JR47 said:
The first place outside of the old Czechoslovakia, and in the West, that sold the CZ75 where Americans could buy them was Germany. Note that I said it was BOUGHT in Germany, NOT that the Germans used it in any particular form BY the Germans.
You were the one who decided that.
I was simply making that point CLEAR for anyone reading; not everyone reading here is familiar with the CZ history, and your first statement was not clear. Americans couldn't buy CZs in old Czechoslovakia, so
Germany was the ONLY option -- and U.S. GIs (or family members) could only buy them through a base or post exchange. (That was all before the 4473 and related paperwork!!)
JR47 said:
I would also suggest that you check the use of handguns as issue in the German military. They were far more likely to be in the hands of soldiers than any other then current military.
Again, your wording wasn't clear. The German military never used CZs, if that's what you're saying. (The Soviet Union would NEVER have allowed the Czechs to sell them to A NATO military!)
I don't think any Western military ever used CZs except, perhaps, a few small units. The Israelis used some CZs during and after the Cold War (along with BHPs, and FEG-made BHP Clones.) he Turkish military did too.
Both Turkey and Israel later made their own versions, under license from Tanfoglio -- for military use and later for sale to the West under various brand names. A number of CZs were used throughout the Middle East and Africa by police agencies at the local, state, and national level -- but never in large numbers. The Czech military never used them until the long after the Soviet Union fell apart. The Soviet Spetsnaz may have used a few CZs. A few of the Eastern European nations have recently adopted CZs, including the P-09.
JR47 said:
The comment about the 9mm was meant as sarcasm, by the way.
I recognized the attempt at sarcasm, but it didn't really WORK as intended.
JR47 said:
The gun was bought new, then lost to a divorce. I got the gun when I married the then current owner. It has less than 50 rounds through it
My experience with CZ pistols has been less stellar than yours, sir. They ARE nice, but not anything to wax poetic over. I find the controls shaped like 30's art deco, and the finish on mine was the paint you mentioned.
I won't argue with most of that. I don't question your unhappiness. That said,I don't think I made any claims about having STELLAR experiences -- only that I didn't have problems and liked the guns. I've had a bunch of guns that performed as they should. I'm now shooting a SPHINX SDP that I like a lot, now, and a nicely tuned S&W M&P Pro. (The only CZ I have at the moment is a CZ-85 Combat in satin nickel, and I use it from time to time with a Kadet Kit.)
Why do people like CZs? I think it's the gun's ergonomics -- they just fit the hand better than most guns, and point more naturally than most guns. (BHPs and 1911s are similarly praised.) CZs are very ergonomic EXCEPT for a long DA trigger pull.
If you have a small hand or short fingers, and can't cope with "cocked & locked", it's not the gun for you.
Art deco? You must be talking about the pre-B CZ-75 slide stop lever? It is a functional lever, however. The only CONTROL I ever found wanting was the safety on the standard 75 or 75B -- a minor point, as the safety only works when you're starting from cocked & locked. That control is TINY, but so was the safety on my Browning Hi-power (which couldn't be fired DA like the CZ). Most competing guns typically had decockers or, like the Glock, no safety or decocker at all.
JR47 said:
I also own a CZ40P, which, from the various CZ forums is a jammomatic that CZ never sorted out. Then I own a CZ50, a CZ70, and a CZ82. Of the three, only the CZ 82 has proven reliable. None of the guns has what I would call a fine finish, either.
You should've tried the CZ-52, while you were at it. I think it's arguably the worst of all CZs, although it has a reputation for stoutness and power that seems unearned.
Re: the CZ-40P:
If you look up the term "Frankengun" in the dictionary, you'll see a picture of the CZ40P...
It has a P-01 frame fitted with a left-over CZ40B slide. The frame had to be modified to use it, and you couldn't change it back to a P-01 Slide. The Kadet Kit doesn't work on it, either. I never wanted one.
The main reason most folks bought them was the low price -- generally under $300. I was never really interested enough in a 40P to follow discussions about them, but they seemed to work best with the full-sized mags with the spacer-bases rather than the smaller "compact" mags. (CZ had problems with the mags in their compact .40 guns) If you could get a 40B, there was NO REASON to get a 40P and I had a 40B back then.
I'm just not a fan-boy of poorly finished, unreliable, guns. No matter what others might say. Especially at the prices they command. I've also had some unsatisfying CS with CZ USA.
Not all CZs are unreliable. Your generalization seems based on an exceptional experience rather than a typical one.
Your experiences with the older CZ guns is different. They were all CZs but there was no continuity of design or heritage or tradition. The only thing those guns share with the CZ-75 is a brand name. The company that built the CZ-50/70 and CZ-52 later built motorcycles and heavy equipment. The CZ-50/70 were really built by a different CZ factory (the design based generally on the German PP and PPK). The CZ-52 used some innovative machine gun approaches that may have been misplaced in a handgun. The CZ-82 was created by a different design team -- and as you note, it's a pretty good gun; I prefer it to the Makarov. Unlike the others, the 75 was arguably NOT intended for Communist military use, but for private and police use in the West. The Warsaw Pact didn't use 9mm and I don't think anyone behind the Iron Curtain ever thought the CZ-75 would ever see military service there.
As for the CZs being
poorly finished: that's arguably a value judgment, as the gun is NEVER poorly finished
where it matters. That seems way of dealing with cosmetic issues seems to be a CZ design philosophy: if extra polishing or finishing helps function, do it, if it doesn't, don't.
Competing weapons from firms like SIG and Beretta and H&K do spend more time getting rid of finishing marks, for example, but doing that does NOT make those guns more reliable or more accurate. Those extra finishing touches do appeal to a certain class of consumers who consider THAT level of finish refinement the key signal of a quality gun. Those same folks would probably NEVER buy a Glock.
The CZ finish itself, if you get a polycoated gun, isn't pretty but is NOW very functional. They've continued to improve it, over the years. And it's applied over a Parkerized base. More importantly, if the finish does get scratched or chipped, it's easily repaired with Matte black auto body touch-up paint. (Dupli-Color is a perfect match.) Try fixing a mark or scratch on a Glock or Sig or Beretta. CZ does offer high-gloss blued finishes and those guns are unique -- where else can you get a NEW high-gloss blued Semi-Auto from the factory? CZ's new stainless guns also seem to be well received -- and unlike the Beretta INOX guns, the CZ frame is stainless steel not aluminum alloy finished/coated to look like stainless. I've had several Satin Nickel guns and prefer that finish to all of the other options.
I like CZs, but I also like Glocks, SIGs, S&Ws, Rugers. and BHPs. I own all of those. I've also had Berettas, and a variety of other guns. I haven't had any H&Ks, but have shot several P7s. The Sphinx I mentioned above is based on the CZ design and does it even better than CZ -- but costs a lot more.
I like to see folks discuss all of these guns
without all the emotions and excess baggage that some guns seem to elicit from both fans and haters. Those emotions, whether positive or negative, keep others from making good judgments about these weapons.
.