"CZ 75 clones vary considerably in build quality, as may be expected."

[AR]

A quote from Bob Campbell's "Range Report: The Remarkable CZ-75" as found on:

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/range-report-remarkable-cz-75/

Is there a general sense or common conception within the CZ community of the "rankings" of CZ and clones; considering quality, cost, the ratio of quality and features for your $, the owner experience (company service, longevity, success, etc) when compared to the original CZ?

I'd assume the Kriss Sphinx would be the BMW 7 Series of the clones, and I've seen some YouTube videos arguing whether it is worth the extra $$$$ over a CZ-75.

Where do the Tanfoglio's fit on the spectrum?  The EAA's?  The Israeli models?  The Turkish products? Others?  Heck, I've even seen a "women's model" -Pavona, with sparkly glitter.

GM was built on "a car for every pocketbook".  Is it possible to define the CZ "system" as Chevy vs what you'd get with (and pay more for) the in the Buick, Olds, Pontiac, GMC, and Cadillac versions of the same basic chassis, small block engine, transmission, +/- bells and whistles?

[CDKJudoka]

I've had a Canik and felt the quality, for the most part, was on par with CZ. There were some little details that made it feel "cheaper" to me, but not by a whole lot. Tanfolgio and Sphinx have been in the CZ75 game almost as long as CZ has. I haven't seen a bad Tangfolio yet.

As for Sphinx, your summation is correct, that it is more the Bimmer. The earlier models were pretty much all hand built and fitted 75s, make them a better finished gun. The newer ones are also hand fitted, but not to the degree that the older models are. My SDP Compact is a much better put together gun than any of my other CZs.

The Pavonas are pretty much SAR or Tangfolio handguns with lighter springs for smaller, weaker hands. 

[jwc007]

I have noted that build quality of early Tanfoglio Pistols varied considerably, but you were still more likely to get a good one than a bad one.  Even then, most of the bad ones were fixable with some minor Gunsmithing.

Currently, build quality of most Cz Clones is quite excellent.    Don't take everything a Gun Writer may say as Gold! 

[Airacuda]

The Canik/Tristars  have a cheap looking hammer IMO. It works, but not nicely finished. If you change the grips and add a CZ or aftermarket hammer you add the look of quality that they actually have.

[Rmach]

There's nothing wrong with the appearance or function on any of my three Tristar pistols.

[RedState]

My stock Canik L-120 and C-100 are just fine in the stock condition.

[GRU7_Mike]

I bought but have not received my C100.  Reading over this forum I see many good comments about them except I find something conflicting with these comments on accuracy.   Example I have seen a few times..."my new C100 is great, very accurate and well made.  Sights are not very good and it shoots about 3" low ( seems all neg comments say it shoots low) but overall a very good CZ clone". How can it be accurate and shoot low?  Sights ....really  bad?

[RedState]

Sometimes its the indian and not the arrow.

[GRU7_Mike]

I get it....like all guns and owners...they go hand in hand as to the good or bad of the gun.