CZ 1911a1 Made in the USA
- Thread starter WVsig
- Start date
Walt Sherrill
New member
TunnelRat said:
Re: tool marks...
One of the review I read about hte P-07 makes the point that it looks as though CZ now bead-blasts many surfaces before "finiishing" them -- which would cover some of the remaining tooling marks.
That's an inexpensive way to silence all the critics, as the tooling marks were never found in areas where less than proper finishing/polishing would have affected proper function.
I don't think anyone would argue that they inhibit function but they can be unslightly.
And anyone who would attempt to claim that historically CZ did not show tool marks simply does not know their CZ history or in the case of armoredman is simply allowing his fanboydom to cloud his judgement....
armoredman knows his CZs and clearly he knows that most CZs in the mark place show tool marks. My newer 75B certainly does. My P01 does. Does not make them lesser it makes them what they are.
Walt Sherrill
New member
One of the comparisons between the P-07 and the new Sphinx SDP, by a guy who seems to be pretty impartial, shows that the new P-07 has less obvious tool marks inside the slide than does the Sphinx SDP -- and it's visible in the video. He doesn't prefer the P-07 to the SDP, and shot the SDP with greater accuracy. He just wasn't sure that the SDP was worth almost three times as much as the P-07. It's here on TFL.
This reviewer wonders whether CZ is just paying more attention to the finished product by bead-blasting some areas before finishing. The areas in question do seem to have a slightly-roughened surface, but no machining marks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0R4Ro3vdTQ
He does a very detailed comparison of the P-07 ad SDP and it seems fairly well done and balanced. Good video, good visual comparisons.
I think I want both -- but will probably hold out for a safety-equpped SDP.
This reviewer wonders whether CZ is just paying more attention to the finished product by bead-blasting some areas before finishing. The areas in question do seem to have a slightly-roughened surface, but no machining marks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0R4Ro3vdTQ
He does a very detailed comparison of the P-07 ad SDP and it seems fairly well done and balanced. Good video, good visual comparisons.
I think I want both -- but will probably hold out for a safety-equpped SDP.
Last edited:
LockedBreech
New member
My biggest problem with the toolmarks is that, for the price, they just shouldn't be there. You can get a number of other guns in the $500 price bracket now occupied by the CZ-75 that have minimal tool marking. Still good guns, but it should be a part of the quality control process.
Walt Sherrill
New member
You and many others consider the absence of tool marks a symbol of quality. I think CZ considers the time and effort needed to remove ALL such marks (in non-critical areas) a wasteful practice that does NOTHING to improve performance. It may be a simple business decision or, more likely, a manifestation of a very clear design philosophy.
I can't say which of these characterizations is most correct, but I like CZs and I also like some of the other guns that have far fewer machining marks.
My definition of billboard differs from yours.
I sometimes see cars where the owners have removed the insignias. I don't get it. Anyone that knows cars will still know at least what brand it is, and those that won't don't care anyway. You bought that car for a reason, hopefully because you like it. Why remove the brand label?
That difference in price is getting less and less. At my local store I can get a CZ P-01 for $550, or a 75B for $580. I can get a Beretta 92FS for $600. Now I honestly prefer the control layout and the ergos of the CZ, but there's no denying that as CZ's popularity has increased so have their prices.
armoredman
New member
First there was this comment,
Then this one,
Yeah, me too.
Then this one,
Please go back and show where I specifically said that, sir. What I did say, very specifically, that I saw no tooling marks inside the slide of my CZ P-09 This negates the original person's judgement that ALL CZ pistols show interior tooling marks. One universal statement needs only a single contradictory example to be proven wrong. But, let me show you thus.
The three bears, (this pistol is too small, this pistol is too big, this one is JUST RIGHT!) of the CZ 2075 RAMI BD, (2014 production year), CZ SP-01 Phantom, (2010 production year), and P-01, (2003 production year), my examples.
But what do they look like inside?
Oldest, P-01
Newest, (newer than my 2012 P-09), RAMI BD.
The three together, P-01, RAMI BD and Phantom, left to right.
Judging by the 4 examples I've shown, the traditionally manufactured CZ pistols from the Czech Republic show some sort of markings inside the slide area, but not on the barrels or anywhere else. I am assuming those are grind marks from the slides being machined? If that's your "tool marks", then by all means, there are visible tool marks only in the internal of the slide that I can see. That P-01 has been perfect for many thousands of rounds, BTW, with only replacing the recoil spring about the 10K mark.
The SP-01 Phantom has also run through several thousand rounds, and perhaps some of the marks are merely wear? Maybe, maybe not.
Just as I said there, it can be shown that recent production CZ made pistols judging by the equal number of samples with the 2075 RAMI, (not a new design), and the new P-09, that there are NO tool marks visible on the inside of the slide or the barrel. Therefore, the GLOBAL statement made is proven false. A specific statement of traditional CZ75 based pistols made in the Czech Republic tend to show some tooling marks inside the slide are, would be accurate.
Now, back to the pistol originally at hand, we have only the one picture to base all the speculation around, and perhaps when the catalogs get here I'll have more info for anyone who is still interested. I probably wouldn't get one because I have zero interest in low capacity single action autoloaders, but that is just me. The love affair with the 1911 and all it's versions in the US is legendary in its own right, and well deserving of it.
Then this one,
Yeah, me too.
Then this one,
Please go back and show where I specifically said that, sir. What I did say, very specifically, that I saw no tooling marks inside the slide of my CZ P-09 This negates the original person's judgement that ALL CZ pistols show interior tooling marks. One universal statement needs only a single contradictory example to be proven wrong. But, let me show you thus.
The three bears, (this pistol is too small, this pistol is too big, this one is JUST RIGHT!) of the CZ 2075 RAMI BD, (2014 production year), CZ SP-01 Phantom, (2010 production year), and P-01, (2003 production year), my examples.
But what do they look like inside?
Oldest, P-01
Newest, (newer than my 2012 P-09), RAMI BD.
The three together, P-01, RAMI BD and Phantom, left to right.
Judging by the 4 examples I've shown, the traditionally manufactured CZ pistols from the Czech Republic show some sort of markings inside the slide area, but not on the barrels or anywhere else. I am assuming those are grind marks from the slides being machined? If that's your "tool marks", then by all means, there are visible tool marks only in the internal of the slide that I can see. That P-01 has been perfect for many thousands of rounds, BTW, with only replacing the recoil spring about the 10K mark.
The SP-01 Phantom has also run through several thousand rounds, and perhaps some of the marks are merely wear? Maybe, maybe not.Just as I said there, it can be shown that recent production CZ made pistols judging by the equal number of samples with the 2075 RAMI, (not a new design), and the new P-09, that there are NO tool marks visible on the inside of the slide or the barrel. Therefore, the GLOBAL statement made is proven false. A specific statement of traditional CZ75 based pistols made in the Czech Republic tend to show some tooling marks inside the slide are, would be accurate.
Now, back to the pistol originally at hand, we have only the one picture to base all the speculation around, and perhaps when the catalogs get here I'll have more info for anyone who is still interested. I probably wouldn't get one because I have zero interest in low capacity single action autoloaders, but that is just me. The love affair with the 1911 and all it's versions in the US is legendary in its own right, and well deserving of it.
Walt Sherrill
New member
Why does anyone care about tooling marks?
Unless those tooling marks affect function, it would seem their presence is irrelevant. If they affect function, then they ARE a matter of concern. Has anyone here had a CZ failure or performance problem because of the visible tooling marks?
Perhaps it's all about appearances and not function, like BIG ROLLMARKS on the slide. Those also bother people, and I've seen people refuse to buy a particular gun because of the rollmark. Maybe people have refused to buy a CZ because of those visible tool marks -- they know quality when they see it!
The newer P-07 seems to have fewer visible tooling marks inside the slide than other CZs. One analyst reviewing the gun noted that this could be because CZ now appears to be bead-blasting the inside of the slide -- thereby obscuring the tooling marks. Maybe not, but the surface does seem to have a very finely bead-blasted surface.
If that analyst is correct, and you can just HIDE tooling marks, the perceived quality of the weapon is greatly but inexpensively improved. If so, that's a novel move on CZ's part, and one that shifts attention from irrelevant cosmetics to more relevant points of focus. I kind of hope that IS what they've done.
Unless those tooling marks affect function, it would seem their presence is irrelevant. If they affect function, then they ARE a matter of concern. Has anyone here had a CZ failure or performance problem because of the visible tooling marks?
Perhaps it's all about appearances and not function, like BIG ROLLMARKS on the slide. Those also bother people, and I've seen people refuse to buy a particular gun because of the rollmark. Maybe people have refused to buy a CZ because of those visible tool marks -- they know quality when they see it!
The newer P-07 seems to have fewer visible tooling marks inside the slide than other CZs. One analyst reviewing the gun noted that this could be because CZ now appears to be bead-blasting the inside of the slide -- thereby obscuring the tooling marks. Maybe not, but the surface does seem to have a very finely bead-blasted surface.
If that analyst is correct, and you can just HIDE tooling marks, the perceived quality of the weapon is greatly but inexpensively improved. If so, that's a novel move on CZ's part, and one that shifts attention from irrelevant cosmetics to more relevant points of focus. I kind of hope that IS what they've done.
Last edited:
armoredman
New member
The inside of the P-09 and RAMI slide feels smooth, not bead blasted, but smooth. Personally I could care less about tool marsk on the inside where nobody can see, but i was addressing the certain poster who was implying lower quality to the Czech gun makers due to that non-issue. The I was personally attacked, so i responded the best way, with truth and photos. After that, I have no interest in worrying about marks inside the slide of any firearm that works as well as my CZs do - that P-01 has passed the 15K mark, I believe, and the Phantom is edging on up, being so darn fun to shoot.
The only time a billboard on the slide would irritate me is if it was gold inlay-ed - might reflect at night,
The only time a billboard on the slide would irritate me is if it was gold inlay-ed - might reflect at night,
Clearly armoredman has no sense of humor about CZs and cannot separate comments about them from comments about him. If you look at what was really said, not what you think was said, you would not be so worked up.
Original statement was:
After reading all of the posts in this thread you focused on this one minor point which IMHO will most likely hold true. I am willing to bet if there are no tool marks in this new gun made in the US by CZ that it is actually assembled by DW. Which makes sense because to date there has been no talk that I have seen about CZ having a US facility beyond DW. If they have recently opened one up please feel free to enlighten us with the info. If not I believe it is a pretty good assumption that the CZ 1911 will be made by CZs US 1911 division aka Dan Wesson.
Instead of just letting it go you felt the need to reply to protect your favorite brand which is your MO here and other places which are not exclusively CZ boards. No issue loving a particular brand and defending it when needed but sometimes "the queen doth protest too much..." LOL
Go back and then look at what you said. You replied to it with nothing more than:
You did not elaborate beyond your single pistol. You posted this as if it is representative of CZs in general. I am sure you understand that all poodle are dogs not all dogs are poodles. If you had given more context instead of a fly by I doubt you would have gotten the reaction you did. People who shoot CZs and have seen enough of them over the years have seen a lot of tool marks.
You took a generalized statement which I also took as a tongue and cheek comment and attempted to rebut it with a single example. Again all poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles.
You then got bend out of shape because i pointed out your CZ fanboydom again tongue and cheek. It is far from a personally attack. You are a CZ fanboy and your love of the CZ line is evident here and just about every other board you are on. You proved it by feeling the need to defend your brand of choice over tool marks which do not effect function. It was not meant as a slight it is what it is. If it offended you I apologize.
What is even funnier is that you then felt the need to justify your overreaction by misrepresenting the original statement as a universal statement. If you look up and read the bolded portion of the quote, I added the bold for effect and easy of reading, it actually says "probably". Last time i looked it up probably mean almost certain or likely not universally true.
It is pretty funny honestly to see you blow this completely out of proportion. Everyone has acknowledged that the tool marks do not effect function. I think we all agree that historically CZs have had tool marks. These tool marks added to the fact that for years CZs were poorly finished unless you got a blued gun. Painted on finishes that would flake off with minimal use. Nickel finishes that were not durable and yes tool marks.
It is only recently with the better versions of their polycoat that this has changed. It was no big deal when they were $300- $350 guns NIB but as they start to climb over the $500+ mark people expect more because they get more from other vendors at that price point.
It is good to see that CZ is addressing that perception even if it does not effect function. You don't care about tool marks but others do and luckily they do not buy guns with your money so they can make their own choices. The reality is that historically CZs tool marks were an example of how they were lesser guns in terms of fit and finish vs many of their competition. Does not make them bad it makes them what they are. It made them good ifnot great functioning guns that were at time crudely finished. Some people can see that and understand that others cannot.
Original statement was:
After reading all of the posts in this thread you focused on this one minor point which IMHO will most likely hold true. I am willing to bet if there are no tool marks in this new gun made in the US by CZ that it is actually assembled by DW. Which makes sense because to date there has been no talk that I have seen about CZ having a US facility beyond DW. If they have recently opened one up please feel free to enlighten us with the info. If not I believe it is a pretty good assumption that the CZ 1911 will be made by CZs US 1911 division aka Dan Wesson.
Instead of just letting it go you felt the need to reply to protect your favorite brand which is your MO here and other places which are not exclusively CZ boards. No issue loving a particular brand and defending it when needed but sometimes "the queen doth protest too much..." LOL
Go back and then look at what you said. You replied to it with nothing more than:
You did not elaborate beyond your single pistol. You posted this as if it is representative of CZs in general. I am sure you understand that all poodle are dogs not all dogs are poodles. If you had given more context instead of a fly by I doubt you would have gotten the reaction you did. People who shoot CZs and have seen enough of them over the years have seen a lot of tool marks.
You took a generalized statement which I also took as a tongue and cheek comment and attempted to rebut it with a single example. Again all poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles.
You then got bend out of shape because i pointed out your CZ fanboydom again tongue and cheek. It is far from a personally attack. You are a CZ fanboy and your love of the CZ line is evident here and just about every other board you are on. You proved it by feeling the need to defend your brand of choice over tool marks which do not effect function. It was not meant as a slight it is what it is. If it offended you I apologize.
What is even funnier is that you then felt the need to justify your overreaction by misrepresenting the original statement as a universal statement. If you look up and read the bolded portion of the quote, I added the bold for effect and easy of reading, it actually says "probably". Last time i looked it up probably mean almost certain or likely not universally true.
It is pretty funny honestly to see you blow this completely out of proportion. Everyone has acknowledged that the tool marks do not effect function. I think we all agree that historically CZs have had tool marks. These tool marks added to the fact that for years CZs were poorly finished unless you got a blued gun. Painted on finishes that would flake off with minimal use. Nickel finishes that were not durable and yes tool marks.
It is only recently with the better versions of their polycoat that this has changed. It was no big deal when they were $300- $350 guns NIB but as they start to climb over the $500+ mark people expect more because they get more from other vendors at that price point.
It is good to see that CZ is addressing that perception even if it does not effect function. You don't care about tool marks but others do and luckily they do not buy guns with your money so they can make their own choices. The reality is that historically CZs tool marks were an example of how they were lesser guns in terms of fit and finish vs many of their competition. Does not make them bad it makes them what they are. It made them good ifnot great functioning guns that were at time crudely finished. Some people can see that and understand that others cannot.
Last edited:
armoredman
New member
I see. Actually, the "queen" comment is quite funny as infantry is known as the queen of battle, but I was never Army.
I'm so glad that I amused you, have a nice day.
I'm so glad that I amused you, have a nice day.
LockedBreech
New member
I paid $535 for my 92FS. Berettas run 525-750 depending on the model (92FS, 92A1, Brig Inox, etc.) CZ-75s are 490-580 these days, depending on the model (75 Compact, 75 BD, P01, etc). The internal tooling/finish on the Beretta is notably superior. That alone doesn't make it the better gun (though, for me, it is) but it's undeniably true. CZs are great guns and performance wise the marks probably don't matter, but the difference is there and in my opinion should be noted.
Full disclosure, and I've never been secretive about it, I'm every inch a Beretta fanboy. I don't mean to fixate on the 92 in particular, it's just the easiest price/material example I know.
Last edited:
I bought a new Italian made 92FS for just over $500 about a year or so ago, so yes, they are competitive to CZ's in price, and also represent a really good value. They may have a little better finish, but I do not consider them superior to CZ's in any way. I have been shooting my 92FS, and 92FS/M9A1 INOX Compact side by side with my 75B, and PCR the past year, and still find the CZ's have a slight edge in how I shoot them. YMMV.
Independent George
New member
It must be local pricing differences - I've yet to see a new 92 series for less than $650 here in IL. Which is really too bad for me, because they are gorgeous, gorgeous guns.