As a big proponent of the CZ platform (and I mean that from a design standpoint, as Tanfoglio/CZ designed pistols), I can say the CZ would have been superb in the role the M9 took. But as was pointed out here, any pistol would be a side-step from the M9 now, and I mean ALL pistols currently out there. Nothing is a quantum step-up, not the vaunted Glock, not CZ, nothing, from the M9. I don't really care for Beretta pistols, but we have reached the zenith of center-fire cartridge arms. We are the flintlock circa 1800 . We might jump up to cap-and-ball with caseless rounds, but even that wouldn't be a giant leap (but enough to change all currently-fielded small arms).
There is nothing at all that can be done to make it better and the only thing that is done is playing with features. The Glock does nothing better than the M9 in the real world scenario beyond weight, but it loses with safety on the battlefield (not to trash Glocks, but there would be a jump of AD's with them on the battlefield IMO). CZ does nothing better than the M9, neither does SIG, Ruger, S&W, or anybody.
Had Tanfoglio entered into the competition, they could have beaten their Italian brothers back in the 1980's with price, but they didn't have weight covered yet. CZ just wouldn't have done it. Tanfoglio wasn't interested, nor would they likely be interested now. They already produce full-bore, being the source for the vast-majority of CZ copies in the world - though the Turks and Chinese are making inroads there. SIG could have beaten Beretta, too. It was price and performance, and all the designs have demonstrated performance.
CZ's were the choice of Israeli security forces, in addition to the Browning High Power, and were issued in significant numbers (including Tanfoglio pistols) and from all reports performed well in that environment. It has its own bonafidas.
But the number of angels on the pin must remain at 42. More than that and you get cosmic ju ju that must be considered. Less than that, and they get bored.
