Glock Talk banner
41 - 60 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
I love both of mine and it’s hard to pick a favorite. If I had to choose a slight nod would go to the all steel P01. View attachment 1114424
I'm really liking what I'm seeing here guys. I put CZ on the back burner in my mind, and now I'm getting that curiosity back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
This is completely subjective, but I do have one beef with CZ in particular that is a complete and utter deal breaker. The CZ pistols with the beavertail that sweeps upward are THE most comfortable handguns I have ever felt without exception. Nothing—and I mean NOTHING—has ever felt as good in my hands (we're talking firearms, guys). That said, I cannot stomach the feel of a CZ with the downward arching beavertail (the so-called flagship models). It's easier to identify them in the full-size CZ 75 pistols, but there is a difference with the compact pistols as well:

White Trigger Air gun Line Gun barrel

Trigger Air gun Line Gun barrel Gun accessory

The P07 and P09 are both good to go...

Air gun Trigger Line Gun barrel Gun accessory


My hands naturally ride very high on a pistol. I have to use the beavertail for Glocks or I get slide bite. When it comes to SIGs, I have to have an extended beavertail like on an Elite or Legion pistol or else it is too uncomfortable shooting. For me hands, I held both CZ's beavertails and I would only buy the higher one (if that makes sense). I mention it for those who might have similarly shaped hands. To me they are very different feeling pistols. One is the world's most comfortable handgun (for me). The other is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cambo

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
I noticed the following on CZ's website pertaining to the CZ 75 P-01 Convertible Omega compact pistol. Note, in my opinion they apparently meant to write MRBS (Mean Rounds Between Stoppage) and not MRBF (Mean Rounds Between Failure). The MHS MRBS goal was 2,000 rounds (which the XM17/18 did NOT meet) and the MRBF requirement was 5,000 rounds (having a 95 percent probability of completing a 96-hour mission without a failure). I also think they mistyped "495" as the MRBF goal as that is too low for either MRBF or MRBS. If anyone knows more, please share.

CZ says the following:
"Reliability: The U.S. Army “Mean Rounds Between Failure” (MRBF) requirement is 495 rounds for 9mm pistols. During testing of the CZ P-01, the average number of stoppages was only 7 per 15,000 rounds fired. This is a .05% failure rate or an MRBF [MRBS] of 2142! For many years, the P-01 carried an NSN engraved on its frame, making it the first NATO-spec pistol ever available to the public. Recently, the factory decided to upgrade the slide stop spring which in turn means the current models may or may not carry an NSN."

The CZ as I understand it is "NATO certified" (that's what I've read, but I have never looked for any documentation to verify that), and I can only imagine the SIG XM17 & XM18 are not, but I don't know for sure. Read on as this comes right from the Department of Defense...

During the MHS PVT (product verification testing), the XM17 and XM18, with special purpose
munition (HP ammo)
, met its requirement for both MRBF and MRBS:
- The XM17 demonstrated 8,929 MRBF (99 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 8,333 MRBF (99 percent
probability)
- The XM17 demonstrated 1,923 MRBS (95 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 2,155 MRBS (96 percent
probability)

• However, during the MHS PVT, the XM17 with ball ammunition (standard issue) met its
requirement for MRBF but not its requirement for MRBS.
The XM18 with ball ammunition did not meet its [5000-round] MRBF or
[2000-round] MRBS requirement.

- The XM17 demonstrated 6,944 MRBF (99 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 3,906 MRBF (98 percent
probability)
- The XM17 demonstrated 343 MRBS (75 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 197 MRBS (61 percent
probability)

The XM17 & XM18 failed cycling ball ammo miserably. As the DOD summed up, "Neither weapon met the MRBS reliability requirement of 2,000 MRBS and a 95 percent probability of completing a 96-hour mission without a stoppage."

CZ should have participated in MHS. Maybe not the P-01 lacking modularity, but perhaps the P-09 and P-07 would have fared better. I guess we'll never know.

Ps. If it sounds like I am picking on SIG, I am. Sorry. But this is discussing the MHS results. For all I know the XM17/18 meets all of the MRBF and MRBS goals now (but to my knowledge that has never been verified by the army publically according to the DOD updates).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
922 Posts
It’s not the worst reset or even as bad as you make it sound. You just wait for every opportunity to bash CZ for some reason I don’t understand. Your post are misleading for future buyers potentially causing them to miss out on a fantastic pistol. It’s still incredibly accurate and beyond reliable. If someone is a trigger snob they can get a Cajun kit for it. I have their kit on mine and it’s fantastic.

The video from Honest Outlaw has the dude literally stating his P-07 is worked over to improve the trigger.

I have owned an SP-01 Tactical. Remember when everyone talked about how great they were? I bought. Worst trigger reset of all guns I own, and I own most. Now the SP-01 is almost never brought up. It turned out to be my biggest disappointment to internet hype followed by my Colt Python.

I bought a P-09. Again. Worst trigger reset. This was the gen2 Duty version too.

Is it possible that my interest in the Shadow 2 proves I understand there is a difference in the Shadow 2 and the "duty" guns triggers?

If you disagree, feel free to post up a trigger system that has a longer reset than the CZ P-01 or P-09/P07. If you can't, you're just annoyed I responded with info.

I love Walther. I'll throw the PDP under the buss for being huge any chance I get.

Let's be real for a minute. The CZ "duty" guns have crap triggers. That you can buy cajun stuff is great, but that increases costs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,757 Posts
The video from Honest Outlaw has the dude literally stating his P-07 is worked over to improve the trigger.

I have owned an SP-01 Tactical. Remember when everyone talked about how great they were? I bought. Worst trigger reset of all guns I own, and I own most. Now the SP-01 is almost never brought up. It turned out to be my biggest disappointment to internet hype followed by my Colt Python.

I bought a P-09. Again. Worst trigger reset. This was the gen2 Duty version too.

Is it possible that my interest in the Shadow 2 proves I understand there is a difference in the Shadow 2 and the "duty" guns triggers?

If you disagree, feel free to post up a trigger system that has a longer reset than the CZ P-01 or P-09/P07. If you can't, you're just annoyed I responded with info.

I love Walther. I'll throw the PDP under the buss for being huge any chance I get.

Let's be real for a minute. The CZ "duty" guns have crap triggers. That you can buy cajun stuff is great, but that increases costs.
If people with your wants, needs, and perspective were CZ's primary market, they probably would listen to and change their trigger system. I've heard that because they market this as a duty/service pistol, they design the hammer with much greater resistance to accidental discharge by giving it larger than necessary hooks. This makes it less than ideal out-of-the-box for competition.

That's where cajun or CZ Custom steps in. They sell a different product based on the same platform that is designed and built with the competitor in mind. Look at the price of the P01 you buy direct of CGW, it’s much higher. Quality control is much, much higher - to a level that would increase the price of a CZ Pistol two or three fold if it were instituted on a factory-wide level. They can afford much smaller tolerances, because they don't produce tens of thousands of pistols every year. If CZ-UB did this, some of the guns on the lower end of the bell curve would have hammer hooks that would eventually fail, resulting in accidental discharge.

You’re wanting a competition trigger on a CARRY gun which makes no sense and would put then CZ in a bad light with ADs (like Sig) even if they’re not at fault (like Sig)

I own 2 PDPs and they are great but their triggers are to light for carry imo. The fact that you are considering a shadow 2 is mind blowing to me since you’ve spent the better part of a year or more bashing them. All you have to do is go back through your post and see you live for bashing CZ. I think the fact that the P01 is known as one of the best carry guns of all time and most reliable speaks volumes about it. I’m not riding the reset and speed shooting with an IWB pistol. I want a safe/reliable and ergonomic pistol.

You mention HonestOutlaw and I’m glad you did. I actually respect his reviews and if you watch them all you’ll see that the p07 and p01 are his “babies” and he considers them to be the standard of which he measures other carry pistols. He also is a tinkerer and installs trigger kits on many of his pistols. The fact that he thinks that is one of the best of all time but owns MANY high end pistols again speaks volumes.

I believe you want a staccato like carry pistol (which is fine) out of standard price combat pistol. Also if you notice your post bashing CZ generally receive zero like or are disagreed with. This is a Glock site so brand loyalty should be taken out of that statement.

People are entitled to their opinions but clearly you are and have been (especially since many on here know you for this) grasping at straws to bash CZ. I don’t understand why you loathe the company so much. It’s fine because your opinion is yours and clearly yours alone but if you want high end boutique style pistols you should stick to that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
922 Posts
Yeah. But I've owned one of pistols in question. That means I have an informed experience to listen to. Another person said the same thing on reset. Do you own or ever own a P-09 or P-07?

You still have not given a trigger that is worse out of the box than a cz "duty" gun. They are horrible. Heavy DA. HUGE reset, unknown break. Come on man. What trigger is worse that I can buy today?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,203 Posts
I think the fact that the P01 is known as one of the best carry guns of all time and most reliable speaks volumes about it. I’m not riding the reset and speed shooting with an IWB pistol. I want a safe/reliable and ergonomic pistol.
Agree with you completely. I also carry a P01 when the Texas weather permits and feel that is an excellent reliable choice. In a good leather holster is so comfortable to carry and being Glock 19 size makes it very easy to conceal.

As for the basher, ignore him. He should just go where the better shooters are and see for himself how CZ is a top presence in both IDPA and USPSA. This is a brand chosen by top competitors all over the world, so don’t let somebody who probably blames the trigger for shooting low and left distract you.

A couple of screenshots it took me a minute to find. If you want to shoot competition and spend less than $2k for a gun you would be in very good company.


Light Product Font Screenshot Advertising

Product Orange Font Line Screenshot
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cambo

·
Registered
Joined
·
922 Posts
It's not top shooter for a P-01 though.

See the difference of me asking which TOP CZ to buy vs the current discussion which is NOT their top line guns.

I'm not bashing, I'm actually pointing out there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in the line and people aren't allowing that to be true. A CZ Shadow that probably is 100% of the above is not a P-07.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,203 Posts
“People aren’t allowing that to be true?“ What planet you leave in?

People disagree with you and they do it backed by facts. CZ is perfectly able to produce excellent guns for military police and personal defense use and others that are use by scores of M and GM level shooters amongst others.

their quality has been going up in recent years, not down which is significant in a world made of cheaply made parts and cost cutting mentality.

Skip them entirely, get yourself something real good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,934 Posts
The Sig P220 series used to have pretty crappy triggers IMO, with heavy DA and long resets.
People would change out the trigger to a short reset and change springs to lower pull weight.

Oh wait similar to what we ae talking about here!
They also where DUTY guns....

Then there was the horrible trigger with terrible reset of the classic Browning Hi Power.
Another service gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,757 Posts
I forgot to add in regard to the PDP comment. While I own 2, I feel the CZ P10 series is a far better platform. The trigger has a pretty short reset which you seem to crave. It also has a lower bore axis and a substantially softer felt recoil and almost no muzzle flip.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
Yeah. But I've owned one of pistols in question. That means I have an informed experience to listen to. Another person said the same thing on reset. Do you own or ever own a P-09 or P-07?

You still have not given a trigger that is worse out of the box than a cz "duty" gun. They are horrible. Heavy DA. HUGE reset, unknown break. Come on man. What trigger is worse that I can buy today?
What you're forgetting is that everyone's hands are different. Just because you struggle so much with a factory duty carry CZ does not mean everyone else does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cambo

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
I forgot to add in regard to the PDP comment. While I own 2, I feel the CZ P10 series is a far better platform. The trigger has a pretty short reset which you seem to crave. It also has a lower bore axis and a substantially softer felt recoil and almost no muzzle flip.
I agree. You have to wonder why Walther and SIG (P320) have such high bore axis which are completely unnecessary and undesirable for a striker-fired pistol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,757 Posts
I agree. You have to wonder why Walther and SIG (P320) have such high bore axis which are completely unnecessary and undesirable for a striker-fired pistol.
It doesn’t make any sense. The PDP really is a good platform. It’s just not as good as the p10. Unless all you care about is a sub 5 pound trigger. The p10 series really does shoot circles around almost all other polymer pistols.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,409 Posts
The video from Honest Outlaw has the dude literally stating his P-07 is worked over to improve the trigger.

I have owned an SP-01 Tactical. Remember when everyone talked about how great they were? I bought. Worst trigger reset of all guns I own, and I own most. Now the SP-01 is almost never brought up. It turned out to be my biggest disappointment to internet hype followed by my Colt Python.

I bought a P-09. Again. Worst trigger reset. This was the gen2 Duty version too.

Is it possible that my interest in the Shadow 2 proves I understand there is a difference in the Shadow 2 and the "duty" guns triggers?

If you disagree, feel free to post up a trigger system that has a longer reset than the CZ P-01 or P-09/P07. If you can't, you're just annoyed I responded with info.

I love Walther. I'll throw the PDP under the buss for being huge any chance I get.

Let's be real for a minute. The CZ "duty" guns have crap triggers. That you can buy cajun stuff is great, but that increases costs.
What?!!!

A CZ competition specific gun has much better trigger pull than a CZ duty gun?????!!!!

What’s next? The competition specific gun will also have better accuracy too?

Stupid CZ for not selling to civilians nothing but competition guns.

As far as “duty” guns go, CZ trigger reset is fine. More than fine. Show me where CZ duty guns’ trigger reset affects shooting in any meaningful way when used as intended.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
It doesn’t make any sense. The PDP really is a good platform. It’s just not as good as the p10. Unless all you care about is a sub 5 pound trigger. The p10 series really does shoot circles around almost all other polymer pistols.
In my opinion—and that's all I am claiming—the gun industry uses a point system far more extensive than the ATF's alleged system for imports. There's something called "anti-competitive practices" that I learned about in my MBA class on ethics. Virtually every market is doing this. They form what are called oligopolies which are similar to monopolies, but instead of one company cornering the market, 2 or more companies (typically up to 50 but sometimes far more) engage in anti-competitive behaviors where they secretly negotiate different aspects of production, price and set manufacturing thresholds. It's completely illegal, but just in a two year period hundreds of mid level executives were convicted of this in markets ranging from banks to consumer electronics.

The idea is that if the companies all agree to keep their products comparable (including price), they all can maximize profits together, and they do this by keeping other competition out. I remember my textbook was a little cryptic. They wouldn't come right out and say what they would do to competitors who entered the market and truly tried to compete (offering a better product), but it simply said oligopolies used a number of methods to destroy the competition. THAT is what I think is going on with pistol manufacturers which lack features or have characteristics that are undesirable.

They score points in some ways and lose them in others. They build a high bore axis in the case of a P320 or PDP/PPQ, but then they gain them in other ways (e.g. superior trigger, standard night sights, military contracts, etc. That also explains why the SIG won. I know there are quite a few P320 fans that refuse to see it, but there is no question the P320 should never have been anywhere near winning that contract, especially with the drop safety failure. But a military contract can go a long way to promote the popularity of a pistol, just like other attributes such as a low bore axis, ambi controls. I wouldn't be surprised that, even with ambi controls, S&W saved points with their slide stops not being symmetrical to one another (the one on the right side of the pistol is further forward).

I actually got the idea before I went back to grad school when I was involved with product management for a Fortune 500 consumer electronics company. Later, as a gun enthusiast, I made my own chart of comparable pistols I was interested in. I listed all the features for comparison including impressions on ergonomics and weighted all the attributes according to how important they were to me. When I tallied the points up, all the pistols were amazingly close together. The nail in the coffin was that class and the fact that manufacturers still build pistols either lacking features everyone wants (metal or metal night sights, low bore axis, etc.).

Like most industries these days, the firearms industry in my opinion is a cartel. There is no such thing as a truly competitive free market. It all works this way in my opinion, but if people don't believe me, the convictions speak for themselves. Although I am not aware of any firearm company executives going to prison, that doesn't mean they haven't. Moreover, my textbook even mentioned that they suspected companies like S&W and Ruger were engaging in anti-competitive practices. So anytime you scratch your head and wonder "Why did they do this?" or "Why didn't they do that?", chances are, it makes sense through the lens of an oligopoly using a point system.

After all, why should a serrated trigger on a Glock have anything to do with the ATF's import points as directed by the gun control act of 1968? No one can convince me that the difference between having a serrated trigger and not having one is helpful to law enforcement or saves lives, but remember, that is all the act was meant to do. In fact, here is the exact wordage:

"PURPOSE

"Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title."

Somehow a serrated trigger does not appear to be under the purview of said act, but they get away with it anyway. I once wrote to the ATF many years ago to ask them about the serrated trigger specifically. They ignored my letter and never responded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,757 Posts
In my opinion—and that's all I am claiming—the gun industry uses a point system far more extensive than the ATF's alleged system for imports. There's something called "anti-competitive practices" that I learned about in my MBA class on ethics. Virtually every market is doing this. They form what are called oligopolies which are similar to monopolies, but instead of one company cornering the market, 2 or more companies (typically up to 50 but sometimes far more) engage in anti-competitive behaviors where they secretly negotiate different aspects of production, price and set manufacturing thresholds. It's completely illegal, but just in a two year period hundreds of mid level executives were convicted of this in markets ranging from banks to consumer electronics.

The idea is that if the companies all agree to keep their products comparable (including price), they all can maximize profits together, and they do this by keeping other competition out. I remember my textbook was a little cryptic. They wouldn't come right out and say what they would do to competitors who entered the market and truly tried to compete (offering a better product), but it simply said oligopolies used a number of methods to destroy the competition. THAT is what I think is going on with pistol manufacturers which lack features or have characteristics that are undesirable.

They score points in some ways and lose them in others. They build a high bore axis in the case of a P320 or PDP/PPQ, but then they gain them in other ways (e.g. superior trigger, standard night sights, military contracts, etc. That also explains why the SIG won. I know there are quite a few P320 fans that refuse to see it, but there is no question the P320 should never have been anywhere near winning that contract, especially with the drop safety failure. But a military contract can go a long way to promote the popularity of a pistol, just like other attributes such as a low bore axis, ambi controls. I wouldn't be surprised that, even with ambi controls, S&W saved points with their slide stops not being symmetrical to one another (the one on the right side of the pistol is further forward).

I actually got the idea before I went back to grad school when I was involved with product management for a Fortune 500 consumer electronics company. Later, as a gun enthusiast, I made my own chart of comparable pistols I was interested in. I listed all the features for comparison including impressions on ergonomics and weighted all the attributes according to how important they were to me. When I tallied the points up, all the pistols were amazingly close together. The nail in the coffin was that class and the fact that manufacturers still build pistols either lacking features everyone wants (metal or metal night sights, low bore axis, etc.).

Like most industries these days, the firearms industry in my opinion is a cartel. There is no such thing as a truly competitive free market. It all works this way in my opinion, but if people don't believe me, the convictions speak for themselves. Although I am not aware of any firearm company executives going to prison, that doesn't mean they haven't. Moreover, my textbook even mentioned that they suspected companies like S&W and Ruger were engaging in anti-competitive practices. So anytime you scratch your head and wonder "Why did they do this?" or "Why didn't they do that?", chances are, it makes sense through the lens of an oligopoly using a point system.

After all, why should a serrated trigger on a Glock have anything to do with the ATF's import points as directed by the gun control act of 1968? No one can convince me that the difference between having a serrated trigger and not having one is helpful to law enforcement or saves lives, but remember, that is all the act was meant to do. In fact, here is the exact wordage:

"PURPOSE

"Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title."

Somehow a serrated trigger does not appear to be under the purview of said act, but they get away with it anyway. I once wrote to the ATF many years ago to ask them about the serrated trigger specifically. They ignored my letter and never responded.
As crazy as it seems, your logic is sound. Nothing really surprises me anymore after the last few years. This might keep me up tonight thinking about what you said lmao. I might have to make my own chart tomorrow. 🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: BDM71

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,203 Posts
The idea is that if the companies all agree to keep their products comparable (including price), they all can maximize profits together, and they do this by keeping other competition out.
I think the overarching logic of your post is far fetched, since a) disruptive players with comparable sound products do emerge and succeed (Canik anyone?) enough to disrupt the marketplace if that were true. And b) because some of your conclusions are completely unsupported.

You state
there is no question the P320 should never have been anywhere near winning that contract, especially with the drop safety failure.
But that is your opinion, unless you can prove demonstrable failures on the part of the Army in selecting a firearm that had a problem when released and that by the time it was evaluated by the Army had corrected it.

Also, what are the amazing improvements the manufacturers are conspiring to keep away form the marketplace?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 45caldan
41 - 60 of 63 Posts
Top