1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Would you trade a S&W 638 for a CZ Rami P 9mm?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Glockedout17, Apr 3, 2012.

  1. Glockedout17

    Glockedout17 Well-Known Member

    Hey guys,

    I'm having a dilemma here. I have been reading about the short life expectancy of the S&W aluminum Airweights and to tell you the truth it's bothering me , because I like to shoot alot. I recently bought an aluminum Smith and Wesson model 638 j-frame and haven't been out to shoot it, so basically it's still in brand new condition. I was talking to a guy at the range and he said that he would trade me his Like New in Box CZ Rami P 9mm for my Brand New in Box S&W 638. His gun has about 300 rds through it ( so he claims) and mine has none. I was wondering would I be better off keeping my 638 or is this a good trade off? I like the look of the CZ and I want to know will it's Polymer frame surpass the life expectancy of the Aluminum frame 638? I need some help and expert advice. Thanks in advance guys
  2. Godsgunman

    Godsgunman Well-Known Member

    I would definitely take him up on the trade. CZs are nice, reliable, and very accurate. In my opinion you would be coming out on top for that trade. Since you met at the range I would ask him for a "test drive" to make sure you like how it works for you. If it were me I would do it in a heart beat.
  3. skt239

    skt239 Well-Known Member

    Not in a million years. Your 638 will out last you.
  4. jmr40

    jmr40 Well-Known Member

    As a rule plastic frames have proven to have the longest life expectency, aluminum alloy the shortest.

    I still wouldn't trade, if you can afford enough ammo to wear out either, you can afford to replace the guns several times over.

    CZ = overrated
  5. jon86

    jon86 Well-Known Member

    You haven't even shot the 638? You might fall in love with the little j frame.
  6. Glockedout17

    Glockedout17 Well-Known Member

    Your right, I should shoot my 638 and see if I like it. You see the thing is, is that I want a gun that will outlast me and not have to worry about this frame wearing in the next 10 years (considering that i'm still alive). From since I read about aluminum frames having the shortest life expectancy, I labeled the gun not durable.
  7. dcarch

    dcarch Well-Known Member

    I would do that trade, personally. CZs are good pistols.
  8. contender

    contender Well-Known Member

    if you are going to pocket carry....638.
    if you need a backup gun.....638.

    if you need a primary belt gun......cz.
  9. ClickClickD'oh

    ClickClickD'oh Well-Known Member

    You do realize the CZ 2075 and not the -75B is the firearm in question right?
  10. contender

    contender Well-Known Member

    yes............the cz from the get-go is around 12 oz heavier unloaded than the 638 and considerably more bulky in dimensions........not exactly what i would call a snag-free pocket gun....at least for my pockets.

    and not everyone wants to carry a full-size firearm such as the cz75 for owb/iwb carry all day long. The smaller cz would be a good choice for belt carry if ccw is in mind. the 638 has the advantage for pocket carry.

    if this is just a range toy, then i'll pass on both and definately go with a cz.....preferably a model 85
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2012
  11. thefamcnaj

    thefamcnaj Well-Known Member

    Make the trade imho. I love the rami. Its accurate and has good ergos and is a fantastic all around piece. CZ is not at all over rated by any stretch of the imigination. Of course I'm a little bias to plastic auto loaders :). Not much of a wheel gunner.
  12. skt239

    skt239 Well-Known Member

    The Rami is not a small or light gun and certainly not pocketable. As someone else said, it's better suited for OWB/IWB.


    What did you read that made you label the 638 "not durable"? Could you provide us with a link or source? Was the article specifically about S&W's? The author clearly didn't take into account how long the aluminum J-frame has been around and how many are still serviceable after 50+ years. The contemporary J-frame is built on a stronger frames then those 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and even 60 year old revolvers that are still around and holding up fine.

    So, how about a link or source?
  13. Fat Boy

    Fat Boy Well-Known Member

    Apples and oranges, in my opinion- both good firearms for their intended purpose-

    Do you want a revolver or semi? and so forth.

    Good Luck!
  14. Axel Larson

    Axel Larson Well-Known Member

    I love my 638 so, I would keep it but if you prefer the cz go for it, but do not worry about how long the 638 is going to last.
  15. TennJed

    TennJed Well-Known Member

    Shoot yours first then his, then decide
  16. postalnut25

    postalnut25 Well-Known Member

    Keep the 638. If you are worried about the life expectancy of the aluminum alloy frame, then shoot standard loads instead of hotter +P loads. Should last a LOOONNG time.
  17. Glockedout17

    Glockedout17 Well-Known Member

    Here is the link you asked for. If it doesn't work just type "J-frame Life expectancy?" in the search engine. It's a thread from this site.


    In it they talk about an aluminum j-frame having a maximum round count of 5,000 - 10,000 rds. They also say that aluminum alloy has the most shortest life expectancy and that Polymer is more durable, flexable, and has a longer life expectancy than aluminum.

    Here's another link: http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-370611.html

    Then again, I don't know much about guns period (that's where you guys come in) and I get most of my knowledge by reading and hanging out at competitions. Is this round count thing true? I just want something durable and something that I can shoot and not worry about . Thanks for the advice so far guys
  18. Axel Larson

    Axel Larson Well-Known Member

    I will admit that a glock may last longer than a 638 but for normal target loads and if you clean the gun regularly the round count should be past 10,000 easy.
  19. bannockburn

    bannockburn Well-Known Member

    All I know is I have yet to wear out any alloy framed gun nor have any of my friends ever worn out any alloy gun that they have owned. You bought the Model 638 for a reason and you still haven't even shot it yet. Give it a try, see if you actually like it, and if so keep it. If not then try the CZ out and if you like that more than the Model 638, then make the trade.
  20. ClickClickD'oh

    ClickClickD'oh Well-Known Member

    S&W 638:
    Height: 4.2"
    Width: 1.3"
    Length: 6.3"
    Weight: 15.1 ounces

    CZ 2075
    Height: 4.7"
    Width: 1.25"
    Length: 6.5"
    Weight: 23.5 ounces

    So, the 2075 is a half inch taller and 8 ounces heavier. It's the same width and almost exactly the same length. Not exactly "considerably more bulky"

    Huh, that's funny. I pocket carried a RAMI P for years. It's funny what you learn isn't possible from the internet after having personally done it.

    Given the above information on the actual dimension of the 2075, do you want to still maintain that it isn't a legitimate pocket gun? I hope that if you still maintain that it isn't, that you would at least be consistent and say that the 638 also isn't... given their very similar dimensions.

    Also, remember that we are talking about the smallest of CZs four size offerings:

    CZ-75/85: Full sized
    CZ-75/85 Semi Compact: Full sized frame, short barrel.
    CZ-75 Compact/PCR/P-01: Compact
    CZ 2075 RAMI: Semi-Compact

    Hence why statements such as, "and not everyone wants to carry a full-size firearm such as the cz75 for owb/iwb carry all day long. The smaller cz would be a good choice for belt carry if ccw is in mind." make me wonder if you have the right CZ in mind. If the primary purpose is going to be on the belt carry, the RAMI offers zero advantage over the Compact/PCR line and is in fact hindered by it's smaller grip size. The CZ-75 Compact/PCR/P-01 series would be the right one to look at for on the belt concealed carry.

Share This Page