CZ83

[opr1945]

came across what I thought was a good deal on a
cz83 serial number 1822XX Browning 9mm (.380). haven't had a chance to shoot it yet. But I have seen several threads on CZ's but not 83's. first none S&W I have bought in a while.

Anyone have any comments on the Model 83?

Actually reminds me of my Beretta model 84.

Thanks.

 

[growr]

Great gun in ALL regards!!!You will enjoy it greatly................

Randy

 

[LedFowl]

I bought one a few months ago. The CZ83 has a good single action trigger, and the double-action trigger pull is pretty good, as well. Basically the same pistol as the CZ82, which is in the Makarov round.

Good sight picture. Feels good in the hand. All steel construction, so it has some nice weight to it. A pleasant range gun.

Seller said that mine had spent some time in Israel. Maybe so. Made in 1990.

 

[les.b]

I have the CZ-82. I understand that they are the same gun, but yours is chambered in .380 and mine in the Makarov round, the 9x18 round. This was, at least for awhile, the issue Czech military and Police sidearm.

I love mine, and was pretty impressed with the ergonomics and the mechanics of the guns...

Best Regards, Les

 

[Andyd]

The CZ 82/83 is based on the Makarov Pistol design, which itself is a copy of the Walther PP. At the end of WWII Walther had started working on the Walther PP Super in 9x18 already and the Russians picked up on that.

The CZ 82 and CZ 83, which was available in .32 ACP and .380 ACP is a well made pistol and nice shooter.

CZ 82 - Wikipedia

 

[Bullzaye]

The CZ 82/83 is based on the Makarov Pistol design, which itself is a copy of the Walther PP.

I don't believe this is quite true. The Makarov and the CZ-82 are quite different. Without delving into the internals, the most obvious differences that are readily apparent to me, are: the Makarov uses a 8-round single-stack mag, the CZ a 12-round double-stack mag (I realize a double-stack Makarov was produced later, but it was introduced in 1990, 8 years after the CZ-82); the Makarov has a decocker, and no ability to be carried cocked-and-locked, while the CZ has no decocker but may be carried cocked-and-locked and also enjoys an ambidextrous safety, which the Makarov lacks; the Makarov has a "European" heel-type mag release, while the CZ has a more western-type ambidextrous thumb release located just behind the trigger guard (in fact, I believe the VZ-82 was the first service pistol to have both an ambidextrous safety & mag release); the Makarov has standard rifling, while the CZ has polygonal rifling.

I'm fairly certain that many more differences may be found if one delves into the internal workings of these pistols, but suffice it to say that the CZ-82 is *not* based on the Makarov design. Basically...they're both SA/DA semi-auto blowback pistols chambered in 9x18mm Makarov.

Tim

 

[Inusuit]

I recently purchased a "surplus" CZ 82. The magazine release require two hands. I disassembled to polish the parts and in the process the slide stop spring fell out. Now awaiting an "improved" spring. Reports are that the spring is very difficult to install correctly. The spring from an 83 requires modification (a hole drilled in the frame.)

The 82 has better sights than my IJ-70 Makarov and has the double stack 12 round magazine. However, compared to the Mak, the internals are complicated with tiny springs and multiple pins. The trigger in DA/SA is not as good as the Mak. The sights are better, but at this point I prefer the Mak.

No experience with the 83, but I recommend against disassembly beyond the basic field strip for cleaning.

While there are similarities between the Mak, the PP/PPK, and the CZ, they are totally different guns except for the commonality of the 9x18 cartridge. Other than size, I don't see much resemblance to the Beretta.

 

[jmace57]

I had a CZ-82 and loved it, and sold it to a colleague. I purchased a CZ-83 about a year ago and love it as well. Some of the best ergonomics (for me) of any handgun I own. I think you'll love yours.

 

[Andyd]

I don't believe this is quite true. The Makarov and the CZ-82 are quite different. Without delving into the internals, the most obvious differences that are readily apparent to me, are: the Makarov uses a 8-round single-stack mag, the CZ a 12-round double-stack mag (I realize a double-stack Makarov was produced later, but it was introduced in 1990, 8 years after the CZ-82); the Makarov has a decocker, and no ability to be carried cocked-and-locked, while the CZ has no decocker but may be carried cocked-and-locked and also enjoys an ambidextrous safety, which the Makarov lacks; the Makarov has a "European" heel-type mag release, while the CZ has a more western-type ambidextrous thumb release located just behind the trigger guard (in fact, I believe the VZ-82 was the first service pistol to have both an ambidextrous safety & mag release); the Makarov has standard rifling, while the CZ has polygonal rifling.

I'm fairly certain that many more differences may be found if one delves into the internal workings of these pistols, but suffice it to say that the CZ-82 is *not* based on the Makarov design. Basically...they're both SA/DA semi-auto blowback pistols chambered in 9x18mm Makarov.

Tim

No matter what you believe, the design of the CZ, the way it functions is based on the Walther PP. I am talking technical facts. The double mag was first successful in the FN High Power. Basically, the CZ82 is a mutt in between.

 

[growr]

One thing I did on MY 82 was to take a file and dress down some of the grip material around the mag release so as to make it easier for my smaller hand and fingers to easily depress and release the magazine.
Made the already fabulous ergonomics better for ME!

Randy

 

[Bullzaye]

No matter what you believe, the design of the CZ, the way it functions is based on the Walther PP. I am talking technical facts. The double mag was first successful in the FN High Power. Basically, the CZ82 is a mutt in between.

Well, I'm always open to learning something new. Please educate me...what are the technical facts that you are referring to, that proves the CZ-82 is based on the PP/Makarov?

I'm not sure what the FN/Browning P-35 has to do with anything. Surely you're not suggesting that the CZ-82 is a "mutt in between" the PP & the P-35? I see no similarities between the P-35, which is a SA pistol & utilizes a locked-breech short-recoil system, & the CZ, which is a SA/DA pistol, and is blowback operated...other than the fact that they're both semi-auto pistols and use a double-stack magazine.

In any case...I really would appreciate hearing the technical facts that link the CZ to the PP/Makarov. I realize the Makarov borrowed some from the Walthers...but I was unaware of the influence of the PP on the CZ. Thanks!

Tim

 

[Arik]

I don't believe this is quite true. The Makarov and the CZ-82 are quite different. Without delving into the internals, the most obvious differences that are readily apparent to me, are: the Makarov uses a 8-round single-stack mag, the CZ a 12-round double-stack mag (I realize a double-stack Makarov was produced later, but it was introduced in 1990, 8 years after the CZ-82); the Makarov has a decocker, and no ability to be carried cocked-and-locked, while the CZ has no decocker but may be carried cocked-and-locked and also enjoys an ambidextrous safety, which the Makarov lacks; the Makarov has a "European" heel-type mag release, while the CZ has a more western-type ambidextrous thumb release located just behind the trigger guard (in fact, I believe the VZ-82 was the first service pistol to have both an ambidextrous safety & mag release); the Makarov has standard rifling, while the CZ has polygonal rifling.

I'm fairly certain that many more differences may be found if one delves into the internal workings of these pistols, but suffice it to say that the CZ-82 is *not* based on the Makarov design. Basically...they're both SA/DA semi-auto blowback pistols chambered in 9x18mm Makarov.

Tim

Having a copy doesn't necessarily mean it's identical. Many countries copy firearms and then add or take away depending on their needs

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Bullzaye]

Having a copy doesn't necessarily mean it's identical. Many countries copy firearms and then add or take away depending on their needs

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I'm not completely certain what you mean when you say, "having a copy".

If your point is that one item does not have to be an exact copy of another item to be considered as being "based" on said item, then I agree.

I do agree that the Makarov borrowed heavily on features of the Walther PP series. They're not exact copies, but there is a definite "familial" similarity, and a sharing of some features. Not too difficult to believe that the Makarov was based on the PP. And, of course, there's historical proof of the Soviets acquisition of German tooling and the like concerning the Walthers.

My point is that there's little evidence (of which I'm currently aware) that shows that the CZ-82 series is in any way based on the PP or Makarov. Yes, the CZ may have one or more features that is/are found on the PP/PM...as a for instance, they all have a similar takedown method, using the trigger guard.

Since firearms have first come into existence, I imagine each succeeding design has borrowed (successful) features from their predecessors. Very few designs have been completely revolutionary, with nothing borrowed from previous designs. To my understanding, one design being "based" on another design requires more than a passing aesthetic resemblance, or more than one or two shared features. I suppose there's no true parameter that defines at what point a design is "based" on another design, rather than just borrowing a feature here and there.

I'm still looking forward to hearing from Andyd, to learn more of these technical facts that prove the CZ is based on the PP. I just hope it's not too technical...or I may not understand it.

Tim

 

[Bullzaye]

As far as CZ-82/83s in general...I'm quite fond of them. I own several of them...I think I have 3 in 9x18mm, and 1 in .380. They're very nice little pistols.

While I do like the CZs, I do believe that I prefer the Makarov. It really is a great design. Even if it is copied (stolen?) from the Walther design...it seems to me that they improved upon the original design. I prefer the Maks safety to the Walther, and even though I generally prefer the "western" mag release, I do like the Makarovs simple, robust, ambidextrous mag release. Perhaps I've just gotten unlucky with my CZs, and/or they've been heavily used, but my CZ-82s have been less reliable than my Maks.

I have had similar problems to what Inusuit described...sticky/difficult mag release, and even difficulties in pulling the mag from the mag well. Again...maybe it's just my copies, and I need to pull them apart and replace some parts, but as it stands...my Makarovs have been extremely reliable compared to the CZ-82s.

FWIW...I own several CZ-75s & CZ-85s, and they're great pistols. I love them, and they can stand with the best of them!

Tim

 

[BigBill]

The cz83's came in 380acp, 32acp, and the 9mm mak. They say finding a cz83 in 9mm mak is rare. The cz82 comes in 9mm mak. The only thing I noticed between my cz82 & cz83 is the trigger housing is different.

 

[Maddog 521]

I have an early CZ83 with a round trigger guard. I've used it several times for the shooting portion of my CC license. Very accurate.

 

[opr1945]

The serial number on mine is serial number 1822XX. When I called CZUSA they told me all their guns serial numbers started with a letter. Since mine did not it must not be a CZ, notwithstanding it being so marked on the slide.

I was later told that the guns made in america had serial numbers starting with letters. But the older guns did not, therefore my gun must be old and actually made in eastern Europe.

based on serial number can anyone tell where when it was made?

tx.

 

[Bullzaye]

The serial number on mine is serial number 1822XX. When I called CZUSA they told me all their guns serial numbers started with a letter. Since mine did not it must not be a CZ, notwithstanding it being so marked on the slide.

I was later told that the guns made in america had serial numbers starting with letters. But the older guns did not, therefore my gun must be old and actually made in eastern Europe.

based on serial number can anyone tell where when it was made?

tx.

I don't have any info on dates of manufacture. As far as where...to the best of my knowledge, all surplus CZ-82s were built by Česká zbrojovka (CZ) in what was known at that time as Czechoslovakia. CZ has multiple factories...if you wanted to know which precise factory, I have no clue.

As far as the serial number issue...when you spoke to CZUSA, did you specify that you were enquiring about a CZ-82? It seems obvious that they (CZUSA) were referring to currently produced models being built in the U.S. when they spoke of SNs beginning with a letter. The older surplus CZ-82 SNs will not start with letters...as they were built in Czechoslovakia, not the U.S.

[Edit to add...I had forgotten that you actually have a CZ-83, not an 82. A CZ-83 in .380 could be surplus, but it more likely could have been produced for commercial sale. Still...I don't believe any CZ-83s were built in the U.S.]

Tim

 

[scoobysnacker]

Both my 82 and the 75's have the last 2 years of the production date stamped on the guns. The 75 has it right behind the ejection port on the slide, the 82 has it on the frame on the right side.


A quick, uninformed guess- 1990.

Why? Because look at Les' 82 in post #4, at the fullsize picture.
Serial on his is 1815xx, with a date code of she90, designating is was made in 1990. Mine is serial #0823xx, date code of she88, 1988. As stated, the guns are basically the same. Things like the slide, frame etc will be the same, with different finish and such. Different trigger guard, but that is a separate piece.

Your pistol is about a thousand from Les', if they did indeed use the same slide and frame off the line. My pistol is 100,000 removed, in 2 years time.

If every 82/83 frame is stamped numerically, then sorted out to .32 acp, .380 acp, and 9 Mak for 83 commercial models, AND military and police contract 82s in 9 Mak, that sounds like a reasonable total number produced in that time period. Otherwise, it sounds like a whole lot of JUST 82's for the military in two years.

 

[les.b]

Scoobysnacker....just looked at a few (CZ83s) that are for sale on a surplus web site, and the date was marked on all of them, on the right side of the frame, right above the front of the trigger Gaurd, just as on mine in the photo above, and sometimes preceded with the "she", and some times just the last two digits of the year. Examples were from the eighties and up to 1992. All marked "Made in Czechoslovakia", as after 1992, the factory would have been in the Czech Republic. They are selling for from $250 to $300, as of tonight. I would give a link, but that is a no-no. But I have bought a couple of surplus guns from this outfit, and they are quick and honest, and the photos that you see on their website are of the gun that you are getting, and not a generic stock photo.

Best Regards, Les