Author Topic: Two Decockers that are the Same but Different: CZ-75BD vs. CZ-75D Compact PCR  (Read 170 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RoverSig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
I purchased a CZ-75BD two months ago and a CZ-75D Compact PCR last week.  These pistols are excellent companions to each other, as their operating controls are the same -- both have the decocker and roughly the same trigger reaches and their feel is very similar -- but there are noteworthy differences.

The CZ-75D Compact PCR has an aluminum frame and is 7.8 ounces lighter, at 27.5 oz ounces, than the 35.3 ounce steel CZ-75BD.   The CZ-75D Compact PCR has a shorter barrel and slide and is not as tall as the CZ-75BD.  As a result of the weight difference, the perceived recoil impulse is greater in the PCR.  The lighter (since it is not as long) slide of the CZ-75D Compact PCR slide dictates it has a heavier (stiffer) recoil spring than that of the CZ-75BD.  This makes it the more difficult of the two to rack when chambering or unchambering a round.  This is the major difference between the two pistols, which have similar operating systems and controls (including the decockers) but a host of small differences that contribute to their separate personalities. 

The CZ-75D Compact PCR has a loaded chamber indicator, while the CZ-75BD does not.  The trigger on the CZ-75BD is smooth stainless steel; on the CZ-75D Compact PCR, the trigger is matte stainless steel and has small vertical grooves or serrations on its front face.  I have not experienced “trigger bite” from either pistol, although I’ve seen some accounts in the forum of people experiencing it from the PCR’s trigger.

The CZ-75BD came with two 18 round magazines, and the magazines that came with the CZ-75D Compact PCR are marked for 15 rounds (which fit easily), giving the pistol 15+1, although the pistol is advertised on CZ's web page to hold 14+1 rounds.

Sights and grips are always a matter of personal preference and probably the primary two areas of customization.  I had CGW install 310-221 Dawson Precision Tritium Night Sights on the CZ-75BD, and will ask them to install 310-230 Dawson Precision Tritium Night Sights on the CZ-75D Compact PCR.   The CZ-75BD came with wide plastic grips with palm swells, while the CZ-75D Compact PCR came with wide rubber grips with palm swells; I replaced them with LOK thin G-10 grips. 

Comparing the internals of the CZ-75BD to those of the 75D Compact PCR, the latter has one machined locking lug on the barrel, while the larger pistol has two (both have corresponding lugs machined inside the slides).  This lock-up lug system is presumably derived from Browning classics such as the 1911 and the Browning HP, and contributes to the inherent accuracy of the CZ’s compared to many more modern pistols, which lock-up based on the interface of the barrel hood with the slide.  Nominally, the 3.75 inch barrel of the CZ-75D Compact PCR has less inherent accuracy than the 4.6 inch barrel of the CZ-75BD, but in practical terms it is hard for me to tell the difference; both are very accurate.

There are a host of small differences in the way the frames and slides of the two related guns are sculpted – differently shaped reliefs for trigger fingers; differently shaped magazine release buttons, slightly differently shaped beavertails, etc.  Vertical grooves are found on front and back straps of the CZ-75D Compact PCR, while the front and back straps of the CZ-75BD are smooth.  The CZ-75D Compact PCR has a lanyard hole at the rear of the bottom of the backstrap, while the CZ-75BD does not.  The recoil spring guide rod is plastic and comes through a hole in the front of the slide on the CZ-75D Compact PCR; on the CZ-75BD, it is steel, longer, and captured in a “pocket” at the front of the slide rather than coming through a hole in the slide.   Neither gun has a Picatinny rail for under-barrel lights or lasers.  Enough differences in detail exist to suggest the PCR is not just an aluminum framed cut-down version of the CZ-75BD, but rather a gun that underwent final development and refinement separately. 

Does anyone else have both of these pistols?  What is missing in my comparison?  How do they compare in your experience with them?
« Last Edit: September 07, 2019, 03:09:00 AM by RoverSig »