CZ SP-01 Vs. Glock 17

[damon1272]

So I have a glock 17 with a tungsten guide rod, minus trigger bar, and extended controls, with Tru-Glo TFX pro sights. Really like the pistol and I seem to shoot it pretty well.

Shot it against a CZ SP-01 tonight. Thoughts on the CZ are the trigger is pretty nice, especially compared to the glock. Sights were factory night sights, good units. Control were nice and easy to use. The pistol shot very well. The CZ is much heavier but seemed to have a bit more recoil feel to it. (not the 9mm is a killer in the recoil department). I would chalk up the difference to the glock frame flexing as it is polymer compared to steel.

Accuracy with the cz was on par with the glock. Now the real comparison, is it worth switching from glock to cz. In a word, no. If I were just coming into this possibly the CZ over the glock but worth switching set ups as I already have a glock? then no.

Build quality on the CZ is real nice compared to the combat tupperware. Either way they are both good quality proven gun designs but not worth it enough to make the switch. YMMV.

[trigger945]

Nice report... but ya know, there really is no need to switch... you can just add 😉

[damon1272]

True but I have been trying to cut down on all the different mags I have to have between various .22's, 1911's Para double stacks, sig, springfield armory, and glocks, not looking to add another magazine. In fact was looking to dump the SA XD but my kids likes it over the glock.

[DDM4556]

I think of Glocks as the epitome of efficiency. Simple, reliable, and waste no space. They get the job done, and I enjoy shooting mine. I think of metal, hammer fired guns as classy. Like a BMW to Honda. Hondas are great and reliable, but BMWs are more refined and satisfying. IMO...

[johnk518]

You are the first person I've heard say the CZ had more felt recoil than a Glock. As everyone knows the bore axis is so low on the CZ, and steel frame should have eaten up the recoil.

The trigger on the CZ was nicer because it was a single action. Glocks are great utilitarian guns, I love them. But the CZ is more like a 1911. For me it will always be steel over polymer. Of course if you are talking about carrying I would pick a glock 19, Kahr P9, or HK P2000 (or other popular gun). Simply because if you ever end up using it under a CCW situation, consider it gone because it will now be considered evidence.

[tanks]

For a range toy it makes no difference unless you just want a different gun.

[Mayor McRifle]

Of course if you are talking about carrying I would pick a glock 19, Kahr P9, or HK P2000 (or other popular gun). Simply because if you ever end up using it under a CCW situation, consider it gone because it will now be considered evidence.

[Kwikvette]

You seem to be happy with what you've got and found what works for you; that's what matters.

Me personally, I don't care for glocks. Didn't even care to have one when they were issuing them at our department; I carried a Springfield XD.

As for a range toy, CZ all the way and twice on Sunday

Everyone asks to shoot it when I take it with me, even the range safety officers.

[Old4eyes]

You are the first I've heard to say the recoil of a SP-01 is in the same ballpark as the Glock. I'd say it's the opposite. Having said that and your comment about the praise of the trigger on the CZ, why not put a trigger job like a ghost trigger on the Glock and call it a day, cheaper than buying the CZ. I have the SP-01 and a Glock 34 with Ghost, the reset is much shorter with the Glock/Ghost.

[Robert1234]

You are the first person I've heard say the CZ had more felt recoil than a Glock. As everyone knows the bore axis is so low on the CZ, and steel frame should have eaten up the recoil.

The trigger on the CZ was nicer because it was a single action. Glocks are great utilitarian guns, I love them. But the CZ is more like a 1911. For me it will always be steel over polymer. Of course if you are talking about carrying I would pick a glock 19, Kahr P9, or HK P2000 (or other popular gun). Simply because if you ever end up using it under a CCW situation, consider it gone because it will now be considered evidence.

I've noticed the same thing. I shot a G17, 92FS, SP 01, XD9 Tactical and M&P9 Pro Longslide side by side.

The G17 had noticeably less felt recoil than the rest. Probably the flex in the frame, Glocks are much flexier than other plastic guns and while the weight of steel guns mitigates recoil significantly, the rigidity transmit recoil directly the the hand. In my experience anyway.

With regard to the low bore axis of the CZ, look at it and you'll realize the bore axis is not lower than a Glock, it just looks that way because of the way the slide rides inside the frame. I don't have a CZ anymore so I can't measure and take a pic, but here's an interesting article.

https://www.guntweaks.com/pistol-bore-axis-comparison-what-is-low-bore-axis.html

[mjmagee67]

You are the first person I've heard say the CZ had more felt recoil than a Glock. As everyone knows the bore axis is so low on the CZ, and steel frame should have eaten up the recoil.

The trigger on the CZ was nicer because it was a single action. Glocks are great utilitarian guns, I love them. But the CZ is more like a 1911. For me it will always be steel over polymer. Of course if you are talking about carrying I would pick a glock 19, Kahr P9, or HK P2000 (or other popular gun). Simply because if you ever end up using it under a CCW situation, consider it gone because it will now be considered evidence.

He also said accuracy of the CZ was on par with the Glock..............

[boopiejones]

I really wanted to hate glocks and was resistant to buy one. Eventually I bought one and they have since multiplied. I always bring a Glock or three with me when I go to the range. When I take handgun classes, I bring other guns with the intent of shooting them for at least half a day, but then I end up using my Glock the entire three days. They don’t have external crap to worry about in a tense situation - safeties, decockers, DA/SA, etc. they just work.

I don’t think they have less recoil than a heavy gun, but they don’t have as sharp of an impulse. I think what’s happening is that the polymer absorbs the initial shot of recoil and transfers it to the hand slower than a steel gun. So you don’t get that sharp kick at the beginning of the recoil. But because the Glock is lighter, it does have more tendency to travel up and back. I haven’t done any slow motion side by side comparisons, but my guess is that the glock would have more muzzle rise but the steel gun would have a quicker rearward “felt” recoil impulse.

[Ezekiel2000]

Less recoil, felt or otherwise in a Glock 17 vs. a CZ SP-01? No.

I've got both and the recoil is certainly less in the CZ.

And yes, agreed that the correct answer is to get both... Buy all the guns! 😀

[wurger]

Both, for sure. I have a SP-01 in jail now to go with my G17.

[Mystery_Milk]

You are the first I've heard to say the recoil of a SP-01 is in the same ballpark as the Glock. I'd say it's the opposite. Having said that and your comment about the praise of the trigger on the CZ, why not put a trigger job like a ghost trigger on the Glock and call it a day, cheaper than buying the CZ. I have the SP-01 and a Glock 34 with Ghost, the reset is much shorter with the Glock/Ghost.

I've shot a P-01 and Glock 19 side to side and I think the P-01 has a lot more recoil than the Glock. I've shot a CZ-75 B next to a Glock 19 and think they have roughly the same amount of recoil, maybe the CZ a little more. I think it depends on how much your hands like the CZ bump on the backstrap.

To the OP: if you think the Glock has less recoil it probably just fits your hands better. I don't like the CZ stock trigger myself but they're really upgradeable.