(Sorry, but another one on ...) Cz v. the Clones
- Thread starter yhtomit
- Start date
- Status
I kind of cracks me up that anyone could ever call a Tanfoglio/Sarsilmaz pistol "upscale."
These are the "upscale" CZs...
SPHINX
http://www.sphinx-systems.ch/en/index_en.html
ITM
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2200/2215.htm
Sphinx actually bought out ITM.
If CZ is a Chrevolet, then the AR-24 is at best a Buick (maybe more like a Pontiac). Sphinx is the Cadillac of CZs.
These are the "upscale" CZs...
SPHINX
http://www.sphinx-systems.ch/en/index_en.html
ITM
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2200/2215.htm
Sphinx actually bought out ITM.
If CZ is a Chrevolet, then the AR-24 is at best a Buick (maybe more like a Pontiac). Sphinx is the Cadillac of CZs.
I’m sorry, if this post is becoming repetitive, but my reasons for stating that the AR-24 is a higher quality handgun is
- Forgings: Both slide and frame are forged steel. The frame on the CZ is cast, and perhaps this is sufficient, but perhaps it may not be over time. Nonetheless, apparently CZ believes their forgings are stronger than their cast as they too use the more expensive forgings for their slides.
- Extractor: The extractor is noticeably more massive on the AR-24 than on the CZ’s. I like the overkill. It gives one the feeling of wearing suspenders and a belt.
- Firing Pin Stop: The AR-24 uses a 1911 firing pin stop instead to the roll pin used by CZ. I always felt the roll pin was a little cheesey. Anyway, if you dry fire, or simply like to be able to detail clean, or easily replace the firing pin spring, then you’ll appreciate this feature.
- Ergonomics: The ergonomics to me are just a little nicer on the AR-24. I have always liked the ergonomics of the CZ, but the AR-24’s back strap is a little more recessed. This makes it easier to reach the safety, and to pull the trigger in DA mode. The palm swell grips are a comfortable touch too.
- Appearance: I’m not particularly fond of a squared trigger guard. This is a personal taste of mine, so I was glad to see the AR-24 has a rounded guard. It looks a lot slicker. I feel this makes the lines a little more aesthetically pleasing.
- Craftsmanship: You will find little or no tool marks on or in the AR-24. It is real old time craftsmanship.
- Trigger Pull: The trigger pull on the AR-24 is simply better. There is no looooong camming sensation one experiences with a CZ’s trigger pull. Also, the firing pin safety spring actually releases when the trigger is pulled. The CZ design compresses the firing pin safety spring as the trigger is being pulled.
Those are exactly the reasons I bought mine. I got back from a range session - I am coming to the bottom of my 1000 rounds of Georgia Arms ammo. I had a really good time at the range (I can go over lunch).
I am not sure that I agree with the Chevrolet/Buick analogy - or the Honda/Accord that I thought of. I think that Chevrolet and Buick share 95% of their parts, where there are no actual parts in common (I don't think) between the AR 24 and the other CZ clones.
I think of it as a different implementation of the same (or a similar) design. More like all the different 1911s out there.
Mike
The analogy was referring to the price point and marketing, not parts compatability.
Whether or not the AR-24 is "better" than a CZ-75 is another discussion for another day (at least as far as I'm concerned).
The point is that I wouldn't call them "upscale" CZs when there are clones out there that sell for over $1,000.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, just suggesting that most people don't consider Buicks to be particularly "upscale" when there are Cadillacs out there competing with them.
Wolfman_556
Member
The opinion of a Cadillac being better than a Buick or other car is just that... opinion. It depends on what your definition of "better" is.
The same applies to firearms.
For example:
Firearm A has better machining than Firearm B. This means it's "better" even though Firearm B is just as accurate and reliable as Firearm A.
To another person, Firearm B is "better" because it's just as good functionally and costs substantially less.
Sometimes a clone is worse than the original. Sometimes the clone actually improves the design. Humans have always done this. The Europeans copied and then modified each other's weapons and armor for centuries. In the big picture, many important improvements and developments happened along the way. There were some mistakes and poor designs along the way too.
The CZ-75B is a clone of the Hi-Power somewhat. I'm a huge Hi-Power fan. I can compare my 75B to my FN Hi-Power and conclude (in my opinion) that the Czech clone of the Hi-Power improved the design greatly.
You might prefer the slide mounted safety/decocker of the CZ clones to be improvements and if these or other differences work better for you, then indeed they are.
The same applies to firearms.
For example:
Firearm A has better machining than Firearm B. This means it's "better" even though Firearm B is just as accurate and reliable as Firearm A.
To another person, Firearm B is "better" because it's just as good functionally and costs substantially less.
Sometimes a clone is worse than the original. Sometimes the clone actually improves the design. Humans have always done this. The Europeans copied and then modified each other's weapons and armor for centuries. In the big picture, many important improvements and developments happened along the way. There were some mistakes and poor designs along the way too.
The CZ-75B is a clone of the Hi-Power somewhat. I'm a huge Hi-Power fan. I can compare my 75B to my FN Hi-Power and conclude (in my opinion) that the Czech clone of the Hi-Power improved the design greatly.
You might prefer the slide mounted safety/decocker of the CZ clones to be improvements and if these or other differences work better for you, then indeed they are.
But a 1911 type slide stop is still superior to a roll pin type regardless if you call it a Buick or not. Same goes for many other traits of the AR-24. I'm still keeping my CZ, and it was worth the purchase. But my next CZ type will be another AR-24. I like the adjustable sight model.
atblis
Member
The forging versus casting thing is a marketing ploy. CZs have been run through the ringer already and frame failures are far and few between (never seen one actually). Why spend more money on a process that is clearly not superior for the application? In fact, that is just straight up bad engineering.
Those are two different parts with two different functions and very likely different loads applied as well. Cast can be as strong as a forging. Heck, cast parts are used in some very high stress applications like propellers.
It really comes down to which makes the most sense from a tooling and maching standpoint. It costs a lot of money to produce a casting mold. If the part would require enough machining operations and the volume is high enough, a company can amortize this cost....that is if they have the capital to pay for it. The slide vs. the frame are two really good examples of where the machining varies a great deal. The slide has a bunch of straight cuts and drill holes. It basically a bar of steel with grooves and holes. The frame, on the other hand can have a lot more curves and and cavities that can be difficult and expensive to machine.
One other thing to consider. If you cast the part can be very near finish tolerance, with only some minor despruing and polishing required. This means that the parts are consistent...one after the other. Machining is much more prone to quality manufacturing problems.
By the way, anyone who thinks cast is inferior should go out and try to destroy a Ruger P95 slide. I've never heard of one failing.
Finally, there is a little bit of marketing that goes on where forged is used to sell products. You can see the same thing with metal slide guides molded into polymer frames. A properly designed glass filled plastic slide guide will not fail...it absorbs impact and actually has lubricity properties. Again look at the Ruger P95. The plastic slide guides on their frame never fail.
The CZ P-01 and SP-01 use forged frames. However, I have never heard any issues with problems with their cast frames. I don't think that should be a con to the CZ.
Dobe,
I appreciate that list. I did not know those other characteristics of the AR-24. I may have to find one to look at. While I won't be selling my CZ's it doesn't hurt to have other alternatives.
Whether or not it is a con, depends on your preference. If the SP-01 uses a forged frame, and we all know that forged frames are more expensive, then one must ask why? Someone is either demanding it from the market or CZ sees the necessity.
I don't wish for this to appear as an attack on CZ's. My post are meant to be objective; I have no stock in Armalite. I own no other Armalite firearm at this time.
Last edited:
Amen to everything Dobe says! Ive been a CZ nut for years and remember people allways asking "What the hell is a CZ?" Obviously I love the CZ platform and I love CZ's and still own a few but I got to tell you that AR-24 is one fine handgun. Im extremely happy with mine and will keep it forever. Just my 4 cents worth(adj. for inflation)
yhtomit
Member
No, I don't mind that in the least -- that's exactly what I hoped some of these answers would cast light on. Thanks.
timothy
atblis
Member
Hmm
Where are you guys getting that the SP01 has a forged frame? Every indication I've ever seen has been that it's investment cast.
EDIT: Also, I was always under the impression that their slides are also cast.
Where are you guys getting that the SP01 has a forged frame? Every indication I've ever seen has been that it's investment cast.
EDIT: Also, I was always under the impression that their slides are also cast.
I have been pretty pleased with the CZs I have..all seem strong, nicely done. The main reason I go with CZ over all the other clones better or not is that they support the games I shoot. CZ-USA is a big sponsor and supporter of USPSA, IDPA and Steel Challenge.
The other do not. CZ-USA fields a team of Angus, Matt Mink and Kelly Neal. In the US, Tanfoglio, Armalite, Magnum Research do not. The closest is that Henning Walfgren shoots under Tanfoglio..but the USA importer EAA does not support the action shooting sports.
So..that is my reason that CZ gets my nod. Just as STI/SV, Caspian and a few others.
The other do not. CZ-USA fields a team of Angus, Matt Mink and Kelly Neal. In the US, Tanfoglio, Armalite, Magnum Research do not. The closest is that Henning Walfgren shoots under Tanfoglio..but the USA importer EAA does not support the action shooting sports.
So..that is my reason that CZ gets my nod. Just as STI/SV, Caspian and a few others.
The CZ is not in any way, shape, or form a Hi-Power Clone. There is 0% parts compatability. They can't always use the same generic holsters, for crying out loud. According to CZ-UB, the inspiration for the CZ 75 was the S&W Model 59, not the Hi-Power or SIG P-210.
Again, people are missing the point. In the "CZ World," the Swiss pistols are universally considered the best CZ pattern pistols. Whether that is the case or not is open to debate. The fact that they get all of the "respect" is not open to debate.
- Status