CZ 75 satin stainless vs Beretta 92 FS INOX

[LockedBreech]

I won't take sides in this argument, as I think the "better" in question is almost always subjective for most modern handguns. Case in point: claiming as you do, above, that " if anything the 92 has higher quality finishing/less tool marks" is an assessment based on subjective values -- because you're attaching an implied value to that set of characteristics -- higher quality finishing/less tool marks -- that isn't always shared by other gun owners. I'd argue, for example, that unless the "less tool marks" are in an area where tool marks affect function, the extra time and effort taken to remove them are possibly wasted and add cost without performance enhancements. If additional finishing enhances function, then it's important, otherwise it's interesting but meaningless, but you'll pay for them.

I've had both CZs and Beretta (multiples of each). I think that Berettas are more nicely finished than most models of CZs -- but if you're willing to pay for a high-gloss blued CZ-75B (which can be ordered through the CZ Custom Shop), even my "prettier" claim is open to debate. (Ditto with the matte stainless CZ vs. the Inox Beretta.) Prettier doesn't address performance, however.

One thing I found puzzling about the Beretta/CZ comparison is that TO ME the Beretta always SEEMED much bigger and more massive than the CZ, yet they both rode comfortably in the same holsters. And they didn't really feel all that different in the hand. Maybe it's like the belief that many express that the older P-series (both metal and polymer framed) RUGER semi-autos were big and clunky; actual measurements showed that they're really not all that different than the other pistols against which they competed.

Could it be that my eyes were deceiving me? I've come to suspect that with the Beretta and the Ruger it was more LOOKS than anything. If so, the new Ruger SR series shows that Ruger has learned some new tricks. They look almost TINY, but aren't.

Good post, Walt, points well taken.

I certainly didn't mean to deride the CZ-75. I may prefer the Beretta, but it would be flat ignorant of me to ignore the wonderful Czech offering. In fact, a PCR for a carry gun and a satin nickel 75 Compact are near the top of my wish list.

I sure hope I can still find the satin nickel 75 Compact by the time I can afford it. As I understand, they discontinued them.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I had not heard that the Satin Nickel Compacts had been discontinued -- I had one, and it was a nice gun, but HEAVIER than I liked. I liked the PCR, but didn't like the decocker.

Here's the Satin Nickel Compact I once owned -- long ago sold. My only regret about selling it is that I sold it with the EXTENDED SLIDE RELEASE included -- wish I had kept it, as I haven't found another one, since.

 

[History.Doc]

I have both and have never noticed an accuracy or quality difference. Both accurate and well made guns. The grip feels wider and the trigger pull longer on the Beretta, for sure.

 

[ChCx2744]

The title of this thread alone is beautiful. Seriously.

As to the OP, I prefer the Beretta 92 Stainless Inox. The CZ 75 Stainless is sexy too.

 

[0to60]

I'm looking at the pic of the CZ in #40 and then the CZ in #52, and it looks like some CZ safeties are hinged in front and some are hinged in back. Is this the case?

 

[Baron_Null]

I'm looking at the pic of the CZ in #40 and then the CZ in #52, and it looks like some CZ safeties are hinged in front and some are hinged in back. Is this the case?

The safeties that are hinged in the back are true frame-mounted safeties, with no decocker function. They do indeed put the gun in safe, and allow for carry in "condition one".

The safeties that hinge in the front aren't actually safeties, but decockers. There is no manual safety on the decocker models, instead relying on a heavy double-action pull to act as a way to prevent ND's. The decocker doesn't de-cock the hammer fully, though, it resets to a kind of middle sear, which makes the DA pull shorter and keeps the hammer from riding on the firing pin.

Personally, I prefer the thumb-safety models, though I own a decocker model.

 

[0to60]

The safeties that are hinged in the back are true frame-mounted safeties, with no decocker function. They do indeed put the gun in safe, and allow for carry in "condition one".

The safeties that hinge in the front aren't actually safeties, but decockers. There is no manual safety on the decocker models, instead relying on a heavy double-action pull to act as a way to prevent ND's. The decocker doesn't de-cock the hammer fully, though, it resets to a kind of middle sear, which makes the DA pull shorter and keeps the hammer from riding on the firing pin.

Personally, I prefer the thumb-safety models, though I own a decocker model.

Sounds pretty cool, and like no other manufacturer. I should prolly go check one out. It might look good next to my 92!

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Both of these models are arguably safe to carry in Condition One, as all of the "B" series CZ semi-autos have a firing pin safety that only allows the firing pin to move forward IF THE TRIGGER IS PULLED FULLY TO THE REAR.

And besides, unless the gun is carried cocked and locked, the safety can't be engaged. This may have changed with models using the Omega trigger -- I have no experience with those models, and don't know whether the safety engages on those models when the hammer is down or on the half-cock notch.

On the standard trigger, however, the safety only works when the hammer is fully cocked (unless something is worn or out of adjustment.) The Witness/EAA semi-clones of the CZ do allow the safety to engage when the hammer is down.

In any case, dropping, slamming the hammer, etc., won't cause an accidental discharge -- as the firing pin block will prevent it.

 

[JTQ]

Walt Sherrill wrote,
Both of these models are arguably safe to carry in Condition One, as all of the "B" series CZ semi-autos have a firing pin safety that only allows the firing pin to move forward IF THE TRIGGER IS PULLED FULLY TO THE REAR.

Walt, if I'm not mistaken, "Condition One" is round chambered, hammer cocked, safety engaged. The decocker CZ's, if that is one of the "Both of these models" you are referring to, have no safety, and therefore cannot be carried in Condition One.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Duh. You're right. My error. I was thinking round chambered, but not thinking about the hammer cocked. What I was addressing was Condition 2, not 1.

But the point about firing pin safety is still valid -- perfectly safe with a CHAMBERED round. (But not, as you say, with a cocked hammer when using a decocker model.)

The non-decocker CZs can also be carried on the half-cock notch, which gives them the same slightly shorter/slightly lighter trigger pull as the decocker models. (Should we call that Condition 1.5? <grin> It's not quite condition 2, but close to it.) The decocker models lower the hammer to the half-cock notch, so they're arguably Condition 1.5 too. (Just joking about 1.5, by the way... but it's not really 1 or 2.)

Note: with the non-Omega, original fire control assembly, CZ removed one of the hammer hooks to make room for the decocker mechanism on the decocker models. If it's safe for the decocker models with one hammer hook, its just as safe for the safety models -- with TWO HAMMER HOOKS -- as both have the firing pin block.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I'm looking at the pic of the CZ in #40 and then the CZ in #52, and it looks like some CZ safeties are hinged in front and some are hinged in back. Is this the case?

As noted above, the CZ in message #40 is a decocker model. The CZ in message #52 (it was once my weapon) is a Compact, which has the safety.

The "hinge" -- the bar that goes into the frame -- is on the rear of the lever for the "safety"/Compact model, and on the front of the lever with the decocker model. I think the opening in the frame is in the same position for both types but the "working" part of the lever is at the front for the Compact, and the rear for the decocker.

 

[KYamateur]

I've had both. Both shot well and were 100% reliable. I traded my CZ for another pistol. Not because the Beretta was any better, but because I just liked it better. However, if choosing between stainless beretta with black controls and a stainless CZ I would choose CZ. My favorite are the early stainless 92s made in Maryland with the stainless controls. I would trust my life to either brand.

 

[VAPOPO]

I'm a huge fan of both platforms and a Beretta and SIG certified armorer, that said the CZ is far easier to work on than either SIG or Beretta has fewer parts and the triggers can be tuned to a state that neither of the others can match without a major investment in aftermarket parts. The Beretta reliability and accuracy are legendary and having carried one for 7 years as a police officer I could find no fault with the piece and trusted it implicitly. They also fit my Mongo hands like a glove. There is something about the CZ's that I love. It could just be that my first handgun was a pre B 75 made in 1986 that I bought new in the box at the Munich Rod and Gun club for the insanely extravagent price of $275 while stationed there. It could also be that I won my first pistol competition while there, an El Presidente with the CZ beating out a loudmouth with a Colt Gold Cup that was convinced that the slea z was a piece of junk made out of recycled Yugo's. Currently I own 2 CZ's and 0 Beretta's, something I am going to have to rectify soon.

 

[LockedBreech]

I'm a huge fan of both platforms and a Beretta and SIG certified armorer, that said the CZ is far easier to work on than either SIG or Beretta has fewer parts and the triggers can be tuned to a state that neither of the others can match without a major investment in aftermarket parts. The Beretta reliability and accuracy are legendary and having carried one for 7 years as a police officer I could find no fault with the piece and trusted it implicitly. They also fit my Mongo hands like a glove. There is something about the CZ's that I love. It could just be that my first handgun was a pre B 75 made in 1986 that I bought new in the box at the Munich Rod and Gun club for the insanely extravagent price of $275 while stationed there. It could also be that I won my first pistol competition while there, an El Presidente with the CZ beating out a loudmouth with a Colt Gold Cup that was convinced that the slea z was a piece of junk made out of recycled Yugo's. Currently I own 2 CZ's and 0 Beretta's, something I am going to have to rectify soon.

A very even-handed view, acknowledging the advantages and flaws of the platforms without fanboying for either.

 

[Trent]

Having recently switched from carrying a 92FS to a CZ75, I can't comment, because I'm biased.

 

[VAPOPO]

If I was going to be carrying one concealed the CZ would win out because of the narrower grip. I currently carry a CZ P01 that I worked over with CGW parts and for me it is close to perfect. The only way it could be improved for CC is to have it a single stack but after years of carrying double stack 9's as a duty gun having 15 rounds on tap if needed trumps the added grip width. In my view at least YMMV.