Thread: CZ ergos...why?
View Single Post
Old October 11, 2012, 02:44 PM   #40
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
CZ75, DA/SA. Browning HiPower, SA.

CZ75, slide rides inside frame. BHP, slide rides outside frame.

As Tom Servo noted, barrel linkup in CZ75 is closer to that of SIG P210 than that of BHP.

CZ75, 16+1 with flush mag, up to 18+1 with mags with extended floorplates; BHP, 13+1 (maybe, because some guns don't run well in +1 mode), up to 15+1 (same caveat) with new Mec-Gar mags.

The BHP has a slimmer slide/frame width, and will fit in most 1911 holsters.

The BHP has a magazine disconnect safety.

The trigger reaches are not the same. A lot of people complain about the reach on the CZ75 being too long. I have long fingers, and find the reach on the BHP too short.

Note that the short reach on the BHP was an intentional design feature, as Browning (and later Saive, after Browning's death) were tasked with shortening the reach from that of the 1911, which many at the time considered too long for medium or smaller hands.

The CZ75 was designed with a gloved hand in mind, and IMO works better if gloves are worn than does the BHP.

The thumb safety on the CZ75 is further forward, higher, and larger than the thumb safety on the BHP.

The CZ75 eats +P all day without a problem. Do that to an earlier (pre-Gen III) BHP, and you'll wear out your locking lugs and possibly crack your frame.

Otherwise, yes, they have indented backstraps, double column magazines, double tapered slides, and typically come in 9mm (or sometimes .40).

They look sort of similar. They really are not. (I've owned both.)
MLeake is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.06242 seconds with 7 queries