It's not an "apples to oranges" comparison. They are both full size 9MM service pistols. One happens to be plastic, and the other metal. The bottom line is that plastic is lighter. That's the only difference. However, as others have noted CZ makes a full line of pistols which are all steel, aluminum alloy framed, and plastic framed. Also they make more compact versions that compete with the smaller Glocks, like the G19.
CZ 75 vs Glock 17
- Thread starter Amin Parker
- Start date
- Status
Pressman1228
Inactive
Gotta say I have owned both. And if we're being honest they're both exceptional weapons. That being said I still have my CZ. For me accuracy,and ergonomics were superior to the Glock. Reliability was equal. But again that is how I see it. I am sure there are others with different thoughts. In the end it's what works for you.
Limnophile
New member
Walt,
To the contrary, the list of dissimilar traits demonstrates how easy it is to make a fair comparison between the two. The day I shot both the difference most apparent to me was accuracy and precision. The first shot fired from the CZ hit exactly where I had aimed, and the subsequent group was eerily tight. With the Glock, the center of the bullseye was never in jeopardy, and precision was appropriately measured in minutes of barndoor.
If the OP had, for example, posited a question about different hammer-fired pistols, or different striker-fired pistols, then the idiom about comparing apples and oranges would be applicable to any attempt to compare the CZ and Glock in such a context.
I can generally agree, but you once again highlight how easy and apt the comparison of the two is.
By the way, the CZ was designed, as its name implies, in 1975, and went into production in 1976. The Glock's design was initiated in 1979, but not produced until 1982. When I first shopped for a self-defense handgun in the early '80s, Glock was not an option, as it did not exist.
To the contrary, the list of dissimilar traits demonstrates how easy it is to make a fair comparison between the two. The day I shot both the difference most apparent to me was accuracy and precision. The first shot fired from the CZ hit exactly where I had aimed, and the subsequent group was eerily tight. With the Glock, the center of the bullseye was never in jeopardy, and precision was appropriately measured in minutes of barndoor.
If the OP had, for example, posited a question about different hammer-fired pistols, or different striker-fired pistols, then the idiom about comparing apples and oranges would be applicable to any attempt to compare the CZ and Glock in such a context.
I can generally agree, but you once again highlight how easy and apt the comparison of the two is.
By the way, the CZ was designed, as its name implies, in 1975, and went into production in 1976. The Glock's design was initiated in 1979, but not produced until 1982. When I first shopped for a self-defense handgun in the early '80s, Glock was not an option, as it did not exist.
Not even a debate, a no-brainer if ever there was one, any Glock over any CZ manufactured pistol! CZ pistols are extremely complicated mechanisms, with virtually zero market support from anyone of account, in fact just two aftermarket options even exist for working on them, cajun gunworks and a place referred to as CZ custom which has really no affiliation with the parent company. Both offer extremely limited options for upgrading your CZ pistols.
Back to the complex nature of the guns, they contain many parts, all small and complex, including a dizzying array of tiny springs, all prone to breakage, the slide stop pins are notorious for breakage on the SP01's and CZ75's, as are the decocker springs and the lifter springs and the trigger return springs, I could go on and on, the two lone aftermarket options offer very little in the way of substantive upgrades to any of these problematic parts. I was told by one competitor that if you're going to run a CZ you need to replace every last spring in the gun or else!
CZ's are neat, finely crafted pistols, but they are out of their league with the Glock 17/19/26, all of which are far more durable and reliable under combat conditions and the simulated combat conditions of competition!
Oh, yes... The Glock is the pinnacle of fine injection molded thermoplastic technology.
For those of you who are old enough, Glocks remind me of those machines that used to be at major attractions where, for 50 cents, you could watch as an injection molded souvenir (dolphin, rhinoceros, what-have-you) was created before your very eyes.
I will admit Glocks generally work, but they have no class at all.
Walt Sherrill
New member
Walt Sherrill said:
You were right on one point: while I wrote designed in the mid-70's, not introduced in the mid 70's, I was probably two or three years early for the Glock design. Glock had multiple working prototypes up and running in late 1979; it only took them about six months to get the gun going, starting from scratch! That is an impressive achievement for any gun maker, and particularly impressive for a firm that had never made a handgun before.
Depending on which meaning of "comparison" you choose form the dictionary, the term can mean 1) examining resemblances or 2) examining resemblances and differences. If you use the first meaning, there are very few resemblances to be seen between the two guns, and by THAT standard, the guns are almost "uncomparable". If you use meaning 2) both differences and similarities can be noted. As I noted in my first response, I said the poster's choice of "uncomparable" may not have been the best term to use, but I think I understood what he meant! I suspect you did too. Had he written, "the two designs are so different that it's difficult to make objective judgments based on their different traits" we'd be talking about something else.
Both the Glock and the CZ were basically new designs, started from scratch. About the only thing they really have in common is that they are both handguns that use variants of the Browning locked-breech, short-recoil design, and both were designed around the 9mm round. The Glock was definitely designed as a service weapon.
The CZ was apparently designed for export to the West. The Soviet Bloc didn't use 9mm rounds in their military or police weapons. Had CZ not been blocked from exporting their guns to much of the West by a Western trade embargo of all Communist Block products, we might be talking about CZ much differently, today. (For the first 10-15 years of their production a Westerner could only get a true CZ in Canada and from US military posts in West Germany -- and only GIs seemed to be able to get them into the US.)
The Glock 17, while not the first striker-fired polymer-framed gun -- I think that was the H&K VP70 -- it was the first very successful one. I would argue that Glock's success has apparently changed the direction in which handgun design is moving.
SIG has begun sipping some of the polymer-frame /striker-fired Kool-Aid (P320); H&K has begun re-sipping, too (with the recent VP9 and VP40 which are being well-received); FNH (with the new FNS designs -- I have two!) seems to be gaining momentum, as well. I won't be surprised to see a new striker-fired CZ in a year or two -- the original striker-fired CZ-100 just didn't cut it, and I think CZ learned from that experience.
I consider the Glock design elegantly simple and very effective. In fact, I suspect that we will see relatively few if any new hammer-fired gun designs in the future, IF we are still free to have handguns 20-30 years from now...
That said, I love CZs, have owned many, and enjoy my 85 Combat (with Kadet Kit) and two CZ-pattern "clones" (which really aren't clones.) I also have a Glock 38, which I like a lot. The CZs fit my hand far better than do the Glocks (I haven't tried a Gen 4, yet, with their adjustable grips), but despite what I consider a less ergonomic grip angle, I've still shot some of my best rounds in competition with a Glock 34...
Limnophile
New member
That's overly simplistic.
CZ-USA offers great support. I've even had timely responses from CZ-UB via e-mail, albeit in stilted English.
I can't think of a worthwhile upgrade not available from CZ-USA, CGW, CZC, or several grip makers for the CZ 75 platform. The CZ 82/83 platform is not as well supported, but that's now a defunct line, although CZ-USA still carries all parts.
I've yet to hear of a case of CZ Leg Syndrome.
The notion that CZ Custom and Cajun Gun Works offer "extremely limited" options for upgrading your CZs is just laughable and I have to question the credibility of people making such claims. Unless you want to cut more material out of your slide they offer just about anything you could ask for (and it wouldn't surprise me if they'd do that on request too).
As for endless part and spring breakages, I need to go find all the ones I owned and along with the ones I still have send them to CZ to use as references because apparently I and many members here are inundated with reliable pistols that shouldn't be so. There's no denying there are more parts in a CZ than a Glock and that is a potential weak point, but they're typically fairly hardy.
There's a difference between being a fan and a fanatic but it seems to me that when it comes to Glocks certain members here are in the latter camp.
As for endless part and spring breakages, I need to go find all the ones I owned and along with the ones I still have send them to CZ to use as references because apparently I and many members here are inundated with reliable pistols that shouldn't be so. There's no denying there are more parts in a CZ than a Glock and that is a potential weak point, but they're typically fairly hardy.
There's a difference between being a fan and a fanatic but it seems to me that when it comes to Glocks certain members here are in the latter camp.
Last edited:
Badfinger, I took apart my new (At the time) CZ75B to get a better understanding on how it worked and I did not find it super complicated to work on. I also did the same on a Phantom with decocker and although the phantom is a bit harder to work on it was not bad either. My G20 was easy to work on but I sold my Glock and will never sell my CZ. Even if CZ's were more prone to breakage I would still choose it over a Glock. Glocks do go bang reliably but in my experience so do CZ's.
The average shooter is never going to put their guns to the test that seems to be causing failures. I have put about 6,500 rounds through me CZ without any issues. I did change the recoil spring and firing pin spring but not because they broke.
There is not a competition level gun that does not break parts and I am sure there may be some that break at a higher % rate.
CZ Custom is run by Angus Hobdell a CZ/STI pro shooter.
The average shooter is never going to put their guns to the test that seems to be causing failures. I have put about 6,500 rounds through me CZ without any issues. I did change the recoil spring and firing pin spring but not because they broke.
There is not a competition level gun that does not break parts and I am sure there may be some that break at a higher % rate.
CZ Custom is run by Angus Hobdell a CZ/STI pro shooter.
sigarms228
New member
Why is it always VS?? Can't we all get along?
I own a CZ SP01 Shadow and a Glock 19. Both are terrific in what they do.
If I could only have one though it would be my Gen2 Glock 19. Possibly the best all around pistol ever.
I own a CZ SP01 Shadow and a Glock 19. Both are terrific in what they do.
If I could only have one though it would be my Gen2 Glock 19. Possibly the best all around pistol ever.
You make a fool of yourself with such emotional nonsense, I have certainly not said any such thing as the Glock being the pinnacle of anything! I merely pointed out that it is a far better design then the CZ75 or its close cousins, the PCR/PO1, a point so factual it renders this entire thread and its six plus pages of length, moot!
I can get Glock parts at any stocking gun shop in the USA, you can choose from three for your CZ parts and service.
Limnophile
New member
Walt,
Because it's a slow day I'll continue to play, although the relative importance of the topic is admittedly minor.
From an information content perspective, examinng resemblances is far less meaningful than examining differences. I'm an ecologist, so let me use an example from my field.
There are three habitats -- A, B, and C. I tell you that A and B are similar in that blue whales inhabit neither. That resemblance gives you almost no information about habitats A and B. You don't even know if they are terrestrial or aquatic. If I then tell you that blue whales inhabit C, that difference between C and A and B imparts some useful info, as you now know C is an aquatic open oceanic habitat. Limiting a comparison to resemblances only seems foolish to one thirsty for information.
From a practical perspective, I think a new handgun purchaser is forced to compare seemingly disparate platforms. Handgun vs revolver is perhaps the first battle that needs to be waged in one's head. The difference between any semiauto and a revolver dwarfs the difference between a CZ and a Glock, yet people compare the two platforms in meaningful ways constantly.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The guy implied no comparison between a CZ and a Glock was meaningful, then he proceeded to provide a fairly detailed list of objective and subjective comparisons. It was no big deal that he said one thing than did something that disproved his premise, but I found the post amusingly absurd enough to comment.
Now, WVSig made a comment early on labeling someone's points as subjective, when they could have easily been objective. I found that a bizarre post coming from him, but that was in 2014, so I refrained from saying anything -- until now.
Because it's a slow day I'll continue to play, although the relative importance of the topic is admittedly minor.
From an information content perspective, examinng resemblances is far less meaningful than examining differences. I'm an ecologist, so let me use an example from my field.
There are three habitats -- A, B, and C. I tell you that A and B are similar in that blue whales inhabit neither. That resemblance gives you almost no information about habitats A and B. You don't even know if they are terrestrial or aquatic. If I then tell you that blue whales inhabit C, that difference between C and A and B imparts some useful info, as you now know C is an aquatic open oceanic habitat. Limiting a comparison to resemblances only seems foolish to one thirsty for information.
From a practical perspective, I think a new handgun purchaser is forced to compare seemingly disparate platforms. Handgun vs revolver is perhaps the first battle that needs to be waged in one's head. The difference between any semiauto and a revolver dwarfs the difference between a CZ and a Glock, yet people compare the two platforms in meaningful ways constantly.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The guy implied no comparison between a CZ and a Glock was meaningful, then he proceeded to provide a fairly detailed list of objective and subjective comparisons. It was no big deal that he said one thing than did something that disproved his premise, but I found the post amusingly absurd enough to comment.
Now, WVSig made a comment early on labeling someone's points as subjective, when they could have easily been objective. I found that a bizarre post coming from him, but that was in 2014, so I refrained from saying anything -- until now.
How rich, you have three choices for support for CZ in the USA, Glock has tens of thousands! Not one of the choices you seem to have convinced yourself produces a glut of upgrades, produces a reliably durable trigger return spring, or offer an upgraded slide stop pin, further CZ-USA is brazenly selling parts as upgrades in which they willfully fail to inform their customers will void their warranty if used, and damage results!
I believe many of you extolling the awesomeness of the CZ have very little in the way of practical experience, and are likely on the south side of twenty-something, but claiming three total vendors of support to be great compared to tens of thousands for Glock is just plainly ludicrous! I can tell you right here, and in no uncertain terms, that you can travel to ten different gun shops in Mlps/St Paul, anywhere from The Frontiersman, to Bill's Gun Shop & Range, and everyone else in between, and you would be lucky indeed just to find yourself a CZ pistol for sale in any of them, let alone a magazine or parts!
I always read on the web about how horrible "Glock fanboys" are.
Yet the degree of hyperbole and self-assumed superiority of the Glock haters is breathtaking.
My own experience with CZ75 took place quite a while ago...new pistol, within the first 150 rounds, the extractor claw broke off. At that time, I had a hard time getting a replacement.
Decided I liked the HiPower much better, and stuck with it for 20years...until I tried a Glock 17, and later a G26.
Yet the degree of hyperbole and self-assumed superiority of the Glock haters is breathtaking.
My own experience with CZ75 took place quite a while ago...new pistol, within the first 150 rounds, the extractor claw broke off. At that time, I had a hard time getting a replacement.
Decided I liked the HiPower much better, and stuck with it for 20years...until I tried a Glock 17, and later a G26.
While ad hominems are swell, they don't really lend to your point. I'm not sure how you're counting vendors that you come to "tens of thousands" for Glock. How are you defining a vendor? If it's the same level of support that either CZ Custom or Cajun Gun Works provide (a fully staffed gunsmith operation with years of experience and any number of services) I can pretty much guarantee you it is not 3 vs. 10,000. Why are you so in love with hyperbole?
I can tell you that in my area besides magazines, I don't find much in the realm of "customization" for Glocks. I don't find aftermarket triggers, maybe sights, but not much else. When I asked the shop owners why their answer was it made no sense for them to stock something that might be picked up when online vendors can sell it for essentially the same price or often even less thanks to the volume they deal in. Pretty much any parts I get for any pistol I order online. It's often cheaper. For me I can get CZ magazines locally as well as Glock magazines, but again, online is just cheaper. Now when the apocalypse happens and all commerce as we know it fails then yes I get your point. But when online retailers can get products to your door in a few days (or tomorrow if need be), it's a bit moot.
I don't think anyone here is trying to argue that the aftermarket support for CZ is anywhere on the same realm as Glock. That's just a fact. I think what they're doing is pointing out that it's not nearly as abysmal as you made it sound.
Perhaps, but all you have done is stated an opinion. Is that your opinion that a Glock is a "far better design," or is it a matter of fact?
I freely admit that Glocks generally work well, but a CZ works equally as well if not better, is a more accurate platform, and is much, much more than a "point and shoot" DA only gun. The CZ was good enough to have caught the eye of none other than Jeff Copper. There are no new innovations in a Glock; Everything on the Glock has been done before, including the lockwork which is over 100 years old.
Glocks may very well outlast the CZs, but for one reason only: They are cheap to mass produce.
You have called me a fool, but all you have done is to come across as another Glock fanboy stating opinions about his plastic wonder, and belittling others.
Last edited:
You can shake, rattle, and roll all you wish, but you are the one who was belittling, I just set the record straight! You and the others, are making fools of yourselves, particularly labeling me a fanboy of Glock, that is all pure emotional bluster on your behalf, and it is silly to be sure.
CZ pistols are generally speaking sold from the cheap end of the gun counter, alongside Ruger's, Taurus, EAA and other so-called budget firearms. All of these guns are under $500.00, many well under that price, these types of guns almost always appeal to the twenty-something because they are affordable, its hardly rocket science to see where all of the testosterone is being manufactured. CZ's are not near the guns Glocks are, nor are they the equal of S&W M&P's, or Hk's and Beretta's. CZ's have not a single North American LE or military contract, and just three support venues vs tens of thousands.
No, its not rocket science concluding them inferior based upon market performance, get over it and move on!
- Status