Browning Hi Power or CZ-75
Two really fine combat ready pistols. Which would you pick and why?
I think I'd take the CZ. A little more modern, no hammer bite. Has the capability to go DA if desired. I think you'd get more flexibility out of it.
This would be one heck of a decision to take. I have one of each so I am familiar with both. Maybe keep the Browning.
CZ for me,,,
Definitely a CZ-75B for my tastes,,,
I won't carry a single-action cocked and locked,,,
So the DA/SA action of the CZ-75B suits me much better.
There probably isn't one whit of difference in the performance or quality,,,
So either is a good gun but the single-action turns me away.
CZ for me! They are DA/SA. Some models, P01 and P06 have a de-cocker. The other models that have a safety have the option to be carried cocked and locked if so desired. They also offer compact models.
I have owned a couple CZ-75 clones (Tanfoglio and Grand Power), haven't even handled a Hi Power. I prefer to carry cocked&locked, but the safety on the clones is not as accessible as the safety on the 1911 for gunhand operation. Don't know how that applies to the HP. Decocking for DA/SA operation is not an emergency procedure, so a decocker is not essential.
Browning HP all the way, tried and true for 70+ years, like the 1911 battle tested.
I think I will go to war in a Sopwith Camel.
Originally Posted by jtguns
I don't understand this infatuation with obsolete designs. The 1911 is a fabulous design. But if you want a fighting gun, single stacks leave you undergunned. The HP was revolutionary. So was the black and white TV.
I just bought a CZ 75B Omega for $504. The Browning would have been $800 minimum. The Browning has that polished blue but I could not justify the difference using the pistol for USPSA.
I would hardly say the BHP is an obsolete design. It isn't as old as the 1911, and both are still used by professionals around the world today. Some even contend the BHP is an improved 1911. I love both (1911 and the BHP), and just acquired a Springfield 1911-A1 Mil Spec with the stainless steel barrel. The BHP is still a very relevant pistol design, even if the British Army is incompetent with it.
Originally Posted by Smitty79
Originally Posted by wv109323
Well, I agree, there is no justifying the difference. I don't know that I would say the BHP is "better" than the CZ. I just traded my CZ-75B Omega for the 1911, but I am shifting my safe contents for history and quality over straight quality. My pistols include the following at present:
For EDC: HK VP9 (history in that HK was the first to produce a polymer/striker fire pistol, and the VP9 is quality above all striker fired pistols I've handled/shot, and I've handled/shot them all).
Home defense: Sig Sauer P226 MK25 (not really a historical piece in terms of true "history", but it is a piece I have loved, and it was used by the Navy SEALs on the OBL raid. That was historical! Plus it is one of the finest combat pistols made.)
GP Pistol: Springfield 1911-A1 Mil Spec (although a reproduction, the history speaks for itself. This is one of my all-time favorites, along with the P226 and the BHP)
Ultra-deep CCW: Glock 42 (renowned reliability, and perfect for what I want in this category. You really can't beat a Glock unless you just shoot another gun better. At close range, and in .380, I don't think you can beat the G42.)
I will fill in the gaps as I go restocking my Glocks among other pistols, rifles and shotguns. My next pistol purchase will be the BHP, and I'll probably pick up a Beretta PX4 Storm compact soon as well. I'll be on the look out for a few others like the S&W Model 10/15, some M&Ps, another CZ or two, not to mention the M-14, M-1 Garande and the Remington Model 700 in .308 and probably a 7mm Mag. I have my eye on the Beretta 1301 Tactical shotgun, and I'll have the M9 as well. But for now, I'm content with what I have. These are all significant pieces to me.
History lesson (the short and sloppy version because I'm nowhere near the historian some of these other guys are) - the BHP IS an updated design from the 1911. Same designer and all. The CZ-75 IS an updated design of the BHP. Not many designs can be so directly traced back through their progenitors. The first time I held a CZ-75, not knowing any of the history, I immediately thought it felt like a BHP.
Both the CZ-75 and the BHP are classic designs, no doubt. If you are more of a purist/model snob then the BHP is probably your boy. Personally, I prefer the CZ-75, but I feel no prestige in owning one over the other. I had a BHP (1969, Belgian made) and didn't care for it. But the CZ-75 (actually, the compact P-01 version because my city is run by fascists ands limit my mags to 15) feels magical to me. Ergonomics, price and capacity (CZ is 16, BHP was 13 in my model) go to the CZ-75. If you have a strong preference for decocker vs. safety then that might sway your choice.
Honestly, you can't screw this up. Use your feelings, Luke.
Yeah, the first thing I thought when I held the CZ-75 was this feels a lot like a BHP. No question, from a practical standpoint, the CZ-75 is a better choice simply on price given the quality of both pistols are on par. The CZ gives you more options, and is a more practical weapon for the modern warrior for all the reasons you stated, Gruesome. This is why I really don't carry the 1911 or a BHP for my EDC gun. I love them both! And I know either would be outstanding EDC guns. I just feel that the VP9 is a more versatile, more practical weapon for the job.
I know the British Army went with the Glock 17 Gen 4 to replace the timeless BHP as its standard issue pistol, and I truly believe that was a great choice to replace the BHP, but wasn't needed anymore than the US Army needed to replace the 1911 (which they are not bucking to return to btw). It's all a matter of the personal desire to change IMHO. I'd be lying if I said my change isn't due to that same desire in some measure, but I believe I have a solid thought process under the decision, which all started when I procured the new HK VP9. Damn it...DAMN THAT GUN!!! LOL
Honestly, I was perfectly happy with my Glock 19 Gen 4 as my EDC pistol, and my Glock 17 Gen 4 as my nightstand gun. I was just on a journey to rebuild my safe after a rather difficult storm. I was on track to get the new Glock 41 Gen 4 when my cousin (a local LEO and M&P45 carrier) recommended I have a look at HKs new striker fire pistol, and I did. As a result, it changed my entire outlook. I began the process of comparing the VP9 to my G19, aside from the obvious differences, I couldn't tell much difference. I was as accurate with one as the other in my standard defense shooting scenario (within 15 yards but mainly 21 feet). So I began taking it out to 25 yards. At 25 yards the difference was staggering. I was all over the place with the Glocks no matter how focused I was, and with the VP9, I was much tighter. Over time, this became a standard occurrence. Finally, after a range outing, I decided that I was going to keep the VP9 as my new EDC gun, and return to my roots with a DA/SA pistol. I did think about just keeping the Glocks b/c they are such great guns. I still believe that you can't beat them on quality or price, but when you consistently shoot better with a different gun I feel it's time to recognize the truth for what it is and make the necessary adjustments. So I decided to have a look at the M9 and MK25, both fine combat pistols. The MK25 just fit better so I went that direction. Did it make sense from a purely practical standpoint? Maybe not, but I do love the P226. I always have. I have more time with it than the M9, and I just feel better with it.
As for the BHP...well, in the end I'll have other CZs. They are fantastic guns! But they are not nearly as historical as the 1911 or BHP. Granted, I didn't drop the $2500 for the 1918 model Colt 1911 at my LGS, but I did get the next best thing. And no, while these guns (the 1911 and BHP) won't serve as my standard EDC gun, they could fill that role in a heartbeat, and I'd be fine with that. It would just take a little time training to get me used to the operation of these superb guns, and I'd be good to go. I rather like the history behind them, so I decided to restructure my safe and redirect my path. At the end of the day I'll have them all really. I'm just looking to see what you guys think of the guns in question.
Thanks for all the input!
Since the original post on this thread made no mention of carry or an "if you could have just one gun", I naturally assumed that this was just a choice between these two fine candidates.... nothing more than that.
If I were having to choose between these two pistols for carry, I would go with my CZ 75B Omega, even though it is a DA design. I am not comfortable carrying a single action hammer fired pistol in Condition One; that's just me. And even though my CZ is a double action, I did replace the 20-pound hammer spring with a 13-pound unit and that was a huge improvement for both DA and SA fire.
The problem with us gun people is that we're always searching for the perfect gun when in fact, there is no such thing. Most definitely there are some better than others (I would say many better than some), but nothing perfect. So we continue to search and sell or trade as we buy and try. Nothing wrong with this but it can get a little frustrating at times. Thing is, now there are really a lot of very good choices to be had so finding that "perfect" gun is not only harder but infinitely more expensive.
Oh well... golf, guns, golf, guns. I'll take guns.
I agree. Too many fine choices to be had for sure. Since I'm not yet a very wealthy man, I have to take steps toward getting all the guns I want, and I do want a lot of them. I really do think the strike fire is the best overall type for EDC/defense for me, and I do spend more time with my EDC gun than any of my others, although I do enjoy shooting all of them. I thought I had found the perfect EDC gun for me in the Glock 19, and I still contend it is a fine EDC platform for many if not most. I honestly had no intentions of getting rid of it, until I got my hands on the VP9. Even then, I intended to modify my G19 until I got it to the point that it was comparable with the trigger of the VP9, but then I got to thinking, which is probably not a good idea! LOL
Suffice it to say I lost a little confidence in my ability (not the gun) to shoot as well with the Glock. I always knew I was more accurate at longer distances with a DA/SA pistol than with the Glock, but I had come to the conclusion that it was really irrelevant since the purpose for carrying a gun for defense was being able to "defend" rather than offend. Simply put, a pistol is not intended to be an offensive weapon, and since almost all defensive encounters take place within 21 feet, I didn't feel I needed a pistol that I can shoot better at longer distances. The Glock is a solid pistol that works every time, and at 21 feet I'm deadly accurate with it. I simply never thought that I'd find a striker fire pistol that I can shoot as accurately as a DA/SA pistol at 25 yards. Then when I compared ergonomics and over all fit n finish of the VP9 to the Glock...well, there really is no comparison. HK is renowned for quality and ability. I have always said the top three pistol manufacturers HK, Sig and Glock, and I still believe that.
At any rate, back to the OP, I don't think you can go wrong with either. My shift makes sense only wrt desire, not practicality. I have a practical EDCG in the HK. Now time to fit my safe with the prized pieces I want first. Then I'll fill in the gaps.
I have also come to that conclusion after carrying all of the other types. I like the Springfields and Glocks the best not necessarily in that order. Out in the desert and on the trails I'll have at least one of those along with an S&W Governor with shot loads. Great combo for that purpose.
I really do think the strike fire is the best overall type for EDC/defense for me
I also tend to prefer the modern striker fired pistols over hammer fired designs for several reasons. I don't like external safeties for one. And I don't want decockers (much like external safeties) or anything of the sort. For my purposes, the least number of steps I have to overcome between drawing my gun and firing it the better I like it. This is how I train. Pull the gun and pull the trigger. That's all I want to have to worry about when the SHTF with a BG about to do me or mine harm.
Originally Posted by desertman
Yep, that's pretty much why I carry a striker fire. I don't mind a decocker as much b/c it isn't something I have to contend with upon pulling the gun; however, the DA pull first followed by the SA is something that doesn't appeal to me after having experienced the SF action. BUT, I too do not like any type of external safety for EDC.
It would depend to some extent on what my intentions for the gun were. If my primary focus was on a modern home security weapon I'd go with the CZ 75 simply because it has more ammo capacity. If, on the other hand I was trying to put together a collection that included iconic guns, I'd go with the Browning Hi Power first but I wouldn't be too long in adding the CZ. I have a Hi Power and a CZ Rami right now. Most likely the next pistol I buy will be the CZ 75. It is a world class firearm.
Search tags for this page
browning high power cz 75
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» Springfield Armory
» HGF Sponsors