Never messed with pistols much but got interested recently for some reason. Always wanted a CZ and hated Glock but a 19 just seemed so sensible and respectable. Stupid finger grooves kill it for me. Almost sprung for a CZ PCR but seemed like the quality had gone downhill over the years I waited as prices soared. Stumbled on a S&W SD9VE. It felt great.Got a Tristar C-100 at the same time. Off to the races. Interesting education. These are both cheap guns that seem to be really well made. The Smith was a clunker right from the start reliability wise , jamming, etc., and the trigger was awful and got worse. The Tristar ran great non stop. The SD has better sights, longer sight radius and grip is great shape but trigger reach is too short for me. Mechanically it's much nicer to operate, slide, release, recoil, safety. But trigger makes it tough to shoot accurately. Some judicious grease and wear in has improved trigger and reliability a lot. Hard not to like this one especially for a defensive type of thing. Now the C-100 is a beautiful rip off of classic CZ excellence. The shape the grip, size and feel, trigger, fit, quality, all superb. The sights suck. Slide is tough to rack and chews hide off your hands.Slide release barely works whereas the SD is instant happiness. But nothing like a hammer accuracy wise. Orange nail polish on the front and black out the back and the little thing becomes more usable. It's heavier than the Smith. Nice heft. You would think recoil should be less but actually the opposite.The manual safety is useless. It's inherently more dangerous than the SD striker mechanism. Took me a good long while to feel comfortable making it safe. Learned to hook a thumb under the hammer and let it fall, taking advantage of the half cock notch. Much quicker and safer than lowering it all the way. CZ's decocker does much the same in a more elegant manner. In short I saved $400 buying clones and learned a lot comparing two vastly different designs. Two great pistols for the money.