KSC CZ75 1st Version

KSC
CZ75 1st Version

(with
comparisons to the 2nd Version)


Reviewed
by Spook

Stock
Specifications
FPS
~0.5J
on HFC134a
Length:
209mm
Barrel
Length:
 ?
Weight: ???g

Ammo
capacity:

26
rounds



Closeup of the business end of the barrel.

Brief
History of the CZ75

The first model (Model 1) of the real steel CZ75 was an Eastern
European-made semi-auto that was produced from 1975–1980. It
chambered the 9mm Parabellum and had a 15-round magazine. It
was a double action pistol and the safety could be engaged with
the hammer cocked (Condition One); however it lacked a decocking
feature. The Swedish Army wanted the CZ75 as their standard
sidearm, but required the pistol modified so that it could be
more sturdy. The Ceska Zbrojovka factory redesigned the pistol
and extended the slide rails to ensure durability. With the
longer slide rails and heavier slide, the CZ75 Model 2 was born.

OK,
now on to the KSC CZ75 1st Version. The 1st Version (v1) is
a copy of the real CZ75 Model 1, while the 2nd Version (v2)
is a copy of the real CZ75 Model 2. Now KSC released v2 before
v1, thus the discrepancy in the numeric order. This numbering
system is the same as with their Beretta M93R v1 and v2, with
v1 being a replica of the first release of the real steel M93R.
Get it? With 2 coming before 1, you would think KSC is counting
down to something!


The old 2nd Version box packaging was recycled for use for
the 1st Version.

“First”
Impressions
The CZ75 v1 comes in exactly
the same box as with the v2. I guess KSC figured that the exterior
appearance of the guns were so similar that it didn’t warrant
a redesign of the packaging. Or maybe they were just cheap.
The gun comes with a manual, BB loading tool, hop-up tool and
small bag of BBs. The manual is also from the 2nd Version gun.
When I first laid eyes on this gun, I thought, “Oh, look at
that, shiny plastic. What a BS!”


The CZ75 1st has a very black and shiny finish, though it
doesn’t look metallic.

Ooops,
I meant, “What ABS!” That’s right, the gun’s finish has a jet
black, ultra shiny, highly reflective appearance. I could see
my reflection clearly on the side of the frame. But it doesn’t
look anything like polished blued steel, which I believe was
what KSC was trying to achieve. The coating appears to be a
little on the heavy side, which you’ll notice when you look
at the two disassembly notches on the slide and frame. It lacked
the polished and smooth coating that Tanaka put on their Midnight
Blue finish.


For size comparison, the CZ is paired with a WA Beretta M92F
PV

The
trigger and outer barrel are made of ABS with a silver coating,
and as with the rest of the gun, they look shiny and reflective
and VERY plastic. One advantage of the shiny coating is that
it’s resistant to the damage of paint thinner. I applied nail
polish remover on the gun and it didn’t mar the surface. Now
why on earth would I rub paint thinner on this gun? I’m not
telling! I’m pleading the 5th! Those of you who live in the
United States would clearly understand. 8?)

Metal
parts include the hammer, safety switch, slide release lever,
rear sight, mag release button, some internal parts and, of
course, the magazine. The mag holds 26 rounds and is nicely
constructed. The two-panel ABS grips “shine” very much like
the rest of the body, however it’s not paint thinner resistant.
The CZ logo appears on both sides of the grips. Instead of tight
checker pattern, there’s a neat formation of tiny squares to
ensure a good firm grasp. The gun is very comfortable to hold
and the curvature of the pistol grip makes the piece a pleasure
to shoot. It’s long enough for someone with large hands to hold
comfortably. The entire gun’s assembly is smooth and even and
doesn’t have any seams down the center.


Another closeup showing the CZ logo on the grip, the safety,
serrated grip on the slide and the disassembly notches just
in front of the hammer.

The
safety switch is easy to engage and on the frame is a very visible
red dot, indicating the safety is off. With the safety engaged,
the switch covers the red dot. The switch cannot be placed on
SAFE when the hammer is down, only when the hammer is half-cocked
or fully cocked. So the gun can be carried “cocked and locked”
or “half-cocked and locked.” I prefer the latter. Like the real
steel counterpart, there’s no decocking feature. Flicking the
safety on and off with my thumb is easy and doesn’t require
repositioning of my hold.


Closeup showing the slide release lever and just above that
the tiny CZ logo and trademarks (though not very clear due
to reflection). The finish is very dark, so all of the photos
shown here had to be lightened to show clear details.

The
slide is a little too vertically short for my taste, and someone
with large hands may find the slide a little difficult to grasp
when racking it back to chamber a round. On the left side of
the slide is a small CZ logo and the lettering “MODEL 75 CAL.9
PARA.”

The
right side has three sets of the same 5-digit numbers, each
on the slide, barrel and frame. The trigger guard is of an oval
shape, which indicates that it’s an older pistol design. Current
real steel CZ models have a squared-off trigger guard with serration,
giving the shooter a positive reinforced grasp with the weak-hand
index finger.


The rear sight is fixed without any low-light aiming devices.

The
rear sight is non-adjustable and is of a simple square
notch, without any dots or outline to aid in sight alignment,
again indicating an older design. The front sight is also
fundamental — a basic ramp with serration for low lighting.
Aligning the sights proved to be somewhat difficult when
aiming in low lighting, or if the target is too dark.

Racking
back the slide gives a plastic-like “cluck.” Releasing
it also gives a similar sound. When the slide is locked
back, there’re two ways to release it. One is by pressing
the slide release lever. The other is when the mag is
not inserted or during reloading; simply pull the slide
back slightly and let it run forward. The latter method
is similar to the Walther PPK design.

 


The gun is very comfortable to hold and aim and would be a
good backup sidearm.

Squeezing
the trigger in single action mode proved to be smooth and easy,
unlike in double action. When firing in double action, the trigger
would give a slight hesitation when it reaches the half-cocked
position before continuing. This is not smooth! With this slight
pause in the movement you can easily place the hammer in the
half-cocked position by squeezing the trigger halfway. The gun
appears to have a tight construction, meaning the slide, frame
and internals really come into contact with each other. With
the magazine out, I “rode” the slide back and forth slowly,
and that caused the slide to stop halfway. I had to push it
forward in order for it to close. However, pulling the slide
all the way back and then letting it go on its own did not cause
any problems. The slide isn’t heavy, so that’s probably part
of the reason. V2 also exhibited the “trigger hesitation” and
“tightness” problems.


The 1st Version (top) and 2nd Version are nearly identical
at a quick glance, but when examined closely the 2nd Version
has a beefier slide and frame (circles indicate the differences).

1st
and 2nd Compared
There’re similarities and differences between v1 and v2. The differences
are in the finish and the design of the slide, frame and magazine.
The finish of v2 is matte black, though not as dark as v1. When
compared side by side, v1 is a glossy, deep black while v2 is
a dull, very dark gray. Like v1, v2’s construction is smooth
and even and has no seams. On v2’s left side, just in front
of the slide release lever, are the words “Made in Czechoslovakia,”
— something the v1 doesn’t have. V2’s frame and slide are much
fuller towards the front, which you can see in the photos.

The external of the two magazines are nearly identical, the only
difference is the BB loading method. V1’s mag is completely
covered up on the front and requires the tool to load the BBs.
On v2’s mag all you need to do is pull the follower all the
way down and lock it in place before dropping the BBs in by
hand. Both have a 26 round capacity.


Note the slide and frame of the 1st Version (left) are a little
slender near the front than the 2nd.

The 1st Version magazine (left) doesn’t permit drop-in loading
and requires the loading tool.

 


The 1st Version has nice smooth contours with no molding seams.

There are many parts in the two guns that are interchangeable, one
of which is the magazine. Other parts include the inner/outer
barrel, trigger, hammer, rear sight, slide release, safety switch,
mag release, grips, recoil spring and guide and probably some
internal parts. While I didn’t have a scale handy to weigh the
two guns, I didn’t feel any differences offhand (v2 weighs 725g).

Brief
History of 2nd Version’s Performance
Before I move to the performance of v1, let me give you a brief
overview of v2’s performance. V2’s blowback was sluggish and
weak. When firing, the slide would not go all the way back and
in some instances not even back far enough to chamber the next
round! And of course the slide failed to lock back after the
last round. Maybe it was cool down, but I didn’t feel the mag
getting very cold. I found that warming up the magazine (mildly
warm to the touch) improved the blowback to an adequate level.

The slide kicked back nicely and was more crisp. But still on some
occasions, such as on the last round of the second load, the
slide failed to lock back. Still, warming it up before shooting
made an improvement. I had used HFC134 gas and 0.2g BBs for
the test (in normal room temperature), and fps was chronoed
at an average of 230. I could get better performance with HFC22,
but then again, this gun is made in Japan!

1st
Version’s Performance
Now on with the performance of v1. I gassed up the mag until it
was full. Loading the mag was very easy with the aid of the
loading tool. Simply fill the tube up to the top (the tube holds
25) and use the rod to push all the BBs in.


Ten shots at 16 feet yielded these groupings on a 6-inch diameter
target.

The accuracy testing was done indoors with a temperature of 65 degrees
F. I used HFC134 gas and 0.2g BBs. For this session I didn’t
warm up the mag, just so I can see if KSC improved the blowback.
I stepped back 16 feet away from the target and had in mind
of placing 10 shots into the 6-inch diameter bull’s eye. I fired
and stopped at 3 shots because they all missed the paper completely!
The CZ75 tend to shoot high, probably because of the low sights
(in order to hit the center I had to move as close as 5 feet).
So I aimed low (about 6 inches) and was able to make contact
with the center 3-inch ring. I placed 10 shots and the groupings
were around 3 inches. The blowback was nice, much better than
v2, though not as sharp as the Western Arms guns. The slide
cycled properly and the slide locked at the last shot. I was
able to get a little over 3 mag loads with one charge.

For
the FPS chrono I did warm up the mag in order to get its maximum
potential. I placed the mag inside 2 plastic sandwich bags and
then submerged it into a deep tray filled with warm water (not
hot water!). I was careful not to get the mag wet by using 2
bags (one inside the other) and leaving the openings above the
water. I left it in for 30-60 seconds depending on the temperature
of the water. Again I used 134 gas and 0.2g BBs in normal room
temperature. I warmed it up after every reload and got an average
of 245 fps. Not too bad, a slight improvement over v2.

Hope
for 2nd Version Owners?

As I mentioned earlier, the mags of the two guns are interchangeable.
But do they shoot? You bet they do! First the v2 mag in the
v1 gun: I loaded up the v2 mag and fired a barrage of BBs just
to test it out. The v1 didn’t suffer quite the same fate as
its predecessor (or is it successor?) The blowback was slower
and the slide still failed to lock after the last round, but
it wasn’t as dreadful. I’m guessing this is due to the slightly
lighter slide of the v1.

Now
the v1 mag in the v2 gun: you would think that with the v1 gun
doing better, that using its mag would improve the v2, right?
Well, not quite. On the first mag load the slide cycled OK and
it locked on the last shot. On the reload the slide began to
slow a little and it failed to lock on the last shot. I’m assuming
that the v2 slide is heavier. So it’s a tough call whether I
should recommend the v1 mag in the v2 gun. If you’re a disappointed
2nd Version owner and is curious about this, go ahead and get
the v1 mag and give it a try. The v1 mag doesn’t have the cutout
follower lock/drop-in loading (just see the photo).

I’m
not a big fan of Hop Up, so I’m not going into great details.
The hop up is adjustable using a key and it’s inserted into
the slot just inside the chamber. The configuration is exactly
as with the KSC Glocks.


The gun disassembled down to its main components.

Take-down Disassembly is a cinch. There’re
2 small notches, one on the slide and one on the frame, just
in front of the hammer on the left side. Pull the slide back
slightly until the 2 notches meet, then using your other hand
push out the slide release lever from the right side. The slide
moves forward and the whole assembly breaks up into 6 parts:
frame, slide, barrel, spring, slide release lever and spring
rod.

Conclusion All in all KSC did make an
improvement over the 2nd Version. The blowback is better and
the power and price come close to a Marui M9. If you’ve never
owned a GBB pistol and you’re looking for an inexpensive one,
then the CZ75 1st Version is certainly a good option. It’s a
great piece if you’re tired of the Glocks and Berettas and want
something different and it’s also suitable for collectors who
have just about every gun out there and want something unique
(a real CZ75 Model 1 is very rare and if you’re lucky enough
to find one you’ll have to pay $2,000 or more!)


Right side with the slide locked back.

Advantages:

  • Inexpensive
  • Good
    blowback and adequate power
  • Great
    contours and grip
  • Parts
    interchangeable with 2nd Version

Disadvantages:

  • Finish
    too plastic-like
  • Moderately
    accurate
  • “Uneasy”
    trigger

Upgrade
Potential

 

Build
Quality

 

Value
for Money

 

Overall
Potential

 

External
Links:
TBA

Site
links:
TBA

Comment
on this review in the forums


Last
modified: Wednesday, May 9, 2001 9:37 AM copyright 2001 ArniesAirsoft




Looking for somewhere?
Podcasts
airsoftology
The Airsoft Discussion
Gorilla Airsoft Radio
Airsoft Medicine
SSMG.se Specialist Swedish Military Experience Group
Subscribe to our news

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

News Feeds
Archives