AR15.Com Archives
 CZ75 SP-01 vs. Armalite AR-24... A 9mm visual comparison
Viper1357  [Member]
3/18/2008 10:06:23 AM EST
There are a lot of threads and questions on Beretta 92 vs. CZ75, Sig, Glock, HK etc.. I thought I'd put a new comer into the mix: Armalite's new AR-24 vs. CZ75. Unfortunately I don't have a standard CZ75, so the SP-01 will have to do. I have shot the CZ extensively, but just recently aquired the AR-24, and have not had the pleasure of shooting it yet. Therefore, I'll only post pics equally comparing the two, and other members can give their opinions/experiences with them. I am lucky enough to own both, (and 3 beretta 92FS's) so which ever is better.. I still win.. Enjoy

Sorry about the lighting in some of the pics, my camera is old, and artificial light makes consistent picture quality/lighting difficult.

CZ75 SP-01 vs. Armalite AR-24







Paid Advertisement
--
dumbyhotshot  [Member]
3/18/2008 2:21:33 PM EST
That trigger looks even more curved than the spo1 which in my opinion is too curved. Bites my finger a bit. Both are very nice looking.
Navyguns45  [Member]
3/18/2008 3:21:19 PM EST
The CZ has a better looking finish. I love my SP-01.
Viper1357  [Member]
3/19/2008 8:11:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By dumbyhotshot:
That trigger looks even more curved than the spo1 which in my opinion is too curved. Bites my finger a bit. Both are very nice looking.


I agree that it looks, and probably is more curved than the SP-01. I also was worried about "finger pinching", but for me at least I've noticed the DA travel is shorter, and thus is the SA as well. With a high grip and only using the 'pad' of my index trigger finger, I have had no problems with either. Although I have only dry fired the AR-24.
Thanks for the reply.
polloi  [Member]
3/19/2008 8:17:25 AM EST
How does the grip feel compare? The backstrap of the Armalite is more aggresively contoured it looks like. My SP-01 fits absolutely perfect.

I imagine the balance is the biggest difference in feel.
Viper1357  [Member]
3/19/2008 8:40:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Navyguns45:
The CZ has a better looking finish. I love my SP-01.


I also think so, but only to this point: 'Exterior looks".
Btw, I love my SP-01 as well. I am only stating differences as facts based on my knowledge and opinion of owning both of them.

The SP-01 finish is like a car to me, and it is only on the exterior. It's a quite thick epoxy type powder coat paint. It is topical only, and is not penetrated into the metal itself. Thus so long as it's not compromised or worn off, it will protect. That actually covers up many of the machining marks and imperfections of the exterior finish. Evidence of this thickness can be found in 'over spray' of the paint around the inside corners of the frame and under surface of the slide. All of the interanls may have some corrosion plating of some sort, but are very raw and unfinished looking. Obviously if you keep it cleaned and lubed it doesn't matter, but it's not as nice looking as the outside of the gun. Personally the SP-01 is a more glossy than I usually like in a finish. It is attractive though. Seems like I should wax it or something. :)

The AR-24 finish is something completely different. The manufacturer states the finish is "military-grade manganese phosphate and heat-cured epoxy" which from my manufacturing knowledge/experience penetrates into the metal surface, and is not a thick topical coat per se`. All the surfaces of the slide, frame and many of the internals are treated like this, and because of that you can see just how nicely machined all the sufaces are. Short of a custom made gun, I haven't seen many parts so pefectly machined and finshed. Nothing hidden. So it isn't as attractive as a nice paint job, but it's all out there. I persoanlly like this flat black matte finish better, as it looks more military like the black of an M4 or AR15.

In either case with proper care I doubt one will last longer than the other in civilian use. You really can't go wrong with either.

Viper1357  [Member]
3/19/2008 8:57:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By polloi:
How does the grip feel compare? The backstrap of the Armalite is more aggresively contoured it looks like. My SP-01 fits absolutely perfect.

I imagine the balance is the biggest difference in feel.



Obviously all of the following is subjective/opinion and will differ with each person.

To me until I got this AR-24, I also felt that the SP-01 was the best fitting/feeling gun in my hand. The AR-24 changed that quite a bit. The major difference for my hand fit is just as you pointed out. That last "aggressive" curve at the top of the back of the grip in the AR-24 is definitiely an improvement over the original CZ grip design. It seems to not only feel better, but in combination with carefully placed 'palm swells' in the grip panels tend to mate the gun handle perfectly with the web of my hand and fills my palms (R&L) perfectly. What I find is with a firm grip, the gun seems mated to my hand, kind of locks into place without effort, so the balance and natural pointing is almost near perfect. It's really hard to explain, and anyone considering one should find one to try it.

I bought it without this experience, but damn, I'm really glad I did. Armalite did their homework on the ergonomics of the human hand and gun gripping. I still like the grip and feel of my SP-01, but the AR-24 does fit my hand like it was made for it. Even if many don't like the gun itself, you should try and feel the grip, as it is really comfortable and natural.
eternal24k  [Team Member]
3/19/2008 10:09:19 AM EST
Any differences between the AR-24 and a CZ 75?
dirksterG30  [Team Member]
3/19/2008 1:41:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Viper1357:

Originally Posted By Navyguns45:
The CZ has a better looking finish. I love my SP-01.


I also think so, but only to this point: 'Exterior looks".
Btw, I love my SP-01 as well. I am only stating differences as facts based on my knowledge and opinion of owning both of them.

The SP-01 finish is like a car to me, and it is only on the exterior. It's a quite thick epoxy type powder coat paint. It is topical only, and is not penetrated into the metal itself.



CZ'S have a phosphate finish under the polycoat: czechpistols82792.yuku.com/reply/76419#reply-76419
Python00  [Member]
3/19/2008 1:58:38 PM EST
Both look like they are copies or derived from a Hipower and I think Armalites website even says so.
Viper1357  [Member]
3/19/2008 6:05:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By dirksterG30:

Originally Posted By Viper1357:

Originally Posted By Navyguns45:
The CZ has a better looking finish. I love my SP-01.


I also think so, but only to this point: 'Exterior looks".
Btw, I love my SP-01 as well. I am only stating differences as facts based on my knowledge and opinion of owning both of them.

The SP-01 finish is like a car to me, and it is only on the exterior. It's a quite thick epoxy type powder coat paint. It is topical only, and is not penetrated into the metal itself.



CZ'S have a phosphate finish under the polycoat: czechpistols82792.yuku.com/reply/76419#reply-76419


Thanks for pointing that out. I stand corrected. That's I assume the dark coloring on the inside of the slide, frame and internals that are not 'poly-coated'.

I still stand by my findings that the coating on the CZ called Polycoat is still very thick, and indeed covers up imperfections and machining marks on the exterior metal finish. The chunks/runs of overspray baked on the inside of the slide and frame is sloppy looking as well. While I'm fond of the corrosion resistance and overall nice looks, I'm not a fan of thick coatings of any kind. That's just me.
Dace  [Member]
3/19/2008 6:18:37 PM EST
What about thickness?
Viper1357  [Member]
3/19/2008 6:23:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Python00:
Both look like they are copies or derived from a Hipower and I think Armalites website even says so.


"Six degrees of HiPower" It's really just a small world phenomenon connecting all guns of this nature back to BHP.
Viper1357  [Member]
3/19/2008 6:31:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dace:
What about thickness?


Nothing major to most people, but it's like thick paint on the exterior of the gun. I 'personally' prefer thinner coatings, bluing or plating on micro finished or close tolerance exterior quality machined surfaces. Just a silly pet peeve is all.

It comes from being in the machining and fabrication business for almost 30 years. You get all fussy on perfection and "zero defects".
eternal24k  [Team Member]
3/19/2008 6:46:22 PM EST
I have been wanting a CZ type for some time (you have the 2 i have been drooling over), i have loved the looks of the AR-24. Does it take CZ mags? and are the sights interchangeable? Cannot wait to hear how she shoots
STG77  [Member]
3/19/2008 11:05:38 PM EST
I'm going to have to chime in and say that IMO the paint on the CZ is cheesy, too thick, and generally sucks. The internal machine work is equally marginal. But they shoot really well so it really doesn't matter.
bullyforyou  [Member]
3/20/2008 5:09:08 AM EST



will CZ's kadet (.22) conversion fit and function on the armalite?


Viper1357  [Member]
3/20/2008 7:16:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By eternal24k:
I have been wanting a CZ type for some time (you have the 2 i have been drooling over), i have loved the looks of the AR-24. Does it take CZ mags? and are the sights interchangeable? Cannot wait to hear how she shoots


Even though I've been lucky enough to own both, I still drool over them. No shame there. Thank god for modern corrosion protection..

Mags: No expert on the subject, but to the best I remember playing with them a bit. The 18 Rd. SP-01 mags slide in the AR mag well, but do not "lock" in the magazine catch. On the other hand the 15 Rd. AR mags slid into the SP-01 mag well and locked solid. Actually was a .060" gap between the bottom of CZ grip and mag floor plate. They also fed manually cycled snap caps.

Thus it seems AR-24 mags work in CZ75, but CZ75 Mags don't seem to work in AR-24.

Sights: The front sights I can honestly say no way. The AR is a dovetail cut (a standard style I heard somewhere) and held in on the top with a pin/set screw. (depends on newer or older model) The CZ is a machined slot barstock type sight, roll pinned through a groove cut out in the slide. Totally different mount styles.
The rear I don't know for sure. They both appear to be a dovetail design, but I don't have dims to accurately advise. Time will tell.


Anyone who knows different through experience or documention can correct me, I'm just sharing my experience with them.
Viper1357  [Member]
3/20/2008 7:26:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By STG77:
I'm going to have to chime in and say that IMO the paint on the CZ is cheesy, too thick, and generally sucks. The internal machine work is equally marginal. But they shoot really well so it really doesn't matter.


That's what I was trying to say nicely.. lol But I also agree they "shoot really well" and dare I say that for all the years I've been shooting, it's probably the most accurate POA/POI gun 'out of the box' with 'fixed sights' I have ever shot.

That's honestly the only reason I like it so much and plan to keep it. It's big, heavy, but shoots like I expect a good gun should. 18 + rounds of 9mm on target with light felt recoil and superb accuracy and reliability is really hard to beat. It's hard to ask for much more in that price range and style/type.

I really hope I get similar performance from this new AR-24. I'll then truly be in 9mm heaven..
DLaw  [Team Member]
3/20/2008 7:36:16 AM EST
SP-01 FTW!!!!!!
Viper1357  [Member]
3/20/2008 7:44:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:


will CZ's kadet (.22) conversion fit and function on the armalite?


Based on what I've read about slide and frame rail height, depth, and many different dimensional differences overall, including the internals dims different as well, I'd have to say there is like a no way chance it would drop in and work. Could someone make it work? Maybe, but would it ever funtion correctly/reliably? Hard to say.

Hopefully someone with a Kadet kit and Ar-24 will shed some light on the fitting issues.
CBR900  [Member]
3/20/2008 9:37:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By Viper1357:

Originally Posted By Navyguns45:
The CZ has a better looking finish. I love my SP-01.


The manufacturer states the finish is "military-grade manganese phosphate and heat-cured epoxy" which from my manufacturing knowledge/experience penetrates into the metal surface, and is not a thick topical coat per se . . .I persoanlly like this flat black matte finish better, as it looks more military like the black of an M4 or AR15.
You really can't go wrong with either.


"manganese phosphate" = black parkerizing.

Ever seen an M1 Garand or carbine? The finish is also parkerizing, although it is "zinc phosphate" and tends to be grey/greenish on those guns.

Ever seen the black finish on most steel parts of an AR-15? That is manganese phosphate black parkerizing.

Both handguns above have that as a base-finish.
bullyforyou  [Member]
3/20/2008 9:55:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Viper1357:

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:


will CZ's kadet (.22) conversion fit and function on the armalite?


Based on what I've read about slide and frame rail height, depth, and many different dimensional differences overall, including the internals dims different as well, I'd have to say there is like a no way chance it would drop in and work. Could someone make it work? Maybe, but would it ever funtion correctly/reliably? Hard to say.

Hopefully someone with a Kadet kit and Ar-24 will shed some light on the fitting issues.


i was wondering how much armalite varied certain dimensions. i guess that answers my quetion...


Viper1357  [Member]
3/20/2008 11:42:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By CBR900:

Originally Posted By Viper1357:

Originally Posted By Navyguns45:
The CZ has a better looking finish. I love my SP-01.


The manufacturer states the finish is "military-grade manganese phosphate and heat-cured epoxy" which from my manufacturing knowledge/experience penetrates into the metal surface, and is not a thick topical coat per se . . .I persoanlly like this flat black matte finish better, as it looks more military like the black of an M4 or AR15.
You really can't go wrong with either.


"manganese phosphate" = black parkerizing.

Ever seen an M1 Garand or carbine? The finish is also parkerizing, although it is "zinc phosphate" and tends to be grey/greenish on those guns.

Ever seen the black finish on most steel parts of an AR-15? That is manganese phosphate black parkerizing.
Both handguns above have that as a base-finish.


OK, so that's settled then.
Except, one still has thick paint (top coat) on it, and one has a thinner finish that looks a lot more like the "black finish on most steel parts of an AR-15" , and shows off the near perfect machined surfaces.

Viper1357  [Member]
3/20/2008 11:49:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

Originally Posted By Viper1357:

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:


will CZ's kadet (.22) conversion fit and function on the armalite?


Based on what I've read about slide and frame rail height, depth, and many different dimensional differences overall, including the internals dims different as well, I'd have to say there is like a no way chance it would drop in and work. Could someone make it work? Maybe, but would it ever funtion correctly/reliably? Hard to say.

Hopefully someone with a Kadet kit and Ar-24 will shed some light on the fitting issues.


i was wondering how much armalite varied certain dimensions. i guess that answers my quetion...


I will field strip and 'carefully' see if the slides and frames interchange/fit if at all, and let you know. That won't answer the exact dimension questions, but should be an accurate fit or not fit answer for any interchangability.
CBR900  [Member]
3/20/2008 1:43:55 PM EST
agreed. My SP-01 is an early 2004 model I bought from a former team member. It is all I shoot in competition.

The Turkish Armalite looks great too.

No other modern semi auto handgun has been as widely copied as the CZ-75 - except maybe the 1911 but it had a big head start.

We call all 1911 clones just 1911.

Its time we called all our guns "CZ-75s" - including Armalite's new cz75.
polloi  [Member]
3/20/2008 9:16:33 PM EST
I agree about the CZ finish. Too thick. I'd like to get mine NP3'd

Viper1357  [Member]
3/21/2008 6:43:32 PM EST
I'm just going to start using Carnauba wax on the CZ twice a year. That should keep up appearances..
eternal24k  [Team Member]
4/2/2008 12:14:38 PM EST
How about some pics of the sights? I am trying to decide if i want the fixed sight or adjustable on the AR-24
UNIT6639  [Member]
4/2/2008 12:54:18 PM EST
I was unaware the AR 24 was in shops for sale already, what do they go for in local shops> I am in the market for a 9mm.
eternal24k  [Team Member]
4/2/2008 3:29:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By UNIT6639:
I was unaware the AR 24 was in shops for sale already, what do they go for in local shops> I am in the market for a 9mm.

My shop priced me $475 for the standard full size, $520 for Tactical Custom, but they do not have any in stock, which makes ordering one even harder.
dhdoyle  [Member]
4/3/2008 3:03:39 PM EST
Hmmm... The talk of the cheesy CZ-75 reminds me of when they were still banned from import (iron curtain era) and gray market pistols were commanding $1100. I tested one and was really tempted to buy it, but...

The CZ-75 and their copies all have a really long trigger distance. They're not for short-fingered people. They are in no way High-Power copies. John Moses Browning always got the ergonomics right.
Paid Advertisement
--