CZ-75 (clones) Carry

[armoredman]

I am attempting to locate the source of my information, buried in CZ-UB archives, changed computers and lost some bookmarks, but it was an announcement from the individual in charge of the PNP that they were buying CZ P-07s to equip the Force. If, as the linked article above certainly suggests, they couldn't PAY for it, that's not a problem of the supplier. No police force with money would be shorted sidearms, far too many available, and as pointed out, even in country. I think that's a finance issue, not a firearm issue.

Edit to add, here ya go,

Česká zbrojovka a.s. celebrated commercial achievements in the Philippines as well. The President of the Philippines Police Force, Mr. Jesus A Verzosa, who participated in the entire championship using the CZ 75 SP-01 Shadow pistol, finished this shooting challenge and stated that the results of the championship helped him conclude the final qualified decision as to which manufacturer should be selected to supply pistols for the Police Force of the Philippines. His words were further supported with a confirmed order for CZ 75 P-07 Duty pistols.

http://www.czub.cz/en/news/news/the...at-3-gun-championship-in-the-philippines.aspx

I researched the PNP at the time, and it stated they were issued Glocks. That was in 2009, so that is a little less than three years ago, though I thought it was a wee bit longer than that. My bad on the timing.

 

[Sam Cade]

Well, so much for the CZs PNP contract.

This is from December of 2011

As part of its modernization and Capability Enhancement Program (CEP), the PNP conducted an official bidding for 12,500 pieces of 9mm caliber pistols.---snip--
One bidder representing the CZ brand of firearms was disqualified for lack of critical documents

http://www.manilatimes.net/index.ph...makers-compete-to-supply-12000-pistols-to-pnp

 

[armoredman]

So the lowest bidder is a CZ clone manufacturer, interesting...BTW, you might want to include that this was a 12,000 pistol bid, that this was over a year AFTER the other contract was SIGNED, so it simply means that I was slightly mistaken that the government of the PI was able to afford all the guns they had contracted for in 2009. Also, please note that the name of the Director has also changed, politics can always play an ugly part of any procurement contracts. Wonder what those "critical documents" were, bribe money? Just kidding, I had fun in the PI back in the late 80s...I think, can't remember much of it.
Not sure what you have against the brand, Sam, did you have a bad experience with them in the past?

 

[Sam Cade]

Well, if you read the article carefully there wasn't any big deal made.

His words were further supported with a confirmed order for CZ 75 P-07 Duty pistols

So, the PNP bought an unknown quantity of pistols after Jesus Verzosa played with one.

Jesus Verzosa is probably going to end up in jail on corruption charges over his involvement in a CFD involving the transfer of helicopters.
If you google him, he is a pretty shady guy.

Wonder what those "critical documents" were, bribe money?

In all seriousness, probably.

Not sure what you have against the brand, Sam, did you have a bad experience with them in the past?

CZs are fine pistols for the most part, I guess.

They feel good in the hand and tend to be quite accurate but In my experience they seem to be fragile.
I had a contract over-run 75 and later an 85BD. Both of them repeatedly broke slide stops and trigger springs at very low round counts. Not exactly confidence building.


OTOH, I like my surplus 82 enough that I purchased a commercial 83.

 

[hso]

My wife and a buddy of ours have been shooting CZ 75s for years and some of that in courses cranking out nearly 1,000 rounds in a weekend. No problems from the TZs or CZs they've been shooting so we haven't seen any fragility in them.

U.S. LE purchases depend upon U.S. based operations for logistical and support stability and CZ hasn't put a "factory" in the U.S. yet. Remember that Glock built a facility in GA so they'd meet those criteria needed to win contracts in the U.S. more easily. CZ may never. (How HK makes the sidearms sales it does in spite of having no factory in the U.S. puzzles me a bit.)

 

[Walt Sherrill]

...They feel good in the hand and tend to be quite accurate but In my experience they seem to be fragile.

I had a contract over-run 75 and later an 85BD. Both of them repeatedly broke slide stops and trigger springs at very low round counts. Not exactly confidence building.

CZs have been known to break slide stops, but it's not a COMMON problem. It was also an affliction seen with Witness and Tanfoglio guns, years back, when they were the rage of IPSC for a while. If you had several breaks you were 1) unlucky, 2) had guns that were somehow out of spec, 3) were using heavier recoil springs, or 4) all of the above.

One of the biggest sources of the problem seems to be people going to heavier recoil springs to "protect" their pistols. Why is there a problem with that? A heavier recoil spring doesn't save the pistol during recoil, but it does cause the slide to slam forward with extra force as the next round is chambered -- and the slide stop is the key piece stopping that extra force.

I've put thousands and thousands of rounds through my CZs (10s of thousands through an 85 Combat), and the only slide stop I've ever broken was due to a stupid mistake on my part -- slipping an 85 Combat slide stop into a Compact frame after swapping slides, just for the fun of it.

That caused the 85 Combat slide stop to break with the second shot -- and I couldn't blame it on CZ: the end of the 85B/ 85 slide stop is smaller than the 75B or Compact slide stop (to fit the ambi lever on the far side of the 85 frame) and without that lever, the slide stop isn't supported during the firing cycle, and the barrel lug will hit it unevenly.

CZ did have a batch of bad trigger springs some years ago, and made it right after finding the cause -- springs from an outside supplier. It was a relatively easy fix, if you know how to use a pilot pin.

CZ also upgraded their extractor springs, over time. The also doubled their firing pin retention roll pins (on the B models) and later, it appears, switched to solid pins rather than roll pins. Dry-firing in the early B models could break that roll pin -- but CZ warned against dry-firing in their manuals unless using snap caps. It's not a concern with the solid pins.) When I first heard about the potential problem (of broken roll pins), I didn't believe it, and dry-fired my 75Bs a lot -- without problem. But I broke the pin in a 40B after a few hundred dry fires. The replacement part, from a local hardware store cost me $.50, but I learned to listen to folks who had learned from experience (and who had read the manual closely).

I've never heard of or encountered an 85 BD, by the way, and wonder why CZ would bother making an ambidextrous variant of a decocker model. Could that have been a 75BD? If not, you had a very unique gun.

I've never had a CZ break on me -- except for the unforced errors mentioned above. I have had a Glock trigger spring break. Go figure.

.

 

[Sam Cade]

CZs have been known to break slide stops, but it's not a COMMON problem. It was also an affliction seen with Witness and Tanfoglio guns, years back, when they were the rage of IPSC for a while. If you had several breaks you were 1) unlucky, 2) had guns that were somehow out of spec, 3) were using heavier recoil springs, or 4) all of the above.

Had to have been 1 or 2.

In any case, it was 2 different pistols having repeated failures of the same parts. My ownership of the pistols separated by about 5 years.

Could that have been a 75BD?

Typo. Mobile device after midnight.

 

[armoredman]

Odd, have had 10 CZs over the years, many, many rounds fired, (just finished a thousand count box of 124gr PHPs from Berry's last month, working on the next one), and not once have I had a slide stop break in P-01s, PCRs, RAMI, P-07, or Phantom. I bought extras once years ago for the P-01 and RAMI, just because, found them last year and moved them to safe storage. Methinks you had some seriously bad luck there.
hso, I'd love to see CZ build a factory over here, get some of the nifty ones like the CZ 122 that can't be imported, maybe make some US only CZ805 BRENs too. But I would think they would like more contracts in hand plus a better read on the political future over here.

Jesus Verzosa is probably going to end up in jail on corruption charges over his involvement in a CFD involving the transfer of helicopters

And our Attorney General should be in jail for the transfer of firearms to criminals in Mexico - show me a politician, I'll show you a bum, apologies to Maj Boyington

 

[Black Butte]

CZ's are ... are below average in reliability.

A storm is coming.

 

[horsearcherwannabe]

I have put 5K (10K?) through my stock CX-75B shooting plates & other things. I have had 2 fails to fire. Both of them had dents in the primers. I have had several fail to extracts. I also blame the ammunition for those as well. It points and shoots where I want it to. I have my GP100 under my bed so my CS rides around in the vault in my truck. I think it would be an effective tool in dealing with "zombie attack" or other criminal stupidity .

 

[jbr]

Can't speak for all the CZ's made but the Phantom i own is spot on, ultra reliable, and my favorite gun to shoot/tied with my Beretta 96 which i had to have a helluva trigger job on to shoot accurate. Great trigger, great capacity, super fast recovery. My best pistol purchase ever.

 

[Ash]

I own CZ's of multiple flavor, multiple national production, and multiple ages. I have never had a problem with any of them, including a well-worn B model (with 1st pattern roll pin in the slide for the firing pin block) that was issued to Israeli security forces. Reliability on all my current models has been as good as it gets.

 

[Philo_Beddoe]

LE agencies, especially big ones in major cities, have to train alot of recruits, some of whom have never held or even fired a gun before. They want simple, reliable, inexpensive and light wieght pistols. Striker fired poly guns fit the bill perfectly, light, no safeties or decockers to fumble with, inexpensive and reliable.

That being said, imo, those guns have their limitations, the trigger on a striker gun will never match that of a tuned hammer fired one, and for competition shooting their ergonomics and accuracy leave a bit to be desired.

CZ's, like 1911's are a bit more "refined" as we might say. Heavy steel guns that with some tuning are almost unmatched which is why those two designs basically dominate IPSC shooting, 1911's here and CZ's (and clones) in Europe.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

CZs were not even widely available in the US until the establishment of CZ-USA in 1997. To my knowledge, CZ-USA has not pursued US LE sales, at least to the degree that others have, notably Glock. These two factors alone work against their being used on a large scale by US LE. But, does this really matter? Not to me, it doesn't.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

It helps to understand a little of the history behind CZ.

During the Cold War, CZ weapons were basically embargoed in the West, with a small number being exported to Germany, Canada, and a few other countries.

Before the fall of International Communism (the Soviet Bloc), the Communist goverments (economists) controlled all of the economies centrally. They weren't allowed to sell efficiently or even to build efficiently. There were two factories building CZ weapons. Toward the end, the one NOW building the CZ handguns was converted to build heavy equipment and motorcycles. (The CZ-52 handgun and VZ-52 semi-auto rifle, along with the CZ-50 and 70 were all designed and built by the long-gun arm, and had only modest links to the current factory or personnel.)

A chief designer/engineer from CZ defected to the West and brought with him the specs for the CZ-75 pistol. Italy's Tanfoglio started building CZs under their own name, basically STEALING the design. The early Tanfoglio models were true clones of the CZ design. Over time, Tanfoglio started making changes, but they're still generally the same design.

With the fall of the Soviet Union -- which had indirect control over much of Communist Europe, CZ had to become an independent business, and capital (money) to operate was hard to come by, so they' basically had to start dover from scratch -- without the massive amounts of money available to companies in the West. They had no track record to impress the western bankers, so they've had to grow slowly.

CZ builds a number of good guns, and they've been very innovative -- with new designs and a lot of innovations. But they can't, yet, afford to set up a factory in the US, and that greatly limits their ability to sell to the U.S. Military or police departments. Word of mouth seems to be their biggest advertisement, nowadays, and they're doing a good job of it.

Note: any gun built (or assembled) in the Czech Republic can legally be called a CZ (which simply meant "made in Czechoslovakia" and now "made in Czech Republic.") Early on some guns built mostly by Tanfoglio were assembled in the Czech Republic, but sold as CZs. We've all seen these guns in the CDNN catalogs as the TT-series, imported by ADCO. Basically similar to the Tanfoglio guns and similar guns sold as Baby Eagles, or Davids, etc.

CZ is still a relatively small company, but growing, and doing a lot of things right despite the economic chaos in Europe. The fact that they're still putting out new models in such trying times is impressive.

 

[Okiegunner]

CZ Clone

Walt,

I for one certainly appreciate your knowledge of the CZ-75 design. As I have posted earlier, I have the Tanfoglio Force. Out of all my handguns, nothing points better.

It does not nescessarily shoot the best, but certainly points center of mass better and really fits my hand. I have owned mine for a relatively brief amount of time (at this point maybe 500 rounds thru it) DA, still a little heavy, SA very nice.

I read that a lot of people knock the Tanfoglio. Not really sure why. I have a new pistol, fired probably 500 rounds and have had 2 ftf. This is using the really blunt nose federal target ammo.

Gun brackets well, especially at about 25 Feet or less. Hey...I am not the best shot around, but 25 feet would seem to be about right for most situations.

Anyhow, funds permitting a true CZ-75 would be nice. Until then, this wonderfinished Tanfoglio (for me) will work nicely!

Gunner

 

[Ash]

I'm not sure about how Italy got the drawings/info for the CZ. I do know that in the mid 1980's, before Action Arms began importing the 75, ITM manufactured a small number of them for CZ. These will be marked as a pre B 75 except for "Made in Switzerland" on the frame. They were not made long, and the CZ/ITM relationship soured. ITM simply took either the parts they had on hand, or continued to manufacture them anew, and made the AT-84. Mine is merely a re-stamped CZ75 (even the CZ date mark behind the extractor is stamped over with the ITM markings). ITM did switch over to using Tanfoglio parts and assemblies later.

Tanfoglio began building their take on the CZ, using the slide-mounted safety and funky milling about this time (I doubt there was any relationship between them). Earliest Tanfoglio products (especially those made by Guiseppe Tanfoglio and not the brothers) still incorporated the magazine brake in their design. Whether it was some grumpy Czech or perhaps the Swiss who shared the design, or if simply they acquired a couple of pieces and reverse-engineered, who can say?

In any case, a majority of early CZ-75's were made by Agrozet as the UB factory had been incorporated in that state-run enterprise. The CZ logo was used, but the company was Agrozet (though it matters little who owns the factory if the workers, equipment, and location do not change).

Ash

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Some CZs got to the West during the Cold War, and many GIs picked up customized CZ from German sources, sold through the base/post exchange. Still others were exported to Canada and the earliest to hit the US came from our Northern border.

ITM apparently made some guns under license from CZ. I've got an early AT-84s which seems to be a close copy of the CZ, even though the earlier AT-84 (and not the 84s) is supposed to be the true clone. The AT-84s was supposedly built on Tanfoglio-made components. The three I've had were fine guns, and I wouldn't hesitate to pick up another if I stumbled on one. (I have a custom AT-84s, now, supposedly built by Jim Borland, a big-name IPSC gunsmith from the '80s and '90, and it is my favorite gun. I have no documentation proving his work, however, so its a "hopeful" JB gun.)

The best of the clones is arguably the Sphinx, and I've had two. They are semi-custom versions of the CZ, but evolved so that they are neither a true clone of the CZ, nor a variant of the Tanfoglio design. They're apparently getting ready to re-export to the US, and they're pricey.

Another excellent clone is the ASAI ONE-PRO -- brought into the US by Magnum Research, some years back -- and no longer made. The only ones I've seen (and the one I've owned) were all .45s; that gun had the smoothest, sweetest DA/SA trigger I've ever encountered in a factory gun. It was, in fact, too smooth and light for me and I sold mine. I've since tried to find another, and haven't found one I can afford.

Wikipedia has a pretty good history of the CZ-75 and the firm, and the Fjestad Book of Gun Values has a fairly complete firm history as well.

I was looking for the source for my statement about the plans being taken to Italy by a defecting CZ employee, but couldn't find it -- so it may be, as suggested by an earlier poster, that the gun was simply reverse-engineered in the West. Tanfoglio has made some changes to the design that seem quite good, and their firing pin block design is arguably better.

The FAQ area of the CZ Forum http://www.czfirearms.us/index.php?board=1.0 has a lot of info, some directly from CZ.

 

[dom1104]

This is what you have to understand.

THR is the bastion of CZ support on the internet.

Armoredman, practically works for them.

You will find many MANY CZ lovers here, and very few people who dislike them.

Their advertising is very deceptive, in a eastern european type of "Free with the facts" way.

Not that that should sway you as to wether or not to buy a pistol.


The upsides are, its a DA / SA gun with potentially a very good trigger.

The downsides are, its a very heavy gun, with a very small slide to get a grip on.

 

[wkumatt]

Their advertising is very deceptive, in a eastern european type of "Free with the facts" way.

I find this to be a very bold statement sir. Would you be so kind as to provide an example of what you're referencing?

Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk

 

[Pilot]

The upsides are, its a DA / SA gun with potentially a very good trigger.

The downsides are, its a very heavy gun, with a very small slide to get a grip on

I have many other pistols besides those from CZ, but I do like them. CZ makes a broad line of pistols, some all steel and relatively "heavy" but also many are either lightweight aluminum alloy or polymer framed and comparable in weight to similar guns from other companies. For a range gun, or sometimes even carry, I prefer a heavier, all steel gun for stability and recoil management. Not everyone wants a lighter weight gun.

As for the small slide, I've never had nor heard of much problems getting a grip on them nor racking the slide. The slide is designed to have a low bore axis which far outweighs any issues with the ability to grip them.

Also some CZ's aren't DA/SA, they have SA only pistols and many of their DA/SA pistols are designed so that they can be carried either DA/SA or SA, cocked and locked.

Take a look at their website, and you will see a wide variety.

http://www.cz-usa.com

 

[ATLDave]

I think the small slide can be an issue for those who use the hand-over racking approach, as opposed to the thumb/forefinger slingshot racking technique. For the latter, I think it's a non-issue. The same could be said of the Beretta and Taurus open-slide designs.

I would also agree that heavier makes for worse carry but better shooting. I believe that the practical shooting sports have upper, but not lower, weight limits on their guns.

As for upsides, I would add that the low bore seems to reduce muzzle flip for some shooters, and the controls have the classic JMB configuration. If you get a non-decocker model, you can ride the safety just as you would with a 1911, and you can carry in Condition One if you so prefer.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

...Their advertising is very deceptive, in a eastern european type of "Free with the facts" way.

I find this to be a very bold statement sir. Would you be so kind as to provide an example of what you're referencing?

His assertion is also a bold statement that could be seen to be "free with the facts" in an eastern european way. I haven't found examples of OTHER such "bold statements" on the part of CZ. The first poster, above, is arguably committing the same sin he condemns.

That said, CZ's claim that the CZ-75 is the "most widely used" handgun in police or military service artfully suggests that CZ also has the greatest number of weapons in service around the world -- which is clearly NOT the case.

Most widely-used does not mean most used.

I'm a CZ fan, a long-time member of the original CZ Forum, and once served there as chief moderator for a number of years. We did our best to search for the answers and proofs for this claim, and we never found them. There is still a FAQ segment on that site with a summary of our earlier findings, with my name attached; it's now getting stale, as it hasn't been undated, but it's worth a look.

If anyone can cite evidence or facts to the contrary, supporting the CZ claim on their website, several of us will be happy to acknowledge our error and do what we can to spread the good word.

As I've said before: they're great guns and you could do a lot worse. But, I have other guns, too.

 

[dom1104]

I agree with you Pilot, their line is impressive.

But I thought we were talking about the CZ-75 in its original form?

Maybe I am wrong.

If the conversation included the new-ish poly guns, and the p01-p06 I agree with you completly.

As far as the low bore axis I do have to disagree with you there, the bore axis is actually very high, higher than a 1911 or a Glock. by 1/4 to 1/2 inches higher than other pistols. It LOOKS lower, but in reality is quite high.

One of the highest bore axis outside of Beretta.

Not that Bore Axis really means anything, and is mostly a marketing thing.

A gun is either shootable or not, and CZs are very shootable.

I have owned 6 CZ pistols in my life, and to the guy who thinks CZs marketting isnt a little over the top....

Here is a blurb from the P-01.

"The P-01 is the only NATO spec pistol on the market that is available to the public. After 3 years of the most aggressive small arms testing ever by any manufacturer for any pistol, the CZ P-01 won the honor of replacing the CZ 75's previously used by the Czech National Police."

The ONLY Nato spec pistol?

the MOST aggressive small arms testing EVER?

By ANY manufacturer for ANY pistol?

The honor of replacing a ... pistol from the same company, which happens to be a national asset to the country that accepted it......

THAT must have been a hard contest to win.

Its just.. a wee bit goofy on the marketting level.


Frankly I would still own them, but for what I do, which is IDPA, USPSA, and CCW AIWB style,


The 1911 fits my needs better.

I can shoot it faster, reload it faster, its not DA / SA, and it carries without jabbin me in the niblets with a really sharp beavertail.

So I sold em.

I will say, they were all totally reliable, and I did not have any issues shooting them in gun games, other than trying to make weight with the heavier pistols, decocking issues, and my experiances do NOT mirror this turkey of a CZ thread which I assume all you old timer CZ guys remember.


http://pistol-training.com/archives/3218

 

[wkumatt]

The ONLY Nato spec pistol?

the MOST aggressive small arms testing EVER?

By ANY manufacturer for ANY pistol?

The honor of replacing a ... pistol from the same company, which happens to be a national asset to the country that accepted it......

THAT must have been a hard contest to win.

OK, thanks for the example. I agree that is over the top without some proof.

When I saw, "deceptive" it had me thinking more along the lines of lying about materials, specs, or something more tangible.

That's the kind of stuff you see quite a bit from many industries. More along the lines of, "The most dependable, longest lasting, best reselling, most fuel efficient, good looking trucks on the road."



Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk