CZ P-01 and CZ PCR
- Thread starter Jaywalker
- Start date
- Status
Walt Sherrill
Member
Newer versions of the PCR share many of the P-01 features, including a forged frame -- but the frames are different (as the PCR doesn't have an accessory rail). There are other differences, like sights, etc. I think the older PCRs might be a bit slimmer than the newer ones, but there's not a big difference.
"NATO acceptance" is more a marketing point than a true weapons issue -- as nearly every NATO member nations picks their weapons based on their own issues, where they are made, etc. I don't think any of the major makers (Glock, SIG, H&K, FN, etc.) claim "NATO acceptance" -- nor have they concerned themselves great;u with NATO acceptance standards or specs. About the only thing these weapons or makers have in common are certain calibers -- which is more a logistical concern than a functional one.
"NATO acceptance" is more a marketing point than a true weapons issue -- as nearly every NATO member nations picks their weapons based on their own issues, where they are made, etc. I don't think any of the major makers (Glock, SIG, H&K, FN, etc.) claim "NATO acceptance" -- nor have they concerned themselves great;u with NATO acceptance standards or specs. About the only thing these weapons or makers have in common are certain calibers -- which is more a logistical concern than a functional one.
I understand the marketing aspect of their claims, but it appears they did make some changes to the P-01 build that might have included metallurgy. It would be nice to see which, if any, changes flowed through to the other models. I prefer the no-rail version, the PCR, personally.
Walt Sherrill
Member
No problems -- just enhancements.
Improved production methods make these newer models more consistent in their machining, requiring little or no hand-fitting, and easier replacement, when parts must be changed.
Nearly all of the 75B-based guns (except the polymer models and those using the Omega system) have essentially the same internal mechanism. I suspect all of the their models will eventually benefit for these production changes.
Improved production methods make these newer models more consistent in their machining, requiring little or no hand-fitting, and easier replacement, when parts must be changed.
Nearly all of the 75B-based guns (except the polymer models and those using the Omega system) have essentially the same internal mechanism. I suspect all of the their models will eventually benefit for these production changes.
The Lone Haranguer
Member
Looking at CZ-USA's site, it doesn't say anything about the PCR being "NATO-spec" or "NATO approved." http://www.cz-usa.com/products/view/cz-75-d-pcr-compact/ It wasn't intended as the Czech military sidearm, but for the Czech national police. But, personally, this doesn't matter to me.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,308
Whether the P-01 is NATO approved or not wouldn't make a bit of difference to me anyways. I liked the design of the gun and the way it felt in my hand when I picked it for the first time.
It sounds to me as if the P-01 had to be changed in order to meet a 2,000 mean rounds between failure. That's a pretty low bar, IMO, and the fact it couldn't meet it originally does mean something. So, unless the P-01 changes flowed through to the PCR and other models, it implies the other models can't/won't go 2,000 MRBF. That's a pretty high price to pay for a pistol that just feels good in your hand, I think, when other makes can meet that test.
Don't get me wrong - I'm looking for a reason to buy a PCR, but it needs to be more than just the model's feel.
Don't get me wrong - I'm looking for a reason to buy a PCR, but it needs to be more than just the model's feel.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Jaywalker said:
Seems to me that you've jumped to a conclusion about MRBF being the driving force behind production changes. I've seen nothing to support THAT conclusion. Alloy-framed CZs are not known for frame failures, and the steel models have a long history of police use in the Middle East and South Africa, and military use in Israel. As noted below, internally, they're almost identical.
CZ's first PCRs, developed and put into use BEFORE being sold for export, were developed for the Police of the Czech Republic; those early, first guns apparently had some frame failures, and CZ immediately improved the design.
When CZ developed the P-01, they used Czech State-police dictated standards for the design and subsequent testing; they apparently ended up with a very hardy weapon -- one that later gained the NATO certification. There was, as best I can tell, no strenuous testing required for NATO approval. (I've not heard or read of any NATO testing required for any weapon used by NATO member nations.)
Recent changes to the P-01 include, it appears, some enhanced production methods which allow greater consistency in parts sizing, making fitting or hand work less necessary during manufacture or later repair. That's a nice enhancement that would be appropriate for guns that might have to be worked on by armorers in the field, as can be the case in military applications.
The newest PCRs now have a forged frame, like the P-01; that was NOT the case in the past.
Since most CZs (except those with the Omega trigger system) share most key internal parts, it would only make sense for CZ to use the same "new" production lines to create parts for the PCR, too. I don't know that IS the case, but it's not nearly as big a leap to a conclusion as yours, above.
I don't think anyone in this chain of messages has claimed that PCRs are NATO-approved weapons. I don't know where THAT "red-herring" came from. As for reasons to buy a PCR? The PCR is slightly slimmer up front than the P-01, and a bit lighter (slightly less metal in the frame, since there's no accessory rail) -- both meaningful issues if you carry your weapon concealed. Some feel the PCR has better (Novak-style) sights.
That said, I don't like decocker guns, so I've never been interested. The new version (P-02?) with a SAFETY and an alloy frame is more to my liking. I'm curous about the P-07 and P-09 models, too -- I've only SEEN pictures of them.
.
Last edited:
Walt,
I can agree that I assumed the P-01 changes were marketing-based. I can also agree that the PCR is not a NATO-approved weapon, whatever that might mean. I can also agree that I assumed the changes in the P-01 design was based upon a desire to improve reliability or "produce-ability," as it were. I don't believe any production changes are considered without at least a pro-forma consideration of its effect of other related issues.
While it seems that most production changes in today's firearms seem to lead towards improving production costs (see discussions on current S&W M&P9 accuracy, Glock late Gen 3 and Gen 4 reliability, etc.), it appears that CZ actually spent more on its production (though that is indeed an assumption). I agree I did draw a conclusion from this observation - that it was done to improve long-term reliability. (There didn't seem to be any problems with its short-term reliability, and they did continue to market the improved MTBF figures, IIRC.)
So, yes, I did follow a chain of reasoning here, but I don't believe it was unreasonable. Let me ask: do you believe the changes had no beneficial effect on reliability?
I can agree that I assumed the P-01 changes were marketing-based. I can also agree that the PCR is not a NATO-approved weapon, whatever that might mean. I can also agree that I assumed the changes in the P-01 design was based upon a desire to improve reliability or "produce-ability," as it were. I don't believe any production changes are considered without at least a pro-forma consideration of its effect of other related issues.
While it seems that most production changes in today's firearms seem to lead towards improving production costs (see discussions on current S&W M&P9 accuracy, Glock late Gen 3 and Gen 4 reliability, etc.), it appears that CZ actually spent more on its production (though that is indeed an assumption). I agree I did draw a conclusion from this observation - that it was done to improve long-term reliability. (There didn't seem to be any problems with its short-term reliability, and they did continue to market the improved MTBF figures, IIRC.)
So, yes, I did follow a chain of reasoning here, but I don't believe it was unreasonable. Let me ask: do you believe the changes had no beneficial effect on reliability?
Walt Sherrill
Member
Jaywalker said:
I have no idea what effect the changes may have had on reliability. If, as I believe was the case, reliability was already good, any benefits would be hard to assess or measure.
If what I read (and cited) earlier was true, the changes were focused on production processes that would lower production costs (less hand-fitting during manufacture) and greater consistency of parts dimensions from gun to gun. That consistency would also make the guns quicker to repair if something went awry (with less need for tedious hand fitting of certain key parts) after the gun was in the field. If CZ statements about WHY they did it are true, I'd argue they had little to do with any reliability concerns.
I have not seen or heard anything about the P-01s being LESS reliable than other CZs, or that any of the CZs are problem weapons with high failure rates.
Have you?
viking499 said:
I've not been able to find out a gun maker must do to gain NATO certification -- but suspect it would take more than spring changes to cause a gun to lose that status. If, re-certification was required, and it was a lengthy or costly process, CZ may simply have decided that the benefits weren't worth the costs.
It may just be my cynical nature -- derived from having worked some years in marketing -- that causes me to suspect that the whole process is more (marketing) hype than anything else. If it's not hype, my apologies to CZ. I like their weapons a lot!
.
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
Member
Thanks. I've seen that information before.
And you'll notice that the testing performed (mentioned in MBOTT's response) had to do with the Czech police requirements, not NATO.
Based on some earlier CZ press releases, people continued to talk about NATO testing, when the press releases address the POLICE requirements and standards, but also mentioned NATO acceptance/certification.
I spent a number of evenings last year, on line, trying to find out what NATO certification involved, without success. Some information is available for some equipment and processes, but I've found NOTHING about the standards or requirements applied to handguns or larger, personal military weapons.
And you'll notice that the testing performed (mentioned in MBOTT's response) had to do with the Czech police requirements, not NATO.
Based on some earlier CZ press releases, people continued to talk about NATO testing, when the press releases address the POLICE requirements and standards, but also mentioned NATO acceptance/certification.
I spent a number of evenings last year, on line, trying to find out what NATO certification involved, without success. Some information is available for some equipment and processes, but I've found NOTHING about the standards or requirements applied to handguns or larger, personal military weapons.
Last edited:
Well, as enlightening as this is, I'm not particularly interested in the knowing whether or not the P-01 is or will be NATO certified. I am interested in knowing whether the changes in P-01 have been mirrored in the PCR, regardless of their original purpose. Does anyone know this?
Walt, have you searched under the term "STANAG?" That's the term under which NATO stores its commonality documents.
Walt, have you searched under the term "STANAG?" That's the term under which NATO stores its commonality documents.
Walt Sherrill
Member
RE: STANAG.
All I ever found in my earlier searches (related to small arms) was guidelines for ammunition. (I didn't use STANAG as the search term, but "standards", "guidelines",
"requirements", "handguns", "small arms" and similar terms.
I searched on STANAG this morning, after seeing your response.
While there seems to be MORE info out there using this term than when I originally looked, either because STANAG is a better "key" or because more data is now available, none of it, thus far, seems to address small arms weaponry function, specs, or standards -- just the ammo used. Maybe I just haven't found the "magic words," yet.
Given the diversity of weapons already in place and the many different makers, I didn't expect find much in the way of standards for handguns (or any arms, for that matter) except for caliber and the ability of NATO weapons to function properly when using NATO-spec ammo.
--------
Since posting above, I llater found some information about the attempts to standardize infantry long-guns/weapons. They have not standardized a weapon, yet, but are working on things like "standard" accessory rails and mounts for use on the weapons used by NATO forces. There has been no agreement, even there, but they are working on it. Here's a link for some rifle-related accessory standards; I've found nothing, yet, for handguns: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Arvidsson.pdf
Have you found anything of value?
All I ever found in my earlier searches (related to small arms) was guidelines for ammunition. (I didn't use STANAG as the search term, but "standards", "guidelines",
"requirements", "handguns", "small arms" and similar terms.
I searched on STANAG this morning, after seeing your response.
While there seems to be MORE info out there using this term than when I originally looked, either because STANAG is a better "key" or because more data is now available, none of it, thus far, seems to address small arms weaponry function, specs, or standards -- just the ammo used. Maybe I just haven't found the "magic words," yet.
Given the diversity of weapons already in place and the many different makers, I didn't expect find much in the way of standards for handguns (or any arms, for that matter) except for caliber and the ability of NATO weapons to function properly when using NATO-spec ammo.
--------
Since posting above, I llater found some information about the attempts to standardize infantry long-guns/weapons. They have not standardized a weapon, yet, but are working on things like "standard" accessory rails and mounts for use on the weapons used by NATO forces. There has been no agreement, even there, but they are working on it. Here's a link for some rifle-related accessory standards; I've found nothing, yet, for handguns: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Arvidsson.pdf
Have you found anything of value?
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
Member
Jaywalker said:
(Note: I reworded this response. I reread after posting, and the response sounded a bit "snarky" and that wasn't my intent. Sorry.)
All I know for sure is that the PCR frame is NOW forged, like the P-01. That is a change, but I have not heard of any other changes, through official CZ sources or press releases (or word of mouth), that have been applied to the PCR.
Are you concerned that the P-01 changes, if applied to the PCR, will somehow degrade existing PCR functionality or durability? I've heard of no problems with the older or existing PCR models; in one form or another, they've been around a long time. And, as best I can tell, the P-01s are rock solid. (As were the CZ-40bs, back when.)
If we don't know what the P-01 changes are, why they were undertaken, what effect they might have on durability or performance, or whether they were also applied to the PCR, is there reason for concern?
On the other hand, it would make sense to have ONE production process for internal parts that are the same in most of the 75B line. If so, some of the P-01 changes might also have been applied to other CZ models, as well.
.
Last edited:
I agree it would make sense to have one process for internals, rather than separate ones, at least for production purposes. Sometimes making slides and barrels shorter, however, creates a need for different springs, buffers, etc., and so I asked.
As for reasons for concern... I have none, specifically, but for a perceived absence of the CZ models in gun games and by featured trainers (though that latter probably has more to do with sponsorships than anything else). As I mentioned earlier, I'm looking for an excuse to buy a PCR and am doing due diligence. The CZ already has one major against it from my point of view: the stock trigger is much, much too long for my fingers. I can correct that, but if there are other issues, then I'll just buy a Sig 229. FWIW.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Jaywalker said:
Long DA pull is a design quirk of the CZs. There are ways around it, and somebody has already mentioned the Cajun Gun Works mods. CGW offers a short-reset trigger kit.
Then, too, a Single Action only CZ has a much shorter trigger pull than the DA/SA models; you can also get a steel-framed compact and carry it SA, cocked and locked, or convert it to SA only. My 85 Combat doesn't have the firing pin block, and can function as SA only, or DA/SA. (The SA only trigger can be adjusted for both minimal takeup and overtravel, but can't be used in a DA/SA gun that still retains DA function.)
As for CZ presence in the gun games -- you don't see many there, but you really see even FEWER SIGs. (I don't think there were any SIGs at the last IDPA nationals; there were a lot of Glocks and S&W M&Ps, and many 1911s; there were SOME CZs. The SIGs that might do best in the gun games there are pretty expensive (the P226 X-Fives, for example, or the SA P226s and P220s.)
CZ has done pretty well in IPSC, and the CZ Shooting team has held a lot of titles over the past 5-6 years, internationally.
I ead a lot about that gun, and it's still on my "to buy" list. I tried the tactical version with the omega trigger, and was totally impressed with it. The issue with the model I looked at was that it was 1200 dollars, But you can get the omega trigger on the 01, I believe it's an 02, to be sure look on the CZ forum,
http://www.czforum.com/index.php?topic=841.0
There are several models of the gun that look similar
http://www.czforum.com/index.php?topic=841.0
There are several models of the gun that look similar
NewGuy1911
Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2010
- Messages
- 84
CGW parts
Walt Sherrill,
Any experience with these and how/why they preform well/improve the CZ 75?
"Long DA pull is a design quirk of the CZs. There are ways around it, and somebody has already mentioned the Cajun Gun Works mods. CGW offers a short-reset trigger kit."
Walt Sherrill,
Any experience with these and how/why they preform well/improve the CZ 75?
"Long DA pull is a design quirk of the CZs. There are ways around it, and somebody has already mentioned the Cajun Gun Works mods. CGW offers a short-reset trigger kit."
Walt Sherrill
Member
NewGuy1911 said:
No PERSONAL experience, but I've talked with many folks, on phone and via forums, about the CZ Custom Shop enhancements, and how well they work. I've heard nothing but praise for the Cajun Gun Works enhancements -- including Schmeky's new adjustable sear.
Lots of praise and compliments for both groups, and I don't think I've heard a complaint for either (except for the high price of the Custom Shop guns.) Some of the Custom Shop guns are, in effect, semi-custom guns and semi-custom guns are never cheap. CGW, if you can do some work yourself, is a more cost-effective approach, but you can also send your gun there and have that and other work done, too.
I don't think you can go wrong, either way.
Last edited:
- Status
