CZ 75B Stainless vs. Glock 26

Greetings and welcome to my pistol blog.  Today we're going to draw some comparisons between two pretty disparate pistols, the CZ 75B in polished stainless and the Glock 26.  This is one of those apples to oranges comparisons, as these two pistols have fundamentally different purposes.  However, these are the two I took to the range yesterday, and that was before I had the idea to do a pistol blog.  Some of the pictures are ok, most are bad, and I promise they'll get better as we go.


First features, then some range results and impressions.

The only mods to this particular G26 are an extended slide release and a +2 baseplate for the magazine.  It came with factory night sights.  The CZ, on the other hand, has been sort of hotrodded as it was my intention to use it for IDPA competition in the ESP class.  It has the competition hammer, single action trigger, 15lb hammer spring, fiber optic front sight/competition rear sight, rough aluminum grips from www.czcustom.com, and a couple of pieces of grip tape tastefully applied to the front and back straps.  I added all the mods to these two myself.  For what it's worth, the Glock is about a million times easier to work on than the CZ.  I have a Glock 17 that has been more heavily modified, but with its modular design more parts are truly "drop in."  Whereas with the CZ, even if a part is "drop in" like the trigger, you still have to detail strip the gun a few times which is a royal pain in the ass.  The CZ has a bunch of tiny springs inside, and getting them in the right places and under tension either requires lilliputian hands, or patience, time, deep breathing exercises, safety goggles, and a stress ball.  


Anyway, some of the obvious differences between these two are the weight (duh, one is a subcompact polymer frame and the other is an all steel duty pistol), hammer vs. striker firing mechanisms, grip angle, and size.  We won't cover those much because there is a lot of information already available.

First, even though the CZ is a full-size pistol, it's advantage in sight radius is actually quite small, maybe an inch.  One of the big advantages of striker-fired designs is that, given a similar barrel length (which of course these two don't have), the striker-fired pistol will have a longer sight radius because of its longer slide.  Similarly, a subcompact striker-fired pistol won't give up much on a full size pistol with a hammer and firing pin in terms of sight radius.  

The Glock's barrel is 3.46 inches, while the CZ's barrel is 4.7 inches.  So the difference between the barrel lengths is greater than the difference between the sight radii.  Something to consider when choosing a subcompact, for sure.

A lot is made of chamber support these days, so I thought I'd throw in a picture of each pistol's chamber with a snap cap inserted.  This is the CZ 75B:

This is the Glock 26.  You can see the red plastic of the snap cap quite clearly sticking out of the Glock's chamber.  I truly don't know whether the Glock has enough chamber support.  For 9mm, I assume it's ok.  However, you can clearly see in these two pictures that the CZ has more chamber support than the Glock.  Is that a good thing?  Does it even matter?  I don't know.  But there you have it.  I will say that neither the Glock nor the CZ has had any kind of failure the whole time I've had them.  Well, one time I was shooting some Eastern European ammo on a cold day, and one of these things had a rock-hard primer that the Glock failed to fire on the first strike.  I ejected the round and inspected the primer, to find only the lightest of indentations. Throwing caution to the wind, I loaded the round into the CZ (this was back when this CZ was DA/SA), and whanged on the round until it fired.  It took 5 or 6 hammer strikes.  On a side note, is double strike capability really better if you spend time trying to fire the same round 5 or 6 times, or is it better to just extract that round the first time it won't fire, like one would have to with a striker-fired pistol?  I'll leave that up to the tactical experts.  Besides, it's now moot with this CZ considering I converted it to be single action only.

Some shooting impressions from yesterday's trip to the range.

With it's longer sight radius, longer barrel, and precision fiber optic front sight the CZ is definitely the more accurate shooter of the two.  No big surprise there.  Sorry I don't have pictures, like I said I didn't think of doing this blog until after yesterday's range trip.  Here's an example of what I've done with the CZ (wearing different grips and the original double action trigger, this was 100 rounds of 9mm at about 9 yards, with probably 1.5 to 2 seconds between shots):

It's a very accurate gun, when I do my part.  I can't make a G26 shoot one hole like that, but then again, it is a subcompact.

What some may find surprising is that, even though the CZ weighs 35.2 ounces, and the Glock weighs only 19.75 ounces, the muzzle flip on the Glock is quite a bit less pronounced.  Shot to shot, my sights come back on target much quicker with the Glock, and though the night sights aren't as precise as the carbon fiber sight on the CZ, I feel like follow up shots are a bit easier.  I think this has to do with two things.  First, the Glock's bore axis is about 1/3 of an inch lower than the CZ's using my informal measuring technique.  Second, the Glock's controversial grip angle allows me to lock my wrists a little more positively, with the result being a firing platform that is a little more firm.  I'm an isosceles shooter by the way.   

Aside from the above, the main difference between these two is the trigger.  This particular CZ has about the best trigger one can get on a 75B without removing the firing pin block and switching to the pre-B sear.  It's single action only, and has two screws for adjusting over travel and take up.  With the competition hammer and reduced power hammer spring, the break is crisp and clean and is right at 4 lbs on my trigger pull gauge.  However, the way the trigger is designed, you have to let the trigger almost all the way forward in order for it to reset.  That means for each shot you have to push all the way through the firing pin block safety mechanism, making each single action pull quite long.  This makes follow up shots, for me, slower and a little less accurate.

The Glock, on the other hand, has a simple stock trigger and connector, and my gauge measures it at about 5 lbs.  Pulling the trigger disengages the firing pin stop just like on the CZ.  However, for the Glock trigger to reset it isn't necessary to let the trigger all the way out like the CZ requires.  The result is, for follow up shots, the only pressure required is that which causes the striker to be released.  You can pre-load the trigger, and with its short pull, 2nd and 3rd shots are very fast and accurate.  

Of course, neither trigger is comparable to the venerated 1911, but the Glock isn't far off for a skilled shooter once the pre-travel and pressure required to disengage the firing pin safety are out of the way.  

Next up, my new Les Baer TRS compared to my old Kimber Custom II, the CZ versus a Glock 17, the Glock 26 versus a Ruger SP101, my efforts to build a .40 S&W commander length 1911 from a frame kit and parts by Fusion Firearms, and other pistol-related musings.