How does the CZ97B compare to a full sized 1911 for CCW? I am currently saving up to purchase another 1911 but have looked at the CZ97B and wondered how well they would carry IWB or on the hip. I already own a CZ75B am very impressed with their quality and accuracy. Just wonderring how well they carry as I already know how well the 1911 carry's.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CZ97B vs 1911
- Thread starter Rob96
- Start date
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
The 1911 is going to win a CCW comparison with the CZ97B every time IMO. The CZ97 has a larger grip, more width, as long if not longer, and weighs more both loaded and unloaded.
I love CZs and particularly the 97; but I wouldn't carry one unless I was going to carry open.
I love CZs and particularly the 97; but I wouldn't carry one unless I was going to carry open.
bartholomew's analysis may not hold water.
colt m1911 a1
overall length 8 1/2 inches
weight 38 ounces (2.375 lbs)
cz97b
overall length 8.35 inches
weight 2.5 lbs
The 97 is slightly shorter and only weighs about four ounces more. It also has a ten round capacity. I'm not sure what 3 rounds of .45 averages but if weight was THE issue, don't put em in.
As far as carry goes I would consider them both "BIG" carry guns. If you can carry/conceal a steel framed 1911 I think you could manage the 97b as well. I think the cz reliability might well offset the slight size and weight disadvantage. I never really thought it was that much more or less concealable than a 75b or a 1911.
1911's
I have yet to see a 1911 for less than I thousand bucks that could even approach the reliablity of the 97. Now as I prepare to get flamed, I know they are out there, it's just that I've never seen one. At the range the other day A guy was shooting a Kimber with a $200 after factory bbl and while it grouped very well at 50 feet from the bench, it usually had some sort of malfunction or two for virtually every mag(new barrel was not broken in though, but still!).
97's
To be fair, a shooting buddy had a 97 that would shoot everything but winchester silvertips. I was damn near called a liar on this forum for saying that, believe it or not. Yeah, that's what I do, I have nothing better to do than sit around and make up stuff about guns. The accuracy is superb but not quite on par with the 75b(opinion, not tested).
-ddt
colt m1911 a1
overall length 8 1/2 inches
weight 38 ounces (2.375 lbs)
cz97b
overall length 8.35 inches
weight 2.5 lbs
The 97 is slightly shorter and only weighs about four ounces more. It also has a ten round capacity. I'm not sure what 3 rounds of .45 averages but if weight was THE issue, don't put em in.
As far as carry goes I would consider them both "BIG" carry guns. If you can carry/conceal a steel framed 1911 I think you could manage the 97b as well. I think the cz reliability might well offset the slight size and weight disadvantage. I never really thought it was that much more or less concealable than a 75b or a 1911.
1911's
I have yet to see a 1911 for less than I thousand bucks that could even approach the reliablity of the 97. Now as I prepare to get flamed, I know they are out there, it's just that I've never seen one. At the range the other day A guy was shooting a Kimber with a $200 after factory bbl and while it grouped very well at 50 feet from the bench, it usually had some sort of malfunction or two for virtually every mag(new barrel was not broken in though, but still!).
97's
To be fair, a shooting buddy had a 97 that would shoot everything but winchester silvertips. I was damn near called a liar on this forum for saying that, believe it or not. Yeah, that's what I do, I have nothing better to do than sit around and make up stuff about guns. The accuracy is superb but not quite on par with the 75b(opinion, not tested).
-ddt
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Ledbetter, I consider the CZ75 right at the upper limit of what I would consider good for concealed carry. With the right grips and the right rig, its definitely doable.
ddt4free: The weights you gave are the empty weights for both guns. You are going to see a little more weight by the time you add spare mags. You could of course choose not to carry the extra rounds; but if you aren't going to use the capacity - why carry it?
The two main differences in concealability are going to be the width and height of the guns. The CZ97B has a tapered double-stack magazine well to allow for 10rds. That makes for a fatter grip and a 1.4-1.6" width depending on the grips. A 1911 is around 1.25". The 0.25" difference may not seem like much number wise; but tuck one of each into your waistband and I'll bet you'll notice the difference right away.
The second issue is height. The CZ97 is 5.9" tall compared to 5.25-5.36" for the M1911. The M1911 is already difficult to conceal in full-size due to the tendency of it's grip to print. Adding another half-inch or more in height isn't going to help with that problem. For comparison, note that even a heavy-duty monster like the Desert Eagle is only 1.26" wide and 5.69" tall.
Having said all that, my initial evaluation of the CZ97B was based on gut feeling more than scientific analysis. I've carried a 1911 and I've had the opportunity to shoot the CZ97B. A good holster can make concealing a 1911 easy; but IWB carry or a high-ride are almost a must and height and width are important to both those styles of carry. From handling and shooting the CZ97, I loved the gun - the extra weight helped make followups with .45 quick and easy. However, I just didn't feel the gun would make a good CCW gun.
ddt4free: The weights you gave are the empty weights for both guns. You are going to see a little more weight by the time you add spare mags. You could of course choose not to carry the extra rounds; but if you aren't going to use the capacity - why carry it?
The two main differences in concealability are going to be the width and height of the guns. The CZ97B has a tapered double-stack magazine well to allow for 10rds. That makes for a fatter grip and a 1.4-1.6" width depending on the grips. A 1911 is around 1.25". The 0.25" difference may not seem like much number wise; but tuck one of each into your waistband and I'll bet you'll notice the difference right away.
The second issue is height. The CZ97 is 5.9" tall compared to 5.25-5.36" for the M1911. The M1911 is already difficult to conceal in full-size due to the tendency of it's grip to print. Adding another half-inch or more in height isn't going to help with that problem. For comparison, note that even a heavy-duty monster like the Desert Eagle is only 1.26" wide and 5.69" tall.
Having said all that, my initial evaluation of the CZ97B was based on gut feeling more than scientific analysis. I've carried a 1911 and I've had the opportunity to shoot the CZ97B. A good holster can make concealing a 1911 easy; but IWB carry or a high-ride are almost a must and height and width are important to both those styles of carry. From handling and shooting the CZ97, I loved the gun - the extra weight helped make followups with .45 quick and easy. However, I just didn't feel the gun would make a good CCW gun.
Good Points Bart
Thanks for a well thought out and articulate response.
I agree, the thickness and height could make alot of difference for IWB carry. Especially true for smaller framed men and women or those in warmer climes. I just didn't have the guns or figures handy or I would have provided them.
Reliability , Accuracy, and Expense are the only reasons I can think of. But even those reasons don't hold much water against a really well made 1911(if they exist, I've seen em on tv anyways).
I would offer this for all to ponder though. I know a guy big enough to conceal a desert eagle(maybe even two in winter). I only wanted to provide a more scientific analysis of the question because I feel it would not be prudent to recommend against the 97 without seeing the person asking the question.
My gut feeling is that I would not have a problem with either gun in small of back with some sort of over shirt. I couldn't carry either with just a tee shirt for cover though.
If there were more civil and intelligent exchanges like your own, this would be a much better forum. thanks -ddt
Thanks for a well thought out and articulate response.
I agree, the thickness and height could make alot of difference for IWB carry. Especially true for smaller framed men and women or those in warmer climes. I just didn't have the guns or figures handy or I would have provided them.
You could of course choose not to carry the extra rounds; but if you aren't going to use the capacity - why carry it?
Reliability , Accuracy, and Expense are the only reasons I can think of. But even those reasons don't hold much water against a really well made 1911(if they exist, I've seen em on tv anyways).
I would offer this for all to ponder though. I know a guy big enough to conceal a desert eagle(maybe even two in winter). I only wanted to provide a more scientific analysis of the question because I feel it would not be prudent to recommend against the 97 without seeing the person asking the question.
My gut feeling is that I would not have a problem with either gun in small of back with some sort of over shirt. I couldn't carry either with just a tee shirt for cover though.
If there were more civil and intelligent exchanges like your own, this would be a much better forum. thanks -ddt
I do carry a commander 1911 with only a t-shirt for cover. In the small of the back, just about anything can be concealed, if you keep good posture.
The commander 1911 has the thickness and height of the full sized 1911, the two most difficult dimensions to conceal. A shorter grip would be easier to conceal, but more difficult to draw and control if needed.
They don't have a thinner version of the CZ97, which in my opinion makes it harder to conceal. I do like their products, but for CCW would stick with a CZ-75 B or PCR.
And if I need ten rounds in a magazine for a 1911, Chip McCormick makes ten round magazines for 1911. I'd keep them in a magazine holder, with a flush seven or eight round magazine in the 1911.
The commander 1911 has the thickness and height of the full sized 1911, the two most difficult dimensions to conceal. A shorter grip would be easier to conceal, but more difficult to draw and control if needed.
They don't have a thinner version of the CZ97, which in my opinion makes it harder to conceal. I do like their products, but for CCW would stick with a CZ-75 B or PCR.
And if I need ten rounds in a magazine for a 1911, Chip McCormick makes ten round magazines for 1911. I'd keep them in a magazine holder, with a flush seven or eight round magazine in the 1911.
I`d go with the 1911 for CCW too. As much as I like CZs the CZ-97 was a disapointment when I first handled one. The DA trigger reach is enormous! I have large hands and long fingers so this is normally no concern for me (I like my CZ-75`s trigger reach just fine) but even with the hammer at half cock I had to rotate my grip to effectively engage the trigger on the 97. The finish was noticably worse than my 75B Mil. and it `s a really chunky gun. It was much bulkier than the P-97 Ruger I traded in and the Witness 10mm which I got instead. I regularly carry my CZ-75B CCW. I was just carrying it today IWB in an ARG style holster with a DeSantis belt under a polo shirt,no sweat. Concealable and comfy. The Witness is a little bulkier/ heavier and the grip is a bit longer with it`s thick plastic baseplates,it`s notably harder to conceal than the CZ. I can do it but it`s not as comfy and I have to be more careful to keep it from printing. The CZ-97 is bigger still IMO CCW with it would be somewhat of a chore. Marcus
cocked and locked 97
i must admit, after further analysis, that the 1911 is probably always going to be easier to conceal than a 97. Not to say the 97 is not concealable.
Someone mentioned the long trigger pull of the 97. I believe that is an apples to oranges comparison. sure there is a long reach to the trigger in double action mode on the 97 but, lest we forget, the standard 1911 is incapable of that altogether. when the 97 is carried cocked and locked like I would carry a 1911, the reach is much shorter and very comfortable.
I don't think i would go as far as to call the 97 grip fat, as(for me) double stack .45's like the para seem as large or larger(still comfortable in my stubby paws). and as bart metions, there is only 1/4 inch difference in the grips and that is only an 1/8 inch on either side of the axis. This is a major deal given that we are comparing a single to a double stack. A 1/4 inch difference is very slim indeed and I think a halmark of the entire cz line. -ddt
i must admit, after further analysis, that the 1911 is probably always going to be easier to conceal than a 97. Not to say the 97 is not concealable.
Someone mentioned the long trigger pull of the 97. I believe that is an apples to oranges comparison. sure there is a long reach to the trigger in double action mode on the 97 but, lest we forget, the standard 1911 is incapable of that altogether. when the 97 is carried cocked and locked like I would carry a 1911, the reach is much shorter and very comfortable.
I don't think i would go as far as to call the 97 grip fat, as(for me) double stack .45's like the para seem as large or larger(still comfortable in my stubby paws). and as bart metions, there is only 1/4 inch difference in the grips and that is only an 1/8 inch on either side of the axis. This is a major deal given that we are comparing a single to a double stack. A 1/4 inch difference is very slim indeed and I think a halmark of the entire cz line. -ddt
Rainbow Six
New member
Based on pictures and posts on the forum, I had the CZ97B figured to be just smaller than a hockey stick. I held one today and it actually felt good in my hand. I want to shoot Joe Klug's first but I may end up with one. FWIW, I would never carry it concealed. I wouldn't hesitate to carry it open in a good holster though. It's not near as big as I figured it would be.
R6
R6