marine6680
New member
The m&p is a good choice... If you can get the apex kit, I would say it is a good investment for a fine trigger.
Toughest Striker Fired 9mm
- Thread starter JJ45
- Start date
Walt, you say Rugers come close to Glocks. I have always liked Rugers and have a bunch.
But it seems strange to me that LE does not equip with Rugers as much as some other pistols. Most tax supported operations are cost conscious and it would seem Ruger could offer a good product cheaper than anyone else as they do with the civilian market.
I do know that some do. M Ayoob's PD in New Hampshire issued P90s for a while.
The PA. State Trooper's were supplied with the Security Six 357 before the move to high cap autos....but Ruger is conspicuously absent from most LE/Military agencies.
But it seems strange to me that LE does not equip with Rugers as much as some other pistols. Most tax supported operations are cost conscious and it would seem Ruger could offer a good product cheaper than anyone else as they do with the civilian market.
I do know that some do. M Ayoob's PD in New Hampshire issued P90s for a while.
The PA. State Trooper's were supplied with the Security Six 357 before the move to high cap autos....but Ruger is conspicuously absent from most LE/Military agencies.
Walt Sherrill
New member
JJ45 said:
I think cost may be the reason. As I understand it, S&W and Glock (and possibly SIG) often make offers so GOOD for the LE Agencies (including buy-backs of existing inventory), that the agencies would be foolish to turn them down. In some cases, it may simply be a bidding war. Glock's ability and willinginess to do that certainly got them established in the U.S. market some years ago.
Ruger, as best I can tell, hasn't done that. (I may be wrong...) If so, I admire their unwillingness to buy market share. That may explain why we don't see more of their weapons used by government agency holsters.
Gats Italian
New member
"The famous G21 torture test" is for literal window lickers.
Let's rust it!!! AND SEE IF COSMETIC DAMAGE STOPS IT.
Let's drop it from a small plane!!! INTO A PLOWED DIRT FIELD.
Let's shoot it with a rifle!!! IN THE HARDENED ORDNANCE STEEL SLIDE—USING .22lr RNL.
Let's rust it!!! AND SEE IF COSMETIC DAMAGE STOPS IT.
Let's drop it from a small plane!!! INTO A PLOWED DIRT FIELD.
Let's shoot it with a rifle!!! IN THE HARDENED ORDNANCE STEEL SLIDE—USING .22lr RNL.
I'm not Walt, but a lot of handgun procurement decisions also have to take into consideration factory armorer support Glock, Sig, and S&W have huge departments that face LE customers only, and do a damn good job of providing repair, advisement, and training services that often go well beyond just keeping the springs in the guns.
Ruger used to have a fairly sizable LE/Gov contract unit, but not anymore. Not in any appreciable size to handle the big city purchasers, etc.
I think they could get back into the game if they wanted. I also think the SR9 is a damn good gun, but I don't think it is as rugged and as tough as the proven Glocks.
Perhaps the most amazing thing about that test is that, despite all of the theatrics, the gun was used constantly in high round count competitive and recreational shooting by a guy that works at a company whose reputation is moving large quantities of ammo.
So you are spot on that the tests were goofy, but that really was besides the point for anyone paying attention.
Do you have a hypothesis and test that you think could kill a G21? Don't say "I think that baking it in a cake" would do it, because that's been done too.
That G21 test was a lot of fun, and dragging it behind the truck was probably the most stressful besides the sand tests. I tried the sand tests with my Glocks and didn't get quite as far.
Not 9mm, but (as I've posted before, and originally reported by Walt Rauch):
When the FBI tested the Glock models 22 and 23, they did abuse testing, a parts interchangeability test, exposure tests, an obstructed bore test, a Field Suitability Evaluation plus accuracy and endurance tests. In addition, all pistols had to have a service life of 10,000 rounds.
Glock’s 22 and 23 met or exceeded all requirements.
Abuse tests included: They field stripped three guns, and swapped parts among them, then fired 20 rounds from each without failure. Two of the pistols were put into a freezer to –20F for one hour, then immediately withdrawn and fired, next they went in an oven at 120F for one hour and immediately withdrawn and fired. With the pistols containing primed cartridges in their chamber, and dummy rounds in the mags, they were next dropped, twice at each orientation, onto concrete from a height of four feet: muzzle down, muzzle up, on their right side, on their left side, sights down, and squarely on the butt. Immediately following this, the cases were examined for primer indents then the pistols were fired with 20 rounds to ensure proper functioning.
The guns, loaded again with primed cartridges in their chambers, and dummy rounds in the mags, were tossed from a height of four feet, to a distance of 15 feet onto concrete, landing twice each on their right and left sides. The guns could not fire and the magazines had to stay in place. Immediately following this, the cases were examined for primer indents then the pistols were fired with 20 rounds to ensure proper functioning. Two magazines, loaded with dummy ammo were also dropped, twice at each orientation, onto concrete from a height of four feet onto their base plates and onto their feed lips. They could not lose a round and were then tested by firing 10 rounds each without a malfunction.
They also dunked them in salt water for 5 minutes, pulled them out, shook them for 15 seconds, rinsed them with clear water and let them sit for 24 hours then fired 20 rounds without malfunction. One of the three guns was cleaned, lubed and loaded then put in a box containing half play sand and half road sand, and covered up. It was removed shaken out and fired until empty. The last abuse test had a bullet lodged in the barrel, one inch in front of the chamber. Then one round of service ammunition was fired with the obstruction in place. The pistol could not rupture or fragment the frame slide or barrel. As an added test five more rounds were fired after the first round cleared the barrel obstruction.
The endurance test meant firing 10,000 rounds thru each of the six pistols. No major parts replacements were allowed, including magazines, and the malfunction rate could not be greater than 1 in 2000 rounds. The pistols never missed a beat, with zero malfunctions in 60,000 rounds. They were then fired with another 10,000 rounds, for a total of 20,000 rounds each, and a grand total of 120,000 rounds (that’s 145 five gallon buckets of empty brass). One model 22 needed a new trigger bar after 17,131 rounds and another 22 needed a trigger bar after 19,494 rounds. The other model 22 and all three model 23s made it thru all 20,000 rounds without a failure. Following the endurance tests, the pistols were once again tested for accuracy and passed (4” at 25 yards with a variety of ammo from 155 to 180 grain bullet weights).
When the FBI tested the Glock models 22 and 23, they did abuse testing, a parts interchangeability test, exposure tests, an obstructed bore test, a Field Suitability Evaluation plus accuracy and endurance tests. In addition, all pistols had to have a service life of 10,000 rounds.
Glock’s 22 and 23 met or exceeded all requirements.
Abuse tests included: They field stripped three guns, and swapped parts among them, then fired 20 rounds from each without failure. Two of the pistols were put into a freezer to –20F for one hour, then immediately withdrawn and fired, next they went in an oven at 120F for one hour and immediately withdrawn and fired. With the pistols containing primed cartridges in their chamber, and dummy rounds in the mags, they were next dropped, twice at each orientation, onto concrete from a height of four feet: muzzle down, muzzle up, on their right side, on their left side, sights down, and squarely on the butt. Immediately following this, the cases were examined for primer indents then the pistols were fired with 20 rounds to ensure proper functioning.
The guns, loaded again with primed cartridges in their chambers, and dummy rounds in the mags, were tossed from a height of four feet, to a distance of 15 feet onto concrete, landing twice each on their right and left sides. The guns could not fire and the magazines had to stay in place. Immediately following this, the cases were examined for primer indents then the pistols were fired with 20 rounds to ensure proper functioning. Two magazines, loaded with dummy ammo were also dropped, twice at each orientation, onto concrete from a height of four feet onto their base plates and onto their feed lips. They could not lose a round and were then tested by firing 10 rounds each without a malfunction.
They also dunked them in salt water for 5 minutes, pulled them out, shook them for 15 seconds, rinsed them with clear water and let them sit for 24 hours then fired 20 rounds without malfunction. One of the three guns was cleaned, lubed and loaded then put in a box containing half play sand and half road sand, and covered up. It was removed shaken out and fired until empty. The last abuse test had a bullet lodged in the barrel, one inch in front of the chamber. Then one round of service ammunition was fired with the obstruction in place. The pistol could not rupture or fragment the frame slide or barrel. As an added test five more rounds were fired after the first round cleared the barrel obstruction.
The endurance test meant firing 10,000 rounds thru each of the six pistols. No major parts replacements were allowed, including magazines, and the malfunction rate could not be greater than 1 in 2000 rounds. The pistols never missed a beat, with zero malfunctions in 60,000 rounds. They were then fired with another 10,000 rounds, for a total of 20,000 rounds each, and a grand total of 120,000 rounds (that’s 145 five gallon buckets of empty brass). One model 22 needed a new trigger bar after 17,131 rounds and another 22 needed a trigger bar after 19,494 rounds. The other model 22 and all three model 23s made it thru all 20,000 rounds without a failure. Following the endurance tests, the pistols were once again tested for accuracy and passed (4” at 25 yards with a variety of ammo from 155 to 180 grain bullet weights).
Cyanide971
New member
Though not a striker-fire, don't forget another pistol which isn't talked about too widely that underwent decent endurance testing also, the CZ P-01 and the Czech police trials (often mistaken for NATO endurance testing, as the P-01 wore an NSN, causing confusion).
"The police required that the pistol ensure the highest level of comfort, an extended slide release was added as well as an extended magazine release and the trigger was reshaped to give a more consistent pull throughout the trigger stroke.
The pistol must be 100% reliable in extreme conditions, the following is a list of some of the minimum requirements.
Must be able to complete the following without failure:
4,000 dry firings
3,000 De-cockings
Operator level disassembly 1,350 times without wear or damage to components.
Complete disassembly 150 times, this is all the way down, pins, springs etc.
100% interchangability, any number of pistols randomly selected, disassembled, parts mixed and reassembled with no failures of any kind including loss of accuracy.
Safety requirements:
Drop test
1.5 meter (4.9') drop test, this is done 54 times with the pistol loaded (w/blank cartridge) and the hammer cocked. Dropping the pistol on the butt, the muzzle, back of the slide, sides of the gun, top of the slide, in essence, any angle that you could drop the gun from. This is done on concrete and zero failures are allowed. A failure is the gun firing.
3 meter drop (9.8') 5 times with the pistol loaded (w/blank cartridge) and the hammer cocked. This is done on concrete and zero failures are allowed. A failure is the gun firing.
After these tests are complete the gun must fire without service.
The factory contracted an independent lab to do additional testing on guns that previously passed the drop tests. These pistol were dropped an additional 352 times without failure.
The pistol must also complete an environmental conditions test (cold, heat, dust/sand, and mud).
The pistol must fire after being frozen for 24 hours at –36°F.
The pistol must fire after being heated for 24 hours at 126°F.
The pistol must fire after being submerged in mud, sand, and combinations including being stripped of oil then completing the sand and mud tests again.
Service life:
The service life requirement from the Czech police was 15,000 rounds of +P ammo.
The pistol will exceed 30,000 rounds with ball 9mm.
Reliability:
The reliability requirements for the P-01 pistol are 99.8% (a .2% failure rate).
This equals 20 stoppages in 10,000 rounds or 500 “Mean Rounds Between Failure” (MRBF).
During testing, the average number of stoppages was only 7 per 15,000 rounds fired, this is a .05% failure rate, a MRBF rate of 2,142 rounds. Over four times the minimum acceptable requirement."
"The police required that the pistol ensure the highest level of comfort, an extended slide release was added as well as an extended magazine release and the trigger was reshaped to give a more consistent pull throughout the trigger stroke.
The pistol must be 100% reliable in extreme conditions, the following is a list of some of the minimum requirements.
Must be able to complete the following without failure:
4,000 dry firings
3,000 De-cockings
Operator level disassembly 1,350 times without wear or damage to components.
Complete disassembly 150 times, this is all the way down, pins, springs etc.
100% interchangability, any number of pistols randomly selected, disassembled, parts mixed and reassembled with no failures of any kind including loss of accuracy.
Safety requirements:
Drop test
1.5 meter (4.9') drop test, this is done 54 times with the pistol loaded (w/blank cartridge) and the hammer cocked. Dropping the pistol on the butt, the muzzle, back of the slide, sides of the gun, top of the slide, in essence, any angle that you could drop the gun from. This is done on concrete and zero failures are allowed. A failure is the gun firing.
3 meter drop (9.8') 5 times with the pistol loaded (w/blank cartridge) and the hammer cocked. This is done on concrete and zero failures are allowed. A failure is the gun firing.
After these tests are complete the gun must fire without service.
The factory contracted an independent lab to do additional testing on guns that previously passed the drop tests. These pistol were dropped an additional 352 times without failure.
The pistol must also complete an environmental conditions test (cold, heat, dust/sand, and mud).
The pistol must fire after being frozen for 24 hours at –36°F.
The pistol must fire after being heated for 24 hours at 126°F.
The pistol must fire after being submerged in mud, sand, and combinations including being stripped of oil then completing the sand and mud tests again.
Service life:
The service life requirement from the Czech police was 15,000 rounds of +P ammo.
The pistol will exceed 30,000 rounds with ball 9mm.
Reliability:
The reliability requirements for the P-01 pistol are 99.8% (a .2% failure rate).
This equals 20 stoppages in 10,000 rounds or 500 “Mean Rounds Between Failure” (MRBF).
During testing, the average number of stoppages was only 7 per 15,000 rounds fired, this is a .05% failure rate, a MRBF rate of 2,142 rounds. Over four times the minimum acceptable requirement."
Walt Sherrill
New member
Cyanide971 said:
The P-01 NO LONGER wears that imprint.
Several years after introducing the P-01, CZ apparently changed some of their production practices in ways that (according to CZ) allowed for greater consistency in part production which allowed true "drop in" part interchangeability. That means lower production/assembly costs and lower repair costs if repairs are ever needed. When CZ made that change, the NATO designation went away.
(I suspect those production practices have been (or will be) expanded to include al models, as the internals are virtually identical in all of the 9mm/.40 (non-Omega) weapons. CZ may later choose to have the NATO designation reestablished, but it was arguably more "marketing" hype than anything else, anyway. It does sound as though the production changes were a good thing.)
Many of the weapons used by NATO nations did not/do not go through a rigorous "meet the NATO standards" process to leads to a NATO "Imprimatur" -- the countries in question simply use the guns made in their own factories. (Surprise!)
I had NOT seen the Czech Police requirements, before. That is impressive. All they need to add to that is a pickup truck running over the P-01, as it lays submerged in a mud puddle (ala Glock!)
Cyanide971
New member
[emoji106] Very true Walt! Mine had it, but it wasn't a big deal one way or the other, just more stuff on the side of the pistol.
I should have clarified that in my earlier post, that many people misinterpret the Czech Police testing standard as NATO testing and, what earned the P-01 it's original NSN.
Back to the original subject matter at hand, like others have said, you really cannot go wrong with modern pistols, as they will all take all that and more that the average end-user can dish out. It is just a matter of what works best for you as an individual.
But maybe now I need to go torture test my CZ 100. Maybe that'll give CZ a push to give us another striker-fire pistol!
[emoji12] [emoji12] [emoji12]
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
New member
Cyanide971 said:
CZ should have clarified that NEWS RELEASE that stayed on their website for years, that caused most readers to confuse/conflate the Czech Police testing process with the NATO certification process. (It was easy mistake to make, given the way it was written.)
Re: torture testing your CZ-100. Be sure to use a big pickup truck!
Just shooting one was torture test enough for me. (I've had both 0mm and .40 versions, and unlike you, found little to like -- except the ergonomics, which were pretty good.)
Last edited:
And yet Ruger sells more guns, Smith, Springfield and Glock all use LEO endorsments to advertize and in the process they offer deals to LEO. You really think it costs Smith $50 more to build a M&P, of course not, but they have to charge you $50 more because they sold one to LEO for $100 less than you paid.
They're all good guns I like the Ruger trigger better.
A little OT but relevant to "toughness"
Some have referred to how many/few parts. FWIW the PM Makarov has only 25 parts. In contrast the Walther PP/PPk is comprised of 42 pieces for a difference of 17 parts.....this makes for a simple, sturdy weapon more readily reproduced.
Add to that, a chromed bore and the fact that the pistol and ammunition evolved together and were designed around one another.
Though the cartridge may be underpowered compared to the usual service rounds
Some have referred to how many/few parts. FWIW the PM Makarov has only 25 parts. In contrast the Walther PP/PPk is comprised of 42 pieces for a difference of 17 parts.....this makes for a simple, sturdy weapon more readily reproduced.
Add to that, a chromed bore and the fact that the pistol and ammunition evolved together and were designed around one another.
Though the cartridge may be underpowered compared to the usual service rounds
Is there anything you can point to that substantiates that claim? Because right now on the CZ USA website they give this as the explanation:
http://cz-usa.com/product/cz-p-01-9mm-black-alloy-14-rd-mags/
I say this because I've owned P-01s both with and without the designation and never noticed a lack of "drop in" part interchangeability with either in those samples. I do know the changes you claim were made because I have a friend that went and toured the CZ factory for work, but I think those changes were before the timeframe we're talking about (in terms of the NSN removal). CZ's explanation does seem to make sense to me having worked with NATO STANAG before.
Edit: The production changes are even mentioned in the description
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
New member
Tunnelrat said:
The product description for the P-01 on the CZ-USA site says the following, but I added the underlining. The "since NATO-approval in 2003" might cause someone to infer that the changes were already in place with the gun's introduction, but that would NOT explain the later removal of the NSN:
The P-01 was the first CZ model to benefit from updated manufacturing technology at CZ’s Uhersky Brod factory. The components of the P-01/P-06 are completely interchangable with every other P-01/P-06, with no individual fitting required. This required some very careful re-design so that the reliability and accuracy were not impaired. Since the time of its introduction (designed in 2001, NATO-approved in 2003) the production upgrades have been rolled out to most of the CZ 75 family and several new rifle models as well.
I have NOT seen that claim associated with other CZs, yet. As for noticing or not noticing a lack of "drop in" part interchangeability, you or I 1) aren't likely to notice much, UNLESS the part really is incompatible, 2) and we arguably have fewer opportunities to notice. Most of us MIGHT change a hammer, or other non-critical parts, but not much else. Hammer upgrades come with parts already subtly modified from the vendor.
Last edited:
I think the NSN removal is because of what I quoted above. They changed a part. Often with anything DoD or NATO related even changing the most benign of parts requires recertification.
As for the claims relative to other CZs, I thought that was in reference to the supposed improvements of the CZ 455 over the CZ 452.
Last edited: