Glock G-19 or CZ 75B?

[Straight Shooter]

I posted that video to clear up an apparent misunderstanding that you had with regard to what I meant when I said "to operate the pistol". Your statement "... during operation (firing)" implies that operation is equivalent to firing.

No misunderstanding. I just separate administrative functions from combat functions. You implied that decocking could foul a user up, you posted a video showing live fire and clearing drills, those are combat functions. Decocking is an administrative function. You wouldn't decock during a fight, not until the fight is over anyway. What I'm saying is that it would in no way impede you during a fight.

 

[Straight Shooter]

The proper way to reholster a DA/SA weapon is, and always has been to decock it first.

I totally agree with you.

 

[Zak Smith]

Well, this train of logic has gone through quite the labyrinth. Obviously you don't decock between drawing and shooting a bunch of bad guys. However, it is something that needs to be done during overall weapon manipulation of a defensive pistol. I have seen extra controls (such as the decocker) slow down and confuse shooters in training classes. I will also point out that even though decocking is done after shooting and before reholstering, this does not mean it is an operation done under no stress.

The more things you have to do, such as operate additional controls, the more things you can get wrong.

 

[armoredman]

Who does the Czech Special Forces work for?

the Armed Force of the Czech Republic

Would it be these guys? No, then if they work for the Foriegn Ministry or the Goofiness Ministry, then you are absolutely right. If they are part of the the Armed Force of the Czech Republic, you suffer the chance of being wrong. I will ask the Czechs, even though this has gone beyond stupid. Once again, whatever the OP feels works best for him he should choose it, regardless of how we feel about our favorite sidearms.

 

[Straight Shooter]

The more things you have to do, such as operate additional controls, the more things you can get wrong.

That argument is usually used against controls that you have to engage or disengage as you enter the fight, if you don't you may be in trouble. But in reference to decocking? An administrative function that has no bearing on the fight itself, that's stretching it to the extreme.

My basic premise throughout this thread has been that there are different platforms that suit different people. That's a good thing. Your "everyone should use a Glock" theory makes no sense.

No experienced shooter or instructor, worth his salt, would claim that everyone should shoot the same gun. Even the instructors of Magpul are showing diversity in their video.

 

[Marshall]

The Glock, for most of the same reasons already stated.

 

[Zak Smith]

I know one well-known instructor who is known for his saying, "All guns should be Glocks. All Glocks should be 9mm. All Glock 9mms should be Model 19s.": James Yeager of Tactical Response. I would speculate he oversees over a million rounds fired in handgun classes per year.

 

[Straight Shooter]

That's his choice, he also goes on to say, "There are many handguns that fit the bill" but you go ahead and continue to cherry pick your information.

A bit ago you wrote:

Magpul Dynamics has some of the best training today.

Magpul teaches "learn the gun you have".

You posted their video, then touted their training, now you are going to disagree with them because it suits your argument at the moment? You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

If you can't even agree on the basic premise that there are different platforms suitable for different people you have no credibility with me.

 

[Zak Smith]

I guess you can quibble if his emphatic preference (to put it lightly) for the Glock 19 is equivalent to the statement that "that everyone should shoot the same gun" (your words - not mine). While it does not technically say that, it is almost the same was what I wrote some pages ago, that the majority of shooters looking for a general purpose defensive pistol would be better served by the Glock.

It's unequivocally proven, ubiquitous, reliable, cheap, simple and simple to operate, and gets the job done. Given those attributes, someone looking for a fighting pistol and considering something else ought to examine why he might want to buy something possibly less proven, more uncommon, possibly less reliably, more expensive, or more complicated to operate. Do those reasons enhance his ability to use the pistol as a defensive tool, or enhance it? Are those reasons whimsical preference, esthetic, "philosophical", or because some agency or military uses it? Or are they based on the objective capabilities and measured performance of the pistol as a tool?

BTW - I would hardly call it cherry picking information when in person and in print, he has extolled an extreme preference for the Glock, 9mm, and Glock 19 for himself and students. I can't find any instance of him even saying the phrase "handguns that fit the bill" (from your quote) anywhere on the internet or his forum.

 

[huduguru]

I know one well-known instructor who is known for his saying, "All guns should be Glocks. All Glocks should be 9mm. All Glock 9mms should be Model 17s.": James Yeager of Tactical Response. I would speculate he oversees over a million rounds fired in handgun classes per year.


I agree 99.9% with Yeager. Just fixed the Model 19 part...

 

[Fastcast]

The whole premise for the Glock is the best "fighting" pistol (for everyone) because it has no manual safety is really quite laughable. LOL

It appears the Glock is a simple fighting tool for simple people. To infer that one can't become just as efficient with a manual safety/DA/SA pistol is absurd.

Have any of you tactical jockeys ever hunted wild game? Every rifle and shotgun I know of, carried to the field, has a manual safety. With some of your ways of thinking, these tools would be better too, if they were so simplified as to not have a manual safety to have to disengage and re-engage after the action. How does a hunter every get his game (sometime very dangerous game) or not regularly shoot himself or his partner because he has the difficult task of disengaging/engaging a safety?

To claim a pistol is the best fighting tool (for the incompetent masses) because it's so simplified down, as to not have a manual safety, is equivalent to claiming a garden hoe is a better tool than a rototiller, for turning soil, because it's simpler to operate.

It's only better in its simplicity, for the simple minded that are incompetent or incapable of operating a better tool with multiple options, of how to get a job done.

 

[Mad Chemist]

Flawed analogy.
Here's a couple of hints: Holsters and weapon presentation, stalking vs. fighting, nonhuman animals seldom shoot back.

 

[CZF]

Except for Instructors who teach outside of the states and see hundreds of guns and thousands of rounds fired a year.

Many of them are CZs.

The average USA shooter doesn't see the vast popularity of CZ firearms on a global scale.

Once G-peeple pull off the Glock wool from their eyes.

They will see that the CZ brand is well represented and trusted
in many countries around the world.

 

[Fastcast]

Flawed analogy.
Here's a couple of hints: Holsters and weapon presentation, stalking vs. fighting, nonhuman animals seldom shoot back.

Nonhuman animals seldom shoot back.......Nope, they just attack, gore & mutilate hunters/stalkers.

Stalking vs fighting.....Usually if there's a fight, one is always the aggressor. IE: stalker.

Holsters & Weapon presentation? .....LMAO

 

[tipoc]

I know one well-known instructor who is known for his saying, "All guns should be Glocks. All Glocks should be 9mm. All Glock 9mms should be Model 19s.": James Yeager of Tactical Response. I would speculate he oversees over a million rounds fired in handgun classes per year.

It's a good man who is not afraid to be wrong.

Like the bumper stickers that read "If it ain't a Ford it ain't Shxx", experience tells ya not to take the bumper sticker as a statement of objective fact but as an opinion. Same holds here. It does the case no good that since 1982 (when the Glock 17 was approved by the Austrian military) only one instructor, author or "expert" says this. It does the man no good that he said it. It is more an expression of fan boyism, or a drunken boast, and not an opinion arrived at objectively. (In fact I'm inclined to believe that the statement is an older one and meant that all guns should be as reliable as Glocks. Or maybe he really meant that we need no other calibers than the 9mm. If you buy part of that statement because of it's source you are inclined to buy it all)

There is no way to argue with a fella who believes that brand X gun is the best and better than all others. He is not basing that opinion on fact, but on faith. So arguing fact won't budge him. He won't believe any facts contrary to what he knows.

Glocks slow many shooters down. This is a fact.

Glocks are good guns (or at least according to Yeager the 19 is and the others aren't fit to tie the 19s shoes) and set a standard for others to follow. But it does not follow from that that they are the best for all and the others should be tossed in the heap.

tipoc

 

[Mad Chemist]

Tipoc's got it right.
I'm a little surprised that this thread is still alive. I'm not surprised that is contains more rhetoric and opinion than fact and logic.

 

[Mad Chemist]

Fastcast,
If you really think that hunting in any way equates to defensive handgun use then we have no common ground in which to engage in a discussion.

 

[Zak Smith]

The whole premise for the Glock is the best "fighting" pistol (for everyone) because it has no manual safety is really quite laughable. LOL

Logical fallacy. Calling an argument a name (if it were a person it'd be the ad hominem fallacy) does not refute it.

In any case, that's not exactly what I said, which makes the LOLable quote a straw man (another fallacy). One might conclude from my earlier posts that: (1) I think the vast majority of shooters would be better served by a Glock - specifically a Glock 19 (or 17), (2) for a variety of reasons including "unequivocally proven, ubiquitous, reliable, cheap, simple and simple to operate, and gets the job done". One of the aspects of "simple to operate", yes, is that it has no manual safety. This isn't to say that there are no other good fighting pistols, but on average, most people would be better served by a Glock than whatever they have (or are "about to buy" in the case of a new shooter).

The original quote that brought this up was about mindset, and how mindset plays into choosing defensive tools. Those people who latched onto this as "ZOMG GLOCK FANBOY" are missing the point. My posts here over the years demonstrate pretty conclusively I don't blindly promote or follow any certain brand - handguns or otherwise. I shoot other pistols for competition, for fun, and I even carry pistols other than a Glock from time to time. Less than a quarter of the pistols I own are Glocks.

I note nobody has tried to answer the rhetorical question that really gets to the heart of the matter:

... why he might want to buy something possibly less proven, more uncommon, possibly less reliably, more expensive, or more complicated to operate?

Do those reasons enhance his ability to use the pistol as a defensive tool, or enhance it?

If you have whatever gun just because you like it that's great, but realize that that's not a well-reasoned criteria for choosing a defensive tool. Heck, I own a bunch of pistols just because I wanted them (or wanted them for other primary uses than defense), but realistically, they are inferior fighting pistols to my Glock 19.

With regard to wild or dangerous game firearms-- just because a thing is done a certain way now, does not mean it's the best way to do something. People have used a variety of types of firearms in warfare since the dawn of time, and we don't use the same weapons we used 60 years ago because the new ones work better. As techniques for use and technology of the weapons change, the use becomes more efficient. And then the weapons evolve to take advantage of the things we've learned. How many poly-framed pistols with no thumb safety and no decocker are on the marked today vs. 1985? There are good reasons why.

 

[Justin]

Did you contact CZ-USA about that, that should be addressed by the importer/manufacturer I know of a few people running CZs in competetion, and they do quite well As for CZs being at a leve

I contacted CZ and was told to bend the slide stop spring. This did not solve the problem. Like I said, I like my CZ, I know one Grand Master USPSA shooter who uses them, and at least one other extremely good shooter who uses a CZ.

I still run my CZ and, despite the teething problems it had, it's a pistol that I like. The fact that I like the gun doesn't change the fact that Zak is right about the Glocks being simpler and easier to learn. For USPSA production division, I have to shoot the gun hammer down for the first shot. It would be flat out false for me to claim that doing so doesn't present a disadvantage vs. the striker fired guns. Even in other competitions where I can shoot the gun cocked and locked, there is a noticeable difference in how quickly I can draw and engage a target with my first shot. This is something I've had to train to overcome and still have not solved completely, and had I started with a striker-fired gun, its something I would never had to be concerned about.

Are there very good shooters who choose the CZ? Yes. Can one learn to deal with the extra controls and quirks inherent to the gun? With practice, yes. Does this change the fact that the Glock is a simpler system overall? No, it does not.

 

[armoredman]

Ok, Zak, I will answer your question.

I note nobody has tried to answer the rhetorical question that really gets to the heart of the matter:

Quote:
... why he might want to buy something possibly less proven, more uncommon, possibly less reliably, more expensive, or more complicated to operate?

Do those reasons enhance his ability to use the pistol as a defensive tool, or enhance it?

Because it fits him better, because he points more naturally with it, because he wants to...
Also, please understand that I believe you base your evaluation on your personal experiances, as do I. I have been carrying CZs for the last 10 years, I have been carrying and qualifying with Glock 19/17s professionally for the last 9 years. I have qualified Expert and Distinguished Expert with the Glock 19 and 17. I have had three Glocks fail in my hands at training, and another break its slide under the ejection port prior to working here, when I worked at an indoor range. I have not had any CZs fail me, other than with my own bad 1st generation reloads. This is my personal observation over the last 9 years of using both brands, as the internet saying goes, YMMV.
My opinion is worth what you pay for it, which ain't much around here.
I wish the OP good luck in finding the sidearm that fits and works for him best whichever/whatever it is.

 

[Philo_Beddoe]

I contacted CZ and was told to bend the slide stop spring. This did not solve the problem. Like I said, I like my CZ, I know one Grand Master USPSA shooter who uses them, and at least one other extremely good shooter who uses a CZ.

I still run my CZ and, despite the teething problems it had, it's a pistol that I like. The fact that I like the gun doesn't change the fact that Zak is right about the Glocks being simpler and easier to learn. For USPSA production division, I have to shoot the gun hammer down for the first shot. It would be flat out false for me to claim that doing so doesn't present a disadvantage vs. the striker fired guns. Even in other competitions where I can shoot the gun cocked and locked, there is a noticeable difference in how quickly I can draw and engage a target with my first shot. This is something I've had to train to overcome and still have not solved completely, and had I started with a striker-fired gun, its something I would never had to be concerned about.

Are there very good shooters who choose the CZ? Yes. Can one learn to deal with the extra controls and quirks inherent to the gun? With practice, yes. Does this change the fact that the Glock is a simpler system overall? No, it does not.

Your criticizing the CZ because of USPSA production rules?

If you use the CZ for anything but that division you do not have to drop that hammer and can run it cocked and locked.

I had single action cz that had a trigger that was better then any glock trigger I had ever felt. A crisp 3 pound pull that was much shorter then a glock pull (had the FPB removed), it was about as closed to a custom 1911 it gets without being a custom 1911.

THe cocked and locked 1911 open guns produce the highest scores in the US and the cocked and locked open tanfoglios cz clones pretty much do the same ine Europe.

For people who cant remeber to click of a safety, my question is how do you tie your shoes in the morning, which is a much more complicated action.

Also a safety can save your life, many cop lives have been saved after the bad guy took their gun and could not figure out how to disengage the safety.

If the cops were carrying glocks they would have been dead.

 

[Justin]

I run the CZ in production division because there's not much point in running Limited Minor. I'm not being critical one way or the other, merely stating the truth that competing within the division most appropriate for a 9mm CZ in the United States, that the DA/SA firing configuration puts it at a disadvantage against the striker-fired models. I prefer the SA pull of my CZ's trigger (which has been tuned) to that of a Glock, so the tradeoff is one that I'm willing to live with.

 

[Justin]

I found the promotional video odd. I mean no disrespect but it seemed to be a combination of a movie trailer and a promo for a video game. It did not inspire me with confidence in that particular course.

Wait a second. Speaking as some who once spent a few years on the production of some professionally produced videos, can you explain to me why 21st century video equipment and production techniques are a detriment to the production of instructional shooting videos?

The state of production quality of shooting videos in the past has been, frankly, abysmal, made by people with little or no grasp of professional production, to say anything of understanding how to produce instructional videos that actually aid the viewer in learning how to shoot in a dynamic situation. If the use of a helmet cam is enough to cause you to dismiss something out of hand because it looks like something from a "video game" I'm not sure how to even respond to that.

 

[Justin]

Have any of you tactical jockeys ever hunted wild game? Every rifle and shotgun I know of, carried to the field, has a manual safety. With some of your ways of thinking, these tools would be better too, if they were so simplified as to not have a manual safety to have to disengage and re engage after the action. How does a hunter every get his game (sometime very dangerous game) or not regularly shoot himself or his partner because he has the difficult task of disengaging/engaging a safety?

I don't know what a "tactical jockey" is, but I'll try to address your argument, such as it is. As has already been stated, the purpose and application of a hunting rifle is plainly quite different from that of a defensive pistol. Also, the sidearm that I choose when I go hunting is a Glock. Its not been an issue.

To claim a pistol is the best fighting tool (for the incompetent masses) because it's so simplified down, as to not have a manual safety, is equivalent to claiming a garden hoe is a better tool than a rototiller, for turning soil, because it's simpler to operate It's only better in its simplicity...

Wait...what? People are too stupid to use a simple system, so they should choose one that's more complex? Someone who's too incompetent to follow basic safety rules is going to break those rules regardless of whether or not their chosen pistol has a manual safety.

 

[Fastcast]

I don't know what a "tactical jockey" is, but I'll try to address your argument, such as it is. As has already been stated, the purpose and application of a hunting rifle is plainly quite different from that of a defensive pistol. Also, the sidearm that I choose when I go hunting is a Glock. Its not been an issue.

Tactical Jockey: One who plays shooting games and is now an expert on what's best for everyone. ....... The manual safety on hunting rifles/shotguns was used as an example, to make the point that hunters are under stress and can manage to disengage/reengage their safeties. Hunting though is a real life experience, not a game played under the umbrella of a controlled environment. If one lacks the confidence to perform handgun defense under stress, than yes I can agree, maybe no safety is best for them but blanket statements asserting they're best for all is the real fallacy.

I've been around several "Clay Bird Jockeys" (Sporting Clay, Trap and Skeet experts) in the duck blind and can tell you from first hand experience, when they're out of their little, controlled environment and the heart starts pounding and the adrenalin starts rushing they don't fare near as well as they thought they would. Although, they're usually the first to start preaching, if you're not using 3.5" chambered auto loader, throwing 1-5/8 oz. of steel shot down range, you're somehow at a handicap. The look on their face though is priceless, when they get out shot by an antiquated, 1926 double barrel SxS shooting 1oz. of Bismuth.

Wait...what? People are too stupid to use a simple system, so they should choose one that's more complex? Someone who's too incompetent to follow basic safety rules is going to break those rules regardless of whether or not their chosen pistol has a manual safety.

My point was not that claiming the Glock is best for these types of individuals is absurd but claiming that it's the "best fighting pistol" for these reasons.

With that said, one who breaks basic rules like muzzle awareness & finger on the trigger, when not ready to fire, is less likely to have a negligent discharge if they can at least remember to engage their manual safety, after readying their weapon. Yes, they may forget to disengage their safety in the heat of the battle but some people are clumsy, inept and lack confidence so yes a simple Glock is probably best for them. Unfortunately it's probably not best for bystanders to be around such individuals.

You fellows go ahead though and twist my points to your liking, if you think it makes your argument more convincing. I've made my points and believe rational thinking people can see just who the hyperbole, fanboys are.