CZ metallurgy and quality

[ajoker31]

I really like the CZ design...both the CZ-75b and SP01. Why does it seem that the build quality (interior tool marks/trigger creep) and metallurgy of the CZ's is lacking in comparison to other average mid-range pistols?

I love the accuracy of the pistols....I just wish they'd refined the overall quailty a bit. I'd definately be willing to pay more.

Am I the only one?

Best Regards,
Joker

 

[Bozwell]

I suspect it's one of those things that is done to save money on the factory pistols so that CZ can offer them at a lower cost. Keep in mind it's an all steel pistol and the standard CZ75B sells for under $500. I'm also willing to pay more for a more refined product and that's why I've bought most of my CZ's from the CZ custom shop.

 

[rellascout]

I have always considered CZs to be hard working tools. They show tooling marks on the inside but that never bothered me at all when I was paying $400 tops for a 75B or PCR or Compact. It does not bother me on my P01.

These days as their price point moves up the refinement has not. It does not bother me but I can see where some would expect more.

None of it matters as far as function is concerned. IMHO. It is purely a looks thing when it comes to the internal tool marks.

As for the trigger creep I think CZ triggers smooth out nicely. The camming is almost always present unless you modify it but they are good clean triggers after a reasonable amount of shooting. If you want a more refined trigger people like CZ Customs can take care of that for you.

CZs used to be a buget pistol with a budget appearance but with the US $$ getting weaker and CZ labor going up the prices are going up. I still think that they are a good value even at todays prices.

 

[rbernie]

I understand the concerns over tooling marks (although I have never seen an operational issue arising from them), but what data points do you have to suggest that their metallurgy is less than desireable?

 

[rellascout]

I understand the concerns over tooling marks (although I have never seen an operational issue arising from them), but what data points do you have to suggest that their metallurgy is less than desireable?

I agree with this thought. I have never considered the quality of the CZ steel/alum to be anything but hi quality.

The 75B is one tough pistol. IMHO

 

[Tecolote]

The machining marks aren't a reflection of quality. They just don't spend time polishing internal parts. Sometimes there can be issues with the finish, especially with the polymer CZs, and on some models the nickel finish isn't up to spec. To be fair I've also seen rough machining marks on Glock slides, SIGs, Berettas, you name it. Once you've handled dozens of models you notice that not a single major company let's out 100% smooth pistols every single time.

I've never heard of an issue with CZ's metallurgy, however. They're rated +P and you can fire hot loads all day long. Indeed, I used to correspond with a fellow in Finland who had thousands of rounds of hot Lapua through his CZs. With regular maintenance like replacing the recoil spring and slide stop at recommended intervals you'll never have a problem with the frame, slide or barrel.

CZs are already getting ridiculously expensive. Back in the day you could easily find a CZ75B Military for $375 or less OTD, now the lowest I've seen for a CZ75B is from CDNN at $448 shipped plus FFL transfer fees.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Most of my CZs look like they were tooled with flint hammers on the inside... but I've never worn one out or had signs of metal fatigue.

 

[BRE346]

I've a CZ 75 P-07 that has a lousy-looking frame,but the thing shoots so very nicely that I'm keeping it.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

What is "inferior" about the metallurgy? (Of the slides, frames or barrels, at least.) And neither of mine (75D Compact PCR, 452 .22 rifle) exhibit any poor metalwork, although they are polished only where they need to be, i.e., on actual metal contact surfaces.

 

[wild cat mccane]

"With the US dollar getting weaker"

Let me pick up my latest edition of The Economist....Hum...Czech Republic. 1 US dollar gives you 20.1 dollars in Czech Republic. A year ago $1 dollar gave you 18. So actually the Czech Republic dollar has gone down.

Nope. Don't think the US dollar going down has anything to do with that currency.

 

[rellascout]

"With the US dollar getting weaker"

Let me pick up my latest edition of The Economist....Hum...Czech Republic. 1 US dollar gives you 20.1 dollars in Czech Republic.

Nope. Don't think the US dollar going down has anything to do with that currency.

You should check it again. Check the Czech labor rate from 2000 and then check it now. Check how much a 1 US $$ got you in Czech Crowns in 2000. Compare it to our current 18 to 1 figure or your 20 to 1 figure.

Oh let me save you the trouble.... in 2000 $1 US = 31.50 Czech Crowns in 2005 $1 US = 36 Czech Crowns..... Today using your last years number $1 US = 18 Czech Crowns or the current number $1 US to $20 Czech Crowns.

These two factors along with the cost of raw goods has caused the CZs to go up in price almost 45% in the last 5 years.

 

[JDGray]

My CZs don't have hideous tool marks inside, no worse than the parting lines from the molds, on all the plastic pistols I've seen.

I've yet to find a pistol to outshoot my CZs, or have I managed to break a CZ(other than a trigger spring once)

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I understand the concerns over tooling marks (although I have never seen an operational issue arising from them), but what data points do you have to suggest that their metallurgy is less than desireable?

The guys who do GUN TESTS magazine used to make a big deal out of tool marks, too. They also seemed to have a number of other very subjective criteria. I subscribed for a couple of years, but got fed up with their "gun snobbery" -- which seemed to have more to do with how something looks than how it performs.

I'm sure, if they were testing wrist watches, they'd tell you that a Timex or Seiko was greatly inferior to an Omega or Tag Heuer. I've got examples of all of the above, and they all keep great time and are equally reliable.

CZ's metallurgy? I'll worry about it the first time I hear of a failure due to inferior metallurgy. I've been a CZ fan for years, and have never encountered that with a CZ -- or any other modern metal-framed gun.

 

[Loosedhorse]

GUN TESTS magazine

Bunch of bums.

I know CZ from their rifles. In Africa they are considered "rough" (a gunsmith needs to go over the bolt, the raceways and the trigger)...

And indestructible. That's quite a testiment. I would expect the same from their pistols.

 

[HDCamel]

Expecting anything other than quality from a CZ is ludicrous. The only exception I can think of is the notorious hammer drop of the 52, but beyond that...
If it came down to having to choose only one of each type of firearm, I'd take a Cz over its equivalent from ANY other company any day of the week.

Ironically, I don't yet own any Czs, but that's almost entirely because they're so hard to find in my neck of the woods.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I'm writing this from memory, so I may have some details a little screwed up....

The CZ-52 was built by a different division of the company, during the Communist period -- the division that built rifles. That was CZ Strakonice -- with a long and great history of making long guns. The division that later built the modern CZ-75 was building motorcycles and heavy equipment when the CZ-52 was designed and produced. That was CZ-Brno. (Strakonice and Brno are the towns where the factories were located.)

In other words, the CZ-52 was built by a different company; but both of the companies were subsidiaries of a larger industrial complex under Communist rule. The folks who later went on to design and build the CZ-75 and the factory in which they were and are made had nothing to do with the CZ-52's design or production.

With the fall of the Communist Bloc, the newer division in Brno, building handguns, became a "capitalist" organization, but basically had to start from scratch -- as there was no "government" funding available.

There are CZs and CZs. Any gun made or assembled in Czechoslovakia or the Czech Republic can (and often will) carry the CZ designation, but it may have nothing to do with the firm building the guns we call CZs. Some of the TT series of CZs, that came into the US a few years back, were made from Tanfoglio components, but assembled in the Czech Republic, were also called CZs. The importer -- ADCO -- made a big deal out of it's CZ heritage in their advertising; it was mostly sham, but using CZ in their product name was technically correct. That factory (or assembly point) was known as CZ Strojirna, apparently in the Strakonice area. The ADCO CZs, including the CZ TT-45 had a less than stellar record...

There is a long, proud tradition of gun-making in the Czech Republic, but it helps to understand some of the details.

 

[1SOW]

More precisely machined and polished CZ pistols are available if you wish to get into that bracket of high-dollar pistols.
I absolutely drool over this particular 9mm version that will fire your typical WWB 115gr load or a 1500+ ft/sec "major PF" load.
This is OOB ready to run.

re metalurgy: try drilling any key areas in that inexpensive 75B.
MR "schmeky" a forum member and CZ gunsmith, can provide better info on the steel qualities of this tough pistol.

 

[dcarch]

I love CZ's. Ironically, the feature I love most about them, the slide-inside-the-frame feature, (which offers incredible accuracy potential) is what I hate the most too. I find it kind of hard to grab the slide with my big fingers. Other than that one issue, I love the CZ.

 

[armoredman]

Hmm, just checked, didn't find anything nasty looking, and certainly nothing that impedes any functioning. I bet my life and my families lives on CZ made firearms every day.

 

[HGM22]

dcarch, I thought I was the only one with that issue. Guess not.

As far as the metallurgy being bad, what exactly are you concerned about?

Also, it is possible that while the CZ52 and CZ75 were built in different factories/cities (I'll have to take your word for it), they might have been knowledge and people sharing involved.

 

[gyvel]

I read a few years back that CZ weapons were made from Poldi steel, supposedly considered some of the best in the world.

 

[wildehond]

My first handgun was a CZ75 pre B, that was VRY well used. I put a couple of thousand rounds through it as well. At the end it was STILL very accurate and 100% reliable. I sold it on. I think it is probably still going somewhere.

The tooling marks are mostly because of the tough steels they use for parts. The tools to cut that are very expensive so I think they push every bit from a tool before it is discarded.

I think I 'need' to get myself another one... With some searching I should be able to get a nice pre B model around here.

 

[chris in va]

All of my CZ firearms have been...quirky. Something always needs tweaking for it to run as it should. Fortunately once 'corrected'...



...they are sweet shooters.

 

[larryflew]

Have had up to 14 and still have 7 CZ's and not one problem with any of them.

 

[PO2Hammer]

I found a few tool marks on the inside of my super accurate and reliable CZ 75.

Then I took the grips off of my Freedom Arms revolver, you know what I found? Tool Marks. Maybe I should send it in for metallurgical testing.