The Original CZ Forum
CZ PISTOL CLUBS => CZ Polymer Pistols: P10, P-07, P-09 => Topic started by: Sigman1393 on March 15, 2023, 08:56:09 PM
-
I used a CZ P 10F as my duty weapon that my Dept. Uses. Last week I had my issued weapon fire while it was in the holster. I've look in the forum and online but I have not found any issues like what I experienced. So I'm reaching out here to see if anyone have heard of or experienced anything like I did. Last Thursday afternoon after my tour of duty I was reaching into my unit for my yeti, I had my sling bag on my shoulder. When I reached for my yeti the strap to my sling slipped off my shoulder and landed on the top of the gun grip or back strap. The weight of the bag pulled down and made the gun fire. I was not hit by the bullet but the bottom of the holster blew out and that did cut my right calf.
-
Wow. Close call there. So glad you weren't hurt.
Welcome from Georgia.
Please take a few moments to familiarize yourself with the sticky posts in the 'New Members' Forum and also the 'Important Information' sub-section.
-
Interesting. What agency are you with?
-
If it is not a pistol malfunction then I would suspect the holster is not a good fit. Like maybe the indent that goes in the trigger guard is too close to the trigger and downward pressure on the gun caused it to pull the trigger back enough to fire it. They might need a major recall on the holster. If that is the case you could have that happen if you got in a scuffle with a person and them trying to get the gun and did the same thing.
-
??? Heck of a first post....
-
The lack of specific details makes this seem like a troll post. BUT I’ll answer your question: I’ve never heard or experienced anything like this. You sure you didn’t have an Sig 320 sigman1393?
-
The lack of specific details makes this seem like a troll post.
YEP! Not heard ANY talk of P10's malfing this way and not aware of any le agencies issuing them either. More info is definitely in order here.
-
This has never been an issue with the P10 to my knowledge, and I don't see how it could be. If this happened, you should immediately contact CZ-USA. As somebody that ran a facility that had thousands of LE officers come through for training my very first suspicion would be either the holster itself or an obstruction in it (debris, etc.).
-
The lack of specific details makes this seem like a troll post.
YEP! Not heard ANY talk of P10's malfing this way and not aware of any le agencies issuing them either. More info is definitely in order here.
He never says he is LE: “ duty weapon that my Dept. Uses.” Could be armored guard or mall security.
-
The lack of specific details makes this seem like a troll post.
YEP! Not heard ANY talk of P10's malfing this way and not aware of any le agencies issuing them either. More info is definitely in order here.
He never says he is LE: “ duty weapon that my Dept. Uses.” Could be armored guard or mall security.
Not specifically but the implication is there.
Phrases like "My tour of duty" and "reaching into my unit" give the definite implication of a leo. Then there's the obvious in that the intent of a troll post is to get others debating/arguing with eachother while the troll sits back and enjoys it. Hope that's not the case but we'll see.
-
Can't find a single claim anywhere of a CZ doing this but it does appear there are still claims of the SIG 320's doing it. I suspect the truth in these cases is as always something is inadvertently caught in the trigger when holstering and movement eventually causes a pull of the trigger.
-
Can't find a single claim anywhere of a CZ doing this but it does appear there are still claims of the SIG 320's doing it. I suspect the truth in these cases is as always something is inadvertently caught in the trigger when holstering and movement eventually causes a pull of the trigger.
That's been my experience as well. And I've got more than a bit. I've been on site multiple times when an ambulance was called after an officer or other armed professional shot himself at the location I managed. In no instance was it a defect in the gun. In every case (I can think of four or five off the top of my head) it was a holster or operator issue. Not saying that it's impossible this was a gun issue but it never has been in my experience. Though it may be worth pointing out that none of the agencies or companies that trained where I was issued the 320, at least when I was there.
Edit - Wanted to add that I can't stress enough that if this actually happened the person involved needs to contact CZ-USA. The fact that they're asking on a forum is one of the things that makes me suspicious about this happening in general and about this person being a police officer specifically. I know there are a number of current and retired police officers here. Lol, pretty much any of them would be able to chime in with a similar response to what happens if you have a negligent or accidental discharge with a duty weapon. It's a bit more than ask around on the internet to see if somebody had a similar experience.
-
Maybe his dept has put the blame on him and he is hoping to find info that will take that blame off... Unfortunately for him, that's not going to happen. I haven't heard or read of any issues of this kind about the P10.
-
The lack of specific details makes this seem like a troll post.
YEP! Not heard ANY talk of P10's malfing this way and not aware of any le agencies issuing them either. More info is definitely in order here.
He never says he is LE: “ duty weapon that my Dept. Uses.” Could be armored guard or mall security.
Mall cop? He might have bumped it on his Segway.
-
Hook, line sinker and bobber!
-
Sorry, I am an LEO. I'd rather leave the name of the agency out, but I work as an SRO for a school district in Texas. I don't think its a holster issue I was using a Safariland hols.ter with a TRL HL attached to the weapon.
-
Sorry, I am an LEO. I'd rather leave the name of the agency out, but I work as an SRO for a school district in Texas. I don't think its a holster issue I was using a Safariland hols.ter with a TRL HL attached to the weapon.
Well without any more info than you're providing and absent any other complaints about the P10 line such as yours what are we to think. No one likes to be at fault but until proof otherwise is shown I'm inclined to believe something either was caught or did catch the trigger and moved it to fire.
Being a LEO you know how the proof thing works.
Interesting that a negligent discharge could happen at a school and not make the news these days???
-
Someone or something pulled the trigger
-
Someone or something pulled the trigger
Someone or something depressed the trigger safety and then pulled the trigger.
-
Holsters that accommodate a light/laser usually "grab" the light/laser, not the trigger guard like most holsters that hold a handgun in place.
Sounds like he was searching for either more cases of this happening or some things to look at that could make it happen.
Like the rest of you, if this happened it's the first one I've ever heard of.
-
Based upon the P10 design, I cannot explain how a P10 would fire "uncommanded." In my opinion, there would have to be broken parts AND something beyond my understanding would have to happen. A coat string in the holster is another matter.
I am a senior LEO in a command position and I have seen all manners of firearms related issues on both military and LE ranges. During my career, I've conducted forensic weapon examinations and testified to same in court or as part of IA investigations. My testimony has helped put murderers in prison AND my investigations have seen a few of officers disciplined for negligence. Thankfully I haven't had to deal with firearms related LEO criminal misconduct within my organization.
I have seen weapons malfunction. I've seen weapons go off out-of-battery and blow apart. I've seen rifles and pistols slam fire. I've seen coat drawstrings, shirttails and all manner of things get get hung up in in trigger guards/holsters. I've seen cops and military members do some really stupid stuff. All of these issues had causes that could be explained.
A missing spring in a AR hammer will cause the hammer pin to walk and the gun will slam fire upon loading. Bad ammo, fouled chambers can lead to KB's. Weak springs, worn parts, even a primer stirrup can render a weapon inoperable. These are hardware issues.
Poor weapon handling, drawstrings in your holster, failing to put the cam pin in an AR bolt carrier..... etc, are software issues. In 28 years, I have seen many more software issues. I'm also not personally immune from software issues.
I'm not in the habit of badmouthing designs, but someone alluded to the "uncommanded fire" reports with the P320's. In 2015, I led a team to evaluate the 1st Gen P320 as a potential duty weapon. Aside from magazine issues, that design did not incorporate a disconnector (mechanism that would prevent out of battery sear release). Because the 1st gen triggers basically reset on their own without slide actuation, it was possible to hold the trigger in a manner to facilitate sear override that would either result in a dead striker (with a slight primer indention) or the weapon would slam fire. We didn't get around to dropping it before we reported our findings to Sig and moved on to a different weapon. Unlike the P10, the P320's striker is 100% cocked and the sear interfaces very similar to the way a bolt action rifle does. Compared to a Glock or P10, the sear surface is pretty small with a very small amount of metal of the sear interfacing with a small surface on the striker. Because of this design, the success of the system is highly dependent upon the tolerance between the slide and the slide rails. Pull the trigger on one that has seen a 1000 or so rounds and you can watch the slide move up when the trigger is pressed. Add the fact that there is no trigger safety, a very light trigger and a very short distance the trigger must be depressed before the striker safety is disengaged - essentially the weapon is like carrying around a cocked P226 with all of the slack taken out of the trigger. I can understand how a 1st Generation P320 can go off in a holster, particularly with rough handling. With the 2nd Gen ones, with the secondary sear surface and the disconnectior issue resolved, its harder to explain related to the hardware. Because of the lack of trigger safety and my analogy to a cocked P226, I COMPLETELY understand ND's with it. The weapon has absolutely no margin for error.
I don't like Glocks, but I cannot understate the effectiveness of the design. I mention Glocks because anyone doing research can readily find computer animations that clearly show how all of the parts work together. The sear cruciform is basically locked in the frame channel until the trigger safety is disabled. The striker is cocked around 60% with trigger movement doing the rest and sear engagement is pretty robust. Sear reset is automatic. I'm not sure the weapon CAN fire unless the trigger is pulled. If the striker shoe or cruciform breaks off, there is a striker safety, PLUS the striker is under limited tension. If either of these breaks, it is immediately apparent upon inspection. Yes, in the early 90's Glock had a recall because of faulty fire-control components. They could go off upon loading. Different animal a long time ago....
While the P10 looks completely different inside, the parts work together to do the same things as the Glock. The trigger bar/sear is blocked in place by a frame pin until the trigger safety is disengaged. The striker is not fully cocked and there is a striker safety. The disconnector automatically resets the trigger bar. If the striker shoe or sear surface breaks off, I can see the striker releasing, but like the Glock, its only partially cocked and the remaining safety should intercept. The weapon will be disabled, but it shouldn't fire. If it did, the cause would be readily apparent upon inspection. Broken striker shoe...Rounded or broken sear (assuming the striker safety is disabled).
As an examiner, I have had to describe the functioning of the weapon, how the parts work together and whether or not they are functioning normally. Yes, I'm a CZ fanboy but I did ALOT of research before buying a P10. I wanted a Glock that didn't feel like a Glock. While I still prefer the 75 actions, like the Glocks, I cannot understate the effectiveness of the P10 design. I did see a fellow "demonstrate" on the internet how a P10's striker safety is "deficient" but his trick only works if you manually pull the striker past where it normally rides and release it with the slide off. Again, some parts would have to break for this safety to HAVE to work. On the other hand, I haven't actually experimented to see how far you'd have to tension the striker and actually try to set off a primed case with the slide off...can't think of a reason.
Absent of some definitive evidence leading to a hardware failure...can't explain. Sorry.
-
Based upon the P10 design, I cannot explain how a P10 would fire "uncommanded." In my opinion, there would have to be broken parts AND something beyond my understanding would have to happen. A coat string in the holster is another matter.
I am a senior LEO in a command position and I have seen all manners of firearms related issues on both military and LE ranges. During my career, I've conducted forensic weapon examinations and testified to same in court or as part of IA investigations. My testimony has helped put murderers in prison AND my investigations have seen a few of officers disciplined for negligence. Thankfully I haven't had to deal with firearms related LEO criminal misconduct within my organization.
I have seen weapons malfunction. I've seen weapons go off out-of-battery and blow apart. I've seen rifles and pistols slam fire. I've seen coat drawstrings, shirttails and all manner of things get get hung up in in trigger guards/holsters. I've seen cops and military members do some really stupid stuff. All of these issues had causes that could be explained.
A missing spring in a AR hammer will cause the hammer pin to walk and the gun will slam fire upon loading. Bad ammo, fouled chambers can lead to KB's. Weak springs, worn parts, even a primer stirrup can render a weapon inoperable. These are hardware issues.
Poor weapon handling, drawstrings in your holster, failing to put the cam pin in an AR bolt carrier..... etc, are software issues. In 28 years, I have seen many more software issues. I'm also not personally immune from software issues.
I'm not in the habit of badmouthing designs, but someone alluded to the "uncommanded fire" reports with the P320's. In 2015, I led a team to evaluate the 1st Gen P320 as a potential duty weapon. Aside from magazine issues, that design did not incorporate a disconnector (mechanism that would prevent out of battery sear release). Because the 1st gen triggers basically reset on their own without slide actuation, it was possible to hold the trigger in a manner to facilitate sear override that would either result in a dead striker (with a slight primer indention) or the weapon would slam fire. We didn't get around to dropping it before we reported our findings to Sig and moved on to a different weapon. Unlike the P10, the P320's striker is 100% cocked and the sear interfaces very similar to the way a bolt action rifle does. Compared to a Glock or P10, the sear surface is pretty small with a very small amount of metal of the sear interfacing with a small surface on the striker. Because of this design, the success of the system is highly dependent upon the tolerance between the slide and the slide rails. Pull the trigger on one that has seen a 1000 or so rounds and you can watch the slide move up when the trigger is pressed. Add the fact that there is no trigger safety, a very light trigger and a very short distance the trigger must be depressed before the striker safety is disengaged - essentially the weapon is like carrying around a cocked P226 with all of the slack taken out of the trigger. I can understand how a 1st Generation P320 can go off in a holster, particularly with rough handling. With the 2nd Gen ones, with the secondary sear surface and the disconnectior issue resolved, its harder to explain related to the hardware. Because of the lack of trigger safety and my analogy to a cocked P226, I COMPLETELY understand ND's with it. The weapon has absolutely no margin for error.
I don't like Glocks, but I cannot understate the effectiveness of the design. I mention Glocks because anyone doing research can readily find computer animations that clearly show how all of the parts work together. The sear cruciform is basically locked in the frame channel until the trigger safety is disabled. The striker is cocked around 60% with trigger movement doing the rest and sear engagement is pretty robust. Sear reset is automatic. I'm not sure the weapon CAN fire unless the trigger is pulled. If the striker shoe or cruciform breaks off, there is a striker safety, PLUS the striker is under limited tension. If either of these breaks, it is immediately apparent upon inspection. Yes, in the early 90's Glock had a recall because of faulty fire-control components. They could go off upon loading. Different animal a long time ago....
While the P10 looks completely different inside, the parts work together to do the same things as the Glock. The trigger bar/sear is blocked in place by a frame pin until the trigger safety is disengaged. The striker is not fully cocked and there is a striker safety. The disconnector automatically resets the trigger bar. If the striker shoe or sear surface breaks off, I can see the striker releasing, but like the Glock, its only partially cocked and the remaining safety should intercept. The weapon will be disabled, but it shouldn't fire. If it did, the cause would be readily apparent upon inspection. Broken striker shoe...Rounded or broken sear (assuming the striker safety is disabled).
As an examiner, I have had to describe the functioning of the weapon, how the parts work together and whether or not they are functioning normally. Yes, I'm a CZ fanboy but I did ALOT of research before buying a P10. I wanted a Glock that didn't feel like a Glock. While I still prefer the 75 actions, like the Glocks, I cannot understate the effectiveness of the P10 design. I did see a fellow "demonstrate" on the internet how a P10's striker safety is "deficient" but his trick only works if you manually pull the striker past where it normally rides and release it with the slide off. Again, some parts would have to break for this safety to HAVE to work. On the other hand, I haven't actually experimented to see how far you'd have to tension the striker and actually try to set off a primed case with the slide off...can't think of a reason.
Absent of some definitive evidence leading to a hardware failure...can't explain. Sorry.
Reading this made me think about the FNS pistols. They had some issues with those going off at a time/place when the trigger had not been pulled and the gun had been in the holster for some period of time.
If I remember what I read correctly it happened when an officer pulled the trigger and for some reason the gun didn't fire. Due to the design of the striker the striker would stay fully cocked and ready to fire. Pulling the pistol from the holster and setting it on a shelf in the locker could fire it. A hard strike to the pistol could fire it. FN never ran across this scenario in all the testing they did (as with anything else, operators can/will do things engineers/technical people never could imagine/think of doing during lab/field tests. FN ended up redesigning the striker (then got into striker failures/breakage). The FNS went away and the 509 was introduced.
What happened with the FNS was when the muzzle was pushed up against a surface enough to move the slide slightly out of battery before the trigger was pulled (like in a fight when the officer feels it is necessary to pull the pistol, shove it up against a person and pull the trigger) the gun would not fire because it was slightly out of battery. But the striker stayed cocked on the edge of release. The bump/shock would allow the striker to jump off that last tiny contact point with the sear and fire - even though the trigger had been release minutes or hours before. That might be because the FNS really, really is double action. If you take it apart the sear doesn't just move the striker a tiny amount as it pivots due to the trigger pull, the trigger pull moves the sear rearward a good amount before the sear ever starts to pivot. As the sear moves rearward it futher cocks the striker to a much great degree than on the Glock, M&P, etc. type striker fired pistols. It's wild looking but it works. As good as an Apex trigger kit can tune up an M&P one can only get an FNS trigger pull down to around 5.5 to 6 lbs. or so - because it has to move the striker much further against the resistance of the striker spring compressing. Imagine a double trigger on a nice European rifle. You pull the first trigger and it is a first stage. When you put your finger on the 2nd trigger it takes very little movement/effort to fire the rifle.
Can a P10 do that? If you move the slide out of battery and pull the trigger and it doesn't fire, can the striker and sear engagement be so "on the edge" and the striker block already moved and hung in the firing position so that a bump/smack will release the striker? I really don't know. Don't own one. But I'm curious.
It the reported event happened there is a reason. Something odd/different happened that hasn't happened before.
-
I don't think we have enough info to assess what happened:
- approximately what year did your dept acquire these guns or this gun if known?
- what ammo were you running? Remember that these guns are made to shoot all 9mm ammo, including NATO varieties w/ hard primers
- how long had the chambered round been in your pistol? If primer was potentially dented but not ignited at an earlier point in time it requires even less force to ignite than an unblemished one.
- what safariland holster were you running? And did the holster grip/tension into the slide or frame instead of fully seating against something on the front face of the frame of the gun -- did the front face of the slide instead bottom out on/in the holster? What retention device, if any?
- did anyone fully disassemble the gun or disassemble the striker assembly other than the factory, such as a department armorer new to this weapon system?
Insofar as this gun -- the P10f is the biggest and heaviest variant of the p10 (plus the weaponlight) all that mass combined w/ a unique pistol holster interface AND especially combined w/ this gun's (fairly controversial if not minimally functional) firing pin block/striker safety, I can certainly see how this could have happened, at least hypothetically...
The whole striker mechanism moving forward as @ 1:10 here could fire ammo w/ soft primers when combined with the mass of the gun and the gym bag could have potentially fired the weapon while in the holster: https://youtu.be/EhQ_9Mf244c?t=69
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhQ_9Mf244c
And here's a vid of the firing pin block's spring being incorrectly installed from the factory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCz_GjAFkx0
There's a thread on reddit discussing in exhaustive detail that also references a thread here that reflects how CZ says this should work if installed correctly -- Redditor is arguing it doesn't work as advertised: https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/cqshim/psa_the_cz_p10c_appears_to_have_no_functional/
I think this finding is pretty "forum auto-redacted word" (apparently as it can also be a swear word), but is properly defined as "strongly suggesting guilt or error" that a -- test on your own at your own risk and to be fully clear, I am not recommending you do this test (but if I had a P10, I probably would if only for my own peace of mind -- but then there's the ol' "curiosity killed the cat").
I highly doubt the OP/officer still has this weapon in his possession, but if he does, I'd be curious to see photos of internals and his results from similar tests...
LASTLY, I'm really disappointed and frankly shocked to see the hostility here to the OP and this thread... Seems extremely out-of-character for this forum, especially for what could be a life and career-altering incident for the OP.
Real life testing always finds things overlooked or misunderstood/unanticipated by engineers -- for instance, just look at all the Hyundais and Kias currently being stolen w/ just a USB cord...
-
Those vids show 2 guys desperately trying to claim a defect in the guns by manipulating the firing mechanism while the gun is field stripped. The system doesn't behave that way when properly assembled.
There's simply no evidence of an issue like this with the P10 line. A single post by someone who refuses to provide KEY details gets us no where. If the OP's claim is valid he should be providing ALL relevant information and he should be interacting with the thread he started here.
-
Those vids show 2 guys desperately trying to claim a defect in the guns by manipulating the firing mechanism while the gun is field stripped. The system doesn't behave that way when properly assembled.
There's simply no evidence of an issue like this with the P10 line. A single post by someone who refuses to provide KEY details gets us no where. If the OP's claim is valid he should be providing ALL relevant information and he should be interacting with the thread he started here.
Not accurate to the first. And completely off-base to video 2 which is a follow-up to a different vid where folks pointed out in that vid's comments that his firing pin block's spring was installed incorrectly at the factory -- and he's illustrating that and also discussing the firing pin block's function.
And pearl clutching isn't helpful.
Read the reddit thread, emphasis mine in excerpts below -- youtube appears to have nixxed the vids:
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 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.
To note here "Even without a functional firing pin safety, the chances of an accidental discharge caused by mechanical failure is very low" -- LOW is not ZERO chance.
and
EDIT 3
For those who are still skeptical, user Rin_Rans_reddit went to the trouble to create an "armorers plate" by cutting the bottom portion of his slide cover off. In his video you can see the ENTIRE pistol assembled, there is nothing locking the firing pin block in place - spring tension only.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JcV_w-kxx8
*To be clear: excerpt immediately above means disassembled slide and assembled slide function is the same as it relates to the firing pin block.
Believe what you want -- YMMV.
I don't believe the OP's post here was a troll. And I don't believe the reddit thread is an elaborate ruse -- firearm redditors (being mostly autists on the gun front vs predominantly neckbeards elsewhere on the site) often have interesting and generally accurate insights.
And for the safety issues like this, I believe everyone's best served to be open to the possibility that there was at least a design/assembly defect to or mechanical failure of the OP's gun -- that may potentially affect others -- and that may necessitate increase safety measures until there are definitive answers to the cause, instead of rampant and largely uninformed speculation that seems to be amounting from most here as "blaming the victim."
I'm genuinely interested in "what could have made this happen", which yes, could include user error, but any list is incomplete that includes only user error.
And since user error is already on the list, does anyone else see any other potential causes?
Remember -- Sig didn't address their P320 drop safety issues -- that I don't think anyone can reasonably deny at this point existed, Sig effectively admitted into why they reduced the weight of their trigger in their updated mechanism -- until after LE agencies had withdrawn their P320s from service, department-wide, at least in part due to this drop safety issue: https://youtu.be/VmwpkJuIR00?t=929
https://youtu.be/VmwpkJuIR00
-
Till real proof of defect is shown and until the OP provides more detail this thread is as useless as well those things on a boar hog.
-
Till real proof of defect is shown and until the OP provides more detail this thread is as useless as well those things on a boar hog.
He's a school cop/SRO, not a gunsmith, armorer, engineer, or forensic firearm examiner... There's a limit to and very short remaining list of the add'l relevant info that he will be able to provide. He had a shocking if not traumatic incident and is looking for some answers from folks who might know more about this firearm's operation than him.
-
Well, I would think at this point, the department took his pistol and is looking into it. Would be interested to know of they have contacted CZ to send an SME to look at it. Also, would be good to know if the gun had been taken apart and out back together recently? Had it been modified in any way?
-
Till real proof of defect is shown and until the OP provides more detail this thread is as useless as well those things on a boar hog.
He's a school cop/SRO, not a gunsmith, armorer, engineer, or forensic firearm examiner... There's a limit to and very short remaining list of the add'l relevant info that he will be able to provide. He had a shocking if not traumatic incident and is looking for some answers from folks who might know more about this firearm's operation than him.
RSR
For the record, I agree with you. The only reason I posted was the "Mall Cop" comment. I left another forum years ago because of vitriol posted to a question I asked on their LEO thread section.
To paraphrase my answer and maybe reflect the consensus of the tread; Based of what I know of the platform, from a mechanical standpoint, I cannot explain how a P10 would go off uncommanded in a holster.
That doesn't mean I am discounting the possibility. If it were my agency, I would be nervous as a pig at a BBQ. If there is a problem with one gun, there could be a problem with all. With the current environment, LEO's are leaving at a breakneck pace. I don't need to give another reason by discounting the problem or rushing to throw someone under a bus. I would however, strive to figure out what did occur.
Its a fact that major weapons manufacturers have had problem with their designs. Each was discovered by someone somewhere. I personally would press for an independent SME examination of the weapon. The manufacturer has commercial interest that may conflict with the agency's. Likewise, someone at the agency recommend the weapon. They may want to protect their interests. If the gun was the chief's baby, he's not going to like having his baby called ugly. This is a CZ enthusiast forum....same issue.
It may be that a definitive cause cannot be determined. A raised primer on a round that has a long OAL could look to be in battery and could potentially go off uncommanded. May not be probable, but its possible. Wobbly is the guy to comment on that. Figuring that out after the fact may be bleep near impossible. Likewise a coat string in the holster would be darned difficult to ascertain. I would be hesitant to mention, but I've seen it happen on the range. Occam's Razor and all that.....I can postulate all day long... But I'm off today and have my P10S apart as I type. Heck, I bought the thing because I had issues with a RAMI and no longer trusted it. Easy with a personal weapon, but I would hate to think I had to carry a duty weapon I didn't trust.
I also know from hard earned personal experience that if you do not always treat a weapon with respect, it WILL teach you a lesson.
Like you and Parabellum mentioned, we are not going to be able to skin this particular cat with the information presented.
-
RSR
For the record, I agree with you. The only reason I posted was the "Mall Cop" comment. I left another forum years ago because of vitriol posted to a question I asked on their LEO thread section.
To paraphrase my answer and maybe reflect the consensus of the tread; Based of what I know of the platform, from a mechanical standpoint, I cannot explain how a P10 would go off uncommanded in a holster.
That doesn't mean I am discounting the possibility. If it were my agency, I would be nervous as a pig at a BBQ. If there is a problem with one gun, there could be a problem with all. With the current environment, LEO's are leaving at a breakneck pace. I don't need to give another reason by discounting the problem or rushing to throw someone under a bus. I would however, strive to figure out what did occur.
Its a fact that major weapons manufacturers have had problem with their designs. Each was discovered by someone somewhere. I personally would press for an independent SME examination of the weapon. The manufacturer has commercial interest that may conflict with the agency's. Likewise, someone at the agency recommend the weapon. They may want to protect their interests. If the gun was the chief's baby, he's not going to like having his baby called ugly. This is a CZ enthusiast forum....same issue.
It may be that a definitive cause cannot be determined. A raised primer on a round that has a long OAL could look to be in battery and could potentially go off uncommanded. May not be probable, but its possible. Wobbly is the guy to comment on that. Figuring that out after the fact may be bleep near impossible. Likewise a coat string in the holster would be darned difficult to ascertain. I would be hesitant to mention, but I've seen it happen on the range. Occam's Razor and all that.....I can postulate all day long... But I'm off today and have my P10S apart as I type. Heck, I bought the thing because I had issues with a RAMI and no longer trusted it. Easy with a personal weapon, but I would hate to think I had to carry a duty weapon I didn't trust.
I also know from hard earned personal experience that if you do not always treat a weapon with respect, it WILL teach you a lesson.
Like you and Parabellum mentioned, we are not going to be able to skin this particular cat with the information presented.
Largely if not wholly agree w/ your response -- and to be clear, I appreciate your thoughtful and informed responses in this thread.
And my compliant about the ad hominen attack of the OP/shooting-the-messenger logical fallacy wasn't directed to you.
Me personally -- I still think the CZ P10 is still in what's equivalent to the first model year of a car, and I, for one, adhere to the advice of "never buy the first model year." So less likely but nevertheless possible issues/kinks/parts failures may still arise, especially considering how few rounds/cycles of operations most consumers and LE put their firearms through in a year versus automobiles... I'm willing to consider all possibilities. I don't have a P10 yet, so no dog in the fight... And generally speaking, I much prefer DA/SA guns to striker-fired -- and that's even though Glocks shoot for me very well, just don't point naturally (but that's largely a training issue)... I would nevertheless like to add a striker-fired CZ to few to my collection, which probably won't occur until Gen 2 upgrades (or Gen 1 recall/retrofits should one occur), and am, generally speaking, a CZ handgun fan.
Also I'm genuinely curious as to why CZ went with this oddball and more complex firing pin block design -- was it a patent/royalty issue, an attempt to marginally and further improve the trigger, etc.? Something to be said for K.I.S.S.
-
Well, I would think at this point, the department took his pistol and is looking into it. Would be interested to know of they have contacted CZ to send an SME to look at it. Also, would be good to know if the gun had been taken apart and out back together recently? Had it been modified in any way?
Yes, I included any known disassembly in the list of questions the OP should be able to answer... I would think it'd be of benefit to the OP and consumers generally to have an subject matter expert not affiliated w/ CZ to at least initially examine it... Don't know that I would trust CZ's findings given an inherent conflict-of-interest in pointing fingers anywhere but the firearm -- be it its assembly or design. Nowadays, lawyers and court orders are often needed to force corporations to behave responsibly, if not also in good faith -- just look at East Palestine, Ohio...
I don't think we have enough info to assess what happened:
- approximately what year did your dept acquire these guns or this gun if known?
- what ammo were you running? Remember that these guns are made to shoot all 9mm ammo, including NATO varieties w/ hard primers
- how long had the chambered round been in your pistol? If primer was potentially dented but not ignited at an earlier point in time it requires even less force to ignite than an unblemished one.
- what safariland holster were you running? And did the holster grip/tension into the slide or frame instead of fully seating against something on the front face of the frame of the gun -- did the front face of the slide instead bottom out on/in the holster? What retention device, if any?
- did anyone fully disassemble the gun or disassemble the striker assembly other than the factory, such as a department armorer new to this weapon system?
-
Thank you all for the videos showing the striker and safety block issues with the P10 system. I recently found out that the agency I work for had send back some P10-C to CZ for that same issue several years back before I was employed with this agency. I have been in Law Enforcement for over 30 years handling all sorts of weapon systems pistols both revolver and semi-auto, shotguns, and lastly the patrol rifle. I am a state firearms instructor but not an armor and in all my years of handling weapons this had never happened to me. Nor had I heard of this occurring. That is why I registered on this forum to see if anyone else had experienced or heard of something like this occurring. When I started with this agency I was issued this system as a duty weapon. I had heard of CZ but never shot it nor worked with it until I started working at this agency. I had no negative thoughts about the weapon at least not until I almost blow a hole in my leg with the weapon in the holster strapped down and some pressure on the grip set it off. Thank you all for the info and videos. I am no longer carrying that weapon system, I am carrying my own weapon now and the system I have used for the majority of my LEO career, Sig Sauer.
-
I bet there was something in the trigger guard. P-10s just simply don't go off by themselves.
Ironic the OP went back to Sig Sauer...........
(https://images.guns.com/wordpress/2017/08/download.png)
-
Thank you all for the videos showing the striker and safety block issues with the P10 system. I recently found out that the agency I work for had send back some P10-C to CZ for that same issue several years back before I was employed with this agency. I have been in Law Enforcement for over 30 years handling all sorts of weapon systems pistols both revolver and semi-auto, shotguns, and lastly the patrol rifle. I am a state firearms instructor but not an armor and in all my years of handling weapons this had never happened to me. Nor had I heard of this occurring. That is why I registered on this forum to see if anyone else had experienced or heard of something like this occurring. When I started with this agency I was issued this system as a duty weapon. I had heard of CZ but never shot it nor worked with it until I started working at this agency. I had no negative thoughts about the weapon at least not until I almost blow a hole in my leg with the weapon in the holster strapped down and some pressure on the grip set it off. Thank you all for the info and videos. I am no longer carrying that weapon system, I am carrying my own weapon now and the system I have used for the majority of my LEO career, Sig Sauer.
Never heard of this happening with all the controversy surrounding the SIG P320??? You live in another dimension? I can't even begin to give you the benefit of the doubt from here on out. 4 pinochios for you! TROLL ON!
-
Don't feed the troll.
-
At this point I also am skeptical of the claim being made and the unwillingness of the OP to provide specific details of the where, when, ect this occured. Since there doesn't seem to be another single report of a similar occurrence, it seems reasonable to ask the OP very specific questions, to which at least until now, the answers are being avoided.
-
yeah this is starting to make me wonder about the OP. Been an LEO for 30 years and never heard of a handgun going off in a duty holster? As someone mentioned above, thier are still reports about this with the P320.
-
Never heard of this happening with all the controversy surrounding the SIG P320??? You live in another dimension? I can't even begin to give you the benefit of the doubt from here on out. 4 pinochios for you! TROLL ON!
Don't feed the troll.
Looks like you two are being the trolls -- 30 year LEO means a DA/SA Sig, so either P228/229 or the P226. The P320 hasn't even been around for a decade, and the P250+P320 is only about 15 years so impossible to be a majority.
Until recently and due largely to Texas DPS selecting/running them, the Sig P226 in .357 Sig was one of the most common weapon systems among Texas LE agencies.
-
yeah this is starting to make me wonder about the OP. Been an LEO for 30 years and never heard of a handgun going off in a duty holster? As someone emntioned above, thier are still reports about this with the P320.
Reading comprehension = he's specifically talking about a firing pin block failing to function. Sig P320's issue was not with the firing pin block, it was due to the trigger moving during impact which deactivated the firing pin block. CZ P10's firing pin block is also an oddball and novel design instead of the tried and true plunger version everyone else is using and has been since at least the early 1980s (have vintage Berettas using a similar design w/ early 1980s production dates)...
-
At this point I also am skeptical of the claim being made and the unwillingness of the OP to provide specific details of the where, when, ect this occured. Since there doesn't seem to be another single report of a similar occurrence, it seems reasonable to ask the OP very specific questions, to which at least until now, the answers are being avoided.
I'm surprised he posted anything -- usually union reps advise to say nothing nor do anything that could come back to haunt you in an investigation or in a court of law. Were I him as a LE officer, I wouldn't have said a thing or made this post.
Me personally, I still believe this is a legit post and his version of what he thinks happened. Doesn't read like a scheme.
But is it possible he's looking for something to cast blame on? Yeah... But it's also possible that this CZ malfunctioned -- and that other guns may experience the same issue in the future causing even greater injury -- and also possible that something other than what he thought happened is what actually happened. YMMV.
-
*Just remembered this article and after some searching found it -- very interesting history of Texas state LEO handguns, up to 1999 when this article was written: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/TEXAS+DPS+GOES+TO+THE+.357+SIG%3A.-a056219526
Worth reading the whole thing... But just included the testing section in the excerpt below -- some charts at end of article at the above link as well:
The Texas Dept. of Public Safety was among the first police departments to adopt the S1G P226 in .357 SIG caliber. They solved the stopping power and tactical penetration problems with the .45 ACP 230-grain JHP by going to the equivalent of the .357 Magnum 125-grain JHP. Handgun qualifying scores went up. Trooper confidence is at an all-time high.
[...]
In 1991, the Texas DPS went "back" to the .45 ACP. This was a time of widespread police transition from the six-shot revolver to the high-capacity auto pistol. Beginning, in 1990, DPS Academy firearms instructor Reeves Jungkind conducted testing on a number of pistols including Sigarms P220, P226 and P228 and similar pistols from Beretta, Glock, Smith & Wesson, Ruger and Colt.
The DPS was looking for a reliable and simple-to-operate double-action auto pistol. After extensively firing all the makes, including accuracy testing, the DPS adopted the Sigarms series of pistols. These 1990 tests are important because the DPS did not extensively retest pistols when they adopted the .357 SIG cartridge. At the time of the caliber upgrade, Sigarms was the only pistol maker offering the .357 SIG cartridge. In January 1991, TLE Field Firearms Instructors went to the Academy for a three-day transition school. They, in turn, returned to the field to transition in-service Troopers. Academy Trooper recruit classes began training with the Sigarms pistols in 1993.
Troopers were free to select either the .45 ACP P220 or. the 9mm P226. The duty load for the .45 ACP was the CCI-Speer 200-grain "flying ash can" JHP custom loaded for the DPS by Ultramax. The 9mm duty load was the Winchester 147-grain OSM JHP. In 1993, the DPS adopted the 230-grain Ranger SXT (Black Talon) in .45 ACP and the 147-grain Ranger SXT (Black Talon) in 9mm. Given a choice between the bigger bullets of the .45 ACP and more bullets from the 9mm, the vast majority of Troopers selected the .45 ACP. During this period, 78 percent of the shootings involved the .45 ACP while just 21 percent involved the 9mm. Very few shootings involved the .357 Magnum, which is still carried by some Troopers.
In the period from 1991 to 1994, the DPS became dissatisfied with the stopping power from the .45 ACP. Again, the 9mm was seldom used. The DPS didn't feel like they got the performance from the .45 ACP that they should. Over half of the DPS shootings involve auto glass and car bodies. While the 230-grain .45 ACP loads have advertised velocities up to 900 fps, the actual velocity from duty guns is more like 815 fps. In the final analysis, the DPS concluded the .45 ACP simply did not have enough velocity for the diameter to reliably get inside a vehicle. The poor performance of the .45 ACP after tactical barriers is easy to explain. The barriers rob precious velocity from an already low-velocity bullet. The two layers of sheet steel used in the FBI protocol lowers the bullet velocity by 75 to 100 fps. The single layer of windshield glass lowers the velocity by 400 fps.
In a case involving two tactical barriers, following a pursuit, a Trooper fired through the door of a van and struck the driver wearing a leather vest. The result was no bullet expansion and no immediate reaction from the violator even with excellent shot placement striking vital organs.
The DPS was also getting poor bullet performance even when vehicles were not involved. In one case, a man with a hatchet attacked a DPS Trooper during a traffic stop, forcing the Trooper to shoot. The .45 ACP 230-grain JHP struck six business cards and some money in a shirt pocket and plugged up. The bullet had zero expansion. The violator walked back to his car, got in, sat down and collapsed.
One shooting, however, drove the DPS to aggressively and urgently solve the stopping power problem. During a traffic stop, the driver attempted to disarm the Trooper. The Trooper retained control of his pistol and fired one time at muzzle contact distances. The 230-grain JHP again failed to expand and have a rapid effect.
DPS officials went to the Winchester factory and were able to duplicate most of the expansion and performance failures in the lab. This, in turn, drove the DPS to do their own gelatin testing to solve the problem. Winchester tried to help with their +P version of the .45 ACP 230-grain Ranger SXT developed for the Texas DPS. The muzzle velocity rose from 815 fps to 890 fps.
The DPS also turned to other ammo makers for their solutions. CCI-Speer developed a version of their .45 ACP 200-grain Gold Dot specifically for the DPS. In fact, this 995 fps Gold Dot +P is still an approved load for Texas Rangers using the .45 ACP, in addition to the 230-grain Ranger SXT. The real solution, however, was a change in caliber.
In April 1994, the DPS Academy staff began a long series of barrier gelatin tests on a variety of 230-grain .45 ACP and 147-grain 9mm loads. This included the CCI-Gold Dot, Winchester Ranger SXT (Talon), Federal Hydra-Shok and Remington Golden Saber. The DPS discovered that all the subsonic hollowpoints worked exactly as designed. They found all of the .45 ACP loads passed all of the FBI protocol tests. Yet the same loads that successful under at were this test method produced unsuccessful results in actual DPS shootings.
In early 1994, Sigarms and Federal announced their new caliber, the .357 SIG. The new load was a 125-grain JHP at 1,350 fps from a 3.9-inch SigP229. It would top 1,400 fps from a 4.4-inch P226. This was almost an exact match for the legendary .357 Magnum, except it produced less felt recoil. Neither the vehicle nor the violator can tell if a .355/.357 diameter 125-grain JHP at 1,400 fps was fired from a Sig P226 pistol or a S&W 586 revolver.
In March 1996, CCI-Speer put on one of their famous side-by-side FBI protocol ammo ballistics demonstrations for the Houston Police. The demo included 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP calibers in a wide variety of light, medium and heavy bullets. Significantly, the test also involved the .357 SIG caliber with the CCI 125-grain Gold Dot and the Federal 125-grain JHP.
The DPS liked what they saw, especially the .357 SIG Gold Dot. What this FBI protocol did not measure was the effect of dumping over 500 foot-pounds of energy in the target. The .45 ACP 23 0-grain JHPs that caused the search for more effective ammo transferred just 370 foot-pounds. Police duty ammo should indeed "pass" the FBI protocol, but there is more to it than just that.
The DPS Academy staff returned to Austin and promptly refired the tests focusing on the .357 SIG caliber. Except this time, they used the .357 Magnum caliber as a benchmark. The Winchester .35 7 Magnum 125-grain JHP averaged 1,424 fps from a four-inch revolver. The DPS fired the .357 Magnum into bare gelatin, heavily clothed gelatin, gelatin after steel and gelatin after auto glass. This gave the DPS a goal.
The .357 Magnum 125-grain JHP penetrated from 13 inches to 14 inches in all these tests. The bullets had a recovered diameter of just .47 inch to .52 inch and a 62 percent retained weight. With these numbers, the DPS had converted success on the street into gelatin results. They wanted their next duty load to duplicate the penetration and energy transfer of the .357 Magnum except have a better retained weight. They tested all of the available .357 SIG loads at the time including the 125grain Gold Dot, Federal 125-grain JHP and Hornady 124-grain XTP. The DPS began their testing with a 3.9-inch P229. Their final testing involved a 4.4-inch P226.
The return to the ballistics of the .357 Magnum raised issues about muzzle flash. They found the .357 SIG 125-grain Gold Dot produced a dark orange muzzle flash six to eight inches long and two to three inches in diameter. In comparison, the old .357 Magnum 125-grain JHPs produced a bright white flame up to 26 inches long and 14 inches in diameter. A smaller-diameter flash, and one that is orange or red instead of white, is less likely to interfere with the shooter's vision at night.
The DPS did not establish a minimum velocity or energy. Nor did they establish a minimum recovered bullet diameter. Instead, at each step along the way, they compared the available .357 SIG loads to' the Winchester .357 Magnum 125-grain JHP. The DPS adopted the FBI guidelines of 12 inches minimum penetration and 18 inches maximum. However, the overriding goal was to match the performance of the .357 Magnum with just one exception. The DPS wanted a higher retained weight. This was especially true of after-glass performance. The DPS did not want to see the jacket separate from the core. Depending on the bullet, the copper jacket is 15 to 22 percent of the total bullet weight. If the jacket is lost in the glass, the bullet weight goes down and the jacket's ability to control core expansion is lost. The result is poor gelatin penetration after glass.
On one occasion, the DPS Academy fired 34 different loads into gelatin. One of the loads was a .357 SIG 125-grain Gold Dot at 1,485 fps that penetrated 15.3 inches of bare gelatin. The bullet expanded to .61 caliber and had a 98 percent weight retention. The "comments" section of the DPS test summary told the real story: "Knocked gel block off the stand." That is the part missing from the FBI test protocol.
The DPS found the .357 SIG 125-grain Gold Dot produced penetration similar to the .357 Magnum against a variety of barriers. The .357 SIG bullet had a larger recovered diameter, a much greater retained weight and no jacket separation. The Texas DPS selected this Gold Dot as their duty load. The heavy, copper-plated jacket of the CCI Gold Dot simply will not separate from the core on impact with glass. The electro-chemical bond between the pure copper jacket and the .85 percent antimonial lead is as strong as the bond to the lead core itself. The first of the "bonded" police bullets, the Gold Dot is outstanding against car bodies and auto glass.
During the two-year period the DPS Academy tested the .357 SIG caliber, numerous Troopers from the field test-fired the pistol. The clear consensus was the Sig P226 in .357 SIG produced less felt recoil than the .357 Magnum from the S&W 586 and less felt recoil than the .45 ACP from the Sig P220. The felt recoil was more like a 9mm 124-grain +P JHP.
During this time, the DPS looked at the .40 S&W caliber and tested all the duty-oriented loads from the 155-grain to 180-grain JHP. However, the DPS .had two concerns with the .40 S&W First, no clear and dominant choice of load existed. The FBI used a 165-grain Medium Velocity JHP, the U.S. Border Patrol used a 155-grain JHP, while some Highway Patrols used a 155-grain JHP and others used a 180-grain JHP. The .40 S&W 180-grain load had the same low velocity as a 9mm 147-grain load. Velocity loss through tactical barriers was one of the biggest problems. The .40 S&W 155-grain load was promising at 1,200 fps but was unproven.
Even more of a concern was the lack of a track record with the .40 S&W caliber itself. In 1994, the .40 S&W had been around for just four years and only in one loading, the 180-grain JHP. The .357 Magnum had been around since 1935. The DPS themselves used the .357 Magnum from 1957 to 1991 and the 125-grain JHP since 1979.
A decisive approval for the new caliber and load came after an ammo demo at the DPS pistol range for the regional commanders. Four blocks of gelatin were fired, injected with dye and set side-by-side for review. The loads were the two current duty loads, the 9mm 147-grain Ranger SXT and the .45 ACP 230-grain Ranger SXT one control load, the .357 Magnum 12 5-grain JHP and the proposed load, the .357 SIG 125-grain Gold Dot.
In spite of the details of penetration and expansion, what convinced the DPS commanders was a direct comparison of the four wound profiles. Simply put, the .357 SIG most closely matched the .357 Magnum. The wound profile from the .357 SIG was far larger than either the 9mm or the .45 ACP and was like the old .357 Magnum, a profile that literally defined success.
The .357 SIG caliber and the new Sigarms P226 and P228 auto pistol were approved by the major Division chiefs and by then-Director of the Texas DPS, James Wilson. In February 1997, the DPS gave Sigarms an order for just over 3,000 Sig P226 .357 SIG caliber auto pistols, complete with Hogue grips and spare magazines.
Since the P226 in .357 SIG is so similar to the P226 in 9mm and the P220 in .45 ACP, only 150 rounds were needed during the transition course. This included 30 rounds for zeroing the sights, a 60-round, PPC course and a 60-round, 50-yard barricade course. The 50-yard shooting showed how similar the 25-yard and the 50-yard points of impact were.
In addition to matching the .357 Magnum ballistics, the .357 SIG had a number of other advantages. The first was a reduction in recoil compared to the .45 ACP. From a P226, the .357 SIG 125-grain JHP has a Power Factor of 173. This compares to a Power Factor of 190 for the .45 ACP 230-grain JHP from a P220.
This recoil reduction was instantly verified during the March 1997 Trooper recruit class at the DPS Academy. The class was together for the initial training with the S&W K22 .22 Long Rifle revolver and the S&W Model 586 revolver firing .38 Special ammo. They received the same introduction to the Sigarms auto pistols. Then the class was divided. into two groups.
One group trained with the Sig P220 in .45 ACP while the other trained with the Sig P226 in .357 SIG. Then both groups shot for score. At ranges from seven to 50 yards and 300 points possible, the .45 ACP group averaged 245 points. The .357 SIG group averaged 275 points. The .45 ACP group was then given .357 SIG pistols, and their scores promptly came up to match the first group.
The DPS Academy firearms staff credits three reasons for the greatly improved qualifying scores. First, less recoil. This Academy class settled the question of whether stiff recoil or an intense muzzle blast causes a shooter to flinch. The .45 ACP produces more recoil. The .357 SIG produces more blast. While the tendency of a shooter to flinch might be due to both, recoil and blast, the DPS clearly proved in this comparison the problem with low scores was the recoil from the .45 ACP.
The second factor in the improved scores is the flatter trajectory of the .357 SIG bullet. At nearly 1,400 fps, the 125-grain JHP shoots to the same point of aim out to 50 yards. With the slower and heavier .45 ACP bullet, the shooter has to hold over the point of impact from six to 12 inches out to 50 yards.
The third factor in the improved scores comes from increased confidence. This is tough to measure but easy to see when it is there and obvious when it is missing. Even though the .45 ACP had a macho reputation as the legendary big bore, the DPS Troopers had lost confidence in the .45 ACP in just three years due to its poor performance. Troopers now have confidence in their sidearm, and in fact, a real sense of pride.
Another advantage of the .357 SIG Caliber is outstanding feed reliability due to the bottleneck cartridge design. The DPS Academy staff found the P226 with the .357 SIG cartridge would reliably cycle even when the shooter did not lock his wrists or when it was fired one-handed with a low grip. In the first Academy class to be trained on the .357 SIG, Trooper recruits fired a total of 300,000 rounds without a single stoppage of any kind for any reason.
The Texas DPS has had four shootings with the .357 SIG since its adoption in 1997. In every single case, the load instantly stopped the hostile actions.
Some departments select ammo based primarily on how accurate the load is. The DPS, instead, know that the handgun is far more accurate than any shooter can hold. Other departments select ammo based on who else is using the ammo. The DPS, instead, did their own testing to meet their own needs and adopted a caliber almost no other agency at the time was using. The DPS, unlike some departments, selected their ammo based exclusively on wound ballistics. The DPS had a problem in actual shootings with the .45 ACP 230-grain JHP. They solved the problem with the .357 SIG 125-grain JHP.
Every police armorer and every police firearms instructor truly wants to equip their officers with the "best" duty caliber and load. The Texas DPS has. Don't mess with Texas.
Again RTWT: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/TEXAS+DPS+GOES+TO+THE+.357+SIG%3A.-a056219526
-
RSR as you said in an earlier post "believe what you want" He's getting from you just what he wants. I believe he's a LIAR. Every time he replies he adds more creds to his bio to up the ante. Were this real he'd come clean and lay all the facts out for all too see. I think we should remember impersonating an officer is a crime any place you go even if you don't name the agency. But hey you run with what feels good.
Does equipment fail? Yes absolutely but I need to see real evidence not hearsay. Equipment does not just fail because it wants to there's a specific reason it happens. Tires don't just "blow out" there's a specific cause. Guns don't just go off there's a specific cause. Show me some real evidence.
The rollout of the P10C was anything but stellar but to date there's been no evidence of what he claims. He claims other guns failed the same way in his "agency: and were sent back so if this is true what was the disposition? If this is true these failures would not be unique to his agency and others would be having them. If someone is going to make claims like this they should be prepared to prove them.
-
RSR as you said in an earlier post "believe what you want" He's getting from you just what he wants. I believe he's a LIAR. Every time he replies he adds more creds to his bio to up the ante. Were this real he'd come clean and lay all the facts out for all too see. I think we should remember impersonating an officer is a crime any place you go even if you don't name the agency. But hey you run with what feels good.
Does equipment fail? Yes absolutely but I need to see real evidence not hearsay. Equipment does not just fail because it wants to there's a specific reason it happens. Tires don't just "blow out" there's a specific cause. Guns don't just go off there's a specific cause. Show me some real evidence.
The rollout of the P10C was anything but stellar but to date there's been no evidence of what he claims. He claims other guns failed the same way in his "agency: and were sent back so if this is true what was the disposition? If this is true these failures would not be unique to his agency and others would be having them. If someone is going to make claims like this they should be prepared to prove them.
I would think multiple guns returned to CZ for mods/updates for a safety issue would have resulted in a lot of recall notices. Fixing the guns of one department won't save you from the lawsuits of other departments or the civilian gun owning world.
-
What I understood from my reading of the post is he was saying that they sent back the early production P-10C's to get the updated parts, not that there were any other malfunctions.
-
What I understood from my reading of the post is he was saying that they sent back the early production P-10C's to get the updated parts, not that there were any other malfunctions.
Since I haven't been here all that long, i have to ask if I missed something about "early production P-10C's getting updated parts"?. Was there (is there) in fact known parts upgrades (replacements) that CZ made to early P-10C's? If so, how early, and what got upgraded? I have 2 P-10C's (and a P-10S).
-
So, I've read the prior thread on P-10C gen 1 vs gen 2. is there anything other than what's described in that prior thread?
-
yeah this is starting to make me wonder about the OP. Been an LEO for 30 years and never heard of a handgun going off in a duty holster? As someone emntioned above, thier are still reports about this with the P320.
Reading comprehension = he's specifically talking about a firing pin block failing to function. Sig P320's issue was not with the firing pin block, it was due to the trigger moving during impact which deactivated the firing pin block. CZ P10's firing pin block is also an oddball and novel design instead of the tried and true plunger version everyone else is using and has been since at least the early 1980s (have vintage Berettas using a similar design w/ early 1980s production dates)...
Thanks for the reading comprehension lesson. You are talking about the drop safe issue that Sig "solved" with the voluntary recall. I however, am talking about the rather common current reports of P320 NDs in holsters (not being dropped or impacted). I really have no skin in this issue anyways. I am not defending the P10 and saying it is a perfect design and I moved away from the P320 years ago. If this guy is telling the truth, hopefully it all works out and the issue comes to light.
-
Sig P320 is back in the news -- this time WaPo: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/popular-handgun-fires-without-anyone-pulling-the-trigger-victims-say/ar-AA19ImQH
Popular handgun fires without anyone pulling the trigger, victims say
Story by Champe Barton, Tom Jackman • 10h ago
Balance at link above, no paywall.
Also noticed that the Taurus/Canik-priced and relatively new Sig P10M lacks the firing pin block... Unsure what to think re: both that price-point and the lack of that safety feature (regardless of any its alleged [mis]function issues)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCPCsQrtG2A
Exact timestamp for slide internal here: https://youtu.be/jCPCsQrtG2A?t=92
CZ-UB's website shows trigger pull of 52N, which should equate to nearly 12 lbs: https://www.czub.cz/en/firearms-and-products-product/cz-p-10-m
But US reviews I've seen show it a fair bit less (at ~1/2 to 3/4 the CZ-UB site's advertised weight), at 6-9 lbs...
https://shoot-on.com/field-test-czs-p-10-m-micro-compact-9mm/
The trigger pull on the test sample was a little heavy, averaging around 6.1 pounds (using my Timney Trigger tension scale).
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/review-cz-p-10-m/
The trigger is the reset type and breaks at 7 lbs. If you can “run the reset” (which I did to shoot the groups) it breaks more crisply at 6 lbs.
[...]
Trigger pull: 7 lbs.
https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/cz-p-10-m-striker-fired-9mm-compact-review/467176
This is the other of the two disadvantages I mentioned earlier. After a good quarter-inch of stiff take-up, the trigger hits a wall. Increased pressure is required to make the pistol fire. So far so good. However, it takes eight pounds, 12 ounces of pressure, according to my Lyman trigger scale.
[...]
Trigger: 8.75-lb. pull (as tested)
Except for that firing pin safety and a little heavier trigger, it appears to be the normal P10 mechanism best as I can tell. Anyone disagree?
And I'm uncertain if a heavier trigger would have solved the OP's issue here. Thoughts?
-
OP has not visited us in over 2&1/2 weeks.
-
Op proved himself to be the troll that he is. No one yet has shown an actual defect in these guns.
-
Op proved himself to be the troll that he is. No one yet has shown an actual defect in these guns.
Are you saying the firing pin block potentially being installed incorrectly or not functioning as alleged isn't defective?
Do you believe it's kosher that it's absent on the P10M?
To be clear, I still don't believe him to be a troll... I too have had raised issues with a variety of products on specialty forums. In fact, I think that's what first led me here, and this remains one of just a couple forums I'm still active on of 10x that I've joined over the past ~two decades.
Don't believe me -- see my first post regarding a Vz58 aftermarket product issue here: https://czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=42723.msg386499#msg386499
-
What has the P10M got to do with this? You seem bent on proving this guys issue with no real evidence other than what he claims and no other REAL evidence other than alot of speculation from a couple youtubers. I can't find a single incident where someone claims a P-series gun "went off" or injured anyone other than this guy and these guns have been out for about 7 years now.
What has a potential defect in an aftermarket part for a VZ58 rifle got to do with this? Yeah I understand there are defective products out there and I've seen and experienced many but that does not prove there's a defect in play here. I had one of the first P-07's years ago that CZ replaced due to the issues with those.
Yeah he's a troll plain and simple. He has not interacted with the discussion on his issue and what info he has provided in his THREE posts was to add more to his "resume" with each one so as to do what add to his credibility? I'm a cop with all this experience so you must believe me? Reminds me of the congresswoman who claimed during the Kavanaugh confirmation that all women must be believed.
-
I’ll pay attention to this issue when an independent testing lab has some proof. Not interested in backyard bubba YouTube testing who are making money with their channel. Not interested in failure claims when the person making them will face disciplinary action or other penalties for discharge of their duty firearm. Not even very trusting of Department claims. Too much Union and office politics involved in this type of issue not to mention money.
CZ has demonstrated to me a willingness to look at and address safety issues in past models. If this issue is ever substantiated I’m Sure they’ll do something appropriate.
-
I own a second gen P10C with the ambi mag release and the anti-rotation striker. I have several thoudand rounds through it without issue and have carried it on many occasions. It is not completely stock and has a Primay Machine barrel and a CGW tool steel striker. Everything else is original. The trigger has broken in nicely and has a smooth, crisp 4.25lb pull when meaured near the bottom of the trigger. This post and several other videos on YouTube have put a little doubt the safety of this pistol in my mind. Since I would rather know for myself than trust the anonymous internet colective, I wanted to see what is going on inside the assembled pistol.
I bought a spare back plate, and with some trial and error, I dremeled it so that I can see into the assembled pistol to better understand the firing pin safety function. I had seen it posted elsewhere that there is something other than the spring keeping the firing pin safery from rotating away from the firing pin. I can now say, having seen with my own eyes, that this is not the case. The only thing keeping the firing pin safety in place is indeed the spring. With a bent paper clip, I can easily move the safey with very little pressure. I can also say that the sear engagement is very robust. Using an eyeglass screwdriver, I was unable to get the sear to releaae the firing pin by exerting pressure on the trigger bar or the firing pin.
After that, I disassembled the slide and removed the firing pin safety and reassembled the pistol with the modified "inspection back plate". With the firing pin cocked I hit the slide and frame repeatedly with a rubber hammer from many angles in an effort to get the sear to release the firing pin. I was unsuccessful in getting it to release after dozens of attempts.
I am confident in MY pistol. It does not have the factory firing pin installed. I will retest with the factory firing pin when I have time. This is obviously a sample of one and not necessarily representative of every P-10C out there.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
-
What has the P10M got to do with this? You seem bent on proving this guys issue with no real evidence other than what he claims and no other REAL evidence other than alot of speculation from a couple youtubers. I can't find a single incident where someone claims a P-series gun "went off" or injured anyone other than this guy and these guns have been out for about 7 years now.
What has a potential defect in an aftermarket part for a VZ58 rifle got to do with this? Yeah I understand there are defective products out there and I've seen and experienced many but that does not prove there's a defect in play here. I had one of the first P-07's years ago that CZ replaced due to the issues with those.
Yeah he's a troll plain and simple. He has not interacted with the discussion on his issue and what info he has provided in his THREE posts was to add more to his "resume" with each one so as to do what add to his credibility? I'm a cop with all this experience so you must believe me? Reminds me of the congresswoman who claimed during the Kavanaugh confirmation that all women must be believed.
The question w/ the P10M is the lack of a firing pin safety -- the P10's novel firing pin block/safety's function or lack thereof being a point of internet controversy.
Additionally, I'm also curious as to what's adding add'l trigger pull weight to the P10M -- just the striker spring, or some other change to the gun? If the firing pin block's failure was the or a partial culprit, then a higher powered striker spring at half cock could make the ignition of a chambered round even more likely.
My point re: the Vz58 is that behavior your ascribe to malice, I see as normal conduct looking to identify problem(s) and solution(s).
When one is repeatedly attacked and demeaned as, among other things "a mall cop", then one tends to respond to rebut such baseless allegations -- especially folks who don't spend much time on the interwebs and fail to realize that doing so is only feeding the trolls and encouraging add'l such misbehavior. As I see it, the OP provided minimum relevant info to seek resolution to his problem, and provided more ancillary in good faith in response to attacks/criticisms, much of which were irrelevant to his issue.
YMMV, but I think you're way out in left field on this one.
-
I’ll pay attention to this issue when an independent testing lab has some proof. Not interested in backyard bubba YouTube testing who are making money with their channel. Not interested in failure claims when the person making them will face disciplinary action or other penalties for discharge of their duty firearm. Not even very trusting of Department claims. Too much Union and office politics involved in this type of issue not to mention money.
CZ has demonstrated to me a willingness to look at and address safety issues in past models. If this issue is ever substantiated I’m Sure they’ll do something appropriate.
Yes, there's absolutely a potential conflict-of-interest here on the part of the OP. But he raises issues that have been raised elsewhere and ones that are of legitimate concern to anyone who owns or is considering owning this make of CZ handgun.
But CZ also has huge conflicts-of-interest when it comes to claiming that their products are completely safe and functional as manufactured, which is why I advocated for an independent third party SME to inspect the weapon in question.
As the WaPo articles illustrates, replicating issues that aren't egregious but instead matters of tolerance, or manufacturing variances, or assembly failure (factory or after) are often extremely difficult and provide manufacturers with plausible deniability, even if such is to the detriment of consumers/their customers.
And also remember that w/ Colt on board (if not in the captain's chair) plus sky-high debt levels w/ their merger and acquisition business strategies, that this is no longer the CZ of old. It may be better or it may be worse in any or all respects, but it's not the same.
-
I own a second gen P10C with the ambi mag release and the anti-rotation striker. I have several thoudand rounds through it without issue and have carried it on many occasions. It is not completely stock and has a Primay Machine barrel and a CGW tool steel striker. Everything else is original. The trigger has broken in nicely and has a smooth, crisp 4.25lb pull when meaured near the bottom of the trigger. This post and several other videos on YouTube have put a little doubt the safety of this pistol in my mind. Since I would rather know for myself than trust the anonymous internet colective, I wanted to see what is going on inside the assembled pistol.
I bought a spare back plate, and with some trial and error, I dremeled it so that I can see into the assembled pistol to better understand the firing pin safety function. I had seen it posted elsewhere that there is something other than the spring keeping the firing pin safery from rotating away from the firing pin. I can now say, having seen with my own eyes, that this is not the case. The only thing keeping the firing pin safety in place is indeed the spring. With a bent paper clip, I can easily move the safey with very little pressure. I can also say that the sear engagement is very robust. Using an eyeglass screwdriver, I was unable to get the sear to releaae the firing pin by exerting pressure on the trigger bar or the firing pin.
After that, I disassembled the slide and removed the firing pin safety and reassembled the pistol with the modified "inspection back plate". With the firing pin cocked I hit the slide and frame repeatedly with a rubber hammer from many angles in an effort to get the sear to release the firing pin. I was unsuccessful in getting it to release after dozens of attempts.
I am confident in MY pistol. It does not have the factory firing pin installed. I will retest with the factory firing pin when I have time. This is obviously a sample of one and not necessarily representative of every P-10C out there.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. Let us know your function w/ the factory firing pin.
As mentioned earlier re: implications for the P10M w/o a firing pin block/safety:
Additionally, I'm also curious as to what's adding add'l trigger pull weight to the P10M -- just the striker spring, or some other change to the gun? If the firing pin block's failure was the or a partial culprit, then a higher powered striker spring at half cock could make the ignition of a chambered round even more likely.
-
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::).All I can do is laugh at this point. This troll has got himself a FOUR page smorgasbord.
-
Threads like this solve nothing and divide the forum members through arguments with words we'd normally not use in our posts discussing things we can solve.
-
Threads like this solve nothing and divide the forum members through arguments with words we'd normally not use in our posts discussing things we can solve.
I thoroughly agree. A lot of high blood pressure generated by someone from the SIG or Glock marketing department who is currently sitting back and laughing his/her rear end off about the concern generated over a totally unsubstantiated claim and undocumented event.
And now that you've pumped this up and fed this "information" to the masses, it will survive on the internet for 10 or more years. Something akin to reporters, who still to this day are asserting that the letters in "AR-15" stand for "assault rifle". Which, as everyone knows (because the lie has been repeated so often) is a "military weapon" fed by "clips".
God help us.