Help on .380

[Stephen A. Camp]

Test on CZ-83...

Hello. I bought one of these a year or two ago and while I've shot it some, I just don't shoot .380 ACP all that much. Finally decide it was time to really see what the thing might be capable of.

The Pistol: The CZ83 is most often seen in .380, but I think some examples are around in 9x18 Makarov. If memory serves, the pistol was also offered in .32 ACP, but I could be wrong on that.

Like the larger CZ pistols, this is a conventional DA/SA pistol that allows for "cocked and locked" carry should that be desired. The generous tang prevented the spur hammer from biting me, despite my somewhat large hands. The DA pull is long, but extremely smooth and quite light. The trigger is not grooved. This was surprisingly good. The SA pull is light, but like the CZ75, the hammer's pushed back very slightly in the SA pull before it falls. This precludes the crisp "glass rod" break most often seen on tuned 1911s. This does not mean that the SA pull's hard to use; it isn't. It is a straight blow back as are most .380 pistols.

Sights are fixed and the same as those on the CZ75/85 B pistols, i.e., very usable and easy to see at speed. They're the 3 Dot variety and have the "glow in the dark" paint. I'd be happy with plain black-on-black.

This picture shows the sights, ambidextrous, frame-mounted thumb safeties, but does not show the ambidextrous magazine release located at the rear of the trigger guard.

Original-capacity magazines in .380 were 13 rnd, but my gun came with two 10 rnd mags that were easy to load and appeared quite well-made. This pistol also has the hooked trigger guard that's checkered on front rather than the older, rounded one. (I prefer the rounded.) Stocks are black, partially checkered plastic secured with one Phillips head screw on each side. (I think these screws look "cheap" and would much prefer slotted or hex head given my druthers.) The pistol has an external slide release.

The slide release is not ambidextrous and well-positioned.

Ammunition: There is a wide selection of ammunition around for .380. I used one FMJ round in the test with the rest being JHPs. Ammunition used:

Fiocchi 95 gr FMJ
PMC 90 gr JHP
Federal Classic 90 gr JHP
Federal 90 gr Hydrashok JHP
Winchester 95 gr "Deep Penetrator" JHP
Corbon 90 gr JHP +P

I do not have any personally chronographed figures for any .380 loads, but the Corbon is rated at 1050 ft/sec with the others a bit shy of 1000 ft/sec. Rounds were ejected to the right about 18 ft or so.

Shooting: Ten-shot groups were fired with the above loads at 10 yards, standing w/2-hand hold in slow-fire, single-action and the same for the 25 yard test.

Sights were dead-on. Top left: Fiocchi ball, Bottom Left: PMC JHP, Top Right: Federal JHP, Bottom Right: Winchester JHP, Middle: Corbon JHP, Top Middle: Federal Hydrashok.

The gun "shoots." The PMC shot the tightest group with the rest about equivalent. For what it's worth, I've not been able to get PMC's JHP to expand in any informal expansion tests.

Since many folks use Federal's 90 gr Hydrashock as their defensive load in this caliber, I opted to use it for the 25 yard target.

I think it is plenty accurate enough for defensive purposes. I did have one malfunction with this load, but none with any of the others. One round failed to fully chamber. Test your defensive ammo regardless of your pistol choice. I found this surprising as chambering rounds off full magazines was "slick" and without hesitation with any of the rounds tested. The Hydrashock round that hung up was the 4th round.

The following group was fired as quickly as I could get on target using the Corbon +P 90 gr JHP at 10 yards. It consists of 5 "controlled pairs." Since this gun does allow for cocked and locked, I fired only the first round double-action. It is the low one!

Recoil is not "sharp" as has been reported by some, but I suspect this is with the smaller .380 pistols.

Observations: The CZ83 is easy to shoot and shoot well. While it is large for caliber compared to many of the smaller and more potent 9mm & 40 caliber pistols, it does have enough bbl to take advantage of what velocity the .380 has. Though NOT on my short-list of preferred defensive rounds, I'd likely use the 90 gr Federal Classic JHP for this purpose of the ones tested. This round's "worked" in various informal expansion tests, at least to my satisfaction. I've not "tested" the Winchester round. I might also test it and the Remington 102 gr Golden Saber for this caliber if serious about it.

Metal fit and finish was quite satisfactory and the blue was even.

If interested in a .380 ACP pistol, even though it doesn't have the almost mandatory decocker, I suggest looking long and hard at this pistol.

Comparison to Makarov: This is likely the one to be made by many folks. For those interested, a range report on the Mak can be found via the link below.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=129102

The CZ has the lighter trigger pulls in both SA and DA.
The CZ has cocked and locked capability; the Mak does not.
Out of the box, the CZ has better sights.
Neither pistol has an internal firing pin safety. The CZ's is retained via the traditional firing pin retaining plate.
The Makarov is a bit more powerful.
Magazines for the Mak are much less expensive.
CZ magazine holds 10 in current form; Maks hold 8.
No magazine disconnect in either pistol.
The CZ comes with more visible sights than the Makarov, but the latter pistol can be bought under $200 while the CZ's costs around $300. Better sights can be put on the Makarov should the owner desire and the cost difference becomes negligible.

While I find the CZ83 more "refined" than the Makarov, I do like the feel of the Makarov better when fitted with Pearce grips.



Best.

 

[PCRCCW]

Mr. Camp,
As usual, your write ups are beyond reproach! You can write a review on my guns anyday...in fact you have on a couple of occasions. I miss my 83's...but more are on the horizon.
IMO, they have one of the best triggers out of the box on just about any trad d/a gun...my BDA rivalled my first 83 for overall trigger greatness ..my second was quite close.
I tell people about my little .380 grouping 1.900" at 25 yds with Silver tips and get alot of eye rolling Your results far surpass my best.....excellent shooting.
Thanks again...Shoot well, Eric

 

[Ledbetter]

ScottsGT

My understanding is the problem only occurred in Mustang slides of a certain lot. It just happened to be the final lot of production. Your Gov.380 should be fine, as are my two (nickel and stainless).

 

[mguffey]

Mr. Camp's excellent CZ83 post

This material and some other related data now has a URL:
http://thearmedcitizen.com/gunpages/cz83.htm

Used by permission.

 

[Will Beararms]

Why doe Beretta 84/85's always get overlooked in the .380 debates!

They are accurate, well made with quality materials, safe and easy to shoot.

Yes they are a little larger than others but look at em!

 

[Robby from Long Island]

I agree with "Will Beararms". I purchased a Beretta 84F 12 years ago and definitely think it is the best made .380 out there.

True, they are not cheap but you get what you pay for. Mine was NIB when I got mine and I paid $420 for it. Being a double stack holding 14 rounds, it's not small but its size helps soak up recoil on that blowback design.

I have to admit I would rather wait a few months on the purchase of a new gun while I saved more money for what I consider to be the best available.

Safe shooting.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I feel sorry for people who think recoil from a PPK is bad.

The people who complain about hammer bite from a PPK must have big fat squishy hands.

 

[mguffey]

hammer bite woes

So-called "hammer bite" can be caused, my be more likely to be caused, by small hands, limp wristing. For big handers suffering hammer bite the Hogue Handall grip sleeve would probably help.

And, as happened the first time I experienced hammer bite (with a new Bersa 380), it went away with some range time.

 

[Al Thompson]

I have non-squishy hands, but suffer from hammer bite with stock 1911s, BHPs and the occassional PP series.

It's more of a matter of grip than anything else. I would much rather adjust my firearm to my tastes than my grip to my firearm.

 

[rjoy]

I was wondering when someone would eventually get around to talking about the Beretta in .380. I have a model 84 with 13 rd mag and I use it a lot as a carry gun. I love the looks of it and it functions flawlessly. I bought it at about the time when gunmakers were starting to downsize pistols for pocket guns. The only problem I have with the idea of a .380 is that you can buy nines and forties that are the same size or slightly larger. More power in the same sized package.

I just can't seem to find the desire to get rid of it though!!

 

[mbott]

How is somebody supposed to post a good word for the CZ 83 after Mr. Camp has?

--
Mike

 

[QB]

Well here's my three .380s. I do not carry the Mustang but the Sphinx and Pony are backups at various times (both are DAO). All three have functioned 100%. The Sphinx is unbelievably accurate.

Sphinx AT380M.
Larger & heavier than either Colt but holds 10+ rounds ("they" say there are 15 round mags but I've only seen 12 rounders).

Colt Pony Pocketlite. Can't find the picture without the holster. I'll edit this post a little later with an actual picture of the gun.

Colt Mustang Lady Elite.

 

[Seminole]

Of course, you could wait until March and buy the Kel Tec P-3AT. I've been pleased with my P32 as a BUG (it is undedectible in my front pocket even in jeans) but given the fact that the .380 will be virtually as small as the P-32, I'll be upgrading to the more powerful caliber. Anybody want to buy a P-32 in March?

 

[Coronach]

Sig P232

I carry a Sig P232 as my off-duty gun. I'm not a big fan of the caliber, but the Sig is about the only pistol on my dept's off-duty/back-up list that I wanted.

The gun is reliable (after one odd hiccup which Sig fixed, no questions asked, a case of one defective part). The gun is ergonomic as heck. I can't think of another pistol that is as pleasant to shoot as the P232. It is fast and accurate. I don't think the recoil is snappy at all- very mild.

Many state, correctly, that you can:

1. get a 9mm the same size as the P232

and

2. You can get a .380 a lot smaller than the P232

Thats all well and good, but IMHO anything smaller than the P232 is getting a little uncomfortable to shoot. I dislike not having enough space on the grip for my pinkie, or feeling like I'm holding some child's toy instead of a gun. This "large size" might adversely affect concealability, but I'd rather hit what I'm aiming at, thanks.

Also, a 9mm in a P232-sized package is probably not as easy to shoot quickly and accurately. However, I haven't shot one, so I dunno. YMMV.

I love my P232.

Mike

 

[mguffey]

if comfortable shooting were paramount

If the issue of .380 hammer bite and recoil were major
considerations (such as getting a pistol for a lady), one
might give consideration to what many have written off as
a "junk gun."

The S&W Sigma 380 has taken a lot of of criticism because
of its zinc-alloy slide and the fact that after 3500 rounds it
needs some factory work. The gun is now discontinued and
can be found for well under $150 used, about $200 if still NIB.

I own two and have a web page about this model at:
http://thearmedcitizen.com/gunpages/sigma380.htm

While it's ugly and oft maligned, I've found it always
comfortable to shoot and the bullets go to point of aim
making it good for one-handed instinctive shooting. I use
them as "car guns" but it's easily concealable and fairly
lightweight.

This post is only provided in a discussion that is becoming
wider about the .380 and because this pistol is notably
lighter than all metal pistols of the same general size.

 

[shooter.45]

I just found out about the New Keltec .380 and since I have a P32 andhave had good luck with it. I might just have to wait to check that out first.. Thanks for all the reply's.

 

[6Covered]

Well, good ahead and jump all over me...but. I went out to find a 32 cal Tomcat. Ended up with a S&W SW380 plastic gun. Half the price, light weight, small in size and goes bang everytime I've pulled the trigger. Run about 250-300 Federal 105's through it. Got it for summer pocket carry when bigger isn't practical. I know this gun isn't going to last 50 years but works well for me at this time.

 

[wbond]

Regarding your comparison of CZ-83 to Makarov:

I respectfully disagree with your statement that the Makarov is more powerful than CZ-83. The reverse is true actually, if you are comparing the CZ-83 to the Makarov with both chambered in 9x18. The CZ-83 was made for Checkoslovak (spelling?) 9x18 ammo, which is 20% more powerful than Rusky 9x18 ammo. That means the CZ-83 is 20% more powerful than the Makarov when both are in the same caliber, if you can find really hot 9x18 ammo like the Checks made. This would be like a 9x18 ++++P.

Then there's Makarov 9x18 PMM ammo made for the new high capacity, high power commercial Makarov PMM, which shoots 9x18 PMM ammo. Think of this as a 9x18 Magnum, which is about equivalent to a 9mm Parabellum +P or +P+.

You should never put 9x18 PMM ammo in a traditional old style Makarov (PM) or a CZ-83 because PMM ammo is 70% more powerful than the standard 9x18 Rusky ammo, or 50% more powerful than 9x18 Check ammo. 9x18 PMM ammo is only for the new high capacity, high power Makarov PMM, which shoots 9x18 PMM ammo. The PMM ammo is really scary because it fits regular Makarovs and CZ-83s, but would probably blow them up in your face. This is like if a .357 Mag cartridge were same size as .38 Special. That would be really scary if you put .357 Mag in a .38 Special, wouldn't it?

Back to the point. The CZ-83 is 20% more powerful than the traditional old style Makarovs (PM) if comparing both in 9x18, assuming you shoot the ammo in each that it can handle. If you compare a CZ-83 in .380 to a Makarov 9x18 PM (traditional Mak that shoots traditional 9x18 ammo, called PM ammo), they are equal power because the CZ-83 can shoot .380 +P all the time without damage or undue wear. This is what the CZ-83 was made for. .380 +P has equivalent power to standard 9x18.

So depending on what chamberings you compare, the CZ-83 has either equal power or 20% more power than a tradtional Makarov, but the CZ-83 has less recoil due to the genius of its design. I'd like to own a traditional Makarov PM for the history and experience, but the CZ-83 is the better gun hands down and has its own history.

The Makarov PMM on the other hand, is far more powerful that either a traditional Makarov PM or a CZ-83. The PMM is really a 9x18 Magnum, but why bother with 9x18 PMM this since you get the same power from a 9mm +P Parabellum. The Parabellum ammo is probably much cheaper and easy to get than PMM ammo too.

Comparison to Makarov: This is likely the one to be made by many folks. For those interested, a range report on the Mak can be found via the link below.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=129102

The CZ has the lighter trigger pulls in both SA and DA.
The CZ has cocked and locked capability; the Mak does not.
Out of the box, the CZ has better sights.
Neither pistol has an internal firing pin safety. The CZ's is retained via the traditional firing pin retaining plate.
The Makarov is a bit more powerful.
Magazines for the Mak are much less expensive.
CZ magazine holds 10 in current form; Maks hold 8.
No magazine disconnect in either pistol.
The CZ comes with more visible sights than the Makarov, but the latter pistol can be bought under $200 while the CZ's costs around $300. Better sights can be put on the Makarov should the owner desire and the cost difference becomes negligible.

While I find the CZ83 more "refined" than the Makarov, I do like the feel of the Makarov better when fitted with Pearce grips.

 

[gunfan]

One more vote for the Bersa!

+1! Mine has yet to fail me. (Nor do I expect it will any time soon).

Scott

 

[1911 guy]

Sig P232

My wife shoots a P232 and likes it. For not much more size, though, you can go the P230 route and get 9mm.

As for reliability and accuracy, thumbs up on the Sig. Easy to take down for maint. and cleaning. More difficult with the PPK.

 

[hhb]

CZ83

then, by all means, check out a CZ 83. Somewhat heavier than a P232 it has IMHO less felt recoil. All steel, reliable, and an excellent shooter. Comes with 10-round mags and costs a bunch less than SIGs. FYI http://cz-usa.com/. Good shooting

I agree the CZ 83 is a quality handgun. My only complaint is that it can't be dry fired without using snapcaps or the plastic thingies that come with it.

 

[MICHAEL T]

Why a thread that been closed for 3 years reopened?
I say get a PPK/S and the PPK/S has the mag release in correct place Thats for who ever posted it didn't 3 years ago.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Who in the hecks drags out an almost four year old thread to disagree with someone talk about a troll.

 

[Pilot]

Why doe Beretta 84/85's always get overlooked in the .380 debates!

They are accurate, well made with quality materials, safe and easy to shoot.

Yes they are a little larger than others but look at em!

I agree. My primary carry is sometimes a Beretta 85FS in .380. I like the slimness, lightness and 4" barrel. I carry the 90 grain +P Corbons in it. I think most people "forget" about it due to its expense, although the Sig 232 is at least as expensive or more so. The Beretta is slightly larger than the 232, but I like the way it feels in my hand better than the 232.

Most people seem to be going to the Kahr 9MM's which are actually smaller and lighter than the 85FS or 232. I don't blame them, but I don't feel underamed with the Beretta or a Makarov which I also carry.

 

[shooter503]

PPK and P230

Threads probably get sooo long because people are quibbling about details that don't really matter. But, what the Heck, we are here to have fun with our toys.

I have shot the PPK for many years. Interarms stainless. It jammed frequently when it was new but an hour with a very smooth diamond file took most of the, too sharp, rough edges off. After I had fired a few hundred rounds it began to break-in and it has been reliable ever since.

I got a P230SL (I love classics). A dream. More ergonomic than the PPK, much better stock grips. Much smoother out of the box.

Hardware differences: P230 much better grips. Smoother DA. P230 slightly bigger but no noticeable difference in carry or use. Magazine release differs - whatever turns you on, both work fine. May be just my pistols but magazine is a tight sliding fit with the P230, you need to pull it out whilst the PPK mag falls free at the push of the button (must fix that).

Use differences: None that you would notice if you were in an exciting situation. Both pistols surprisingly accurate. Both pistols have sights that look like a joke at first but they turn out to be "operationally" perfectly usable. Recoil is not a problem at all, repeat not at all. You do need a firm grip but no more than you should be using with any handgun. MOST IMPORTANT THING - BOTH GUNS ARE NATURAL POINTERS. Walther and Sig know about the correct grip to barrel angle which is a failing on several of the other autos mentioned in the thread. Colt take note.

My choice. For carry both work fine (I even use the same holster for both). Where you actually shoot very much, which is my situation, I go with the P230. It is just more comfortable to shoot a lot of rounds.