Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

CZ/Browning versus The World

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by DJL2, Sep 16, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DJL2

    DJL2 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    17
    Location:
    USA
    The lock-up used by the Hi Power and the 75 series from CZ offer a distinct advantage over the more popular Glock/SIG/HK/Ruger/etc. style lock up. Namely, you can use a slide that is thinner and can incorporate larger round contours at the top of the slide to cut down on its over all circumference. Comparing a CZ 75 with a Glock 17, with touted low bore axis, quickly reveals that the Glock has noticeably more girth and height than the CZ in the area of the slide and dust cover.

    This of course begs the question: If you have the potential to make a more compact slide, and thus a more compact pistol overall, why wouldn't you? I would have said production costs, but CZ's do not exactly break the bank. So what is the deal? Are they just that much harder to design? Do they hold up poorly? Is it a pain to manufacture? The only thing I came up with was that most current pistol designs descend from designs in which the size of the slide, the concealability of the pistol, were no object.

    I have been thinking about it some over the last few days and it just seems really odd that only the CZ, the Browning and ye olde 1911 seem to incorporate a lock-up that permits a slide that doesn't mirror the obesity epidemic suffered by American's and the rest of their pistols (the Kahr is a different bird entirely).
     
  2. Black Snowman

    Black Snowman Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,507
    Location:
    Kansas City, KS
    The advantage of the Glock et al style lock-up is resistance to fouling with debris. Sand, mud, dirt, etc caught inside the action of the Browning style lock up is compressed into the locking lugs and may interfere with function where as in a Glock it will simply be pushed out of the way into the empty spaces in the slide or out of the various opennings.

    I personally prefer the CZs pistol but it's more a question of ergonomics and value rather than anything to do with the specifics of design.
     
  3. wildehond

    wildehond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    Cape Town, South Africa
    In one word it is tooling costs.
    It is easier to make and maintain a set of tools to punch a big hole and some grinding compared to the cost of keeping cutters sharp to mill the lockup of slides and barrels with Browning parallel lockup system.

    wildehond.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2004
  4. BHPshooter

    BHPshooter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,451
    Location:
    Utah
    That's what I love about CZs, BHPs, and 1911s. The slides are slender and have some curves to them, which serve to make it not feel like a brick.

    Very interesting thread.

    Wes
     
  5. 45auto

    45auto Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,241
    I'll ask the dumb questions.

    What is it about the lockup on the 1911, for example, that allows a more slender, rounder slide that could not have been done with a Glock design?
     
  6. wildehond

    wildehond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    Cape Town, South Africa
    In the browning parallel lockup the barrel locks into 'grooves' cut into the top of the slide infront of the ejection port. Glocks uses a block that forms part of the chamber of the barrel to lock INTO the ejection port in the slide. This means that the slide have to be beefed-up around the ejection port to handle the stress of the barrel locking into the port.
     
  7. 45auto

    45auto Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,241
    Okay, thanks for the reply.
     
  8. DJL2

    DJL2 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    17
    Location:
    USA
    Thanks for the reponse. The bit about more resistant to fouling makes sense to me. I feel a little shame for not realizing it myself. I wonder what will happen when Kahr's patents expire.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2004
  9. Marcus

    Marcus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    452
    Location:
    SE Pa.
    Just to muddy the waters a little not all CZs use Browning style lockup. The CZ-40B,40P and 100 use Glock/Sig style lockup and they are indeed slightly thicker than traditional Browning lockup guns through the slide. On the other hand Kahrs use use the Glco type lockup and their slides are very thin indeed...:scrutiny: The later is certainly easier and cheaper to build but IMO both are equaly reliable and accurate when they`re properly executed. Marcus
     
  10. cratz2

    cratz2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,233
    Location:
    Central IN
    Actual answers aside, you know that you can never judge the labor/cost that goes in to making a gun by the price tag on the shelf. I mean, everything being equal, I'm sure it costs about 10 times as much to make a CZ75, BHP or Springfield 1911 than it does a Glock but you'd never know from the price tags.

    Some would say that the 1911 lockup is overkill and that the Glock is perfectly adequate and I would agree... But have you ever looked closely at the surface wear of most out of the box 1911s? Often, only one lug locks up and then, it is often minimal how much surface locks up. As an aside, things like this are what makes the best 1911s far superior to Springfields, Kimbers and Colts from the last decade or so.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page