? Question To CZ Owners...

[Kappy]

I hadn't noticed that the inside of my CZ was ugly. Anyone want to take it off my hands? I'll sell it for what it's worth to me- just $2,000. I'm not going to include the .22 Kadet conversion kit. I'll save that for the CZ I'll buy with your $2k!

[Newport]

From Post No. 29: The 75 was first produced in 1975. They probably use machines from back then.

Possibly, although if the same machines, they have gone through a few rebuilds using the same set of drawings. Regardless, the fact they haven't changed anything in ages is because they have a proven design that works reliably. And, more importantly for our purposes, stays on the Roster unmolested, without LCI or Mag Disconnect.

FYI, my 75B Stainless is flawless inside and outside, so maybe these get more attention.

[jpx0123]

I have a p-01 that passed the nato requirement testing. I have to say I didn't look at the internals yet that closely. but with the reliability that this model has, I wouldn't care if it had tooling marks and the coating was peeling off. if it functions and doesn't ever jam or FTE.. its fine with me. I got it because I wanted something that was reliable that I could depend on.

and its going to look like that anyways after you use it enough.. if I want a pretty gun, I will get another Sig.

[dk94044]

Yes my new p09 looked like a drunk took a dremel to the insides, scratch marks everywhere but function and accuracy was surprisingly great. In a side by side shoutout vs VP9 2 other shooters and myself had tighter groups with p09. Recoil was also noticeable with vp9, p09 very very soft and followup shots quick

[Canadadry]

From Post No. 29: The 75 was first produced in 1975. They probably use machines from back then.

Possibly, although if the same machines, they have gone through a few rebuilds using the same set of drawings. Regardless, the fact they haven't changed anything in ages is because they have a proven design that works reliably. And, more importantly for our purposes, stays on the Roster unmolested, without LCI or Mag Disconnect.

FYI, my 75B Stainless is flawless inside and outside, so maybe these get more attention.

Nothing wrong with using old equipment. Colt still uses some of the original machines that they use to make the only true 1911.

Newport: You're right it probably cost them nothing to make guns. It just like GM. It cost them $75 to make 5.3 Liter V8. They made over 100 million V8s.

[mievil]

Who cares if it was made on tooling from 1975? That's like saying a 56 Bel Air's door jambs should be crap because.....well, because 1956. Look at any Swiss gun back through the 1900s and into the late 1800s. That's a 120 year spread and still beautiful to this day.

To the OP, the problem lies here. You are buying a new TV for let's say $600. Hell, let's say $550 even. You open the box, take it out and hang it up. All the wires are hanging out the back of the case, and spaghetti jumbled to hell. Can you still watch the actual image from the front of the monitor? Yes. Does the wiring cause you to not see a clear image? No. But it looks like a rat chewed on it for 3 months prior to delivery, but only on the back. The TV is just a tool right? The function of the tool being to watch an image displayed on the front. If the tool meets it's uses, what does it matter? Why should the purchaser of said TV complain that it looks like crap? He should have just bought a $3000 80" screen TV if he wanted nice, right?

Complete crap.

Let's look at it another way. Show me the crappy tooling marks on a $400 XD9? Or a $500 Glock? My $550 CZ should have no worse finish than that $400 XD. The XD will look damn near perfect every time. So will the Glock. The CZ won't.

People keep telling CZ buyers that they should be satisfied with sub par interior finishes because it didn't cost $2500. I say BS. Stitch had wearing on the functional parts of the firearm when it was new. There is no way a new firearm should have the finish worn off of the firing pin block where the lifter runs. Period. There should be no reason why a brand new turd of a Glock should look better inside than a brand new CZ. If someone got a crappy smudge that wouldn't clean up on the exterior of their CZ75 polished stainless, you'd all be screaming that they got a crap gun and it should go back. Even though it didn't cost $1k or $2500 like a fancy 1911. But because it's inside, you tell him to look the other way.

Geez. Now I need to go eat some ice cream and not think about looking at the back of my TV.

[jpx0123]

Just checked mine. Not as bad as OPs but mark are definitely noticeable. Shoots great tho. I don't mind the inside looking like that if it's reliable.

[Vinnie]

That's one of the reasons I Love my CZ's. Pretty on the outside, a little rough on the inside, but they always run flawless.

... I totally agree. My CZs are the most reliable, period:

• They are by far the most comfortable to hold and fire,
• I can feed them any and all the 9mm cartridges out there,
• They go BANG,
• They are accurate,
• They spit out the empties, and are ready to do it all over again... just as fast as I am able to keep pulling the trigger.

Oh, and they look great too... but that's not why I own them

The OP seems to imply that we CZ owners have settled on something inferior, instead of stepping-up and buying something decent. For me, his premise is false, because if I was faced with a grab-n-go do-or-die situation, I'd reach for one of my CZs. Yes, I do own a 1911 (very happy with it, great piece of work), but I would grab the CZ and run with it, regardless of how much money I paid for it.

This thread made me think of something I've thought for awhile but never put into words: I've seen numerous postings with photos of some very beautiful carry pistols... gorgeous... with not a mark on them, like they've never been, or rarely ever been fired.. But, personally, I simply will not carry a pistol that has not flawlessly fired at least 200 consecutive rounds of whatever carry ammo I plan to be using it in. If the pistol can do that, while covering all the bullet-point items stated above... then I couldn't give a rat's azz if the manufacturer polishes under the hood! For CZ to be able to consistently deliver what is most important to me, for under $600 is pretty impressive. Just my 2-cents.

Vinnie

. . .
. .
.

[Canadadry]

My Ed Brown Special Forces has tooling marks inside the slide it functioned fine. I could have bought 4 SP-01s for what I paid for the Ed Brown. I will never again, pay that kind of money for a hand gun. I'll pay that for a rifle without a second thought but not a hand gun.

[hunterb]

CZ guys tend to be shooters, not collectors.

CZ's SHOOT WELL, they don't look pretty. When I hear a new owner complaining about finish, my first question is ALWAYS: "How does it shoot?" 99% of the time they haven't shot it yet, or they wouldn't be complaining so much.

If you want something pretty, buy something pretty to sit on your shelf and impress your friends....

...I'll be at the range shooting my crazy accurate and easy to shoot CZ's.

[Vinnie]

CZ guys tend to be shooters, not collectors.

CZ's SHOOT WELL, they don't look pretty. When I hear a new owner complaining about finish, my first question is ALWAYS: "How does it shoot?" 99% of the time they haven't shot it yet, or they wouldn't be complaining so much.

If you want something pretty, buy something pretty to sit on your shelf and impress your friends....

...I'll be at the range shooting my crazy accurate and easy to shoot CZ's.

... nuff said.

[jpx0123]

... I totally agree. My CZs are the most reliable, period:

• They are by far the most comfortable to hold and fire,
• I can feed them any and all the 9mm cartridges out there,
• They go BANG,
• They are accurate,
• They spit out the empties, and are ready to do it all over again... just as fast as I am able to keep pulling the trigger.

Oh, and they look great too... but that's not why I own them

The OP seems to imply what we CZ owners have settled on something inferior, instead of stepping-up and buying something decent. For me, his premise is false, because if I was faced with a grab-n-go do-or-die situation, I'd reach for one of my CZs. Yes, I do own a 1911 (very happy with it, great piece of work), but I would grab the CZ and run with it, regardless of how much money I paid for it.

This thread made me think of something I've thought for awhile but never put into words: I've seen numerous postings with photos of some very beautiful carry pistols... gorgeous... with not a mark on them, like they've never been, or rarely ever been fired.. But, personally, I simply will not carry a pistol that has not flawlessly fired at least 200 consecutive rounds of whatever carry ammo I plan to be using it in. If the pistol can do that, while covering all the bullet-point items stated above... then I couldn't give a rat's azz if the manufacturer polishes under the hood! For CZ to be able to consistently deliver what is most important to me, for under $600 is pretty impressive. Just my 2-cents.

Vinnie

. . .
. .
.

+1 ON THAT. nice looking guns are good for collections. but if you are looking for a work horse, then cosmetics should not matter. most important is function and reliability.

I am a sig guy..but after trying the CZ I went out an got one. and now I am torn between the two. sig has much better finish and is very reliable, CZ is not a good a finish on the internals but just as reliable if not more. I am comfortable grabbing either. but the P-01 is starting to pull a little more into the lead.

[metalhead]

CZ guys tend to be shooters, not collectors.

CZ's SHOOT WELL, they don't look pretty. When I hear a new owner complaining about finish, my first question is ALWAYS: "How does it shoot?" 99% of the time they haven't shot it yet, or they wouldn't be complaining so much.

If you want something pretty, buy something pretty to sit on your shelf and impress your friends....

...I'll be at the range shooting my crazy accurate and easy to shoot CZ's.

^^^^
This. I ordered my first-ever CZ from CGW last week. I expect that it would be a great shooter but I don't expect its finish is as good as my DW 1911's or Sig X5's. One thing I know for sure is that I will enjoy my CZ and shoot the heck out of it

[CAGLS]

Who said they don't look pretty?

[Rod Nokin]

Just got my first CZ, a P01. Yah, it's a little rough on the inside but you can't argue with that NATO number on the side. Esthetically I think I think it's a beauty, looks like a bulldog.