Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by DavidB2, Nov 7, 2014.
I'm talking about him and his wife.
Aaahhhh......I understand........little slow this week
Yeah, not exactly apples to apples, unless you include a RAMI.
Mine (SS Full sized 75B with 18 rounds of 9 or 15 of .40) works well with a good gunbelt (thebeltman.com) and a Crossbreed holster, obviously in cooler months. Go cheap on the belt and holster and you will hate most everything you try to carry, even small and light.
This is the ultimate package, and I do not think Ruger offers any such conversion.
I recommend the CZ, any member of the CZ 75 family. The CZ 75 Compact and its cousins would be an excellent choice.
Now let me tell you a true story about the Ruger SR9. I had recently traded off some firearms that I had a falling out with and had purchased a couple of Browning Hi-Power 9mm pistols. I flew back home and my Dad, brother, cousin, and myself went out to shoot them. My Dad brought his SR9 that he had recently bought and had shot a bit and had the sights drifted to his liking and such and we started shooting. Long story made short my Dad became so frustrated with the SR9's performance compared to the BHPs that he emptied the mag at the target, racked the slide a couple of times and then threw it about 15 feet into the back of the open bed of his Ford truck. It bounced around and we all cringed.
The BHPs led me to study and discover the CZ 75 pistols. I bought a CZ 85B and have been very happy with it. I love to shoot it.
In our family we have shot a lot of different firearms and we care about accuracy and reliability. The Ruger was reliable, and that is all my Dad would say about it. My nephew still has it today for a truck gun.
Been puuting off SR9C
I realize the guns are not in same class. The CZ 75 is $70 more and being all steel for good reason. I guess it is a matter of striker vs hammer fired; versatility of a firearm. My struggle is really whether I should buy a range gun only or that could both concealed carry and range gun. May just get SR9C to get it out of my system. Have put it off purchasing the last 3 pistol purchases. If I don't like it can always sell or trade it.
However, I hear the responses on the CZ75B. I actually have already have it on layaway after doing some trading. In a perfect world I would buy both at same time
The polymer framed CZ P-07, and P-09 would be less expensive than the steel or alloy framed CZ's, more direct comparison to the SR9, and SR9c.
Nah, I could have phrased it more clearly.
I had an original, bought in Germany CZ75 until recently. I found it to be nice, but hardly superb. It cam with 15 round magazines, and was supposedly the "nicest 9mm pistol around". If that was the nicest, it's no wonder the Germans lost WWII using that cartridge.
The gun was large for a 9x19 platform, heavy, and the controls looked like some 1930's Art Deco design. I sold it back to the veteran who sold it to me. It was reliable, had a so-so trigger, and was adequately accurate for a Duty gun.
All in all, it required a fan-boy to see it's wonders. Thanks, but I'd stick with a 1911 at that weight and size.
I own an SR9 and an SR9c, along with an SR45. NONE of them have given me any problems. ALL are as accurate as the CZ75 I owned. They feel better in my hands, point naturally, and are as reliable as a rock.
While I'm sure that CZ fans feel the same about theirs, it just wasn't for me. The Ruger was less expensive, lighter, absorbed recoil as well, and was quite accurate. So, short of wanting to say "I own a CZ", where's the difference if both are reliable, accurate, and durable?
A better comparison would be the CZ 75 Compact, P-01, PCR or P-07.
IMO any CZ product would be the better option.
Germans didn't use CZs, and while they did use 9mm, so did the allies, in a number of weapons -- most notably the BHP and it's clone, the Inglis. The Germans used the BHP, the Astra 600s, the Star Model B, and Lugers. It should be noted, however, that WWII wasn't won or lost because of handguns or what some might consider anemic handgun ammo -- if only because relatively few soldiers had handguns; most preferred more potent weapons.
Putting it simply, the Germans probably lost WWII because they (at Hitler's command) did a dumb thing and took on the West and Soviet Union at the same time even though they didn't have to. Hitler and Stalin were "friends" united in a non-aggression pact at the start of WWII... And even after Hitler chose (stupidly, I think) to fight wars on two fronts, the German Army did a lot more damage than they should have. Had Hitler been a better strategist, it's scary to think what MIGHT have happened.
Most of the pre-B CZ-75s I've owned or handled were very nice 9mm pistols. Sounds as though you got your hands on one that wasn't as nice as most of them. Most of the used ones I've owned had wonderful triggers, and the two ANIB (i.e., unfired) CZ-75s I owned had good triggers that got better with use. None of these older guns, however, had nice finishes -- unless they had been refinished. The early finishes were a kind of paint that easily chipped.
Frankonia, a custom shop in Germany, sold stock and upgraded versions of the CZ-75 through Army Post and Air Force Base Exchanges in West Germany during the Cold War, and that was about the only way you could get a CZ into the US until after the fall of the Soviet Union. (CZs and other weapons from the Communist Bloc were embargoed; you could get them in Canada, but not in the U.S.)
I don't know about "the nicest pistol around", but they are solid. I took a 7-hour, shooting-intensive course several weeks ago. Out of the group, a Glock failed several times, an M&P failed, and a Shield spit out jackets like birdshot.....but the only 2 CZs fired flawlessly (there were also Glocks and M&Ps that did just fine...and the shield proved to be reliable and accurate). It was a 75d compact and a P-07.
The first place outside of the old Czechoslovakia, and in the West, that sold the CZ75 where Americans could buy them was Germany. Note that I said it was BOUGHT in Germany, NOT that the Germans used it in any particular form BY the Germans.
You were the one who decided that.
I would also suggest that you check the use of handguns as issue in the German military. They were far more likely to be in the hands of soldiers than any other then current military. The comment about the 9mm was meant as sarcasm, by the way.
The gun was bought new, then lost to a divorce. I got the gun when I married the then current owner. It has less than 50 rounds through it.
My experience with CZ pistols has been less stellar than yours, sir. They ARE nice, but not anything to wax poetic over. I find the controls shaped like 30's art deco, and the finish on mine was the paint you mentioned. I also own a CZ40P, which, from the various CZ forums is a jammomatic that CZ never sorted out. Then I own a CZ50, a CZ70, and a CZ82. Of the three, only the CZ 82 has proven reliable. None of the guns has what I would call a fine finish, either.
I'm just not a fan-boy of poorly finished, unreliable, guns. No matter what others might say. Especially at the prices they command. I've also had some unsatisfying CS with CZ USA.
^^^^^^^Well my experience with the current crop (1996 and sooner) of CZ's has been very different than yours also. I find them one of the better lines of firearms made, and they still represent a good value.
CZ has sent me free parts for both my Kadet Kit, and Kadet pistol that had older style firing pins. They do stand behind their products.
I have a C75B in matte stainless. Not a carry gun but I really enjoy shooting at the range. I have 4 different 9mm and this outshoots them all Springers and Colt (my edc). I used to read all the CZ praises on line so I finally decided to find out myself and glad I did
There is maybe someplace in between thinking that CZ's, as a whole, are crappy and waxing poetic over them.
I'm attaching a couple of reviews of the CZ40P for those unfamiliar with the gun. There are many more online just type in CZ40 and you can spend some time studying the development of the gun. They are no longer offered.
I'm not sure what's wrong with the controls of a gun reminding one of 1930s art deco. JR47 mentions it twice. Seems a matter of taste.
JR47 also may want to learn a bit about the history of CZ (which was not all one company) as the CZ50, CZ70 and CZ52 are older guns made during the cold war and comparing them to current CZs is out of place. Though it dos indicate that the roots of the current CZ go deep.
That one person does not care for a gun that CZ no longer makes seems to have little to nothing to do with whether the op should get a CZ75 or one of it's descendants now or down the line. It's hard to go wrong with a CZ pistol these days.
A person buys a gun. It's a well known gun that's sold around the world and is well thought of by many for many years. But the fella doesn't like it. He has no problems with the gun, it's reliable and accurate for it's job, but not for him. The fella has two choices he can say "it's a decent gun but It doesn't light my fire" of he can say "it's crap". Either way it says more about the man than the gun.
I was simply making that point CLEAR for anyone reading; not everyone reading here is familiar with the CZ history, and your first statement was not clear. Americans couldn't buy CZs in old Czechoslovakia, so Germany was the ONLY option -- and U.S. GIs (or family members) could only buy them through a base or post exchange. (That was all before the 4473 and related paperwork!!)
Again, your wording wasn't clear. The German military never used CZs, if that's what you're saying. (The Soviet Union would NEVER have allowed the Czechs to sell them to A NATO military!)
I don't think any Western military ever used CZs except, perhaps, a few small units. The Israelis used some CZs during and after the Cold War (along with BHPs, and FEG-made BHP Clones.) he Turkish military did too. Both Turkey and Israel later made their own versions, under license from Tanfoglio -- for military use and later for sale to the West under various brand names. A number of CZs were used throughout the Middle East and Africa by police agencies at the local, state, and national level -- but never in large numbers. The Czech military never used them until the long after the Soviet Union fell apart. The Soviet Spetsnaz may have used a few CZs. A few of the Eastern European nations have recently adopted CZs, including the P-09.
I recognized the attempt at sarcasm, but it didn't really WORK as intended.
I won't argue with most of that. I don't question your unhappiness. That said,I don't think I made any claims about having STELLAR experiences -- only that I didn't have problems and liked the guns. I've had a bunch of guns that performed as they should. I'm now shooting a SPHINX SDP that I like a lot, now, and a nicely tuned S&W M&P Pro. (The only CZ I have at the moment is a CZ-85 Combat in satin nickel, and I use it from time to time with a Kadet Kit.)
Why do people like CZs? I think it's the gun's ergonomics -- they just fit the hand better than most guns, and point more naturally than most guns. (BHPs and 1911s are similarly praised.) CZs are very ergonomic EXCEPT for a long DA trigger pull. If you have a small hand or short fingers, and can't cope with "cocked & locked", it's not the gun for you.
Art deco? You must be talking about the pre-B CZ-75 slide stop lever? It is a functional lever, however. The only CONTROL I ever found wanting was the safety on the standard 75 or 75B -- a minor point, as the safety only works when you're starting from cocked & locked. That control is TINY, but so was the safety on my Browning Hi-power (which couldn't be fired DA like the CZ). Most competing guns typically had decockers or, like the Glock, no safety or decocker at all.
You should've tried the CZ-52, while you were at it. I think it's arguably the worst of all CZs, although it has a reputation for stoutness and power that seems unearned.
Re: the CZ-40P:
If you look up the term "Frankengun" in the dictionary, you'll see a picture of the CZ40P...
It has a P-01 frame fitted with a left-over CZ40B slide. The frame had to be modified to use it, and you couldn't change it back to a P-01 Slide. The Kadet Kit doesn't work on it, either. I never wanted one. The main reason most folks bought them was the low price -- generally under $300. I was never really interested enough in a 40P to follow discussions about them, but they seemed to work best with the full-sized mags with the spacer-bases rather than the smaller "compact" mags. (CZ had problems with the mags in their compact .40 guns) If you could get a 40B, there was NO REASON to get a 40P and I had a 40B back then.
Not all CZs are unreliable. Your generalization seems based on an exceptional experience rather than a typical one.
Your experiences with the older CZ guns is different. They were all CZs but there was no continuity of design or heritage or tradition. The only thing those guns share with the CZ-75 is a brand name. The company that built the CZ-50/70 and CZ-52 later built motorcycles and heavy equipment. The CZ-50/70 were really built by a different CZ factory (the design based generally on the German PP and PPK). The CZ-52 used some innovative machine gun approaches that may have been misplaced in a handgun. The CZ-82 was created by a different design team -- and as you note, it's a pretty good gun; I prefer it to the Makarov. Unlike the others, the 75 was arguably NOT intended for Communist military use, but for private and police use in the West. The Warsaw Pact didn't use 9mm and I don't think anyone behind the Iron Curtain ever thought the CZ-75 would ever see military service there.
As for the CZs being poorly finished: that's arguably a value judgment, as the gun is NEVER poorly finished where it matters. That seems way of dealing with cosmetic issues seems to be a CZ design philosophy: if extra polishing or finishing helps function, do it, if it doesn't, don't.
Competing weapons from firms like SIG and Beretta and H&K do spend more time getting rid of finishing marks, for example, but doing that does NOT make those guns more reliable or more accurate. Those extra finishing touches do appeal to a certain class of consumers who consider THAT level of finish refinement the key signal of a quality gun. Those same folks would probably NEVER buy a Glock.
The CZ finish itself, if you get a polycoated gun, isn't pretty but is NOW very functional. They've continued to improve it, over the years. And it's applied over a Parkerized base. More importantly, if the finish does get scratched or chipped, it's easily repaired with Matte black auto body touch-up paint. (Dupli-Color is a perfect match.) Try fixing a mark or scratch on a Glock or Sig or Beretta. CZ does offer high-gloss blued finishes and those guns are unique -- where else can you get a NEW high-gloss blued Semi-Auto from the factory? CZ's new stainless guns also seem to be well received -- and unlike the Beretta INOX guns, the CZ frame is stainless steel not aluminum alloy finished/coated to look like stainless. I've had several Satin Nickel guns and prefer that finish to all of the other options.
I like CZs, but I also like Glocks, SIGs, S&Ws, Rugers. and BHPs. I own all of those. I've also had Berettas, and a variety of other guns. I haven't had any H&Ks, but have shot several P7s. The Sphinx I mentioned above is based on the CZ design and does it even better than CZ -- but costs a lot more.
I like to see folks discuss all of these guns without all the emotions and excess baggage that some guns seem to elicit from both fans and haters. Those emotions, whether positive or negative, keep others from making good judgments about these weapons.
Personally, I would take the 75B in a heartbeat, and do whatever it takes to find a way to carry it. IMO, the 75B is among the most aesthetically pleasing pistol designs ever conceived of. It's also ergonomic, accurate, and reliable.
If I were you, I'd be careful not to get sucked into taking the 75B out of the equation. It isn't perfect, and the SR9c is a fine gun too, but if the 75B fits, seems like an easy choice to me.
I would pick the CZ, any CZ, except the polymer ones, I have no interest in them. I wouldn't even want one of the old all metal Rugers, let alone a polymer one.
The only thing the two guns the OP is asking about have in common are, they are both guns and both 9mm. Other than that? No contest...a CZ75b is a superior firearm. Need it smaller or lighter, get one of the compacts. Old world quality at reasonable prices. I have a new glossy blue 75b and I think it is fantastic and the trigger is smooth and really good. Also have an 83 and a 70 and 12 CZ rifles.
They're both outstanding firearms. It comes down to personal choice which you like better. I prefer the CZ for it's grip and ergonomics but the SR 9 doesn't exactly feel bad in the hand either. I feel that Ruger's SA handguns are extremely underrated, They're built like tanks just like Ruger's revolvers. In fact I'd take the Ruger over a Glock any day any time every time. It's a better built, better handling and stronger gun.
I completely agree.
Many are calling this an apples to oranges comparison. I also agree with that. Take the following hypothetical scenario:
Suppose I offer you a choice between two cars. The first car is a BMW M3; the second is a Hyundai Sonata. Not exactly apples to apples. Would you insist I replace the BMW M3 with a Kia Optima just so you have a more difficult decision to make? Of course not. You'd just take the M3 and be glad it was an option. Same thing here. Nothing wrong with a Sonata. It'll get you there and do it comfortably; take care of it and it'll last you a long time. But the M3 is superior and that's all there is to it.
Take the 75B. Never look back. Merry Christmas.
To be quite frank, I have only stated my experience with CZ. FYI, I also own a CZ52. It's finish is superior to the CZ75 I owned, and it hasn't given me any problems. It's ungainly, but it, unlike the CZ40P, works.
For me, and using multiple CZ manufactured firearms, the experience has been that of what so many people describe as Taurus' history.
I don't buy the CZ40P described as a throw away. The company attempted to produce a compact 40 S&W pistol. It tanked, and they discontinued it. The guns originally sold at comparable prices to other CZ products. Only after they threw in the towel on the entire design did they absorb the loss of value to move the guns out.
Everything on these forums is OPINION. That one person doesn't like it doesn't alter that validity.
The CZ75 is a long-in-the-tooth design, with the shortcomings of 1970's design. There are multiple better guns available from CZ, and just about every other gun manufacturer.
They are, however, more of a niche gun than the fan-boys care to admit. Note that the excuse was given about what else CZ made in the past, but that same past is brought up positively when discussing a 35 year-old design. Then another CZ design is glossed over when it tanks, the CZ40P. Get a grip, people. Your own posts betray your logic.
You want a CZ 75? I'm sure that you'll be pleased with it. However, the OP will be just as pleased, as will his wife, with the SR9c, which they seem to be leaning towards. Taking the usual "my way of the highway" attitude of the fan-boy out of it, The SR9c, the M&P Compact, various HK models, Sigs, and more modern CZ iterations can all do the same thing, many for less money.
That is a weird statement considering that CZ can't cope with demand to the point that it is opening new factories in Slovakia and Brazil. Or did you refer to the specific situation in US? Otherwise, from conceal carrying Czechs through countless government forces around the world to Syrian rebels, 75 is THE gun.
What are the shortcomings, exactly, of the CZ's "long-in-the-tooth" 1970's design? Give us some details, rather than just throwing out catch-phrases...
You may be right, but to this point, with the exception of your complaints about the pre-B finish, you continue to make claims without offering supporting evidence. I'll happily agree that early pre-B finishes were crappy. I reblued my first pre-B. I had several more later, but their finishes were much better, and similar to the current polycoat (but not quite as durable.)
Except for the new CZ P-07 and P-09, all of the "multiple better guns available from CZ" are basically variants of the original CZ-75 design with only minor changes, if any. Many of the internal parts are the same, and if not the same, work in the exact same manner. The polymer-framed P-07 and P-09 have a different trigger/fire control design called the Omega system, and that's now available in some of the other models, as well. Some like it a lot.
Many of the "newer guns" from "just about every other gun manufacturer" you mention are striker-fired, polymer-framed guns like the Glock. Striker-fried polymer-framed guns are a turnoff for many shooters. But Glock wasn't even the first there. H&K had one earlier -- the VP70, which was introduced in 1970!
The basic CZ design is two years older than the Glock 17, roughly 60 years NEWER than the 1911, about 40 years newer than the FN/Browning Hi-Power, and the same age as the Beretta 92. It's a year older than the SIG P220.
While the Beretta 92 was introduced in 1975, it was based on design features from the Beretta M1922 and M1951, with a locking block stolen from the Walter P38. The Glock, SIG, and CZ were new designs.
The SIG P220 was introduced in 1976 (when the Swiss Army adopted it), and its then-new design was used for many later SIG models, including the P225, P226, P227, P228, P229, and various X-Five guns and models in a variety of calibers. Only the P250 and the new P320 vary from that original design. SIG also builds a 1911, with very minor changes from the original design. It's long in the tooth, too. Another long-in-the-tooth design, the SIG P-210, is consistently held in high regard by many shooters who value high accuracy; it was first put in service in 1949 and has continued with only minor changes since then; it's still being made and offered at premium prices!
A design that is long in the tooth is only a problem if the design doesn't work. All of these guns are equally "long in the tooth" designs, yet they probably account for the bulk of the handguns sold in most of the U.S. and Europe.
As for your CZ-52 having given you no problems and having a superior finish to the CZ-75: 1) you've probably not shot the CZ-52 enough; 2) have not had a firing pin break (common problem); 3) have not had a decocker fail while decocking, allowing the gun to discharge, 4) have not had the rollers wear out; 5) and you must not have had problems finding ammo. If you did have trouble finding ammo, that may be why you've never had a lot of problems -- If you can't shoot it, it won't break!! There's no question that the finish on the early pre-B CZ-75s was a weak point. All of the modern-production CZs come with much hardier, more durable finishes; thare are also high-gloss blued models, nickel-plated models and stainless steel versions. None of this was available with the pre-B models.
This brings us back to a point of focus: you talk about YOUR pre-B CZ as though it's typical of the CZs available today, and it is NOT! While talking about your pre-B gun DOES allow you to make a point of comparison that is of historical interest, but it's hardly relevant to this discussion, given that it's hard to even find a pre-B nowadays. Of the various CZs you mentioned, only the pre-B 75 and the 40P are even based on the same design, and built by the same company... The 82 (and later 83) were built by the newer CZ factory and management team, but was a fundamentally different gun, using a fixed barrel/blow-back design, and NOT the Browning short-recoil locked breech approach used in newer CZs. Totally different gun.
You really ought to sell that pre-B CZ-75. You don't like it, and you can probably still get a near-premium price... especially if everything is still stock (grips, and slide lock lever, etc.) Get you wife a gift with the proceeds. You might get a gunsmith to look at the 40P, or send it back to CZ (if you were the original buyer); The CZ-40P is not my cup of tea, but most owners seem to speak highly of them. Maybe they can straighten that gun out!
Whenever the phrase "CZ fan boys" is used it becomes clear that we are dealing with a person with a chip on their shoulder and no amount of logical explanation is going to change anything. Facts just get in the way.
9 fingers (CZ fan boy)
Separate names with a comma.