Glock G-19 or CZ 75B?

[Zak Smith]

I would be interested in seeing some data that actually supports this statement.....Are we talking about .40s here or 9mm like the OP is asking about?

Well, my experience was detailed right after the part you quoted. I've bought four CZ-75/85's - in 9mm - over the years and only one of them worked right from the box. A 75% failure rate from the box, with different problems, is enough for me to conclude that reliability is a problem and built consistency is another problem. With regard to the "not chambering some typical commercial self-defense ammunition", you can google that and find it's a widespread issue. I've never seen another 9mm pistol that would not chamber any factory ammunition. That right there is pretty damning in my opinion. It is a fair criticism that a sample of four is too small, but then again, if CZ's have competitive build consistency and reliability with contemporary duty pistols such as the Glock, SIG, etc, the odds of my experience should be basically zero and CZ-USA should have fell over themselves to fix the problems, which was not the case.

Since it seems a little "inconsistent" with the worldwide respect the CZ brand has earned.

I am not sure exactly what now fuels this worldwide respect. There have been, and still are, plenty of mediocre-or-worse pistols in service with police and militaries around the world and that does not necessarily make them great pistols.

When the price was lower, ten years ago, it was reasonable to give the CZ some allowances when comparing them to other service-style pistols. In the approximately eleven years since I was first acquainted with the CZ, the CZ-75/85 models have been curiously absent from both the "fighting pistol" style training classes and the practical shooting competitions I have both taken or shot as a competitor and those that I have administered. The only "CZ-similar" pistol I have seen in competition are Limited and Open guns built on the EAA platform (e.g. Witness Gold).

 

[Fastcast]

I've bought four CZ-75/85's - in 9mm - over the years and only one of them worked right from the box. A 75% failure rate from the box

That's the first time I've heard of a failure rate like that for CZ ....Why in the world did you buy 4 of them "over the years" before deciding they were junk? LOL

There ya go though.....You heard it from the Mod.....75% failure rate on the CZ's.....Best buy the G19!

 

[Zak Smith]

They were bought over about a one year period and I was hopeful, you know, based on the worldwide reputation of the CZ.

One of them - the one that never had any problems - remains in use as a CCW gun today (not by me). One was sold. The other two remain "range" guns for plinking and having fun.

 

[Atticum]

When the price was lower, ten years ago, it was reasonable to give the CZ some allowances when comparing them to other service-style pistols. In the approximately eleven years since I was first acquainted with the CZ,

the reliability and price have both increased, maybe.

 

[armoredman]

Hmm, my first CZ was my Compact, which I bought while working at the indoor range, so that was....10 years ago. To bad you had bad service from CZ-USA, I have had nothing but great relations with them. EAA on the other hand, they are terrible.

 

[boogalou]

Zak - I've owned up to over a dozen different types of CZ and Tanfoglio handguns, CZ40B, PCR, CZ75's from a 1986 to a 96, and a CZ83, and only the CZ83 ever gave me any reliability problems, so I can only assume you've had extremely bad luck with CZ guns. I've also owned over half a dozen 1911 pistols by various manufacturers, and they have for the most part, always been reliable. That's not to say I haven't done some tweaking on either brand if needed, but I guess I can't figure out why some people have such a problem with handgun reliability. Every quality maker out there makes (not counting the occasional lemon) reliable weapons that for the most part, shoot more accurately then their owners can hold them. Their is just to much splitting of hairs on discussions like this. The original poster should buy the gun that he feels comfortable with, and not agonize over width, hearsay, or how popular the handgun in question is.

 

[Zak Smith]

boogalou,

I don't know your shooting background and the following is not meant to imply anything about it; however, this is relevant to different levels of perceived handgun reliability.

I have noticed a shift in the perception of reliability the more people shoot, and the more they shoot under stress.

I often see people shooting informally at the range who have sort of a lackadaisical attitude towards shooting, reliability, and malfunction clearing. They take having some problems as a matter of course and when their firearm malfunctions, instead taking immediate corrective action, they sort of mess around with the firearm to figure out what happened. I don't even think these people think of the malfunctions they are having as a problem, so they don't mentally count them. (I do not confuse this with someone carefully debugging a failure - you can tell the difference in focus and purpose of action).

Then there are people who bring their pistol or rifle or shotgun to a practical shooting match or training class, and it has a bunch of reliability problems. Almost invariably, they will claim that "it worked just fine at the range last week" or "it worked just fine when I sighted it in yesterday".

At high round-count fighting pistol classes, in which a student may fire over 2000 rounds in two or three days, pistol reliability is highlighted. Another aspect which is highlighted is the general usability of the pistol. If someone is having a recurring malfunction or is having a hard time operating the controls of the pistol because of its design, this becomes pretty clearly obvious to everyone in the class.

On the other end of the spectrum, people who train regularly, shoot classes like those I mentioned, or compete in practical shooting, generally have a more strict definition or requirement of what reliability is. They also tend to not get caught up in discussions of marginal issues and tend to focus on the pistol as tool to accomplish a goal. On that mindset issue, I wrote the following to a THR thread in 2008 in the context of what defensive pistol to buy:

I strongly recommend getting a Glock - specifically a Glock 19 or 17.

Most objections to the Glock as a fighting pistol fall into the general category of mindset failure, including objections of the forms: "I don't like it", "It doesn't fit my hand", "I need a manual safety", "The trigger is bad."

Scores of new shooters try to make pistol selection much more difficult than it need be; I did so myself when I was new.

The vast majority of people who buy a pistol for self-defense would be better served by a Glock than something else. If that's hard to swallow, at least grant that the mental energy and hand-wringing over what pistol to buy (or what brand of ammo to shoot) would be better spent in training and mindset development.

...

But the gist of my point was that it is a mindset failure to spend a lot of time hand-wringing and obsessing over which defense pistol is "ideal" for a person, thinking he has special needs and requirements that nobody else has. The pistol is a tool, not a fashion accessory, orthotic, or talisman.

This is mostly done by new shooters and/or those who haven't shot much, and almost certainly by people who don't have any training. I did the same when I was new, and you can probably find the old threads.

 

[Straight Shooter]

I don't know your shooting background and the following is not meant to imply anything about it; however, this is relevant to different levels of perceived handgun reliability.

Zak,

That was quite a post, yet nothing more than a browbeating opinion. Insinuating that if one disagrees with your opinion they are a novice. Intimidation is a poor way to make an argument.

Most objections to the Glock as a fighting pistol fall into the general category of mindset failure, including objections of the forms: "I don't like it", "It doesn't fit my hand", "I need a manual safety", "The trigger is bad."

I do agree that once a firearm is purchased one needs to train hard to overcome whatever shortcomings or quirks that particular firearm has. I think people spend too much time bellyaching about gritty triggers, over-travel, pre-travel etc. and too much time replacing and polishing, however, there is a process to purchasing a firearm. Civilians (vs LEO or military) have the luxury of choosing what firearm they want and people choose different platforms for different reasons.

If you pick up a pistol, point it and the sights line up naturally, that's one less thing you have to train hard to overcome. Some people want some sort of safety whether it is a 12lb trigger pull or manual thumb safety. This doesn't make them a novice, they simply have a different criteria for what they want in a pistol.

I prefer the XD to the Glock. I shot both extensively before purchasing and made a decision based on my experience with each.

As far as the CZ, I have owned a P-01 for a few weeks now and have put roughly 900 rounds of ball and 250 rounds of JHP through it. I haven't had a single malfunction and it is very accurate.

My experience with the Glock 19 is that it is easier to limp wrist it than either the XD9 or the P-01. That's what tap rack drills are for but if I can reduce the probability by choosing another platform, I will.

I am not trying to convince you to like the CZ or XD, they are what I prefer, but I also wouldn't presume you to be a novice for disagreeing.

 

[Zak Smith]

That was quite a post, yet nothing more than a browbeating opinion. Insinuating that if one disagrees with your opinion they are a novice. Intimidation is a poor way to make an argument.

I did not mean it was a criticism of boogalou by any means -- that's why I wrote that first sentence.

I have observed a difference in attitude towards reliability and the importance or lack thereof of certain features (and difference in handgun choices), and it does correlate with experience. WarMachine alluded to the same point.

 

[boogalou]

I have observed a difference in attitude towards reliability and the importance or lack thereof of certain features (and difference in handgun choices), and it does correlate with experience. WarMachine alluded to the same point.

I agree with the basics of your arguments, but the question is, how much experience is enough? How much reliability is enough? How many times in your life do you expect to get into a full-fledged firefight with the bad guys? Everyone has a different answer to those questions, and one size doesn't fit all.

How many folks here have went to a driving school to learn how to operate their vehicle better on the highway. Because knowing the limits of their car might save their life?

We all have our priorities. My shooting priorities are to try to shoot at least 400 rounds/month in various drills. If I felt my handguns didn't meet my requirements I wouldn't own them. I'm going to leave it at that, because I think we're getting away from the original point of this thread.

 

[MonthOfAngle]

Back to the business of the original post... although Glocks are my choice for the moment either Skynet or the zombies are overthrowing us... meanwhile I recommend the CZ... (that is the one I carry) Glock is simpler and hence more business oriented, the parts and accessories are readily available for either one and for those semi-old school like myself a first shot double action trigger pull is a good security measure over the no safety on the glock, and if a 10+ pound trigger is a big issue there are more things to worry about... that is just MHO

 

[ozmosis]

Ok the waters are a little muddy right now.

Op- Are you choosing a full frame CZ75 B or just the general brand of CZ for your next gun? Look at the CZ-01 first if you can.

Zac- You are welcome to try and induce a malfunction with any of the three CZ P-01's that I own. I have yet to create one or have one in 5 years of use, so far 100% reliable and as accurate as my custom 1991a1 which cost 3 times as much with parts/labor. Although I hear that CZ's hate Blazer Aluminum and Steel cased Cartridge's, I do not use them in any of my fire arms. But with factory brass ammo they have been flawless. Still chuckle at my stupidity when I was having issues with a 1911 and the customer service guy told me to shoot 500 rounds (that was back when a box of 45's were $15) and after that if I still was having jams then call them back for Warranty repair. Even after it was "broken in" still did not work right and I spent a year to get it to run right. Sold it for a loss with full disclosure of the issues I was having.
All my CZ P-01's have worked straight out of the box without any issues at all. I do not consider myself a "fan boy" of anything and I feel the "best gun" is the one you have when you need it. Hopefully you never will need one.

The CZ P-01 is a outstanding firearm. It is big enough to shoot well, small enough to carry as a CCW and worth owning. Heck I wish I would have had it 15 years ago, it would have saved me a lot of time and money on custom guns. As far as customer service CZ has treated me more than fair. I called to order a part for a used rifle I had just bought and they sent me the part free of charge. Even after I told them it was for a used gun and I was not the original owner. Mike even walked me threw the steps on how to install it. Say what you want but I am happy with them. It may not be your solution but so far it has been mine.

 

[Deanimator]

I don't like conventional double action, and the stock trigger on the CZ75 is very uncomfortable to me. Offsetting this is the ability to carry cocked and locked.

I regularly carry a 2nd Generation Glock 19 (I HATE rails) and really like it. I put in a 3.5lb. Ghost connector and did the "$0.25 trigger job". It has a safe but very smooth trigger now, that's the same for every shot.

I'd LIKE to get a CZ-75B in .40S&W, but unless I can get a more comfortable trigger, that's not going to happen.

 

[Zak Smith]

ozmosis,

I've never tried a P-01. It's good to hear others are having good luck with them. I am with you on ridiculousness of a pistol not working from the box...

-z

 

[Green Dragoon]

CZ real pistol, Glock at best a mediocre toy

 

[Straight Shooter]

An interesting read about a kaboom with a P-01.
http://www.czforumsite.info/index.php?topic=16141.0

*Snip*

The first shot, something sprayed my face. It felt like .22 birdshot peppered me. Man, I was glad I had eye protection on. I gave the loaded gun a once-over in my hand and shot the magazine empty with no problems.

*Snip*

 

[dogtown tom]

Green Dragoon: CZ real pistol, Glock at best a mediocre toy

Uh-huh.

Both grovel at the feet of the Hi Power....King of Nines.


Seriously? A Glock is probably the best selling "mediocre toy" of all time.


Fanboys

 

[ozmosis]

An interesting read about a kaboom with a P-01.
http://www.czforumsite.info/index.php?topic=16141.0

Well when I had my "Gunshow Reload" Kaboom it split the polymer frame down the side, cut my hand and the slide came out of battery snapping a guide rail. All that was left in the chamber was a ribbon of metal that was left of the case, as the rim was blown apart. Thank god I was wearing gloves and eye protection. My hand injury could have been disabling or blinded me. If I was shooting a metal pistol I think the damage would have been less, but who knows. Lesson for me (7 years ago) was two things, no more plastic pistols and never shoot a reload that you did not make yourself.
Looks to me that the fully supported chamber on the P-01 is a good thing.

 

[MonthOfAngle]

Looks to me that the fully supported chamber on the P-01 is a good thing.

+1 to that

 

[Justin]

That was quite a post, yet nothing more than a browbeating opinion. Insinuating that if one disagrees with your opinion they are a novice. Intimidation is a poor way to make an argument.

Zak was not making an attempt to intimidate anyone, and I find it peculiar that someone would level such an accusation at him. In the time I've known Zak, I've never seen him attempt to intimidate or bully anyone. Given his level of shooting experience and the thought he puts into analyzing the hows and whys behind shooting, he has, frankly, no need to engage in intimidation.


FWIW, I've been running a CZ-85 for USPSA and 3Gun matches for around five years now, and many of his criticisms are indeed valid. FWIW, my pistol wouldn't even run correctly from the start without first taking a Dremel to the slide stop and removing a sizable amount of material.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Zak was not making an attempt to intimidate anyone, and I find it peculiar that someone would level such an accusation at him.

I've bolded below the parts that that I saw as browbeating. Excessive browbeating is a form of intimidation.

Paraphrasing the post: If you knew what you were doing you would have bought a Glock, otherwise you are a novice.

I have quoted the entire post so as to not take the words out of context.

boogalou,

I don't know your shooting background and the following is not meant to imply anything about it; however, this is relevant to different levels of perceived handgun reliability.

I have noticed a shift in the perception of reliability the more people shoot, and the more they shoot under stress.

I often see people shooting informally at the range who have sort of a lackadaisical attitude towards shooting, reliability, and malfunction clearing. They take having some problems as a matter of course and when their firearm malfunctions, instead taking immediate corrective action, they sort of mess around with the firearm to figure out what happened. I don't even think these people think of the malfunctions they are having as a problem, so they don't mentally count them. (I do not confuse this with someone carefully debugging a failure - you can tell the difference in focus and purpose of action).

Then there are people who bring their pistol or rifle or shotgun to a practical shooting match or training class, and it has a bunch of reliability problems. Almost invariably, they will claim that "it worked just fine at the range last week" or "it worked just fine when I sighted it in yesterday".

At high round-count fighting pistol classes, in which a student may fire over 2000 rounds in two or three days, pistol reliability is highlighted. Another aspect which is highlighted is the general usability of the pistol. If someone is having a recurring malfunction or is having a hard time operating the controls of the pistol because of its design, this becomes pretty clearly obvious to everyone in the class.

On the other end of the spectrum, people who train regularly, shoot classes like those I mentioned, or compete in practical shooting, generally have a more strict definition or requirement of what reliability is. They also tend to not get caught up in discussions of marginal issues and tend to focus on the pistol as tool to accomplish a goal. On that mindset issue, I wrote the following to a THR thread in 2008 in the context of what defensive pistol to buy:
Quote:
I strongly recommend getting a Glock - specifically a Glock 19 or 17.

Most objections to the Glock as a fighting pistol fall into the general category of mindset failure, including objections of the forms: "I don't like it", "It doesn't fit my hand", "I need a manual safety", "The trigger is bad."

Scores of new shooters try to make pistol selection much more difficult than it need be; I did so myself when I was new.

The vast majority of people who buy a pistol for self-defense would be better served by a Glock than something else. If that's hard to swallow, at least grant that the mental energy and hand-wringing over what pistol to buy (or what brand of ammo to shoot) would be better spent in training and mindset development.

...

But the gist of my point was that it is a mindset failure to spend a lot of time hand-wringing and obsessing over which defense pistol is "ideal" for a person, thinking he has special needs and requirements that nobody else has. The pistol is a tool, not a fashion accessory, orthotic, or talisman.

This is mostly done by new shooters and/or those who haven't shot much, and almost certainly by people who don't have any training. I did the same when I was new, and you can probably find the old threads.

 

[Paladin7]

Hi Straightshooter, I often find that emails/posts can be misunderstood easily, so its often wise for folks to be careful about making candid comments on these forums. I don't see any browbeating, I think Zak was trying to make a distinction between levels of shooting ability and commitment needing to be considered when comments are rendered on a particular firearm choice. This is how i'm viewing his comments.

Its hard to tell when you ask for advice on here exactly what the experience level of the various posters are to a given question.

Hope that helps...

 

[huduguru]

Here are my thoughts on the subject, copied and pasted from
another forum.
Don't disregard the comments on the 226 outright because they are not the subject of this thread. I left them in there because I believe the 226 and
G17(and g19) are top notch combat weapons, where I'd put the CZ at the same level as a Taurus, that is, more of a recreational pistol. I must say,
however, I haven't tried out the P01, whcih is supposed to be the best CZ.




Subjective opinion based on a better feeling grip or aesthetics?

I find it very ironic that the Czech special forces use the GLOCK 17
as their official issue pistol. The Navy Seals have used the SIG P226 for many years and they appear to be very satisfied with it. On Tactical
Forums their is an actual Navy Seal that goes by the screen name "Frogman"
that states the Sig P226s have been very robust and trouble free. My personal experience with CZ's( a few CZ75 BD) is that the quality doesn't
even come close to a SIG or Glock. The frames are cast and very porous,
the slide stop spring is a bad design that has been changed a few times with no success(resulting in slide lock with ammo in the mag), reliability doesn't
come close to a Glock much less a Sig. The slide leaves very little surface area to grab onto during a "tap rack bang", and they are almost
as heavy as a full sized 1911.

The Sig and Glock are bet your life, toe to toe combat guns while the CZ
is a nice, light recoiling range gun.

Just my humble opinion of course.

 

[ozmosis]

Lets just sit back a sec

First of all, the reason we have smiley faces on forums is to show intent and I have ruffled feathers in the past when I did not intend to.

A long time ago I turned 21 and bought a pistol because the guy behind the counter recommended it (there was no internet yet- dam I am getting old) and I could not hit a pop can with it at 20 feet with it. Although with my Dad's K-frame smith I had no problems hitting golf balls at the same distance. Back then the only information you had was from a Magazine trying to sell you something or what your buddys were using. Flash forward to today, have a problem and you get over 20 peoples ideas/thoughts on a solution. Like "My new pistol will not hit a pop can, any ideas why?" you will get comments about "grip", "trigger control", "flinching", "front sight" to "hey did you look at your lock up" or "that model had a recall you should look into it." But the information is from unknown backgrounds and levels of experience which I just average the solutions and look for overall trends. Just take everything with a grain of salt and do not get insulted when none was intended.
When ever I am presented a solution I double check sources, you should too.
I am glad because otherwise I would have never found out about the CZ P-01 and my favorite carry gun so far.

 

[ozmosis]

Here are my thoughts on the subject, copied and pasted from
another forum.
Don't disregard the comments on the 226 outright because they are not the subject of this thread. I left them in there because I believe the 226 and
G17(and g19) are top notch combat weapons, where I'd put the CZ at the same level as a Taurus, that is, more of a recreational pistol. I must say,
however, I haven't tried out the P01, whcih is supposed to be the best CZ.




Subjective opinion based on a better feeling grip or aesthetics?

I find it very ironic that the Czech special forces use the GLOCK 17
as their official issue pistol. The Navy Seals have used the SIG P226 for many years and they appear to be very satisfied with it. On Tactical
Forums their is an actual Navy Seal that goes by the screen name "Frogman"
that states the Sig P226s have been very robust and trouble free. My personal experience with CZ's( a few CZ75 BD) is that the quality doesn't
even come close to a SIG or Glock. The frames are cast and very porous,
the slide stop spring is a bad design that has been changed a few times with no success(resulting in slide lock with ammo in the mag), reliability doesn't
come close to a Glock much less a Sig. The slide leaves very little surface area to grab onto during a "tap rack bang", and they are almost
as heavy as a full sized 1911.

The Sig and Glock are bet your life, toe to toe combat guns while the CZ
is a nice, light recoiling range gun.

Just my humble opinion of course.

Right because the Government spares not expense on equipment................

Frogmen get what they get handed and suck it up and make due. From my understanding there is a movement trying to replace the Sig P226 as it is not very corrosion resistant to the environments it finds it self in.

I have the choice and its the P-01, and budget is not even a issue as I used to carry a sidearm which cost $1,299(2002 price) and it did not run like the $435 CZ P-01(2005 price) still on my side today.