Mark III Hi Power vs. the CZ75 (Video Showdown!)

[briang2ad]

I've handled more than a few Hipowers and I own one.  Small sample population I'll admit.  I've read countless threads on people either owning and getting a trigger job or selling them off. Mine SEEMED pretty good in the shop, but I soon found the trigger was not so good, had variable creep, and needed work.  Then I found out how tough it is to work on - yes it is simple in its own way, but having the trigger to plunger to transfer bar to sear to hammer setup takes a SKILLED smith.  Many threads out there on SA pulls that are just TOO stiff.  And... drop in isn't drop in. 

Now to the point:  NO CZ 75 has a stiff SA out of the box.  None.  It may be creepy, but it is consistent ENOUGH for accurate and easy combat shooting OTB.  I have felt HPs with pulls that MUST have been North of 7 LBs and while fairly crisp, would be tough to shoot by the average shooter.  That is all I'm saying.

Yes, there is MUCH more to a trigger than weight of pull.  But, I generally think my statements hold true to the average (read soldier) dude firing the gun. BTW, the CZ 75 has more parts, but the trigger operates in a very straightforward manner between transfer to sear to hammer.  MOST people don't have the patience to break them in, and most don't know that camming is not creep.Its a built in safety function.  When is varies, it is frustrating.

BUT... as stated, the Hipower has other advantages, and IF you get one with a good trigger, they ARE very nice - and I've seen those too.  They exist, and ARE better than the CZ in feel.

[WVsig]

Solid video. I love both designs but for me the BHP simply points and shoots better for me in my hands. I will point out what I would consider to be a few mistatements in the video. 

The CZ is a very different design than the BHP. The Kouck? were certainly aware of the BHP but they did not base their CZ 75 design on the BHP.  IMHO. They share the 9mm caliber. They also share the Browning lock breech design but the same can be said of so many pistols. For example the Glock 17 shares both of these characteristics with the BHP. The CZ sort of looks like a BHP but when you really break the guns down it is really only the caliber and the lock breech design that they truly share. They may have been inspired by the BHP but they did not "copy" it.

Also some of the comments about the development of the BHP are too often repeated myths. The 1911 and the BHP only partially share a designer. JMB did not design the pistol we know as the BHP. Its concept was not the brain child of JMB. It was insprired by a potential French Military contract. The mag it was designed around was designed by Saive. The last pistol that JMB designed was the Grand Rendement.  Seen here:



The pistol we shoot today was designed by Saive. JMB never saw a BHP as we know it. He died before the gun we love today was designed. After JMBs death Saive refined the original Grand Renedement and turned it into the BHP we know today. The French never adopted it but the Belgians did in 1935.

The idea that  "JMB designed the BHP and he did so in order to correct or simplify the 1911 design" narrative is an oft repeated old wives' tale. It was a designed as a contract pistol for the French. The design was dictated by the contract not desire to make a better mouse trap.

Another aspect that you did not cover is longevity. A BHP will eventually beat itself to death faster than any CZ 75 variant. This is one of the weaknesses of the BHP design. It is elegant and refined it is not a long lasting pistol IMHO. That does not mean they are not a great choice. They are by far my favorite 9mm I own a few.



Thanks for the video.

[WVsig]

I've handled more than a few Hipowers and I own one.  Small sample population I'll admit.  I've read countless threads on people either owning and getting a trigger job or selling them off. Mine SEEMED pretty good in the shop, but I soon found the trigger was not so good, had variable creep, and needed work.  Then I found out how tough it is to work on - yes it is simple in its own way, but having the trigger to plunger to transfer bar to sear to hammer setup takes a SKILLED smith.  Many threads out there on SA pulls that are just TOO stiff.  And... drop in isn't drop in. 

Now to the point:  NO CZ 75 has a stiff SA out of the box.  None.  It may be creepy, but it is consistent ENOUGH for accurate and easy combat shooting OTB.  I have felt HPs with pulls that MUST have been North of 7 LBs and while fairly crisp, would be tough to shoot by the average shooter.  That is all I'm saying.

Yes, there is MUCH more to a trigger than weight of pull.  But, I generally think my statements hold true to the average (read soldier) dude firing the gun. BTW, the CZ 75 has more parts, but the trigger operates in a very straightforward manner between transfer to sear to hammer.  MOST people don't have the patience to break them in, and most don't know that camming is not creep.Its a built in safety function.  When is varies, it is frustrating.

BUT... as stated, the Hipower has other advantages, and IF you get one with a good trigger, they ARE very nice - and I've seen those too.  They exist, and ARE better than the CZ in feel.

It is not "hard" to get a good BHP trigger you just need to know who to get to do the work.

[Ruber]

...NO CZ 75 has a stiff SA out of the box.  None. It may be creepy, but it is consistent ENOUGH for accurate and easy combat shooting OTB.  I have felt HPs with pulls that MUST have been North of 7 LBs...

Just an FYI, its not the part about HP?s so much I find issue with, it is the claim about the nice CZ trigger.  Now granted, all of my CZ?s are safety, firing pin block models (Howard?s Omega looks pretty sweet), but 4 had 7+ lb SA pull after several bouts of clean, lube, shoot.  One broke in at around 5.5 lb.  Coming from having factory Sig and S&W autos with SA pulls in the 3-3.5lb range, I was a bit disappointed with CZ triggers.

I think CZ are great, solid workhorses, and they have been by my side since I got my first RAMI.  But I also got that RAMI new for $300 + fees.

And I do think the CZ triggers can be made great more easily than HP?s, it just seems to involve purchasing some czc or cgw parts...

[Hrfunk]

I agree with Howard here . . . although the opposing argument might respond by saying that the CZ-75 was intended as an M(ilitary) and P(olice) pistol, too. Wasn't it?

Absolutely, albeit 4 decades or so later.

Howard

[Hrfunk]

Solid video. I love both designs but for me the BHP simply points and shoots better for me in my hands. I will point out what I would consider to be a few mistatements in the video.

Thank you for a very thoughtful comment! I realized I did not mention Mr. Saive after I completed the video. That was an oversight on my part, and I'm glad you pointed it out. Partly, this was an omission resulting from the limited time I had to record the video. In my original review of the BHP, I gave him full credit for his efforts related to the Hi Power.

As to John Moses Browning, and his influence on the pistol we today know as the Hi Power, I think his influence was more than cursory. In the drawing you attached (thank you for that, by the way), there are quite a few features that eventually found their way into the GP35. As mentioned, the locking mechanism is nearly identical to that which JMB designed. The grip frame/profile is likewise quite similar. The magazine (another Saive design that was submitted to Browning for incorporation into the pistol in order to meet the French military requirement for ammunition capacity) is similar, but the original prototype actually held 17 rounds whereas the final design for the HP was reduced to 13. Lastly, while the firing mechanism is quite different, the trigger itself is nearly the same.

To say Browning was working to simplify the 1911 design is, perhaps, debatable. Nevertheless, it's hard to dispute the fact that the deletion of the barrel link and the removable bushing did not accomplish that end. The situation that DID exist for JMB, however, was the fact that he was working around is own patents for the 1911 which were sold prior to his commencing design on a new pistol for the French. This, as much as anything, may well explain some of the design differences between the 1911 and his prototype developed for FN in 1923 (I believe that was the year, I'm going from memory here).

It's also hard to know how much discussion might have take place between Browning and Saive between the time the prototypes (there were two, I believe) were developed and JMB's death in 1926. It is possible that some of the features that eventually found their way into the GP35 were actually Browning's ideas that were simply incorporated into the design by Saive.

As to the comparison between the HP and the CZ75, I think my statements in the video were accurate. While the CZ is certainly not a copy/clone of the HP, it's locking mechanism, grip frame/profile, and double-column magazine were certainly derived from the Browning/Saive designs. I also think the fact the outward appearance of the two pistols are so similar is not accidental. Considering the design of the CZ75, as I understand it, was a top secret undertaking in an Eastern Block communist state, can we really be certain at this point of anything pertaining to its development?

In any case, I appreciate your comments, and I look forward to more discussion in the future. Take care.

HRF

[WVsig]

And I do think the CZ triggers can be made great more easily than HP?s, it just seems to involve purchasing some czc or cgw parts...

The same can be said for the BHP. If you buy Garthwaite or C&S parts with a little minor fitting the trigger can be greatly improved and I would argue the installation of the BHP parts is much easier than the fire control parts in the CZ75.

[WVsig]

Solid video. I love both designs but for me the BHP simply points and shoots better for me in my hands. I will point out what I would consider to be a few mistatements in the video.

Thank you for a very thoughtful comment! I realized I did not mention Mr. Saive after I completed the video. That was an oversight on my part, and I'm glad you pointed it out. Partly, this was an omission resulting from the limited time I had to record the video. In my original review of the BHP, I gave him full credit for his efforts related to the Hi Power.

As to John Moses Browning, and his influence on the pistol we today know as the Hi Power, I think his influence was more than cursory. In the drawing you attached (thank you for that, by the way), there are quite a few features that eventually found their way into the GP35. As mentioned, the locking mechanism is nearly identical to that which JMB designed. The grip frame/profile is likewise quite similar. The magazine (another Saive design that was submitted to Browning for incorporation into the pistol in order to meet the French military requirement for ammunition capacity) is similar, but the original prototype actually held 17 rounds whereas the final design for the HP was reduced to 13. Lastly, while the firing mechanism is quite different, the trigger itself is nearly the same.

Yes without a doubt the  Grand Rendement was the foundation on which the Grande Puissance. I am not disputing or down playing that but when you start to look at the design as it stood at the time of JMBs death and the gun we shoot today it is a horse of a different color. This is detailed by R Blake Stevens and Anthony Vanderlinden in their books. There were many changes and revisions to the original pistol most of which were done after JMBs death and at the request of the French.

To say Browning was working to simplify the 1911 design is, perhaps, debatable. Nevertheless, it's hard to dispute the fact that the deletion of the barrel link and the removable bushing did not accomplish that end. The situation that DID exist for JMB, however, was the fact that he was working around is own patents for the 1911 which were sold prior to his commencing design on a new pistol for the French. This, as much as anything, may well explain some of the design differences between the 1911 and his prototype developed for FN in 1923 (I believe that was the year, I'm going from memory here).

It's also hard to know how much discussion might have take place between Browning and Saive between the time the prototypes (there were two, I believe) were developed and JMB's death in 1926. It is possible that some of the features that eventually found their way into the GP35 were actually Browning's ideas that were simply incorporated into the design by Saive.

This is pure speculation. First as I stated before there were many changes and revisions to the original pistol most of which were done after JMBs death and at the request of the French. Unless JMB knew what the French wanted the pistol to become before they did and told Saive his thoughts prior to his death I do not see how that the origins of the design changes could have come from JMB.

There is nothing in the literature from Stevens, Vanderlinden, FN Herstal, Browning Arms or the Browning Museum  to back up this speculation. Finally idea that the JMB felt the need to "improve" upon the 1911 is simply made up. There is nothing in the historical record that leads one to believe that he thought it needed to be improved. If you have a source for this line of thinking I would love to see it.

As to the comparison between the HP and the CZ75, I think my statements in the video were accurate. While the CZ is certainly not a copy/clone of the HP, it's locking mechanism, grip frame/profile, and double-column magazine were certainly derived from the Browning/Saive designs. I also think the fact the outward appearance of the two pistols are so similar is not accidental. Considering the design of the CZ75, as I understand it, was a top secret undertaking in an Eastern Block communist state, can we really be certain at this point of anything pertaining to its development?

In any case, I appreciate your comments, and I look forward to more discussion in the future. Take care.

HRF

I agree as do most people that the CZ75 looks a lot like the BHP but again it is more in appearance then in function. The late Stephen Camp has a nice article on this BHP website which is still maintained by his Widow. I highly recommend it as good starting point down the rabbit hole that is the BHP. You covered a lot of this in your video.

 Here is a link http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Browning%20and%20CZ.htm

I will quote the part that I think applies directly to this discussion.

But is one descended form the other? In my opinion, the Koucky brothers did not copy the Hi Power. They definitely appear to have used the advances made by Mr. Browning with regard to locking lugs and magazine release location. I am not convinced that the CZ-75's external appearance was intended to be similar to that of the Hi Power.

Most handgun makers were utilizing John Browning's method of locking the breech to the barrel for higher-pressure cartridges. It worked and was simple in design. We can look at semiautomatic handguns from Star, Llama, Smith & Wesson, SIG-Neuhausen and others and see the same thing and before thoughts of the CZ-75 entered its designers' brains.

Mr. Browning came up with the idea to be sure and it was so good that we can say that the world's pistol makers adopted it in droves. By the time that the Josef and Frantisek Koucky came along with their gun fifty years later, this was "old hat." To this day, Browning's system is retained by most major handgun manufacturers albeit with some modification in some cases. (Glock and SIG-Sauer come to mind immediately.)

If we want to say that the CZ-75 is descended from the Hi Power, the same must be said with regard to the SIG P-210. The CZ-75's slide rides inside the frame, as does the P-210's. It preceded the CZ-75 by decades. It may also be "descended" from the Star A, B, and P series of single-action handguns if we are looking at the way in which the thumb safeties are tensioned. All of these use a spring-tensioned piece below the safety to do it (and all are bleeped easy to lose during detail stripping!)

I am not trying to step on toes or start an argument I am just offering food for thought.

[Hrfunk]

Solid video. I love both designs but for me the BHP simply points and shoots better for me in my hands. I will point out what I would consider to be a few mistatements in the video.

I am not trying to step on toes or start an argument I am just offering food for thought.

No argument or toe stepping taken . I concede some of my thoughts above are speculative in nature, but I think they are interesting to consider and they seem to provide fuel for a pretty good discussion. Also, unless I am mistaken, the French military in their initial request for the submission of a new service pistol specified the required design features. This was well before JMB's death. So he would not have had to do a Jacob Marley impersonation to pass on some of his ideas to Mr. Saive. Again, just something to think about.

HRF

[Tyerone]

 
What a great thread!  Thanks OP and ReplyPosters with technical commentary, technical diagrams, awesome video, incredible pictures and history.  Me like-ee!
 

[Tyerone]

Hey WVSig -- You only need 2 more in the "wheel" and you will have all hours of a "clock" covered!

[WVsig]

Hey WVSig -- You only need 2 more in the "wheel" and you will have all hours of a "clock" covered!

Thanks I actually have 2 others. A 1973 Stock C series with fixed sights and a MKIII with a forged frame that I bought to use as a base gun that are not pictured. LOL

[Tyerone]

OK, uhhh Mayan calenndar next?  Nice HP collection!

[Pilot1]

Great to see a discussion of my two favorite pistols.  I bought my first and only BHP in 1994.  A new factory, MKIII, Silver Chrome model with adjustable sights.  It still looks new today, and is one of my most accurate center fire pistols.  I have owned CZ-75 variants for almost as long, and have several.  I have to admit I slightly prefer the CZ over the BHP, most of which are the grip ergos, and a few other minor things.  They are very close.

Thanks for the vid, and great info from everyone.   

[Earl Keese]

Great thread, thanks guys. I've been wanting an HP for some time but keep buying CZ's instead. One of these days. . .