Leaving the CZ Club: Loose barrels are "Normal"

[Urban_Redneck]

The 75B is a service pistol. In spite of examples that shoot much tighter, 4" @ 25y is service pistol accuracy.

 

[JTQ]

Leaving the CZ Club

I suspect the other club members wouldn't have known you left without you telling them. I also suspect they've forgotten you've left by now.

 

[ritepath]

Put another 150 reloads down my 75 this evening....man I love this little gun.

 

[jhtrue]

Send me a pm I'll take that CZ off your hands for ya

 

[Saleen322]

..I was informed by the Warranty Gunsmith that a little bit of play in the barrel is completely normal for the CZ design, and that the bushing and barrel were found to be "in spec." ...

I feel your pain brother. Went through something similar with a Beretta 92. It would string vertical about 8" or more at 25 yards. Add to that everything was left and occasionally off the paper @ 25 yards. Sent it to Beretta and they did nothing and it was shipped to them on my dime. If I had it to do over again I would have put the shipping fees toward a new KKM barrel and locking block. Hope you get it fixed.

 

[sigarms228]

Early 75B guns were shipped with snap caps. Cheap ones at that. Every now and then someone broke the firing pin retention roll pin. I used to scoff at folks who talked about that, until I broke one in a new CZ-40B, dry firing. Before that I had dry-fired several CZ-75Bs thousands of times without a problem. I became a believer. Luckiy, my nearby hardware store had a suitable pin, which was about $.50, and I fixed it myself.

CZ later doubled that retention roll pin (putting one inside the first pin. I never heard of pins breaking after they doubled the pins. (Perhaps they did, because later still, they went to a solid pin, and that I think, is now standard practice.) Solid pins often have to be "staked" to keep them in place -- roll pins don't -- so the solid pins are a different kind of aggravation.

Using a pin to retain the firing pin makes economic/production sense, as it removes some intricate machining from the manufacturing process. Cutting the slide to accept a firing pin stop, and creating the stop was a clearly a costly process -- and some of the CZ-pattern guns competing with CZ (called "Clones" even though they aren't clones) use retention pins, and some use firing pin stops. (The Sphinx SDP uses a solid pin, rather than a firing pin stop -- and that is a very well-engineered gun!)

Stuff happens with design changes. Even SIG has had its problems when they do something different.

Thanks for the info Walt.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

You might want to look into the new Sphinx line - reports are these are extremely well built (no MIM parts and hand fitting) and accurate right out of the box. Yeah they cost more but incredible pistols and may be my next. The all steel duotone looks sweet.

I have a Sphinx SDP. After changing to a lighter hammer spring, it is superb. I also have a Gray Guns SIG P228, and it is also superb. They are very close, but for me -- it may be simply that the Sphinx fits me a bit better than the P228 -- the SDP is better. (The SDP sells for around $900 +/- $100. The P228 was about $800 when new, and the former owner got Gray Guns do the Reduced Reset Comprehensive Duty Package and a set of Heine Straight Eight night sights. The work plus shipping cost Him about $500; it would be more today. It came with 5 mags, including several 15 round Mec-Gars.) Both are great guns.

The SDP I've got has a steel slide, a two-part frame (as do they all), with the top being alloy and the lower (grip) frame being poly. You simply can't tell it's poly. I would think the all steel guns (matte stainless) would be pretty heavy.

I picked up a used CZ 75 P-07 recently and was amazed. It's already broken in, but the trigger is simply great in both DA and SA, and while it doesn't fit my hand as well as the SDP or P228, for a gun that costs around $450, with the unique ability to swap safety for decockere and back, it would hard to do better. Newer versions have interchangeable grip panels. (I paid bout $300 for mine, used.) Mine is surprisingly accurate.

 

[sigarms228]

Walt.

Any thoughts on when the standard size Sphinx will be available? Also is it going to be available in only Alpha or will it have versions with full metal frame either aluminum and/or steel?? IMHO the new Spinx pistols are a a bargain at their going prices for what one gets considering the quality of parts and some hand fitting that seems to equate to exceptional accuracy.

http://www.sphinxarms.com/index.php/sdp-standard-line/sdp-standard-alpha-line/sdp-standard-alpha

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Can't help with any of those answers.

I got my Sphinx SDP from Kriss/Sphinx for evaluation, and later bought it. (They had seen my name associated with Sphinx pistols on the net, and wanted me to try one one, on loan.) I wanted a safety-equipped model, and they were NOT available, yet. I don't really like decocker guns, but I found this one acceptable after changing out the hammer spring. Cajun Gun Works has a trigger kit for the gun; I've bought it but haven't installed it yet.

They have the full-size guns in Europe, but apparently they're waiting to start importing them. They're trying to get a dealer network going. We have several dealers in NC now that offer the guns. As they catch on, they'll probably bring in the big guns (pun intended.) The 3000 line is beautiful. It incorporates the two-part frame. (This photo may be a bit outdated, but it's generally correct.)



Personally, I find the "compact" SDP almost the perfect size as is, and don't think I'd want a larger gun -- but their top-end 3000 guns are designed for serious IPSC/USPSA shooters and that might be the place where a bigger gun is appropriate (if only for the extra weight up front.) Maybe a duty gun for LEOs... The following photo is the latest full-size gun from the SDP line... like the one you were asking about. This is matte stainless, and I'll bet it's pretty heavy.



I can't see many police departments springing for the costly Sphinx guns unless Kriss/Sphins offers them the same sort of deals that Glock, S&W, and SIG offer.

Sphinx took a lot of time re-engineering their new line of guns so that hand-fitting wasn't as widespread as their older 2000 line of guns. (I had two 2000-series Sphinx guns.) They did this so that they could compete economically with the SIGs and H&Ks that are arguably their biggest competitors; the hand-fitting was both costly and time consuming. I can't tell much difference between the new Sphinx and the older ones, in terms of fit and finish, or how they react in the hand -- but these are not their top-of-the-line 3000 guns.

Sphinx does interesting things with their versions that shows the extra time spent in the re-engineering -- and it isn't all intended to save money: changing out a hammer spring is very quick and easy, compared to a CZ. Take the grips off, undo one screw. But like CZ, they use a firing pen retention roll pin, rather than a firing pin stop -- clearly a cost-saving step. The new interchangeable grips fit the hand better than the grips on the P-07 (which are adjustable for depth of reach only); the SDP grips are adjustable for depth and width.

A thoughtful redesign -- done the way it ought to be done. (CZ has done some similar re-engineering with the P-01, with parts requiring no hand-fitting; that will probably be expanded to their other lines, eventually. I keep waiting for a full-size ALLOY CZ, and a striker-fired CZ; I expect that one of these days. I think strikers are the way of the future for handguns...)

 

[ETXhiker]

It seems to me, that some people here are over-thinking this whole thing. The OP has a pistol that doesn't lock the barrel up tight. He has vertical stringing. The target from the factory shows vertical stringing. The gun has a problem. Maybe not a big problem and maybe within spec. for that factory, but still a problem.

 

[sigarms228]

Thanks for the info. Those are beautiful pistols!

I have seen the SDP Compact down to around $830 at some places - very tempting. No big hurry though and hoping they offer the standard size Aplha before too long.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

It seems to me, that some people here are over-thinking this whole thing. The OP has a pistol that doesn't lock the barrel up tight. He has vertical stringing. The target from the factory shows vertical stringing. The gun has a problem. Maybe not a big problem and maybe within spec. for that factory, but still a problem.

The gun was fired freehand, not from a Ransom Rest.

There's a relatively small group of 3 rounds that looks like it's about 1"- 1.5". There's one shot above that group (probably the first shot) and one below. The relatively tight 3-shot group (for 27+ yards) suggests something other than a mechanically-induced (i.e., poor-lockup) "stringing" problem was at play -- as they're no reason to assume mechanically induced shot placement with only 2 of the 5 shots. It's far more likely the shooter was tired.




.

 

[Bisonhunter543]

Typically manufacturers offer to accuracy test firearms that people claim are out of spec in order to determine if a claim is valid. Did they not offer to test it for you?

 

[tipoc]

I just noticed that the pic shows the size of the group misleadingly. It isn't a 4.12" inch group from the caliper pic. You'd need to subtract the size of the "hole" to get that figure.

So 4.120 - .355= 3.765" group shot at 25 meters (27.3 yards) hand held from a bench. Which is not bad.

You'll also note that the pic of the target shows the "dispersion area" of the shots as 97.7 mm or a 3.8438" group.

In either case a sub 4" group.

So bring it back in to 25 yards and feed it varying ammo and you'll likely get better.

tipoc

 

[boricua9mm]

The 75B is a service pistol. In spite of examples that shoot much tighter, 4" @ 25y is service pistol accuracy.

I acknowledge this. The reason for my purchasing this pistol were the many, many reports of the design doing much better than the one I received. I was expecting to get one of the good shooters, like everyone else seems to have. I was willing to pay more for the stainless. Sadly, the gun didn't live up to what I was hoping to receive.

I just noticed that the pic shows the size of the group misleadingly. It isn't a 4.12" inch group from the caliper pic. You'd need to subtract the size of the "hole" to get that figure.

So 4.120 - .355= 3.765" group shot at 25 meters (27.3 yards) hand held from a bench. Which is not bad.

You'll also note that the pic of the target shows the "dispersion area" of the shots as 97.7 mm or a 3.8438" group.

In either case a sub 4" group.

So bring it back in to 25 yards and feed it varying ammo and you'll likely get better.

I did not intend to mislead, only to report the facts & findings. One cannot accurately place a caliper in the dead center of the holes, and as such, most measurements are taken edge to edge and the bullet diameter subtracted. You are correct on that note and I apologize if the additional .355" caused any heads to explode.

To clarify the shooting results, the gun club to which I've belonged runs 20 minute hot lines. Taking my time and making the most out of that time span, I typically shoot 50 rounds. With any of my handguns, that group usually is anywhere from 3.5" to 4.5" at 15 yards. The CZ, despite numerous tries, simply did not perform due to vertical dispersion. It turned in 8-10 inch groups at 15 yards under the same conditions. This was with 3 different factory loads as well as some of my 147gr LFP reloads with 4.6 grains of HS-6, Winchester Brass and CCI primers loaded to 1.11". This same dispersion is realized in the test target, which they fired at 25 meters from a bench rested position. I'd wager very few of you have a test target that looks this bad.

Some would argue that the test target is a sight-in target and it isn't for a demonstration of accuracy, but if that were the case, they would not bother sending it, let along bench resting it, photographing it an digitizing it. We know the guns are test fired; this is apparent in the carbon found in a new pistol. We've seen the test firing bench rest on the previously linked thread as well as the pic shared over by Thermactor.

Calling back to demand to talk to someone else with hopes of a different result is a fool's errand. CZ says it's in-spec, then that means that barrels with a loose lockup are considered the norm. People considering buying one need to be aware of that fact, despite the realization that most of you here own a nice, tightly fit CZ.

Fitting another barrel to a brand new $700 pistol isn't in the cards either. I lack the desire to invest a grand in a CZ when I have achieved better performance out of the box and more resolute customer service experiences from other manufacturers.

I made the decision to buy a CZ based on glowing reviews of the Cult, and having had the pleasure of firing some excellent examples in the past. I didn't get what I had come to expect and, according to CZ, that's perfectly okay. As a result, such a topic should exist on the web for the next guy that runs into this problem.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I've had guns that performed terribly with some ammo, and beautifully with other. (One, a Beretta 96, loved Fiocchi, and was like a LASER using it -- which I couldn't find all the time -- but the target looked like a turkey shoot result otherwise. (I also had a SIG P226 X-Five Competition [.40] that I couldn't shoot for crap, but a friend made small one-hole groups at 10 yards with it. Same ammo. I said HAD -- 'cause that gun and me didn't fit. I didn't blame the gun in that case...)

I've also found that with some guns, I don't get the best results the first time out.

With different ammo -- try several types [or if you roll your own, try something different] - to get what might be a better ammo/gun combo, and more time with the gun --you are likely to get better results. If you don't, THEN you clearly have grounds for complaint. As it stands, you got pretty good performance even though you were rushing it. I think your comments and criticism as this point are, perhaps, a bit premature.

If you have a friend whom you know to be a good shot, let him (or her) try it too. See if s/he gets similar results.

 

[tipoc]

Boricua,

I did not think you were trying to mislead anyone with the pic and the calipers. Without that pic we'd know less about the gun. Several people referred to the group in the test target as a 4" group (myself included) and it's actually a bit under that. That was my only point.

This same dispersion is realized in the test target, which they fired at 25 meters from a bench rested position. I'd wager very few of you have a test target that looks this bad.

But a sub 4" group is not that bad. In fact not bad at all.

It also is one target fired by a tester and it's a bit over-reach to assume it shows that the gun has a tendency to shot dispersion or stringing.

I'll also be careful and not read more into the single test target than what it is and shows. It is one target that was fired with S&B ammo (124 gr. I assume) on a certain day by a certain inspector. It was shot to show function and that the gun was reasonably accurate and within their specs for that. It was not a formal test of overall accuracy. To do this a shooter should shoot from a rest at 25 yards (or meters) several 5 shot groups with select ammo and calculate the average group size. This should be repeated with different brands of commercial ammo and handloads. The inspector here is not doing that or anything close...he's just doing his job. He does one gun, records it, (function? yes, group in spec? yes) moves on to the next.

It could be the case that something is off with this gun. It could be that CZ dropped the ball.

Has anyone else shot it and have their results been the same?

It also sounds like you formed your conclusions on the basis of one trip to the range. Is that the case? It also sounds like it was one 20 minute "hot line" session. Did I misread that or misunderstand?

If some here question your report and conclusions it's because they have had good experiences with CZ pistols and customer service. It seems premature to suggest that it's because they are members of a cult. Also seems premature to write off the whole tribe of CZ because of one experience.

Some guns just don't work for some shooters.

tipoc

 

[boricua9mm]

But a sub 4" group is not that bad. In fact not bad at all.

I disagree. In the 20 years I've been shooting, I've personally produced similar 5-shot groups at 25 yards (not meters) when firing other brands offhand. For a gun to shoot like this from the bench is...uninspiring.

It also is one target fired by a tester and it's a bit over-reach to assume it shows that the gun has a tendency to shot dispersion or stringing.

When my own groups show the same tendencies, we call this a pattern, or in other circles...a clue. A barrel that wiggles up and down when in full battery is certainly a reasonable culprit, wouldn't you say?

I'll also be careful and not read more into the single test target than what it is and shows. It is one target that was fired with S&B ammo (124 gr. I assume) on a certain day by a certain inspector. It was shot to show function and that the gun was reasonably accurate and within their specs for that. It was not a formal test of overall accuracy. To do this a shooter should shoot from a rest at 25 yards (or meters) several 5 shot groups with select ammo and calculate the average group size. This should be repeated with different brands of commercial ammo and handloads. The inspector here is not doing that or anything close...he's just doing his job. He does one gun, records it, (function? yes, group in spec? yes) moves on to the next.

Perhaps in your quick move to discredit my findings, you missed the fact that I've shot various loads, INCLUDING my own reloads. See my previous post.

If some here question your report and conclusions it's because they have had good experiences with CZ pistols and customer service. It seems premature to suggest that it's because they are members of a cult. Also seems premature to write off the whole tribe of CZ because of one experience.

I have no doubts that anyone has had good CZ pistols. As I said before, I have shot such examples. I have no doubts that people have had good customer service from CZ USA. Me, personally, I didn't get either of those for my $700. What I do doubt is that a loose fitting barrel when the pistol is in full battery is perfectly normal. What I do doubt is that vertical play in a barrel is NOT responsible for vertical stringing.

I've been around long enough to understand how this all works, make no mistake. When someone shares their experiences, people are quick to chime in with their own experiences as if that somehow negates the one that is being reported. Often times, as seen here, moves are made to try and discredit the one relaying the info. The chest-thumping and bravado is all fine and dandy until you are the one getting burned.

As of right now, this CZ 75B Stainless is the nicest gun that I want to love, but can't after being told from the company that its particular problems are normal.

 

[Ed Ames]

Nobody is trying to "discredit findings". Nobody but you sees "findings". Most of us see someone who has a problem with a pistol and doesn't seem willing to take the basic steps needed to troubleshoot that problem.

This isn't a special problem to you of course. E.g. a fairly popular management training program has this to say: "when people make evaluative statements they usually treat them as fact, but without proof, these statements are treated by others as opinion."

You see facts, " findings ", but that's you.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

The CZ, despite numerous tries, simply did not perform due to vertical dispersion. It turned in 8-10 inch groups at 15 yards under the same conditions. This was with 3 different factory loads as well as some of my 147gr LFP reloads with 4.6 grains of HS-6, Winchester Brass and CCI primers loaded to 1.11". This same dispersion is realized in the test target, which they fired at 25 meters from a bench rested position. I'd wager very few of you have a test target that looks this bad.

CZs test target says it's you, not the gun.

If you can only get 8"-10" at 15 yards and CZs employee did sub 4" at 25 yards... PEBKAC

 

[Pilot]

I disagree. In the 20 years I've been shooting, I've personally produced similar 5-shot groups at 25 yards (not meters) when firing other brands offhand. For a gun to shoot like this from the bench is...uninspiring.

CZ's are fired for function not accuracy at the factory as others have said. They are also not put in a Ransom rest. The test target is not a reflection of the guns mechanical accuracy.

 

[sirgilligan]

Early 75B guns were shipped with snap caps. Cheap ones at that. Every now and then someone broke the firing pin retention roll pin. I used to scoff at folks who talked about that, until I broke one in a new CZ-40B, dry firing. Before that I had dry-fired several CZ-75Bs thousands of times without a problem. I became a believer. Luckiy, my nearby hardware store had a suitable pin, which was about $.50, and I fixed it myself.

CZ later doubled that retention roll pin (putting one inside the first pin. I never heard of pins breaking after they doubled the pins. (Perhaps they did, because later still, they went to a solid pin, and that I think, is now standard practice.) Solid pins often have to be "staked" to keep them in place -- roll pins don't -- so the solid pins are a different kind of aggravation.

Using a pin to retain the firing pin makes economic/production sense, as it removes some intricate machining from the manufacturing process. Cutting the slide to accept a firing pin stop, and creating the stop was a clearly a costly process -- and some of the CZ-pattern guns competing with CZ (called "Clones" even though they aren't clones) use retention pins, and some use firing pin stops. (The Sphinx SDP uses a solid pin, rather than a firing pin stop -- and that is a very well-engineered gun!)

Stuff happens with design changes. Even SIG has had its problems when they do something different.

Well, I apologize for being snarky.
I thought it was a joke.

 

[sirgilligan]

Thanks for the info Walt.

Sorry, I thought you where joking.

 

[Snejdarek]

I acknowledge this. The reason for my purchasing this pistol were the many, many reports of the design doing much better than the one I received. I was expecting to get one of the good shooters, like everyone else seems to have. I was willing to pay more for the stainless. Sadly, the gun didn't live up to what I was hoping to receive.

I am now deciding between the classic silver 75 you bought, SP01 or a Shadow that would become the range gun to my Compact D CC gun.

I am not a great shot and I really liked the idea of having the silver steel fullsize alongside the black aluminum compact, but now I need to do some more deciding whether it doesn't make more sense to get a more accurate one over the prettier model.

Thanks for sharing your experience and as was suggested by others here before, I'd recommend going above the gunsmith that told you all is OK and having a talk about it with his superior.

 

[BLB68]

OP, did you shoot it from a rest at all? Or have a known good shooter try it? Have you tried another CZ75 or clone?

It seems like the issue is the gun/human interface. It's possible that the CZ is just a poor hand fit for the shooter or adjustments need to be made. The bottom line is that a gun that can shoot a 3.77" group at 25 meters can certainly shoot better than that a 15 yards, so it's not a mechanical issue with the gun.