The world needs another CZ-75ish gun why exactly?
For the same reason there are so many 1911 pattern guns out there - tastes vary.
I just got back from shooting my AR-24 over lunch.
Mine functions well, and my groups are getting smaller. I am still learning, but I had several four shot groups at 15 yards shooting offhand that were 2" - the other two out of six shot group were often fliers, but very clearly my error. I don't know anything about the absolute accuracy of the weapon, because I occasionally squeeze one off, and as the hammer releases, I am thinking, "That sight picture sucks! Where the hell am I aiming?" That's clearly my fault, not the weapon.
I don't know much about CZ-75s, but I did shoot a magazine through someone's CZ-75 while he was shooting a magazine through my AR-24 right after I got it. It's a little hard to compare the two, because they have a very different feel.
The AR-24 weighs more, and seems to sit lower in my hand - but I can't tell if the beaver tail is different, or the gun is just heavier. I got the "tactical" AR-24, which has pretty nice checkering, so that changed the feel of the gun a lot as well.
In general, the CZ-75 seemed looser in some way, but that's just a subjective impression.
The AR-24 (with 100-150 rounds through it) seemed to have about the same trigger feel as the CZ-75 (with "thousands" of rounds through it). The AR-24 trigger is smother now ( just under 1000 rounds) than it was then. It would be very interesting to shoot them both again.
I think the American Rifleman article actually caught the flavor of the AR-24 pretty well - I'd think of it an an "upscale" CZ-75. That is what Westrom wanted to build it, and that's what he built.
Wether the AR-24 is worth the money or not is up to you. Armalite was
not trying to make a low cost clone of a CZ-75. I got a patent award, which I treat like "funny money", so the AR-24 was definitely worth the money to me when I bought it.
Mike