Browning Hi Power or CZ 75/85?

[Furncliff]

If you have big hands the grip on the HP is going to feel short. I liked the HP but the one I tried had a brutally strong recoil spring and my pinkie finger fell off the bottom of the grip. I've had a CZ 75b for some time and it's one of my favorites. The only thing I would change would be to switch to the SA model since mine is strictly a range gun.

 

[peacebutready]

+P loads

The CZ handles +P loads fine in 9mm. The HP has had trouble handling NATO ammo, which I think is equivelant to +P. The hotter loads have broke some HP's in Europe. I don't know if the HP has been updated to handle +P loads in recent years. I know their .40 model was strengthened. I don't know if they are available, though.

The HP in blue is classy looking in my opinion.

I have the CZ and have read about both. Seems like you can't go wrong with either for non +P loads. The CZ is a few hundred less in price.

Good luck.

 

[rellascout]

The CZ handles +P loads fine in 9mm. The HP has had trouble handling NATO ammo, which I think is equivelant to +P. The hotter loads have broke some HP's in Europe. I don't know if the HP has been updated to handle +P loads in recent years. I know their .40 model was strengthened. I don't know if they are available, though.

You can shoot +P out of any BHP. The MKIIIs have no issues at all the older BHPs can also handle it but if you are shooting a ton of +P you will see accelerated wear. I shoot +P out of this BHP with no issues. I swapped out the recoil spring and it has been good to go. I do not shoot tons of +P out of it but I would estimate it has over 500 rounds of +p through it. Rails and barrel lugs are just fine no rounding.



This gun is a Isreali defense force gun and saw NATO pressure rounds for most of it life. Rails and barrels lugs are just fine.



http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/BHPandHighPressureAmmo.htm

 

[sixgunner455]

Nice correction. I guess it could be difficult, if carrying cocked and locked, and you pushed the lever just a bit too far, in a tense situation. (I remember once handling such a gun; I don't think that mechanism lends itself to C&L carry, but do agree that it had that functionality.)

That was why I didn't buy that gun.

 

[JayPee]

pdosh, if you are going to use your purchase for defensive purposes, you need to start with shootability in your hand and end with shootability in your hand. If, after the wealth of opinions expressed here, you are still unable to make a decision, have yourself a "shootoff" with both guns the way the military has a "flyoff" of competing aircraft, and go with the one that shoots the best for you in your particular application.

I've owned 2 BHP's and 3 CZ 75B/85,85B pistols. The CZ performs better for me in my particular defensive application, so I will always choose it first over the BHP. But when defense is not an issue I often pet my Browning and shoot it some just for the joy of holding such a beautiful piece of workmanship in my hand.

FWIW.

JayPee

 

[Ash]

FN did go to a cast frame, which was more durable than their older forged ones - at least that is the excuse for going cast.

 

[sirgilligan]

Get Both...

If the price of the BHP makes you hesitate then go and get the CZ and save up for the BHP down the road.

I guess I have to be honest and say I vote 2 to 1, BHP over the CZ. Why do I say that? I have two BHP's and only one CZ. Someday it will be a tied vote.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

FN did go to a cast frame, which was more durable than their older forged ones - at least that is the excuse for going cast.

They did that only after the early "forged" .40 models had problems. The cast frame was stimulated by that need -- and arguably had nothing to do with weaknesses in the 9mm version.

Interestingly, I think I saw something recently about FN discontinuing the .40. If that is so, it may have more to a lack of consumer interest than problems with cast frames in general.

 

[rellascout]

They did that only after the early "forged" .40 models had problems. The cast frame was stimulated by that need -- and arguably had nothing to do with weaknesses in the 9mm version.

Interestingly, I think I saw something recently about FN discontinuing the .40. If that is so, it may have more to a lack of consumer interest than problems with cast frames in general.

I also believe that cost was an issue. They could have made a forged frame that would have done the job but the cost would have been higher than the cost of the cast version.

The 40 S&W never sold well and I believe the rumors of its demise is true. It was developed for the US LEO market but the US LEO never bought it. The success of the Glock killed the BHP in 40 S&W IMHO. On top of that it simply does not balance as well as a 40 S&W as it does in 9mm IMHO.

 

[Ash]

My point was not weakness of the Hi Power design in 9mm. Rather, it is that the cast frame HP's, being stronger, would have no issues with ammo. Too few words - two kids throwing up at one time limits what you say, I suppose.

 

[searcher6]

HP with SFS option

I have an FN High Power that came from the factory with the SFS option (Safe Fast System) from Cylinder and Slide. Simply rack the slide and push the hammer forward manually until it is down on the frame. The trigger stays in the rear (cocked) position. The safety is automatically engaged when you push the hammer forward. Disengaging the safety automatically causes the hammer to spring back to the rear (cocked) position, ready for single action fire. Works great. Looks beautiful with the deep blueing job and wood grips it came with. This one was actually made in Belgium (last ones available new in U.S.).

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Since the safety must be disengaged before the gun can be fired (when using the SFS mechanism), how does it improve on the more conventional cocked and locked approach? (The hammer can't catch on clothing or dig into your side?)

 

[searcher6]

No tactical advantage I know of. Just more politically correct to people who might see a cocked and locked gun and freak out. Maybe a little more snag free on the draw. I bought it because it was only available that way and most of the High Power gurus said they were reliable.

I believe it was the late Lt. Colonel Jeff Cooper who, when asked if his cocked and locked 1911 .45 wasn't dangerous replied, "Damn right it is."

 

[Kiln]

I get what you're saying, but comparing the two I think it's easier to ND the GLOCK than it is the CZ - just due to how long the trigger has to travel before firing a round in the CZ, and the CZ is only a pound lighter than the GLOCK at final pull. the little tab on the trigger of the GLOCK may provide some safety, but not much at all, and I have to try hard to snag the trigger on anything without depressing the trigger safety too...

either way, wanted to confirm that this is the rational, and that I still don't necessarily agree with it - but haven't convinced myself either way yet...

I wouldn't suggest it. The CZ75 with decocker is not safe when carried cocked at all. Just do the smart thing and either carry hammer down and learn to use DA for the first shot or practice cocking the gun on the draw during drills.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

And, as I noted in an earlier response, with Glock and other striker-fired guns with trigger safeties, it takes a direct pull to the rear to release the striker, disengaging the trigger safety mechanism a glancing blow won't do it. With a gun like the CZ decocker models, ANY movement of the trigger -- not just direct movement to the rear that includes the trigger safety lever -- will release the hammer.

You can argue that a push is a push, but there is a meaningful difference -- as a wider range of motion and applied force will make the CZ-style mechanism go boom than will make a Glock (or similar weapon) go boom.

(Note: I have several Glocks and love them at the range and in IDPA, but when things go thud in the night and I feel the need to get the gun and light and electronic muffs hearing protection out of my small bedside gun safe, it's a gun with a safety I feel most comfortable using. That's just me and NOT a condemnation of striker-fired trigger mechanisms. I'm often slow to wake and just not always as alert as I should be in those situations. The gun in the gun safe is almost always a SA weapon, cocked and locked.)

 

[dogtown tom]

searcher6 ....This one was actually made in Belgium (last ones available new in U.S.).

ALL FN/Browning Hi Powers are made in Belgium and assembled in Portugal, but only the HP's imported by Browning Arms are marked "Assembled in Portugal". Other than the rollmark, there is zero difference between the HP's imported by FNUSA/FNMI and those imported by Browning.

Walt Sherrill Since the safety must be disengaged before the gun can be fired (when using the SFS mechanism), how does it improve on the more conventional cocked and locked approach? (The hammer can't catch on clothing or dig into your side?)

Exactly.
The SFS hammer is tiny, making it virtually snag free.

 

[JTQ]

And the SFS, with the hammer down, looks less "scary" to those afraid of single action autos.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The HP has had trouble handling NATO ammo, which I think is equivelant to +P. The hotter loads have broke some HP's in Europe.

US M882 9mm ammo is a +P-ish load which conforms to NATO specs and puts a pretty good battering on pistols it is used heavily in (speaking from the experience of watching it smash a small mountain of Beretta locking blocks to pieces back when I was in a unit that trained extensively and hard at pistol work).

The full story on the High Power and NATO ammo is that in the late 70s/early 80s (IIRC) the SAS had a similar problem. SAS troops who were putting a lot of rounds through their issue WW2-vintage P-35s started having major mechanical failures. This was almost contemporaneous with the USN SEALs eating a few Beretta slides from catastrophic failures of the early M9 slides due to the mix of possibly spotty heat treatment on the slides and unquestionably heavy round counts through the guns.

Long story short -- if you train hard enough with any firearm you'll break it eventually. As noted up thread, any design issues with the WW2 vintage High Power was addressed in later marks of the pistol. However, unless you're planning to use the purchased pistol to become an IPSC Grandmaster or prep for national asset level Direct Action missions, you could probably safely run +P ammunition through High Power serial number #1 the rolled off the assembly line in 1935 or whatever and have exactly zero issues with it for the duration of your ownership of the pistol.