CZ P07 or Glock 23

[chaim]

So, I "need" a midsized .40S&W pistol. I haven't had a working .40 in a while and it is finally time to rectify that. I have recently come to prefer a midsized/compact (CZ P01, P07, Glock 19/23, SIG P229) sized gun for when I can carry.

I would go with the CZ P06 to have what is essentially the .40S&W version of my P01, but I'm put off by it only having a 10 round mag capacity when most guns this size have 12-15. I'd get a SIG P229 but it is basically out of my price range.

I am considering the CZ P07 and the Glock 23. I don't love the trigger on either gun, but they are serviceable. Both have reputations as reliable guns. If you are going to make other recommendations (I am pretty familiar with what is out there, but I always welcome first hand accounts), I definitely want either DAO (traditional or striker) or TDA (DA/SA) with a decocker not a safety.

I will be putting some guns I don't really use anymore on consignment and I'll probably be buying something after they sell.

Reasons for me to pick one over the other:

Glock:

They are kind of the standard by which other polymer guns are rated.
They are a tad smaller in most dimensions and lighter than other guns of the same class/size
They are generally highly reliable
They are generally accurate
I don't yet have a Glock and given how many guns I have and how long I've been buying them, I probably should have one (see #1)
It will probably be easier to find holsters and other accessories, and if I want to have work done to it smiths will definitely be easier to find
These (2, 3, 4, 6) combine to make them terrific guns to consider when looking at carry guns even if Glocks aren't really your favorites.



CZ:

I am a big CZ fan. My CZ 75B probably has over 20K rounds (I stopped counting at 10K about a decade ago). I also own a P01, and I once had a CZ 40B.
They are generally very reliable
They are generally accurate
The CZ is hammer fired and not striker fired. I tend to prefer hammer fired guns, and it will more closely match the MOA on my other defensive guns (revolvers, SIG P250, SIG P290, CZ P01)
Most of my favorite holster brands make holsters for the P07.



Edit: See post #16, I've had to add another gun to the list

[TBT]

You can't really go wrong with a Glock. It's the standard for a reason. That said you mentioned preferring hammer fired guns and an affinity for CZ. That seems like reason enough to go with the P-07. It's basically a hammer-fired CZ take on the Glock 19/23.

I don't have the 40 version but I do have the 9mm. The P-07 is an excellent firearm. Very accurate and utterly reliable. I don't have a bad thing to say about it.

[JDBerg]

If you wanted a 9mm I'd recommend you get the G-19 before you got the P-07. Both service pistols are that good, and both are worth owning, IMHO.

But in .40S&W, I'd take the P-07 over the G-23, I've tried out both and I just think think the CZ P-07 in .40S&W handles a little better to hit a target, for me at least!

[chaim]

If you wanted a 9mm I'd recommend you get the G-19 before you got the P-07. Both service pistols are that good, and both are worth owning, IMHO.

But in .40S&W, I'd take the P-07 over the G-23, I've tried out both and I just think think the CZ P-07 in .40S&W handles a little better to hit a target, for me at least!

If I was getting another 9mm, I'd probably be looking at the G26 v. the CZ RAMI BD (and probably the SA XD), and I'd be leaning towards the Glock due to size/weight advantages (though I like the metal of the RAMI and of course, it is a CZ). At that size I'd prefer the 9mm to the .40 I think. Heck, I probably should be looking there right now since I have my SIG P250C, and my CZ P01 on the larger carry side, and my SIG P290RS on the smaller side (as well as several I don't use: several small snubs, a Kel Tec Pf-9, and a smaller Ruger LCP), but for summer the in-between G26 would probably make some sense (smaller than my "compact" service guns for summer carry, more capacity and greater sight radius and weight than my micro 9s and .380 for improved capability). However, after years without a working .40 (I really do need to get my Taurus PT140 sent for repairs, though I'm not sure I'll ever trust it for CCW or home defense again), I've decided that that is the more pressing need.

I may actually be leaning slightly towards the G23. Being just a tad smaller and lighter than similar class/sized guns from other manufacturers (including the CZ) it seems it may just barely be able to serve in that in-between size that I'm currently missing that a G26 or RAMI sized gun might serve.

[sigarms228]

I'd get a SIG P229 but it is basically out of my price range.

SIG P229 all the way. Would you consider used or CPO?? I am seeing really nice used P229s for $500 at LGS and CPOs (Certified Pre Owned) for about $550. Lots and lots of nice used .40 in gun stores.

If you can go up to $599 you can get new in the box HK P30 .40 which is another fantastic pistol.

https://www.cdnnsports.com/hk-p30-40s-w-v3.html?___SID=U

[JDBerg]

Quote: I'd get a SIG P229 but it is basically out of my price range.
SIG P229 all the way. Would you consider used or CPO?? I am seeing really nice used P229s for $500 at LGS and CPOs (Certified Pre Owned) for about $550.

If you can go up to $599 you can get new in the box HK P30 .40 which is another fantastic pistol.

https://www.cdnnsports.com/hk-p30-40....html?___SID=U

IMHO a LNIB P30 or P229 would be a step up from a CZ or Glock, and a used .40 is usually a couple hundred bucks cheaper!

[Cyanide971]

They are both practically identical in dimensions, but the CZ has a slightly narrower and slimmer grip. Both are great pistols, whichever you choose. In my case, I have and enjoy both.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170417/2081a40f29015871390d11e34aeffac3.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170417/ff4038c3ad8cd410bc30b43d70d4815e.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170417/49b9a41480755dfc250f2b43da0b1f93.jpg

[chaim]

SIG P229 all the way. Would you consider used or CPO?? I am seeing really nice used P229s for $500 at LGS and CPOs (Certified Pre Owned) for about $550. Lots and lots of nice used .40 in gun stores.

If you can go up to $599 you can get new in the box HK P30 .40 which is another fantastic pistol.

https://www.cdnnsports.com/hk-p30-40....html?___SID=U
__________________

I would consider used if I see one I like, but of course I can get a used Glock or CZ (though used CZs are rare) for even less. My previous .40S&W SIG P229 (which I never would have sold if I didn't desperately need money to pay bills one summer) was bought used. If I go SIG this time, I'll likely get another SIG P250 Compact (which would allow me to use the same holster), just in .40S&W, or maybe an SP2022.

I don't really want an HK. I also can't buy from CDNN, they won't ship handguns to Maryland.

[chaim]

They are both practically identical in dimensions, but the CZ has a slightly narrower and slimmer grip. Both are great pistols, whichever you choose. In my case, I have and enjoy both.

Great photos...

Funny that the Glock looks thicker in the photos. That is a useful picture actually. By the measurements, the Glock is significantly (for a CCW pistol) thinner. 1.18mm v. 1.45 for the CZ. I guess the CZ's thickness is probably from the larger slide release and the safety, which doesn't seem to be as important for concealment as the thickness of the grip (and those numbers aren't usually published, only thickness at the thickest point). Though, both from the numbers and your photos, the Glock's butt seems shorter which can be important too (though compensated for with a proper cant).

[TBT]

I don't know where the width measurements come from for the P-07 but it does not feel like it's an inch and a half thick by any stretch. Holding both the P-07 and a G19 in each hand the G19 feels smaller and lighter. But not by much.

[Cyanide971]

Here's another couple shots for ya:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170417/5e85e18bade2ef8701cd7a7450fcac81.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170417/07e3c0559ddca5e0afc948c370efc855.jpg

My apologies that the angles aren't exactly the same on that last one.

[chaim]

Looks like where the CZ is thicker is in the slide. Since I carry IWB, that will be hidden in my pants anyway so that won't really matter. Based upon your pictures, I'm wondering if the measurements published online that show the Glock as shorter in the butt are taken without the mag. From the second set of pictures, the gun itself looks to be shorter in the butt, but with the mag hanging out of the Glock more, it is either the same length when loaded or even a tad longer in the butt. Is that an accurate assessment of the thickness and height?

[Cyanide971]

Yes, you are correct. I'm the same way in regards to not worrying about the slightly thicker slide since IWB is my choice as well.

[ritepath]

Too easy...when given the choice of CZ vs (xxxxxxxxxx) CZ is the answer.

Unless you're looking for a single stack CC pistol or a pocket pistol.

[PatientWolf]

Of the two you list with the criteria provided, I would choose the CZ. Although I have not fired one, I do like the ergonomics better as well as the fact that it is hammer fired.

I actually went with the G23, but had an additional criteria-I have a Sub-2000 in .40 S&W that uses Glock mags.

If you are not set on choosing one of the two listed pistols, I would suggest you at least look at the Sig SP2022 based on your comments about the P229. Although it is a different pistol, the controls are in a very similar location and it is a Sig.

[chaim]

OK, I need to make an adjustment...

I thought I had it narrowed down to the CZ P07 and Glock 23 as my top two (with a chance I may go for a .40S&W SIG P250 to keep things similar to my .45ACP P250), but I have to rethink.

Now that S&W is out with the M&P 2.0 I'm noticing some really nice prices on the original M&P (both full sized and compact). The full-sized M&P40 is a little larger than I want, the subcompact M&P40c is a little smaller. However, I can always get a a compact with a full-sized mag and a grip adapter for when a bigger gun can easily be concealed, and it will give me the in-between size I don't have for some summer use. I have often considered the M&P and there is a lot I like about it, but I've never liked the trigger. However, at around $400 (I'm seeing it at $399 to about $420 depending upon the seller) for a brand new S&W, I may have to reconsider. Tomorrow after work I may have to see if anyone locally has them at the discounted price and if not, I can still have one for around $460 with all fees, which is about $100-150 less than the other options I'm considering (only the SIG P250 that I'm barely considering would be about the same). With the savings, I could easily afford to have an aftermarket trigger installed if the trigger really bothered me, and if it didn't, the savings would be quite nice.

I'm not sure why the compact is discounted on a few sites (compared to most sites) though since looking at the S&W site, it appears that only the full size has been replaced with the M&P 2.0 (at least for now). However, I'm not complaining, other than this throwing a wrench into the fact that I thought I was almost decided.

The one thing that worries me if I go with a full size M&P (non 2.0) now that there is a replacement or a compact since I assume there will be soon, is that lately S&W orphans their discontinued models pretty quickly. Its been about 2-5 years now since they've made parts or serviced their 3rd gen pistols even though the last of them were discontinued only 5-10 years ago (depending upon the model).

[jetinteriorguy]

For me the CZ P07 has been the best 9mm I've ever had, hands down. I have no problem putting 50 rounds in a 2" hole rapid fire at 7yds. All my other 9mm's are 3-4" doing the same.

[HistoryJunky]

Don't have the .40 but I do have a 9mm P07 that I love. I'd go with the P07.

Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk

[jmhyer]

I've been very pleased with my M&P (non-2.0). Yes'm the trigger is a little sub-par without an easily distinguishable tactile or audible reset; however, it's the most comfortable, shootable, and accurate (in my hands, anyway) pistol that I own...others in my collection being several Glocks, an FNS, an HK VP, an SP2022, a Shield, and 2 XD/XDMs. And, it's never had a malfunction...not even one...though I could also say that about all the others as well.

[Onward Allusion]

Back in the old days of IT, the saying was "No one gets fired for going with IBM." Yeah, I'm close to being a curdmudgon . . . ;)

Go with the G23. Upgrade to your heart's content or leave it stock or something in between.

[Siggy-06]

https://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/smith-amp-wesson-mampp40c-compact-semi-automatic-40-sampw-35-barrel-101-rounds?a=2083412

M&P40c at a pretty good price. I personally carried one for 3+ years with no issues.

[hemiram]

Since I like hammer TDA guns, and since I've shot both of them many times, the P-07 is the clear winner. If you like striker guns, you'll probably like the Glock.

[Pilot]

If I bought polymer guns, I'd get the CZ P-07, and if I liked polymer, and striker fired, I'd wait for the P-10c.

[chaim]

So, I've made my decision and I'll be buying as soon as a couple of my consignment guns get sold (or I get impatient in which case it could be as soon as payday next week).

I actually decided to go with my last minute addition, the S&W M&P40c.

Why not the Glock or CZ? I love the metal framed CZs, all of them. The P07 is OK, I've never shot one but whenever I handle one in the store it just doesn't have the "magic" of the 75B based metal guns, it doesn't feel as good in my hand and I don't think I like the trigger as much. I've been shooting for 17 or 18 years. I probably should get a Glock. However, they don't quite do it for me. They are great enough on paper, and good enough in person, that they usually make my final cut when looking at guns (especially carry guns), but they haven't yet got the nod.

Why the M&P40c? First, when looking in person, they were priced similar to the Glocks near me. At $500-650 prices and maybe $25-50 less for the S&W, I might have gone with the Glock, but with online prices of $360-420 (v. $500-560 for Glocks) I couldn't ignore the M&P. I haven't shot either in quite some time, and I liked both OK, I recall liking the M&P a lot more. The Glock's trigger was a little better when dry firing. Though I don't love any striker trigger, both were livable, and the Glock's was definitely better. I like the feel of the M&P in my hand better. Both are great on accessory availability and aftermarket support. Both have a good reputation for reliability and most owners like them. So, other than price, both were a wash.

Why the M&Pc? I do like a slightly larger gun for carry these days. However, the full sized M&P is closer to a full sized gun and not the traditional "compact" sized G19, P07, P229, etc. Also, I have two guns at that size now, the .45ACP SIG P250 Compact and the 9mm CZ P01, so a .40 in that size won't give me any capability I don't have already, just another caliber option. I can see some times where something sized between my traditional mid-sized guns and my micro-9 SIG P290 would be nice to have. Especially if MD is eventually forced to go shall-issue (maybe the Peruta v. California case may finally do it if the Supreme Court takes it since the issues in that case seem to mirror MD law) or if I move and I carry everyday I can see some times where a smaller gun would be nice, and more capacity and capability than the P290 would be nice. Finally, should it prove accurate enough, the ability to take full size mags and still fit flush with an adapter means it can be nearly as capable as the full sized gun with a lot more versatility. Thus, in the end it became M&P40c v. G27 not M&P 40 v. G23 and the extra round the M&P carried became another advantage that outweighed the slight Glock advantage in size.

Now the only question is can I wait until a gun or two on consignment sells and I get the money (I have to wait for MD's waiting period and background check and the buyer takes delivery before a dealer would release the money to me, so at least a week after the sale), or do I buy it next week after I get paid?

[Tactical Jackalope]

Based on your two choices, I'd say the Glock.

Now, I'm not a fan of the .40S&W but whatever floats your boat.

However, you did mention the SIG P229 which is what I've carried for some time. The P229 and HK USP are both designed around the .40S&W. Both of those are my favorite guns.

The SIG and HK price range. I used to say to buy a used SIG, as they're relatively affordable. Now, I no longer recommend that because of SIGs warranty service on used guns, it's non-existent. In other words, it sucks.



Circling back.... I know you prefer hammer-fired guns and so do I. But I'd have to give this round to the Glock 23. Unless you can find a nice USP 40 Compact. :)

[Bart Noir]

The M&P Compact is a good choice. With the thumb safety, at least for me. I prefer those on striker guns although there are a couple of Glocks I carry, which obviously don't have these safeties.

Bart Noir
Who could settle for a CZ P01 as his only gun. Really, it is that nice.

[BigMikey76]

Good choice with the M&P 40c. I almost got one in 9mm just a week or so ago, but my wallet (and therefore my wife) led me to the SD9 instead.

Make sure you post pics!

[Pilot]

Bart Noir
Who could settle for a CZ P01 as his only gun. Really, it is that nice.

Agreed. Or the PCR. And they both accept the Kadet Kit.