CZ75 and M1911's what makes them so popular?

K

Kimio

New member
So I was actually pondering this, these are two handguns that seem to have a pretty wide and strong following.

Widely accepted, and typically considered to be very comfortable to shoot with a diverse population of shooters of all ages.

So what do you think makes these handguns so popular, and why is it that they resonate so strongly with so many shooters?

I know when I first picked up either handgun, they just fit extremely well in my small-ish hands. It just felt good to shoot, and they both pointed naturally for me.

There doesn't seem to be many guns that seem to garner this type of following. Then again, my experiences with a wide variety of handguns, is admittedly rather limited.

What do you all think?
 
The 1911 has been around and in military service for a long time. Plus you can buy any part from multiple manufacturers so customization and repair is easy.
The CZ75 is popular because it is good shooter and not priced out of reach.
 
....and all steel = REAL. :D

I enjoy shooting my 75's much more than my Colt 1911, with which I can't shoot straight.
 
Well the 1911 has, IMO, moved beyond just being a firearm. Frankly I am not aware of them being massively popular outside of the US and Philippines. However with the firearm being designed by John Moses Browning and having served so long with the US military I honestly think at this point it is a part of Americana. The Ford Mustang is not the most bestest car in the world, but it's just classic and so I think is the 1911. It does, as you said, seem to fit many hand sizes very well and its single action trigger that moves straight back lends itself to relatively easy shooting.

The CZ 75 is sort of a contrast in that it and clones of it are widely found overseas but were not overly popular in the US until relatively recently compared to the 1911. It's an excellent design whose prolific status was helped by the ease of which other companies could use its design (which happens when patents can't be filed due to being secret property of the State).

As for why have no other pistols achieved the same status, that's a good question I suppose. Why aren't we all using P38s? Well, a lot of the design elements of the Walther P38 can be found in other pistols such as the Beretta 92. The SIG P226 is a descendant of the SIG P220 which has been in service for a long time, at least as long as the CZ. I would consider the Beretta 92 and SIG P226 classics as well, they just don't have the long history of the 1911 nor the ease of licensing of the CZ 75. I do think as time passes (and I would accept the argument now) that even the Glock 17 is a worthy note in pistol development (whether people like it or not).
 
JHansenAK47 summed it up quite well. I own one CZ 75 and several 1911s and they're all good shooters and very well made.
 
Because they're great firearms, that are fun all around. Competition, Carry, Plinking, Collecting, they offer something for everyone.

They're not boring chunks of pop culture...
 
I can not speak for the CZ75, but the M1911's in original finish and with the right parts are hard to come by. A good example will run several thousand dollars if not more. The remaining ones were either stolen (as we say these days liberated) from Uncle Sam. There are some Arsenal Rebuilds that were sold to private parties many years ago. They sold for less than thirty bucks.

There are some M1911's and M1911A1's out there that a collector would not want since they have had the U.S. Government Property mark and maybe even the serial numbers filed off the frame.

Prior to changing over to the M-9 the Government chose not to sell them to the U.S. public. I think most of the inventory was destroyed.

There is no problem with owning the existing ones as long as they have a legible serial number. When I purchased mine a few years back it was processed thought the FFL process. You can see a picture of mine under the current thread on the Forum entitled "Centurials".

I was assuming the OP was addressing the M1911 and not the 1911's.
 
Last edited:
I have the CZ SP01 and several 1911s. The 1911s I own are much better finished than the two CZ pistols I have. Both CZ pistols run like champs and have been worked on by the custom shop here in town. What stands out about them is the casual disregard for interior finishing. The guns run just great but CZ does not machine the internals as much as they could to make it "clean." They machine to an acceptable level to assure functioning and then they quit. Same for the exterior. The duty coat is not as durable as what you would find on other guns ( Dan Wesson, Sig ). The finish is not as smooth and neither is the external machining. The guns DO shoot really well and are reliable.

A good 1911 looks like a precision piece of goods both on the outside and inside. The triggers are great and the guns run fine. They also cost a lot more.

If I left a CZ in my truck and it got bounced around a bit, it would not bother me like it would if I had left a 1911 in the vehicle.

The thing about CZ is they flew under the radar for a long time until Angus Hobdell started winning matches with them. Here in Arizona, they have become very popular. As a consequence, the prices are going up.

The CZ rifles on the other hand have very good machining and finishing and they REALLY shoot well.
 
Part of the equation just might be the John M. Browning heritage.

JMB is well known for the 1911.

But the CZ 75, and perhaps many don't know it, feels and looks a lot like
the Browning Hi Power. I think of the CZ as the bargain Hi Power.
As to its lack of refinement, i.e. external and internal polishing, it
just represents a military/police service aspect.

Also, for the adherents of Jeff Cooper, the CZ benefits because he basically
praised it as the pistol shape that should take over.

Throughout the world, excepting the U.S., perhaps Mexico and the Philippines, the Hi Power was and still is the standard military/police pistol.

The production rates of the Hi Power and the CZ 75 are nothing but exceptional. But then so are the production rates of the plastic fantastics
and in particular the Glocks.
 
UncleEd said:
But the CZ 75, and perhaps many don't know it, feels and looks a lot like the Browning Hi Power. I think of the CZ as the bargain Hi Power.
Click to expand...

The CZ does resemble the HP a bit, but looks don't explain it. Internally they are completely different and there is no real shared heritage.

About the only features they have in common is 1) two different approaches to the JMB short-recoil locked breech design -- but 90% of the center fire semi-autos share that feature; and 2) both use double-stack mags. The CZ is much more complex -- necessary to allow DA/SA function.

While the BHP was the first service pistol to use a double-stack mag, it was the other FN designer, Dieudonné Saive, who worked on the BHP before and after JMB's death and created the magazine. That mag wasn't part of the original design, and wasn't added to the gun until after JMB's death. JMB thought 7-8 rounds were enough. The original JMB pattents for the BHP design was for a single-stack striker-fired semi-auto!!

The CZ is DA/SA and can be started from Cocked & Locked, but can also be started from hammer down; that also means it has a second-strike capability. The BHP, of course, is SAO. Neither has a removable barrel bushing. Both have very good ergonomics and fit the hand well; the BHP is a bit thinner. Both guns were designed around the 9x19 round; CZ focused on the heavier 124 gr round, rather than 115 gr. Some claim the CZ does best with that weight bullet -- I've never seen any significant difference.

As to the CZ's refinement (or lack of it) -- removal of machining marks, etc. CZ seems to believe that if it doesn't improve the gun's effectiveness, that extra "refining" work is costly and unneccesary. CZ may be right. It does offend some folks, however. I think CZ approach reflects a DESIGN PHILOSOPHY. (Note: Some Berettas, SIGs, and the BHPs were also designed to be service pistols, and they get the extra "refining" treatments.)

I've had a bunch of CZs, still have one and a number of others guns based on the CZ pattern; I also have a T-series BHP and have had an Inglis HP. (Unhappily, that particular Inglis wasn't a good gun -- it had been badly screwed over before I got it, and my gunsmith couldn't make it better without going to major expense. It wasn't collectible, so I traded it for a DaeWoo DH-40; I think I got the better deal.)

Folks who think the CZ does more than LOOK like a BHP (i.e., is based on the BHP design) simply have NOT examined both guns closely, or detail-stripped them. I appreciate that you did not make THAT claim above, but some might read your comments to mean that.

.
 
Last edited:
I have looked at quite a few CZ pistols. Even the stainless steel versions show an amazing lack of care in final machining. Hold the gun up to a fluorescent tube and it is easy to see the crooked lines. My SP01 was so rough on the inside that shop towels/micro fiber cloths would hang up on some pretty poor machining cleanup on the rails. I have seen some older all steel CZ75 compacts that were really fine and I would be proud to own one. The SP01 and 97B that I have now are fully functional but not very pretty.
 
I have a CZ75B, polished blue - the machining and fit on the gun is very nice. The glossy blue finish is very good, but not as good as what you'd find on a Colt Python. The final polishing just isn't quite as fine as that on a Python, but from a foot away, it still look pretty.

I still think the my Tanfoglio Stock 10mm (CZ Clone-ish) is slightly better finished than the CZ75
 
It is what it is! I believe both are ergonomically nice to shoot but I really don't think that contributes a lot to the reason for their popularity. The 1911 was the semi-auto to have for a looooong time. I am guessing, but I think it has hung on to it's popularity through the years because no matter what new contenders came along, the 1911 has had a kind of "Swiss watch" reputation. Until recently the 1911 had to be lovingly put together and fitted by hand to work well. Many companies still do it the same way and the results leaves one feeling like he's handling a quality piece of machinery when it's held and used.

The CZ shares a little of it's popularity because it was so widely used outside of the US. It has the high capacity and ergonomics in common with the Browning High Power and that has helped to make it a popular civilian choice.

But nice in the hand accurate shooters can't account for all of their popularity. Look at Glock's following! And they feel like you're hanging on to a 2x4. So, a lot of what has to do with a gun's popularity just is what it is.
 
Walt,

Well aware the HP and CZ have different internals but your points are well taken and stated.

Also aware the HP though credited to JMB is more Saive
who worked on the final design so the French could say "Non."

Well, the Germans and British appreciated the design as did the Chinese
for WWII. Read some years back that the elite German troops, such as the
Luftwaffe's paratroopers. favored the HP first.
 
Having owned examples of both, they just seem to fit my hand and point naturally. They are very different creatures though, one from the other. I fitted an arched mainspring housing to my 1911, as I like it better. The CZ is a heavy piece for what it is. Some folks like that. I never shot the CZs particularly well however. I like that they are both steel. The CZ has a nitrided barrel which I don't think can be worn out in one man's lifetime.

They are good shooters and perhaps that is why people like them.

Like all things personal, sometimes it just doesn't make sense, but I shoot a Glock better than either of them. I like the relative thinness of the 1911, as it lends itself to concealed carry a little better.
 
As a multiple CZ (and clone owner), in addition to what others have said concerning natural POA, comfort in hand, accuracy, price, they offer a great variety for shooters of all types. That is, unless you absolutely cannot live without a striker-fire platform (CZ 100 notwithstanding).

Regardless if you want a steel frame, alloy frame, or polymer frame, CZ has it and, in full, compact, and subcompact configurations w/exception of the Rami, alloy and (discontinued) poly frame only.

Just my take on it, but look at CZ, Beretta, and until recently, HK; current production, exclusive full- and compact-size hammer-fire platforms that just plain work, even though they aren't the "latest & greatest" design. How many times have any of us gone to the range and get the proverbial "dog with head cocked to the side'' look from the other shooters when we break out our "old, ancient" hammer-fired pistols (and/or a striker fire that isn't a Glock, M&P, XD, or SR)?
 
Last edited:
I'd have to vote ergos and the SA triggers, too.
I've never had any interest in putting up with heavy, or squishy, or overly-long trigger pulls. Shooting well is difficult enough, without fighting the trigger.
 
Just my take on it, but look at CZ, Beretta, and until recently, HK; current production, exclusive full- and compact-size hammer-fire platforms that just plain work, even though they aren't the "latest & greatest" design. How many times have any of us gone to the range and get the proverbial "dog with head cocked to the side'' look from the other shooters when we break out our "old, ancient" hammer-fired pistols (and/or a striker fire that isn't a Glock, M&P, XD, or SR)?
Click to expand...

Good point. Reminds me I need to take the Beretta out for a few hundred rounds.
 
Internally they are completely different and there is no real shared heritage.
Click to expand...
If the CZ shares heritage with anything, it's the Sig P210 or the Modèle 1935. Barrel/slide and slide/frame lockup are the same.

The CZ is an accurate and reliable design out of the box. The 1911 trades on a certain romanticized nostalgia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top