CZ82 vs. PA63

[Picknlittle]

Okay, here are a couple of comparative questions. I don't know anyone who has experience with both for the sake of a true comparison. My observations are that both pistols are the same approximate size and weight, and the feel in my hand is pretty similar although I have not fired either of them. I know the CZ has a polygonal barrel and the PA is conventional rifling. The CZ is blowback, the PA, I don't know.

1. What if any are the operational differences between the two, ie safety, mag release, etc?

2. Can the recoil of the PA63 be reduced through spring selection as the CZ82 is?

3. Is there a difference in accuracy/performance due to rifled vs. polygonal bores?

4. Does the polygonal bore restrict the use of lead bullets?

5. Would you consider either as a carry gun?

TIA,

 

[wally]

The CZ82 does cocked and locked, the PA63 is DA/SA that alone means I have a CZ82 and don't have a PA63.

The PA63 is cheaper, but I think extra mags for the CZ82 are easier to find since they are the same as for the CZ83 whcih is still in production and imported new.

The CZ82 has what has been called "oval rifling", it looks at first like a totally smooth or shotout bore. I'd wager it'd be great with lead bullets of the proper size since there are no edges at all. Use the search as we discussed it a lot when I first saw one and asked about it.

Actually I think the PA63 is a bit lighter since I think it has an aluminum frame and is single stack where the CZ83 is double stack.

The CZ82 is a first rate gun, too bad they weren't available back when 9x18 Mak ammo was dirt cheap.

--wally.

 

[Ron James]

As the CZ 82 has a very smooth double action pull ( one of the smoothest I've ever seen in a stock pistol) I don't under stand the need for cocked and locked carrying. The Pa-63 has a unhardened aluminium frame, I believe the heavy springs are there to keep the gun from self destructing. Yes, changing springs will lighten the trigger pull, but it will also hasten the time between a "gun" and being a "paperweight". I own both and other than changing the barrel on the PA-63 to 380, both are stock.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

If I had to use a .380 or 9x18 as my carry gun, there's no question that it would be the CZ-82 (or the similar CZ-83). Far better gun. Somewhat bigger and heavier, but far, far easier to shoot well. Its a real gun, not an inexpensive imitation.

The only real virtue of the PA-63 is it's low cost.

 

[wrangler5]

Contrary to Wally's suggestion, I believe the conventional wisdom is NOT to fire lead bullets through a polygonal bore. There are several documented cases of Glocks (which also have polygonal rifling) going kaboom after folks fired lead bullets through them, and I believe the Glock instructions books specifically warn against using lead bullets. It may take a lot of lead to reach that point, and maybe the bore can be cleaned out more easily than with conventionally rifled bores, and maybe the CZ-82/83 makarov bores are different (other calibers use conventional rifling) but I believe the general advice is to just not do it.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The key to lead bullets in a Glock (or other polygonal barrel) is handloading and properly sizing the bullet to the barrel. One Master-level IPSC shooter and instructor I've worked with shoots lead all the time, but makes sure the bullet fits the barrel properly (and doesn't let hot gases go around the bullet and start melting the lead.) Every time I've seen him shoot a Glock, he's been shooting his own handloads.

Those of us who don't handload are at a disadvantage, here...

 

[wally]

Contrary to Wally's suggestion, I believe the conventional wisdom is NOT to fire lead bullets through a polygonal bore.

If you look at the bore of a Glock and compare it to the bore of the CZ82 you will clearly see the CZ82 is not polygonal. I don't know how anyone ever mistook it for polygonal unless they've never looked and only repeat internet "wisdom". I've never suggested shooting lead in a standard Glock barrel. Lead bullets are always trouble if not sized right and kept to velocities in line with their alloy hardness.

The CZ82 "rifling" is an oval or elliptical cross section that rotates to generate the twist. Its not been used on a lot of guns which just made me have to have a CZ82 for the collection.

I don't under stand the need for cocked and locked carrying.

If the first shot has got to count I've never understood why anyone would handicap themselves with a DA/SA gun. To each his own.

At least with a DAO (and SA) every trigger pull is the same.

--wally.

 

[Picknlittle]

Well, today I got to spend some quality time with a CZ82 and I gotta say, it is sweet. Just a bit snappy maybe but a very comfortable size and shape. I managed to keep with 3" groups at 7 yds. I didn't try and more distance. Only had so much ammo

I can't remember who mentioned the smooth trigger on the 82, but he was dead on. The trigger has a very smooth, light and predictable feel.

I would like to shoot a PA63 just for the sake of comparison, but first impressions of the cz82 are very good.

Thanks for all the feedback.

 

[wally]

Just a bit snappy

In my experience its a characteristic of blow-back pistols despite the minor calibers.

I think the CZ82 at current prices is one of the best gun buys on the market right now.

--wally.

 

[Picknlittle]

Lead bullets.

The subject of lead bullets and different types of rifling came up in another thread, so I thought it appropriate to give this it's own space and discussion.

Is there a type of pistol or rifling that prefers lead bullets?

Is there a circumstance where lead is better than jacketed, (beyond expense)?

How much pressure will lead bullets stand before meltdown begins?

How is accuracy of lead bullets compared to jacketed?

 

[Walt Sherrill]

With regard to polygonal barrels in CZ-82s and CZ-83s. The newer 83s offer a polygonal barrel, I think, in the 9x18 version, but not in the .380. (I might have it backwards.) That's the only gun, as far as I know, in which CZ offers a polygonal barrel. Don't know about the '82.

 

[wally]

The subject of lead bullets and different types of rifling came up in another thread, so I thought it appropriate to give this it's own space and The lines making the lands and grooves are clearly visible as are the slopes connecting the high and low spots. discussion.

You should either redirect to the other thread or start a new topic.

I'll direct you to "Modern Reloading, Second Edition" by Richard Lee For a pretty through discussion with the data to back it up for the detailed answers to the questions you've asked. $13 from www.midwayusa.com But bear in mind Mr. Lee has a vested interest in having you reload and use cast bullets

My CZ83 .380 has standard rifling, its about four years old, so its possible they've changed recently. The surplus 9x18 CZ82 currently being sold I passed on initially because I'd never seen a bore shot so smooth -- including 100+ year old broomhandle Mausers and British bulldogs, although their condition otherwise made it hard to see how they could have been shot enough to wear a barrel so smooth. When I asked about it here, I learned about "Oval Rifling" use the search, I think the definitive answer came in the gunsmithing forum, if I remember right.

The illustration on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygonal_rifling ) greatly exagerates the "smoothness" of polygonal rifling compared to my Glock and Kahr. Kahr made the CW series with standard rifling for those who want to practice with lead bullets (I got one and its already paid for itself with the savings from shooting my cast reloads vs. the cheapest jacketed factory ammo).

Its also possible some CZ82 have a different rifling, but the 20 or so I've looked over carefully at gun shows all had the oval rifling -- I should get a commission for helping sell some by explaining they were not "shot out" and showing how the "bright spot" from a bore light rotates as you walk it up the bore on the oval rifling compared to with a shotgun where the spot or ring just moves straight up.

--wally.

 

[Picknlittle]

I don't know what happened. I was actually trying to start a new thread, because this thread was the other thread I was talking about. Oh well,..puter stuff happens.