marine 97-03
Member
What the hell are you saying ^^^^^^^
disappointment with the quality of CZ Duty.
- Thread starter el Godfather
- Start date
- Status
Originally posted by dom1104, as proof of CZ's marketing department's lies.
I'm shocked that you feel that this is a lie. Every word is the plain truth. Heck the NATO stock number is on the pistol. How many other pistols have a NATO S/N?
I'm at a complete loss as to understanding what you take exception to.
I'm shocked that you feel that this is a lie. Every word is the plain truth. Heck the NATO stock number is on the pistol. How many other pistols have a NATO S/N?
I'm at a complete loss as to understanding what you take exception to.
REAPER4206969
Member
Where?
marine 97-03
Member
Could it be the glockaholics have come to bad mouth CZ ....
And current NATO member users are.......? Czech Republic military might be one as they dumping their primary sidearm CZ-82 on used American gun market. The CZ-82 is excellent gun and about the best 9x18 pistol one can buy.
armoredman
Member
Having a NATO stock number doesn't mean they are NATO issued. I am unaware of any NATO countries issuing the CZ P-01 to any military, but they'd be well served to do so. 
I know of one country issuing CZ SP-01 Phantoms.
I would also like to know where P-07s were sold at such a loss.
I will hopefully be able to see first hand how the new P-9 version handles when it comes out.
I know of one country issuing CZ SP-01 Phantoms. I would also like to know where P-07s were sold at such a loss.
I will hopefully be able to see first hand how the new P-9 version handles when it comes out.
marine 97-03
Member
The reliability requirement protocol was particularly astounding. Set at 98.8 percent (.2 percent) failure rate, this was tough-enough for any gun. This equals 20 stoppages per 10,000 rounds, or 500"mean rounds between failures" (MRBF) During testing, the average number of stoppages was only seven per 15,000 rounds, or .05 percent failure rate. This translates to a MRBF rate of 2,142 rounds. That happens to be about five times the minimum acceptable rate for the U.S. Army, which is set at 495 rounds for 9mm pistols with 115 gr. ball ammo The bottom line here is the fact this appears to be a rugged, highly reliable design, despite its small size and alloy frame. With this kind of testing history- and our own shooting experiences with the P-01--we think it should be a breeze for it to hold-up to anything a civilian shooter could dish at it.........pretty darn good
When it comes to the CZ75 claim of wide use may actually be true. One only needs to think of former Soviet Republics and developing counties in places like Africa. Many Eastern block weapons were sent to those places. One must remember that goal of Soviet block was world domination and control under ole' slogan of 'workers of the world unite'. We invade other counties to accumulate more wealth for the few (there is lot of money in bombing and rebuilding) and for natural resources of oil/natural gas.
rellascout
member
They were everwhere... I remember that they were under $300 shipped and delivered from Bud's, CDNN and lots of places on Gunbroker. IIRC even places like Gander Mountain had them for $300 + tag.
These guns did not sell well when they were released. There were lots reports of cosmetic bulges and some reliability issues.
The price has risen over the last 6 months.... to about $400.
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CZ_75#Users
Versus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M9#Users
Seems like the CZ75 is more predominate then the M9.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Care to cite the NUMBERS associated with your claim?
No numbers seem to appear in the links you offered -- except the 450,000 M9s the US military have agreed to purchase. (Hard to tell how many Berettas were already in use in the US military before that 2009 contract, but the M9 has been in use there for many years.)
As a long-time CZ fan and owner, I'd like to think you're right, but have found NO EVIDENCE that this is so.
By the way, CZ Clones don't really count in this discussion -- as we're talking about CZ's corporate marketing claims. Nearly all of the CZ Clones referenced in the first link are made by firms having nothing to do with the CZ firm, and some are QUITE different from the Czech-made CZs. They're not really CLONES in the usual sense of the term, but guns based on the same general design.
Tanfoglio, which "borrowed" the CZ design in the early '80s, has some connection to many of the clone makers, as many of the early Turkish guns were licensed versions of the Tanfoglio design.
Even Norinco (a Communist Chinese company) has a CZ clone that is sold around the world, and readily available in Canada. Can't get it here, it seems.
balance 740
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 211
That statement could be considered a lie if even one other "NATO spec" pistol was sold "on the market" and is available to the public.
If all it takes for a pistol to be "NATO spec" is a stock number, then that statement is a lie. If all it takes for a pistol to be "NATO spec" is for it to be in use with a member nation's military, then that statement is a lie.
All pistols in this thread are sold on the market:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=208319
Did everything with a NATO stock number go through some type of torture testing?
I've never been in the military, and don't know much about it, but I have a hard time believing a NATO stock number is anything other than a number given to items for inventory purposes. I doubt it means anything other than the item is in use with the military, since even a cleaning kit for a pistol, a punching glove, a floor mat, etc., has a stock number.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_132/730766_Need_NSN_help.html
Personally, I try not to pay attention to marketing alone to make purchasing decisions. For firearms especially, since they usually have the most corny or unappealing marketing to me as far as what they try to advertise as reasons to buy "their" pistols over all others.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Nobody seems to know what NATO SPEC really means, and whether the NATO-assigned number means anything.
It's pretty clear that a lot of different weapons are used by NATO forces, and some of them are available for civilian use. It may just be that none of these other weapons have gone through the NATO-defined testing requirements. (Why would SIG, for example, bother, if their weapons are already being used by NATO forces?)
This claim by CZ may not be a lie, but it may be a meaningless claim. (Or, like some of the other statemetns, easily misinterpreted.)
It's pretty clear that a lot of different weapons are used by NATO forces, and some of them are available for civilian use. It may just be that none of these other weapons have gone through the NATO-defined testing requirements. (Why would SIG, for example, bother, if their weapons are already being used by NATO forces?)
This claim by CZ may not be a lie, but it may be a meaningless claim. (Or, like some of the other statemetns, easily misinterpreted.)
marine 97-03
Member
Walt post 58# was pulled from the p01 nato test
meanmrmustard
Member
Let them try, brothers. For they will fail...oh yes, they will fail.
balance 740
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 211
I like CZ pistols, but I'm not impressed with their marketing. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure I'm impressed with any firearm manufacturer's marketing.
What was involved in this test?
Here is a "test" where this pistol did 1 stoppage per 31,116 rounds average. If you count parts breakages, that is 5 stoppages per 62,333 rounds average:
http://pistol-training.com/archives/985
http://pistol-training.com/archives/998
What was involved in this test?
Here is a "test" where this pistol did 1 stoppage per 31,116 rounds average. If you count parts breakages, that is 5 stoppages per 62,333 rounds average:
http://pistol-training.com/archives/985
http://pistol-training.com/archives/998
meanmrmustard
Member
Who cares for marketing?
Great pistols at an affordable price. Glock Perfection? There's miadvertisement if I've ever seen it. Smith and Wesson? Excellent customer service with hit or miss products. Any weapon I've owned that is CZ or a CZ copy cat was an awesome pistol at an affordable price. CZ has never lied to me:Their pistols are accurate, reliable, and beautiful to boot.
Walt Sherrill
Member
I understood what the test entailed, but not the relevance of the CLAIM that a gun has met or passed those standards.
It's clear that a number of guns in use by NATO forces haven't been tested, but that hasn't kept them from being used.
It may be that this "standard" is newer than some of the guns in use.
meanmrmustard
Member
Good. Old guns passing new tests. That means a good design.
Walt Sherrill
Member
The claim about WIDE usage may be valid, but not the implied message that "wide usage" means MANY weapons in use. That does not seem to be the case.
With regard to your points, above:
While the Soviets did send many weapons to other countries -- including literally hundreds of thousands of AK-47s -- the CZ-75 was NOT one of the guns used as military aid or in the weapons trade.
The Czechs and the Soviets NEVER used the CZ-75 for military applications (except for maybe a few "special" units), and the 9mm round was NOT used by Eastern Bloc military or police units. It wasn't until about the time the Soviet Union fell that CZ-UB got the CZ-75 PCR put into service in the Czech Republic with the national police. That was CZ's first alloy-framed compact.
The CZ-75 was apparently designed, from the first, for sale in the West and was designed around the 124 gr. Sellier & Bellot 9mm round -- but Western trade embargoes kept the CZ-75 from getting the distribution it needed to make it a success.
Prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, you could buy CZs in Canada and Germany, and some were exported to South Africa... but that was about it. (A lot of GIs brought some home from West Germany, especially "customized" versions built by Frankonia., a custom shop. Nice guns.)
.
Last edited:
balance 740
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 211
Agreed. You don't think I'm a Glock fan, do you?
I think most marketing slogans and campaigns from firearm companies are ridiculous. I think it is equally ridiculous to use these same marketing slogans and campaigns to discuss the positives and negatives of any given pistol.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with Walt on this, as I think they did lie, with their statement that I quoted in post #63. "NATO spec" to me, is anything that meets NATO specifications. A lot of pistols do.
I really don't care much about it. If I wanted to buy a CZ pistol at the moment, I'd get one. I handled a few of their custom shop guns at an NRA convention, and I was impressed with the actual product.
meanmrmustard
Member
Walt didn't post that. I did. I stand by it. I don't own a P01, so as I said, CZ never lied to me. But, if they show a pistol meeting NATO specification, even though other pistols meet it too, still not a
lie. Just a lot of pistols meeting standards, and that's a good thing.
balance 740
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 211
I didn't say Walt posted that. What I disagreed with was that the term "liars" was too strong. I disagree.
If Toyota says a Camry is made completely out of Gold and Platinum, they lied to me, whether or not I own a Camry.
I think CZ makes good guns.
If Toyota says a Camry is made completely out of Gold and Platinum, they lied to me, whether or not I own a Camry.
I think CZ makes good guns.
I work in marketing/advertising and I also produce help produce a paid program for the company I work for. From a professional stand point, I'm impressed by a lot of firearms marketing campaigns. Most recently, S&W used a well executed (free) social media campaign to drum up a hell of a lot of hype for their new M&P and then actually followed through with shipped guns. Ruger uses strategic philanthropy the way McDonald's or Pepsi does and that really appeals to their customer base and beyond.
As for CZ, it sounds like they take a murky almost Taurus type approach to marketing from what I'm reading here. Taurus likes to just make stuff up about their guns that are not based on any sort of fact. From the whopper about judges carry .410 revolvers under their robes to the nuggets about their guns being used by elite military forces around the world, none of it is based on reality. I don't know who or how many countries issue CZ's but I'm sure it's a hell of a lot more than the .410 packing judges.
As for CZ's, I have some experience with them. I owned a CZ rami for about a month and quickly got rid of it. Every thing about it was gritty and it just did not feel right in my hand. The gun was plenty accurate and reliable for the 200 or so rounds it saw but the S/A trigger was one of the worst I've ever felt and the D/A was something I couldn't get used to.
I had a lot of trigger time with a friends 75 and that seemed like a totally different gun. To be brief, everything I said about the Rami was the opposite when it came to the 75. I always wanted one but have never gotten around to buying one. I have a bit of experience with the gun in question and I'd rate it a step up from the Rami.
- Status
