CZ vs The High Power

Don’t get me wrong here… I love the CZ 75, and clones.  The P-01 and SP-01′s are fantastic.   CZ does indeed deserve much love.

But not matter how good the CZ is… it’s a mere shadow of the awesomeness that is the High Power.   The High Power is the original design that the CZ apes.  The High Power, even in 9mm, is one of the greatest handguns of all time.  I know that Colonel Jeff Cooper spoke very highly of the CZ, laying on it much accolades… but I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Cooper was mistaken and he should have named the High Power as the advanced handgun that could unseat the 1911 as the next greatest thing ever.

Look at it… Similar single action function to the 1911.  High capacity.  Low recoil.  Attributes that many of the top shooters are advocating.  So many shooters are going for expensive custom 1911′s chambered in 9mm.  Efforts to regain what was there all along… in the High Power.

If I was sitting at a chair around the board table at CZ USA, a company that has listened to my suggestions before… I’d strongly suggest that they take the CZ75 platform, and not just many a single action only version for competition… But make a new High Power of it, suitable for Duty use. No magazine disconnect or brake, night sights, lock and load carry, and a higher capacity than the original.  Make it look like a High Power.  And put it out with those awesome grips that are on the SP-01 and P-01 pistols.

30 thoughts on “CZ vs The High Power”

  1. My fingers just are too short for proper CZ trigger placement. And, I believe there would not be a CZ if not for JMB and the 1911/BHP.

  2. I don’t understand on why one would want to “go backwards” in design. The CZ is already designed to be carried cocked ‘n locked and the (very) low profile slide keeps recoil in check better than the HP. The CZ also has that “second strike” capability, aka double action just in case a primer may be too hard to ignite the first time. Better sights are always welcome but it’s almost impossible for a manufacturer to put expensive sights on a pistol when a majority of the shooters have their personal preference and replace them anyway. The HP was great for its time, but for a duty gun there are much better choices out there.

    1. The slide is too short. Makes fast manipulations difficult. When I was running my P-01, I often grabbed frame as well as slide. This was awkward. The classic design is “Just Right” when it comes to a real fighting 9mm. Dare I say… the best fighting 9mm of it’s day, and one of the best still today.
      Nods to SIG, Smith M&P’s, and Glocks. And the new HK P30.

      1. Yea, CZ made the slide TOO low-profile and even in a totally non-stressful envrionment it’s very easy to grab the frame as well when manipulating the slide. The HP, just like a 1911, has that big & meaty slide that just fits perfectly in the hand but that also translates to a lot of mass moving high over the bore which amplifies recoil. I’m not knocking the HP…it’s a classic but if you look at the evolution of firearms most anyone will find a better choice to suit their needs.

        1. I’ve only shot one Hi-Power, and it felt like a pellet gun. Just a bump and a hole appeared in the target. It was a 9mm, I believe 115 grain bullets. I don’t know which HP you shot, the one I shot was the lightest recoiling pistol I’ve ever felt.

          1. That was my experience as well, not sure if it was 124 or 115 loads, but certainly not +P in any case.

  3. I do like the High Power

    my gripes were with the trigger and trigger safety

    square those away, add a larger safety lever and the world would be perfect

    1. The first thing that ever happened to any of my Hi-Powers (before they ever got shot) was removing the magazine disconnect. That has the added benefit of lightening up the trigger a bit, too.

      And my CZ is getting the firing pin disconnect removed, and new sights and trigger job.

  4. I like the High Power, but love the CZ. I’ve been carrying by 75b concealed, which you can already do “cocked and locked” (CZ also has a single action only model) or in double action mode, whichever is your preference. The ergonomics are unbeatable, accuracy and reliability are top notch. Only two downsides IMO are the trigger (which is only okay) and ease of manipulation (as was mentioned above, this still translates into reduced felt recoil so YMMV).

    It also has the somewhat marginal benefit of just being freakin’ COOL. Not that the High Power isn’t, of course.

  5. The Hi Power is a good weapon. I prefer the CZ-75. The internal rails and mechanical finish wins me over.

  6. Mec Gar makes 15 round flush fit mags. But without a hollowed extended basepad that’s pretty much it. And it isn’t bad. The grip is shorter height-wise than a 1911 (or Beretta 92, CZ 75 etc.) and this is why 15 round mags were no problem for them at their inceptions.

    I’ve owned two Hi-Powers and I miss them a lot. I’m all for the classic shape but I think I could get used to a grip that’s a half inch longer.

    But if CZ (or no one) ever makes one I’d be happy to still have a regular ol’ HP. One in 9mm and one in .357 SIG. Like I uaed to…:(

  7. I’m with Mattitude on this – why go backwards in design. Yes the HP is awesome and has its place – but I can’t think of anything a HP does that a CZ75 doesn’t accomplish as well (like most modern semi’s).

    And SAO isn’t the be all end all of shooting. See the Glock & Sig as two respective options that are in many ways as good as or better than a Cocked N Locked Hi-Power.

    1. As thankful as I am for pistols that allow for condition one carry, a pistol that does both like the standard CZ 75, Taurust PT 92, HK USP etc. is not going to have as good a single action pull as a pistol that was designed for one.

      That said, the trigger on a HP will never be as good as a 1911 but IMO, it’s better than a CZ 75′s cocked and locked.

      And for people that don’t like anything but single actions, the SIG is off the table. They might warm up to a Glock but not a DA/SA with no way to carry C&L.

        1. Indeed. Though I’m kinda jealous of the “Glock or nothing” guys. Would make those choices a lot easier. lol

  8. Great pistol….PRACTICALLY USELESS ROUND. Ogre, ask yourself: “If I’m in the sand facing off against a bunch of Talibani or other Islamic nut jobs, do I want a whole bunch of fast moving little bullets in my sidearm, or at least 8 rounds of ‘come get some’ in 230 grain?” What’s the honest answer Ogre?

    1. If you are facing a bunch of AK/RPK armed Talibani with a pistol then it doesn’t really matter.

      1. Use your pistol to get an AK or RPK. Then use the AK or RPK to kill all the Taliban there or die like a viking.

        1. What w/ cow horns duct taped to my kevlar and furry body armour, singing “Kill da wabbit, kill da wabbit?

      2. That’s not an answer. If all you are left with is a sidearm, what caliber do you want it to be? A 9mm of any make or a solid .45 of any make. We’re talking caliber here. Let’s not deviate into irrelevancies, like “well a Beretta is a reliable sidearm…blah, blah”. The question is, what caliber would you want plowing forth from the barrel of your chosen sidearm, a 9mm or a .45? It’s a no-brainer.

        1. Well I’ve never actually experienced a bullet “plowing forth from a barrel” but that phrase had me spuing forth with the ginger ale, but to answer your question directly, 9-milly, Jimmy, 9-milly.

  9. I am intrigued by this thread. I’ve had a couple of BHPs and I loved them. I like the way they shoot, put several thousand rounds downrange with them. I don’t like to carry one because of the spur hammer jabbing and digging my ribs, but maybe I never found the proper concealement rig yet. Nice piece, proven and cool looking, reliable with purty much any round I ever used. I guess I just prefer packing a striker-fired handgun because of the lack of external hammers and more ergonomic safety mechanisms.

    I am quite fascinated by CZs. Might have fondled one somewhere along the way, sure I never fired one. I’ve always heard good stuff about them. I might have to try one at some point. I like 9mm, no sub for .45 fo sho, but easy to shoot at paper. I never had to use a firearm in anger so my opinion is worth exactly what you just paid for it.

    When in doubt, empty the mag. I figure 115 grains vs. 230 is a moot point if you hit the bad guy in the right places.

  10. I’ve liked the HP ever since I picked up the first one and sent a full mag downrange. I’d never shot one before and it was also my first experience with the 9mm. That first group would fit on a dinner plate at twenty yards. I was sold right then and there. Yes, I own other pistols and enjoy shooting them and the CZ design is a solid one in its own right but nothing handles quite like a HP. For those of you not enamored of the 9mm the HP is also chambered in .40 S&W and you are not likely to pick up a smoother shooting, lighter recoiling .40 imho. BTW – anybody have a ballpark estimate of how many bad guys have dropped from being on the wrong end of a “PRACTICALLY USELESS ROUND” ? Just curious.

  11. The Browning High Power 9mm–was good in its day–its day is long since past; the CZ 9MM is an updated and much improved version–much better than the original BHP!

    1. So, it’s not as powerful or accurate or it’s capacity has been reduced? See, this is a staggeringly ignorant misconception. “Back In It’s Day” isn’t that long ago in this case and the weapon is no less potent. What makes you comment so illustrative of the misconception, you are talking about two pistols that share much of the design and fire the same cartridge. Much improved – that’s very debatable. I’d say it’s updated, sure, but not necessarily improved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>