Author Topic: 1991 transitional(?) mishmash  (Read 2155 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Blaiwayw

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
Re: 1991 transitional(?) mishmash
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2019, 09:30:18 PM »
I also purchased an 85 from DWJ.  An excellent source of CZ imports that can use some TLC.  This one is similar to yours without the adjustable trigger.  Also has the parkerized finish, which will spare me having to remove the polycote.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline Blaiwayw

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
Re: 1991 transitional(?) mishmash
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2019, 09:31:54 PM »
I haven?t figured out how to add more than one photo at a time on Tapatalk.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline Eargesplitten

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: 1991 transitional(?) mishmash
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2019, 09:58:19 PM »
Funny, I saw that one. The finish is way nicer, although mine definitely has character. Same price too, good snag.

Offline Eargesplitten

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: 1991 transitional(?) mishmash
« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2019, 12:15:32 AM »
Double posting with a question regarding magazines. I've got a 17 round Act Mag magazine (listed as Armscor when I bought it) marked CZ-75, and it isn't fitting front to back. I made the probably ill-advised decision of forcing it into the mag well, and if I do that the trigger works but the disconnect doesn't (won't "fire" again unless I cock the hammer manually) and I have to really shove on the top of the mag with the slide removed and the mag release pushed to get it loose. I know that the Pre-B frame is slightly narrower front to back but someone earlier said that it looked like I had the new frame. Unless they changed the interior dimensions of the mag well at a different point from switching the trigger guard? Is it possible that I've got old magwell dimensions or is it just likely a bad magazine? It says made in Italy so until I saw the packaging I assumed it was another Mec-Gar OEM magazine.

I don't have calipers so I can't check anything to see if it's tolerance stacking.

Online painter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
Re: 1991 transitional(?) mishmash
« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2019, 05:56:13 AM »
I had the right to remain silent...

but not the ability.

Offline Eargesplitten

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: 1991 transitional(?) mishmash
« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2019, 08:04:58 PM »
I decided to go at it with some sandpaper because why not? I still have to yank it out, but it will run at least. Good enough for range use. Didn't even need to sand much, just enough to take the paint off. Either tolerance stacking or an ever-so-slightly out of tolerance mag.


Offline timmy75

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: 1991 transitional(?) mishmash
« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2019, 10:04:18 AM »
i have to decide to buy this or not via pictures only. so, my question is if B  mags work with this model or not? thanks


Online painter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
Re: 1991 transitional(?) mishmash
« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2019, 10:22:27 AM »
i have to decide to buy this or not via pictures only. so, my question is if B  mags work with this model or not? thanks


It's impossible to tell from pictures.

It's a transitional model. Can you see the year of production in the area just behind the ejection port?
I had the right to remain silent...

but not the ability.

Offline timmy75

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: 1991 transitional(?) mishmash
« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2019, 12:53:29 PM »
Date code is 90.

Online painter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
Re: 1991 transitional(?) mishmash
« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2019, 01:16:03 PM »
If you can get the seller to measure, front to back, one of the mags that fit, I can measure some late mags to see if they're the same.
I had the right to remain silent...

but not the ability.