CZ-75B or CZ P-09; Which one for nightstand/range duty?

[Walt Sherrill]

>Reliability: The U.S. Army “Mean Rounds Between Failure” (MRBF) requirement is 495 rounds for 9mm pistols. During testing of the CZ P-01, the average number of stoppages was only 7 per 15,000 rounds fired. This is a .05% failure rate or an MRBF of 2142! For many years, the P-01 carried an NSN engraved on its frame, making it the first NATO-spec pistol ever available to the public<

Many NATO-spec pistols are available to the public, but none of them carry the NSN marking. It seems to matter more to potential civilian buyers in the U.S. than it does to government buyers elsewhere in the world.

The information you cite dates back over a decade. It may still be valid, but it's old news. The testing you address was done for the Czech National Police. To the best of knowledge, the P-01 was never tested by the U.S. military. (Although CZ was one of the gunmakers that wanted to submit guns for the earlier competition and contract that led to the acquisition of the Beretta M9)

Heritage:
The P-01 is based on the CZ 75, the most used pistol in the world. Over 60 countries use it as the standard side arm of their Armies, National police forces, National security agencies or other Law enforcement organizations. No other pistol can make this claim.

You've been reading too many CZ marketing blurbs, and not reading them closely or critically.

CZ claims that the CZ is the most WIDELY used pistol -- not the most USED. That may or may not be correct, but it will be hard to prove or disprove. It's been used in a lot of different locations and countries around the world (hence "widely" used). Lots of small departments and military units in Africa (including the South African Police), a lot of full-size CZ in the Middle East, including the Israeli military and police, as well as some sales to militaries in Southeast Asia. CZ also sold 75Bs to Turkey, who eventually bought licensing rights for the Tanfoglio version and built their own. Along with many sales of Tanfoglio versions of the CZ design sold Israel Turkey. But Tanfoglio guns aren't really CZs.

The FN-made Hi-Power/High Power may have a strong claim to that superlative, as well. Only recently replaced by the Glock in the British Army, and still used elsewhere. That stretches back to WWII, as well.

The Beretta has sold almost a million Berettas to the US DOD over a 30-year period -- and the fact that it's been (and is still) widely used in police and militaries around the world, it is arguably the most USED pistol currently in service.

The US built and put well over a million 1911s into service during WWII and many of them are still around -- and while it was "replaced" by the Beretta M9 (which you can buy), it has lingered on in the US arsenal. Newer versions from different makers continue to be used in the US military -- but not in large numbers.

...To my knowledge the pistol supposedly had drop in parts before any changes to the NATO markings (supposedly it was the first CZ product to do so). As I've mentioned before, my 2015 model has the markings and that blurb about them not carrying the NSN (which has a "may" in it) has been on that website since before my pistol was manufactured. I'm relatively confident that my P-01 actually is newer production and not just stamped as such given the slightly different slide cuts it has compared to previous generations as well as evidence of better machining and finishing of internal parts (subjective assessment to be fair)....

As it was explained to me, CZ has long had the practice of building a lot of different components in large runs, and not always assembling them until an order required it. That may have changed with the new production methods. But slides made last year might be mounted on frames made this year or two years ago. The parts bearing serial numbers and dates weren't always stamped until they were ready to be shipped.

It wouldn't surprise me to see NSN continue to appear for a while, but I will be surprised if it doesn't eventually disappear. I've never heard an explanation as to why the NSN may disappear, but I suspect that "stuff on the shelf" approach may explain why CZ was able to sell a bunch of CZ 40Ps some years back, using a slightly-modified P-01 frame and a CZ40B slide. (Maybe it was just a good way to get ride of excess 40B slides; they also did a second production run of 40Bs a year or two after initial introduction.)

None of my comments should be considered criticisms or disparagements of CZ guns or designs. I think they're great guns. I've had a bunch of CZs over the years, as well as many other CZ-pattern guns. One of my more recent acquisitions was a P-07.

I just wonder how closely and uncritically some of the CZ fans read the information they cite.

 

[TunnelRat]

I've heard you give that explanation before but it doesn't match what I've seen in person. I think my explanation for that blurb on the NSN is just as likely. Time will tell.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

For many years, the P-01 carried an NSN engraved on its frame, making it the first NATO-spec pistol ever available to the public. Recently, the factory decided to upgrade the slide stop spring which in turn means the current models may not carry the NSN.

Sorry. That wasn't meant to downplay your bolded sentence, shown above. If the slide stop design is the big change, I wonder why THAT would cause them to drop the NSN designation? And what is needed to get it again, if they consider it important?

I added the underlining above. I think the civilian version of the M9 was identical to the military version used by the U.S. military. And I believe it was available BEFORE the the P-01 was introduced. I don't remember whether it carried (in either its military form or the civilian M8) the NATO mark or not, but that doesn't mean it didn't meet NATO spec. Someone more familiar with Berettas may have that answer. Does that "spec" really mean anything when so many different guns are already in use and battle-tested by NATO troops?

Have you found ANYTHING anywhere about what is involved in getting a weapon to meet NATO specs? Or what those specs are? I've searched and searched and found nothing about handguns standards or specs. A little about long guns. And a lot about ammo.

.

 

[TunnelRat]

As I said in post 19, I think the NSN markings are misleading and frankly unimportant. I really don't care about them. My comments are merely that I don't think the markings are going away and that the blurb we see was just a stop gap measure.

I've seen P-01s without those markings in the past, and then seen them come back again (I've owned a half dozen or so P-01s). I have no idea how "recently" those changes to the P-01 were made. I do think they're back to adding the NSN to the frames. Whether that means they got approval again or not I have no idea. I think the parts on the shelf explanation is why that blurb exists honestly, but that we're already past that transitional stage.

From more recent CZ products I've owned it seems that either some more QC was added or new equipment as the products seem notably "nicer", as I said I know that's subjective but I stand by it.

I think that blurb addresses P-01s that are "in the wild" that customers may have questions about.

As you said many NATO countries use all sorts of pistols and don't feel the need for markings. As far as I can tell it's just marketing.

 

[RAfiringline]

>You've been reading too many CZ marketing blurbs, and not reading them closely or critically.<

Walt,

I think you're a little confused.

I OBVIOUSLY was posting the text from a press release as indicated by the link that was immediately above it.

http://cz-usa.com/press-release/cz-p...rfect-pistols/

I didn't post it because I believed every word of it, I posted it because it detailed the tests they say it went through to satisfy the Czech Natl Police.

What I do know to be true is the czp01 I own has had -0- stoppages in 1092 rds., which is a lot better performance than other pistols I've used in recent years.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Okay. Let's just say I'm the one who is confused. And my apologies if I offended you.

NATO specifications -- never defined for this discussion -- are apparently not available for review. I applaud the Czech National Police for such stringest standards and testing hurdles for their weapon, but I doubt that the typical CNP weapon will EVER come close to the level of use the many Berettas that have been experienced in the U.S. inventory over the past 30 years.

When you conflate all of those different terms and variables in one discussion and focus on the P-01 being the only NATO spec weapon available for civilian use (which is arguably not the case), its hard to take it all seriously.

Most NATO weapons use 115 gr. 9mm ammo loaded a little hotter than standard factory -- a bit below Plus +. NATO troops can also use 124 Gr. NATO ammo, but it seems to be less widely available and like the NATO 115 gr. loads, it's NOT +P. The original CZ-75 was designed around the Sellier & Bellot 124 gr. standard factory round, and all of the non-Omega metal-framed CZ are variants of that same basic design.

The tests applied to the P-01 for the Czech National Ppolice addressed the use of +P ammo. As best I can tell, the P-01 is like all of the 75B-based guns; they all use the same manual and are held to the same warranty standards and limitations. If you flip to the AMMUNITION part of the Owner's manual you'll find nothing about recommended loads and no mention of +P ammo use. That said, while there may be one or two gun makers who embrace +P loads (H&K perhaps?) in some models, I don't know of any gun maker that recommends a steady diet of +P ammo for any 9mm handgun -- nor do any of them expect a pistol to survive 15,000 rounds of that load.

Perhaps that's what the forged alloy frame was intended for -- but I don't think a forged alloy frame is more robust than a cast steel frame. (Then, too, slides, not frames, are often the first victim of hot rounds.)

CZ claims the CZ-75 line makes up the "most widely used pistol" but, as noted earlier, that claim can interpreted in so many ways as to be almost meaningless -- and I offered examples of other pistols that can probably make equally legitimate claims to that superlative. It all reads like marketing (or advertising) hype. Sounds good, though. Much of what CZ says in it's marketing materials and press releases must be taken with a grain of salt -- It's advertising!! CZ is not unique in this advertising approach -- Glock, SIG, Bereteta and other gun makers are just as guilty of using similarly ambiguous and hyperpolic language.

Reading gun company ads can be a bit like reading poetry -- you get out of it what you bring to it.

 

[RAfiringline]

>When you conflate all of those different terms and variables in one discussion and focus on the P-01 being the only NATO spec weapon available for civilian use (which is arguably not the case), its hard to take it all seriously.<

Walt,

Now I know you are confused.

I didn't say the p01 was the " the only NATO spec weapon available for civilian use ". I don't think anybody else said that, either.

Why would anybody claim that? Like many people who post in this forum, I own a B92 and a Glock 19 - as far as I know, both are used by the militarys of NATO member countries and apparently conform to whatever NATO specs might be.

As for CZ's press release of the description of the rigorous tests the Czech Natl Police required that the p01 be put through and that it passed - if you have any evidence that they are lying about it, post it.

Otherwise, this isn't productive - let's drop it and move on.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

You're right. You were posting someone else's comments. (Believe it or not, that was NOT manifestly obvious.) But that was my error.

And it was stated as the FIRST weapon to do make a NATO spec weapon available to the civilian market -- (not by you). I'm not sure even that is correct. I'm pretty sure Beretta M9s were available to the civilian market BEFORE the P-01 was introduced. If I remember correctly, they were available in the late 90's in special presentation sets. They had been in service by the US military for over a decade by then.

You did cite many other things straight from the CZ website, including their claim that the CZ was the most widely used weapon. Widely used isn't the same as MOST used. And MOST used isn't necessarily the same as most in use. Any variation on that claim is open to dispute.

You cited CZ's claim that "The CZ P-01 is the culmination of several years of exhaustive design and testing." Can you tell us anything about that claim?

As best I can tell, the frame is one obvious result of that exhaustive redesign and testing. That said, it seems that all of the alloy-framed compacts share most internal parts, with slide stops varying depending on frame width, and the presence or absence of a loaded chamber indicator. The Compact (steel framed) has a safety, and one more hammer hook than the decocker (non-Omega) models (removal of one hammer hook necessary to make room for the decocker mechanism.)

Do I think CZ was untruthful about any of their claims? No. Do I think you can take everything you read on their (or any other gun maker's) website as Gospel? No.

 

[RAfiringline]

>You're right. You were posting someone else's comments. (Believe it or not, that was NOT manifestly obvious.) But that was my error. <

This is getting ridiculous.

What I posted (that was plainly below a weblink) was not somebody else's "comments" it was CZ's STATEMENTS on their website that gives a lot of detail on the testing and requirements that they say the gun passed.

They released it 13 years ago, it's full of specifics beyond what most handgun manufacturers publish, and apparently nobody has refuted their claims, at least that I can find.

http://cz-usa.com/press-release/cz-p-01-gets-nato-approval-the-next-generation-of-perfect-pistols/

>And it was stated as the FIRST weapon to do make a NATO spec weapon available to the civilian market -- (not by you). I'm not sure even that is correct. I'm pretty sure Beretta M9s were available to the civilian market BEFORE the P-01 was introduced. If I remember correctly, they were available in the late 90's in special presentation sets. They had been in service by the US military for over a decade by then.<

I just read through that press release (url above) and nowhere in it can I find the claim that it was the "FIRST weapon to do make a NATO spec weapon available to the civilian market".

I quickly read through all the posts in this thread, and I couldn't find any poster saying anything like "it was the "FIRST weapon to do make a NATO spec weapon available to the civilian market".

With Beretta 92 models (just to mention one example) around long before 2003, it seems like an unlikely claim for anyone to make.

I'll leave it at that..

The CZ claim that I think is dubious is "The next Generation of perfect pistols". CZp01's aren't "perfect" - no gun is.

>You cited CZ's claim that "The CZ P-01 is the culmination of several years of exhaustive design and testing." Can you tell us anything about that claim? <

Really? Do you think it didn't go through several years of "exhaustive design and testing"? Do you think any gun that has met NATO standards and that went through the apparently more stringent tests/standards that CZ states the Czech Natl Police required, wouldn't have required "several years"???

>Do I think CZ was untruthful about any of their claims? No.<

If you don't think CZ is being untruthful, then why raise a question about them claiming something as innocuous as saying "culmination of several years of exhaustive design and testing".

You don't have to answer that, I'm just pointing it out because it's confusing.

> Do I think you can take everything you read on their (or any other gun maker's) website as Gospel? No.<

Well, there you go - something we can all agree on.

Like I said before, let's drop it.

 

[wild cat mccane]

I'll say it: who cares?

A)About your two's quibble,
B) the inherent claim that the Czech Republic is important (as if they are the manufacturing mecca of the world???),
C) proof stamps that are market hype (point in fact, the eagle over N stamp/stag antler is HK/Walther's Ulm proof mark, the best in the world...but no one brings it up when discussing these manufactures)

 

[BigBL87]

So... getting back to the original discussion... leaning 75B, but still thinking about the P-09.

And regarding carry, I already have a smaller gun (PT-111 G2) for carry.

 

[wild cat mccane]

Change the pistols/manufacture to help make your mind up.

A 92SF vs PX4. Both hammer fired, both with same decock/safety, only the PX4 has the changeable backstraps, 92 is heavier, etc. Which would you choose?

IF you are inclined to the 92 and leaning towards the 75b, that's your take.

Myself, I would take minimally more recoil for lighter weight and customization of grips. Both the 75b and P-09 have after market upgrades. Generally, most on the internet (where CZs are loved) state they need upgrades to the springs to be nice.
...so you can't go wrong. But I can't say either is the perfect platform.