The Original CZ Forum
CZ PISTOL CLUBS => CZ Polymer Pistols: P10, P-07, P-09 => Topic started by: inferno451 on August 15, 2019, 11:16:59 PM
-
I had a few people ask me to post some findings of testing I had done on the safety system on the P-10C on the CZ-specific forums. I really think this is something people need to be aware of. Keeping in mind this is a sample of 1 pistol with a few hundred rounds through it, there seem to be a lot of mentions of this online.
Original writeup from Reddit starts here:
There has been a lot of discussion and concern about the function of the firing pin safety on the CZ P-10 series of pistols. It seems to be a common issue on these pistols that the striker block has marginal engagement on the striker, so I set out to do some testing. After some analysis I’ve come to the conclusion that there appear to be real safety concerns with the design and/or manufacture of this specific feature of the pistol. This ended up a bit wordy, but I found this really interesting and fairly concerning.
Abstract:
The pistol was partially disassembled and observed in motion in order to fully understand the operation of the firing pin safety system. A test was also carried out to determine the level of functionality of the system in case of a failure. Conclusions lead me to believe that the firing pin safety is of (at best) only marginal usefulness and very close to completely non-functional.
Description of safety system function:
On many modern pistols, eg. Glocks, M&P, etc, there are at least three automatic safety systems – the Trigger Safety, the Drop Safety, and the Firing Pin Safety. The Trigger Safety is easily visible on most designs, the one on the P-10 being the smaller “Trigger within a trigger” that is depressed by the shooter’s finger. The Drop Safety is internal, and on most designs is comprised of a shelf that the trigger bar must pass before being allowed to drop. This safety, in conjunction with the trigger safety, effectively prevents the striker from being released if the pistol is dropped. The Firing Pin Safety is a mechanical block that prevents the firing pin/striker from traveling forward far enough to contact the cartridge primer and firing. Should the firing pin/striker become disconnected from the trigger bar interface or break in such a way it would travel forward on spring tension, this is the safety that would stop its movement. On most pistols, this block is contained within the main body of the slide – the design on the P-10 is much different. Contained within the striker housing is a block that is held against the shaft of the striker under spring tension. When engaged, a small nub on the block interferes with a shoulder on the striker to impede its forward movement. When the trigger is pulled rearward, a triangular shape on the trigger bar rotates this block out of the way, clearing the path of the striker. At the end of trigger travel, the trigger bar drops down into the frame and the striker flies forward under spring tension, hitting the primer and setting off the cartridge. The slide travels backwards under force of recoil and trips the disconnector, allowing the trigger bar to raise far enough to catch the tail of the striker as the slide comes back forwards.
As a point of clarification – many have referred to post #17 of this thread at CZForums as an explation of how this safety system works: https://czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=103705.15. This explanation (purportedly from a CZ representative) appears to be entirely incorrect. At no point does the triangular nub of the trigger bar fall low enough to disengage from the leg of the striker block. The triangular nub is angled on the top for clearance purposes ONLY, it does not positively hold the striker block in place at any point of its travel. The striker block is pushed into its engaged position ONLY by the force of its small spring.
Video explanation of how the safety actually works here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo0fQ08n_UI
Test #1 – Slide only:
To determine the effectiveness of the firing pin block, the slide was removed from the pistol and placed in a vise padded with a towel. The striker was pulled back to varying distances and released after verifying the striker block had traveled to its full extent of engagement. At each distance the striker was pulled back, even very small distances, the striker was able to easily overcome the block and simply push it out of the way. Video here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKIUpTDbn6o
Test #2 – Primed Case:
An empty 9mm cartridge primed with a CCI primer was placed in the barrel, which was installed into the slide with the recoil spring holding it in place. The striker was pulled back to varying distances and released after verifying the striker block had traveled to its full extent of engagement. At small distances, the cartridge case did not fire. At any distance greater than about 75% of the striker’s maximum travel, the primer ignited almost every time. Video here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezFV4yWMNpk
Conclusions:
The firing pin block does not appear to serve as a functional stop to the travel of the striker. At best, it slightly reduces the velocity of the striker before impacting the primer. Several things seem to be contributing to this problem. Firstly, the engagement surface between the striker block and the shoulder on the striker is extremely small. This shoulder on the striker has a small radius at its root (likely necessary for the MIM process and to reduce stress concentrations) and this radius serves as a ramp to push the striker block out of the way. The striker can also rotate a bit in the striker housing, making an inconsistent engagement between the striker and the block.
It should be kept in mind that this is not the only safety system on the P-10 series of pistols. Even without a functional firing pin safety, the chances of an accidental discharge caused by mechanical failure is very low. The trigger safety and drop safety, in my opinion, still make this a relatively safe design. Even in a theoretical case in which the striker became detached from the trigger bar (due to disengagement or breakage) the striker is only half-cocked or less when the trigger is forward. In my testing, the striker had to be drawn further to the rear to set off the primer. Softer primers, such as Federal, may have been set off closer to half cock, but these were not tested.
Despite the fact that the P-10 is likely still relatively safe, these conclusions have led me to make the decision to relegate this pistol to range use only. I would not feel comfortable carrying a pistol with what I consider to be a defective safety system.
EDIT
I sent an email to CZ this morning with a link to this thread and here was the response from one of their lead support guys:
"Good afternoon,
The automatic safety or the “firing pin block” cannot be checked by having the slide out of the frame, as the components internally will retain this part in place until the trigger is in the rearmost position to allow the safety to move out of the way, freeing the path for striker to move forward.
Attempting to test this as one would a traditional firing pin block will produce a false result. There is no test that can be done at home to verify function of this part without a physical drop test which for safety and potential finish damage reasons we cannot recommend.
Should you have any concerns or issues with your firearm please let us know and we can have the firearm sent in for a safety inspection."
In inspecting further, I do not think this is correct. I see nothing in the frame that would serve to positively locate the firing pin block with the trigger forward and am still convinced it is held in place only by its spring. I'll take another look at it tonight, in the meantime I've sent an email back to him asking him to clarify which part is supposed to keep the block in place.
EDIT 2
After more study of the system I am 100% sure the rep at CZ that responded to me is incorrect on how the system functions. The striker block relies one hundred percent on spring tension at all times and is never prevented from rotating out of place by mechanical locking. It's clear from just looking at the frame with the slide off that there are no other components that could possibly keep the striker block in place, but just to be sure, I put the slide on the frame and tested.
Video here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN7cbTSwR4A&feature=youtu.be
-
Thank you for taking the time to both perform the tests and provide this awesome write-up. I love this pistol. It remains my favorite striker fired pistol from a handling a shoot-ability perspective. However, I don't want to AIWB a pistol that is "probably" safe. For now as a result of following this from your original posts, I've switched back to my PCR. What I want is for CZ to specifically clarify, maybe even with a cutaway version, the mechanism inside that positively locks the firing pin block into place. I agree with your assessment that unless there is a secret trap door where a gremlin emerges from, I don't see any mechanism inside that positively locks the block. I want this gun to work, and I want it to be my carry, but it won't be as long as this issue is unaddressed.
I read CZ's reply, and if they won't take action to either physically show how the lockup happens or issue some kind of fix, it might be worth raising this issue on a few other forums like gunboards for wider distribution and visibility. Reaching out to some gun youtubers might also help put some additional pressure on them to provide more than an "it's fine but you can't tell from home" reply. I'm not trying to trash this pistol or CZ. Hell, I wanted one of each in the whole family, but I'm not ok with carrying this myself, so in it's current form it's just a range toy for me. I would have gladly paid $100 more than I did for this pistol to have a proper block system.
-
I would hazard a guess that a company with decades of experiencing in making firearms world wide might have a pretty good idea how their firearms work. They also had the example SIG made to make sure this sidearm does not drop fire. I have not heard anything from anyone stating that their P-10 of any make has drop fired - do you have a link to a reputable source where one has done so, such as a news story or a video of one drop firing? I already put one rumor to rest with my first Gen P-10C about the infamous striker deal, but I REALLY don't want to drop my gun on concrete just to prove this one either. Perhaps CZ-USA can offer more information other than a video of a partially disassembled firearm being manipulated by an inserted tool.
-
Armoredman,
I'm not aware of any actual problems being caused by failures of this system. Statistically it's unlikely there ever would be. I just want to bring attention to the fact that a safety system CZ thought important enough to include in their design does not appear to actually work. Even without a striker block, a striker fired pistol is probably more safe than (for example) a series 70 1911.
As to CZ understanding their design, I'm honestly not sure what's going on. The information given to me by the CZ customer service rep is clearly not correct as evidenced by my videos. In addition, the description of the way the striker block works given to the forum member in the thread linked in my post also seems to be wrong. If I had to guess I would say that maybe this pistol was designed by CZ-UB and communication between their engineering team and CZ-USA has been poor. With all the "Teething issues" the P-10C has had I think it would be difficult to argue CZ did sufficiently thorough testing on this pistol before release, and this may just be something that slipped through the cracks since it doesn't cause any observable problems.
I'd love to be wrong about this, but I don't see where I would be. I'd really appreciate to hear your feedback on what I might have missed.
-
Try a rubber or polymer mallet.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
An empty 9mm cartridge primed with a CCI primer was placed in the barrel, which was installed into the slide with the recoil spring holding it in place. The striker was pulled back to varying distances and released after verifying the striker block had traveled to its full extent of engagement. At small distances, the cartridge case did not fire. At any distance greater than about 75% of the striker’s maximum travel, the primer ignited almost every time.
Since I started this reply, I got a notice that another entry had been made, and while looking for it I found a good explanation by Hickeroar about how the P-10 safety mechanism works. His reply basically says the same thing I say, below, but does it more succinctly, Here's a link: https://czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=103705.15 (https://czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=103705.15) It's reply #17. But in hopes of making things more clear, I'll still post my reply.
As best I can tell, the CZ-P10 striker assembly works a bit like a Glock striker assembly. In fact, if you compare the striker assemblies of the two guns, they are very similar. How the strikers are actuated is slightly different, but the results are similar.
With the CZ The vertical part of the trigger par (part 7 in the parts diagram) pushes the striker back until it reaches a certain point and it then as the trigger bar movement continues the striker is released by the rear of the trigger bar dropping slightly. With the Glock, the striker is engaged on the side, but works in a similar manner. When the slide has been moved (as in chambering a round or firing one), the spring is again partially compressed, awaiting the next trigger pull. But just pushing the trigger forward has no effect on the striker spring, so there is no second-striker capability.
When the CZ striker assembly is at rest (i.e., it hasn't been compressed further by trigger bar movement), the striker is resting on a partially-compressed striker spring.
When the trigger bar hasn't been moved to the rear, that vertical part on the CZ trigger bar (which is used to push the striker back) also acts like a stop. If the gun is dropped, and there's no trigger finger pressing the trigger to compress the spring, the trigger bar will return to it's at-rest position. If the drop is forceful enough to actually power the striker, the vertical part of the The trigger bar then keeps the striker (CZ calls it a firing pin) from moving far enough forward to ignite a primer. Unless the spring is fully compressed, by slide action and trigger bar movement, the striker doesn't have enough inertial force to do anything, if the gun is dropped or struck, and the trigger bar itself acts like a firing pin stop.
Your test shows what happens when the striker is nearly fully charged, which it would never be if dropped or struck, with the slide off the frame, it will ignite a primer. And it SHOULD!
Your test seems to show that if the striker is only partially charged (as would be the case if the gun is dropped), or at rest (the round was a dud), nothing is going to happen. I think the vertical part of the trigger bar will also keep the pin/striker causing an inertial strike on the primer.
I think this is the point that the CZ customer service rep was making: if you don't have the slide on the frame, the full safety mechanism isn't in place.
-
Walt,
I agree with your analysis of the system. The CZ rep is also correct in that there are safety mechanisms in the frame (i.e. the trigger safety and drop safety), but I am addressing only the firing pin safety, not the safety of the firearm as a whole. This safety system is comprised solely of the firing pin block, its spring, and the triangular nub on the trigger bar.
You area also correct in that the striker spring would never be fully compressed with the trigger forward. The trigger safety and the drop safety are still completely functional, and do a fine job of keeping the P-10 series drop safe. I address these points in my conclusion section in my original post. Where the firing pin/striker block safety come into play is in the case of freak parts breakage or other mechanical disengagement. The trigger bar does keep the striker from moving forward, but what if for example the hook on the striker breaks off? Even in that case, since the striker isn't fully drawn back, it PROBABLY wouldn't matter. The entire firing pin safety could be deleted entirely from the design (and probably most modern designs) and it would probably be statistically just as safe. Let's say 99.998% vs 99.999% safe.
Regardless of the real-world statistical importance of the safety I think the point still stands that:
1-CZ found this safety system important enough to include on the design of this pistol.
2- Unless I'm missing something, the system appears to be entirely ineffective.
-
Walt,
I agree with your analysis of the system. The CZ rep is also correct in that there are safety mechanisms in the frame (i.e. the trigger safety and drop safety), but I am addressing only the firing pin safety, not the safety of the firearm as a whole. This safety system is comprised solely of the firing pin block, its spring, and the triangular nub on the trigger bar.
You area also correct in that the striker spring would never be fully compressed with the trigger forward. The trigger safety and the drop safety are still completely functional, and do a fine job of keeping the P-10 series drop safe. I address these points in my conclusion section in my original post. Where the firing pin/striker block safety come into play is in the case of freak parts breakage or other mechanical disengagement. The trigger bar does keep the striker from moving forward, but what if for example the hook on the striker breaks off? Even in that case, since the striker isn't fully drawn back, it PROBABLY wouldn't matter. The entire firing pin safety could be deleted entirely from the design (and probably most modern designs) and it would probably be statistically just as safe. Let's say 99.998% vs 99.999% safe.
Regardless of the real-world statistical importance of the safety I think the point still stands that:
1-CZ found this safety system important enough to include on the design of this pistol.
2- Unless I'm missing something, the system appears to be entirely ineffective.
RE 1: I think CZ's (and practically every other gun manufacturer's) lawyers had more to do with the inclusion of the striker safety than the engineers/designers.
RE 2: It may be, but I don't see a way that the inclusion of the system can cause harm.
The only way I can see it being an issue, is if the following occurs:
Somehow the striker is pulled back under near-full spring tension
The "sear" on the back of the trigger bar vanishes or the disconnector or it's spring fails allowing the striker to be released and then the striker safety fails resulting in a discharge.
It's so remote of a possibility that it's not even worth considering, imho, although I do applaud your thoroughness and dedication to the issue.
I would much rather us as a community determine that this is much ado about nothing than for it to fly under the radar and eventually result in irreparable damage to someone or their property.
-
Jon,
I agree 100%. The chance of this causing an ND and hurting someone is incredibly small. I just thought this was something that people needed to be aware of on a firearm that many are purchasing for carry and self defense. I know of at least a few people that have removed this firearm from consideration for carry (especially AIWB) due to these results.
-
I agree with your analysis of the system. The CZ rep is also correct in that there are safety mechanisms in the frame (i.e. the trigger safety and drop safety), but I am addressing only the firing pin safety, not the safety of the firearm as a whole. This safety system is comprised solely of the firing pin block, its spring, and the triangular nub on the trigger bar.
Drop safety seems to be the biggest concern of most gun makers, along with an internal safety mechanism in the assembled weapon that only allows it to be fired when the trigger is pulled fully to the rear. Unless the trigger is pulled (bypassing the trigger/firing pin safety), a heavy blow against the hammer or the rear of the slide won't cause an unwanted discharge.
I know of at least a few people that have removed this firearm from consideration for carry (especially AIWB) due to these results.
Unless they think they have a need to drop an assembled slide and barrel with a chambered round from a great height onto a hard surface in such a way that the full force of the drop is applied to the end of a flush-hitting barrel, an additional striker safety mechanism would likely prevent an accidental discharge in that scenario. But such a event would have to be intentional, not accidental or unintended. Why anyone would want to do that is beyond me.
Even California, in it's very arduous safety testing, doesn't go to that extreme.
-
As far as I understand, the striker block safety is more to prevent travel of the striker under breakage than anything. If you imagine the tip of the striker hook breaking off, there's nothing the trigger and drop safeties can do to stop it from going forward. This isn't an unknown failure, it was apparently fairly common on the earlier M&Ps - https://mp-pistol.com/autoloaders/39316-m-p-failure-striker-breakage.html
-
Every striker safety/firing pin safety consists of the firing pin block, spring and trigger bar nub. CZ is just different in rotating the safety lever instead of a plunger system. HK’s VP9/40 went a different route also rotating the safety a different way from CZ.
HB Industries has a drop safety video with their trigger installed in the P10C.
My take is CZ employs multiple engineers that know more that we do about the design of their pistol. We should spend more time shooting and less time speculating on the internet. David
-
There may be something to this, maybe not. I will say though, it seems like once every few months a first time poster shows up and claims that the P10 isn't safe, etc. This isn't the first time, and I bet it won't be the last. The internet is chock full of experts making videos.
-
There may be something to this, maybe not. I will say though, it seems like once every few months a first time poster shows up and claims that the P10 isn't safe, etc. This isn't the first time, and I bet it won't be the last. The internet is chock full of experts making videos.
Yeah ho hum we've seen this movie before. More glock guys claiming the CZ isn't safe. The gun when properly assembled is as safe as ANY other striker fired pistol out there and I can't say I've heard of a case of CZ leg yet.
-
For a moment I thought I was on the FN forum. Even Walt's here! Where do these internet engineers come from? If it's not bashing one manufacturer it's bashing another. Even videos and statistics to prove a non existent problem with flair, panache and fear mongering. No matter who does it, no matter which brand they attack, there seems to be one constant. It is an effort to make a certain brand shine. One which is stuck in 1987.
-
With years in service and active forum members, if there were legit safety issues, then there would have been a raft of threads and articles dedicated to the injuries and demonstrations of the safety failures. To be sure, the P-10C has had issues that CZ has gradually addressed. Even small mistakes are relatively expensive to a company of CZ's size. Anything that damages their reputation they obviously take seriously. Unlike Glock, you don't need to pour in another gun-worth of cash to get it up to snuff.
-
So if the striker is drawn back and released it can skip past the FP safety block. But to draw the striker back in the first place I have to pull the trigger. So the only way you could have the failure condition you demonstrated is if the striker leg snapped off while you were in the middle of pulling the trigger, which would have defeated the FP block anyways. The other failure mode would be if the trigger was to the rear after a shot, and the striker leg broke off after the slide returned to battery but before the trigger was reset. But the trigger bar would still be far back enough to disengage the FP block. I'm more worried about human error than a mechanical failure.
Now, in the case of the striker leg breaking off while the trigger is forward, the striker would be retracted about ~.216" from its fully forward position. The energy stored in the spring at that position is about 70% of when it's compressed all the way to the break. But the striker will also have half the distance to accelerate before it hits the primer and even less before it knocks into the FP block. Half the distance means half the velocity if we keep acceleration constant. But acceleration will be lower since the spring is under less compression. But even assuming unchanged acceleration, since K.E. = (1/2)Mass X Velocity^2, the Kinetic Energy of the striker hitting the primer from the rest position would be less than 1/4 of the energy as fully cocked.
So in the interest of science, the test needs to release the striker ~.216" from it's fully forward position to see if there's still enough oomph to pop the primer after blowing past the FP block.
As an aside, my buddy and I were able to create a weird failure in my early P-320. Since the sear was self-resetting, if you pulled the trigger just far enough to release the striker but not reset the sear, in theory, the slide could cycle and the striker would not catch the sear. Now, recoil makes this nearly impossible to do in real-time, but we were able to make it happen by using a wooden dowel jammed behind the trigger as a sort of overtravel stop. Needless to say, this was not something we felt we had to worry about or alert the P320 owning public.
-
Unlike Glock, you don't need to pour in another gun-worth of cash to get it up to snuff.
I agree with almost everything you say in your response -- except for the last comment, above.
Some years back, I shot a LOT of IDPA, using both a Glock 34 and my lightly tuned CZ-85 Combat. In periodic qualifiers, I consistently shot higher scores with that Glock 34 than with any gun I've owned. That 34 was factory stock and absolutely up to snuff right out of the box!! (I later traded that Glock 34 for an M&P Pro in 9mm which had been worked over by Speed Shooter Specialties for the prior owner. I LOVE that M&P Pro. The guy I traded with had put a bunch of money into the M&P Pro, but wanted to get back into Glocks; he had shot competitively with Glocks and could never get where he wanted to be with the M&P Pro. He wanted to get back to where he was most comfortable.-- and effective.)
I've still got two Glocks and have had a number of other Glocks (17s, 19s, 23s, several other 34s and 35s) over the years -- in 9mm and .40. And with one exception, the only thing I've ever really done to any of the Glocks was to add Ghost trigger kits (at about $17 each, shipped). After-market parts for Glock typically aren't all that expensive until you start buying the "name" trigger systems; the little stuff tends to be pretty cheap. But even a stock Glock trigger isn't that bad -- but it's not a 1911, either.
I've had a bunch of CZs, over the years -- 5-6 pre-Bs, a number of 75Bs (full-size in 9mm and .40, and two Compacts), a 40B, a 97B, and several 85Bs and I still have an 85 Combat (in satin nickel.) Nearly all of the CZ "B" series triggers were mediocre at first. I've got a P-07 Duty, which I like a lot, and a P10C which, even with a new HB Industries trigger systems installed, still stings my trigger finger now and then.
For my "B" model CZs, I generally had action or trigger work done up front if the gun was new. I realized, long ago, that I'd rather pay a gunsmith $100-$150 to improve a trigger rather than take the time to $125-150 worth of ammo to really start to break in a new CZ trigger. Had Cajun Gun Works or CZ Custom been around back then (late 1990s and early 2000's) I would have gotten parts from them. (Similar Witness guns, bought new, seem to come with better triggers, out of the box.)
The fact that so many members here on the forum buy parts and kits from CGW and CZ Custom, or buy the new "competition" versions of the more basic CZ models, tells you that many folks feel they have to spend a good amount of money to get their CZs where they want them. (You can do a LOT of Glock upgrading before you spend as much -- gun and upgrades -- as you will if you buy a CZ that has "Shadow" in it's model name.)
-
Peace Walt. I don't dispute that you can spend a lot on a CZ, because I have. My cajunized SP-01 was not cheap and is such a pleasure to shoot. If I carried OWB, this is the gun I'd undoubtedly use. I've taken it to classes with absolutely no regrets.
By contrast, my G26, Gen4, is easy to maintain and operates flawlessly. Beyond the purchase price, I have about $350 more into what I consider either necessary or very desirable improvements. It's a thing of okay precision that's not much fun to shoot, but an excellent choice for concealed carry.
Recently, I decided I wanted to explore a gun with a red dot for my EDC. This is the gun I want to train with for years. Choice had to have a great trigger (or the potential for it), rock-solid performance, great feel, and better precision (shooter not withstanding). Though I considered the G19 MOS and VP9, my experience with CZ's and so many positive reviews made the decision easy, especially with some of the deals on the late 2018 P-10C you can still find. It literally paid for custom milling of my optic. And with CGW and CZ Custom, in particular, dedicated long-term to this brand, I knew the support was there. Time will tell, but no regrets so far.
-
Only pistols I ever upgraded was the Phantom and P-09, through CGW, solid outstanding people. My P-10C FDE, First Gen is flawless and my EDC. The only thing I did to it was slightly sand down the stippling as my soft Administration hands were off put by the bite. :D By the time I got the White Nitride and P-10S, I was used to it, and now it feels a little smooth.
I carry Glock at work and have never fired an upgraded model, all basic bone stock 17 and 19s. I find nothing wrong with the triggers, nothing to write home about, but nothing wrong - the grip angle is what puts me off Glock.
And yes, Walt is here, where he and his experience belongs. ;)
Now, back to the original, the engineers have explained how the system works, it has been covered for this system to fail it would require a very specific and unusual circumstances, and even then, in the act of firing it may not discharge unsafely due to far lower striker inertia. We have identified the part that would be the potential failure point being the striker leg. So, the only question that makes any sense is what does CZ state the service life of the striker/leg is, have ANY of them actually broken under normal usage, and when should it be replaced, if at all. That would be the end all be all of this discussion.
-
I think I need to clarify a bit why I made this post -
For those who did not rear the entire original post, I am NOT claiming the P-10 is measurably less safe without a working firing pin block. I think the P-10 series is overall a well-made firearm that I truly enjoy. I'm not sure why I am being attacked for supposedly being a Glock fanboy. For what it's worth I like my CZs way, way more than I like my Glock. I think these issues with the striker block are incredibly unlikely to ever cause a problem or injure someone. I can't imagine a situation apart from incredibly soft primers and a broken striker in which this would cause an ND.
However, I did think it was important to bring this to the attention of people who have chosen this firearm for their needs. You can take or leave the information, doesn't bother me either way. The points still stand that:
1-A safety system that CZ included in this pistol and has advertised as a feature does not function correctly.
2-The explanations given by CZ-USA as to how this safety functions do not match the actual workings of the pistol. For those that care to look, another member on the CZ subreddit has made a modified cover plate that allows access to the internal components with the pistol COMPLETELY assembled. The striker block is held in place only by its spring.
It is not my intent to paint the P-10 series as a poor choice or to attack CZ-UB/CZ-USA. I just want to bring this to light so that people can do what they want with the information.
-
As far as I understand, the striker block safety is more to prevent travel of the striker under breakage than anything. If you imagine the tip of the striker hook breaking off, there's nothing the trigger and drop safeties can do to stop it from going forward. This isn't an unknown failure, it was apparently fairly common on the earlier M&Ps - https://mp-pistol.com/autoloaders/39316-m-p-failure-striker-breakage.html
In your latest response, you continue to make unfounded claims:
However, I did think it was important to bring this to the attention of people who have chosen this firearm for their needs. You can take or leave the information, doesn't bother me either way. The points still stand that:
1-A safety system that CZ included in this pistol and has advertised as a feature does not function correctly.
2-The explanations given by CZ-USA as to how this safety functions do not match the actual workings of the pistol. For those that care to look, another member on the CZ subreddit has made a modified cover plate that allows access to the internal components with the pistol COMPLETELY assembled. The striker block is held in place only by its spring.
Most safety features are dependent on a spring (or springs) for them to work correctly. That is certainly the case with the CZ firing pin safety in their hammer fired guns, and it is also the case with the Glock safety design. Trigger movement disables the safety mechanism in most of these guns, by compressing the springs keeping those mechanism in a locked/safe position. Are you now attacking the use of springs in safety mechanisms?
The CZ system works exactly as stated (and does so correctly.) It matches the actual workings of the pistol. Your "test" of the striker, however, does NOT match the actual workings of the pistol.
You were originally concerned about safety issues, now you seem to be more concerned with defending your earliest claim, which seems to be an increasingly difficult defense.
I read through the linked discussion from the other forum and noted that the striker that failed had been modified -- so modified that the owner chose not to send it in to S&W for replacement under warranty. Another participant mentioned older versions of the striker had broken; that was not presented as a SAFETY ISSUE, but as a parts breakage issue. Guns or people were not harmed. A broken striker spring or a trigger return spring could have the same effect on gun function and the same effect upon user safety (i.e., none) unless they're being shot at and can't run away.
I'm a long-time member of the S&W Forum, spending most of my time there in the sub-forums where they discuss the M&P line. I never personally heard or read of a striker problem in my several years of participation there, so I did a forum search looking for striker issues, and found nothing. If there was a problem -- and there may well be -- it certainly wasn't all THAT common. The problem, if it existed for S&W, must have been a long time back.
About the CZ P10 striker mechanism
Your reasoning seems to be based on a number assumptions and inferences that may or may not apply. You seem to assume that because failure of a similar striker design was a problem for S&W, CZ would have the same issue -- despite the fact that the designs are only similar not the same. The problem may have been something as simple as an incorrectly designed part of the S&W striker or an early production glitch. That forum made NO mention about how the problem was resolved -- but it apparently didn't involve a redesign of the slide or the overall striker assembly.
I'll note, too, that you started out complaining about the lack of safety mechanism in the slide that could prevent a discharge, but have subtly changed your focus to striker--failure and an implicit criticism of the striker design. In your most recent post, above, you've focused on the use of springs in the safety mechanism. Changing horses in mid-stream?
- If the P10 striker were to break while firing, there would be no "next" round. The striker could not be reset. Whether the gun would actually fire when the trigger was pulled is open to question. [/l]
- The striker in the link you posted had been modified -- apparently someone ground metal away on the part that broke, in an effort to improve smoothness.
- When the S&W striker failed, it didn't cause an accidental discharge; it simply didn't function. (The only safety issue was that the gun wouldn't fire, when it conceivably needed to fire, and n a self-defense situation, but a number of other, arguably more likely issues, like a trigger return spring failure could cause a similar problem. This is NOT a safety issue, but a part breakage which disabled the weapon. Any number of other such breakages could have the same effect.
- If the P10 striker were to break while firing, there would be no "next" round., because the trigger could not be reset and the striker spring partiall charged by slide movement.
- While the M&P, Glock, and CZ p10 striker use a simialar design approach, you seem to overlook the fact that the CZ striker is NOT an M&P or Glock Striker.
- The P10 striker assembly has not been modified, and there is no history of (S&W-like striker failures).
Regarding dropping a slide containing a barrel with a loaded chamber:
- The only way to do that is to load the chamber AFTER the slide is removed from the gun. You must first clear the weapon and pull trigger to get the slide off the gun, which releases the striker. Taking the slide off the frame moves the slide in the other direction, and the striker spring is in it's uncompressed state, not even partially charged as would be the case with a dropped and loaded weapon.[/li[
- Your evidence for the existence of a problem occurred when you removed the slide from the frame, making the trigger bar's function as part of the internal safety design inactive.
- In your test, you could only get a primer to ignite by substantially compressing the striker spring -- something that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT happen if a slide containing a loaded chamber is dropped form some height and hit a hard surface just right. Why would you do that?
Unless you can show us a real safety issue, perhaps by actually drop testing a loaded slide from a great height, your entire argument seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
-
I think I need to clarify a bit why I made this post -
For those who did not rear the entire original post, I am NOT claiming the P-10 is measurably less safe without a working firing pin block. I think the P-10 series is overall a well-made firearm that I truly enjoy. I'm not sure why I am being attacked for supposedly being a Glock fanboy. For what it's worth I like my CZs way, way more than I like my Glock. I think these issues with the striker block are incredibly unlikely to ever cause a problem or injure someone. I can't imagine a situation apart from incredibly soft primers and a broken striker in which this would cause an ND.
However, I did think it was important to bring this to the attention of people who have chosen this firearm for their needs. You can take or leave the information, doesn't bother me either way. The points still stand that:
1-A safety system that CZ included in this pistol and has advertised as a feature does not function correctly.
2-The explanations given by CZ-USA as to how this safety functions do not match the actual workings of the pistol. For those that care to look, another member on the CZ subreddit has made a modified cover plate that allows access to the internal components with the pistol COMPLETELY assembled. The striker block is held in place only by its spring.
It is not my intent to paint the P-10 series as a poor choice or to attack CZ-UB/CZ-USA. I just want to bring this to light so that people can do what they want with the information.
If I bring up something negative about my F150 on a Ford forum, inevitably someone will call me a Chevy fanboy. People get emotionally invested in their purchases. Guns are no different, probably worse, although this forum is pretty decent.
I got flamed on Sigforum when I showed pics of how similar the cross section of my p320 x5 grip was to a Glock 17. My post was literally just: “Here’s my new X5 grip module. It’s very Glock-like in circumference.”
I think the contention stems from you highlighting a problem that only occurs outside of the operating parameters of the gun. Like if I said “Honda’s side airbags are ineffective if you get hit while the doors are open.” It may be true, but it feels like someone is moving the goal posts to prove a point.
In our current era where people are weary of click-bait and hyperbole, your thread title sets people up to be defensive before even reading your post. “PSA: The P-10 firing pin safety may not function as intended under certain conditions” is less of a declarative statement, so people are less apt to form an opinion before reading the info.
A trick I learned recently is to read informational posts and comments in Ron Swanson’s voice. I’m less likely to assume the worst in people on the internet that way.
-
Hurry up and get your (reasoned and polite) posts in gents, before someone steps in it and wins a time out.
This thread is like trying to convince a vegetarian to eat meat, you'll never do it using logic and evidence.
It's going away tonight before people fall upon their swords.
-
If I bring up something negative about my F150 on a Ford forum, inevitably someone will call me a Chevy fanboy. People get emotionally invested in their purchases. Guns are no different, probably worse, although this forum is pretty decent.
This forum is actually unusually decent, when it comes to criticisms of the CZ line. You read it here -- and I've been among some of the critics -- but it's generally about matters that can be clearly defined and sometimes proof-tested/evaluated.
- I've noted that CZ triggers out of the box just generally aren't that great. Its worse now than it was 10-15 years ago. Witness (i.e., Tanfoglio) has similar models that have very good triggers out of the box.
- I've been one of the many critics of the way the single-action trigger often (depending on the gun) cams before it drops, leaving you with a less crisp trigger. We know that a slightly redesigned hammer (ala CZ Custom and CGW hammers) solves that problem.
- I've noted that the design of CZ firing pin block more negatively affects trigger pull than does the Tanfoglio design.
- In a recent discussion here, I said that the design of the CZ firing pin block mechanism (using a firing pin retention roll pin rather than a firng pin stop at the rear of the slide) was awkward and possibly trouble prone -- but I understood WHY it was done the way it was done. (I also noted that some years ago a member suggested that if the change was made to the cuts on the top of the firing pin so that the pin hits the firing pin spring rather than the firing pin retention roll pin when sent forward, there might be less damage to the firing pin retention roll pin. (That was just an idea, and it was discussed on this forum. I think you really need that pin to keep the firing pin from going out the back of the slide, not too far forward!)
- I've criticized CZ much-repeated claim about the CZ handguns being the most widely-used handgun in the world. (Wide in what sense: physical distribution of it's users, or the most guns in use. I think we know the answer to that question. I think it was pure sales hype and nothing more. CZ could have said "one of the most widely used around the world " and it would have been true, and not questioned.
- I was also one of the many who raised a stink when, upon buying a CZ75B SA model, found that it came with a plastic trigger. I haven't bought any of the more recent 75B SA models (now discontinued), but I haven't heard any complaints about plastic triggers in a long time.
When I made those comments and others, I wasn't attacked. A number of folks agreed, and others used those comments as a starting point to discuss some of the related technical issues (like the firing pin design.)
I've found that there are MANY participants here who really understand how the various CZ models work, and that understanding is based on their own experience and their home gunsmithing or professional gunsmithing work.
Criticism of CZ design or features, on this forum, is generally well-received -- it's not like the Glock or SIG forums where you often wonder WHY you even participate. But you've got to have a valid criticism if you want to avoid being dumped on.
I think highly of CZs, (I gave up on SIGs some years ago, and while I still like Glocks, I've focused on other rollmarks/brands in the past few years.) I applaud CZ's new designs, including the Omega system, the P-07 ad P-09 and, of course, the P-10.
I wish I could afford to buy more CZs. I now mostly TRADE into the guns I want, and I'm waiting for my chance to get a P-09. I missed one last year by a day or so on a forum I don't visit regularly.
-
2-The explanations given by CZ-USA as to how this safety functions do not match the actual workings of the pistol. For those that care to look, another member on the CZ subreddit has made a modified cover plate that allows access to the internal components with the pistol COMPLETELY assembled. The striker block is held in place only by its spring.
I feel that we are overlooking this relatively substantial piece of information.
I was also given the run-around during the P-01 Omega decocker debacle. Were it not for a few inquisitive minds, we would have chalked it up to a few lemons here and there, rather than an inherent flaw in the design.
I, for one, welcome this kind of discussion. I don't think that we should assume OP has malicious intent. Dude is legitimately concerned and I see why.
And until things are clarified by CZ, I'm going to carry my P-09 for work instead of my P-10F.
-
Okay. All done.