The Original CZ Forum
GENERAL => General Firearms Discussion => Topic started by: Walt-Sherrill on February 18, 2006, 01:20:01 PM
-
Just got it yesterday, and shot it for the first time today.
Started with PMC 124 gr. hardball. Jamming about every 3-4 rounds, primarily because it was extracting incompletely on the failed rounds (it seemed to NOT be hitting the ejector.)
The gun has a very heavy recoil spring; immediate diagnosis -- it needs a hotter round.
I tried hotter ammo (115 gr. Blazer) and from that point on, it ran like a clock, and was reliable and very accurate. Pretty good trigger, which I expect to get better as it breaks in. (This is a used, but very low round count weapon.)
Here's a picture of it with my 75B Compact, for size comparison. From the rear (I didn't take THAT picture) the guns look to be the same width -- and they feel that way.
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y87/WalterRSherrill/Misc%20Guns/ParaHawg9-3a.jpg)
-
Nice gun, Walt. The length is longer than I thought
from other pics on the Net. Is the barrel rifled or polygonal ?
Is the finish Black T or parked ?
-
Size -- its smaller than it looks. The barrel is roughly 3", and the entire slide is just 5". It looks like a toy-- letting is just rest on the palm of your hand.
I don't know what the finish might be. (Black T is a premium finish, and this is just factory. It is NOT parkerized, or if it is, it unlike any parkerized finish I've seen.)
The barrel is traditional land and grooves.
-
Nice.
-
Nice. The one issue I have with the Hawg 9 is the round capacity. 12+1 of 9mm seems shortchanged compared to 10+1 of .45 in my Warthog. Seems to me they could've worked a way to fit 14 or so.
I was surprised by how good the trigger was out of the box on my Warthog. Slightly heavier but crisper than on my Kimber, which I felt had a very good factory trigger. I hear other folks saying that Para's other newer SA pistols also have very good triggers out of the box.
Accuracy was also better than expected, and it was surprisingly easy to shoot well, especially with Hogue finger groove grips and the fingergrip extension. I see yours has the Pierce extension, I prefer the slightly larger Scherer extensions available from Brownells, $8 or so for 2.
The one problem I had with mine was that at about 150 rounds the recoil spring assembly came apart. Para sent me 2 free replacements and the pistol has functioned perfect for 700 rounds since then and has become my everyday carry, replacing my 40P.
Jeff
-
Quote:
The one issue I have with the Hawg 9 is the round capacity. 12+1 of 9mm seems shortchanged compared to 10+1 of .45 in my Warthog. Seems to me they could've worked a way to fit 14 or so.
I'm amazed that they could get 10+1 in that space!
I wonder if everything (length and width) is the same between the two calibers?
When I compared the Hawg 12-round mag to a 14-round CZ compact mag, I was surprised that they got 12 int, as its quite a bit shorter than the CZ mag. But a good bit wider.
Yet the grip is not really that much wider than the CZ grip! Viewed side by side, they look the same.
Interesting exercize in the use of space.
-
12 rds of .45 is certainly nothing to sneeze at. It is a neat pistol for sure.
-
The Hawg .45 has 10 rounds, the 9mm has 12 rounds.
-
Walt,
The Hawg looks great, and I'm amazed at how small but sturdy it looks. I got interested in some of their LDA models, but I'm curious if you (or any other Para owners here) have inspected the gun for any tooling marks, scratches, etc. I know that some Para owners were complaining about a surprising number and seriousness of the dings and scratches on new guns; some even complained of "gouges" in inside of the slide. I spoke to Para, and they said they didn't think this was a real problem, affirmed their belief in their rigorous quality control, etc.
-
My Warthog struck me as being well made, and except for a couple glitches early on it's been reliable too. I hear some people complaining about their Para compacts, but my experience has been so good that a full size P14 is now on my must get list.
Jeff
-
I haven't really looked and frankly, don't give a bleep about cosmetic problems inside the gun. I don't look for those sort of things. If the outside is nice and rust resistant, and it functions properly, that's really what I'm interested in.
The next time I strip it, I'll give it a closer look.
(I quit subscribing to Gun Tests Magazine because those guys consistently downrated good guns because they found tooling marks inside. They seemed unable to recognize that less expensive guns are less-well finished internally but can often out-perform more costly guns.)