Should I get a BHP or a CZ-75

Status
Not open for further replies.

armchairQB

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
74
First of all price is not an issue, I just want the best choice.

I understand these two guns are slightly related in that the CZ is designed after the BHP. Also, the BHP is not a 100% John Browning design correct? This does not matter to me as the BHP has a long proven history. I would be getting a MKIII or a 75B. What are the primary differences and similarities as well as strengths and weaknesses of these two pistols. My caliber would be 9mm of course.
 
BHP...it is THE Classic!
I would like to like the CZs, but the trigger is too far away for me to shoot comfortably. The HP is perfect in every way. YMMV.
 
I have only shot a CZ once and it was all right. The BHP on the other hand is a truely great pistol. They point naturally and rarely even malfunction, in my experience. There are some subtle things you can do to them to make them even better. Removing that pesky mag disconnect and polishing the sear will make the trigger much better.
It is true that there are few things left in the pistol that were John's original design, as it was completed after he died, but they did a good job in coming up with a final firearm that has been used all around the world.
 
CZ-75

The HP is not a "out of the box" shooter. It has a horrible trigger pull due to the mag disconnect safety. The mag disconnect safety is another annoying feature.

The CZ has way more models, has been continously updated, and better support and aftermarket parts.

The CZ is basically an improved BHP imo.
 
There is nothing wrong with the CZ75B. It is a nice gun but IMHO it does not fit as many hands as the BHP. I used to own a great 75B but I constantly found myself adjusting my grip to shoot it properly.

The BHP simply fits my hand perfectly. YMMV

I recommend going to a shop/range put each one in your hand and one will call out to you. In the end you need to pick the gun that fits "you" best.
 
The CZ is more customizable, but the BHP is always going to be worth more.

If money is truly no object, get both :D
 
I have shot and owned both and must say I prefer the CZ 75B over the BHP. Better ergonomics and trigger IMO. But hey to each their own.
 
For what you pay for a BHP you could have a super slick CZ 75 tactical sports

http://www.impactguns.com/store/SS-21628.html

That would shoot rings around any hi-power.

Simply not true.... The cost of the base gun plus novak nights, C&S hammer, sear, commander hammer, Wide trigger, extended slide, spegel grips and trigger job by a master gun smith cost me less than that CZ. People pay too much for BHPs because they are not patient and they do not know where to shop.

BHP2.jpg

PS if you want a bad ass CZ get yourself a Shadow from Angus. http://czcustom.com/CZ75_SP01_SHADOW_CustomShop.aspx

ShadowCS_2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Simply not true.... The cost of the base gun plus novak nights, C&S hammer, sear, commander hammer, Wide trigger, extended slide, spegel grips and trigger job by a master gun smith cost me less than that CZ. People pay too much for BHPs because they are not patient and they do not know where to shop.

What did you pay for that gun?
 
The t/s has superb 2 lb SA trigger right out of the box

If money truely is no object I dont think you could beat it.

cz_tactical_sports.jpg
 
Last edited:
Witness guns seem to be good values. They are CZ clones but they do an excellent job of modernizing them. Lots of people like their Witnesses. They are too big for my hands. So they are a not start for me. YMMV
 
I own both.

They are similar in layout, but very different guns all the same. The BHP is slimmer and is finished to a higher degree than the CZ. An earlier post mentioned the BHP trigger and magazine safety. Mine has had the safety removed and the trigger is excellent now. BTW - the CZ does not have a mag safety (good news). The CZ is a little beefier pistol and will not fit BHP holster. I can't say honestly that either gun is more accurate. They both shoot very well indeed. I've got probably over 1500 rounds through the Browning and it has never had a stovepipe or failure to feed. I don't have nearly that amount through the CZ, but it's been completely reliable as well.

My CZ is a single/double action model (75B) which allows it to be carried at half-cock. I wasn't expecting much of a trigger on the CZ, but I've been very surprised. It is quite good. Not match quality, but not bad at all. This is a kind of "whatever floats your boat" deal. I don't think you can go wrong with either gun.

New, BHP's do retail for quite a bit more, but the CZ's are still a real bargain at around $500 which is what I paid for mine two months ago. I was lucky to pick up my unfired BHP for $425 about four years ago. You can find bargains on the used market if you're patient. New, they start at about $800 now, I think.

Good luck and good shooting!
 
I have both (C series BHP and SA CZ75b). The best comparison article I have seem was done by Mr. Stephen Camp (http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Browning and CZ.htm a great read). So instead listen to my poor wording, go read what he have to say about these two fine pistols.

I have to add, BHP is and will continue be my favor 9mm pistol no matter what other think.

BTW: CZ is not design after BHP. It just happen they share some similarities (spur and ring hammer, mag release bottom, grip panel...etc) . And even those similarities were often be seem in other pistols.

BHP.jpg

CZ75BSApointdown.jpg
 
the bhp has a much better stock trigger than the 75b

No, not even close.

A stock BHP has a magazine disconnect and an atrocious trigger until its removed.

Gun test recently measured its single action trigger with the magazine safety at 10lbs.
 
Another issue with the BHP is hammer bite.

Here is what guntest recently said about the BHP when they compared it to the Berretta ninety-two

Our Team Said: We didn’t like the ergonomics, tactical limitations, sights, accuracy, trigger, nor price. We received a suggestion from a reader that makes sense to some of us. That suggestion was that Browning continue to offer the classic blued Hi-Power for those stricken with nostalgia, and then improve the other versions to more modern standards with features such as elimination of the mag disconnect, a trigger in the realm of 4—not 10—pounds; beveled magazine well, better grips, slimmer rear ends on the ambi safety, longer safety levers, an extended tang to prevent hammer bite, checkering on the front and rear straps, and the option of tritium sights, to name a few items. The only thing Browning has done right with this gun over the years is to offer it in a slightly more serious caliber. Most of us would pass on it.


While I dont take everything they say as gospel truth, however you are basically looking at a $800 gun that has not changed much since 1935.

Now before you say anything about the 1911, the 1911 has undergone numerous refinements since 1911.

The BHP, not so much.
 
The CZ has way more models, has been continously updated, and better support and aftermarket parts.

The CZ is basically an improved BHP imo.

Oldnoob is right the CZ is not a derivative of BHP. Their similarities are cosmetic only.

As far as aftermarket parts are concerned there are more than you will ever need for the BHP. Mecgar mags. C&S parts, Novak sights, Henie sights, MWG Barsto Barrels, grips of all kinds etc..... the list goes on and on.

Hammer bite can be corrected easily by replacing the hammer with a commander style or a Novak no-bite hammer. Philo_Beddoe you seem to have a bias against the BHP. Much of what you have posted is simply not the case.

The BHP has been updated several times. It started with an internal extractor. There were upgrades when they went from the originals to the MKII to the MKIII. I wish you would at least get your info correct.
 
In the '80's, the Mk II hit the stage and deviated from the classic fixed sight Hi Power in its higher visibility fixed sights as well as its extended, ambidextrous thumb safety levers. It also had a narrow full-length rib atop the slide. The frame was forged like the older Hi Powers, but the finish could have very well caused major heart palpitations for those preferring polished blue finishes. Gone were the checkered walnut grips and in their place sat black, checkered nylon ones with thumb rests! The earlier production runs did not have the internal firing pin safety common the practically all of the soon to come Mk III pistols sold in the US.



In the late '80's, FN produced the Mk III. Imported by Browning, this version of the Hi Power initially had a forged frame and the gun retained not only the stocks, but also the extended thumb safety levers. Both the Mk II and the Mk III came with the now common spur hammer. The Mk III did not retain the rib on the slide and the fixed sights were larger and both front and rear dovetailed into the slide. Every Mk III that I've seen sold in the US came with the internal firing pin safety. These pistols' slide and frames were finished in a baked epoxy finish that has varied from somewhat dull to downright shiny black. Regardless, Browning calls this a "matte" finish. The shape of the ejection port was also changed to a more square one very similar to that of the 1911. This was done to increase the metal present at the lower rear of the port to reduce the chances of the slide cracking under extremely heavy use with stout loads.



With the introduction of the forty-caliber Hi Power, a change was made from forged to quality cast frames. Some gasped in horror at this. It was reportedly done, as the frame was stronger than the forged. It has been reported that after about 2500 rounds of forty-caliber ammo, the forged frames would warp. The cast ones did not and soon both the forty and 9mm versions were available only with cast frames, probably a manufacturing cost-cutting measure. Contrary to what some have reported, the slides on Hi Powers have never been cast. They continue to be forged to this day. Because the frames are harder, current Hi Power slides are tougher as they are heat-treated to a higher level than was possible with the softer forged frames.



Using the Mk III "chassis," several cataloged versions of the Hi Power exist today and probably some with specific special modifications for certain military or intelligence services throughout the world. In this country, we see:

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/BestHiPower.htm
 
First of all price is not an issue, I just want the best choice.

I understand these two guns are slightly related in that the CZ is designed after the BHP. Also, the BHP is not a 100% John Browning design correct? This does not matter to me as the BHP has a long proven history. I would be getting a MKIII or a 75B. What are the primary differences and similarities as well as strengths and weaknesses of these two pistols. My caliber would be 9mm oif course.
The Browning HP Mark III are tuff and well made but come out of the box with a very heavy single action trigger. For the price they want for a new mark III BHP it should have a better trigger and sights out of the box IMO. BHP also use external frame rails. The Mark III use those not so cool magazine safety.

CZ use internal frame rails similar to the famed Sig P210. No Mag safety.

Not sure what you are after here as far as use. But if it is an accurate out of the box range gun with a good trigger than you may want to look at the CZ Tactical Sport in 9mm. The SA only trigger came out of the box a 1 1/2 pounds and is the most accurate 9mm I've ever owned.
 
Philo_Beddoe you seem to have a bias against the BHP.

Yes, I do have a bias against a $800 plus pistol with a 10lb SA trigger, hammer bite, and magazine disconnect right out of the box.

For my money I could have a CZ shadow with a better trigger, better sights, extended mag release, no hammer bite, and no magazine disconnect and 19 round magazine.

Dont get me wrong I think the BHP was a revolutionary design, but today I think there are better choices, expecially for $800 or more dollars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top