It’s a fact: I am a sucker for a good Israeli pistol. I’m sure when my kids are dividing up my collection and trying to figure out why the heck I own some guns, they’re going to wonder why I just had to have all three generations of the Cherokee Compact. The answer is curiosity, mostly.
If you’re curious about what I thought of the Cherokee Compact gen3, read on…
Cost: $285
Caliber: 9×19
Included in the box: The gun, two 17rd Tanfoglio magazines, and a lock. It’s about what you’d expect at this price point.
Magazine Type and Capacity: Tanfoglio small frame, 17rd.
Platform Background: The BUL Cherokee was introduced in 2000 to replace the BUL Impact and provide a full-frame polymer pistol to the commercial market. It was updated a few years later with a newer frame (recognizable by its finger swells). These second generation BUL Cherokees were imported widely to the US.
The Cherokee platform is based off the DA/SA Tanfoglio Force, and appears to be a licensed copy, with complete parts interchangeability. The Tanfoglio platform is fairly old, and is a rough copy of the CZ-75 platform (without 100% parts interchangeability).
The action used in the Cherokee is the usual short-recoil, locked-breach action used in so many other CZ-75-derivative guns, with a “linkless” barrel similar to the BHP. Lockup is done via the lugs on the front of the barrel, forward of the chamber. This is a reliable, proven design, and my experience has been that it works well with suppressors.
Aesthetics: I must admit that I’ve never been a particular fan of the Tanfoglio / CZ-75 aesthetic. That said, I do find the Cherokee gen3 to be a bit more handsome than the gen2, with the blockier slide, forward serrations, and a more appealing grip texture. That texture is also FAR grippier than the Cherokee gen2. It won’t win any beauty contests, but I wouldn’t call it an ugly gun. It weighs about 26oz, which is an ounce more than the Cherokee gen2.

(Oddly enough, the full-size Cherokee gen3 does NOT feature an updated slide.)
That said, it has finger swells, and I hate finger swells. They make it harder to get a high grip on a pistol, and they add almost nothing to grippiness. They feel good in a gun shop, but that’s about it.
Controls: The controls are Tanfoglio-standard, which is to say “a safety, slide stop, and magazine release”. There’s no decocker, but the gun can be carried cocked and locked. The slide will not move with the gun on safe.
The trigger is the same as previous Cherokees: an unremarkable 6.5lb single-action with a very heavy double-action. If you’re willing to carry cocked-and-locked, this is reasonable. If not, you may find the double-action to be a bit of a pain to manage.



Field-stripping is also the same as the CZ-75 / Tanfoglio – pull the slide back a bit smidge, push out the slide stop, and remove the slide forward.
Holster/Sling Compatibility (out of the box): The gen2 and gen3 Cherokees use the same holsters, but those are basically proprietary to the platform due to a change in trigger guard geometry from the original Tanfoglio Force. The Israeli holster makers generally have products for the Cherokee, but you will find less American support.
Otherwise, you are best off looking for holsters that key off weapon lights, such as the Blackhawk Omnivore or PHLSter Floodlight.
Accessory and Sighting Mounting Options: The Cherokee gen3 comes with a Picatinny accessory rail (it has one more slot than the gen2, for whatever reason), so it is compatible with a broad array of lights and lasers. The laser Compact model, which I am reviewing, also has a replaceable front sight compatible with the Tanfoglio Xtreme front sights – if you want a fiber optic sight on a Cherokee, this is the gun you’re looking for. I did find the Henning Tanfoglio fiber optic sight to be too high, causing a PoI about six inches too low at 10yds. It is possible that the Patriot Defense sight would work better, but I didn’t try it.
I wish it had come cut for optics, but the Cherokee is BUL’s budget gun, and I’m guessing it just costs too much.
Testing: I took the BUL Cherokee Compact gen3 to the range a few times, and found it to be a solid performer. I had one initial failure to feed with the included magazines when loaded to 17rds. It did not repeat itself, which makes me think it was a break-in issue. The ammo I tested with was my 124gr handloads, which I use for competition. Accuracy was fine – I could drill out a bullseye at 10 yards, which is about as much as I want from a handgun.
While I’m not a fan of the factory sights, I have to admit that they worked well enough on steel plates when I took it out for a spin during an SASP practice. The heavy double action trigger was not conducive to a quick first round off the beep, but once it was in single-action mode, it was easy to manage.
The older Tanfoglio magazines I had were a bit sticky in the magazine well, and didn’t drop free. I don’t know if that’s because they’re old or it’s a difference with the polymer frames, but if you’re carrying or competing with this gun, I’d probably just buy the appropriate Cherokee magazines.
Conclusions: I bought the Cherokee gen3 for collector purposes. As a budget carry pistol, it’s certainly adequate, albeit I think very much eclipsed by the new breed of microcompacts like the P365. But for under three bills, you’re not wasting a lot of money on it, and the broad magazine compatibility is really very nice.
BUL seems to be somewhat conflicted about the purpose of the Cherokee in their line-up these days given the lack of marketing for it – presumably the AXE Glock-alike pistols are cheaper to produce and have broader market appeal. I also don’t really see the point anymore, and it may be time to retire it for good. But as a possible last hurrah, the Cherokee gen3 is a good send-off for the line, and I’m glad they released it.
If they do happen to keep going with the Cherokee, I’d very much like to see a competition version with factory fiber optic front sight, improved trigger, optics cut, and no finger swells on the grip. It’s a pistol with potential if they choose to exercise it.
Oddly I like the opposite of you, I find the blocky profile ugly. Think Glocks, ew.
LikeLike