How does the CZ 75 stack up in quality and reliability with Glock 17 or Beretta 92?

accepting for errors in process I would say the quality of metal parts to be equal
1) glock cheats to win durability because there are less parts to malfunction
2) springs are not the failing point per say most of them are equal by nature all have a fairly equal duty cycle
3)the barrel life is not the issue, its the locking block on berettas that fail and cause the slide to malfunction if not changed
4 ) qc is prolly fairly relative here, Ive not seen issues on any of the three with poor qc on the chatrooms. certainly not the Beretta I do know many people issued their m9 were grumbly but they were issued clapped out run through govt guns.
5)the combo of polymer frame and tenifer finish prolly are the most weather resistant. But ive also seen a big dog chew a glock grip up. not happening with aluminum.
6) ive not been able to limp wrist the glock or beretta and I tried intentionally trying to see if I could get at an awkward angle and lock it up. like as if I was in a grapple over the gun or injured to test it. have not tried it with the cz style guns. never seen much on failures to extract with any either. I literally know someone that accidentally loaded a 40 cal bullet in a 9mm shell on accident yes it was mangled a bit. found it in the sweep up. It was a glock that ate it without a hiccup.

Man, I got to shoot a CZ-75 today. I was shooting my STI and the guy next to me was shooting the CZ. I haven't picked one up in years. What a tack driver!! He liked my 1911 too. Took to it like a fish to water.

Still, he was telling that he was getting it sent off to get some parts replaced. He said something about pins.

TheProf said:

What I meant by Quality and durability comparison is something along the lines of...

Who has more durable parts? And why are those parts more durable?
Who uses the best springs?
Which one uses springs less likely to break?
Who uses longer lasting barrels?
Which of the three gun models uses better quality control?
They all come with metal parts...but which ones are more rust resistant?
In terms of engineering design, which one is less likely to have limp writing issues, Kaboom issues, failure to feed, failure to extract, etc.

You get the idea.

Click to expand...

As far as parts and springs go there is no way to get a definitive answer about that. Whoever favors brand ( ) will probably say they have the best quality parts and springs. I’ve seen people talk about locking blocks in berettas, slide stop pins in cz’s, and trigger return springs in glocks all failing. As far as barrels go I’ve yet to see or hear anyone who says they shot a barrel out of any of these handguns. Of the endurance testing that is documented like say Todd Greens where some pistols go over 90,000 rounds accuracy is still there. By design the polygonal rifling of the glock should last longer, but I’ve yet to see a traditional land and groove barrel shot out. And if you do shoot one out please believe you’ve spent a small fortune on ammo and bought the gun several times over. Test prove heat is what shoots a barrel out, like machine gun fire non stop until the barrel is glowing red.

As far as rust goes I’ve seen something on every gun manufacturer rust. I’ve had a s&w, sig, hk, glock, cz, ruger, and beretta all rust somewhere on the pistol when carried and not kept an eye on closely. Everything from decockers, sights, barrels, magazine releases, and slides I’ve seen at least surface rust on all these pistols. Not every pistol of said brand did but every brand did rust at some point on one of their firearms that I owned. I must have high acidity levels in my sweat I guess lol. With that said the only gun manufacturer that I’ve never had rust on me is walther. I have 2 ppq’s that have never rusted anywhere after years of carry, not yet anyway.

These are all military and police issued firearms around the globe so quality control is a wash there also. Kabooms and limp wristing are gonna be owned by glock for several reasons. For one polymer kabooms easier than metal, for two the unsupported chamber of the Glock barrel that makes it most reliable is also the one ingredient that exacerbates a kaboom. Also the polymer frame flexes which also gives limp wristing more dynamic for causing a malfunction. But I will say my 2 daughters and wife have never had a malfunction due to limp wristing any of my pistols, including my glocks, and they due limp wrist a little just because they are small women with not as strong wrist and shooting technique.

Failure to feed or extract is a wash here also in my opinion. One design might technically be less prone to these malfunctions but non of these brands hardly have a reputation for these type malfunctions. So basically what I’m saying here is all you’re gonna get is personal opinion that will vary from person to person. There is no true definitive answer and all are great gun manufacturers. My personal experience might be different from the next persons.

I can post you a video or thread of someone who has a lemon glock, beretta, or cz. But those who have had positive experiences with these brands far outweigh those who haven’t.

Otto said:

Guns are like wives, it only matters what YOU choose. But it would be nice if I had as many wives as I did guns.

Click to expand...

You must not have been using hearing protection.

I don't own any Glocks, they have no appeal to me. I have friends who love them, along with friends who love XD's, and others who love S&W M&P polymer guns. Not for me, thanks. I don't understand their appeal, the S&W's are the best looking of those 3, by far, IMHO, but all seem...disposable.

I've owned 4 or 5 Beretta 92's of various submodels, going back to the late 70's, and anytime I sell one of them, I start looking for another one. Right now, I have a Taurus PT92AF, and that takes care of my 92 lust, but eventually, I will get another Inox 92 FS. CZ's and clones are my favorites. I only own one "real" CZ, a P07 from the CZ custom shop. I like it, but I don't love it. I do love the full sized all steel CZ's and the Tanfoglio, SAR, and Tri-Star/Canik clones. I have a bunch of those, and they rank at the top of my favorites list, even above my Sig P226 SSE, and P229 with work done on it. Nothing fits my hand as well as an older Tanfoglio TA/88 or TA/90, like this one:

The beaver tail is perfectly placed, and the grips, while having seen better days, are great too, partially because the checkering is worn down a little and isn't "filelike" as some grips are. The SA trigger is fantastic and while the DA trigger is heavy, it's very smooth as this gun is about 30 years old and had been shot a lot before I got it, but it wasn't abused. The one in my avatar isn't as perfect as the above gun is, but it's pretty close, and I like the squared off triggerguard too.

One more thing here to reintegrate my point about shooting a barrel out. Let’s say your barrel would only be good for 50,000 rounds, which is not the case for any of these major manufacturers. Factory target/range 9mm can be had normally for around $9.99 for box of 50, so about $.20 a round. By the time you would reach 50,000 rounds you would have spent $10,000. If you can somehow reload and bring your cost down to say $.10 a round that’s still $5,000 on target ammunition. With that said you can get a new barrel for these guns for under $200. See what I’m saying here? Shooting a barrel out is the least of anyone’s concerns

"Beretta would be the top even though I dislike the slide mounted safety/decocker."

The Taurus version has a frame-mounted safety/decocker, which is one reason some people like them better. That's why my FiL likes mine better than his "real" Beretta 92. My Taurus PT99 has given me good service for 30 years, though I must admit my Beretta 96 has a slightly better trigger.

They are all three service pistols with long track records, designed and built for rugged service conditions. A non-defective specimen that is not abused should last for decades, maybe needing some new springs every now and then.

IMHO it comes down to how well they fit the hands of an individual shooter and/or how accurate he is with them. They are all rugged military/police pistols that will last for tens of thousands of rounds with minimal maintenance.

Note: I have an Israeli surplus Tanfoglio "clone" just like hemiram's, but mine has "Cohai" stamped on it. It is my favorite service pistol out of many. (I'm showing the pictured of the blued version, because the picture of the silver one is a bit blurry.)

If there are no pictures, it didn't happen. All of these were surplus pistols. They all function perfectly. All are suitable for range use or for SD. I shoot the CZ clone a little better, but feel comfortable with all of them.
View media item 1867

It boils down to the shooter's preferences. The Glock 17 wins all the striker-fired pistol fans. The Beretta 92 wins all those that love sexy Italian pistols or are Ernest Langdon disciples. The CZ get folks that like an all-metal pistol, can shoot DA/SA well, and appreciate the CZ-75's platform with the rail system that runs the entire length of the slide, so you have less play and thus more accuracy and more durability. I prefer none of the above over the other.

I have or have had all the mentioned. The only one I had trouble with was a 75BD, as someone mentioned I did have to change the recoil and extractor spring to make it run. Had a Berretta 92s in the early 90s, worked great but the grip never fit me. I have a gen 3 17 RTF with a 3.5 pound Ghost trigger and TFO sites, works great.
The 92s was sold years ago. I’ve added P07 and a P10f to the fleet and I’m now a CZ fanatic. I’m probably the only one that likes the poly CZs better than the steel framed with the exeption of the Shadow 2 and TSO etc.

I haven't replaced a single piece on Gen 3 Glocks that were used for IDPA/etc. I've had a handful of slide stops and trigger return springs break on CZs. I can't speak much to the 92, but my Tanfoglios seemed to hold up better than CZs in the long run. I still have a CZ P-09, very nice gun.

Wrestled between the P09 and the P10f. P10f is awesome but I’m sure I’ll ad P09 soon and at some point a TSO

CZ 75, Beretta 92 – I own both, both are equal with regard to quality and reliability; I like my P-01 more than my 92.

They're all as reliable as can be. But everyone who has shot my CZ-75B has been immediately taken with it, for what that's worth.

I have a Jericho in 9mm, which is pretty much a clone of the CZ, a Beretta 92, and a Glock 17.

I'd say in terms of shootability, it's CZ >> Glock > Beretta. The CZ's single action trigger is great, the Beretta's is too long, and the Glock's is just a consistent spongy pull. Sights are a wash, although the Glock's ball and cup is a little better.

Grip is 1 billion percent subjective, but the CZ fits my hand wonderfully. The Beretta has a huge grip and is easy to get comfy with. I never liked the Glock's.

Reliability - I don't think I've ever had a jam with any of them when I fed them decent brass ammo. The CZ doesn't like steel and the slide starts to get sluggish after I don't clean it for a while. The Glock chews through everything.

I have never shot any of the three at high enough round counts to speak about their long-term durability, but the Glock's combo of a minimal parts count and a weatherproof, rustproof plastic frame will pry give it the edge there.

If I was taking one to the range, it would be the Jericho. If I was dragging one on my belt through the woods for 2 weeks and needed it to go off when called upon, I'd pick the Glock 17. I just don't care for the Beretta that much, even though they feel good.

CZ - ergonomics - design melts into my hand and points so naturally. Glock does everything well, Beretta does everything well. My hand was born to the CZ frame - it just fits.

Tallball said:

"Beretta would be the top even though I dislike the slide mounted safety/decocker."

The Taurus version has a frame-mounted safety/decocker, which is one reason some people like them better. That's why my FiL likes mine better than his "real" Beretta 92. My Taurus PT99 has given me good service for 30 years, though I must admit my Beretta 96 has a slightly better trigger.

They are all three service pistols with long track records, designed and built for rugged service conditions. A non-defective specimen that is not abused should last for decades, maybe needing some new springs every now and then.

IMHO it comes down to how well they fit the hands of an individual shooter and/or how accurate he is with them. They are all rugged military/police pistols that will last for tens of thousands of rounds with minimal maintenance.

Note: I have an Israeli surplus Tanfoglio "clone" just like hemiram's, but mine has "Cohai" stamped on it. It is my favorite service pistol out of many. (I'm showing the pictured of the blued version, because the picture of the silver one is a bit blurry.)

If there are no pictures, it didn't happen. All of these were surplus pistols. They all function perfectly. All are suitable for range use or for SD. I shoot the CZ clone a little better, but feel comfortable with all of them.
View media item 1867

Tanfoglio TA90 Cohai

• Tallball
• Feb 14, 2018

Glock G22

• Tallball
• Jan 6, 2018
• 2

Click to expand...

My avatar is a pic of the "Combat Cohai" gun, bought about 10 years ago. It's not in quite as good of shape as the "Mossad" gun is, but it shoots great. the grips are smooth and are slightly warped, so they flex a little and that's kind of annoying. I have a compact "Mossad" that is in fantastic shape, but I don't like it near as well as the fullsized ones. I have two Jericho 941's, a pretty rough looking :chrome" SA gun that I got late last year, and a nearly new black DA/SA 941 in "semi compact" that I bought from a pawn shop via Gunbroker for $400, in the case with 5 mags, 3 15 round an 2 10 round. Along with those I have a SAR K2 45, which is a giant CZ clone that holds 14+1, a couple of polymer CZ clones with the best one being the SAR Combat Master 9 Gen 2, which is basically a clone of a Tanfoglio clone of a CZ P07. It's an amazingly great gun period, and for the $275 or less you can get one for, it's an amazing bargain. I have a laser on mine and if you can see the dot, it's like it's difficult to, even when you are in a hurry, to miss with it. And while some people complain the grip isn't "grippy" enough, IMHO, it's just about perfection.

I only judge a pistols reliability by brass and nickle plated cases. Since all of my serious work is nickle plated, and important comp's are all brass.

It's not fair to judge them by steel cases that don't seal well, and Al cases that are sticky. That being said, yeah, Glock will run on any of that.

I have a CZ Shadow, fired about 2000 rounds 0 malfunctions so far with blazer brass and some other cheap but brass rounds. Ive heard from others that Shadow 2's will eat really any brass cased ammo with a malfunction maybe 1x per 5000 rounds. steel or aluminum OTOH ive heard is very problematic. CZ's do go through Trigger return springs every 5-10,000 rounds and slide stops after that though.

Maybe not all Cz75's are equal.........

cslinger said:

Quality - They are all quality pistols. It’s really the finishing where they differ. CZs look great on the outside but can look like a hungover dwarf used a war hammer and a chisel to finish them inside. Beretta’s are generally beautiful weapons inside and out. Glock probably has had the best overall quality control over the years. They have all been through some missteps though.

Click to expand...

I disagree, at least partially, with your statement. I have a number of CZ handguns (CZ50, CZ52, CZ70, CZ82 x2, P10C), Glock handguns (G19 Gen5, G21 Gen3, G21 Gen4, G30SF, G37 Gen3 x4), and Beretta handguns (81BB, 92FS, 96 Brigadier x4). The machining quality or lack of quality of the pistols is not unique to one of the brands. Instead, it is unique to periods of time, generally speaking. What I mean is that if I break down my P10C and G19 Gen5, the machining is excellent on both pistols inside and out is immaculate (no visible machine marks, finish issues, etc). My Beretta 92FS was manufactured about 20 years before those two pistols and there are machine marks inside. Going back further, the Surplus CZ pistols that I own have lots of machine marks, but they were manufactured between the 1950s-1980s. Precision machining has improved considerably over the years; nowadays, machine marks are rarer than even 5 years ago and substantially rarer than even 10-15 years ago. I cannot speak directly for the current CZ75 pistols, but I would assume that the quality inside is on par with that of Glock and Beretta, just like my P10C.

With regards to finishes, the enamel finishes that were used on the CZ82 pistols is awful in that it flakes off when damages. Today’s nitride, Cerakote, etc finishes on modern guns is lightyears ahead of the older CZ enamel and parkerized finishes.

own all 3 guns and my 2 cents worth is, all 3 are great pistols battle proven and reliable. for me the Beretta will shoot any style and shape of bullet with no problems, the CZ has a pretty tight chamber and hand loaders must adjust to this, and the Glocks will only shoot jacket bullets, unless you get an after market barrel. but I like my CZ 75 the best it just fits my hand better