 PM
No, just your opinion.

And still, you have not shown how a Hi Power is $300 more pistol than a CZ, nor can you because it isn't.

armoredman
August 6, 2012, 10:51 PM
The big difference in the world market betwee the major players like FN, Glock, CZ and such is timing - Browning was a free world company for a VERY long time. CZUB, the present manufacturer of the CZ75 pistol was first formed in 1992, and had to start from scratch with distribution, with owners who knew less than nothing about marketing. In this time they have brought out many new variations of the classic, and have sold pistols to several countries. For instance, the new P-07 Duty is used in several smaller countries like Bulgaria, Spain, South Africa, and Thailand. I think the P-09 will also garner world contracts, but since they don't really keep me on the payroll, I don't get ALL the inside skinny. ;)
CZ-UB did win a contract in thier native Czech Republic, (before you start snickering, how many US made pistols are in the United States military right now, especially since 1985?), for 7000 CZ 75 SP-01 Phantoms, the new EVO 9mm submachineguns and many thousands of the nifty BREN 805 A1 and A2 select fire assault rifles. I suspect the Phantom, (personal favorite of mine), will garner more contracts world wide - by the way, you did know that CZUB does happen to be the largest manufacturer of firearms in the world, acreage under building wise? :)
The Browning Hi Power is a venerable design, even if it was finished by someone other than the great JMB after his death. In modern terms, it's low capacity and limited to single action. It is STILL an excellent pistol same as the venerable 1911 low capacity single action pistol is a timeless and excellent design, one being brought back to military service, as I recall. I'd be honored to have either in my tiny collection.
As for the good Prince Harry, maybe he should invest in a holster, too. :) I'm sure his wife could use one too - matched Brownings would have made an interesting wedding present, wouldn't they?

jungle
August 6, 2012, 10:51 PM
It is easy to find slightly used BHPs for the same price as a CZ, Browning has failed to market a design that has long since paid up its R&D. I would never pay retail for the BHP, nor would I choose a CZ over the many other highly competitive pistol designs of Glock, SIG, Beretta, H&K or Walther.

The CZ has won no large contracts, the others have, there are many reasons for this but in the end it has a lot to do with quality of design and production capability. This is not opinion, it is fact. CZ may one day win a large contract, but it has not happened and there is no evidence to suggest it is going to happen.

Buy whatever you like, whatever fits and whatever you shoot well.

SharpsDressedMan
August 6, 2012, 10:54 PM
You keep saying the HP is $300 more. At the prices guns have been selling, trading, etc here in Ohio, they are not that far apart. Secondly, one of the reason that there are not 16 makers of Hi Powers is that, over the years, FN held the patents, etc, and while the Cold War was on, the West honored them. Before the West opened full trade with the Russia and the old ComBloc countries, many countries produced weapons robbing from the West and the Soviet Union, etc, ignoring patents and rights (Hungary, Italy, it went both ways). And I understand CZ even contracted with Swiss companies to help market with the West. Since CZ introduced the gun when they could not protect it with patents in the Western nations, this might be another reason that the production by other companies proliferated. Unlike the 1911, whos patent rights are now apparently expired, the BHP has not been jumped on because there is no demand like there is for the 1911 copies. HP's still have a following, but with all the plastics, SIGs, Berettas, S&W's, and every mother's son's autos, CZ will have their work cut out for them to EVER achieve the Hi Powers success in the marketplace. The CZ is a more modern weapon, but not necessarliy a better weapon....that remains a matter of preference. They both are about the same accuracy and dependability-wise. Even aesthetically, one might prefer one over the other.

Okiegunner
August 6, 2012, 11:08 PM
The IWI "Jericho" (a CZ design derived from Tanfoglio of Italy) placed 1st and was awarded a contract for 60-70 thousand pistols (sorry, can not remember exact number) for the Philippine National Police/Paramilitaries.

Interestingly enough, the Armscor sourced MAPP I finished in 3rd place. Once again this pistol is exactly the "Tanfoglio" Force/Police/Carry (CZ-75 based design)

This contract should be one of the largest single pistol contracts ever offered.

Gunner

dogtown tom
August 6, 2012, 11:26 PM
Ash And how many, pray tell, military accounts did the Hi Power actually win after 1976?
Didn't need to....they were already the sidearm of the Free World.:D

strykerfire
August 7, 2012, 01:38 AM
strykefire, I have been buying and watching guns for decades. Guns are not good investments as a general rule. Quality guns, in fact, often make the WORST investments. Let's say I bought a quality Finnish Lahti back in 2000 for, say, $1,000. That's a quality, valuable piece. Today, it's worth somewhere around $1,500 to $1,700. That's between 3 and 4% return. How about a nice Springfield M1A. I bought on in 2003 for $1,300. The same one sells, used, for around $1,600 today. That's 2% return. Take an M1 Carbine that in 1998 was worth $400 before the Saving Private Ryan and Call of Duty price increase of $900 today. Big jump, right? Nope, that's just 5%. Check out that Hi Power that cost $450 back in my 1995 Guns Annual that costs $800 today. That was an outstanding 3.25% Take out inflation and you grew a whopping .5%. That cheap Finnish 1927 Mosin-Nagant stepped barrel that I paid $50 for brought me $450 ten years later. Now that was 24% return. But, the cheap Norinco SKS I got in 1998 for $99 that I sold for $250 last year earned me 6%. Firearms are not good investments. They are good hedges against inflation.

As far as history with a High Power? What history, pray tell, is there in an FN Hi Power made, say, in 2010? 1995? 1980?

NIB, there is nothing about an FN Hi Power that makes it worth (or even cost in manufacturing) $300 more. OR can you tell me how one cast-frame, fixed barrel-bushing, single-action medium-capacity pistol can be worth $300 more than another cast-frame, fixed-barrel-bushing double action high-capacity pistol? FN had more history than CZ? Really? Read your history and come back. Belgians better than the Czechs? Really? When FN started operation, Belgium was lumped with Spain when it came to cheap arms. Shotguns, revolvers, and autos from either nation were poorly-regarded in the world. Belgian copy and Spanish copy were dirty words. Like FN and Astra, both countries could make quality products, but history if anything shows the opposite from both nations.
watch guns all you want buddy, but like i said buy QUALITY guns like , s&w volcanic pistol, Original henry rifle, winchester 1866, winchester 1873 MUSKET , sharps, stevens pocket rifle to name a few. And what about class 3. Not investments... HUH? Enough said.

strykerfire
August 7, 2012, 01:49 AM
I cant believe you would use a Mosin and a SKS in our little "gun investment" debate as your rebutle for quality and investments Thats sad, so sad.

jungle
August 7, 2012, 02:35 AM
Tanfoglio
ITM
Sphinx
ASAI
Israeli Military Industries
BUL Transmark
Springfield Armory
Armalite
Sarsilmaz
Canik
Stearling
Rock River
CZ-Strakonice
Gamba
Bernardelli
Norinco


Great names all, people are just jumping on them. Not.:D

These items are not exactly flying off the shelves, they do provide a handy pistol for sale at cut rate prices and unknown quality or support though.

Rather like a Lada. Or the village bicycle. The combloc wasn't exactly on the leading edge for quality or consumer products. "After all, no one was lining up to buy their cars."

The word Trabant comes to mind. Often imitated but never duplicated.

Slave labor always helps initial marketing efforts.

12131
August 7, 2012, 02:57 AM
It's amazing why folks keep arguing over and over about opinion on "worth". What might not be worth it to you is worth it to the other guy. Move on, already.:rolleyes:

Ash
August 7, 2012, 08:00 AM
Stryke...

The Mosin and SKS actually were used precisely because folks at the time did not consider them quality. The quality arms returned around 2-3% return. In the world of investments, that's "so sad." But, that does protect against inflation.

The only arms to have shown a good or great rate of return were those two arms not often considered quality - and confirmed by your most recent post. Of course, the two arms have increased in value due to other factors beyond your perceived quality.

So, you have no idea about turn-about on money. The only way to really score on firearms investments is to roll the dice on something and hope historical collectors fall in love with it.

In other words, to use firearms as an investment, only a fool would buy "quality" firearms (or worse, commemorative arms). The only key to making money on them is to buy something that has attraction beyond the obvious (such as history with Mosins, or the price of AK-type rifles, which always pulls SKS's along).

You are wrong.

And a well-used Hi Power (you know, those "excellent" ones have been thoroughly rebuilt and refinished) for the same price as a new CZ is hardly a deal.

But the question was posed, was a Hi Power worth $300 more than a CZ. The answer remains no.

danez71
August 7, 2012, 10:33 AM
But the question was posed, was a Hi Power worth $300 more than a CZ. The answer remains no

Thats in your opinion. Others disagree.


In other words, to use firearms as an investment, only a fool would buy "quality" firearms (or worse, commemorative arms). The only key to making money on them is to buy something that has attraction beyond the obvious (such as history with Mosins, or the price of AK-type rifles, which always pulls SKS's along).



Not exactly true.

I bought my BHP NIB for $359 in 1993 at Turners sporting goods. Thats $570 in todays money accounting for inflation.

daybreak
August 7, 2012, 11:04 AM
I do think it's notable that CZ's (in either SAO or DA/SA configuration) can be competitive in the action pistol games. BHPs are generally not.



yup

SharpsDressedMan
August 7, 2012, 03:49 PM
Well can we agree on this? A Browning Hi Power is not WORTH $300 more than a comparable CZ75 in today's dollars, but it MAY be a better gun at around the same price. If one can find a like new Browning or FN Hi Power for about the same money as a new CZ, is it THEN a BETTER deal? The dispute seems to revolve around this $300 greater price tag, which is not always in effect at the place of purchase (discounted retailing new gun, or used one in great shape).

armoredman
August 7, 2012, 05:40 PM
I can agree both are well made, high quality sidearms. The Bronwing Hi Power P-35 design has remained almost static since 1935, with very minor improvements here and there, and as I said, is low capacity for it's size and action type. It is still an excellent sidearm and still in service - I believe the SAS refuse to give up there,s similar to the US Marines recently deciding to go back to another 100 year old design, the 1911A1. Good choice.
The CZ has won no large contracts, the others have, there are many reasons for this but in the end it has a lot to do with quality of design and production capability. This is not opinion, it is fact. CZ may one day win a large contract, but it has not happened and there is no evidence to suggest it is going to happen
Right below my post where I refuted this - I get the idea you post without reading. Your facts are wrong sir, please research before posting.
daybreak, is NOBODY using BHPs in competition? Would you think that might be far more possibly due to the low capacity rather than the quality of the pistol? Just a thought. I know CZs are winning competitions world wide and in the US, on a regular basis, Angus Hobdell, Adam Tyc and others rock custom Shadows all over the place. ;)

Tanfoglio
ITM
Sphinx
ASAI
Israeli Military Industries
BUL Transmark
Springfield Armory
Armalite
Sarsilmaz
Canik
Stearling
Rock River
CZ-Strakonice
Gamba
Bernardelli
Norinco
You doubled up on more than one there, (underlining/bolding indicate same original manufacturer), and some are not exactly in production any more. BTW, the Sphinx was one of the highest quality pistols made - see Walt for more details. Please, for the sake of completeness, don't leave out the Bren-10, since you want to bring up clones that don't exist anymore, like the Springfield P-9...which was a Tanfoglio, BTW. ;)

Stand by for HORROR! Colonel Jeff Cooper recommended that if we HAD to switch from the 1911 to a 9mm pistol, the US military should have adopted the CZ-75. Look it up. At the time, Czechoslovakia was not really interested in selling us firearms...

Back to the OP, each gun is worth what you will pay for it. Each gun has positives, and negatives. Both are outstanding examples of 9mm sidearms.

ATLDave
August 7, 2012, 05:49 PM
If one can find a like new Browning or FN Hi Power for about the same money as a new CZ, is it THEN a BETTER deal? The dispute seems to revolve around this $300 greater price tag, which is not always in effect at the place of purchase (discounted retailing new gun, or used one in great shape).

Yes, but only because there's a decent chance you can turn around and sell it for more than you paid!

I suspect the majority of people think the BHP is inherently more valuable because the prices are higher. People use prices as a proxy for quality in all kinds of ways. People assume that more expensive cars are better. Sometimes they are; often, they aren't. Talk about this with your wives, girlfriends, daughters, etc... women will often openly acknowledge that they do this with things like purses and shoes.

As with a great many things in life, different people will derive different utility from the same object. For someone who is a JMB enthusiast, or a fan of WWII history, or an Anglophile or Belgophile (is there such a thing?), or who values slimness above all in their double-stack 9mm's, the BHP will provide more value. Other preferences would lead one to prefer the CZ. But they are largely substitutable goods of the same class and same basic capabilities.

strykerfire
August 7, 2012, 07:20 PM
you just don't know. So i guess the thompson overstamp my grandfather bought for 1200 back in the day was not a good investment? You have to be wise. And ya those weapons went up in price but you are talking about a few dollars and i am talking about college funds. And i agree no money in commeratives. My grandfather seen and new the future of money in firearms long ago and passed that knowledge down along with some amazing pieces. Semi and fully. God bless America.

Walt Sherrill
August 7, 2012, 07:41 PM
I bought my BHP NIB for $359 in 1993 at Turners sporting goods. Thats $570 in todays money accounting for inflation.

Interesting, but what are you trying to say? Some guns keep up with inflation, but not many. I don't see a lot of BHPs for sale for less than $600, used. That's good for the seller, to be sure, but not for YOU if you want to buy a used one for a reasonable price.

I have a nice T-series BHP. Its one of my favorite guns. I recently had to replace the barrel. A "factory" BHP barrel is over $400. Certainly NOT a good "investment" -- as there's no way you'll recover that extra expense if you ever have to sell the gun. (Mine lost part of the "lands" near the barrel crown. Still shot pretty well... Don't know why or how it happened but saw the problem while cleaning. Got an EFK Firedragon barrel; beautifully made, and dropped it right in; it seems at least as accurate as the original barrel -- and was about $250 cheaper.)

I've had a BUNCH of CZs, and like them. (Like Armoredman, I DID NOT like the CZ-100, and I tried both 9mm and .40. Abomination!!) I only have one right now -- a CZ-85 Combat (and Kadet Kit). Even when I was absolutely in love with Zs, I never had (or wanted) ONLY CZs.

I now have several SIGs, and Glocks, but one of my favorites is well-tuned S&W M&P Pro. I prefer it to the CZs and the the BHP. (Speed Specialities did the work!) I also have a SIG P226 X-FIVE, but it's got problems, and is staying with a gunsmith for a while. It was bought used, but ANIB, and I am not crazy about it.

I agree that you can't compare these guns on dollar values alone, and "worth" is a matter of wholly subjective appreciation.

Seems like we have a lot of folks here trying to justify their gun buying practices, and that really isn't necessary. They need only convince themselves...

Ash
August 7, 2012, 07:54 PM
stryke, you still don't get it. Going up in value by keeping up with inflation means it is a hedge against inflation. The reality is that the real value has not changed, just the value of the dollar has diminished. That a good investment does not make.

Yeah, he bought a "Thompson Overstrike" but when and where? How much are they worth today? For every "Overstrike" there is a S&W Model 10 - a great revolver whose increase in value has not even kept up with inflation.

But pay no mind. Invest away.

strykerfire
August 7, 2012, 09:10 PM
if you don't know what a thompson is worth than look one up.the reality is the price went up when nobody wanted to register there fully automatics guns. They made a few million probably for WW2 yet there are only a few thousand thompson's we can legally own. And in the early 50's from his supply Seargent

Ash
August 7, 2012, 09:13 PM
I don't need, nor want, to look it up. It doesn't matter. I bought a Remington M91 for $400 and a year later auctioned it off for $2,400. I know about good deals and returns. But I also know most arms, the vast majority of firearms, are not good investments. They fight inflation at best, sometimes they don't even keep up. As a general rule, they beat keeping money under a mattress.

In any case, I don't see anything about a Hi Power that should make it even a buck more expensive. The funny thing is, I like the Hi Power.

strykerfire
August 7, 2012, 09:19 PM
asking if it is worth 300 more is like asking is a ferrari worth 200,000 more than a corvette when some vet's are faster. The answer. YES. Why. Because when you pay that much you can state i have a Ferrari. I have a 2 BHP's and a CZ, and in a statement in front of gun guys saying high power gets more attention than when talking about my CZ. Which is a great gun by the way no argument there. So that is why it is worth 300 dollars more. Because it's upper class. You can drink Patron tequila or Pepe Lopez tequila. Casio watch or Rolex. It's a statement that's all.

strykerfire
August 7, 2012, 09:30 PM
I don't need, nor want, to look it up. It doesn't matter. I bought a Remington M91 for $400 and a year later auctioned it off for $2,400. I know about good deals and returns. But I also know most arms, the vast majority of firearms, are not good investments. They fight inflation at best, sometimes they don't even keep up. As a general rule, they beat keeping money under a mattress.

In any case, I don't see anything about a Hi Power that should make it even a buck more expensive. The funny thing is, I like the Hi Power.
i just wrote for you to look it up for your personal info i am not trying to push my way of things on you. But for your info they go for around 35,000$ to 45,000$. Thank you Grandad.

strykerfire
August 7, 2012, 09:44 PM
and what is Rise of the Dark about i love to read. Just closed Stalingrad from the Folio Society.

danez71
August 7, 2012, 10:08 PM
Interesting, but what are you trying to say? Some guns keep up with inflation, but not many. I don't see a lot of BHPs for sale for less than $600, used. That's good for the seller, to be sure, but not for YOU if you want to buy a used one for a reasonable price.



I was responding to this quote which is worded so strongly by using the phrase "only a fool would..." as an attempt to portray it as a fact which is, in fact, factually not a fact at all. ;)

In other words, to use firearms as an investment, only a fool would buy "quality" firearms (or worse, commemorative arms).


While there are a lot of other things that would have had a better ROI in terms of dollars, the fact that I bought a "quality" firearm and that it has out paced inflation, indicates it wasnt bad investment at minimum and a decent invesment at best.


Thats a long winded way of saying, 'the guy is wrong in stating as an absolute and throwing around durogatory statements like 'only a fool' doesnt add any validity to his statement.


I have no desire for a CZ. They're too big for me.

I do wish I had bought the FN HP (with-out the Browning roll mark) when they were still availible and more affordable.


If I was in the market like the OP, IMO, on paper, its not worth an extra $300.
But the thing is, I'm not buying a piece a paper.

Is the Corolla worth more than a Sentra or Civic? On paper maybe, maybe not... but are you buying a piece of paper? No.


You're buying an extension of yourself. And thats why people pay a little more for such inanimate objects.

Walt Sherrill
August 7, 2012, 10:10 PM
Casio watch or Rolex. It's a statement that's all.

Yes. Folks here are talking about PERCEIVED WORTH, as opposed to something more objective.

Those very expensive MECHANICAL watches, like the Tags, the Rolexes, and Omegas (to name a few of the more obvious) are beautiful devices, but they don't keep time as well as a cheap quartz Timex. Are they really worth more? Yes -- but from an aesthetic perspective, but not as time-keepers. Cadillac makes (or made) a fancy, expensive pickup; it costs a lot more than it's "brother under the skin" GMC. Is it worth more? Perhaps... because people are willing to PAY MORE. But I wonder if it really does "pickup" work better than the GMC that probably costs half as much?

Maybe the BHP falls into that category? I know mine doesn't really shoot a damned bit more accurately or reliably than my CZ-85 Combat; but it's certainly no worse. Some would say it's prettier.

Some guns are worth more because people want them to be worth more... and are willing to pay to own and make that "statement."

In other words, to use firearms as an investment, only a fool would buy "quality" firearms (or worse, commemorative arms).

While there are a lot of other things that would have had a better ROI in terms of dollars, the fact that I bought a "quality" firearm and that it has out paced inflation, indicates it wasnt bad investment at minimum and a decent invesment at best.

His point, I think, was that an "investment" that has only outpaced (or barely kept up with inflation) doesn't make it a good investment. Other investments -- like mutual funds -- typically do MUCH BETTER than inflation. Savings accounts don't do as well. Most guns don't do as well, but there are exceptions. (We had a lengthy discussion on this topic recently, either here or on TFL, about this very point.) Some savvy gun owners can do OK, over time, but the vast majority of gun owners see the true value (measured in buying power of the money they get when they're sold) of their guns decline, over time. Most of the guys I know think that if they sell a gun for a bit more than they paid for it 10 years ago, they've done well. IN most cases, they've done badly -- as the dollars they get for the sale today buys less than they did when they bought those guns.

jungle
August 7, 2012, 10:17 PM
Let us rephrase the question, is a combloc third tier product reproduced by many low bidders in any way comparable to more than seventy five years of combat pedigree?

Nothing against CZ, but they did not have the market and still don't have the market. All steel pistols are something of an antiquity now-the 1911 and the P-35 were the winners. Let the polymer wonders battle it out over the next decades. CZ is just a bit player at this point. In combat, in games and in sales.

danez71
August 7, 2012, 10:47 PM
His point, I think, was that an "investment" that has only outpaced (or barely kept up with inflation) doesn't make it a good investment. Other investments -- like mutual funds -- typically do MUCH BETTER than inflation.

And that certainly is an opinion.

Personally, I think any investment that out paced inflation falls into the 'good' catagory and not the 'bad' catagory in black and white terms.

In relative terms, Mutual funds suck eggs when compared to google or apple stock in the last 15-20 yrs.

Does that make Mutual funds a bad investment? When compared on its own merits, No. When compared to Apple/Google stock in the last 15-20 yrs, Yes.


But back to the OP question. Is it (BHP) worth $300 more? Only HE can decide that.

Walt Sherrill
August 7, 2012, 10:52 PM
Nothing against CZ, but they did not have the market and still don't have the market. All steel pistols are something of an antiquity now-the 1911 and the P-35 were the winners. Let the polymer wonders battle it out over the next decades. CZ is just a bit player at this point. In combat, in games and in sales.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges, and maybe throwing in a rotten egg or two.

How many BHPs or FN hi-powers are being sold to police and mlitary units? If they're truly "ageless wonders" they should still be sought after. FN's polymer guns don't seem to be taking the world by storm, either, although the polymer FNs seem to be competent guns. I don't hear a bunch of folks here singing their praise.

The new CZ P07s seem to be doing pretty well, and are starting to get police and military sales. That's probably where CZ is going -- polymer designs; I suspect it's a company in transition.

Part of the CZ problem is money -- or lack of it. You don't compete against the big Western gun companies without deep pockets. One reason that Beretta, SIG, and Glock have done so well, is that they can BUY their way into markets. None of the former Communist Bloc gun companies have the CAPITAL/funding they need to do that, yet. That they are continuing to grow is, however, impressive. And some of them are coming up with clever designs. Springfield didn't design that Xd that is popular here in the US...

Walt Sherrill
August 7, 2012, 10:54 PM
In relative terms, Mutual funds suck eggs when compared to google or apple stock in the last 15-20 yrs.

And how do guns that keep up with inflation compare to Google or Apple?

You can't have it both ways.

Impureclient
August 7, 2012, 10:57 PM
jungle= jmr40 ?

Walt Sherrill
August 7, 2012, 11:17 PM
jungle= jmr40 ?

No. Jungle's arguments aren't solely derived from his bad personal experiences with CZs. Jungle's points are legitimate but can be interpreted in more than one way. (His point about steel-framed guns, for example: good point, and valid. The future seems to be moving toward polymer designs.)

SharpsDressedMan
August 7, 2012, 11:19 PM
I'm a little confused by the comment that the BHP is so much lower in capacity than the CZ. The standard 75B mag is 16 rounds, and they have higher caps that stick out the bottom. BHP's can easily be equipped with a newer flush fitting Meg Gar mag of 15 rounds. The BHP grip is more compact, a tad shorter, so that makes sense. Maybe we should compare it to the compact CZ?

armoredman
August 8, 2012, 12:29 AM
Ah, Sharps, I didn't know they had bigger mags nowadays - I'm used to the 13 rounders, which I believe was what led to the Americanization of it's name to Hi Power? That's why I said, (should have inserted the word "relative"), lower capacity form what is available now.
As you said, the CZ 75B mag is 16 rounds - but a few years ago it was 15.
I didn't say SO much lower, just lower. Some people might be off put by a 13 round mag in a pistol roughly the same size, some might not be.
What ever happened to the Browning that was DA/SA/DAO?

danez71
August 8, 2012, 12:52 AM
And how do guns that keep up with inflation compare to Google or Apple?

You can't have it both ways.

Dont get me wrong... I'm not trying to have it both ways.

Anything that out paces inflation falls into the good catagory. 'How good' is determined by comparision to something else.


With the exception of a minority of examples, guns make terrible investments in monetary terms. I just happened to have one of those examples; my BHP.


I bought it because it was something I wanted since my early teens for camping, SD/HD, and unexplainable emotional desire; Not because I was investing for monetary reasons.

But I dont think the OP was asking about the $300 difference for "investment" reasons.....

Which leads me back to the OP question of is it worth $300 more. The answer is something only he can decide based on his criteria.

If his criteria is putting holes in paper then a Red Ryder BB gun may be the better bang for the buck. Heck, his finger would work for free!

Seriouslly though, if he just wants to put 9mm holes into thing with no emotions involved and he has no sensation/feeling in his hand, the cheaper one is better.

But if his criteria has any personal preference associated with his decision, then ONLY HE can assign a $$$ value of what his personal preference/desire is worth.

Yelovitz_503
August 8, 2012, 05:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by towboat_er
Nope, I don't think so.

I like the CZ better than the HP.

And it looks like i have found my next purchase...........

Save one for me. I'd take the CZ over the BHP.

Walt Sherrill
August 8, 2012, 10:23 AM
Which leads me back to the OP question of is it worth $300 more. The answer is something only he can decide based on his criteria.

We can agree on this point.

Too many folks on these forums seem to confuse (or conflate) their handguns with their sexual organs. That, in turn, causes them to brag that "more costly" is like "bigger" and bigger is better, etc., etc.

Value is a personal thing.

ATLDave
August 8, 2012, 11:00 AM
What ever happened to the Browning that was DA/SA/DAO?

You talking about the BDM? I've got one, and it's a good shooter, and the skinniest double-stack I've ever seen. It was and is extremely reliable, and had a pretty good trigger (as DA/SA's go) OOTB. But the controls are definitely a little strange.... the safety is also the decocker and the slide release. It's frame-mounted, but "safe" is down (backwards from a BHP or CZ), so you can't ride the safety. The tang/abbreviated beavertail is quite low, so you can't get as high a grip on it as is now popular with pistols. I got used to the controls, but it doesn't fit my grip very well anymore; otherwise, it would still be my primary HD pistol.

And it didn't have a truly DAO mode. It has a switch you can turn to put it into "revolver" mode. If you put it in that mode, the hammer de-cocks/follows after every shot, but you can still cock the hammer with your thumb. I think they hoped that would win the favor of law enforcement agencies transitioning from revolvers, but the all-metal contruction and the complex trigger control unit probably kept them from competing price-wise with the Glocks that were suddenly flooding the market. Browning dropped production several years ago. I think they could bring back the external form and have a very viable CCW-market piece, given that it holds 15 rounds and is very, very skinny.

dcarch
August 8, 2012, 12:15 PM
To the OP: that's a negative. Especially with the 75 SA variant.

jungle
August 8, 2012, 12:21 PM
I think the best plan is to buy whatever floats your boat, blows your skirt up or turns your crank.

Neither the CZ nor the BHP sell in large numbers today, the world has moved on.

SSN Vet
August 8, 2012, 01:01 PM
tell us more about your CZ Miles...

was that a stock buy or did you have it customized?

BigG
August 8, 2012, 02:57 PM
When you say Browning HP you have to recall that there are lots of guns that people call BHP. I would only say a commercial Belgian Browning High Power would be worth the mega bucks. CZ guns are well made but they are a little clunky to my tastes. I like the Bren Ten version just as a curiosity.

Wags
August 8, 2012, 04:31 PM
If I had $1000 in cash, and the CZ 75 was $599, or the Browning Hi-power (MKIII) was $899, I'd pull the trigger for the SA Browning Hi-Power hands down. $300 is a mood point for what I want or need. Both are excellent and proven pistol's. But you can't take anything away from the Browning Hi-Power other than it's single action vs double action. And I respect Belgian quality over Czech any day of the week. Sorry CZ fans.

sub-moa
August 8, 2012, 10:40 PM
^^^THIS^^^

MrDig
August 8, 2012, 11:30 PM
^^^THIS^^^

Ditto,

dcarch
August 9, 2012, 01:15 AM
Sorry, but as a broke college student, I would have to respectfully disagree with the above statement. :D

Walt Sherrill
August 9, 2012, 07:56 AM
And I respect Belgian quality over Czech any day of the week. Sorry CZ fans.

Valid point, but making that statement is the equivalent of claiming that a ROLEX is better than a TIMEX, when the Timex keeps time as well or better than the Rolex, and does it for a fraction of the cost.

The Timex, however, has no snob appeal. Neither does the CZ. The CZ's DA trigger pull IS too long for some folks, so the first shot, if firing from DA mode, can be problematic. The BHP SA (cocked and locked) mode is a problem for some folks, too.

If what someone values, in the case of the BHP (or FN HP), is extra time spent in manufacturing, and it's worth the extra cost to him or er, then it's his or her money to spend. But, being willing to spend that extra money doesn't make the item purchased "better"; it does make it more "valued" by the buyer. Nothing wrong with that.

I have a T-series BHP and a well-tuned CZ-85 Combat, and really like them both. Both have been tweaked by a good gunsmith, but neither needed much tweaking. In the final analysis, however, I prefer a highly-gunsmithed AT-84s (a CZ clone from Switzerland) more than either the CZ or the BHP. It's smoother, more accurate, with an exquisite trigger in either DA or SA mode. Any of my shooting buddies who who have shot all three like the AT-84s better, too. Of the three, if I were under financial duress, the AT-84s would be the last to go.

All this discussion proves is that the old cliche is true: "there's no accounting for taste."


.

jeff-10
August 9, 2012, 10:49 AM
I have owned 3 pistols which were lemons in my life. A older 9mm CZ-75B, a brand new 9mm CZ-75 Compact and a 40 S&W Browning Hi-Power. So yes I regret the purchase of both of those CZs. For the record I do own 1 CZ-75B that is 100% reliable. I keep going back to the because they fit my hand perfectly.

SharpsDressedMan
August 9, 2012, 06:21 PM
One other point is that I feel the CZ75 is inherently stronger, and will handle longer use with +p and +P+ loadings, something the Hi Power design, by other expert opinions, does not.

benzy2
August 9, 2012, 07:36 PM
I paid $425 for a stainless 75B in all but unfired condition. I shoot it as well as any other pistol I have shot. Functionally, there is nothing the Hi-Power would do better. The Hi-Power certainly has a better name but neither are going to be pistols that will let you retire early from an investment point of view. I would personally pick the one that is most enjoyable for me and buy it. Neither should lose you much, if any money if you take care of them and decide to sell them. With that being the case, I don't see how picking the one you like most is a bad route to go.

I personally like the CZ and it's price point. I'm a casual shooter. I don't compete, I don't abuse firearms. I just like to shoot for fun. While I have the ability to pay for either I can't justify the Hi-Power over the CZ as I personally won't enjoy either more than the other when it's all said and done.

Fastcast
August 9, 2012, 07:41 PM
The CZ's DA trigger pull IS too long for some folks, so the first shot, if firing from DA mode, can be problematic. The BHP SA (cocked and locked) mode is a problem for some folks, too.

and that right there is the beauty of the CZ manual safety...carry it however you like, DA or SA/C&L.

The HP, has more history, nostalgia and a better finish but the CZ is no slouch and is more versatile, aesthetically has better lines and the famous Jeff Cooper's approval. It just doesn't have the long history of the HP.

Is the HP "worth" $300 more?....Sure depending on what you value....For me, no because the 1911 is the history, nostalgia, John Browning pistol that those things matter to me, not the HP. Only the purchaser can determine what something is worth and there's people all over the world that have more money than brains! :cool:

NG VI
August 9, 2012, 08:50 PM
Let us rephrase the question, is a combloc third tier product reproduced by many low bidders in any way comparable to more than seventy five years of combat pedigree?

That's a ridiculous statement. In what way is the CZ 75, as specific product or as a platform, third tier?

They're name brand and perform like it.

The High Power may have seen seventy five years of use, which says a lot about how well designed and conceived the pistol was, given the longevity of it's classmates (ten to twenty, then almost universally relegated to curio status for all practical purposes), but don't get it twisted, it's a good design and a good pistol that was created at a time when very few contemporary pistols had the qualities that make a service pistol successful in the long term.

These days basically any manufacturer has the benefit of twelve decades of user experience and manufacturing/maintenance experience to draw upon, even if it's a new company producing their first product. We know what makes a sidearm desirable these days, we've got a good handle on how to make weapons that aren't prohibitively expensive to build, that deliver acceptable or better accuracy, and that with rare exceptions will run basically any properly manufactured ammunition without headache.

In 1935 it wasn't such an easy task, we didn't have the same handle on manufacturing, most companies making autos were either doing the direct-blowback thing with .25,.32, and .380 ACP-type cartridges, or would often build some oddish guns to try to take advantage of higher-powered cartridges. They didn't always work out. The High Power didn't really have much in the way of successful long term competition, which is why it stuck around.

These days guns of equal or better practical value can be made for less money. That's all there is to it.

Walt Sherrill
August 9, 2012, 09:21 PM
The HP, has more history, nostalgia and a better finish but the CZ is no slouch and is more versatile, aesthetically has better lines and the famous Jeff Cooper's approval. It just doesn't have the long history of the HP.

I've had at least four high-gloss blue CZs, (including two CZ-85 Combats) over the years. Beautiful, deep blue, sort of like the old S&W Blue. There has never been as much demand for that finish, it appears. I prefer the satin nickel finish, myself.

JTQ
August 9, 2012, 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by Walt Sherrill
The CZ's DA trigger pull IS too long for some folks, so the first shot, if firing from DA mode, can be problematic. The BHP SA (cocked and locked) mode is a problem for some folks, too.
Fastcast wrote,
and that right there is the beauty of the CZ manual safety...carry it however you like, DA or SA/C&L.
My guess is those that have a hard time reaching the trigger of the CZ in double action mode, also have a hard time reaching the thumb safety as well for single action "cocked & locked" carry. I know that is my case. I can easily reach the Hi-Power's trigger and thumb safety, while I need to rotate the CZ75 one way to reach the CZ's DA trigger, and rotate the pistol the other way to reach the thumb safety.

Parts and construction wise, the Hi-Power is probably not worth $300 more than a CZ75B, but if the pistol works better for you, or you just like it better, than it is worth $300 more. They are very different pistols. It's not like you are comparing a CZ with a Tanfoglio Witness. Is a Sig worth $300 more than a Glock? They're all good, some work better for some people. Buy what you like.

SharpsDressedMan
August 9, 2012, 11:18 PM
This was very early CZ75 manufacture. Like Walt stated above, nothing lacking on the fit, finish, and bluing capabilites of CZ back then. They could do it now, but they might have to charge AS MUCH AS A BROWNING! :neener: http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m247/matquig/DSC05739.jpg

RoboDuck
August 10, 2012, 01:15 AM
Brownings will always be worth more.

jp3
August 10, 2012, 01:31 AM
I don't get the high-power hoopla. They're okay, but I still think JBs best effort was the 1911.

Walt Sherrill
August 10, 2012, 09:19 AM
My guess is those that have a hard time reaching the trigger of the CZ in double action mode, also have a hard time reaching the thumb safety as well for single action "cocked & locked" carry. I know that is my case. I can easily reach the Hi-Power's trigger and thumb safety, while I need to rotate the CZ75 one way to reach the CZ's DA trigger, and rotate the pistol the other way to reach the thumb safety.


Probably true. The safety isn't the DA/SA models strong point. On the SA models, the safety lever is much larger and easier to use.

What I didn't mention earlier, and should have, is that starting from the half-cock notch (on guns with the Firing Pin Block) is absolutely safe, and noticeably shortens the trigger pull. There is also an after-market trigger (from Smecky, at Cajun Gun Works) that helps shorten the pull, too.

The decocker models start from (and decocks to) the half-cock position, and those models have only ONE hammer hook, not two (as in the safety-equipped models).

CZs in their original configuration don't work for folks with small hands or short fingers or thumbs. Certain other guns present similar (or different, but equally challenging) issues. If a certain gun doesn't work for you, you find one that does -- you don't rant because you are "manually" or otherwise challenged by the gun's design. <grin> In situations like that, it's a bad fit, not a bad person or a bad gun...

My Glock 35, for example, is about the only DA/SA gun that has a slide release that I can work with my strong hand without changing my grip. When I was shooting IDPA regularly, I generally shot my Glock 34 (now gone) a bit better than other guns, even though I preferred other guns when just shooting for giggles at the range.

For home defense, when I'm nervous and dealing with a real-world "bump in the night", I prefer a gun with a safety, so my much revered Glocks aren't in the bed side safe. (That's just MY weaknesses and concerns, and no slam of the guns -- as I really like Glocks, too. Just picked up a Glock 38, recently, and it's great.)


.

amd6547
August 10, 2012, 10:06 AM
I have owned a CZ75, and I have owned Browning HiPowers. The CZ never felt as good in my hand as the Browning. In fact, the Browning feels like an extension of my arm. It is smaller and lighter. It CCW's very easily.

Fastcast
August 10, 2012, 10:52 AM
I've had at least four high-gloss blue CZs, (including two CZ-85 Combats) over the years. Beautiful, deep blue, sort of like the old S&W Blue. There has never been as much demand for that finish, it appears. I prefer the satin nickel finish, myself.

How I wish CZ still offered those gloss blue 75s!

westtx28
August 10, 2012, 11:59 AM
Take the $300 and put it toward a Kadet Kit for the CZ. Then you'll have a 9mm of fantastic quality and one of the best large framed .22LR money can buy. CZ did their Kadet kit right. I have a Ciener kit for my BHP that never seed the light of day because the Kadet is so good.

Cearbhall
August 10, 2012, 03:52 PM
CZ 75s are available in single action only as well as SA/DA, if anyone doesn't like the DA trigger. I also have a 97B, SA/DA. the trigger is just fine.

Dave1965
August 10, 2012, 04:03 PM
I have multiples of both guns. They are both awesome but I like the hi power better.

powwowell
August 10, 2012, 10:25 PM
If buying, I would not pay $300 more for a Hi-Power, than I would a CZ.

Then again, there is NO CZ that I would trade my Hi-Power for.

General Geoff
August 10, 2012, 10:43 PM
As an appliance? No.

As a personal effect? I think so.

Bozwell
August 11, 2012, 12:57 AM
Guns are a poor investment if you have any understanding of investments. Calling an inflation hedge, which for most firearms is the BEST case scenario, a good return is just silly. That said, they retain value better than some purchases (cars for instance) and are fun to own.

As for the OP, there is no right answer. For $900 you should compare a cz with custom work to the BHP, and then the question is as a buyer do you want modern performance or history. Buy what you like, buy both if you can.

TMann
August 11, 2012, 01:37 AM
I have both: a stainless 75B and an FN Hipower. Depending on the day, either one or the other is my favorite handgun. (Actually, on many days, my favorite handgun is my Walther PPS, just because it's so easy to carry.)

If you weren't concerned about resale value, collectibility, bragging rights or historical significance, I would have a hard time saying that either one was better than the other one.

If possible, shoot both. If the Hipower feels THAT much better to you than the CZ, then get the HP. If they shoot basically the same for you (or if you prefer the CZ) than get the CZ and spend the extra $300 on ammo, a good holster and some good nights sights.

Good luck with the choice. They're both great guns.

TMann

Ky Larry
August 11, 2012, 02:55 PM
Not to me. I've owned CZs since the 1990's when they were still low priced. However, I do like BHPs. Someday, I may bite the bullet and get one. I waited 30 years before I bought my first Python so I can wait. In fact, the BHP is #4 on my wish list behind a Colt Woodsman Target .22lr, a Colt S.I.G rifle in .30-06, and a L.C.Smith 12ga double.

Ash
August 12, 2012, 10:37 AM
Belgian quality? Are you serious? Sure, there are extremely-fine Belgian arms, and FN has always made good stuff. Nagant did, too.

But there are virtually no good Belgian revolvers out there other than what Nagant made (even FN used Astra to make theirs). Belgian copies of Webley and S&W revolvers were just as bad as Spanish copies. Dad's and Granddad's Belgian double barrel shotguns are regarded by shot gunners as utter crap, not even up to the level of basic Savage guns of the 1940's. Belgian flintlocks could be good, or could be horrendous.

Only after WWI did Belgium begin to cast off its reputation as a provider of Suicide Special revolvers and junk shotguns.

The Czechs on the other hand, have consistently made quality arms. Even the derided CZ-38 is acknowledged as a superbly-made pistol - just badly designed. Czech Mausers were often considered better than their FN counterparts. Some of the most highly-prized Mausers were made by CZ.

So using Belgium's history as a paragon of quality manufacturing is silly. Belgian quality? Please.

Of course today, Belgian arms have a good reputation for quality. But that is in SPITE of Belgium's history of firearms manufacture.

CZ's reputation for quality manufacture is equal to FN's - even when you factor in top-down decisions made by Communist party hacks for 50 years of its existence.

The Czechs didn't come up with an FAL, and Saive deserves credit for genius. In that regard FN has always been a design trend-setter in many firearms fields (even though the FAL was outdated when introduced, the VZ-58 actually succeeded in the role that the FAL failed in - a fully-auto FAL is a bad idea).

71Commander
August 13, 2012, 07:47 AM
Oh yeah. Not even close.

Mine in 40.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/tucker13/068af3f6.jpg

ZEN.45
August 13, 2012, 07:51 AM
I feel that as a Belgian I'm somewhat 'obligated' to respond, altough I currently don't own any Belgian (or Czech) guns.

But there are virtually no good Belgian revolvers out there other than what Nagant made (even FN used Astra to make theirs). Belgian copies of Webley and S&W revolvers were just as bad as Spanish copies.

How about them Czech revolvers ?


Dad's and Granddad's Belgian double barrel shotguns are regarded by shot gunners as utter crap

I guess dad and granddad couldn't afford a LEBEAU-COURALLY shotgun. You're taking the crap manufacturers among the hunderds of Belgian gunmakers in history and compare them to CZ ?


Only after WWI did Belgium begin to cast off its reputation as a provider of Suicide Special revolvers and junk shotguns.

So, after WWI ... and before CZ even existed.


Czech Mausers were often considered better than their FN counterparts. Some of the most highly-prized Mausers were made by CZ.

I wonder who often considered Czech Mauser better than FN, never heard that before ? And exactly what model Mauser made by CZ is considered as 'highly-prized' ?


The Czechs didn't come up with an FAL, and Saive deserves credit for genius. In that regard FN has always been a design trend-setter in many firearms fields (even though the FAL was outdated when introduced, the VZ-58 actually succeeded in the role that the FAL failed in - a fully-auto FAL is a bad idea).

A fully-auto FAL is a bad idea ... in 7,62x51. But you can't blame FN for that choice of calibre.

And 'the FAL outdated when introduced' ... really, in 1951 ? Makes me wonder why it remained in service for so long with so many countries ?

FN has indeed been a design trend-setter in many firearms fields (even after Saive), but you say it like it's a bad thing. What design (except for the '75') did CZ ever make that was internationally noticed ?

Ash
August 13, 2012, 10:40 PM
The Persian Mauser is considered one of the best of the design. It was made by CZ.

Touche on Czech revolvers, except that Belgian did make them, and the revolvers of the 1880's up to prior to WWI were junk. A huge number of Belgian shotguns that came over here were also junk. That is not opinion but fact. Suicide specials were commonly made in the US, too, and current US autos can be excellent (Beretta, S&W, Dan Wesson) or horrid (Jiminez). It still in no way diminishes the largest bulk of export arms for the civilian market from Belgium historically was low-quality. After WWI, when many of those cottage manufacturers went under, those left, particularly FN

I have a special affection for Belgians and the nation itself. I can tell a Belgian accent over French and don't make that mistake.

But truth is truth. I gave props where they were. But, there's nothing about Belgium's history that establishes that as a nation or ethnic group, being made in Belgium makes it somehow mystically superior to being Czech-made.

As a result, there's nothing about "Belgian Quality" that the words somehow imply superiority to "Czech Quality."

coalman
August 14, 2012, 01:20 PM
Objectively: No
Subjectively: Yes

wolf695
August 14, 2012, 01:30 PM
A Browning is always worth the $, and on the plus side its value will go up! I have had cz,feg,and others! But a browning is the best! The rest are just copies, some good some bad!

Walt Sherrill
August 14, 2012, 03:21 PM
A Browning is always worth the $, and on the plus side its value will go up! I have had cz,feg,and others! But a browning is the best! The rest are just copies, some good some bad!

It may be worth the money -- a subjective judgment, to be sure -- but it won't ALWAYS go up in value.

A standard BHP that was made in 1965, sold for maybe $1000; the Blue Book says it's worth $875 today, in 100% condition. With inflation, that $1000 gun would have to sell for over $7000, today, to have really gone up in VALUE (buying power of the gun sold).

A nickel/chrome HP that sold for $525 in the 1980s may bring as much as $800+ today, but would have to sell for $1120 to keep up with inflation.

You might argue that they probably hold their value better than many guns, but I think a Colt Python might be a better bet.

Most guns don't keep up with inflation.

SharpsDressedMan
August 14, 2012, 06:09 PM
"A standard BHP that was made in 1965, sold for maybe $1000; the Blue Book says it's worth $875 today, in 100% condition. With inflation, that $1000 gun would have to sell for over $7000, today, to have really gone up in VALUE (buying power of the gun sold)."

HUH?!!! I don't think a BHP in '65 was $1000; probably closer to $100. And if it were $100, what would the inflated price be today, 47 years later? I bought a new S&W Model 39 in 1968 for $100 (suggested retail) and $4 tax, total $104, and that was 3 years after the year being used to compare a Browning Hi Power.

Walt Sherrill
August 14, 2012, 09:10 PM
HUH?!!! I don't think a BHP in '65 was $1000; probably closer to $100. And if it were $100, what would the inflated price be today, 47 years later? I bought a new S&W Model 39 in 1968 for $100 (suggested retail) and $4 tax, total $104, and that was 3 years after the year being used to compare a Browning Hi Power.

The Fjestad Blue Book showed MSR of $1030 for a post '54 HP standard with polished blue finish. Maybe that price was for the NEWER models in that time range , in which case, my example was wrong, and that part of your argument makes more sense than mine. (My error!)

That said, I doubt that you could ever buy a post -54 BHP for $100. Closer to $500, I would think. I got really lucky, about 10 years ago, and picked up a T-series BHP in ANIB condition for $300. That was a once-in-a-lifetime deal. I've shot it a lot, and it's no longer in ANIB condition. (I've had to replace a barrel, and was NOT willing to pay $400 for a factory barrel...)

The BHP Practical, imported from 1990-2000, and again in 2002-2006, shows a MSR price of $863. One in 100% condition, in the Blue Book, shows a price of $775. If we use the newest ones, that's only six years old, and the value has dropped, not increased, And, that's before you figure in inflation. It would take almost a $1000 to keep up with inflation. I've seen a lot of them selling for $600 - $900, some of them pristine. Not rally "holding value" -- let alone increasing!! You can probably find some on Gun Broker, now, in that price range. Collector condition guns will demand a higher price, of course, but most of us don't have "collector condition" guns.

I bought a new S&W Model 39 in 1968 for $100 (suggested retail) and $4 tax, total $104, and that was 3 years after the year being used to compare a Browning Hi Power.

A S&W 39 and a BHP are different guns. I don't think they ever sold for similar prices.

To have kept up with inflation, your $100 (in '68) gun would have to sell for $659, today, to have held it's value. I suspect you'd have a hard time getting that much for it, despite the fact it's a great gun.. I've seen several locally, in very nice condition, for under $400 in the past 5-6 months. I was tempted, as I love the older S&W semi-autos.

I agree that you WILL probably get more for a used BHP than for most used CZs, but the original prices were probably higher for those BHPs, too, if they were most made about the same time.


.

SharpsDressedMan
August 15, 2012, 12:31 AM
For a moment, lets forget about the "Blue Book of Gun Values". In my neck of the woods, it means very little. We have a slew of guns, gun shows, and gun shops here in Ohio, with higher than average amount of people to buy and sell guns. And, I have to say, lately more guns are turning up as the old collectors are dying off, and the number of this new breed of shooters is less than the days of old (seems kids would rather play video games that shoot a REAL gun.:rolleyes:) I believe, per capita, there are fewer shooters today, in spite of the alleged trend of massive gun buying. If a 1950's Hi Power went for "around" $100 back in '65, I'd guess it went for less than that in the 1950's. I happen to have what I believe to be a 1950's gun, maybe 1954, but I have no direct reference to its age...Browning did not keep and supply good records from that post war period. I bought a few years ago for $800 with spare mag and W. German police flap holster. I sold the mag and holster for $150, so I am into the gun for $650. I have seen similar guns advertised on gunbroker, etc for $900-$1100, and one at the Ohio Gun Collectors show several years ago for $900 firm, so I think I have a good deal here. Anyway, for the last 60 years, it has apparently gone up at least 500-600%. That is maybe 10% per year, and the gun has been shot, not only by me, but apparently some W. German police, over the years. It is still in 90-95% conditon, and probably has another 60 years in it, if taken care of as it was. Few things hold value as well. Money? Real estate? Cars? 401K's? They all CAN produce profit, under diligent and LUCKY conditions, but few have gone up 500-600% and held. I have some older CZ's. I do believe that if I sit on them long enough, they too will produce similar results to that old Browning in VALUE. So, we end up comparing AESTHETIC value to MONETARY value, and that is a different choice for each of us. Very hard to agree on the balance between the two. I like them both, and feel I can shoot them as much as I want, and still get my money back if I want. Can't beat that.http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m247/matquig/DSC06278.jpg

Ash
August 15, 2012, 07:43 AM
An investment of any kind of $75 in 1950 that jumps up to $900 today is only a 4.2% return. It's not a great return or investment, but it held up against inflation (which means you didn't actually lose any real value). That makes it a hedge against inflation. However, you didn't really make any money on it while at the same time, utility or use of the item was minimal to maintain value. A Hi Power used for 60 years in a holster, shot 100 rounds per year, would be worn out and could not possibly fetch $900 today unless it ended up being some kind of collector.

As to going up, the more expensive the arm, the less the rate of increase generally is. A Clerke revolver that sold for $6 back in 1960 can actually provide a greater yield than a Hi Power of the same time - not that a Clerke is anything worth owning. Doubling in value has no meaning until you understand time.

Take for instance the $300 CZ-75 Mil I bought in 2001 compared against the $475 Hi Power from the same time. It didn't grow that much, to $450 today, that's about 3.5%. However, the $475 that is up to $600 today did worse, at a hair over 2%. The CZ was the better investment. You can't argue with numbers. The math is just that.

By the way, the equation being used to find interest is this: (FV/PV)^(1/y) - 1 = i

Walt Sherrill
August 15, 2012, 08:46 AM
I'm still not convinced that ANY "new" Hi-Powers sold for $100 (or close to it) in the '50s. Maybe a trashed, used one.

The kind of return on investment cited as common (or resale values, if you don't consider them investment) seems very UNCOMMON to me.

wow6599
August 15, 2012, 09:08 AM
A buddy of mine got his father's late 60's era Colt Python as a gift, and I think he said his dad paid around $150 for back then. I doubt a BHP went for 6x what a Colt Python did in the same era.

briang2ad
August 15, 2012, 01:53 PM
I really like my Hipower. However, I'd have trouble if I was down to 1 gun to give up my CZ Compact. It is quite ergonomic, and has a higher standard capacity, and is about the same weight, and smaller than the HP. It is also a tad more versatile. Its worth at least what a HP is.

ajoker31
August 15, 2012, 05:49 PM
I have both and like both. I've also tweaked both pistols to amazing precision. I'll agree that out of the box the Hi power is a better pistol and will maintain it's value.

That being said....my CZ is more accurate for me but if I could only keep one it'd be the high power.

Ash
August 15, 2012, 06:04 PM
The CZ will maintain its value as well and increase at the same rate, if not better, than the higher-priced Hi Power.

Gordon
August 15, 2012, 06:20 PM
Had to do it, I only have a CZ P01 but it is under my bed!
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i203/gordonhulme/012-1.jpg
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i203/gordonhulme/011-4.jpg

Bozwell
August 15, 2012, 06:23 PM
Anyway, for the last 60 years, it has apparently gone up at least 500-600%. That is maybe 10% per year

You have a beautiful gun and it sounds like you got a great deal on it. That said, your math is horribly off. Compound interest is a very powerful thing and a 10% return would double the value in under 8 years, double again in less than the next 8 years, and over and over. Earning 10% every year, a $100 investment in 1950 would be worth over $30,000 today. A ~4% return is certainly an inflation hedge though, and while you'd have been better off financially to invest that $100 in 1950 into the stock market, you can't shoot an index fund. ;)

SharpsDressedMan
August 15, 2012, 06:39 PM
Yeah, it hurts my head to worry about numbers. I worry about how much ammunition I have, but it never compounds, gains interest, etc. It just depletes as I shoot it. Seems to be about the only numbers I worry about anymore: how much ammo is on hand.

HorseSoldier
August 15, 2012, 10:01 PM
The CZ will maintain its value as well and increase at the same rate, if not better, than the higher-priced Hi Power.

I don't know on that -- might be statistically true, but doesn't sound right to me if we're talking about a bone-stock CZ versus a bone-stock High Power. Mileage may vary on both sides when you start getting into vintage designs or special/higher end models. (As a fan of Gunsmith Cats in my younger years, for instance, I'd be more than happy to shell out premium money for a short frame Pre-B CZ . . .)

Walt Sherrill
August 15, 2012, 10:38 PM
The CZ will maintain its value as well and increase at the same rate, if not better, than the higher-priced Hi Power.

As much as I like CZs, I don't think I'd make that claim -- as I have no experience upon which to make such a claim, and I doubt that the person making the claim has, either. CZs certainly haven't been around as long, and until the late 1990s, were as scarce as hen's teeth in the U.S. The term "scarce" doesn't properly describe the situation.

On the other hand, several of the pre-Bs I've picked up (and later sold) cost the original buyers $1000 - $1200, in the early 1980s. I generally got them for under $500. (One I traded even for a "shooter" luger that cost me $375 -- one of the Soviet captures. He knew he couldn't get his purchase rice and he wanted a Luger.)

Most of the used guns I've purchased, over the years, I picked for much less than their original purchase price, and with inflation, somebody took a licking.

Note: maintaining value means maintaining BUYING power despite inflation. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statisitics, something you paid $1 for in 1960 would cost $7.74 in 2012. A gun that sold for $100 would have to sell for $775 in 2012 TO JUST HOLD IT'S VALUE (due to inflation.)

While a lot of folks can offer examples to prove their claims, most of those stories don't come with documentation (like original sales invoices), etc. I'm sure some of those stories are valid. But not all of them.

A surprising number of folks on these forums also frequently shoot sub-2" groups at 25+ Yards with their handguns.

Check out this website and experiment: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm


.

Ash
August 15, 2012, 10:39 PM
A bone stock Hi Power, just to keep the same rate, has to go up by considerably more money, just to keep up with a CZ. It's just economics. A lower-priced item need not jump as far to keep a certain rate. Consider a $450 CZ vs a $650 Hi Power. In ten years at a 4% increase, the CZ will increase $200 in value. The same Hi Power, just to maintain the same rate, would have to increase $300. That would maintain the exact same rate.

Walt Sherrill
August 15, 2012, 10:46 PM
Ash -- you're confusing dollar growth with value growth.

In the example I cited above, that $1 has to grow to $7.74 to maintain it VALUE.

A gun that starts at $100 (for sake of argument, call it a CZ) will have to sell for $774 in 2012 to stay even with inflation and to buy today, what cost $100 in 1960. (We know there were no 75s in 1960...)

A gun that starts at $300 (for sake of argument, call it a BHP) would have to grow to $2322 to stay even with inflation and to buy today, what cost $300 in 1960.

If both guns hit that goal, both guns have held their value, and neither has outperformed the other. Both have grown at the same rate -- the rate of inflation, and both have the same value as when purchased. Neither is the better deal. The BHP gives you more money, but you need more money to buy what $300 would buy in today's dollars.

I don't think the examples I cited are good (realistic) xamples, but they do show the dynamics of what we're discussing.

jungle
August 15, 2012, 10:56 PM
Most guns are not a good investment, exceptions exist in the rare and desirable end, but plan on it being worth about 75% of what you paid at best and they do tend to hold with inflation.

On the other hand, that shiny new ipad is going to be worth nothing in five years. The stock market is lower than it was in 2000, I ain't getting any younger, and all of my guns have been a great pleasure to own and offered more than a little utility.

Still don't want a CZ, but buy whatever you like.:D

SharpsDressedMan
August 15, 2012, 10:59 PM
UPDATE: My brother just riffed through some old Gun Digests tht he had on hand. One was a 1958 (which probably reflected retail prices the year before, as that is how it is with publishing dates, price increases, etc) which had the (1957 retail) price at $74.50 for the Browning Hi Power. A 1963 (1962 retail) book gave the Hi Power still at $74.50. A '67 (1966 retail) Gun Digest had a price increase to $94.50. By the way, the '67 Digest gave the highly engraved Renaissance Hi Power at $249.75, or about 2 1/2 times as much as the standard gun that year. Both the S&W Model 39 and Colt Government Model were about the same price as the Browning that year. A SIG P210 was $165.

Walt Sherrill
August 15, 2012, 11:01 PM
Great prices. I stand corrected on my concerns about BHP sale prices. Thanks for that info.

That '57 BHP would have to sell for $550 today, to stay up with inflation. You might get that, and a bit more. But at $550, it's a 0% return.

The '67 BHP would have to sell for $648, to stay up with inflation. That extra 10 years gave the owner an extra $100. And if you sold it for $900 in 2012, you'd be getting just a 5.5% return. That's about as good as the more desirable Renaissance, shown next. That's better than inflation, so that older BHP is a good hedge.

The fancy BHP that sold $250 would have to sell, today, for $1711 to stay up with inflation. A nice one might bring in as much as $3000, if in 95% or better condition. At $3000, that would give a 5.53% return. Better than a savings account, but nothing spectacular, and really no better than the plain-jane BHP. (That surprised me.)

A short-rail CZ 75 might do at least as well, too. If bought for $200 in 1977, selling it for $756 would keep it even with inflation. They typically sell for around double-that, or more, if in 95% or so condition. A $200 CZ-75 that sells for $1600, would offer a return of 6.61%. Don't see many of those around the U.S., however, so it's theoretical. Only Collector-grade guns command that sort of price.

Most of the BHPs I've seen have sold for around $1000 or less, and some for considerably less; the newer ones have cost considerably more than the older ones, too. A BHP bought in the last 10 years is probably a less-good value than the older ones -- as Inflation has been a killer in the past 25 - 30 years.

jungle
August 15, 2012, 11:12 PM
Walt assuming you bought at some reasonable discount to retail, 75% is about all you will get on the sale, inflation considered. If you buy at retail, that is about the best you will ever do, again inflation considered.

Frankly, I don't fret much over a 500-1000 dollar buy. It really doesn't get much attention except on performance and quality-these are not investments.

If I am really lucky I will get to wear a few out, but that hasn't happened yet.

I do agree with you, if you paid retail you are going to take a hit. I have seven near new BHPs, they ranged in price from 300-500 and some were bought just last year, most came in well under 400 and I had to consider each one a great bargain before buying. I will never have a problem getting my money out of them, but doubt they will make me much money. On the other hand that flat screen or ipad is a sinkhole.

Walt Sherrill
August 15, 2012, 11:31 PM
That has been my experience, too.

I bought a VERY NICE T-series BHP about 10 years ago for $300, in the original zipper bag. It's since seen some mileage, and I've had to replace a barrel with a non-BHP barrel (they wanted $400 for a factory barrel!); it's a nice gun, still, and a pleasure to shoot.

Ash
August 16, 2012, 07:19 AM
Walt, to maintain the same value, which is what I am referring to (and in so keeping the same rate, which would indicate the same value) the Hi Power would have to increase by $100 more dollars over the CZ. I just don't see them going up in those kinds of dollars - especially when you place the value at time parity with a CZ starting in 1976.

Walt Sherrill
August 16, 2012, 09:06 AM
Walt, to maintain the same value, which is what I am referring to (and in so keeping the same rate, which would indicate the same value) the Hi Power would have to increase by $100 more dollars over the CZ. I just don't see them going up in those kinds of dollars - especially when you place the value at time parity with a CZ starting in 1976

You may be right, but you've offered NO EVIDENCE to support your claim. Belief alone isn't sufficient.

What were CZs selling for in 1976? My comments about "short-rail" CZs, above, was based on the prices paid in Europe. You would have had to have paid over $1000 to get that same gun, new, in the US. And a CZ bought for $1000 in 1978 dollars would have to sell for $3780 in 2012 to just hold it's value. I haven't seen anything like that happening. I have personally bought two CZ-75s that cost the original buyer $800 - $1000 in the 1980s for much, much less, in the early 2000s. They knew they couldn't get their purchase price and didn't try.

A CZ that sold new for $450 in 2000 would have to sell for almost $600 today to hold it's value; for that price I'd buy a new one and get a warranty, too,.

In the U.S., when they were first sold to the West, CZs prices were obscenely high, thanks to Western import restrictions on Communist Bloc weapons. That price differential went away when imports were finally allowed into the US, and several different importers started bringing them into the US. Prices were cut in half, and then dropped almost 30% again, very quickly.

I'm not claiming much of anything for either brand of gun; I think they're both losing propositions in real terms -- if you look at either gun as an investment. As a "less costly hobby," they can be better propositions than cars or most boats, and golf (clubs, etc.)

Note: I just did an "advanced" search on Gunbroker for BHP and found bunches of BHPs for sale with asking prices over $1000. Interestingly, there are almost no bids for the pricier offerings. There is a lot Lots of activity for ones selling at much lower starting points. $600 - $700 seems to be where the action is, and then things peak out. The same phenomena can be seen in Gunbroker CZs: the only ones getting bids are the lower-priced USED ones with starting prices much less than new ones.

One participant here has shown that some 50-year old BHPs have the potential to offer OK, if not bring stellar returns. I don't think newer BHPs are doing as well, however. Do you have any evidence to support your claims about CZ values? How about ones that were sold during the 1990 or early 2000s? (I may have some sales slips, somewhere; I need to dig them out...)

dcarch
August 16, 2012, 01:42 PM
And after seven pages, we've gone... precisely nowhere. The point remains that ultimately, value is subjective. To some, a BHP will be worth more than a CZ. To others, the extra money does not equal a finer product. Let's take the High Road here and let this thread die a natural death before it gets locked, whaddya say?

SharpsDressedMan
August 16, 2012, 07:25 PM
Price for a CZ75 in the early years was $400-$500, after a stiff import duty was paid. Most early guns came in without import marks, as they were purchased in Canada, then declared, and the iron curtain influenced duty was imposed (I have heard from a few guys it was around $200-$250), so that doubled the price of the gun, not to mention the trouble of time and effort to find and arrange for purchase, shipment, etc. I have a CZ75 short rail from 1977 that was brought in by someone else, as I bought it early last year. I do not know the history on that one, but I was also told that darn few anywhere in the world are before 1977, as production didn't start til '76, and few were made that year. Another factor that seems to not be talked about is if seeking "investment" status for a gun, one ought to keep it mint, unfired, with box, papers, sales recipts, etc., and keep it in a cool, dry place on a shelf. Few of us do that. A mint coin is going to give a better return on investment over a used one. Most of us just enjoy the "better-than-most-things" investment/value of our guns, be they used or new condition. We get SOME kind of an increased value or profit off old guns, most of the time, and this is better than most tools or other things that get used. Very seldom does one LOSE money, unless selling too soon, or paying too much. My brother has a knack for knowing what his acquaintances or other people are looking for, finding it on one side of the gunshow, walking it across the room, and selling it for 50% profit, or doing the same on sturmgewehr.com, etc. How does THAT figure into holding against inflation? :D

SharpsDressedMan
August 16, 2012, 07:37 PM
I think the presence of new designs, plastic guns, and about 10 times the competition of steel guns today has pushed the Browning HP off the average shooters plate. They are still beautifully made guns, and should hold their value as well as any other finely made gun. Watch what they do when they QUIT making them. The same for CZ's, although many have pointed out they are not finished or machined quite as nicely as the Hi Powers, so that may be one of the reasons for the current price differential. Throw in cheaper wages at the CZ plant, and operating costs woud be less. From a fighting standpoint, both are worthy. I don't see myself doing much better with one over the other in sport or real-life defense situations.

Ash
August 16, 2012, 07:42 PM
So, Walt, I offer no proof. But you think seriously that in, say, ten years, a Hi Power would increase at $100 to $150 to $200 MORE than an increase of a similar CZ? It is possible, but that would be to keep at the same rate of increase. Neither has shown, in my experience, such an increase. When you look, say, at the $400 used Hi Powers, compared to $350 used CZ-75's that came on the market, it would seem that CZ's on the used market performed even better when compared to original pricing.

Walt Sherrill
August 16, 2012, 08:42 PM
It's hard to say. We don't have a lot of evidence for any of our theories or conjectures.

That said, I haven't seen many $300 or $400 BHPs for sale, anywhere. I have seen a bunch of $300 and $400 FM and Feg clones, though. If you find any true BHPs in that price range, that haven't been "rode hard and put away wet," please let me know.

(There was a bunch of NEW $400 - $500 BHPs and FNHPs sold by CDNN a few years back. It wasn't a good time for me, financially, or I would have bought a couple and stuck them in the gun safe. I think those guns, unfired or ANIB, could easily be sold for a reasonable profit, today -- inflation be damned.)

Guillermo
August 16, 2012, 08:53 PM
having owned two Belgian BHPs that I couldn't make run, I would say "no".

Were my experience different I would have the other answer

JohnBT
August 17, 2012, 10:00 AM
I bought new CZ-75B Military model about 10 or 11 years ago when they hit the market for $349. They were a good deal and came with 2 15-round mags. Some people got them for as little as $310 iirc. Great gun, good trigger, but for some folks the sights are small and the slide can be a little difficult to grip.

The following year I bought 9mm BHP - the plain black, fixed sight model - for $559 at a local store.

The BHP trigger on my gun was really heavy and nasty at 8+ pounds, but I got it cleaned up some and knocked a couple of pounds off of it. And bobbed the hammer thanks to Mr. Camp's advice and encouragement. It's a great gun and I like it a little better than the CZ, but the BHPs I see these days are a whole lot closer to a thousand bucks than five hundred.

I had to look. OMG, they're up to $961.99??

www.impactguns.com/browning-hi-power-pistol-9mm-matte-finish-mkiii-13-rd-051-010593-023614237648.aspx

Now I don't feel so bad about paying $1399 for a Sig X-5 TAC TB with night sights and a 4.5# SA trigger.

John

Walt Sherrill
August 17, 2012, 06:48 PM
How I wish CZ still offered those gloss blue 75s!

While visiting the CZ CUSTOM SHOP website today, I noticed that THEY DO offer the gloss blue CZs. Fourth line of images in the link, below. They cost about $90 more (probably because of the extra hand-polishing needed...)

The display shows a polycoat model, but that's because they don't have a photo of the gloss blued model. Talk to them. I'll bet you can't get them ANYWHERE else. Angus Hobdell's operation is really great.

http://czcustom.com/CZ-UB-USA-Factory-Pistols.aspx

If you enjoyed reading about "Is a Browning HiPower Worth $300 More Than a CZ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!