CZ 75 vs Glock 17

Status
Not open for further replies.
^Points taken and understood. Perhaps evolution isn't the correct term, let me clarify my thinking.

I wasn't intending to draw a direct lineage through the pistols mentioned. Only that they followed the same design criteria, general layout and build materials. The CZ75 is a refinement of the class, if not necessarily the the evolution of a species, if you will.
Cocked + locked capability of the 1911; high capacity of the P35, DA of the P38...again not a direct line, just a blending of the functions.

It (the CZ75) is one of the last batch of all metal, full size, hammer fired, combat pistols to be designed before the general shift to striker fired, polymers.

Does that make more sense?
 
Jo6Pak said:
I wasn't intending to draw a direct lineage through the pistols mentioned. Only that they followed the same design criteria, general layout and build materials. The CZ75 is a refinement of the class, if not necessarily the the evolution of a species, if you will.
Click to expand...

Yes, that does make more sense.

The CZ took some of the best features of each of those designs and added a few of it's own: DA/SA ala P-38; cocked and locked from the 1911, (while retaining DA function) and Browning short recoil system, but with no need for a removable barrel bushing to assure consistent lockup; and double-stack mags and an recoil/barrel design not requiring a barrel link.

The CZ-75 is a newer design, but its only two years older than the Glock 17, which was an elegantly simple design in it's own right.

I've had a bunch of CZs and Glocks and like them both. If the Glock had much better triggers (which can be achieved in the after-market with the outlay of maybe $200 for improved trigger assemblies), I'd probably prefer shooting the Glock to the CZ -- despite the CZ's better ergonomics. While I'm not a fan of the stock (or nearly stock) Glock trigger, it works.

When I was more active in IDPA, some years back, I got some of my best times using a Glock 34. Faster times with the first rounds of a string (i.e., from the holster were the biggest difference.) I still haven't figured exactly what accounts for that difference since the Glock does NOT point as naturally as the CZ. Maybe it's the fact that the striker with no safety needed (if starting SA), or no DA/SA transition takes a bit less attention?

As someone noted in a later response, CZ seems to be going a different route, now, with the P-07 and P-09. I will have to try one of those, one of these days: most of the better features found in a Glock, with the much better trigger and ergonomics of the CZ.

.
 
Last edited:
The couple times I've shot CZ 75's I've really enjoyed them and were I wanting a new, full size 9mm it'd be on my short list with the Walther P99.

That said, I've found over the recent years that I really get along best with striker triggers, specifically Glock and Ruger SR triggers. I just shoot em best. That and I really don't much care for the DA/SA trigger system (sold off all of mine) any longer.

Sure I could get a CZ SAO (or carry cocked and locked) and that'd be great but, honestly, I'd probably just shoot my BHP at that point anyway.
 
I own both in full size and their smaller counterparts .... I would pick glock because it is lighter and easier to manipulate.

They are both budget guns. Let us not elevate the cz to something it is not (machine marks, gritty trigger, and unfinished insides of slides)
 
A more realistic apples to apples comparison would be either the discontinued SP-01 Phantom or the current P-09 vs the Glock 17.

Make mine CZ...
 
CZ 75 hands down! Easily one of the most accurate 9mm's I have ever fired and am lucky enough to own. Glocks are a good gun but, I love SA/DA hammer guns.

Plus a Glock can never look this good!
100_4340.jpg
 
They are both budget guns. Let us not elevate the cz to something it is not (machine marks, gritty trigger, and unfinished insides of slides)
Click to expand...

I will agree that most CZs are NOT top of the line guns, but their not really bargain guns, either, as they compete quite favorably with SIGs and Berettas costing several hundred more. You have to spend $1000 or more to see a a big jump in features and functionality. (And CZ offers THOSE guns, too, through their IPSC line or through the CZ Custom Shop.)

I think the inside of the slide is finished, by the way: it's Parkerized (aka manganese phosphate) before the outside of the gun gets polycoated. Some find the Poloycoat finish ugly, but it is pretty durable. Others complain about the newer, dark barrels , but that color is the result of a surface hardening process called "carburization." The dark stuff can be polished off without really affecting the hardness of the barrel.

Machine marks and seemingly unfinished areas inside a slide would be a legitimate concern if those conditions affected the gun's performance or its ability to resist rust. I don't think they do. Both of those "shortcomings" may be evidence of a specific design and business philosophy: i.e., "don't do it unless it will make it work better."

While some people dislike the CZ polycoat, it's a finish that is now pretty durale and surprisingly easy to touch up: Duplicolor Auto Body touch-up paint in matte black is a perfect match.

I'm still looking for a good way to touch up a Glock, SIG or Beretta slide or the aluminum frames of a SIG or Beretta.
 
Last edited:
The Nitrated slide on my P-09 is perfect, inside and out. Every bit as nice as my P220 (my most expensive pistol)

Trigger is great, not to mention it works. Never thought I'd find a plastic gun I loved as much as my Sigs, but this poly CZ is just fantastic. Now to spend some coin and buy a real target grade 9mm CZ.
 
These discussions crack me up. People just show up and defend their personal subjective choice and act as if they are having an objective discussion.

In the end this back and forth is about a pair of $500 guns which might not count as budget but are certainly not high end. They are basic combat/duty pistols.

Both have their warts and both have their strong points. The part that cracks me up the most is how the fanboys from each side attempt to side step the ugly while praising the positive.

Like all CZ threads here the usual fans are here and just like most Glock threads the usual suspects on that side are here as well both pretending to be objective.

Buy what you want and shoot what you want. Stop worrying about what others think about your choice. Let your shooting not others validation over the interweb justify your personal subjective choices.

Trying to pretend to be objective about subjective subjects is foolish IMHO YMMV.

I mean look at the OPs post... This was clearly a thread with an agenda... Bold parts are my addition.

After spending many years shooting both these guns my vote is that the cz 75 is a better pistol than a glock 17. The reasons are:

1) i have never seen a cz 75 crack a slide, barrel nor frame Subjective to your experience does not mean it has not happened it has
2) it eats all ammunition. There is no ammo too dirty or primer too hard. Subjective to your experience, My experience with Glock, Sig & BHP has been the same. Is not objectively meaningful.
3) it is more accurate than a glock 17 from a rest. Subjective unless it was a mechanical rest like a Ransom rest, which do not work for poly frames. More than likely both are more mechanically accurate that you are.
4) it points more naturally than a glock 17 for me. 100% Subjective
5) has a manual safety which i consider important ymmv. 100% Subjective
6) is more durable than a glock 17, i have seen glocks crack. Subjective again limited to your experience. Just because you have not seen it does not mean it does not/has not happened.
7) recoil is noticeably less with a 75 than a 17 Subjective because grip and shooting experience has a lot to do with perceived recoil.
8) allows a cocked and locked carry feature. Subjective because not everyone like Cock and Locked, many see it as a negative.

It is for the above reasons why i think the cz 75 is a better choice. It is based on my experiences. 100% subjective. You have not made a single objective point.
Click to expand...

Not a single objective fact in the list. Lots of limited observations presented as if they were statistically meaningful. You should of titled the threat I subjectively prefer the CZ 75B over the Glock 17 do you too? :eek:

Seriously that is what these threads end up being.
 
Last edited:
What WVsig said!

I like both, own/have owned both, just prefer the CZ. But that being said, ya give me something and I'll employ it, regardless of who makes it.
 
What WVsig said!

I like both, own/have owned both, just prefer the CZ. But that being said, ya give me something and I'll employ it, regardless of who makes it.
Click to expand...

I agree in the end neither are my first choice but if I had to I would have no issue being handed one and being told I have to defend my life and the life of those I care about with either.

For many subjective reasons I prefer other guns but have owned or owned both of these. ;)
 
As WVsig notes above, Ransom Rest evaluations of polymer-ramed guns is not a good practice: the polymer frames don't return to the exact same starting point with each shot.

What's really important for aimed fire, is consistent slide/barrel/sight alignment, and you can have that with both metal and polymer frames.

As I wrote earlier, I like both, have owned both, and still have both; I don't plan to give any of them up. While I enjoy shooting CZs more than Glocks, I've had some of my best scores in IDPA matches using a Glock 34.

And, too, worrying about recoil with a full-size 9mm is a bit like straining at a gnat.

As for this topic "coming back from the dead"... it's not dead for those who who haven't involved in the discussion.
 
Last edited:
I have owned 2 CZs...good gun but for combat the glock is superior. I have literally crawled through the brush and dirt with both and had the CZ jam from the diet and debris it picked up, but have never had that happen with a glock. My "is it reliable" test before carrying in harms way includes 500 rounds with a cleaning...neither CZ would get close but I have run a few Glocks past 1500 rounds with dirty reloads.
 
boondocker385 said:
My "is it reliable" test before carrying in harms way includes 500 rounds with a cleaning...neither CZ would get close but I have run a few Glocks past 1500 rounds with dirty reloads.
Click to expand...
Just curious Boondocker, are you referring to simply straight shooting of 500 and 1,500 rounds? I've ran 550 rounds each through my P-01 & P-07 with no hiccups and no further cleaning after the initial unboxing, and have no intentions of cleaning either until I can induce a FTF or FTE.
 
Last edited:
When I way trying to figure out how long I could shoot a gun without cleaning, I got 2,000 + rounds through an 85 Combat before I just couldn't stand looking at the grime -- and cleaned it. The gun didn't need it, I did.

I don't think I've ever had a CZ or Glock poop out on me because of lack of cleaning.

I did NOT spend a lot of time crawling through mud or brush... Most of my "carry" venues are grocery and hardware stores, neighborhood walks and mall parking lots.
 
Glocks seem more popular among civilians in America that they are in the UK. At the range I would see 9 CZ/s for every Glock. And as for reliability as I said even though there are few Glocks on the range I see plenty of stoppages with them, light strikes was traced as the problem with some.
 
is this for real ??? comparing a cz 75 to a glock 17 is like comparing a viper to a chevy ... I sold my M&P9MM and my 3rd gen G17 and bought a CZ 75 B & a CZ75 compact I shoot them waaay better then I ever shot the other 2 .....:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top