I own five CZ firearms and have recently been doing a lot of work on my CZ-75B to fix some problems.  As a retired mechanical engineer, I generally enjoy tinkering with things and I've probably spent around 20 hours recently working on my CZ-75B.  Below are my observations on the CZ-75B design and below that are the details on the two problems that I've been working on.

Observations

1) The CZ-75 is a "fussy" design with lots of small parts compared to, say, a Glock.  Even though the Glock was introduced not that long after the CZ-75, the Glock is a modern pistol design while the CZ-75 is an old school design.  Smith and Wesson tried to compete with Glock for years with traditional metal framed pistols and eventually gave up and went to a Glock clone (the M&P).  After working on the innards of a CZ-75, it surprises me that ANY CZ-75s are reliable, although many of them reportedly are.

2) CZ does not appear to make much effort in the maintainability of their guns.  For example, I needed to drive out the trigger pin which is sort of staked into the frame.  This took a lot of pounding on a punch.  I talked to a CZ gunsmith who told me that the trigger pins are installed at the factory using a proprietary tool which CZ does not make available outside the factory.  He also said that once the pin is removed and then reinstalled, the trigger pin is likely to eventually walk out.  The solution seems to be an aftermarket trigger pin.  Compare this to Glock pins that can be removed with only hand pressure in a few seconds.

3)  Not only does the CZ-75 contain a lot of parts, but the parts are relatively expensive.  Also, some of the parts can only be obtained through CZ-USA which (in my experience) has less-than-stellar customer service (maybe having a monopoly will do that to you).  Again, contrasting with Glock whose parts are much cheaper and readily available from several sources.

4) I've concluded that, for me, the advantages of the CZ-75 (great ergonomics and accuracy) do not outweigh the disadvantages described above.  One of the reasons I purchased the CZ-75 was that it was a traditional, metal framed, external hammer design and every year there are fewer guns like this in the marketplace.  Maybe that should have been a clue.

Details

1) One of the problems I had with my CZ-75 was sporadic failure of the trigger to reset.  I traced the problem to a slight bowing of one side of the trigger bow.  The CZ-75 has two trigger bars that are joined at the front and at the back to form a rectangle (hence the term "trigger bow" instead of "trigger bar").  The sides of trigger bow are high, but thin.  In theory, a trigger bow provides redundancy because it contains two trigger bars.  In practice, the redundancy is limited because a problem with one of the trigger bars (one side of the trigger bow) can cause problems.   This is analogous to small (piston) two engine aircraft.  In theory, one of the engines can fail and the aircraft will still fly.  The problem is that the aircraft can be difficult to fly on one engine or as pilots say, the second engine will fly you to the crash site.  This is why the accident rate of small two engine aircraft is higher than small single engine aircraft.  Back to the CZ-75.  Part of the trigger reset function is provided by a wire spring which exerts upward pressure on the trigger bow.  The legs of the spring rest in tiny grooves on the underside of the thin sides of the trigger bow.  My problem was that because one side of the trigger bow was bent, the spring leg rested between the trigger bow and the inside of the receiver and could not directly exert upward force on that side of the trigger bow so the trigger would sometimes not reset.  The bowing of the trigger bar was minor and it took me a long time peering into the gun to notice it.  When I removed the trigger bow from the gun and measured the bowing, it was only 0.003", but that was enough space to allow the spring wire to wedge between the trigger bar and the receiver.  This doesn't seem like a very fault tolerant design to me.  I fixed the problem by replacing the trigger bow.

2) Another problem I had was premature lock back of the slide (slide locking back even though there was still ammo in the magazine).  Apparently, this is a common problem with CZ-75s.  Again, I spent a lot of time peering into the inside of the gun.  The slide release lever has a notch on the bottom which is pushed upward by the magazine follower when the magazine is empty.  Pushing upward on this notch also pushes upward on the slide release lever which engages the slide and locks it back.  My problem was that if the second round in the magazine moves a bit forward (maybe 2 millimeters) the side of bullet can engage the notch as the second round rises to the top of the magazine as the first round is chambered.  I examined the notch and concluded that the notch was thick enough to remove some of it without preventing empty magazine lock back.  I filed away about a third of the notch.  This reduced the problem, but it hasn't gone away entirely because the second round can still cause premature lock back, but the round has to be forward a bit more than before.  I'm still working on this problem.  I haven't determined how much forward a "good" magazine will allow a round to move.    

You have perhaps the best eyes of anybody that I've ever heard about.  .003" is the thickness of a human hair, piece of paper, etc.  I would think that to be within the design tolerance of that part.  Could you not just bend it slightly to correct?

I have one CZ75B that has been flawless so this is of interest to me.  Mine has run 100% so far with numerous diff mags.  You're right, there are many small parts inside of this gun design.

Good catch.  It was actually bent by 0.03.  I did try to bend it back into shape and I ALMOST got there, but the trigger bow cracked so I had to get another trigger bow.  I rationalized it by concluding that a new part was probably better than a part bent back into shape.  Thanks for the close read.

I've never had a problem with any of my CZ-75's, including a pre-B and a Kadet that weren't ammo related.

Classic design and one of the most copied. Different pistols have their design characteristics vs. what you describe as disadvantages. But like anything mechanical issues can come up. I'd send your 75 back to CZ to address your issues after you've examined things.

As a Glock owner also I can list several issues with them, but would not characterize them as disadvantages. Plus there are newer designs that in many ways have better design features than Glocks.

BTW the M&P may be a poly-framed pistol, but its not a Glock clone.

Yes, the M&P is not really a Glock clone  because S&W tried to produce a Glock clone with its first polymer framed pistol (the Sigma), was promptly sued by Glock for patent infringement.  Glock and S&W settled out of court with S&W agreeing to change their design and to pay Glock.  However, the M&P uses similar Glock design features (polymer frame, striker fired, firing pin safety disengaged by the trigger bar, partially tensioned striker), but is not too similar for legal reasons.  It's ironic that Glock later adopted some M&P features such as changeable back straps.

The reason that the CZ-75 was so widely copied is that the CZ-75 developers were prevented from filing for patent protection outside of Czechoslovakia because of how their domestic patent was classified.   This allowed companies outside of Czechoslovakia to produce clones with little or no development costs - nice business opportunity.

I have never had a single issue with any of mine, and from what i've been able to find the P01 has one of the highest rounds fired before failure of any gun to go through the nato testing. All that after dozens of full disassembly and drop test. The design is well established to be completely reliable.

Never had a problem with the trigger bows themselves in a proper CZ - I have had issues similar to those you describe in the Omega-FCG pistols, and have actually worn out one trigger bar spring in the normal design.

As to the trigger pin - it should just be treated the same as a roll pin. My gunsmith always just drills them out and replaces them, as on any pistol that's seen much use, trying to get the pin out with any kind of tool is rather futile. It's not a part that needs to come out very often - except for swapping in new triggers, I have only ever removed one of my trigger pins, and that was to replace the aforementioned worn-out trigger bar spring. (Funnily enough, I have yet to break a TRS in anything.) That's basically the only real reason for removing the trigger pin - install of new parts, either for preference or for repair.

Never had any premature lockback issues with any of mine - and I presently own nine different 75s, and have been shooting CZs for about a decade now.

I got as far as "to say, a glock". We got a glock fanboi. Whatever. I'm looking forward to FINALLY putting some rounds downrange on my Compact this weekend. I can't stand the way a glock pistol feels in my hand. So OP, enjoy your 2×4 feeling plastic glocks. I want steel.

He won't be running for Mayor of the CZ thread.
Great observations tho.

To say it is "a fussy design"  is an overly exaggeration. None of those issues are common. My 75b has ran 100% as have most others have for them. If a CZ is not for you then it's not for you, no need to try and convince others or yourself they are overly complicated and problematic.



"After working on the innards of a CZ-75, it surprises me that ANY CZ-75s are reliable, although many of them reportedly are."

   Really ? The CZ75 P-01 passed the NATO trials with flying colors, enough said.

Sounds like the OP is "too smart" to own old school pistols like the CZ.
More for us .... I am saving for my next one,the 85 Combat,just feel like i NEED one.lol


Oh, i still have two Glocks,and they still remind me of a staple gun when i hold and dryfire them.
But,they are not going anywhere,i just sold four others.

I always get a good laugh at threads like this. They are such a thinly veiled attempt to justify their chosen gun. While Glocks are proven so is the CZ75 platform through years and years of service. While everyone i know with a glock has to make a dozen changes to make their "perfect" pistol useable the cz will be reliable and nice to shoot right out of the box.

My P01 does have a NATO stock number (NSN) on it.  But, my understanding is that NSNs are used for NATO material supply management, are not based on testing, and don't indicate "goodness" of an item.  I do know that the Czech national police tested the P01.  However, I could be wrong about NATO testing.  Can anyone provide a link to info on any NATO testing?

Sounds like most folks on this forum are pretty satisfied with their CZ-75s.  Of course, those that aren't probably would not be on this forum.

I guess sometimes mechanical complexity and reliability are not mutually exclusive.  An example that comes to mind is the H&K P7.  The gun was a failure in the marketplace, now has a cult following, and were excellent investments when you could buy the German police surplus guns for $500.  Funny how this works.  Several years ago, Glock introduced guns with olive drab frames instead of black frames.  The olive drab frames were not big sellers so Glock dropped them (but more recently made both tan and FDE frames).  Once Glock stopped producing the OD frames, lots of people just HAD to have one and the OD framed guns began selling at a premium to the black framed guns.  I think you can still get tan and FDE Glocks.

One of the reasons I bought my CZs was to get new metal framed handguns before they disappeared from the market entirely.  Most of the major manufacturers that once produced metal framed self loading handguns (S&W, Ruger, H&K) have gone to polymer frames.  CZ newer designs are polymer framed.  I don't know about Beretta.   Colt still produces the 1911, but Colt is broke and may not be around much longer.   It's going to take me a long time to get used to polymer framed revolvers, but that appears to be the future.  

Here is the testing that the P01 went through. To gain the Nato approval as a hangun is no easy feat and has a lot more to it than just getting a supply number.

The pistol was required to pass a wide variety of tests:

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:

4000 dry firings
3000 De-cockings
Operator level disassembly 1350 times with out ware 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 (blank) 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 0 failures are allowed! A failure is the gun firing.

3meter drop (9.8”) 5 times with the pistol loaded (blank) and the hammer cocked, This is done on concrete and 0 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:
This means cold, heat, dust/sand and mud.
The pistol must fire after being frozen for 24 hours at –35C (-36F).
The pistol must fire after being heated for 24 hours at 70C (126F)
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%, that’s 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 2142 rounds! Over 4 time the minimum acceptable requirement.
The U.S. Army MRBF requirement is 495 rounds for 9mm pistols with 115 grain Ball ammunition.

I'm aware of this testing.  It was conducted by the Czech national police, not NATO.  Line 3 states "The police required" and a little further down states "the service life requirement from the Czech police...".  CZ does not state anywhere that this is NATO testing.  However, the text strikes me as a little shady because it mentions "NATO approval" and then launches into the results of the Czech police testing without making it clear that they are two separate things.  I doubt this was accidental.  I came to the same wrong conclusion the first time I read the text.  As far as I know, the NATO approval that they're referring to is acceptance into the supply chain which requires the manufacturer to provide technical documentation the same as they would for a screw driver or coffee grinder.

However, if someone can point me to actual NATO testing of the P-01, I'm willing to change my mind

I suggest sir that you stick to glockenspiel then. Good day.

Adding punctuation and translating the German:

"I suggest, sir, that you stick to playing bells then.  Good day."

Typing 12 words into a coherent message is really not that much work.

If NATO hadn't at minimum reviewed and approved of the testing and results, how did the P-01 get issued a NATO stock number?  Whether NATO personally performed the tests, or reviewed the results of the tests that were performed by Czech national police, what is the functional difference?  The tests were done, passed, and a stock number was issued.

I see now that it was the police testing, but despite who did the testing the results are still incredible. The czech police were hesitant to switch the 41000 members to the p01 away from the original cz75 design so it is unlikely those test were taken lightly. I'm not sure what your experience is with the design, but it has been long proven in both law enforcement and military around the world, something that would be extremely unlikely to occur if it had reliability issues. I do have to ask though, what is it you're after to prove with this thread? I could go into the glock forum and complain about how they are all forced to melt, grind, shave, and alter their frames, on top of changing out triggers, sights, milling slides, and changing firing pins to get the gun that they want or claim to be perfect, but i wouldn't do that, because it is silly and accomplishes nothing.

Fair questions.  Let me answer the easy one first.  The purpose of my original post was as stated in the title - to present some design observations based on my recent fiddling with my CZs.  I'm well aware that gun folks sometimes have emotional investments in their purchase decisions and that some on a forum will benefit and others won't.

Yes, the Czech national police testing is valuable because not many guns undergo this extensive kind of testing.  And the test results were good for the P-01.  The test results were a factor in my purchase of a P0-1.  What bothers me  is CZ combining the assignment of a NATO stock number with the results of Czech national police testing to create the impression that somehow getting an NSN resulted from passing the Czech police testing.  People read the CZ text and conclude that the testing was conducted by NATO.  Our DOD uses stock numbers as well.  The numbers are comprised of several sets of 2-3 digit numbers strung together.  Each set of numbers describes something about a part that the govt purchases such as type of item, how it's packaged, etc.  Its really just a way of assigning unique part numbers that actually providing information about the part instead of just being a unique identifier.  I worked in defense logistics for several years.  Believe it or not, it's some people's full time jobs (called "provisioners") to sit in front of a computer all day and wade through these DOD part numbers.  Enough of this fascinating subject.

This may get me kicked out of the Rabid Glock Fanboy Club, but let me give you an example of something similar that Glock did.  Sometime ago, Glock made the statement that 65% of police departments used Glocks.  If you read the wording closely, what Glock actually said was that 65% of US police departments (I guess at the time of the statement) have some Glocks.  Could be that all the department's guns are Glocks or could be that one officer out of a 1000 officers uses a Glock.  However, this statement has been accepted to mean that 65% of US police officers use Glocks, which is a much different thing.

IMO, the CZ statement relating the NATO NSN to the police testing is more misleading than what Glock said, but others may see it differently.

Sounds like some of this discussion hinges on who assigned the NATO stock number.  If NATO reviewed the tests and assigned a NATO stock number as a form of certification for having passed the tests, then I don't see how that is different than if NATO did the tests itself.

This notion that any form of testing is required to obtain a NSN is wrong, and I'm fairly certain it only exists among CZ fans who have read the confusing marketing language on CZ's P-01 page, or have heard that nonsense repeated by others who misinterpreted it.

The testing done was by Czech police.  No knowledge of this testing by anyone in NATO is required to obtain an NSN.

A NSN is purely a logistical number.  Any NATO member can submit any item to be classified with an NSN.  The purpose of the NSN is to provide a consistent catalog for replacing items throughout the entire NATO membership.  So if two countries are working together, and one is providing logistical support to another, they have a common, language-independent codification for ordering items.  The printing of the NSN on the codified item is so that when something breaks, a replacement can be easily identified and ordered.

The P-01 is not NATO approved.  It does have an identification number issued by NATO.  It is Czech police approved.

That said - I love the P-01 I bought in February and have not had any issues in the first 1500 or so rounds.


http://www.nato.int/structur/ac/135/ncs_bridge/chapters/3_2.htm
http://www.nato.int/structur/ac/135/faq/faq-e.htm

ETA: Note in the NSN FAQ (question 4) that it is possible to get a NSN issued in under 24 hours.  So even if the NSN somehow was a form of certification (which it isn't), I don't see how it could be considered trustworthy.

I appreciate the clarification.

It seems like you've done it wrong here.    

e.g. The -75 platform has been used very successfully for years by several USPSA champions, including winning several USPSA titles.  That doesn't happen without reliability.  Your observations do not directly reflect or represent reliability data, of which there is much positive for the -75.  

So you are saying that minor difficulties in doing uncommon maintenance tasks trumps qualities that are important during actual usage of the pistol?


The missing critical information here is how old this CZ-75 is, how often it is cleaned/taken-down, how many rounds have been through it, and how much it is dry-fired.

I agree. I never take the trigger assembly out of mine.  Only the hammer, safety, sear etc.. nothing forward of the mag well.  Pins have to be slightly flattened and roughed up on the ends to be driven back in and stay in place, once they are removed from the trigger.

If you can find "issues" with the CZ design congrats, no firearm design is perfect. The CZ 75 is on par with the 1911 as extensively used and works well for the most part.
The CZ75 is on par with the 1911 for design excellence and build around the core caliber.


I have had zero issues with the many CZ pistols I have owned or used but maybe I am just lucky.

None of those are really legitimate concerns. CZ's are easy to work on, once you figure out where the parts go and how they fit and work. Your concerns are way overthought. I own 3 CZ 75's, detail stripped every one of them and had no issues. The trigger pin isnt a bear, its meant to be installed with a slave pin. Detail stripping is not maintainability, all pistols tell you in the user manual that anything beyond field stripping should be done by an armorer





 

OP, I believe you are being a little pessimistic about the future of metal framed handguns. You could have waited 20 before buying one and still would have a nice selection to choose from.  While polymer framed pistols are essentially available from most manufacturers, very few of those manufacturers have ditched their metal framed products.  Polymer pistols have been created to reach price and ease of use points with all makers (except for HK, a company that obviously believes plastic to be a pricey as metal).  They are simpler to make, simpler to use, and simpler to maintain.  

I am a computer engineer, and what appeals to me is not simplicity of design, but a well executed design purpose.  I too have noted that there are a lot of tiny parts within my CZs, and over the last 25 years, I have been amazed at the quality that CZ has been able to put into their pistols, especially at the selling price points.  There has been only one with issues, an early production P01.  The others have been perfectly reliable and accurate using any kind of ammo I put through them.  None have suffered a breakage of any kind, and several Glock toting friends have ditched their Glocks after seeing how much more accurate they were with my CZs.  

I have had a Glock and got rid of it.  I appreciate the concept but not the execution.  It is like holding a block of wood.  The triggers are unacceptable for me, and the accuracy limitations were ridiculous.

Did I say I primarily shoot 1911s?  And my 1911s have also been reliable and more accurate than any other type of pistol I have ever shot.  One of mine will turn 100 years old in two years, and it will still shoot a 2-4 inch group at 25 yards if my astigmatic eyes will allow me to do my part.

Everyone has their likes and dislikes.  You have yours and you have presented your reasons for them, BUT, your reasons will not appeal to many people here.  You have made your points, but with all due respect, I would recommend that you evangelize elsewhere.

If you're here to try to help the pistol and not just to stump for glock, try Wolff magsprings to fix that "locked open on a full mag" issue.

The explanation I heard was that loose springs tend to allow more bounce in the mag's ammo, and that 115gr FMJs in particular were prone to bouncing off the slide stop causing it to lock on a partially full mag.

Had the same issue, noticed the same smudge of copper on the slide stop, considered altering the stop but decided to look for wear items as the culprit before I started altering parts that were not intended to be altered or replaced during normal operation.  The factory mag springs (and recoil spring) are weaker than the Wolff replacements.  They solved my issue.

Ummm, if there's a pistol that is usable and works right out of the box, it's the Glock.  I love CZs as well...

I have owned and loved CZ's for many years. (Both pistols and rifles).  I read about Glocks and decide that I have two PCC's that use Glock mags so why not  try one. I buy a G-17.  I try to like it. It goes KABOOM! in my hand TWICE. Cases blow out due to lack of support in the rear area of the case. Same ammo I run day in and day out without issue in my CZ's (and my  Beretta and my 9mm carbines). Only the G-17 has the problem.

I work on the trigger trying to make it have better feel and pull. I use the best aftermarket parts you can buy, proven design stuff. After that expense and work I still prefer my CZ (and Beretta) triggers to this plastic Austrian wonder gun.

Mr. Glock is one slick character, just ask his ex-wife and her lawyers. The Glock pistol has the highest profit margin of any pistol on the market. IT costs next to nothing to manufacture as it has only a few simple parts, most of which are simple moldings and stampings. Compared to a CZ or other fine gun the Glock is a simple device. But, is simple better? You have to answer that question for yourself.  For me the Glock is NOT the gun I trust. Its the only pistol I have ever had explode in my hand...and that is one painful experience. After the second Kaboom I locked that thing in the safe and never took it back out. I need to sell it.

Give me a wonderful CZ with a hammer any day. I just can't love a striker fired pistol. I like a safety or a decocker on my pistol as well as a hammer that I can see and feel. As for dependability, well look at those competiton CZ's with hundreds of thousands of rounds through them.  As for Glock fan boys....you can put that Glock where the sun don't shine. I am happy that you love your plastic pistol with the spring loaded firing pin.  But, I wouldn't trade one of my CZ's for ten Glocks.   But then, YMMV

Now what are the odds of that happening...?  I wouldn't leave my house if I were you.  I could get hit with a flying bird.

The conventional wisdom among the Glock folks is that aftermarket parts are to be avoided.  Aftermarket sights and grips are OK, but aftermarket internal parts are iffy.  Your post doesn't say specifically which aftermarket parts you're using, but you may want to consider replacing the aftermarket parts with the OEM parts and seeing how the gun works.  Also, the G-17 is the original Glock design and the gun that built Glock's reputation for reliability and durability.  

Anything probably seems complex compared to a Glock.  


I stopped reading at "retired mechanical engineer".


 

I did consider taking your approach.  I was getting the premature lock back with more than one magazine.  I did some more work since my original post.  I bought a new Mecgar "low friction" mag.  A new mag allowed me to eliminate causes that were mag related (weak mag springs, deformed feed lips, follower hanging up) all at one time.  I fired 60 rounds of 115 grain WWB ammo with the new mag.  No premature slide lock back, but did have one failure to feed with the new mag.  Not sure if the new mag proved anything or not.  

Another thing I did was to remove the slide and then reinstall the slide lock lever in both my CZ-75 and my P-01.  Looking into the interior of the gun directly from the top, there was much more clearance between the second round and the slide lock lever in my P-01 than in my CZ-75.  I removed more metal from the CZ-75 slide lock lever to increase this clearance.

I've also heard the "more bounce" explanation and may take your advice regarding replacement of the recoil and magazine springs.  I did look for the copper smudge on my slide lock lever and didn't see one.  What I have to decide now is if I want to invest any more time and money in chasing this problem.  It was interesting at first, but now it's getting to be too much like work.  

 

Glock is the AK of the pistol world and has a reputation of going "bang" when you pull the trigger, much like the AK.
It may not be the best in any one category but has a reputation as tough as nails and works when needed.

I like Glock's & CZ's.

Yep, I've been a production machinist for almost 20 years in 3 different shops, and I can tell you engineers with their fancy college degrees can't think in simple terms and over think everything. Where a simple $5 sheet metal chute is all that is needed ;  the engineers come up with a $300 complex apparatus that only creates more problems.

I bet you're REALLY happy when you show up for an appointment at your doctor's office and you're seen by a nurse practitioner instead of a physician.

Thanks for the post - always useful to get experiences.  Sorry some people are jumping your case - you know how it is, people get invested in their choices.  We all do.  

As to your particular issues, sorry you've had a bad experience, but I wouldn't call it typical.  I think you are letting a defective sample color your opinion of the entire line - which isn't unreasonable, but not IMHO accurate.

CZ75's and even CZ75b's in my experience are good guns, with exceptional ergonomics, and good reliability and service life.  I find cleaning/stripping and maintenance to be pretty easy.  It sounds like yours had some factory defects.  Surprised by that, but guess things happen.  I think I heard somewhere they stopped using their "Washing machine" oil spraying dry-fire rig many years ago, that they used to use to break in triggers on new guns.  A shame, as that may have found you defect before they sent it to you.  Your compliant about it being fussy makes me smile - try pulling out the safety of a CZ-75 Pre-B if you want fussy (they redesigned it for the B).  But really, it's only "fussy" if you go past what any normal owner is expected to do.  It was made in an era where armorer's were expected for that, not Youtube.

As to pulling out the trigger, not something I've ever messed with - or ever intent to.

As to small parts being expensive - well yea, who doesn't overcharge for their proprietary small parts?  Though, I don't think it's as bad as you say; if you go to their factory outlet shop in Prague ;)

If you've concluded that the performance of the CZ is overshadowed by the difficulty in replacing the trigger and your defective transfer bow, then have at it.  As a side suggestion - if you are going to shoot plastic, I suggest checking out the P99.  I don't care for Glocks.  I don't care for their ergonomics, triggers, shape, lack of second strike ability, or aesthetics.  Great guns, if I had a police force I was equipping on the cheap, Glock is the way to go.  If you want an extremely ergonomic polymer pistol that allows DA/SA fire with a damned good trigger (if you actually know how to use it), the P99 is an excellent choice.  Coincidentally, it's also one of the most copied Polymer guns of all time - kind of like the CZ-75 is.

Thanks for your reply.  When I originally posted my observations, I was hoping to get responses like yours that offered counter arguments.  My observations were based on a limited sample size.

My main concerns when I choose a handgun are reliability and ease of maintenance.  I tend not to be concerned about ergonomics, accuracy, or trigger pull.  I'm pretty adaptable to less-than-great ergonomics.  Don't know if that's because of my long fingers or something else.  I even find a Mosin Nagant 91/30 to be ergonomic!  I'm not concerned with accuracy because almost all handguns shoot better than the user.  Accuracy and trigger pull make a difference at the range, but I doubt they would in a defense situation.  

Ease of maintenance breaks down into several factors:

1. Ease of disassembly and assembly
2. Availability and cost of spare parts
3. Availability of technical documentation

The ease of maintenance factors pretty much restrict me to Glocks for my core handguns.  In time, S&W may challenge Glock in this area with their excellent M&P design, but I don't think S&W is there yet.  It's interesting that there are aftermarket tech docs (I'm thinking the PTOOMA Glock guide) that are actually better than the Glock armorer's manual.

My core guns are 9mm Glocks and 7.62x39 AKs.  I have lifetime supplies of magazines, parts, tech docs, and ammo for these guns.    I want to be in a good position if guns, parts, or ammo become unavailable tomorrow.  All it takes is one highly publicized shooting,  I have other types of guns (like CZ's), but I don't have in-depth supplies for these other guns.

Sorry for the long reply.  Maybe we can get back to something more interesting like Gaston Glock's love life.
 

.

   

Sorry, but I just have to ask.  Who do you two geniuses think design firearms?

I've never had an issue buying parts from CZ USA or CZ Custom.  Night sights, a curved trigger for my .40 S&W P09 (the new style trigger pinched my trigger finger), a bunch of spare pins, springs, etc. for a rainy day, and lots of magazines.

Lots of small parts?  Yeah, I guess.  The total package has been as reliable as a glock, so far.  And it's so much more accurate than a glock that my glock is in the safe sleeping away.  

It's a preference thing.  What feels good in your and, is reliable and accurate for you.  Find it, buy it, shoot it.  And let others find what is best for them.

People that want to force everyone else to own/shoot the same guns they have are infected with a small amount of the liberal/progressive/socialist disease (those folks who think they know what is best for all the rest of us and talk like they are willing to force us to their ways of thought/action).

Wasn't the M-1 Carbine designed by someone in prison?  The Kalishnakov was designed by a tanker.  Yes, an engineer designed the Glock.

Hell, the airplane was invented by a couple of brothers running a bicycle repair shop.

Glock is an engineer but without a firearms background so his thinking was "outside the box".
The rest is history.

I love CZ's but even I have a G17. It's all good.

Looking at the famous firearms designers of the last century, those that I'm familiar with were all engineers - either degreed engineers or engineers with a combination of training and experience.  As someone has already pointed out, Gaston Glock was an engineer.  John Garand was Chief Civilian Engineer at Springfield.  Eugene Stoner was Chief Engineer at Armalite.  Mikhail Kalashnikov was to some degree self taught, but was also trained at several Soviet technical institutes and was a Doctor of Technical Services.  

Can't leave out the great John Browning, but he was a product of the 19th century and credentials were different than they are today.  Abraham Lincoln got his law license through self education and only 12 months of formal education.

When I started my career, non-degreed engineers were common and most of them were very good.  However, for better or worse, those days are pretty much over, at least for hardware designers.  Software might be completely different, but firearms are hardware.

As you stated above :

Ease of maintenance breaks down into several factors:

1. Ease of disassembly and assembly
2. Availability and cost of spare parts
3. Availability of technical documentation


#1 is pretty funny because most semi automatic handguns field strip to basic components without the use of tools since the 1911.

#2 has some merit but after firing various handguns for over the last +30 years the only parts I replaced were springs and one (1) ejector. If you are concerned about spare parts then buy them. The odds of needed them are small. A better plan is to have a 2nd gun.

#3 is nice to have but a armorers manual is not standard issue to the rank & file unless your MOS is an armorer.

Buy what you like but the CZ design has been vetted and abused far worse than the average civilian or LE will subject it to unless you are prone to breaking things or taking apart working guns and make them non-working.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CZ_75

The countries that copied the CZ design are listed on the bottom along with various users.

The CZ PO1 passed NATO certification which is far from a cake walk.so IF you deem the CZ design problematic try subjecting your preferred firearm to the same test.

Other 9mm NATO handguns that passed :

CZ-PO1
Glock 17
Glock 19
Sig 226 Used by Canada
Sig 228
Hi-Power - used by U.K., Canada
Beretta M 9 - used by U.S.
CZ 75 B





NATO approval test ~

Must be able to complete the following without failure:

4000 dry firings
3000 De-cockings
Operator level disassembly 1350 times with out ware 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 (blank) 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 0 failures are allowed! A failure is the gun firing.

3meter drop (9.8”) 5 times with the pistol loaded (blank) and the hammer cocked, This is done on concrete and 0 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:
This means cold, heat, dust/sand and mud.
The pistol must fire after being frozen for 24 hours at –35C (-36F).
The pistol must fire after being heated for 24 hours at 70C (126F)
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%, that’s 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 2142 rounds! Over 4 time the minimum acceptable requirement.
The U.S. Army MRBF requirement is 495 rounds for 9mm pistols with 115 grain Ball ammunition.

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.