CZ ergos...why?
- Thread starter chris in va
- Start date
The only similarities i see is the two locking lugs up into slide. The slide fits differently the trigger system is totally different the safety catch is different the barrel on the cz has a pin trough a cam in the barrel different from the browning. I suppose they are both black. 
RickB, if you don't get it, it's because you don't want to get it.
Your snide comparison would be less snide and more accurate if you compared, say, a Toyota Spyder and a Mazda MX-5. Both are small, two-seat convertibles; they have relatively similar weights and wheelbases; they are powered by 4-bangers.
Transmissions are different; suspensions are different; but they are just like a red and a black baseball cap.
Your snide comparison would be less snide and more accurate if you compared, say, a Toyota Spyder and a Mazda MX-5. Both are small, two-seat convertibles; they have relatively similar weights and wheelbases; they are powered by 4-bangers.
Transmissions are different; suspensions are different; but they are just like a red and a black baseball cap.
If someone were to categorize handguns by type, I'd expect, "all-metal, double-stack, 9mm, frame-mounted thumb safety" could conceivably be a category into which "similar" guns might be ordered.
I really doubt anyone would make a category for, "Slide - with external rails - width of between 1.00"-1.1", frame to hold mags with greater than 13-round capacity, absence of mag disconnect, trigger guard large enough for NATO mittens, etc., etc." That category would contain one gun, and no other gun in the world could be considered similar to it.
The CZ is obviously no clone of the BHP, but as handguns go, they are much closer to "similar" than "totally different".
Is a large-frame Star .45 totally different from a 1911? I'd say no, for the same reasons, but you would say yes.
As the Russians say, "Everyone strokes differently".
I really doubt anyone would make a category for, "Slide - with external rails - width of between 1.00"-1.1", frame to hold mags with greater than 13-round capacity, absence of mag disconnect, trigger guard large enough for NATO mittens, etc., etc." That category would contain one gun, and no other gun in the world could be considered similar to it.
The CZ is obviously no clone of the BHP, but as handguns go, they are much closer to "similar" than "totally different".
Is a large-frame Star .45 totally different from a 1911? I'd say no, for the same reasons, but you would say yes.
As the Russians say, "Everyone strokes differently".
myshoulderissore
New member
They are essentially the same gun... Both shoot bullets, from metal things, and are small enough for single hand firing. Oh, and both having a trigger is a dead giveaway!
Personally I like the cz ergos. I have a sp-01 that fits like a glove. My first pistol was a cz clone, Jericho 941, and to date the only pistol I regret selling.
I think I'm kinda an anomaly in that most guns feel good to me though. I have smallish hands with long fingers which I think allows me to get a good grip on most designs.
Since there has been a lot of debate on the similarities/differences of the BHP vs cz75 in this thread here is an article I read awhile ago that goes into some good detail comparing he two of them.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Browning and CZ.htm
On a side note if you ever get the chance to go to the Czech Republic I highly recommend it.
I think I'm kinda an anomaly in that most guns feel good to me though. I have smallish hands with long fingers which I think allows me to get a good grip on most designs.
Since there has been a lot of debate on the similarities/differences of the BHP vs cz75 in this thread here is an article I read awhile ago that goes into some good detail comparing he two of them.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Browning and CZ.htm
On a side note if you ever get the chance to go to the Czech Republic I highly recommend it.
Are a Ruger GP100 and S&W 686 essentially the same gun?
Both are stainless, DA, L-frame (not called that by Ruger, but very similar dimensions) .357 revolvers that can be had with short barrels or 6" barrels. Both will accept a fairly wide variety of grip shapes. Both have cylinders that even rotate the same direction (unlike Colts).
Should it matter that one has a sideplate, and the other allows access to innards via the trigger guard? Should it matter that one has a fore-and-aft cylinder release, and the other has a toggle? I mean, they're really the same gun, right?
Meanwhile, RickB, you want to attack those factors I listed between CZ75 and BHP that you find to be merely cosmetic, such as slight differences in width, or how the slide and frame are fitted.
You keep avoiding the fact that the BHP is a single action mechanism, with a fairly stiff break and short reset, while the CZ75 is a double action mechanism that also allows single action mode, with a more rolling break and a fairly long reset. (Unless you limit the CZ75 under discussion to the SA only model, in which case the break and reset are still different.)
Shoot the two side by side, and you won't call one a copy of the other. They are very different; their only similarities, other than grip shape (and the CZ is thicker, there, too) are cosmetic.
Both are stainless, DA, L-frame (not called that by Ruger, but very similar dimensions) .357 revolvers that can be had with short barrels or 6" barrels. Both will accept a fairly wide variety of grip shapes. Both have cylinders that even rotate the same direction (unlike Colts).
Should it matter that one has a sideplate, and the other allows access to innards via the trigger guard? Should it matter that one has a fore-and-aft cylinder release, and the other has a toggle? I mean, they're really the same gun, right?
Meanwhile, RickB, you want to attack those factors I listed between CZ75 and BHP that you find to be merely cosmetic, such as slight differences in width, or how the slide and frame are fitted.
You keep avoiding the fact that the BHP is a single action mechanism, with a fairly stiff break and short reset, while the CZ75 is a double action mechanism that also allows single action mode, with a more rolling break and a fairly long reset. (Unless you limit the CZ75 under discussion to the SA only model, in which case the break and reset are still different.)
Shoot the two side by side, and you won't call one a copy of the other. They are very different; their only similarities, other than grip shape (and the CZ is thicker, there, too) are cosmetic.
Redhawk5.5+P+
New member
Don't make a statement unless you know better!
MLeake
Post #48
Well, don't kick the guy in the nards. LOL
You sure put it home there buddy, I agree with your attitude toward people that speak (shoot) first and ask questions later.
TBS, I agree (Mostly) with your statements for the most part, and I'm no dummy, I just play one on TV!
+P+
MLeake
Post #48
Well, don't kick the guy in the nards. LOL
You sure put it home there buddy, I agree with your attitude toward people that speak (shoot) first and ask questions later.
TBS, I agree (Mostly) with your statements for the most part, and I'm no dummy, I just play one on TV!
+P+
It has a lot less to do with ergos than it does CZ (as a company) being in the right place & at the right time & having the right product.
There's plenty of other examples of good to great guns that for one reason or another never went very far.
Take away the new factory the Czech government built & that CZ picked up for a fraction of the cost when industry privatized, the lifting of import bans when the Czech Republic tossed out communism, the Turkish military over run of 75b's that allowed for very low cost 75b's to be imported, a very favorable exchange rate @ the time, a good word from Cooper - and -CZ would just have been another "close but no cigar".....