Why so many CZ-75 clones, but few SIG P210 or Hi-Power clones?

[Walt Sherrill]

The CZ-75 seemed to borrow heavily from the SIG P210 and a bit from the Hi-Power.

Having owned and detailed stripped all three, I can tell you that there's very little about the CZ that is similar to the SIG P-210 or BHP.

The BHP and SIG P-210 are both SA only models with vastly different internals (from each other and the CZ.)

About the only thing that the CZ shares with the P-210 is the slide within the frame (also found in a number of other guns, including Stars.) Whether that feature really contributes to accuracy is an unanswered question, as many top-notch bullseye guns don't have that feature. Many custom gun-makers and 'smiths also say that barrel to slide fit is far more important than slide to frame fit.

The only thing the CZ has in common with the BHP is the general ergonomics of the frame, but in the case of the CZ, its done with a DA/SA mechanism, rather than SA only, and has a greater round capacity. I have both, now, and find either a pleasure to shoot, and ergonomically superior to nearly all other guns.

The P-210 is superb, but the older models (like the P-210-6 I owned) have hard-to-use European-style mag releases, are limited to eight rounds in VERY expensive magazines, have a safety that can be difficult to release, and sights that have sharp edges that will sometimes require rounding (or result in blood-letting if you do a clearance drill.)

All three are well executed designs; the big advantage of the P-210 over the other two is the care with which it is built/fit and finished. Well-tuned versions of all three will generally perform better than the person using them.

 

[Jaymo]

I sold my FEG 9HP to my friend, to help pay for my wife's engagement ring.
I also sold him my Mini Mark X in 7.62x39.
STUPID! I should have kept both.
The FEG had a much better finish than the FN HPs that were made at the time I bought mine. It was 100% reliable and one of my favorite shooters.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Having owned and detailed stripped all three, I can tell you that there's very little about the CZ that is similar to the SIG P-210 or BHP.

The BHP and SIG P-210 are both SA only models with vastly different internals (from each other and the CZ.)
.

I didn't say it was a clone, or a direct copy. I said it borrowed from them.

All of them have the similar locking lugs on the barrel common to the Browning designs. They have very similar take down methods, which are a bit easier than the 1911 and other earlier Browning designs. The linkless cam on the CZ-75 and the P210 are very similar. The Outward appearance of the CZ-75 and the Hi-Power are very similar, from the forward part of the slide, to the grips. It borrowed and evolved from them. The same can be said for many modern locked breech auto-loaders, except IMO the traits of the HI-Power and P210 which were passed down a generation are more obvious on the CZ-75, than say a SIG P226.

 

[Arp32]

I just picked up a Kareen HP clone at the gun show today so I can offer a few first impressions. J&G put these up on the website earlier this week and they had some of the cheapest grade on hand at the Crossroads show today. Could have sworn the website picture showed an extended beavertail on an original-style frame the other day, but the ones they had today had the original shorter tang. Internals on the version I bought appear to be HP based, none of the S&W derivative stuff I read about.

Anyway, I've already field stripped it twice (including once with the recoil spring upside down - will never do that again as long as I live...), and given it a good cleaning. Pretty intuitive, although clearly I should have watched a how-to video to see the proper recoil spring orientation. So far I am very satisfied, especially for the price (under $300 OTD including tax and a 40mm ammo can). The finish is worn in, but acceptable for a range gun like this one will be. The Century import marks are a bit sloppy, but at least they didn't rebuilt anything inside.

Will have to wait a week for a range trip, but my first impression was that the trigger was medium/hard (which was ok since it isn't a long pull), but extremely gritty. Magazines wouldn't drop drop free, which was annoying. I disassembled it again and removed the magazine disconnect safety and that solved both problems. Trigger feels like a firm 5-6 lbs that breaks crisply and predictably. No grit at all. I really don't see the need for a trigger job at this point. The safety is infinitesimal, which I guess means I am used to the Ed Brown extended safety I have on my 1911, Not sure I would ever CCW with this itty bitty lever, it's small, doesn't move very far, and doesn't feel very positive when you operate it, which I could see being an issue during presentation under stress. The safety lever and the plain plastic grips will probably be the first things I upgrade. Having learned to shoot handguns on a 1911, the Kareen points naturally. Sights are narrow (somewhere between a GI 1911 and a P-38 in terms of thickness, or thinness), but I seem to pick them up just fine. I'm not sure they're worth upgrading, unless I was just itching to put a few hundred dollars into a $260 gun.

Despite these minor gripes, I'm really pleased. It has a high "feels right in the hand" factor. Anyway, if you guys are looking for a Hi Power clone, I think the Kareen is a solid sub-$300 gun. I can't wait to shoot it.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I didn't say it was a clone, or a direct copy. I said it borrowed from them.

All of them have the similar locking lugs on the barrel common to the Browning designs. They have very similar take down methods, which are a bit easier than the 1911 and other earlier Browning designs.

Actually, you said, "borrowed heavily" from them, and I think it's difficult to make that case.

Ease of take-down became an important design feature as the pistols moved into the modern military world.

The linkless cam on the CZ-75 and the P210 are very similar.

I think the BHP design (of the two) was the first to use the linkless cam; Browning's original patent drawings from 1927 incorporated that feature. Did the SIG P-210 "borrow" that from the BHP or did SIG independently develop a similar design feature?

The original BHP design by Browning was a striker-fired weapon, changed later by Saive, after JMB's death. Saive later incorporated other Colt-like features (designed by Browning) into the design after the Colt patents expired. The original JMB design -- here's a link -- is quite different from what we now call the BHP:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=2DVLAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=patent+1618510&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

What ELSE is similar? Double-stack mags in the case of the CZ? That was a real JMB innovation, but nowadays most full-size (and some compact) non-.45 semi-autos use THAT feature.

If the linkless barrel is a BHP feature, the only "evolutionary" link between he SIG P-210 and the CZ-75 seems limited to the slide-inside-the-frame feature -- a feature that SIG doesn't use in any of their other weapons (even their top-of-the-line X-Five guns.) It may have been an evolutionary dead end; it was borrowed by the Star line of pistols, and they hit a dead-end, too.

The Outward appearance of the CZ-75 and the Hi-Power are very similar, from the forward part of the slide, to the grips. It borrowed and evolved from them.

I seriously doubt that the Koucký brothers set out to make the CZ LOOK like the BHP. They clearly wanted a DA/SA guns that fit the hand well, and that limited their design options.

All that said, most modern pistols have features or functions that are derived from early Browning designs but focusing on the BHP and especially the SIG P-210, in the case of the CZ, seems to be overstating the case.


.

 

[harmon rabb]

The SIG P210 has been around for over 60 years. Is there really some kind of international patent regulation in effect?

Nope. Not possible after that long. I'm a patent attorney btw.

 

[Certaindeaf]

.Not sure I would ever CCW with this itty bitty lever..

I like the tiny safeties the best.. way less likely to get bumped off accidentally while carrying.
I've practiced with them a lot.

 

[Ash]

Walt, you will notice John Browning himself used the inside-the-frame slide arrangement on his High Power design. Check out the link you posted.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Re: slide inside the frame...

Yes, but only in the two prototypes. The slide inside the frame wasn't used in the Hi-Power that actually made it to market... The High Power shown in the patent drawings is a quite-different weapon and not much like the BHP most of us admire... Ditto the striker mechanism, and a number of other design features. Saive probably has more to do with the final design characteristics of the gun than Browning -- who was long dead when the BHP design was finished and the gun was put into production.

There are quite a few differences that are mentioned on other sites. A significant one -- one I never paid attention to before -- is that the BHP lower barrel lug cams on a spot on the frame, while the CZ's lower barrel lug cams on the slide stop lever. (That's why the CZ's lower lug can be "closed" [encircling the slide stop] while the BHP's must be open.


.

 

[PT92]

Think there have actually been a good number of Hi-Power copies, especially if you include all of the somewhat altered derivatives, like the Arcus.

Good point--I just bought the Arcus 98 (all-metal gun) and while JMB and the true
'Hi-Pointers" if you will would not be thrilled with its imitation (DA for one) it does resemble the Hi Power in many respects. I bought it because I was looking for a nice affordable 10K+ round range gun and this fits the bill (it's a real durable beast of a 9mm).