A slightly redesigned CZ-52 would make almost a perfect CCW

[DMK]

I was just comparing my CZ-52 to my Colt CCW. The CZ-52 is surprisingly compact and very thin. At the widest point (the grips), the CZ measures 1.15" while my CCO measures 1.07 with slim Alumagrips. Two of my other 1911s, one with standard thickness Alumagrips and one with wood grips measure about 1.25". At the rear of the slide, the CZ measures .97 wide and that tapers to .90 at the front sight. The CCO measures .93 all the way down. From top of the rear sight to the base of the grip, the CZ measures 5.10". The CCO measures 4.94". The CZ has a 4.78" barrel and about a 6.5" sight radius. The CCO has a 4.25" and a 6.10" sight radius.

So if we could just fix the glaring flaws that prevent it from being a practical defensive weapon...

1) Needs a caliber with some heavier and proven HP bullets for SD. Some of these have been converted to 9mm. That would work. .357sig would be better. .40S&W would be cool too, but might be a problem in it's slim slide, I wonder if the roller lockup could handle it and it would reduce it's already low mag capacity.

2) The heel mag release has to go. Move it up to right behind the trigger where the thumb is, just like the 1911.

3) Sights. That's easy. Dovetail it for Novaks.

4) The straight grip is just terrible for pointability. Angle the grip. (Man I'd love to see somebody photoshop this)

That's it, a very nice little single stack CCW. Just one more thing to add to the "If I could rule the world" or the "If you owned <insert some gun manufacturer here> lists.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

If you're 1) changing the grip design -- which means more than just changing the grip, 2) changing the mag release, and 3) changing the caliber (which many consider one of the real attractions of the CZ-52), why worry about a CZ-52?

Sounds like you really want a BHP. <grin>

 

[Sistema1927]

If you're 1) changing the grip design -- which means more than just changing the grip, 2) changing the mag release, and 3) changing the caliber (which many consider one of the real attractions of the CZ-52), why worry about a CZ-52?

Sounds like you really want a BHP. <grin>

My thoughts exactly. If it is so perfect, why so many changes? ("It would be perfect, except for the sights, except for the caliber, except for the grip angle, except for ....")

I own a CZ52, and it is OK as a C&R "oddity", but I certainly wouldn't want to carry one all day.

 

[WarMachine]

Once you get to the point when you have to change the caliber, grip shape, sights, and all the other stuff; wouldn't it be simpler to just buy a gun that already has all of what you want

 

[DMK]

If you're 1) changing the grip design -- which means more than just changing the grip, 2) changing the mag release, and 3) changing the caliber (which many consider one of the real attractions of the CZ-52), why worry about a CZ-52?

Sounds like you really want a BHP. <grin>

BHP is a double stack, has a longer grip and has a completely different lockup design.

 

[DMK]

My thoughts exactly. If it is so perfect, why so many changes? ("It would be perfect, except for the sights, except for the caliber, except for the grip angle, except for ....")

I own a CZ52, and it is OK as a C&R "oddity", but I certainly wouldn't want to carry one all day.

I have two. I wouldn't carry them either. Read my post. I never said it was perfect in it's current form. I said it was compact.

Once you get to the point when you have to change the caliber, grip shape, sights, and all the other stuff; wouldn't it be simpler to just buy a gun that already has all of what you want

Just doing a "what if". I already did buy a gun that has all I want. I carry a Colt CCO. I don't think there are any 4"+ barreled single stack guns as thin as a 1911, and certainly none with the roller lockup design of the CZ-52.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

BHP is a double stack, has a longer grip and has a completely different lockup design.

My BHP is almost exactly the same grip width as my SIG GSR. Double-stack doesn't ALWAYS mean wider. (And because the round is shorter, the 9mm or .40 BHP grip is actually smaller than many 1911 grips.)

The CZ lockup has a reputation for robustness, being based on a machine gun design, but I've seen a lot of discussions by very knowledgeable folks on the C&R forums that say the CZ-52's "robustness" isn't all its cracked up to be. Many of these folks say that the Tokarov, which uses the same round, is just as strong and durable -- and less prone to problems. And, if you're changing the caliber, I doubt you really need that "robustness," anyway.

The Tok might be a better gun to start with...

 

[R.W.Dale]

I feel some of you are confusing the fact that because the locking system on a CZ52 is diffrent therfore it must be stronger when in fact the CZ does not have a locking system so to speak but rather a delayed blowback system. From handloading this cartrige for both a cz52 and a norinco 54-1 I can say from experiance that my cz will cycle with signifgantly weaker loadings than my norinco will and with top loadings the cz will throw brass 20' farther than the chinese pistol.

 

[Malodorousroadkill]

You're forgetting the old Star Model Bs, Supers, and PDs. They tend to be as slim as a 1911 in 9mm and in the PD's case 45. The Star BMs are either a 4inch or a 3.5 I think. I'd would really love to see some good sized modern, non-1911 single stacks out there. Kahrs are fine and all, but really pricey for what you get. Everything coming out seems to have that chunky blocky look.

 

[kentucky_smith]

It would be redesigned into a MAK!

 

[kjeff50cal]

A redesigned CZ-52 is called a CZ-75 .

kjeff50cal

 

[DMK]

You're forgetting the old Star Model Bs, Supers, and PDs. They tend to be as slim as a 1911 in 9mm and in the PD's case 45. The Star BMs are either a 4inch or a 3.5 I think. I'd would really love to see some good sized modern, non-1911 single stacks out there. Kahrs are fine and all, but really pricey for what you get. Everything coming out seems to have that chunky blocky look.

Good point. I have a Star B, let's take some measurements.... OK, with a 1.20" grip, it's a hair wider, but that's mostly due to it's thick stocks. It's got a 5.25" height, which is a longer grip than the CCO or CZ52, although the slide width is a very slender .88".

It's a shame the Star uses a different grip panel design than the 1911, a set of thin Alumagrips would slim it up nicely. I don't have a scale handy, but just holding it and comparing it to a steel 1911A1, it feels lighter too.

The Kahr T models look very nice. You're right though, a bit pricy. Personally, I think their others are too small. I'm not a big fan of 3" barrels.

 

[DMK]

A redesigned CZ-52 is called a CZ-75 .

kjeff50cal

No, the '75 is the redesigned BHP.

 

[Devonai]

I don't think there are any 4"+ barreled single stack guns as thin as a 1911, and certainly none with the roller lockup design of the CZ-52.

The H&K P9/P9S 9mm & .45 fit this description.