Those grips and screws definitely appear to be early original CZ.
They are identical to the ones that came on my compact.
Not many came with wood grips and most of those I had seen later were made of plastic but of the same style.
If it is an AA import it would have come with only 1 mag back then.
The case looks nothing like any of the earlier CZ cases I have, mine are of MUCH cheaper quality.
Regarding the CZ-83 paperwork, goofy things happened back then.
I ended up buying a spare 13 round compact mag from a dealer that had it shipped to him in a CZ-83 box.
He had no idea what it was for since it didn't fit the CZ-83s he had.
BTW: The parts numbers on the diagrams in the owners manual pertaining to the springs have numerous errors.
Question: Is the pistol missing its front sight?
SteveB:
I noticed your pistol had the same grips, but I wasn't sure they were OEM. My full-size Action Arms import, a '93 Transitional CZ 75, had the hard plastic grips and Phillips screws. The grips were more or less identical to the current hard plastic OEM, but the CZ logo was the older style. I bought mine used, which has confused me a bit over the years.
My case was not identical, of course, but very similar. It didn't have any foam inserts, either. It came with a dot-matrix test target, a manual similar to the one depicted above, metal handtools (brush and jag), and one "correct" magazine. There was no warranty card or any paperwork specific to Action Arms. My understanding was that it should have had a warranty card.
When I purchased the pistol, the "correct" magazine was in the provided slot, but there was a Tanfoglio magazine inside the grip frame of the pistol itself. The original owner appeared to have used the Tanfoglio magazine, but not the actual CZ magazine (?). I was never sure if it was supposed to have come with two magazines. I just assumed that the first owner "slipped me a Mickey," since this was during the Crime Bill era.
bradpierson26:
I can see the roll pin for the front sight, but not necessarily the front sight itself. Is this an artifact of reversing the photo?
