Cz P10c

[bspillman]

Guys how are these holding up. Any majors issues with these? I’m looking at one made in 2017.

[Dan-O]

I’m waiting till the new F and S series floods the market. Hoping the C prices drop even more.

[sigarms228]

I would avoid one made in 2017, especially if used as you will not have any factory warranty on it. If I was in the market for a P10C I would wait for the new ones that have the magazine release on just one side but can be changed to either side. I have no idea when those will be available though.

[bspillman]

Why would you avoid it?

[sigarms228]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYRYTaLGtmA&t=15s

[Dan-O]

The slide release isn’t swappable. It’s the mag release on the Kansas made ones.

Just cause it was made in 2017 doesn’t mean its used......

[sigarms228]

Thanks for that. I edited my response.

[armoredman]

I did a video myself on the whole rotating striker issue - it's a non issue for 99% of P-10Cs built at that time. I have a first gen FDE, (the early bird version with regular, not night sights), and it has gone north of 3,000 rounds with zero issues. I have a 2018 production White Nitride P-10C that has about 2K rounds without issue, well enough that it is my EDC now.
I would buy with confidence. I plan on getting one of the new P-10S models as soon as I can - the wife likes my P-10Cs so much she wants the "S" for herself.

[bspillman]

Thanks. I ended finding a used one made in 2018.

[Black Wolf]

Mine was made after the "upgrades", has the 3:00 O clock notch, the steel guide rod, an factory NS.

Great gun but it is short throated. It is back in KC, now, getting bored out a little deeper so that it will go fully into battery with all ammo and not just its favorite flavor.

Flat shooting, good ergos, very accurate.

[Fishbed77]

Has CZ fixed the striker plate/striker rotation issue with these pistols yet?

I own and enjoy quite a few CZs (CZ 75B, a few CZ 82s, a P07, vz.58, and a Scorpion Evo 3), but have been hesitant to get into the P10c due the repeated reported issues due to this design flaw, which is honestly very uncharacteristic for CZ products.

[Black Wolf]

Originally Posted by Fishbed77

Has CZ fixed the striker plate/striker rotation issue with these pistols yet?

I own and enjoy quite a few CZs (CZ 75B, a few CZ 82s, a P07, vz.58, and a Scorpion Evo 3), but have been hesitant to get into the P10c due the repeated reported issues due to this design flaw, which is honestly very uncharacteristic for CZ products.

Yes. It is my understanding that, if your pistol was made after the upgrades, it does not have the rotating striker issue. Look for the notch at the 3:00 O'clock position on the striker cover plate. If you have the notch, (supposedly) you're g2g.

Mine has the notch (the upgrades) and I never had any striker rotation issues (just short throat issues)

ETA - you say that a defect is "very uncharacteristic". I agree, I have a P01 that has been nothing but amazing. In all fairness, however, the entire thing is uncharacteristic for CZ. I mean - it is (almost) their first striker fired pistol. It'd be like a pro basketball player taking a shot a football. With that in mind, I'd say they came pretty close to hittin the mark.

I actually would not mind having another one. Mainly because I had mine milled and still am not quite sure how I feel about the whole pistol optics thing. I almost never buy dupes. The fact that I would consider a second P10c should say something about the gun.

I've had a pile of Glocks. Some were mine, some were issued. Good guns but I'd take the P10c over them and work through the nuances. It is really that good a shooter.

[Walt Sherrill]

I have a P10c and like it a lot.

I got it in trade, and found that it had a pretty bad trigger bite -- and I suspect that was why the guy traded with me. I know that some guns, CZs included, can have that problem, but it's usually in hammer-fired models; this was my first experience with it despite having owned many CZs over the years. (It was a strange, stinging vibration through the trigger -- and it was bad enough that it made me want to shoot less rather than more.) A member on the CZ Forum said he thought the problem had to do with sharp plastic on the trigger, but I don't think that was the problem with mine, as the factory trigger seemed smooth.

I upgraded the P10c with an HBI trigger and the problem went away. Now I need to get more familiar with it and use it more -- as I just don't shoot as much as I used to. I haven't even gotten a holster, yet, but probably have something stashed away that will work pretty well...

I've had a bunch of Glocks over the years, and my favorite was a much-upgraded (by the prior owner) Glock 34. I later traded the 34 for a S&W M&P Pro (similarly upgraded) that I like even more. I now have a Glock 38, which I like a lot, and a Glock 37 (with an Apex Trigger system) -- both in .45 GAP; I got them both in as-new condition for very low prices! And I buy ammo in bulk from Georgia Arms; their .45 GAP is about the same price as their .45 a.c.p. ammo.

I like BOTH brands, and feel that owning one maker's guns doesn't preclude me owning the other maker's guns.

[Fishbed77]

ETA - you say that a defect is "very uncharacteristic". I agree, I have a P01 that has been nothing but amazing. In all fairness, however, the entire thing is uncharacteristic for CZ. I mean - it is (almost) their first striker fired pistol. It'd be like a pro basketball player taking a shot a football. With that in mind, I'd say they came pretty close to hittin the mark.

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. I was just indicating that my experience with CZ is that their products are generally well-designed and tested before hitting the market, and don't require customers to discover design flaws, unlike some other manufacturers *cough... SIG... cough... Ruger.* Of course, no company is perfect (well, Glock claims to be). I recall the first-gen P07 had issues with frame bulging, but the issue was cosmetic and didn't inhibit function.

Not sure about the sports analogy. The P10C is not CZ's first striker-fired pistol, and the technology isn't exactly new.

What I am glad to hear is that CZ has corrected this issue in new P10Cs.

[Walt Sherrill]

The CZ 100 and 110 were the first striker-fired handguns by CZs, but the 110 never made it to the U.S. (The 110 apparently had a different fire control system and was not a DAO striker-fired gun like the 100; it may not have made it through the "point-system" that controls most imported guns.)

The 100 was, to my thinking, a dog. (I had one in 9mm and one in 40, and I could never get comfortable with either gun.) A few folks were able to improve the trigger a bit, but the stock trigger wasn't very good. The P10c is a much better design.

Re: production problems...

• Some years back CZ had some problems with extractor springs, arguably a quirk of the how the extractor was designed to fit in an inset area in the slide. Gunk could build up under the extractor so that it couldn't close fully on the case rim. That was easily resolved by cleaning out under the extractor regularly or by getting an extra-strength extractor spring. The spring was apparently developed by Wolff Springs and CZ later adopted that type of spring in production guns. (Oher CZ-pattern guns OPENED UP the back of thearea on the slide so that any gunk under the extractor went into the firing pin channel. It hasn't seemed to be a problem for those guns.)
  
  
• When the B model was introduced, they had problems with the firing pin retention roll pin, which could break if the gun was dry-fired too much. (CZ even included a cheap plastic snap cap in the box. and had a warning in the user manual about excessive dry-firing. That was eventually fixed by doubling up the roll pins.
  
  
• They also had a problem with some trigger springs in a couple of batches of compact CZs. (The springs were from a supplier and they weren't that good.) There have always been 'net myths about CZ springs being bad, but I 've never figured out why that myth continues to live.
  
  
• The problem with BULGING P-07 frames was, as noted above, cosmetic -- and CZ fixed it by replacing the problem guns. There were also apparently some problems with polymer-framed RAMIs at one time, but I think those models were discontinued; anyone who wanted to could swap the polymer version for an alloy-framed model.
  
  
• I don't know much about the striker problem with the P10c, but that apparently has been resolved, too.

There may have been other "teething" issues, but that's all I can recall at the moment. I think a number of other gunmakers have done less with may more problems.

That's not a big batch of problems spread over a span of 30+ years for the guns imported to the U.S. During that period CZ introduced a bunch of new handgun designs, including decockers, the Omega system, their first polymer frames, and some gun really focused on IDPA and USPSA/IPSC competition... They haven't done badly.

[Black Wolf]

Originally Posted by Fishbed77

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. I was just indicating that my experience with CZ is that their products are generally well-designed and tested before hitting the market, and don't require customers to discover design flaws, unlike some other manufacturers *cough... SIG... cough... Ruger.* Of course, no company is perfect (well, Glock claims to be). I recall the first-gen P07 had issues with frame bulging, but the issue was cosmetic and didn't inhibit function.

Not sure about the sports analogy. The P10C is not CZ's first striker-fired pistol, and the technology isn't exactly new.

What I am glad to hear is that CZ has corrected this issue in new P10Cs.

I was just saying I agree - flawed pistols ARE out of character for them BUT the whole thing is out of character for them. It is not their game, it is not what they do, it is (almost) their first striker fired pistol.

If Glock made a hammer fired pistol, I'd expect 'em to be a little off their game.


All in all, I'm happy with mine. It is not the gun my M&P 2.0 Compact is but it is still a keeper

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by Black Wolf

I was just saying I agree - flawed pistols ARE out of character for them BUT the whole thing is out of character for them. It is not their game, it is not what they do, it is (almost) their first striker fired pistol.

If Glock made a hammer fired pistol, I'd expect 'em to be a little off their game.

The original CZ-75 was quite a departure from earlier designs. I can't think of any other DA/SA guns that so effectively allows cocked & locked starts. Creating an effective decocker version, after developing the "B" model was also a big change -- that kept the design in synch with competing guns. (Incorporating the half-cock notch also slightly shortened the trigger pull and improved the DA/SA transition. Most other decockers don't offer that sort of enhancement.

Creating the Omega system, which is simpler than the original design, and which (in many models) allows the owner to switch from safety to decocker (or vice versa), is a very unusual and still unique approach.

Glock seemingly pulled the Glock 17 out of thin air, so to speak and learned quickly how to sell the design. I continue to be amazed by the simplicity of the basic Glock design and that it has so few parts!! I'm also amazed by how simply it can be modified and improved. (That some parts -- like the trigger and the grip -- need to be improved isn't a positive aspect of the design.)

With the right designers, any manufacturer can do great things, and in some respects, Glock doesn't seem to be that much better at gunmaking than CZ. Glock did get off to a to an earlier start at making a striker-fired, poly-framed design. That, it seems to me, is the way all future service pistols will go.

That CZ has introduced so many new designs in such a short timeframe is impressive. I'm also impressed that a company that had for so long been under the control of a Soviet-style command economy system could so quickly, after the fall of the Soviet Union, adapt and evolve to compete in the Western (Capitalist) economic market. That may have been CZ's greatest achievement.

[OhioGuy]

I'm a big fan of CZ, love their whole 75 line -- the Shadow II is a thing of beauty -- my primary range, HD, competition and CCW gun is a P-07 -- but I just cannot make myself love the P-10c. Or even like it. For whatever reason, everything about it is just off-putting to me. The grip texture, the looks, I don't know -- the trigger was pretty good, yes, but no better than the latest iterations of M&P or PPQ.

They just announced this new series of US-made P-10 models (full, compact, subcompact) and maybe things will have been tweaked -- but I'm also not gonna rush in to buy a new model built in a new place. Not when there are about 7 billion other striker models out there.

I'm sure everyone feels better off, having read my opinion on the internet!!!

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

I'm a big fan of CZ, love their whole 75 line -- the Shadow II is a thing of beauty -- my primary range, HD, competition and CCW gun is a P-07 -- but I just cannot make myself love the P-10c.

If I was as happy with the Shadow II -- I don't have one -- as you seem to be, I'd not rush out to get a p10C, either.

But I suspect that the P-09 (with enhancements) may ultimately be the CZ IDPA/USPSA handgun of choice.

It took CZ a long time to drag/draw the Shadow II out of the basic 75 design, and 10+ years from now the P-07/P-09 may take us even farther -- Unless they develop a striker-fired gun with similar traits.

I still WANT a P-09, but I recognize that I don't NEED one.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by Walt Sherrill

If I was as happy with the Shadow II -- I don't have one -- as you seem to be, I'd not rush out to get a p10C, either.

But I suspect that the P-09 (with enhancements) may ultimately be the CZ IDPA/USPSA handgun of choice.

It took CZ a long time to drag/draw the Shadow II out of the basic 75 design, and 10+ years from now the P-07/P-09 may take us even farther -- Unless they develop a striker-fired gun with similar traits.

I still WANT a P-09, but I recognize that I don't NEED one.

LOL, the tragedy is that I don't actually have one! I guy I shoot with at the range has one, Shadow II with snazzy blue grip panels. Most beautifully weighted, smoothest running gun I think I've ever shot. Damn well better be for something like $1300! I just lust after it. Don't own one.

The P-09 is crazy accurate. Not weighted, balanced or smooth like the Shadow, but at 1/3 the price that's fine. Supposedly CZ Custom or Cajun can do amazing, magical things to the P-07/09 guns for a few hundred bucks.

If CZ would answer my prayers, they'd make a subcompact P-07 (P-05?) and a single stack P-03. But apparently striker guns are popular, or something

[Black Wolf]

Originally Posted by Walt Sherrill

The original CZ-75 was quite a departure from earlier designs. I can't think of any other DA/SA guns that so effectively allows cocked & locked starts. Creating an effective decocker version, after developing the "B" model was also a big change -- that kept the design in synch with competing guns. (Incorporating the half-cock notch also slightly shortened the trigger pull and improved the DA/SA transition. Most other decockers don't offer that sort of enhancement.

Creating the Omega system, which is simpler than the original design, and which (in many models) allows the owner to switch from safety to decocker (or vice versa), is a very unusual and still unique approach.

Glock seemingly pulled the Glock 17 out of thin air, so to speak and learned quickly how to sell the design. I continue to be amazed by the simplicity of the basic Glock design and that it has so few parts!! I'm also amazed by how simply it can be modified and improved. (That some parts -- like the trigger and the grip -- need to be improved isn't a positive aspect of the design.)

With the right designers, any manufacturer can do great things, and in some respects, Glock doesn't seem to be that much better at gunmaking than CZ. Glock did get off to a to an earlier start at making a striker-fired, poly-framed design. That, it seems to me, is the way all future service pistols will go.

That CZ has introduced so many new designs in such a short timeframe is impressive. I'm also impressed that a company that had for so long been under the control of a Soviet-style command economy system could so quickly, after the fall of the Soviet Union, adapt and evolve to compete in the Western (Capitalist) economic market. That may have been CZ's greatest achievement.

Completely agree! I like supporting CZ, even if there are a few growing pains. I'd rather see a company take some risks and expand their line up rather than just do the same thing over an over and not even do that one thing better than everyone else (not mentioning any names hehe).

Their customer service is on point, too. I wouldn't be afraid to try their newer designs because I have faith that, if there are any issues, they'll make it right.

The P10c ain't my only CZ. My P01 has made a believer out of many of my friends.

This thread is making me miss mine It is in KC for surgery.

[Fishbed77]

I was just saying I agree - flawed pistols ARE out of character for them BUT the whole thing is out of character for them. It is not their game, it is not what they do, it is (almost) their first striker fired pistol.

I can’t agree with that. It is in character for CZ, over their long history, to push their boundaries and introduce innovative firearms.

By comparison, introducing a new polymer-framed striker-fired pistol is one of the least-innovative things the company has done in a while. Many companies have already done this, including CZ.

[armoredman]

Ohio Guy, like this?