Cyanide971
New member
I'll take either of these two over the Glock anyday, even with the Phantom being discontinued! It'd be a better comparison now anyway between the two brands since said players have polymer frames....
CZ 75 vs Glock 17
- Thread starter Amin Parker
- Start date
- Status
Hunter0924
New member
I have reviewed a Glock 17 Gen 4 and CZ 75B Omega.
Both are fine pistols to be sure but between the 2 I favor the CZ. To me it had better ergonomics and trigger.
It was more accurate for me personally. Oh and it is prettier.
http://rangehot.com/function-over-form/
http://rangehot.com/cz-75b-comfortable-double-stack-maddness/
Both are fine pistols to be sure but between the 2 I favor the CZ. To me it had better ergonomics and trigger.
It was more accurate for me personally. Oh and it is prettier.
http://rangehot.com/function-over-form/
http://rangehot.com/cz-75b-comfortable-double-stack-maddness/
Have a cz 75 compact that goes with me to the range with the girlfriend when we want to practice some bullseye shooting. The glock 17 was at the low ready when I was in the stack passing up the squeeze just before making a high risk entry. And yes I could have carried something else but had the best tool for that job at that time.
Had to replace the ejector on my gen 4 g23. Was getting BTF. Solved the problem, but I ended up getting rid of it later. My Glock purchase before the gen 4 g23 was a 30sf that ended up having FTRB and a hairline crack in the frame after about 3 rounds. Needless to say I don't think Glock is the product I once thought it was. Still good pistols, but I think there are better options. Glock customer service is really good at standing behind their products though.for sure, right out of the gate like that, it's definitely a bad slide. it happens. at least he discovered it before he really needed the gun to work
glock's been putting out a lot of bad extractors for a while now too. i had to replace them in my gen3 g19 and my gen4 g23.
that company hasn't been the same since gaston's kids have been running it. can't blame the guy, he is getting on in years. unfortunately, his two sons and daughter don't take care of business like he did....
Last edited:
The only CZ variant I'd take over a Glock is the Omega trigger, and even then I'd be hesitant.
The mechanical geometry of the standard CZ's isn't ideal imo... the sear & hammer angles are off. The hammer rocks back when the sear rotates, theres a lot of pressure where the hammer/sear contact and it creates a gritty feeling no matter how much fluffin and buffin is done elsewhere.
To compound the problem, the safety mechanism (on mine) allowed the hammer to rock back too much when the trigger was pulled on, that nixed any aspirations I had of honing off the machine marks on the sear face or replacing the hammer with the small notch "competition" version.
The 1911 got the hammer & sear geometry near perfect and is a far better range partner in 9mm imo.
A Glock can be re-sprung or re-triggered in under 5 minutes for a really nice crisp feel, too.
I like CZ's for many of the common reasons, but the triggers and their fit & finish chase me off every time I pick one up. That and I dont really shoot them very accurately for some reason...?
I would expect it to last forever, but the CZ's are vastly more difficult to strip completely down. That requires a good deal of time and tools. The same can be done to a Glock in 3-5 minutes, including reassembly, using only a 3" piece of coathanger.
Lastly, all of the Glocks parts are interchangeable, have few machining marks and are available everywhere.
Over the years I have really tried to like CZ's, but for me the Glocks are just more refined in production, simpler, lighter, readily available, and most importantly I shoot them very well.
The mechanical geometry of the standard CZ's isn't ideal imo... the sear & hammer angles are off. The hammer rocks back when the sear rotates, theres a lot of pressure where the hammer/sear contact and it creates a gritty feeling no matter how much fluffin and buffin is done elsewhere.
To compound the problem, the safety mechanism (on mine) allowed the hammer to rock back too much when the trigger was pulled on, that nixed any aspirations I had of honing off the machine marks on the sear face or replacing the hammer with the small notch "competition" version.
The 1911 got the hammer & sear geometry near perfect and is a far better range partner in 9mm imo.
A Glock can be re-sprung or re-triggered in under 5 minutes for a really nice crisp feel, too.
I like CZ's for many of the common reasons, but the triggers and their fit & finish chase me off every time I pick one up. That and I dont really shoot them very accurately for some reason...?
I would expect it to last forever, but the CZ's are vastly more difficult to strip completely down. That requires a good deal of time and tools. The same can be done to a Glock in 3-5 minutes, including reassembly, using only a 3" piece of coathanger.
Lastly, all of the Glocks parts are interchangeable, have few machining marks and are available everywhere.
Over the years I have really tried to like CZ's, but for me the Glocks are just more refined in production, simpler, lighter, readily available, and most importantly I shoot them very well.
chrisintexas
New member
has anyone noticed the difference in trigger pull between gen 3 Glocks 17/19 and gen 4 Glocks 17/19?
Gen 3 seemed a tad lighter to me between the 23 ' s.
The early Gen 4 Glocks shipped with the standard connector although the slightly different internal geometry resulted in a stiffer trigger pull with that connector installed. Glock then came out with the dot "." connector which was intended to change the Gen 4 pull to conform to the Gen 3 pull with a standard connector.
It's possible that if you tested an early Gen 4 you may have gotten one that wasn't equipped with the "." connector and noticed the difference in trigger pull.
Recoiljunky
New member
My vote is for the CZ 75 , i have a Glock 17,27,29 and 20, a CZ 75b, a CZ 75 tactical sports and Jericho 941b (clone of the CZ). while the Glocks are nice to shoot, the CZ's specially the 75 tactical sports will force you to smile every time you pull the trigger. Never had any issues with any of my Glocks or CZ pistols in the thousands of rounds put thru all of them, I just find that when i bring both to the range the CZ will get used a lot more. as for the whole trigger weight and feel deal. doing a trigger job on the CZ style pistols is not anymore difficult than doing one on a 1911.
They're uncomparable
They're uncomparable. It's like comparing an orange with a cucumber. Both can be eaten but are very-very different. Also, if you need to compare them somehow, then you need limit their applications (self-defence, sport shooting, IPSC / IDPA, target shooting, plinking, concealed carry, etc.)
Lets start with basics...
Similarities:
1. They both go bang.
2. They both shoot same cartridges.
3. They both are semi-automatics.
4. They are both used in the army and police units of the world.
5. They're both more accurate than 99% of their operators.
That's where the similarities end pretty much.
Differences:
Glock / CZ 75
1. Polymer / metal body
2. Double action only / single and double action
2.5. Striker fired / traditional hammer & firing pin
3. Trigger weight 5 lb / 9 lb double action and 5 lb single action
3.5. Trigger weight cannot be effectively reduced without running the risk of light primer strikes / trigger weight can be made into a hair trigger (extremely light = under 2 lb)
4. No traditional safety / safety or decocker on some models, also can be carried half-cocked and cocked & locked
5. Polygonal rifled in the barrel / traditional grooves & lands rifling
6. Weight - lighter due to polymer frame / heavier due to metal frame
7. Harder recoil due to lighter weight / lighter perceived recoil due to heavier weight
8. Slide is riding outside the frame / slide is riding inside the frame (tighter tolerances)
9. Take down using two tabs on the sides of the frame / take down through driving out the pin (1911 style)
10. Grip is almost at 90 degree angle towards the slide / grip is at a more ergonomic angle for human hand use (1911 style)
11. Squared slide / rounded slide
12. Polymer mags / metal mags
That's all I could think at this late hour.
They're uncomparable. It's like comparing an orange with a cucumber. Both can be eaten but are very-very different. Also, if you need to compare them somehow, then you need limit their applications (self-defence, sport shooting, IPSC / IDPA, target shooting, plinking, concealed carry, etc.)
Lets start with basics...
Similarities:
1. They both go bang.
2. They both shoot same cartridges.
3. They both are semi-automatics.
4. They are both used in the army and police units of the world.
5. They're both more accurate than 99% of their operators.
That's where the similarities end pretty much.
Differences:
Glock / CZ 75
1. Polymer / metal body
2. Double action only / single and double action
2.5. Striker fired / traditional hammer & firing pin
3. Trigger weight 5 lb / 9 lb double action and 5 lb single action
3.5. Trigger weight cannot be effectively reduced without running the risk of light primer strikes / trigger weight can be made into a hair trigger (extremely light = under 2 lb)
4. No traditional safety / safety or decocker on some models, also can be carried half-cocked and cocked & locked
5. Polygonal rifled in the barrel / traditional grooves & lands rifling
6. Weight - lighter due to polymer frame / heavier due to metal frame
7. Harder recoil due to lighter weight / lighter perceived recoil due to heavier weight
8. Slide is riding outside the frame / slide is riding inside the frame (tighter tolerances)
9. Take down using two tabs on the sides of the frame / take down through driving out the pin (1911 style)
10. Grip is almost at 90 degree angle towards the slide / grip is at a more ergonomic angle for human hand use (1911 style)
11. Squared slide / rounded slide
12. Polymer mags / metal mags
That's all I could think at this late hour.
It is possible to effectively reduce the trigger pull weight of a Glock without running the risk of light primer strikes. I don't know about getting under 2lbs, but down around 3lbs is certainly possible.
The 1911 grip is actually closer to 90 degrees than the original Glock grip is and the CZ75 is closer yet. The Glock grip is definitely raked more than the 1911 grip.
Limnophile
New member
Then why did you proceed to conduct a detailed comparison?
Pond James Pond
New member
Actually, I think you've successfully identified exactly why they can be compared.
Walt Sherrill
New member
Limnophile said:
Uncomparable was an unhappy choice of words -- but had he written VERY DIFFERENT WEAPONS that were difficult to fairly compare, I think you would have understood his point. His list of traits have made the dissimilarities very obvious.
They are two good gun designs (both from the mid 1970's) that do things in much different ways: the strengths of one are often the weaknesses of the other.
Hard to resist commenting on a five year old thread that's on it's second revival.
I would venture that the sales figures of the Glock 17 by itself vs the entire CZ lineup would amply demonstrate which one is the most preferred.
Nothing wrong with personal preference and liking CZ's. Just be aware that you're in the minority. As the old saying goes, "There's no accounting for taste". I also have a friend who likes Yugos.
I would venture that the sales figures of the Glock 17 by itself vs the entire CZ lineup would amply demonstrate which one is the most preferred.
Nothing wrong with personal preference and liking CZ's. Just be aware that you're in the minority. As the old saying goes, "There's no accounting for taste". I also have a friend who likes Yugos.
I have seen this thread all day and have resisted until now. I see a lot of CZ love and can't figure out what I am missing. I have the compact version of both guns (G19, P01). I have put at least 5K round through the P01. The G19 is a recent acquisition and I am somewhere around 1K rounds on it. If I had to pick one, I would pick the G19 for the following reasons
- Lighter weight
- Smoother / rounder surfaces and flusher features that are easier to conceal with no beaver tail. Also smaller width advantage to P01 by a little.
- Easier to get a good grip on the more substantial slide area
- Longer sight radius (rear sight location farther back also helps with gripping slide)
- Polymer base with stainless slide should be more rust resilient
- Take down is elegant / quick (my P-01 takes a light punch hit each time)
- 7-10 yard accuracy is comparable to P-01
- Better selection of after market sights and holster - love the $29 adjustable sight option
- Sights are easier to replace (even I can do Glock sights)
- Trigger reset on G19 feels better to me
- G19 trigger location is farther back and feels better to me
- No nasty long double action first pull with G19
- A whole catalog of sizes and calibers that should have very similar feel if I choose to expand my Glock collection
I made the mistake of listening to others about Glocks and when I finally held one, I felt like I found my glass slipper. Your mileage should vary. And next year I may find something I like better. But for now I would take the Glock over a CZ if comparing a $500-600 variant of each.
That said, my teenage son greatly prefers the CZ. But he does not CCW and he much prefers a metal gun showing up in my will. He's afraid the polymer will be "ragged out" before I am. I hope he is right
.
Last edited:
I have seen this thread all day and have resisted until now. I see a lot of CZ love and can't figure out what I am missing. I have the compact version of both guns (G19, P01). I have put at least 5K round through the P01. The G19 is a recent acquisition and I am somewhere around 1K rounds on it. If I had to pick one, I would pick the G19 for the following reasons
- Lighter weight
- Smoother / rounder surfaces and flusher features that are easier to conceal with no beaver tail. Also smaller width advantage to P01 by a little.
- Easier to get a good grip on the more substantial slide area
- Longer sight radius (rear sight location farther back also helps with gripping slide)
- Polymer base with stainless slide should be more rust resilient
- Take down is elegant / quick (my P-01 takes a light punch hit each time)
- 7-10 yard accuracy is comparable to P-01
- Better selection of after market sights and holster - love the $29 adjustable sight option
- Sights are easier to replace (even I can do Glock sights)
- Trigger reset on G19 feels better to me
- G19 trigger location is farther back and feels better to me
- No nasty long double action first pull with G19
- A whole catalog of sizes and calibers that should have very similar feel if I choose to expand my Glock collection
I made the mistake of listening to others about Glocks and when I finally held one, I felt like I found my glass slipper. Your mileage should vary. And next year I may find something I like better. But for now I would take the Glock over a CZ if comparing a $500-600 variant of each.
That said, my teenage son greatly prefers the CZ. But he does not CCW and he much prefers a metal gun showing up in my will. He's afraid the polymer will be "ragged out" before I am. I hope he is right
The slide on a standard Glock is carbon steel, not stainless steel. The Tennifer metal treatment takes care of corrosion prevention anyway.
I own both and they are both keepers. This is very much an apples to oranges comparison. The G-17 carries better, and being a Glock,
it has the best availability of holsters and accessories compared to any other handgun brand. The Glock is slightly more reliable. The CZ is a better shooter, it is more accurate, and very reliable. I can carry this 75B very well and I have fitted holsters I like for it
No Fun!
First climb out from under that big rock on top of you!
Let the relatives get their own toys!
Gen3 17 vs. a CZ 75B, both stock, although the 75B has the rubber grips.
- Status