The Original CZ Forum
CZ PISTOL CLUBS => CZ Polymer Pistols: P10, P-07, P-09 => Topic started by: FutureSailor on September 20, 2013, 04:33:39 PM
-
Hello everyone, I recently put a lovely P-07 in .40 s&w on layaway at a local gun store. Anyways, I am wondering is there anything that I should look out for? How long is the break in period for a P-07? Am I a fool for getting a s&w .40 for my first gun?
Also any info on maintaining a P-07 and general info would also be greatly appreciated.
Thank you all in advance.
-
1.) Make sure it's the "B" serial number model. There are known problems with the "A" serial number P-07 in 40S&W.
2.) Have you ever shot a 40S&W before? It's a pretty snappy round. The recoil is more harsh than a 45ACP. Takes a little getting used to, but a fun round to shoot. At least it is to me. I don't own a P-07 but I do own a P-06 40S&W and a Sig Sauer SP2022 40S&W. Did own a Glock 23 40S&W once but sold it because the recoil was just too much for me to enjoy (Glocks are lighter than other handguns, even other polymer handguns).
-
I have shot 9mm, .357 mag, 41 mag and 45acp. Yet to shoot a .40 s&w. The only one I had a bit of trouble with was the 41.
-
Was the .45 you shot steel or polymer?
-
Magazines...you should look out for magazines. Pricy from CZ...and hard to find on second market.
-
If you get the P-07 in .40 s&w get a gun with the "B" prefix serial number and you'll be in good shape.
I gut one of the early ones and had some trouble with it, but loved the gun. I do have (2) like new
CZ brand (12 round) .40 s&w P-07 mags that I'll sell you for half price. Just let me know if you need them.
-
Was the .45 you shot steel or polymer?
Steel in sub compact.
-
Was the .45 you shot steel or polymer?
Steel in sub compact.
Okay, don't sweat the .40 recoil. .40S&W doesn't actually have more recoil than a .45. That's one of those "widely known facts" that isn't quite true. You will get people to say that the .45 recoils less, and I think the most common thing you will hear people say is that the .40 is sharper or snappier while the .45 "is more of a slow push." That is so widely said and believed because it IS in fact widely experienced, but that's only because .45 is most often shot from a 2.5 pound all metal 1911 while .40's are most often shot from a 1.4/1.5 pound polymer-framed gun. Bullets don't recoil against your hand. Guns recoil against your hand, and the weight of the gun is HUGE in mitigating that energy, so talking about how much a caliber recoils doesn't really work because it's different in different pistols. And that's not to mention the differences in grip angle, grip shape, bore axis, spring weights, etc., etc..
An average 180 grain .40S&W shot out of a 1.5 pound Glock 22 has about 30% more recoil energy than an average 230 grain .45 shot out of a 2.5 pound 1911, but that same .40 out of the same gun has about 25% less recoil energy than the same .45 shot out of a 1.6 pound Glock 21. If you get the gun weights about the same, the .45 recoils harder than the .40. In your case, the compact .45 you have fired probably weighed 1.5/1.6 pounds while the CZ P-07 weighs 1.7, which means that your future CZ P-07 in .40 will recoil less than the .45 you have already fired.
Is .40 too much? It's not so strong as to be unpleasant. It's not too strong to have extended practice periods with. It's not as pleasant as the 9mm (because 9mm is a kitten), but it's not unmanageable. If you feel more comfortable with the extra energy of a .40 for home defense, that comfort is valuable, and I would say stick with the .40. I am more comfortable with the extra rounds you get out of a 9mm, but that's me. Also, this is all based on your being the shooter. If you have a wife or girlfriend or child who might be shooting it, as well, .40 still isn't out of control, but I would at that point switch my suggestion to 9mm because it's likely the extra recoil would make a difference to them.
-
Was the .45 you shot steel or polymer?
Steel in sub compact.
Okay, don't sweat the .40 recoil. .40S&W doesn't actually have more recoil than a .45. That's one of those "widely known facts" that isn't quite true. You will get people to say that the .45 recoils less, and I think the most common thing you will hear people say is that the .40 is sharper or snappier while the .45 "is more of a slow push." That is so widely said and believed because it IS in fact widely experienced, but that's only because .45 is most often shot from a 2.5 pound all metal 1911 while .40's are most often shot from a 1.4/1.5 pound polymer-framed gun. Bullets don't recoil against your hand. Guns recoil against your hand, and the weight of the gun is HUGE in mitigating that energy, so talking about how much a caliber recoils doesn't really work because it's different in different pistols. And that's not to mention the differences in grip angle, grip shape, bore axis, spring weights, etc., etc..
An average 180 grain .40S&W shot out of a 1.5 pound Glock 22 has about 30% more recoil energy than an average 230 grain .45 shot out of a 2.5 pound 1911, but that same .40 out of the same gun has about 25% less recoil energy than the same .45 shot out of a 1.6 pound Glock 21. If you get the gun weights about the same, the .45 recoils harder than the .40. In your case, the compact .45 you have fired probably weighed 1.5/1.6 pounds while the CZ P-07 weighs 1.7, which means that your future CZ P-07 in .40 will recoil less than the .45 you have already fired.
Is .40 too much? It's not so strong as to be unpleasant. It's not too strong to have extended practice periods with. It's not as pleasant as the 9mm (because 9mm is a kitten), but it's not unmanageable. If you feel more comfortable with the extra energy of a .40 for home defense, that comfort is valuable, and I would say stick with the .40. I am more comfortable with the extra rounds you get out of a 9mm, but that's me. Also, this is all based on your being the shooter. If you have a wife or girlfriend or child who might be shooting it, as well, .40 still isn't out of control, but I would at that point switch my suggestion to 9mm because it's likely the extra recoil would make a difference to them.
Excellent post! I too questioned whether the .40 recoiled more the the .45 when I saw that.
Regarding calibers, I'm no expert, but the various Police Depts. that use the .40S&W are, and they must have decided on that round for a good reason.
I'd be more concerned that the OP gets a good P-07 in that caliber that functions properly after seeing the malfunctions on Nutnfancy's YouTube video review.
-
Yeah I saw the FTF in the reviews and that scared me a bit. I am planning on putting around 200 rounds through it my first outing (making a day of it). I will post pics of the targets after the 1st.
-
Okay, don't sweat the .40 recoil. .40S&W doesn't actually have more recoil than a .45.
Felt recoil is relative to the shooter. Recoil can also vary depending on the handgun.
Based on pure feel my Springfield XD-45 polymer does not kick as hard as my CZ P-06 aluminum alloy or my SIG SP2022 polymer. And my former Glock 23 polymer (sold it due to the recoil) kicked even harder than my CZ and my SIG. Again, this is felt (perceived) recoil. The actual numbers may tell a different story. I think it's due to the snappy kick of 40 vs the slow push of a 45.
Recoil numbers per http://www.genitron.com/Search-Handguns/ -- the higher the number, the more recoil the gun has.
Springfield XD-45 = 8.26 ft-lb
CZ P-06 = 7.40 ft-lb
SIG SP2022 = 7.05 ft-lb
Glock 23 = 10.11 ft-lb
Of these four pistols, the polymer Glock 23 40S&W does have more recoil than the polymer XD 45ACP.
-
Of these four pistols, the polymer Glock 23 40S&W does have more recoil than the polymer XD 45ACP.
Right. And that makes perfect sense. Glock 23 is 1.33 pounds. Full size XD-45 weighs 2 pounds. A 50% weight increase will bring down recoil in a big way. Looking up the weight of the XD-45 also tells me why that gun is such a pleasure to shoot. :)
For the record, I did run numbers through a recoil calculator before posting. I have also fired the 9mm, .40, and .45 side by side by side in the same platform twice -- once with full-sized M&P's, once with full-sized Glocks. When the guns are within an ounce or two of each other, it plays out like the numbers say they should.
I'll also throw in that a proper grip and stance help mitigate the feel and effects of recoil. So get some pointers from an expert, even if that expert is on Youtube. ;)
-
Of these four pistols, the polymer Glock 23 40S&W does have more recoil than the polymer XD 45ACP.
Right. And that makes perfect sense. Glock 23 is 1.33 pounds. Full size XD-45 weighs 2 pounds. A 50% weight increase will bring down recoil in a big way. Looking up the weight of the XD-45 also tells me why that gun is such a pleasure to shoot. :)
For the record, I did run numbers through a recoil calculator before posting. I have also fired the 9mm, .40, and .45 side by side by side in the same platform twice -- once with full-sized M&P's, once with full-sized Glocks. When the guns are within an ounce or two of each other, it plays out like the numbers say they should.
I'll also throw in that a proper grip and stance help mitigate the feel and effects of recoil. So get some pointers from an expert, even if that expert is on Youtube. ;)
Just watched all of Hickok45's stance, trigger and grip videos. I think I should be okay.
-
That guy is simply amazing. Gun companies send him free guns! Receives free ammo and gives a few plugs on youtube for it. Awesome little range. Talk about living the American Dream. My hat is off to you Mr 45.
-
Was the .45 you shot steel or polymer?
Steel in sub compact.
Okay, don't sweat the .40 recoil. .40S&W doesn't actually have more recoil than a .45. That's one of those "widely known facts" that isn't quite true. You will get people to say that the .45 recoils less, and I think the most common thing you will hear people say is that the .40 is sharper or snappier while the .45 "is more of a slow push." That is so widely said and believed because it IS in fact widely experienced, but that's only because .45 is most often shot from a 2.5 pound all metal 1911 while .40's are most often shot from a 1.4/1.5 pound polymer-framed gun. Bullets don't recoil against your hand. Guns recoil against your hand, and the weight of the gun is HUGE in mitigating that energy, so talking about how much a caliber recoils doesn't really work because it's different in different pistols. And that's not to mention the differences in grip angle, grip shape, bore axis, spring weights, etc., etc..
An average 180 grain .40S&W shot out of a 1.5 pound Glock 22 has about 30% more recoil energy than an average 230 grain .45 shot out of a 2.5 pound 1911, but that same .40 out of the same gun has about 25% less recoil energy than the same .45 shot out of a 1.6 pound Glock 21. If you get the gun weights about the same, the .45 recoils harder than the .40. In your case, the compact .45 you have fired probably weighed 1.5/1.6 pounds while the CZ P-07 weighs 1.7, which means that your future CZ P-07 in .40 will recoil less than the .45 you have already fired.
Is .40 too much? It's not so strong as to be unpleasant. It's not too strong to have extended practice periods with. It's not as pleasant as the 9mm (because 9mm is a kitten), but it's not unmanageable. If you feel more comfortable with the extra energy of a .40 for home defense, that comfort is valuable, and I would say stick with the .40. I am more comfortable with the extra rounds you get out of a 9mm, but that's me. Also, this is all based on your being the shooter. If you have a wife or girlfriend or child who might be shooting it, as well, .40 still isn't out of control, but I would at that point switch my suggestion to 9mm because it's likely the extra recoil would make a difference to them.
Did you know that 98.7% of all posts quoting percentages are made up? ;D
Anyway, I've shot 40's in polymer and all steel, and 45acp's in both as well. 40 DOES have more felt recoil that 45's, at least in standard factory ammo. Think about it. The 40 is traveline quite a bit faster than the 45 and not much less in weight. I wanted to like the 40, tried it in two different guns and could not get fast accurate follow-up shots consistently so I sold them.
-
Did you know that 98.7% of all posts quoting percentages are made up? ;D
As far as my methodology -- I used a recoil calculator that uses SAAMI's formula for calculating recoil. I compared factory SD and target rounds from different manufacturers. I compared some initial results to known results to make sure I wasn't producing anything anomalous. I did CHOOSE 180 grain for .40 and 230 grain for .45, and I did so specifically because that's what those calibers were built around. Then I ran comparisons of comparable factory loads in those bullet weights, and when I say "comparable", I mean from the same product line from the same manufacturer. I also ran comparisons from the data in reloading manuals using those two weight bullets with bullets of the same type at velocities as close as possible to the velocities that the caliber was built for. The "made up" percentages you see in that post of mine you quoted are averages of my results, and not only are they averages, but they are averages rounded to the nearest five percent. --Oh my God! He admits it!-- I didn't go too specific on results or methodology in the initial post because 1) it would have been little help to the OP, and 2) the reality is that a claim that .40 was 32.3% stronger in recoil than the .45 in a 2.5 pound 1911 invites more criticism than a nice rounded 30%, and 3) there's always some guy who is going to come along after the fact and try to disprove an entire claim with one flaw in methodology, even though the flaw doesn't directly impact the result or change the result in significant way. "You didn't take into account lot-to-lot inconsistency in powders!" I find that being general often gives the jerks less to work with. Of course, being general sometimes leaves you looking like you made things up or are guessing wildly, giving people who happen along with their preconceived notions an easy path to dismiss you. And for the record, that proverbial "guy" who comes along and dismisses for a minor flaw in methodology -- that's not supposed to refer to you. You dismissed on an assumption of dishonesty.
Were you aware that the majority of posts in gun forums from people regarding commonly held truths about things like felt recoil, bore-axis, glass-rod-like 1911 triggers, Glock grip angles, etc. are just people misrepresenting other people's misrepresentations of other people's misrepresentations of other people's experiences? You can tell because there is no way millions of shooters can experience something independently and come to describe those experiences with the exact same words. It's quite human, of course, very much has to do with how we learn, and there's no way around it, but it does lead to myths.
Anyway, I've shot 40's in polymer and all steel, and 45acp's in both as well.
So you haven't tested .40 against .45 side by side in the same platform. Maybe you should.
Think about it. The 40 is traveline quite a bit faster than the 45 and not much less in weight.
I don't have to "think about it". I've done the math. And I've done the practical application, which supports the math.
And for the record, I'm not sure how fast YOU think these bullets travel, but the .45 was designed around a 230 grain bullet travelling at 850 feet per second while the .40 was designed for the FBI requirement of a 180 grain bullet at 900-1000 feet per second, for which I CHOSE 950 feet per second for the calculations based on published reloading data. And, for the record, common factory loads do reflect those velocities. So your "quite a bit faster" .40 is going 12% faster than the .45, while 230 grains is 28% more than 180. Not much less in weight? It's almost like you started with a pre-conceived notion that .40 recoils harder than .45 then made something up that to justify the claim.
-
I overstated something in the previous post, and rather than edit the post, I'm going to leave it and correct myself here.
I do NOT believe that "the majority of posts in gun forums from people regarding commonly held truths about things like felt recoil, bore-axis, glass-rod-like 1911 triggers, Glock grip angles, etc." are people simply repeating what other people have said. That definitely happens and happens often, but what I actually believe is that the majority of people take what other people have said on those common topics of discussion and carry that into their own personal, practical experiences with various firearms, then those notions affect their experience with those firearms, or in the after-the-fact situation, those notions affect their memories of their experiences with those firearms.
It's unfair to suggest that the "majority" are simply parroting what others have said with no experience of their own. That is certainly not the case.
-
I have shot 9mm, .357 mag, 41 mag and 45acp.
My first major caliber handgun was a .357 Python, my second was a compact Firestar in .40. The Firestar didn't kick nearly as hard as the Python did, so I wouldn't worry about getting the .40. You will have no problem with the recoil. The .40 is a fun round to shoot. My 11 year old son shot my .40 plenty. He preferred it to my 9mm in the 75B, but I think that is because it had more recoil. It's just fun.
-
Holy sh** Nancy, you sure don't like to be questioned on your beliefs, do you? You must be a real joy for that significant other to live with. Take a Midol or two.
As for my guns used in comparison, they were Glock 22 vs Glock 21 and CZ40B vs 1911, so there goes that theory for you, eh? Feel stupid? cause you look stupid. Your velocities were skewed to support your position as well, as most published data indicated the 40s&w to be upwards of 1050fps, NOT 950. Also, the original bullet designed for the 45acp was 200gr at 900fps, NOT 230 at 850. That was at request of the Army who wanted a real "manstopper". So, 1050 minus 850 is 200fps slower..like I said..QUITE A BIT SLOWER.
Some ppl feel the need to throw all kinds of charts/data/bs to bolster their position then call other views of dissent as "jerks". I didn't base my position on "preconceived notions", but on my experiences and others that I shoot with at the range. Game/SET/MATCH.
-
Gentlemen, you have all been rather helpful, please dont just go into mindless bickering.
-
As for my guns used in comparison, they were Glock 22 vs Glock 21 and CZ40B vs 1911, so there goes that theory for you, eh?
You didn't initially claim to have shot them side by side at the same shooting session, and you still haven't, so no, my theory is still in tact. Will you claim that it was at the same session for the purpose of comparison of the two calibers the third time around? I wonder.
Most published data indicated the 40s&w to be upwards of 1050fps, NOT 950.
Not so much. 1050 is not most published data for 180 grain. 155, 165 -- sure, but not 180. Buffalo Bore and DoubleTap are upwards of 1050 with 180 grain bullets. The Major manufacturers with 180 SD bullets are in the 950 to 1010 range. But even if I gave you that it's 1050, that's still not as big a difference in velocity as the 180 to 230 grain weight difference, yet you describe the velocity difference as significant and the weight difference as negligible.
Your velocities were skewed to support your position as well
There you go again with accusing me of misrepresenting something. I chose the velocities before running the numbers and never changed them. FBI called for 900-1000 with a 180 grains. I chose the half-way point so as NOT to skew the velocities one way or another. And you are, of course, correct on the .45 being built with a 200 grain bullet, which was quickly switched to 230 grain somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 years ago, so I'm still backing my choice, which by the way has a lower velocity and by your estimate would be skewed AGAINST my premise, not in favor of it. If I wanted to skew in my favor, I would have gone with 200 grain +P .45's that actually are at velocities of 1050 and ask you to explain how the lighter round at the same velocity has more recoil just by virtue of .40S&W being printed on the box. Of course, I'm trying not to use the exception to misrepresent the common, so I didn't.
You must be a real joy for that significant other to live with.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were looking for a date. :-*
-
Will do, Sailorman. I'll be done with it. Good luck with the new firearm. ;)
-
Will do, Sailorman. I'll be done with it. Good luck with the new firearm. ;)
Thanks dude, it was truly interesting to read the math behind the recoil.
-
Gentlemen, you have all been rather helpful, please dont just go into mindless bickering.
http://youtu.be/FONN-0uoTHI
-
Gentlemen, you have all been rather helpful, please dont just go into mindless bickering.
http://youtu.be/FONN-0uoTHI
Best comment in the thread right here.