Calling CZ...Here's your next niche

S

Shmackey

New member
The old-fashioned types didn't take to this on the 1911 forum, but I think it's a great idea.

Considering how much you have to pay to get a truly reliable 1911 these days, wouldn't you buy a CZ 1911-based pistol? I'd want the same options you see on the 75B (blue, poly, silver, two-tone, compact), and only one modification from the usual 1911 spec: an external extractor. Even Kimber has figured out that the extractor is the Achilles' heel of the 1911.

CZ could charge as much as they do for their 97B -- or even more -- and if they could harness their blend of CZ construction and value, they'd fly off the shelves. The fact is, if you wanted a 1911 that you could trust for real, you'd need to spend four figures or go get a Kimber/Springer and take it right to your smith. Sorry if that ruffles anyone's feathers -- and I love my Kimber for its accuracy -- but if you leave a box-stock $600 1911 on your nightstand...hey, it's your choice.

So, CZ, make us a $500 1911.
 
Your prayers have been answered...well, sort of.

CZ-40

Cz has released the CZ-40, a pistol that has much of the same functionality as the 1911, and as I understand it, very similar ergonomics.
It's available in .40 right now.
Maybe if enough people ask, they'll chamber a version in .45?
 
I have both - lets make some honest comparisons. CZ uses a cast frame - lower cost - seems to work ok. But Colt,Springfield, Kimber are using machined frames from forgings. I do not feel the trigger on a CZ is quite as good as on the 1911 - I have the CZ75SA. The grip is larger on the CZ - not as good for conceament. The CZ does not have a grip safety - not as safe for cocked and locked carry, but lower cost to manufacture. I have no desire to use the hammer down on a live cartridge feature of the standard DA version of the CZ. Some of the internal machining on my CZ is not quite beautiful, but is functional. So the CZ is accurate and reliable, but has had cost reductions and compromises relative to a 1911. If CZ enters the 1911 market, I would not expect them to beat the competition all that much in price, considering the 1911 market is extremely competitive. I am sure CZ would bring their high quality control standards to 1911 production. The CZ is a fine gun at any price, and quite a bargain for what they sell for.
Both my new Kimber ($679 stainless) and Colt ($549 blue) have been 100% reliable, and accurate.
 
What I would like to see from CZ is a true compact version of the CZ-75, which uses a single-stack magazine (7-9 rounds) and a shorter reach on that double-action trigger, in either steel frame (a la Kahr) or alloy frame (a la PCR).

Combined with the natural strength of the slide-in-frame design and the extremely thin slide, this would make an outstanding carry gun.

Skorzeny
 
Great thread. I really dont know if CZ would do this or not. I agree it would give them and us another option that is very marketable. As far as keeping the costs down....I cant say the if CZ did this it would keep the costs down. NEW TOOLING and such is very expensive for a new gun. CZ has utilized the da/sa
design on most of there gun...except the 100. They use existing designs and parts in almost every gun....The same trigger is in the CZ 75 Compact and the 97 B. A totally new design...s/a only with the straight pull trigger and grip safety would be MORE MONEY! Any company would make it if they were guaranteed to sell a million guns....no question. No one can make the promise.
I would like a single stack, smaller version of the 1911 but with a d/a option ...much like the LDA. I believe they could have a winner...I just like d/a guns.
As far as casting vs forging being the better process/material for a gun frame and parts. I know there are inherent benefits in weight/strength for the forged part. But has anyone really proven that in a gun....forging is better. Please, no wanna be metalurgists comments. Technololgy in both process's have come along way in recent years and no one as of yet, has proven.....in say a 20k round torture test of forged vs cast frame and slide.
I will say that a good alloy that is engineered and cast correctly will surely be better than an improperly produced forged piece.
Shoot well
 
I do not feel the trigger on a CZ is quite as good as on the 1911 - I have the CZ75SA.
Click to expand...

Correct--'cause it's not a 1911. I want them to make one.


Cz has released the CZ-40, a pistol that has much of the same functionality as the 1911, and as I understand it, very similar ergonomics.
Click to expand...

Ergonomics maybe, but it's a DA pistol in the wrong caliber.

Basically, I want them to make a *real* 1911 (with the single exception of the external extractor). They're the only company that could pull off an affordable, *reliable* 1911. I love my Kimber for Bullseye, but I wouldn't trust it 100%.
 
Like Eric Larsen said, CZ will not do it, because it would require
too much money to start production, and nobody placed an order
for large enough run to make Czechs comfortable that they will
sell all of it. On the other hand, stock CZ-97B is superior to stock
similarily priced 1911 in every respect (my opinion). Also, only a completely foolish producer would make two functionally identical
products which compete with each other.

CZ should expand CZ-97 line, possibly offering different calibers,
compact and target versions, .22 adapter like Kadet, and they will be just fine. CZ-97 will be as popular as CZ-75, just give it a couple of years...
 
There are enough 1911 makers.. heck there are way too many.

Besides Colt makes the only REAL 1911 everthing else is just a wanabee

CZ already makes designs superior to the 1911 why go backward?

this is from a guy with 4 1911 patten guns.

As others have mentioned there are many better ideas that CZ could put in production (slimmer 9 or a 10!!)

shiro
 
I like the CZ-40's looks, but would not buy one because of the alloy frame. That's just me though. CZ-75 is next on my list. I would like one in the blued finish, but the polycote models are cheaper. I guess they phosphate them first then bake on the poly finish. Anyone have one that has seen some use and can give us feedback on the poly finish? My local dealer has a 97 in polycote, but wants $587 which is just too steep for that gun...

- Mak
 
Have CZ-75B for 3 years. No wear on poly finish at all, except
on inside of the rails (which must be expected).
Hammer is blued, and has a narrow worn out strip where it contacts the slide. That's it. Same with CZ-97B,
which I shoot since early 2000. Very durable finish.
 
I certainly agree with those who advocate a modified CZ 97B for 10mm.
> I don't shoot Glocks as accurately as any of my other handguns -- not Glock-bashing, but a confirmed fact for me, after lots of G23 and G36 experience.
> The Colt Delta seems to be overpriced (plus recent Colt quality is -- at best -- inconsistent).
> That leaves the S&W 610, but I will not buy a new Smith and unlike all the older "N" Fame calibers, the is no "M10" (not referring to the M&P derived Model 10).
 
Cedric:

SIG P225 is pretty close, but three things are lacking:

1. Slide-in-frame design.
2. Cocked & locked capability.
3. Steel frame.

Also, maybe price, too.

Skorzeny
 
I like 1911s, and I like CZ. But I don't think it is going to happen for production reasons. CZ won't even chamber the 97 in 10mm because of the costs of tooling up and the amount of perceived demand.

I do have to jump in on one thing though. I'm not neccesarily sure that an external extractor is better than an internal extractor. At one point in time I was sure that external was the only way to go, but I've been rethinking that.

When a good quality internal extractor is used and properly installed they can be very reliable for just about forever.

There were early prototypes of the 1911 that had internal and external extractors. The original High power prototype was also internal, it wasn't until after Brownings died that the design was changed. And that was for production cost reasons. So contrary to popular belief, JMB didn't change his mind on the design.

The one reason I really like the internal extractor is that if the gun blows up for whatever reason, the extractor doesn't fly out the side of the gun. You can compare photos of blown up 1911s or blown up Glocks, and you can see what I'm talking about.

Wilson was the first person that I'm aware of to make an external extractor (KZ 45) and then Caspian, and now Kimber. And though they look cool, I'm not neccesarily sure that any of them are particularly better. Though I'm sure from a manufacturing point of view they are probably a lot easier to cut the slide, and install.

Just my 2 cents. Not meaning to pick a fight, just wanted to offer some food for thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top