1911Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Aren't they basically the same with the exception that the BHP was a JMB concept and one is a SA 9mm vs. the SA/DA with Hi-Cap capability?

Does the SA/DA trigger cause any trigger difference when compared to the magazine safety trigger?

Does the Slide Rail setup (inside full length vs. outside partial) make a great difference?

I know what Jeff Cooper said, my Dad disagrees and told me that the BHP was JMB's evolution to the 1911 (in 9mm format), therefore IT is THE ONE to own and shoot.

Which is better (if thats a possibly Fair question on this Board), and why?

Adios Qweeksdraw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,882 Posts
Hello. Both remain great guns, but "best" would likely be a subjective decision...as most "gun decisions" wind up being.

The BHP has fewer internal parts than does the CZ and, in my opinion, the current internal firing pin safety on the HP does not mess up the trigger pull as much as does that on the "B" series of CZ 75/85/97s. I believe that the CZ85 "Combat" does not have the internal firing pin safety and as such doesn't have the "grit" associated right at the single-action break in the trigger pull.
I'm told that this varies quite a bit gun to gun, so it might be just a minor or non-problem or might need to be considered.

The CZ is not a clone of the HP, other than using Browning's locked breech design. It does not "bite" the hand that fires it as often as can the HP.

I have not noted any advantage or disadvantage to the internal vs external riding of the slide on the frame. The only downside might be that there's less slide to grasp when cycling the slide, but I've noted no real problems here.

Both guns have proven quite accurate in my experience as I own and shoot both quite a bit. Which is most accurate? I flat cannot tell as both can group better than I can with loads that they "like." I am very satisfied with both in terms of accuracy and reliability.

In holsters or aftermarket parts, the HP gets the nod, but original capacity magazines can be had for either (in 9mm) at rates less costly than some other "high caps."

My personal preference is for the HP, but others will disagree, some vehemently. I routinely remove the magazine disconnect and find that this simple alteration improves the trigger pull. In all of the CZs I've shot, the DA pull is long and smooth while the SA pull is kind of "mushy" compared to the more crisp HP's, but either can be shot well.

CZ's customer service is second to none and for the money, the CZ is very, very hard to beat.

The HP is a classic design and one that costs more since HPs are being imported in small trickles, but one that many do like, including me.

If you get the chance, handle both and decide; after all, yours is the decision that matters in this case.

Best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,720 Posts
They are both recoil operated 9mms (and a few .40s.) of about the same size. Is that what you mean by "basically the same?" They have nothing in common in the details of design or construction that I can think of.

The entirely different triggers feel different in use. The Browning is crisp but heavy to very heavy; the CZ has a softer action, you might call it creepy, and still too heavy for my liking. You might get lucky like my friend and find that taking out the BHP magazine disconnector was all the trigger work needed. My CZ got an action job and a trigger stop.
Only a few CZs have decocking levers. The rest have to be manually uncocked to get to the DA first shot. I have done just that for two years of IDPA SSP competition and practice with never a slip, and no sign of an AD. You do have to be careful, though.

I don't know how much difference the slide rail layout makes. Both work. My CZ shows no wear except a little brightening of contact surfaces. It is not particularly accurate with any ammo I can buy or load but it is certainly good enough for my use.

You could tell your Dad that JMB never designed, made or even saw a BHP as they are actually built. He patented a gun with striker firing action, complicated takedown, and put in a double column magazine only because FN insisted. The design was almost entirely redone after Browning's death by Dieudonne Saive at FN. He was not able to turn out the finished design we see until patents on the 1911 expired and he could put some of its features into the FN product. So JMB had a lot to do with the final form, but not the way you might think.

Better? Danged if I know. Go shooting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,163 Posts
I own both a BHP and CZ85 Combat. If you lay them side-by-side, they are very similar in overall appearance and style. They are also similar in balance and feel (which is good). It is my opinion CZ ripped off the basic HP design concept and changed the thing that needed fixing on the HP: the trigger. Not only is the CZ a DA/SA trigger, it is smoother with a longer (more progressive) break. You can shoot it very accurately without a trigger job. So, I first purchased a top-of-the line HP (for $725) and got a gun that needed a trigger job and a spring set (and the mag safety removed) to shoot decently. I paid $425 for a new CZ-85 Combat and got a gun that shoots perfectly out of the box. But here's the real test: the CZ goes to the range every week and the HP gets shot about twice a year. The CZ is easier to shoot tight groups with.

I'll agree that the BHP design is simpler (less parts) and really very good overall, but the gun is over-priced for what you get and arrives needing work to be a good shooter. If I had bought my CZ first, I wouldn't have bought a BHP at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Whoh, good question.

I have owned both pistols and I like them both. The CZ is, of course, more "modern" than a classic BHP.
I have a hard chromed CZ 75 transition model without the firing pin safety and is has a wonderful trigger pull, but I chose the pick of the litter when I got mine. Other CZ's were not as crisp or gritty on the trigger.
BHP's have nice crisp triggers for the most part and have great feel.
Ah hell...why compare! Do what I do and just get them both!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
I love them both. I think the final decision is subjective. Shoot them both then decide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,650 Posts
I have both, but considering I've been shooting the BHP for close to 30 years I would pick the BHP every time. Don't get me wrong, the CZ is a great handgun, but I've carried the BHP in combat and know it as intimately as a 1911A1 series.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,305 Posts
I would choose a Hi-Power every time. Not that I think that there is anything wrong with them - but I can not think of any practical advantage of a CZ that would inspire me to pick one over a HP.

That said; if I had all the HP's I wanted (not to mention a few others) I certainly wouldn't pass up the opportunity to get one at a good price. Problem is I have more than a few others higher up on the list
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,163 Posts
I get flamed for saying this, but I still say the CZ is a successor (read that "ripoff") of the basic BHP design except they fixed the one thing that BHP's need fixing... the trigger. I own both.... lay them side by side and the size, feel, balance are all comparable. The CZ has full length slide rails (improvement) and a smoother DA/SA trigger (improvement). So, one could say the CZ came from the BHP design... at least it sure looks like it. I have the CZ-85 Combat and I like it better personally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
To All,

Well, I've got to thank you all for your input. I do own both and they both feel great and shoot better than I do.

I was just wondering if the CZ was a European improvement to (now I know) a European/American designed 9mm BHP-35.

I've only shot the CZ twice as a DA after "caaarefulllly" letting the hammer down on a loaded chamber (makes me nervii thinking about it still), otherwise its always a "cocked and locked" proposition.

Its trigger is still a little grittier than the Browning as its the new baby in the safe. Am hoping it will smooth out in time. Kinda worried about the dry-fire fir(e)ing pin breakage thing I've read about, so I guess I'll hafta buy a snap cap to practice with.

Both point real well (like the 1911 and the Glock 9mm's) in my hands.

Thanks again.

Adios Qweeksdraw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
I find the CZ75b to be larger than the BHP in all respects except caliber..For some reason I think it feels better in hand than the BHP,not to say that I dislike the Browning..Just that I can't see where someone can say that one is a copy of some sort of the other..To me they are two very distinct handguns that are a pleasure to own and use,but not similar in shape or size..

Just my humble opinion...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,163 Posts
All full-sized autos are slightly longer in the grip than BHP. Compare the magazine length of the HP with a CZ or Ber 92 and you can see HP's is about 1/2" shorter. But, the frame size and length is nearly identical between the CZ and the BHP. The CZ was obviously designed with it's eye on both of John M Brownings pistols: the basic shape, angles, cut, size, weight, etc are virtually identical to the BHP with the exception that the grip was extended to full length. Inside, the trigger design uses the strap wrapping around the magazine (ala 1911) with a horizontal sear against the hammer (ala BHP). The trigger is DA/SA, so it is clearly different than Brownings.... which is to say the CZ designers fixed the main problem with the HP. Hence, I say the CZ is the improved successor to the HP with SA/DA trigger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Originally posted by Baba Louie:
To All,....snip....I've only shot the CZ twice as a DA after "caaarefulllly" letting the hammer down on a loaded chamber (makes me nervii thinking about it still), otherwise its always a "cocked and locked" proposition....snip... so I guess I'll hafta buy a snap cap to practice with.
I know it isn't the main thrust of your post but I see this so often that I just wish to remark on this issue.

The issue of lowering the hammer on a chambered round comes up a lot and is frequently associated with anxiety about an AD. You are always OK if you just simply remember and practice the number one cardinal rule of fire arm safty. "Keep the pistol pointed in a safe direction". Then if you have an AD....well it still ain't good but no big deal....no one is injured. Now people who carry hammer down on a chambered round and thumb the hammer back as they draw are an accident waiting to happen...that's a different story altogether!

PigPen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,409 Posts
I've owned both and like both. Currently just have a BHP Mk III 9mm with ambi safety (am a southpaw). I found that the grip of the BHP (factory grips) fit my hand better than the CZ did. I wouldn't hesitate to own another CZ in the future, though. Where I'm from the CZ is usually sells around $250 CDN (around $160 US)cheaper than a BHP. Mostly shoot .40 S&W or .45ACP, but feel I should keep ONE 9mm, so the BHP does it for me! So, it's a toss up - whatever one comes your way at the best price, that's the one I'd get! :D Just my 2 cents. Regards, NAA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
I own both. I shoot the CZ a lot more. Once I get a trigger job done on my HP, I'll shoot it as much as my 75B SA.

I personally feel the HP fits MY hand like no other gun. I love the feel. But the factory trigger stinks. The Mag. safety is now gone and the trigger still stinks.

I would not hesitate owning either gun...but if you are going OUT OF THE BOX...I would recomend the CZ.
VF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
which is better?...tough one!

I own a mid-90s Isralei issue FN Hi-Power and a late 80s CZ-75 (not a B model) and to compare targets shot at 15yds or so...you'd be ahrd pressed to tell the difference. Both are very accurate and reliable pieces.

Yes, both feel similar in the hand, but I give a slight nod to the Hi-Power for its single action trigger with a slightly shorter reach. The CZ-75's double action is MILES above the Beretta, SIG, Taurus and other D/A 9mms out there, but in both S/A and D/A modes, it IS a bit on the "creep-ish" side. I think its just the nature of the action itself.

The CZ-75 is a bit more complicated on the internals that the HP, but both do point and feel about the same in the hand.

I really like both guns and feel the CZ-75...even in its newer configurations...is WAY underrated and a steal for around 300 bucks, brand new.

I DO like the FN Hi-Power a bit more, but if you find a less-expensive CZ and choose it over the more costly HP...you've got no arguments from me! I have yet to shoot anything (rifle or pistol) from the CZ factory that I did not like. (I have two CZ made 98 Mauser rifles that are great shooters)

Right out of the box, the CZ-75/85 is definately ready to go. The only other 9mms I have owned that were that good were my Glock 17 and a 226 Sig, but these are much more expensive than the CZ. (I no longer own the Sig 226, but kept - and love- the Glock 17)

-SA

PS- the 700+ dollar 226 Sig Sauer shot NO BETTER than the 300 dollar CZ-75...truth-be-known! (shhh...don't tell the Sig lovers...they'll be pissed!)
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top