Should I buy a CZ-75 SP-01?

capp325 said:
Sig and Beretta are pretty much the only popular alloy guns out there and both of these companies have recently jumped on the polymer bandwagon. That should tell you something. I'm willing to bet that within the next ten years, 92 and P22x series guns will be history.

Not if the US military has anything to say about it, they just ordered 10,000 more beretta's.


I wouldn't make that assumption :D

Anyways, I don't want to turn this thread into a polymer vs. alloy vs. steel debate. I'd just like to get some opinions on the SP-01.
Click to expand...

I read it in a magazine:eek:
 
Not if the US military has anything to say about it, they just ordered 10,000 more beretta's
Click to expand...
Wouldn't surprise me one bit... Unless they come up with some laser, starwars woodo guns that would make powderburners completely obsolete; Berettas (or Sig and CZ for that matter) aren't going anywhere! 10 years, 50 years etc...
 
maurice said:
Not if the US military has anything to say about it, they just ordered 10,000 more beretta's.
Click to expand...
Once the U.S, military contract is through, it'll be the end of the gun's lifecycle. No other major military is buying any more of these guns, and pretty much every LEO agency that was using 92's and 96's has dumped them in favor of Glocks.
 
capp325 said:
Sig and Beretta are pretty much the only popular alloy guns out there and both of these companies have recently jumped on the polymer bandwagon. That should tell you something. I'm willing to bet that within the next ten years, 92 and P22x series guns will be history.
Click to expand...

Manufacturing ease and cost is the reason why alloy framed pistols are not more popular for service use. Since everyone hit the bandwagon to make synthetic tupperware framed pistols, companies have found that it is simply more profitable to make light weight, strong service pistols from plastic/polymer.
 
Winz said:
Manufacturing ease and cost is the reason why alloy framed pistols are not more popular for service use. Since everyone hit the bandwagon to make synthetic tupperware framed pistols, companies have found that it is simply more profitable to make light weight, strong service pistols from plastic/polymer.
Click to expand...
No doubt, but there would still be room for alloy guns if they offered some kind of an advantage over polymer guns. But they don't. Tupperware is not only cheaper - it is also lighter and stronger. That's what I mean by saying that alloy frame guns have largely become obsolete from a technological standpoint.
 
capp325 said:
No doubt, but there would still be room for alloy guns if they offered some kind of an advantage over polymer guns. But they don't. Tupperware is not only cheaper - it is also lighter and stronger. That's what I mean by saying that alloy frame guns have largely become obsolete from a technological standpoint.
Click to expand...

Alloy's and steel pistols are no different in durablity, only in weight. They offer rigidity, accuracy, & more control, over the plastic fantastics. If manufacturers could produce alloy frames as cheap as plastic ones, there would be very few plastics pistols around.
Look at the smith & wesson titaniam and scandium stuff that is coming out, even lighter then plastic, stronger then steel. But again, it's a cost/profit issue to mass produce.
There is absolutely no benefit that a plastic framed pistol has over alloy. The few .oz weight difference is meaningless. Why is a lighter pistol somehow better??
 
Hitzy said:
Alloy's and steel pistols are no different in durablity, only in weight. They offer rigidity, accuracy, & more control, over the plastic fantastics. If manufacturers could produce alloy frames as cheap as plastic ones, there would be very few plastics pistols around.
Look at the smith & wesson titaniam and scandium stuff that is coming out, even lighter then plastic, stronger then steel. But again, it's a cost/profit issue to mass produce.
There is absolutely no benefit that a plastic framed pistol has over alloy. The few .oz weight difference is meaningless. Why is a lighter pistol somehow better??
Click to expand...
No offense, but there are so many incorrect statements in your post I don't know where to begin. First of all, steel and aluminum have vastly different characteristics. Try making a barrel out of aluminum and you will see what I mean (don't sue me afterwards though). The bottom line is that steel is both harder and tougher than even the strongest of aluminum alloys.

Second, the frame material has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy or controllability. There are some extremely accurate plastic guns out there (i.e. HK Mark 23 and various STI double stack pistols).

Third, "scandium" and titanium guns are not lighter than plastic. In fact, they are considerably heavier. Titanium is heavier than both polymer and aluminum, although it is lighter than steel. And S&W's "scandium" guns are nothing more than a marketing gimmick. They are not made out if pure scandium but rather of a scandium-aluminum alloy, with scandium making up less than 1.5% percent of the overall mix. In essence, they are aluminum guns by another name.
 
Try making a barrel out of aluminum and you will see what I mean
Click to expand...
try making one of it plastic... :eek:

Yes steel is stronger than alloy, but you can't say the same thing about plastic. You said it yourself that plastic guns have steel rails/inserts, but all plastic guns are not of equally durability. So general statement that plastic is more durable than alloy is simply false...
 
IM_Lugger said:
try making one of it plastic... :eek:

Yes steel is stronger than alloy, but you can't say the same thing about plastic. You said it yourself that plastic guns have steel rails/inserts, but all plastic guns are not of equally durability. So general statement that plastic is more durable than alloy is simply false...
Click to expand...
Most big-name manufactures (i.e. HK, Glock, Sig, Springfield, S&W) make their plastic guns from glass-reinforced nylon, which has more tensile strength than aluminum. I'm yet to see a plastic frame that has been rendered useless through excessive use. Cracked aluminum frames, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen.
 
capp325 said:
Thanks for the responses, guys.

Wink:
I'd get the Shadow but I can't stand fiber optic sights and would much rather have meprolights. Plus, I don't think the Shadow is available with a de-cocker.

af_newbie:
Funny that you mention Sig. My original intention was to get a 226ST, but after shooting one, I didn't like the way it felt in my hand. Not to mention, it costs around $400-500 more.

MasterG:
My experience with an older CZ-75 was similar to yours. Small military-style sights didn't do much for the sight picture. It's good to know that CZ has addressed the problem.


P.S. A few more questions. Does the trigger pull smooth out over time or do these guns (non-Shadow versions) require a trigger job? I tried a regular CZ-75 at a gun store recently and the trigger pull was long and very gritty.

Also, how much does the Tactical retail for? Who has the cheapest price on these guns?
Click to expand...

As far as the trigger pull, you can upgrade the SP-01 to the "Shadow", well close to it, just swap out the mainspring, and there you have it, a great trigger! Cheers!
 
I'm yet to see a plastic frame that has been rendered useless through excessive use
Click to expand...
I can't say the same thing...

EDIT: also I've yet to see an alloy gun that had a cracked frame after a KB, while every plastic gun that blew up(& not just Glocks) was literaly destroyed.
 
Last edited:
capp325 said:
IM_Lugger said:
try making one of it plastic...

Yes steel is stronger than alloy, but you can't say the same thing about plastic. You said it yourself that plastic guns have steel rails/inserts, but all plastic guns are not of equally durability. So general statement that plastic is more durable than alloy is simply false....
Click to expand...

Most big-name manufactures (i.e. HK, Glock, Sig, Springfield, S&W) make their plastic guns from glass-reinforced nylon, which has more tensile strength than aluminum. I'm yet to see a plastic frame that has been rendered useless through excessive use. Cracked aluminum frames, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen.
Click to expand...

Applications are the key points in this rather 'moot' conversation. There are plenty of examples of all sorts of materials being used and have been shown to exhibit good qualities.

Most plastic/polymer/nylon guns are built in a great manner for tensile strength. This is very true. The reason for the steel rail liners of course is due to shearing. Steel, obviously, has better hardness. Note, not all plastic fantastic guns use metal liner rails...the Rugar P345 is plastic body and rail and there haven't been public outcries about the rails as of yet.

The thing with materials is that there is so much variability due to processing of the material. Many polymers are not only easily produced but are easily CONTROLLED for uniformity purposes.

With metals, one has to account for the type of metal, how it was produced(refer to grain), finishing hardening processes(many metal products can be 'soft' on the inside but are hardened outside).

Having opened my fat mouth and contributing to this hijack....I will revert back to the CZ SP01. I wanted one, still sort of do. The random little issues with the safety on the DA/SA model was a slight turn off. The tactical is interesting. The Shadow seems like the no-brainer IPSC starter kit pistol too. All steel is a nice feel and the thin grips are always a welcome.
 
capp325 said:
Second, the frame material has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy or controllability...
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the weight of the gun has nothing to do with
accuracy and follow up shots? Try 10 rounds from Glock and then
10 shots from SP-01, go back to Glock, shoot another 10 rounds, then SP-01 again, you'll see the difference.

Try plastic and steel guns before you make your comments.

With SP-01 you don't have to control the gun, it shoots by itself.
You just have to hold it up. Try that with Glock.
 
af_newbie said:
Are you saying that the weight of the gun has nothing to do with
accuracy and follow up shots?
Click to expand...
You are talking about speed, not accuracy. Sure, a heavier gun allows for faster follow up shots, but it does not make the gun inherently more accurate.

Heavy weight (combined with a relatively light caliber) is actually one of the reasons I'm drawn to the SP-01. It should be a great gun for honing up your rapid shooting skills.
 
capp325 said:
You are talking about speed, not accuracy. Sure, a heavier gun allows for faster follow up shots, but it does not make the gun inherently more accurate.

Heavy weight (combined with a relatively light caliber) is actually one of the reasons I'm drawn to the SP-01. It should be a great gun for honing up your rapid shooting skills.
Click to expand...

capp325,

I'm not talking about "gun-vise" accuracy. I'm talking IDPA accuracy.
Try it both types of guns. You'll be holding your Glock very tight because of
the expected recoil. That WILL affect your accuracy.
With SP-01 type of gun, you raise your gun and float it in the air, squeeze
the trigger, the follow through is much, much easier with a heavier gun.

Stop reading marketing brochures, go to the range and try both types of guns.
 
af_newbie said:
capp325,

I'm not talking about "gun-vise" accuracy. I'm talking IDPA accuracy.
Try it both types of guns. You'll be holding your Glock very tight because of
the expected recoil. That WILL affect your accuracy.
With SP-01 type of gun, you raise your gun and float it in the air, squeeze
the trigger, the follow through is much, much easier with a heavier gun.

Stop reading marketing brochures, go to the range and try both types of guns.
Click to expand...
Umm, it's not like I've never shot a polymer and/or steel handgun before. You might think this is totally crazy, but I actually own a few of each type. Nor am I completely clueless about recoil dynamics. Give me some credit buddy - I'm not a total retard. And by the way, in case you still don't get it, I'm not arguing with your point; we are just talking about two completely different things.
 
Last edited:
43xits5.jpg


Here's a pic just because.

I also like that the decock does not have any rattle. I noticed the safety (on one side) had a touch of rattle/looseness. Not a big deal, but nothing at all on the tactical model. Plus the tactical model has "Tactical" on the slide, which makes it shoot faster. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom