CZ 75 vs. Glock 17 Which is better and why?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HighVelocity

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
2,176
Location
IDPA junkie in DFW, TX
I am looking at buying a full size 9mm auto and I'm torn between the CZ and the Glock. I own a Glock 22 and love it so I figured the 17 would be very similar. I used to own a CZ75 that a buddy brought back from Germany in the late 80's and I loved that gun but don't know how the current US versions differ from the one I had.

Experienced opinions and comments please...
 
CZ75 is an all steel quality pistol. I wouldn't part with mine for two Glocks.
 

Attachments

  • CZ.jpg
    CZ.jpg
    52 KB · Views: 117
For me, I just had to look at the pro's and cons.

CZ75 Pro:
Better ergonomics
Steel frame (depends on application)
MANY variants (and these have pros and cons)
Proven quality
internal slide rails

CZ75 Con:
Lower capacity (compared to Glock)
weight
higher bore axis
not as many aftermarket goodies

Glock Pro:
Good quality and reliability
Higher capacity (than the CZ)
Simple to work with/on
low bore axis

Glock Con:
Grip shape sucks (for me...I can't get a good hold on them)
only one operating principle
they explode


In my case, I chose the CZ75B. The shape of the Glocks grip dropped it from consideration. I can't get a good grip on it without bearing down way too hard.
BTW, CZ's are still made in the same place. The newer ones just have the import company stamped on the...which is CZ-USA.
 
Damnit. You had to ask.

I recently changed USPSA Limited guns - switched from my much-loved CZ-75 to a Glock 35. I put a lot of thought into this, so here's some of my reasoning (order of importance:)

- I had a lot of malfunctions in my CZ, mostly failures to extract. I blame this on a combination of a tight chamber and a poorly designed, cast extractor that wears far too quickly - I went through three extractors last season.

- The CZ-75 holds 15 rounds of 9mm, or 12 rounds of .40. Extended 140mm mags for USPSA Limited class are pretty much nonexistant. My Glock holds 15 rounds of .40, and with Dawson +5 baseplates will fit 20 .40 rounds in a 140mm magazine. :D

- Triggers. My CZ had a really good, crisp 3# SA trigger (I worked it over myself.) The Glock factory trigger is unimpressive, but I had mine worked over by Charlie Vanek. I'm hesitant to say how light it is - you probably wouldn't believe me. It's like a very short, very light, very smooth DAO revolver - wonderful to shoot. If you get a Glock, send it to Charlie straight away.

A much as I love my CZs, I have to say that my G35 is a better gun.

- Chris
 
CZ is much better made and the company provides better service. Also, the new SP01 CZ75 with 18 round mags will hit the shores soon, so the capacity "con" is nullified. I have qualified expert with the G19 and G17, and I wish I could use my PO1 at work instead. Better accuracy, reliability, and better ergonomics. Of course, I am a little biased.....
 
Both are excellent pistols. I have one of each. You can't go wrong with either one.This is a really hard question. :banghead: hell buy one of each, problem solved :)
 
I started on a Glock, my 4th CZ is on it's way as we speak.

My primary reason is I can just plain shoot them better. I'm just as good with my CZ 85 Compact as I am with my Glock 24P long slide which I've had over eight years longer and many thousands of rounds through.

I've also come to prefer C&L which narrows down my options a bit.

YMMV and all that. Give them both a try. You can probably rent a Glock and most CZ owners I know are just itching to let other people try their guns so they can spread the joy ;)
 
Apples and oranges. The ergonomics are just soooo different. For me, the Glock points unnaturally high, but the CZ points spot on. The CZ also has an extremely small reciprocating mass and the grips are more "rounded" so I can get "behind them". From the perspective of ergonomics, the CZ is better for me.

On the flip side, I shoot a Glock as well as the CZ once I get accustomed to the ergonomics. I also like the fact that the trigger is the same each time and there are no external safety controls to fool with.

Both are accurate and both are very reliable. Get the one you like.
 
I have a Glock 19, a CZ 75b Tactical, and a CZ P-01. For me, the ergonomics on the CZ are far superior to the Glocks. Nothing wrong with the Glocks, they're tough as bricks and legendary for their reliability. Glock 9mm's are very accurate as well, but I shoot my CZ's better. In my hands, my Tactical is on a par with my P7M8 in terms of accuracy. The Glock 19 and P-01 are slightly less accurate (about equal to each other).

I'm with the guy that said if you already have a Glock, get a CZ. All steel, cheaper, and something a little different for the collection.

Was your old CZ 75 a 75b, or was it a plain old 75? The difference is the B model has an internal safety that worsens the trigger pull a bit. That's probably my only complaint about CZ's (gritty, creepy triggers out of the box, but they do smooth out with use). I had to get trigger jobs on mine.
 
I've heard many positive things about Glock reliability, yet I've had zero problems with my CZ75. I've tried a rent-a-glock (G17) on a lark, but I don't see the appeal of the DA, grip, pointability, and can't get past the materials. Both shot well. I much prefered the trigger of th CZ, but I have the single-action variant (CZ75B-SA). There is a lot to be said about ergonimics though. How a pistol points and feels. I could very much see getting another CZ-75 (DA/SA version), or a BHP. The only way I could imagine getting a glock would be as a service pistol, based on the reputation for reliability (and not a .40). They just feel like plastic bricks, with a DA trigger, and no soul.

The older CZ 75s had shorter rails, and were considered to have a slightly better trigger due to the firing pin safety. Ones with three crowns on them, (swedish army logo stamp) of that era, command a premium $. They are reputed to be some of the initial production for a swedish army contract that was canceled. If your buddy had one of those, they were also reputed to be of premium quality (something like 10K were made).

My vote: CZ...or a BHP
 
I'm with Ankeny, above. For about the same reasons.

I shoot them both in competition. I like 'em both. (I don't care for the Glock or CZ .45 models; the grips are just too big for me.)

I have a bunch of CZs and only one, at present, Glock -- a 34. I love that 34. I also really love the CZs, and the ASAI One Pro (a CZ clone), and a Witness Sport Long Slide, and a customized AT-84S.

Shoot whichever one fits you best...
 
I own a Glock 22 and love it so I figured the 17 would be very similar. I used to own a CZ75 that a buddy brought back from Germany in the late 80's and I loved that gun but don't know how the current US versions differ from the one I had.

If you like your .40 S&W G22, I bet you'll love the G17. It sounds like the CZ you had previously was a "pre B", meaning it didn't have the firing pin block. I have the CZ 75B in .40 S&W, so I would always recommend the CZ. Some people are of the opinion that the "pre B" guns tended to have slightly better trigger pulls than the "B" guns. I like the trigger on mine. Mine needed some fine tuning by my pistolsmith. The tight chamber on the barrel including the rough tool marks on the mouth of the barrel, needed throating & polishing. The extractor spring was replaced with the one that Wolff sells. The recoil spring was swapped out with the Wolff 18lb replacement, and the mag springs were replaced with the Wolff XP mag springs. Additionally, I repainted my dot sights with Testors white enamel when the fluorescent paint started to flake off the dots. I also replaced the cheapo shiney plastic grip panels (after they cracked) with the nice rubber grips that CZ sells as an accessory.

If the gun you choose has to run 100% straight out of the box, and you don't want the prospect of having to deal with customer service or a pistolsmith to get it to run right, I'd opt for the Glock. My CZ needed some fine tuning by my pistolsmith, but since then its been a terrific shooter for me.
 
The CZ's I have used all ran out of the box. There are no more issues with reliability with the CZ over the Glock. They are so different as to be similar only in caliber, though, so comparison can only be in the extreme. The CZ points better and is more comfortable to shoot but the Glock is lighter and arguably more comfortable to carry. Pick what you will, but there is no difference in reliability or performance between the two. Anybody who says there is is speaking only anecdotally.

Bear in mind, though, that the only folks in the world who copy Glock are the Croatians. The Swiss, Chinese, Italians, Czechs, Israelis, and Turks all have copies of the CZ (given, of course, that Tanfoglio makes parts for the Israelis and Turks) in production. The Glock is popular here, but in the world, it plays second fiddle to CZ. Now, that isn't necessarily a good reason to get CZ over Glock, but if Glock seems so popular inthe US, it doesn't reign king everywere.

Ash
 
One word: GLOCK I have one and love it I also had a CZ was a nice gun but not very accurate. My Glock is much more accurate that the CZ 75b that I had... :D
 
Croatia didn't copy the Glock, (the only commonalities being the trigger safety and use of plastic), but a large concern in Massachusetts did. :rolleyes:
 
Got both, a G17 and a CZ75 in 9mm. Both run all day long. Personally I find the CZ to be more accurate. It is easier to get accessories for the Glock, so if I could only have one, it would probably the Glock. You can not go wrong with either.
 
I had a Glock 19 but did not like it very well and it was picky on the ammo it would shoot without jamming. My CZ 75 is a tack driver out of the box :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top