CZ v Glock: which is better in which aspect of use?

[Skribs]

Can we compare my sedan to my friend's pickup while we're at it?

Glock and CZ are fine guns, probably the top 2 duty sized guns recommended when someone asks "what gun should I get for CCW?" They operate a bit different, and I personally prefer Glock.

Glock may have the 20mm, but by and large it is designed as a combat weapon. It is a carry piece. Glock doesn't make anything else or really do anything different from gun to gun.

CZ makes different things for different purposes. They make good stuff, but I prefer striker fired over DA/SA, so a CZ is not likely in my future.

 

[justin22885]

ive handled and shot both, but own neither (currently carry revolvers) but if i was going to switch to an auto for a go-to pistol i would go for the CZ over the glock, i really like the customization options with metal guns, a nice blued steel finish with a walnut grip for example, and since i am used to revolvers im used to and actually prefer a little more weight

 

[Onmilo]

The CZ-83 you mentioned has almost nothing in common with the CZ-75 vs. Glock comparison... And I'm pretty sure THAT is the comparison being made. The CZ-83 is a much different design created by different designers... the '83 is a blowback design and really can't handle 9mm or larger caliber rounds. The CZ-83 is arguably one of the best blowback service pistols ever made (not just the best .32 semi-auto) -- giving the original Makarov a run for it's money. Others can address THAT debate.

The CZ design which isn't everyone's cup of tea, is only a year or two older than the Glock -- both were introduced in the mid 70's. The Glock is an elegantly simple design. Every time I work on one of mine, I'm amazed by the simplicity of the design, and how easily some parts of it can be tuned. I've even seen metal frames offered for sale -- probably for IPSC/USPSA competition.

Much is made of the CZ's ergonomics: how it fits the hand. Ergonomically, a Glock could be adapted to be as "friendly" to the shooter's hand as the CZ, and the fourth generation guns with the adjustable grips are a step in that direction. The trigger pull of the Glock, while less crisp than the CZ, is also much shorter. (Trigger pull length being a major drawback of the CZ's DA/SA [or is that SA/DA] design.)

SA/DA? The CZ was a also big departure from the standard designs of the time, too -- offering a SA start if you wanted it, plus DA functionality. In recent years -- CZ is just now really catching on here in the U.S., aftermarket parts are available to make the triggers truly outstanding, and the cost of these parts are reasonable. (Drop-in hammers and trigger-pull reduction kits change the very nature of the gun.)

Had the CZ been designed in the West, this discussion might have taken a different course -- as for the first 10-15 years of the CZ's service life it was almost impossible to get one in the West. (Western nations embargoed most of Soviet Bloc exports.) The CZ designers really built a gun for export to the West -- it wasn't designed for military use. The Western embargo kept it from catching on until the fall of the Soviet Union (although Tanfoglio began making copies in the '80s.)

The earliest CZs that came to the West (through Canada) were very expensive: $1000 or so in the mid '70s. Later, GIs serving in Germany could buy them through their base or post exchanges -- and when you find one without import marks, that's often how it got here. But CZs stayed RARE -- until Tanfoglio "borrowed" the design and started making clones that eventually subtly changed. (Tanfoglio no longer makes clones, but does make excellent CZ-pattern guns, as do a number of firms in Turkey. China makes them too, but we can't get them here in the U.S. from China.)

Had the Communist nations been a bit more flexible with their licensing practices, CZ might have stayed in control of the CZ design. CZ did license the CZ design to a firm in Switzerland, and the original ITM AT-84 was a true CZ clone. At least one firm in Great Britain also built a true CZ clone. The later AT-84s, which is based on the Tanfoglio version of the design, is still a close copy, but no longer a true clone. That Swiss firm, ITM, went on through sales and mergers to become part of another firm that still makes CZ-pattern guns: Sphinx. Their guns have long been considered the best of the CZ "copies." My two best "CZs" -- a semi-custom AT-84s and a Sphinx SDP -- were both made in Switzerland.

We hear a lot about the standard CZs but little is said about their IPSC and USPSA guns. These guns are far more costly and in effect, semi-custom/custom guns. The CZ Custom Shop builds comparable weapons, and Cajun Gun Works can, too. I'm not sure whether Glock has comparable guns from the factory, and I don't know of a Glock Custom Shop -- but after-market shops and parts suppliers give Glock shooters the ability to go that route should they choose to do so. (Remember the metal Glock frame.)

Take a CZ83 and a CZ75 apart and you'll see the similarities right away.
Only difference is the 83 is a blowback action and the 75 is a locked breech.
Both copying examples of pre existing design.

Don't despair so much, I consider every "Double Action" pistol design to be in the same realm as that 1911/ single action revolver, not just the CZ pistols....

 

[tipoc]

I believe the CZ83 has more in common with the Walther PP and PPK and Makarov, then with the CZ75.

While there is some difference with the operation of the safeties between the 82/83 and the Walther the take down is similar and it is a fixed breech blow back. I haven't looked at the schematics recently but I believe the trigger mechanism is not like the CZ75. I don't think CZ in the U.S. is carrying them anymore.

Anyway I don't think the 83 or the CZ52 were a part of what the op was considering in the first place.

I'd encourage the op to get a Glock of their choice (a 19 is a good place to start) and to get a CZ 75B or any other of their products. Study the differences in the best possible way.

tipoc

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Take a CZ83 and a CZ75 apart and you'll see the similarities right away.
Only difference is the 83 is a blowback action and the 75 is a locked breech.

Both copying examples of pre existing design.

Tell us, exactly, what parts of the CZ75 design copies earlier designs? Maybe I've missed something, but it seems quite different than just about anything out there when you start into the details.

I have detailed stripped both the CZ-82 and CZ-75. I see both similarities between them and dissimilarities. But since both built by the same organization and the CZ-75 came first, you'd expect some similarities.

You then go on to say the only difference between the two guns is that the CZ 82 is a blowback action and the 75 is a locked breech? Pretty big difference, actually. That's a little bit like saying the only difference between two boats is that one is a speed boat and the other is a submarine.

When the CZ designers were tasked with building a replacement for the VZ-52, a true beast of a gun, they apparently didn't care for the Makarov. (They could have just TWEAKED that design and made it double-stack with some nice extra features.) Their new CZ-82 design had 50% more capacity and used the same 9x18 round as the Mak. Their new design was, in my opinion, more pleasant to shoot, but also offered an ambi safety and ambi mag release. The CZ-82 was the only service weapon with all those features at the time. (Even the CZ75 didn't have all of those features until many years later!) Many service pistols still don't...

You see similarites I see differences: as noted, the CZ-82/83 had ambidextrous controls, the 75 didn't. The entire trigger/sear/hammer assemblies are quite different. The CZ-82/83 is really a bit more complex and disassembly is more time-consuming. The CZ 75 had a mag brake, the 82/83 didn't. One had a slide that rode inside the frame, the other outside... The CZ can shoot 9mm and .40; the CZ can't. And, of course, one is locked breech and the other has a fixed barrel.

Don't despair so much, I consider every "Double Action" pistol design to be in the same realm as that 1911/ single action revolver, not just the CZ pistols....

I suspect you meant to say "DA/SA design..." like SIGs and CZs and Berettas. And, I'm not feeling any despair -- I'm both a CZ and Glock fan. I like other designs, too.

Funny, isn't, that there's a lot more DA/SA Berettas and SIGs and CZs in military use than Glocks and other striker-fired guns? U.S. LEO agencies like Glocks, to be sure, but militaries around the world have been much slower to get on the Glock band wagon. Only the British have gone that route recently, replacing their BHPs.

Most of the striker-fired guns are now called Double Action, but they're really something else -- as slide movement is needed the partially charge the striker before the trigger will work.

I do love the 1911 trigger. If Glock could ever develop a trigger like that, it'd arguably take over the gun world, polymer frame notwithstanding. It hasn't, yet. Maybe it'll be up to Walther or H&K to take on that challenge. Indeed, if the new H&K VP9 is as good as they say, Glock may be in for a real challenge.

CZ triggers, properly tuned, can be very 1911-like, and the new polymer CZs are starting to catch on, too. While I like striker-fired guns a lot (and have several), I'm very impressed with the trigger of the CZ-P07 and CZ-P09.

I'd say that whether a design is old or based on older design feature, or whether it's totally new isn't really as important as how well the design works and how well its implemented.

.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Comparing my Gen3 17 to my CZ 75B;

Reliability - Glock
Accuracy - CZ
Durability - Tossup
Self Defense - Glock
Home Defense - Tossup
Sports (fun at the range) - CZ
Hunting, etc. - N/A

I Enjoy Both, and would recommend owning both to anybody!

JDR has it right.

Deaf

 

[tipoc]

To the OP. You may also want to take a look at the S&W M&P line of guns. For many shooters they are more ergonomic than Glocks and the triggers, with an Apex kit installed, can be quite good. Glock has recently been losing some ground to them in law enforcement sales in the U.S. Some of the changes Glock has made with the Gen 4 guns are a response to the advances that you can see in the M&P line and in what both Walther and H&K have done.

That's not meant to discourage you from Glock but to point out that there are other options.

tipoc

 

[jmr40]

I think most people will shoot a CZ more accurately if the goal it to put 3-10 bullet holes as close together on a paper target than a Glock. I'm referring to the CZ-75 and it's variants, not the compact and other versions.

As a combat/SD weapon the Glock is a much better design and a better choice. And the difference in accuracy is much less than most think.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Take a CZ83 and a CZ75 apart and you'll see the similarities right away.
Only difference is the 83 is a blowback action and the 75 is a locked breech.Both copying examples of pre existing design

First of all that is a big difference not a similarity and secondly Glock uses a locked breech too! :banghead:

 

[9 fingers]

They are both guns and that is about all they have in common. Pick the one you like better. They are both good at what they do. But I own a CZ and not a Glock. I want my guns to LOOK and FEEL good too.
9 fingers

 

[TomJ]

I have the Gen 3 Glock 27, 19 and 30S as well as the Gen 4 23. I also recently picked up the CZ 75 Compact and P07. They're all fantastic, and I wouldn't trade any of them.

The CZ's in SA have one of my favorite trigger pulls. In DA it's too long of a pull for me, but we can file that under personal preference. The grip and overall ergonomics of the CZ are, for me, better than any other gun I own. What the CZ has going against it as a CCW is it's weight. The 75 is too heavy for me to carry (injured back), where the P07 may be carried once I recover.

The Glocks are much easier for me to carry due to their weight, and the 27 is especially easy to conceal. With 10 rounds of .40 in a small package, it gets carried often. I tend to be more comfortable with the consistency of Glock's trigger pull, as I don't need to "learn" 2 different pulls as you do with DA/SA, unless you want to carry cocked and locked.

In regards to reliability, I'd trust any of them as CC or HD weapons.

Finally, I shoot the CZ in SA as accurately as any gun I own. I'm comfortable with my accuracy with my Glocks, although I won't win any competitions, and we won't discuss what I do with the CZ's in DA. There's much work needed there.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Finally, I shoot the CZ in SA as accurately as any gun I own. I'm comfortable with my accuracy with my Glocks, although I won't win any competitions, and we won't discuss what I do with the CZ's in DA. There's much work needed there.

Don't be too hard on yourself about that DA trigger -- it gives a lot of people problems. But, you have options!

1) carry cocked and locked.

2) carry with the hammer on the half-cock notch. (slightly shorter pull and lighter, too.) You can't do this in IDPA or USPSA competition (Production or Stock Service Pistol divisions), but otherwise it's fine (and safe -- that's where the decocker models start from.) Because of the firing pin safety, nothing will happen unless you pull the trigger.

3) Install the trigger from the PCR or other "compact" CZ models. The trigger has a greater curve and it makes reaching the trigger easier.

4) get a slightly lighter hammer spring. It makes the trigger a bit more manageable. The trigger will seem smoother, too.

5) talk to someone at the CZ Custom Shop or Cajun Gun Works about their "short trigger/reset" kits.

6) Convert to SA mode, and get the straight, two-way adjustable trigger. (Adjustable for take up and over-travel.) That, and a competition hammer will change things dramatically!)

Options 1 or 2 cost nothing, 3 isn't too bad, 4 is cheap, and only 5 or 6 adds up to $ -- but not a lot if you can do it yourself.

 

[TomJ]

Don't be too hard on yourself about that DA trigger -- it gives a lot of people problems. But, you have options!

1) carry cocked and locked.

2) carry with the hammer on the half-cock notch. (slightly shorter pull and lighter, too.) You can't do this in IDPA or USPSA competition (Production or Stock Service Pistol divisions), but otherwise it's fine (and safe -- that's where the decocker models start from.) Because of the firing pin safety, nothing will happen unless you pull the trigger.

3) Install the trigger from the PCR or other "compact" CZ models. The trigger has a greater curve and it makes reaching the trigger easier.

4) get a slightly lighter hammer spring. It makes the trigger a bit more manageable. The trigger will seem smoother, too.

5) talk to someone at the CZ Custom Shop or Cajun Gun Works about their "short trigger/reset" kits.

6) Convert to SA mode, and get the straight, two-way adjustable trigger. (Adjustable for take up and over-travel.) That, and a competition hammer will change things dramatically!)

Options 1 or 2 cost nothing, 3 isn't too bad, 4 is cheap, and only 5 or 6 adds up to $ -- but not a lot if you can do it yourself.

Walt,

Thanks for the information. The P07 is new, and I've only put about 100 rounds through it. Assuming I carry it once my back heals, I'll probably do so half cocked. It's a smooth trigger pull and not that long when half cocked.

Tom

 

[Onmilo]

First of all that is a big difference not a similarity and secondly Glock uses a locked breech too! :banghead:

So does the Beretta! :banghead:

The points you guys miss while fanning up the CZ is simply amazing,,,,

 

[JR24]

Walt,

Thanks for the information. The P07 is new, and I've only put about 100 rounds through it. Assuming I carry it once my back heals, I'll probably do so half cocked. It's a smooth trigger pull and not that long when half cocked.

Tom

I had the same growing pain with my P-07 on the first range trip in regards to the DA pull. Few hundred more rounds and I get that first round off as quick and every bit as accurately as any of my Glocks. I surprised myself in how easily the DA-SA transition feels natural to me (I like to ride the reset in shooting strings anyway) so the change is a non-issue.

Long story short, its not too bad if you start with a nice, smooth DA pull.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

So does the Beretta!:banghead:

The points you guys miss while fanning up the CZ is simply amazing,,,,

And so does virtually every other 9mm or higher semi-auto service pistol in world. Can't think of many blowback 9mms (except for the Hi-Point).

I wasn't "fanning up CZ" -- as I said, I like Glocks, too. And S&W M&P Pros, and BHPs. (That last one is a really old design... and while attributed to Browning, probably more the work of a guy named Dieudonné Saive, who was Browning's assistant at FN, and who invented the double-stack mag.)

My point was that the similarities between the CZ-82/83 and the CZ-75 were natural, seeing as both were built by the same organization -- and in fact, the CZ-82/83 design took things a bit farther than the CZ-75 design did, adding an ambi-safety and ambi mag release seldom seen in a service pistol.

Internally, there are similarities -- but also many differences, not the least of them being the ability of the CZ-75 to handle larger caliber rounds due to it's tilting barrel/locked breech design. That's a pretty profound difference, and a POINT that you seem to want to consider trivial. It's not. :banghead:

You also claimed that the CZ-75 was based on older designs. Offer us some evidence to substantiate that claim. Note: people say the slide inside the frame is like the SIG P210, but it wasn't originated by the SIG P-210 (M49) and first seen in the French Modele 1935. I'll give you that one -- but can you think of anything else? Is there any substance behind the currently unsubstantiated claim?

.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Thanks for the information. The P07 is new, and I've only put about 100 rounds through it. Assuming I carry it once my back heals, I'll probably do so half cocked. It's a smooth trigger pull and not that long when half cocked.

For some reason I inferred Compact 75B when I read your comments, and ignored the P-07 mention. Some of the suggestions about different triggers and trigger kits (and things available for the traditional 75B mechanism (like drop-in hammers) won't apply to the P-07. Cajun Gun Works, however, is coming out with new stuff for the P-07, so check that site from time to time. http://www.cajungunworks.com

I picked up a used P-07 recently, and shot it for the second time yesterday. I am very impressed. I recently saw a YouTube video comparing the P-07 to the new Sphinx SDP, and it's an interesting evaluation. I also have a Sphinx SDP and generally agree with the video's conclusions: the SDP is a great gun and the P-07 is a great value... the difference in performance wasn't as great as the difference in price but I think both are worth the price asked -- and the P-07 is arguably available new for less than half the price of the Sphinx SDP. I like both of them and have no plans to get rid of either. But I also like a number of other guns that aren't based on the CZ Pattern (or the new P-07/P-09 pattern.)

.

 

[AustinTX]

Take a CZ83 and a CZ75 apart and you'll see the similarities right away.
Only difference is the 83 is a blowback action and the 75 is a locked breech.
Both copying examples of pre existing design.

Which significant feature of a Glock isn't copied from a preexisting design?

 

[Armor Snail]

If there's a need... There's a CZ solution.

 

[el Godfather]

If there's a need... There's a CZ solution.

Thats quite a statement.