Hello everyone...this is my second try since TFL crashed a few days ago! Anyway, I have always been a big fan of Ruger P Series pistols, but notice that so many folks rave about CZs. I have never fired a CZ, but to be honest I think they are gangly looking and heavy, but they obviously work. My question is, what will a CZ do that a Ruger won't do? Please give me some honest comparisons, if you have any. I like the American made quality of Rugers, and they have never let me down. But, what am I missing without CZ?
CZ vs. Ruger
- Thread starter Claywms
- Start date
CZs rock
I've yet to see an out of the box Ruger that's as accurate as an out of the box CZ. In fact I'm willing to bet that out of the box the CZ is more accurate than pistols costing twice as much. The CZ designs has the slide ride inside the frame, very tight barrel lock up, and shorter DA/SA pulls than Rugers. They're tight and stay tight despite thousands of rounds. The all steel design is very well balanced and ergonomic. New preban mags can be had easily for most models, except the compact, and cost about $45. Try one, you'll be hooked.
The Czechs have a long and proud history of manufacturing superb quality firearms.
I've yet to see an out of the box Ruger that's as accurate as an out of the box CZ. In fact I'm willing to bet that out of the box the CZ is more accurate than pistols costing twice as much. The CZ designs has the slide ride inside the frame, very tight barrel lock up, and shorter DA/SA pulls than Rugers. They're tight and stay tight despite thousands of rounds. The all steel design is very well balanced and ergonomic. New preban mags can be had easily for most models, except the compact, and cost about $45. Try one, you'll be hooked.
The Czechs have a long and proud history of manufacturing superb quality firearms.
GunreviewWebmaster
New member
Agreed, CZs are great. I don't think I will be buying too many other makes now that I recently discovered CZ. I own the Ruger P97 and when comparing it to my CZ 97B it is several notches below. The Ruger is a good gun, but it is not even close in accuracy or ergonomics to the CZ 97B. My CZs make my Sig Sauers look inaccurate! That is saying a lot.
I have a P-97 and a CZ-75. It`s kinda like comparing a van (Ruger) to a sports car(CZ). The van will drive you around just like the sportscar but the sportscar will do it smoother ,more precisely and with a lot more style. I`m a big fan of the P-97,it feels good in the hand and it`s very accurate. But...the CZ feels and shoots better. Also far from being gangly the CZs are very svelt and have a balance that belies their weight. Despite the fact that my 75 is larger overall than my P-97 it carries and conceals MUCH better. Basically the CZ won`t do anything a Ruger won`t do but it will do everything the Ruger does a little better. Try one, you`ll like it! Marcus
Christopher II
New member
The one Ruger P95 that I have played with, I didn't like much. It had a lousy trigger and was not what I would consider accurate (pie-plate sized groups at 20 yards, offhand.)
The CZ75, on the other hand, has a good trigger that can be made great with a bit of work, and is (much) more accurate than I am. The cheap preban magazines are a nice bonus.
I shoot CZs now almost exclusively.
Later,
Chris
The CZ75, on the other hand, has a good trigger that can be made great with a bit of work, and is (much) more accurate than I am. The cheap preban magazines are a nice bonus.
I shoot CZs now almost exclusively.
Later,
Chris
My first full size semi-automatic was a Ruger P-94 in .40S&W. It was rugged, it was utterly reliable, and it would shoot a hundred rounds without a hiccup.
It was also ugly, had a mushy trigger, and wouldn't hold a group tighter than 5" at 50'.
My second full size semi-automatic was a CZ-75B in 9mm. Great trigger (heavenly trigger by Ruger standards), very reliable, and substantially more accurate--2" at 50' is not uncommon. It works equally well with cheap ammo. And it's pretty.
I sold the Ruger and later bought a CZ-75 in .40 S&W as well. While it's not quite as accurate as it's 9mm brother, it's still hands down ahead of the Ruger.
I believe Ruger makes a fine pistol for the money. I believe that CZ makes an even better pistol for comparable money.
I wouldn't trade my Vacquero or my GP-100 or my Mark II for a comparable pistol in their class, but the P Series had to go when I found out the same money would buy the CZ.
It was also ugly, had a mushy trigger, and wouldn't hold a group tighter than 5" at 50'.
My second full size semi-automatic was a CZ-75B in 9mm. Great trigger (heavenly trigger by Ruger standards), very reliable, and substantially more accurate--2" at 50' is not uncommon. It works equally well with cheap ammo. And it's pretty.
I sold the Ruger and later bought a CZ-75 in .40 S&W as well. While it's not quite as accurate as it's 9mm brother, it's still hands down ahead of the Ruger.
I believe Ruger makes a fine pistol for the money. I believe that CZ makes an even better pistol for comparable money.
I wouldn't trade my Vacquero or my GP-100 or my Mark II for a comparable pistol in their class, but the P Series had to go when I found out the same money would buy the CZ.
Traded my Ruger P94 9mm for a CZ-75B and couldn't be happier. The Ruger was reliable but the chamber portion of the barrel began to put dents in the top of the forward slide rails and actually mushroomed the the right side rail. This created a loose lock up of the pistol which resulted in accuracy that was going downhill. My CZ is way more accurate out of the box than my Ruger was.
Nodakmarine
New member
Personally, I won't buy a Ruger product made after 1989 due to Ruger's anti full-capacity magazine politics. As far as the CZ goes though, I own one of the early pre-imports made in 1984 and I love it. It's more accurate than any other 9mm I own including Sigs, Berettas, a Walther, and a Browning. It is totally reliable with anything that even looked like a 9mm cartrige. The trigger is better than any other trigger out there that I've found. The feel is like a Hi-Power and I haven't had anybody yet pick it up and comment on how comfortable it fits their hand. What can it do that the Ruger can't do? How about carrying it cocked and locked? If you have to shoot wearing winter gloves, there is no problem getting a finger into a CZ-75 trigger when the hammer is back. Besides, how many CZ owners have you ran into that don't like their CZ? 
Destructo6
New member
I'm not keen on Ruger auto pistols, with the exeption of the Mk2. They look like they were made by a child with Legos. Looks aside, I don't trust castings in critical areas. Also, as said above, the poor trigger and ergonomics don't help much.
CZ has a fine tradition of quality coupled with unique and innovative designs, from their ZB machine guns (the "Br" in "BrEn gun")to the Vz-58 (almost AK on the outside, not on the inside), on to the CZ-110. All of their parts and pieces show that extra bit of effort that exudes craftsmanship.
CZ has a fine tradition of quality coupled with unique and innovative designs, from their ZB machine guns (the "Br" in "BrEn gun")to the Vz-58 (almost AK on the outside, not on the inside), on to the CZ-110. All of their parts and pieces show that extra bit of effort that exudes craftsmanship.
9mmepiphany
New member
many people compare the cz, or eaa clones, to the ruger due to their comparable prices. this really throws peoples' perceptions off.
the cz is designed and engineered to compete with the finest european handguns (sig, walter, berretta...). the fact that they sell for so much less just makes them an awesome value. the only reason that i don't carry a cz as a duty gun is my department's requirement :barf: that duty guns have a firing-pin block.
the big advantage of rugers is their ruggness, they can be carried and neglected forever and still work everytime (sorta like glocks) i would have no reservations of recommending a ruger as a first gun to someone who might not take care of it (i've got a cousin who leaves his on a deep sea fishing boat
)
the cz has a great trigger, outstanding accurracy, the option of SA or SA/DA, a low bore line, reversed rails and superior ergonomics. the only ruger p-series that can compare is the new p97 with the polymer frame.
the cz is designed and engineered to compete with the finest european handguns (sig, walter, berretta...). the fact that they sell for so much less just makes them an awesome value. the only reason that i don't carry a cz as a duty gun is my department's requirement :barf: that duty guns have a firing-pin block.
the big advantage of rugers is their ruggness, they can be carried and neglected forever and still work everytime (sorta like glocks) i would have no reservations of recommending a ruger as a first gun to someone who might not take care of it (i've got a cousin who leaves his on a deep sea fishing boat
)the cz has a great trigger, outstanding accurracy, the option of SA or SA/DA, a low bore line, reversed rails and superior ergonomics. the only ruger p-series that can compare is the new p97 with the polymer frame.
Okay, I get the point...
...but, I just can't get over the gangly looks of the CZ. I know that's shallow, but since you look at a gun at least as much as you shoot it, it should be pleasing to the eye and at the range. I like the way Rugers look, and I love the way they shoot. And, at their price, I can have a few of them.
Seems to me like there's a party line when it comes to Rugers. "Good for the money," or "not bad for the value." Seems like that is what people repeat over and over on TFL, but in my humble and admittedly limited experience I have found Rugers to be exceptional weapon...they feel good (to me), they're rugged, and dang if I can't shoot great with my P95. I NEVER was a good shot until I started shooting my P95, then it all fell together. I guess I just wonder why more people don't appreciate Ruger semi-autos as much as I do. Anyway....
...but, I just can't get over the gangly looks of the CZ. I know that's shallow, but since you look at a gun at least as much as you shoot it, it should be pleasing to the eye and at the range. I like the way Rugers look, and I love the way they shoot. And, at their price, I can have a few of them.
Seems to me like there's a party line when it comes to Rugers. "Good for the money," or "not bad for the value." Seems like that is what people repeat over and over on TFL, but in my humble and admittedly limited experience I have found Rugers to be exceptional weapon...they feel good (to me), they're rugged, and dang if I can't shoot great with my P95. I NEVER was a good shot until I started shooting my P95, then it all fell together. I guess I just wonder why more people don't appreciate Ruger semi-autos as much as I do. Anyway....
A friend of mine has a SIG P210 which is considered by many to be the most accurate production handgun in the world. The damm thing cost $2,100. Anyway, I went to a local indoor range with him and my CZ 75. No the CZ was not as accurate as the P210 but damn close. He could not believe that my CZ75 had no work done to it. We fired from a Ransom rest and he was amazed that a $319 pistol was nearly as accuarte as his $2,100 + big bucks aftermarket accuarizing gun.
Yes, CZ are known for thier extreme accuacy. My CZ has nearly 5,000 thourgh it without a burp.
Yes, CZ are known for thier extreme accuacy. My CZ has nearly 5,000 thourgh it without a burp.
The only thing I have seen that compares to a nice Hi-Power out of the box is the CZ. I have both and prefer tha CZ. As for the Ruger they are not even in the same league as a CZ or Hi-Power. Bad balance and very nasty triggers,it you can shoot a Ruger Ok you need to shoot a CZ and see the groups.