CmdSlander said:
-Polymer frame, with rubberized grips. The grips have relief channels that direct sweat and grease clear of the shooter's hand.
-CZ-75 clone overall internal mechanism and design, with very low bore high axis and high grip, substantially reducing recoil. The slide rides inside the frame, as in the CZ. This improves accuracy.
-Single action only, with short, straight trigger. Designed to be carried cocked and locked.
-1911 style grip angle and modern 1911 style beavertail.
-9x19mm caliber, suitable for +P+ use.
-Match grade, bushingless bull barrel.
-External, bar stock claw extractor.
-Dual nested, captive recoil springs.
-Tritium illuminated Heinie style front and rear sights.
-NATO railed dustcover.
-Slide machined for slide-riding mini red dot. The slide also has forward relief cuts to make up for the added weight of an RDS and ensure reliable cycling without any changes in recoil spring, etc. If no RDS is installed, a small, flush fitting weight block (pictured) is installed in its mount so that the pistol does not know the difference if/when one is installed.
When someone mentioned the P-07, you replied:
CmdSlander said:
That is not a full sized gun, IIRC. Nor does it have many of the features I listed.
The newly announced P-09 is a full-sized version of the same gun. It has many of the features you describe, including the NATO-compatible accessory rail. It also has the ability to offer DA/SA carry (starting from hammer down), or cocked and locked carry, or a decocker mechanism in place of the safety, changeable by the user. That is pretty innovative.
Several questions for you?
Why is the 1911 GRIP ANGLE superior to the the standard CZ-75 Grip angle or the similar angle used in the Browning HP?
I'll agree that there's nothing wrong with the 1911 grip angle, but most shooters speak more highly of the CZ/BHP grip angles when "natural feel" or "pointability" are discussed.
If you like the 1911 Grip angle, and want the CZ mechanism you could use the CZ-40B as your starting point -- as that's what it offers. I've had one, and it's OK, but I don't think the CZ-40B's 1911 grip angle (which is what Colt specified when they worked with CZ to design it) is in any way SUPERIOR to the CZ or BHP grip angle. As good, maybe, but not better.
Why use a dual nested, captive recoil spring?
What functionality does that add or what problems does that prevent? I've only encountered "nested" springs in a couple of high-end guns and in some compacts -- but not in what might be described as a FULL SIZE service pistol. Field stripping could be a bit faster/easier with a captive spring.
Why a "match grade" bar stock claw extractor?
I'll admit I'm not the most well-read or experienced gun enthusiast, but I've never really heard of a "match grade extractor" before. What makes a "match grade" external extractor better than a typical external extractor?
NOTE: If you CLONE the CZ internals, you're basically taking a gun designed to be DA/SA gun and asking it work as a SA gun; why not use the BHP fire control mechanism as your starting point? That would be simpler. Or, better yet, use the SIG P-210 as your starting point. Both of those designs are simpler than the CZ, and the SIG has a very innovative fire control assembly that can be taken out as a unit for service or cleaning.
Why SINGLE ACTION ONLY, carried cocked locked? Why not the option of either? (How is that superior to a good striker-fired weapon?) If you want the option of BOTH carry methods, then the CZ mechanism makes more sense. As noted earlier, the CZ P-09 offers the potential of either, or the availability of a decocker.