CZ-75 vs Browning Hi Power?

[tex45acp]

I have owned both and they were equally accurate and functionally dependable, but for simplicity and ease of operation....I kept the Browning Hi Power. Remove the slide and look at the fire controls and you will see what I mean. I have seen them both customized and the Hi Power is truly a thing of beauty. Here are my two guns. I sold the stainless CZ to a buddy of mine who had just recieved his Texas CHL and wanted a full size, all metal, 9mm for carry. I still have the matte hard chrome Hi Power.

[armakraut]

The browning hi-power was the original glock. It's just a very reliable, simple design. I threw a lot of lead through mine over the years, very few malfunctions, miles beyond the 1911's I've shot though.

I purchased a pre-B CZ-75 not too long ago, and I have no doubt either the BHP or CZ would serve the end user well... unless you have gorilla hands. My preference is for the Browning, it's a simple and slim firearm.

This one was made shortly before Czechoslovakia went kaput as a communist occupied country. Cooper tried to get them to make a single stack .45ACP CZ75, they wouldn't have anything to do with that. I'll say this much, if he had been successful in getting them to make an "improved hi-power" set up like that, it would have killed the 1911 market. The CZ and Hi-power were the only 9mm's he had much of any praise for, and he did praise their out of the box reliability.

[JonInWA]

I've had both CZ-75Bs and Hi-Power Mk IIIs and a Standard. While both are good guns, both have their strong and weak points. Given a choice between the two, I think that a modern Hi-Power is likely to be more durable (withing its forecasted lifespan), slightly more accurate, and more ergonomic (especially regarding the safety lever position). I think that the Hi-Power will potentially have the better triggerpull between the two, but in most cases that potential will be realized only after a knowledgeable gunsmith performs an action job on it.

Currrently, a CZ-75 is a FAR cheaper alternative, and much more available, and available in several variations.

I wouldn't feel undergunned with either, but out of the two, I personally have chosen to stick with the Hi-Power (albeit a Mk III in .40).

Best, Jon

[Amicus]

My preference is (drum roll please):

The EAA Witness (a copy of the original CZ 75 with the newer "commander" style hammer; see, Armakraut's post above). I like the 75B, but prefer the Witness. The major differences are the internal safety (CZ 75B) and the more heavy frame and slide of the Witness. Also, the controls are slightly different (e.g., you may cycle the Witness with the safety on) and the guide rod is exposed on the Witness (as on a 1911).

[MiggyE]

My preference is (drum roll please):

The EAA Witness (a copy of the original CZ 75 with the newer "commander" style hammer; see, Armakraut's post above). I like the 75B, but prefer the Witness. The major differences are the internal safety (CZ 75B) and the more heavy frame and slide of the Witness. Also, the controls are slightly different (e.g., you may cycle the Witness with the safety on) and the guide rod is exposed on the Witness (as on a 1911).

haha, Amicus! my carry right now is a Tanfoglio Force 9mm, which is the EAA Witness in the States. Your right, its a great gun. But, between the two here, it would depend on what he needs. CZ 75 if out of the box. and Hi-Power for the nostalgia and if your willing to smith it a little...