I recently purchased a new CZ 75 Shadow Custom 9mm (CZ custom shop ) and really like the pistol....enough that I'm thinking of getting its bigger brother chambered for the .45 acp round ! Any owners or folks that have tried one mind giving some input ( good or bad ) on this model ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Opinions on CZ 's model 97 BD .45acp ?
- Thread starter WIN1886
- Start date
I have both the SP01 and CZ97B. Both guns exhibit typical CZ machining in that nothing gets machined unless it needs it. Internally they are pretty rough.
My SP01 has been so reliable, I went looking for a .45 and was looking at a CZ target gun. Angus Hobdell happened to be in the shop that day and showed me the CZ97B. He said that he could improve the trigger and add a competition hammer and by altering/removing some parts, he could improve it a LOT.
Well, he sure did. When I got the gun back, the trigger was scary light. He told me it was one of the best ones he had done. I let a couple of gunsmiths and competition shooters try it and they LOVED it. It was just TOO light for me.
Angus added a different spring to give a little more resistance and the gun shoots fine. In cold weather, you cannot feel the hard spot before the break. It is still very very light. I would NEVER carry this gun. Range use only.
It is a real shooter though and shoots anything you put in it. I would have no qualms about owning another but if you are going to use it for carry, be careful what you ask for.
I just went out and put the trigger gage on it. At full stand, the trigger breaks between 2.5 and 3.1 lbs. Remember that this is a LOT more than when I first got the gun worked on. By way of comparison, I had a carry trigger job done on a Springfield TRP and it breaks at 4.75 lbs.
My SP01 has been so reliable, I went looking for a .45 and was looking at a CZ target gun. Angus Hobdell happened to be in the shop that day and showed me the CZ97B. He said that he could improve the trigger and add a competition hammer and by altering/removing some parts, he could improve it a LOT.
Well, he sure did. When I got the gun back, the trigger was scary light. He told me it was one of the best ones he had done. I let a couple of gunsmiths and competition shooters try it and they LOVED it. It was just TOO light for me.
Angus added a different spring to give a little more resistance and the gun shoots fine. In cold weather, you cannot feel the hard spot before the break. It is still very very light. I would NEVER carry this gun. Range use only.
It is a real shooter though and shoots anything you put in it. I would have no qualms about owning another but if you are going to use it for carry, be careful what you ask for.
I just went out and put the trigger gage on it. At full stand, the trigger breaks between 2.5 and 3.1 lbs. Remember that this is a LOT more than when I first got the gun worked on. By way of comparison, I had a carry trigger job done on a Springfield TRP and it breaks at 4.75 lbs.
Last edited:
Roland Thunder
New member
geetarman,
Thanks for the review of the CZ97B. I have been thinking of selling one of my full size 9mm's and getting another 45acp because I only have 1 45 and about 5 9mm's. I had been considering a Sig 220 or M&P 45 but now I may have to consider the CZ97B as well.
I'm curious how the 97B compares to the Sig 220 which I am also considering. Perhaps someone who has shot them both will respond.
Thanks for the review of the CZ97B. I have been thinking of selling one of my full size 9mm's and getting another 45acp because I only have 1 45 and about 5 9mm's. I had been considering a Sig 220 or M&P 45 but now I may have to consider the CZ97B as well.
I'm curious how the 97B compares to the Sig 220 which I am also considering. Perhaps someone who has shot them both will respond.
Last edited:
I would pick the P220. I have the Elite SS and it is a JOY to shoot. Not as much capacity as the CZ but MUCH more refined. Machining is really something. I have not had the trigger worked on. I did add a CT sight and have is sighted for 30 feet. The bullet goes right where the dot is. The gun feels a little boxy but in a smaller and good way. The 97B is a fine gun and it will go and go and go, but between the two, I would pick another P220. I have several Sigs and they all run good.
I did have an early problem with the Sig in an unusual wear pattern on the top of the barrel. The recoil spring was really taking material off the top of the barrel.
Talked to Sig and sent it back and they replaced the barrel and it has been running fine since. I really do like Sigs ( P229, P226, P220, P227, P938, P320 Compact,Nightmare 1911, Tacops 1911 ( gave to daughter ). I would not have given that gun to her if I had any qualms about reliability. That gun has never hiccuped. That is why I replaced it with a Nightmare. (it has not failed either)
The CZs are pretty nice guns that run good but don't grab your attention like the Sigs. When it comes to rifles. . . .MUCH different story. Rifles are top shelf.
My 452 Trainer will shoot right with my Anschutz MPR64 at 50 yards. The trainer has had a trigger job and has been bedded but make no mistake, that little thin barrel will make a believer out of you.
I did have an early problem with the Sig in an unusual wear pattern on the top of the barrel. The recoil spring was really taking material off the top of the barrel.
Talked to Sig and sent it back and they replaced the barrel and it has been running fine since. I really do like Sigs ( P229, P226, P220, P227, P938, P320 Compact,Nightmare 1911, Tacops 1911 ( gave to daughter ). I would not have given that gun to her if I had any qualms about reliability. That gun has never hiccuped. That is why I replaced it with a Nightmare. (it has not failed either)
The CZs are pretty nice guns that run good but don't grab your attention like the Sigs. When it comes to rifles. . . .MUCH different story. Rifles are top shelf.
My 452 Trainer will shoot right with my Anschutz MPR64 at 50 yards. The trainer has had a trigger job and has been bedded but make no mistake, that little thin barrel will make a believer out of you.
Walt Sherrill
New member
geetarman said:I did have an early problem with the Sig in an unusual wear pattern on the top of the barrel. The recoil spring was really taking material off the top of the barrel.
The TOP of the barrel? How? I don't think the recoil spring ever gets CLOSE to the top of the barrel. The underside, if the spring is LOOSE on the guide rod, maybe. It might be the barrel bushing that's doing it.
For most of the new CZs, they now carburize the barrels, and that gives the barrel a black (hard, chalky) finish that is easily scratched by normal functioning.
It can be polished away -- some folks do that routinely, because they don't like seeing the marred surface; the polishing is unlikely to affect the metal that was hardened by the carburization. (That black "finish," I think, is just a byproduct of the "hardening" process -- which is a surface hardening.
I have a 75B, PCR, Kadet, and recently a 97B. I much prefer the CZ's over my Sigs in every department. They are accurate, reliable, and aesthetically pleasing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me, most Sigs look very boxy, and out of proportion. Fine guns though, just not my favorites.
chris in va
New member
A 97b has been on my bucket list ever since I fired a tuned version back in 2002. Finally got one four years ago and have put it through it's paces.
As-is, the gun is fairly awkward. Factory wood grips do not have that familiar 'coke bottle' ergonomic shape, and are rather flat. A pair of Nill target grips solved that issue.
Next up was to address the absurdly long length of pull from double action and I converted it to SAO (among other modifications). Trigger is now light and reachable.
Everything was going swimmingly until it locked up during a match. Long story short, the barrel lug broke off and jammed the action hard. CZ sent me a newer barrel design with a longer feed ramp and (hopefully) better metallurgy.
A few hundred rounds later the barrel bushing separated at the threads. Cajun Gun Works was kind enough to provide two more. It's a common failure and at some point I will get his 1911 bushing conversion to eliminate the issue.
Would I get it again knowing all this? Maybe. I will admit to having looked hard at the S&W M&P 45 though.
One last thing I will point out, the barrel is not parallel with the slide. As a result the rear sight is double the height of the front. The EAA Witness 45 I had was the same way. If you are used to a low sight plane on a 75 series, this will take some getting used to.
BTW I had an older 220 for a few years. It was light, thin and always functioned. A few glaring issues popped up when I tried to use it in our IDPA matches though. The decocker/DA first pull was a BEAR when trying to hit accurately, and the single stack mag didn't help when we had 10 targets to neutralize. I have long fingers so the skinny grip just felt weird and I wish they had offered the 227 back then. Also the higher bore axis magnified muzzle flip a lot more than my 97 and G21sf I had.
As-is, the gun is fairly awkward. Factory wood grips do not have that familiar 'coke bottle' ergonomic shape, and are rather flat. A pair of Nill target grips solved that issue.
Next up was to address the absurdly long length of pull from double action and I converted it to SAO (among other modifications). Trigger is now light and reachable.
Everything was going swimmingly until it locked up during a match. Long story short, the barrel lug broke off and jammed the action hard. CZ sent me a newer barrel design with a longer feed ramp and (hopefully) better metallurgy.
A few hundred rounds later the barrel bushing separated at the threads. Cajun Gun Works was kind enough to provide two more. It's a common failure and at some point I will get his 1911 bushing conversion to eliminate the issue.
Would I get it again knowing all this? Maybe. I will admit to having looked hard at the S&W M&P 45 though.
One last thing I will point out, the barrel is not parallel with the slide. As a result the rear sight is double the height of the front. The EAA Witness 45 I had was the same way. If you are used to a low sight plane on a 75 series, this will take some getting used to.
BTW I had an older 220 for a few years. It was light, thin and always functioned. A few glaring issues popped up when I tried to use it in our IDPA matches though. The decocker/DA first pull was a BEAR when trying to hit accurately, and the single stack mag didn't help when we had 10 targets to neutralize. I have long fingers so the skinny grip just felt weird and I wish they had offered the 227 back then. Also the higher bore axis magnified muzzle flip a lot more than my 97 and G21sf I had.
Last edited:
Hello GregInatl,
I think you asked the right guy. I am a big SIG & CZ guy. This is my take on the two gun's. I have the SIG,220combat & the CZ97B. The SIG is a fine gun & shoots well is thinner & lighter then the CZ97B but is only 8+1 rounds. I did put a solid s/s guide rod in it for more weight in the slide but nothing else to it left it stock. I shoot it well & its been 100% for me. Love it. The CZ97B is bigger & heaver & is 10+1 rounds. I did do some things to it. First thing I did was dump the polymer/plastic guide rod & put in a s/s one & new guide rod spring. CZ'S are known to have week guide rod springs. The 97B stock spring is 13LB's.(week) I but in a wolf spring & wolf says to use 14-16LB'S. I used a 16LB'S.(works great) I also got rid of the stock wood grips & orderd CZ stock rubber grips. I just like rubber grips better & they are much better. IMO. I also put on night sights. I put night sights on all my gun's that do not come with them. The CZ97B is a great 45 & I have to say as much as I like & as good as I shoot my SIG,220combat I shoot the CZ97 better. I really do think its more accurate. It is for me anyway. I do carry both of them at times but I fined when I carry a 45 I like to carry the big boy. My CZ 97B. It also has been 100% from day one. I hope this helps some for you. Also when I got my 97B they did not have the 97BD yet. I would love to have that one because I love having a decocker. Also it comes with night sights already on it. Good luck.
I think you asked the right guy. I am a big SIG & CZ guy. This is my take on the two gun's. I have the SIG,220combat & the CZ97B. The SIG is a fine gun & shoots well is thinner & lighter then the CZ97B but is only 8+1 rounds. I did put a solid s/s guide rod in it for more weight in the slide but nothing else to it left it stock. I shoot it well & its been 100% for me. Love it. The CZ97B is bigger & heaver & is 10+1 rounds. I did do some things to it. First thing I did was dump the polymer/plastic guide rod & put in a s/s one & new guide rod spring. CZ'S are known to have week guide rod springs. The 97B stock spring is 13LB's.(week) I but in a wolf spring & wolf says to use 14-16LB'S. I used a 16LB'S.(works great) I also got rid of the stock wood grips & orderd CZ stock rubber grips. I just like rubber grips better & they are much better. IMO. I also put on night sights. I put night sights on all my gun's that do not come with them. The CZ97B is a great 45 & I have to say as much as I like & as good as I shoot my SIG,220combat I shoot the CZ97 better. I really do think its more accurate. It is for me anyway. I do carry both of them at times but I fined when I carry a 45 I like to carry the big boy. My CZ 97B. It also has been 100% from day one. I hope this helps some for you. Also when I got my 97B they did not have the 97BD yet. I would love to have that one because I love having a decocker. Also it comes with night sights already on it. Good luck.
Yes , grip size is one thing I'm concerned about as I even prefer slim grip panels on a single stack magazine type ( like a 1911 ) pistol ! I heard the thinner aluminum grips now offered on the new model 97 will help...I would also want the decocker which is why I'd prefer the BD version.
Walt Sherrill
New member
Keep in mind that the decocker and safety-equipped models are slightly different: the decocker models start from the half-cock notch, which shortens and lightens the trigger pull a bit. You can also start the standard (safety-equipped) models that way too -- and it's just as safe (if not SAFER) than the decocker models. (Unless you're competing in IDPA or USPSA, with a non-decocker-equipped model, where starting from the half-cock notch isn't allowed, it shouldn't be an issue.)
Note: it's closer to a quarter-cock notch than half-cock, as it only shortens the trigger pull a little, and lightens it a bit -- but for most folks, that's more than enough.
If you go the single-action route -- a pretty easy conversion -- there's no real trigger-reach issues. Especially if you get the two-way adjustable trigger which lets you adjust out overtravel and takeup. (You can'd to that with a decocker-equipped model.)
If SAO scares you, both the CZ Custom Shop and Cajun Gun Works offer a trigger kit that shortens the trigger pull, and it will work with both the standard and decocker (BD) models.
I've had several of the bigger .45 based on the CZ pattern, and only the Tanfoglio-based models have a grip that fit me well.
Note: it's closer to a quarter-cock notch than half-cock, as it only shortens the trigger pull a little, and lightens it a bit -- but for most folks, that's more than enough.
If you go the single-action route -- a pretty easy conversion -- there's no real trigger-reach issues. Especially if you get the two-way adjustable trigger which lets you adjust out overtravel and takeup. (You can'd to that with a decocker-equipped model.)
If SAO scares you, both the CZ Custom Shop and Cajun Gun Works offer a trigger kit that shortens the trigger pull, and it will work with both the standard and decocker (BD) models.
I've had several of the bigger .45 based on the CZ pattern, and only the Tanfoglio-based models have a grip that fit me well.
Last edited: