Pictorial comparison of a 1979 Short Rail CZ-75 to a 1985 Pre-B [huge pictures]

[lazyengineer]

So, today I bought one of the Wideners Pre-B CZ-75's.  I did this for one reason, I wanted the slide release.  In this thread, I am going to compare a Short-Rail(1979) to a Pre-B (1985)

Two pistols in the pictorial comparison:
Short Rail:  a 1979 CZ-75 purchased around 7 years ago.  Story is a little unknown, when it first came into the gun shop, it was one of two, and both were such abysmal wrecks I didn't even consider it.  6 months later, the gun smith replaced the broken slide stop, stripped the gun, resurfaced it to glass smooth (how I have no idea).  I don't remember the cost out the door - couldn't have been more than $500.  All I can say is he's one artist of a gunsmith.  Original barrel, frame, slide, and most of the innards.  It's my main 9mm, and I shoot it in IDPA matchs.  It sees around 1000 rounds/year.  Maybe more.  I've fired everything from lead reloads, to Police +P, to Blazers.  It's standard diet is Blazer 115 gr.  I won't say it's never jammed, but it hasn't in quite a while.  Because I use it, I replaced the hammer with a rounded one, and switched to rubber CZ grips (the waffles are tore up, and the hard plastic ones are too slick for my tastes)

1985 Pre-B:  Purchased from Wideners.  Based on the wear and impact marks, it's been fired, but the barrel still looks brand new.  Looks like the Czech police officer switched to Packmire grips for some reason.  I don't care for them, they are fat and heavy.  Here are the specifications:

Gun Type Year Empty gun, no mag, with grips supplied Slide+Spring+Bbl+plunger Frame (w/ grips) Frame (w/out grips, but w/ screws) BBL Packmire Grips Hard Plastic Grips (CZ) Rubber Grips (CZ) Empty magazine Loaded magazine (hydrashocks) MT gun w/ CZ rubber w/ MT mag Loaded gun w/ CZ rubber MT gun weight increase to Pre-B Loaded gun w/ CZ rubber

CZ-75 Short Rail 1979 920 405 505 438 86 90 19 67 87 294 1007 1214 - -

CZ-75 Pre-B 1985 964 grams 419 grams 533 grams 443 grams 86  grams - - - - - 1028 grams 1235 grams 2.1% 1.7%

Note that 1985 is about 2% heavier, mostly in the slide.  Which isn't much.  The barrels are the same weight, which is interesting because the 1985 appears to have a different chamber cut that looks like it adds more weight.  It might add more strength too, but not really, as the weaker point above it is still the same thickness, I think it's different just because it's easier to cut.  I do note that the 1985 barrel looks like someone came along after the fact and smoothed out the outside edges of the chamber.  Reliability fix for a filthy gun not locking up into the slide? 


Side by side profiles.  Note I had already swiped the 1985 slide release for my Short Rail.

[lazyengineer]

Dissembled side-by-side.  Note the beefier 1985 slide.  If you look at the frames in this picture closely, you can see that the 1985 has a little higher cut for the hand, coming up under/behind the trigger guard.  This means the gun sits just a midge lower in your hand.  I can feel the difference, and have to say, I find the 1985 slightly more comfortable than the short rail.  If you look at pictures of current CZ-75B's, it looks like they stopped cutting it so close, and switched back to the thicker trigger guard, and don't cut them up as high up by the mag release.  With ensuing higher sitting of the gun in the hand, which is less preferred.



The obviously longer rails of the 1985



Again, note the beefier slide towards the front.  The slide is stopped by the forward section slamming against the frame of the gun.  I imagine the beefier slide portion in the 1985 makes the slide stronger.  Not sure if CZ slides have ever been reported to crack (I don't think they have), but I imagine if so, it would be here, and the beefier slide of the 1985 should help with that.  Maybe; total conjecture on my part.

[lazyengineer]

Looking down the pipe.  No obvious difference between the two, aside from the fact the 1985 (left) looks like the outside rim has been smoothed out (looks like a home improvement job there).


No obvious difference in the barrel cuts from the top view.



Note the different chamber cut.  The short-rail has more machining up front.  I don't think the 1985 is really much stronger, since the top of the chamber is no thicker, and this looks like a cost savings move as much as anything to me.   

[lazyengineer]

Parts comparison perspective.  While the 1985 has a crap paint job on the exterior, it looks like the interior has a nice green parkerized finish.  (Geez, my gun is filthy.  Ah well, she still runs good.)



Showing the beefier 1985 frame up front. 



Looks like they cut the magwell a little different towards the front on the 1985.



To be honest, the 1985 is likely a superior design to the short-rail.  It's stronger, doesn't appreciably weight much more, and in some ways looks even easier to manufacture (barrel chamber cut, plus skip the slab-side machining step).  That said, I love my short rail and will likely continue to use it as my primary shooter.

[Stuart]

NICE!!!
thanks for the comparison, photos and your time.

[AZ_CZ]

REAL NICE!

This should be a sticky so it can be referenced down the road. Pictures are worth a 1000 words.

[lazyengineer]

        That's a really great way to show off the differences between the two, and it must have taken a while to do.

Thanks.  Took maybe a couple hours.  Glad you enjoyed it.

You mentioned that there was not much difference in the barrels viewed from the top, but shown side by side the bottoms are definitely different enough to ask why do you think the ramp section that has the rocker on it is so much different on the left barrel then the right?

In the original CZ, they did a machining step towards the front of the chamber to remove some metal.  Not sure why, perhaps part of the more minimialistic design of the short-rail.  In the later, Pre-B model, they didn't do the machining step, which results in a longer bottom portion as you see.  My personal theory they made the change so that they could cut out the extra machining step.  Functionally they're identical, as the affected section doesn't really come into play.  The barrels are interchangeable and either will fire in the other gun (I know because I did it).

Also, I am NOT complaining it's just one of those after it's all done thoughts, it would have been interesting if you had added a B model to that demonstration and picture session just to see how much in any real changes were done.

I don't have one, so can't make the comparison.  But in my dreams a generous donor provides me a Stainless B for comparison!    As to the 1985 Pre-B gun, it's gone.  I only purchased it for the slide release, and then sold it. 

Are the B's as different from the pre-B's as the Short Rail is from the pre-B? and I am going to presume here you used the terms short rail and Pre-B as a means to identify them easier since they are both actually "Pre-B"'s? 

Correct

        However you choose to answer this or not is fine by me, I really only wanted to say Thank You, and say how great it was to see those pictures and the work you put into them. I bet you could make and sell a book of the different Pre-B/B models if you did it by doing the same thing. I mean if you had the pistols to do that with of course. I would loan you one or 2 of mine if that would help any if you didn't have them and did decide to try something like that. I certainly hope you do it again either with the 75 Pre-B/B comparison, or with other models. What about a ColtZ40 compared to the CZ 40? The CZ 40 was literally born from the ColtZ40 left over parts and continued from there to what is now.

Thanks, though I imagine the logistics of loaning me yours would be more trouble than it's worth.  As to the .40's, I never really had much interest in them.  The .40 cartridge itself is a curious compromise cartridge.  It's a good round, but I just never cared for it.  10mm on the other hand is an amazing round.  And if CZ came out with an actual 10mm (a la the Bren 10) I would be extremely interested in that. 

        I figure this is just me, but something like side by side taken apart pistol comparisons would really work for CZ owners but especially collectors.

Indeed, and short rails are rare.  Yet those interested in them are VERY interested in them.  Which is why I did this pictorial, to show fans what one looks like on the inside.  And to see the difference between the two.  To be honest, I really did the comparison for my own curiosity, and just brought the camera along.  I've learned at my professional vocation that data analysis really happens during the report writing, which is mostly why I wrote the summary.  Doing so helps me formulate and solidify my thoughts and conclusions.

[Artemis Alpeia]

Very nice. I've been collecting CZ's for years now and still haven't came across a short rail yet. Got tons of money to spend on one. Just haven't seen the pistol pop up yet.

[cz75fan]

Gosh i'd love to acquire a short rail someday. I hate to sound picky, but you really need some waffle grips on your short rail:) Great looking CZ's!!!!!!

[SASDesertRat]

Thank you for the detailed comparison.  I too long to acquire a short rail CZ75.

[lazyengineer]

?   Not sure what happened to the Big Fan user as his account appears to be no more.  I can't send you a reply to thank you directly, so just doing it here.  Thanks for the grips.  It's a dessert item to this thread...

http://i54.tinypic.com/2z5vpf4.jpg

[SPEEDGUNNER]

Great photo essay! Does anyone know if amongst the guns from Wideners there were any short rail models? Wonder if they even know?

[gunbuster]

Can anyone repost the pictures?  Would love to see the comparison pictures.  Thank you!

[Blackwatch]

Can anyone repost the pictures?  Would love to see the comparison pictures.  Thank you!

Can't help with original information but the following link is an excellent reference (thanks to Psyop96)

https://czfirearms.us/index.php?board=100.0

[gunbuster]

Thanks for sharing the resource!