PSA - The P-10C Appears to have no functional firing pin safety

[aflevine]

With years in service and active forum members, if there were legit safety issues, then there would have been a raft of threads and articles dedicated to the injuries and demonstrations of the safety failures.  To be sure, the P-10C has had issues that CZ has gradually addressed.  Even small mistakes are relatively expensive to a company of CZ's size.  Anything that damages their reputation they obviously take seriously.  Unlike Glock, you don't need to pour in another gun-worth of cash to get it up to snuff. 

[earlan357]

So if the striker is drawn back and released it can skip past the FP safety block.  But to draw the striker back in the first place I have to pull the trigger.  So the only way you could have the failure condition you demonstrated is if the striker leg snapped off while you were in the middle of pulling the trigger, which would have defeated the FP block anyways.  The other failure mode would be if the trigger was to the rear after a shot, and the striker leg broke off after the slide returned to battery but before the trigger was reset.  But the trigger bar would still be far back enough to disengage the FP block.  I'm more worried about human error than a mechanical failure. 

Now, in the case of the striker leg breaking off while the trigger is forward,  the striker would be retracted about ~.216" from its fully forward position.  The energy stored in the spring at that position is about 70% of when it's compressed all the way to the break.  But the striker will also have half the distance to accelerate before it hits the primer and even less before it knocks into the FP block.  Half the distance means half the velocity if we keep acceleration constant.  But acceleration will be lower since the spring is under less compression. But even assuming unchanged acceleration, since K.E. = (1/2)Mass X Velocity^2, the Kinetic Energy of the striker hitting the primer from the rest position would be less than 1/4 of the energy as fully cocked.

So in the interest of science, the test needs to release the striker ~.216" from it's fully forward position to see if there's still enough oomph to pop the primer after blowing past the FP block.

As an aside,  my buddy and I were able to create a weird failure in my early P-320.  Since the sear was self-resetting, if you pulled the trigger just far enough to release the striker but not reset the sear, in theory, the slide could cycle and the striker would not catch the sear.  Now, recoil makes this nearly impossible to do in real-time, but we were able to make it happen by using a wooden dowel jammed behind the trigger as a sort of overtravel stop.  Needless to say, this was not something we felt we had to worry about or alert the P320 owning public.

[Walt Sherrill]

Unlike Glock, you don't need to pour in another gun-worth of cash to get it up to snuff.

I agree with almost everything you say in your response -- except for the last comment, above.

Some years back, I shot a LOT of IDPA, using both a Glock 34 and my lightly tuned CZ-85 Combat.  In periodic qualifiers, I consistently shot higher scores with that Glock 34 than with any gun I've owned.  That 34 was factory stock and absolutely up to snuff right out of the box!!  (I later traded that Glock 34 for an M&P Pro in 9mm which had been worked over by Speed Shooter Specialties for the prior owner.  I LOVE that M&P Pro.  The guy I traded with had put a bunch of money into the M&P Pro, but wanted to get back into Glocks; he had shot competitively with Glocks and could never get where he wanted to be with the M&P Pro.  He wanted to get back to where he was most comfortable.-- and effective.)

I've still got two Glocks and have had a number of other Glocks (17s, 19s, 23s, several other 34s and 35s) over the years -- in 9mm and .40.   And with one exception, the only thing I've ever really done to any of the Glocks was to add Ghost trigger kits (at about $17 each, shipped).   After-market parts for Glock typically aren't all that expensive until you start buying the "name"  trigger systems; the little stuff tends to be pretty cheap.  But even a stock Glock trigger isn't that bad -- but it's not a 1911, either.

I've had a bunch of CZs, over the years -- 5-6 pre-Bs, a number of 75Bs (full-size in 9mm and .40, and two Compacts), a 40B, a 97B, and several 85Bs and I still have an 85 Combat (in satin nickel.) Nearly all of the CZ "B" series triggers were mediocre at first.  I've got a P-07 Duty, which I like a lot, and a P10C which, even with a new HB Industries trigger systems installed, still stings my trigger finger now and then.

For my "B" model CZs, I generally had action or trigger work done up front if the gun was new.  I realized, long ago, that I'd rather pay a gunsmith $100-$150 to improve a trigger rather than take the time to  $125-150 worth of ammo to really start to break in a new CZ trigger.   Had Cajun Gun Works or CZ Custom been around back then (late 1990s and early 2000's) I would have gotten parts from them.  (Similar Witness guns, bought new, seem to come with better triggers, out of the box.) 

The fact that so many members here on the forum buy parts and kits from CGW and CZ Custom, or buy the new "competition" versions of the more basic CZ models, tells you that many folks feel they have to spend a good amount of money to get their CZs where they want them.    (You can do a LOT of Glock upgrading before you spend as much -- gun and upgrades -- as you will if you buy a CZ that has "Shadow" in it's model name.)

[aflevine]

Peace Walt.  I don't dispute that you can spend a lot on a CZ, because I have.  My cajunized SP-01 was not cheap and is such a pleasure to shoot.  If I carried OWB, this is the gun I'd undoubtedly use.  I've taken it to classes with absolutely no regrets.

By contrast, my G26, Gen4, is easy to maintain and operates flawlessly.  Beyond the purchase price, I have about $350 more into what I consider either necessary or very desirable improvements.  It's a thing of okay precision that's not much fun to shoot, but an excellent choice for concealed carry. 

Recently, I decided I wanted to explore a gun with a red dot for my EDC.  This is the gun I want to train with for years.  Choice had to have a great trigger (or the potential for it), rock-solid performance, great feel, and better precision (shooter not withstanding).  Though I considered the G19 MOS and VP9, my experience with CZ's and so many positive reviews made the decision easy, especially with some of the deals on the late 2018 P-10C you can still find.  It literally paid for custom milling of my optic.  And with CGW and CZ Custom, in particular, dedicated long-term to this brand, I knew the support was there.  Time will tell, but no regrets so far.

[armoredman]

Only pistols I ever upgraded was the Phantom and P-09, through CGW, solid outstanding people. My P-10C FDE, First Gen is flawless and my EDC. The only thing I did to it was slightly sand down the stippling as my soft Administration hands were off put by the bite. By the time I got the White Nitride and P-10S, I was used to it, and now it feels a little smooth.
I carry Glock at work and have never fired an upgraded model, all basic bone stock 17 and 19s. I find nothing wrong with the triggers, nothing to write home about, but nothing wrong - the grip angle is what puts me off Glock.
And yes, Walt is here, where he and his experience belongs.
Now, back to the original, the engineers have explained how the system works, it has been covered for this system to fail it would require a very specific and unusual circumstances, and even then, in the act of firing it may not discharge unsafely due to far lower striker inertia. We have identified the part that would be the potential failure point being the striker leg. So, the only question that makes any sense is what does CZ state the service life of the striker/leg is, have ANY of them actually broken under normal usage, and when should it be replaced, if at all. That would be the end all be all of this discussion.

[inferno451]

I think I need to clarify a bit why I made this post -

For those who did not rear the entire original post, I am NOT claiming the P-10 is measurably less safe without a working firing pin block. I think the P-10 series is overall a well-made firearm that I truly enjoy. I'm not sure why I am being attacked for supposedly being a Glock fanboy. For what it's worth I like my CZs way, way more than I like my Glock. I think these issues with the striker block are incredibly unlikely to ever cause a problem or injure someone. I can't imagine a situation apart from incredibly soft primers and a broken striker in which this would cause an ND.

However, I did think it was important to bring this to the attention of people who have chosen this firearm for their needs. You can take or leave the information, doesn't bother me either way. The points still stand that:
1-A safety system that CZ included in this pistol and has advertised as a feature does not function correctly.
2-The explanations given by CZ-USA as to how this safety functions do not match the actual workings of the pistol. For those that care to look, another member on the CZ subreddit has made a modified cover plate that allows access to the internal components with the pistol COMPLETELY assembled. The striker block is held in place only by its spring.

It is not my intent to paint the P-10 series as a poor choice or to attack CZ-UB/CZ-USA. I just want to bring this to light so that people can do what they want with the information.

[Walt Sherrill]

As far as I understand, the striker block safety is more to prevent travel of the striker under breakage than anything. If you imagine the tip of the striker hook breaking off, there's nothing the trigger and drop safeties can do to stop it from going forward. This isn't an unknown failure, it was apparently fairly common on the earlier M&Ps - https://mp-pistol.com/autoloaders/39316-m-p-failure-striker-breakage.html

In your latest response, you continue to make unfounded claims:

However, I did think it was important to bring this to the attention of people who have chosen this firearm for their needs. You can take or leave the information, doesn't bother me either way. The points still stand that:
1-A safety system that CZ included in this pistol and has advertised as a feature does not function correctly.
2-The explanations given by CZ-USA as to how this safety functions do not match the actual workings of the pistol. For those that care to look, another member on the CZ subreddit has made a modified cover plate that allows access to the internal components with the pistol COMPLETELY assembled. The striker block is held in place only by its spring.

Most safety features are dependent on a spring (or springs)  for them to work correctly.  That is certainly the case with the CZ firing pin safety in their hammer fired guns, and it is also the case with the Glock safety design.  Trigger movement disables the safety mechanism in most of these guns, by compressing the springs keeping those mechanism in a locked/safe position.  Are you now attacking the use of springs in safety mechanisms?   

The CZ system works exactly as stated (and does so correctly.)  It matches the actual workings of the pistol.  Your "test" of the striker, however, does NOT match the actual workings of the pistol. 

You were originally concerned about safety issues, now you seem to be more concerned with defending your earliest claim, which seems to be an increasingly difficult defense.

I read through the linked discussion from the other forum and noted that the striker that failed had been modified -- so modified that the owner chose not to send it in to S&W for replacement under warranty.   Another participant mentioned older versions of the striker had broken; that was not presented as a SAFETY ISSUE, but as a parts breakage issue.  Guns or people were not harmed.  A broken striker spring or a trigger return spring could have the same effect on gun function and the same effect upon user safety (i.e., none) unless they're being shot at and can't run away.

I'm a long-time member of the S&W Forum, spending most of my time there in the sub-forums where they discuss the M&P line.  I never personally heard or read of a striker problem in my several years of participation there, so I did a forum search looking for striker issues, and found nothing.  If there was a problem -- and there may well be -- it certainly wasn't all THAT common.  The problem, if it existed for S&W, must have been a long time back.

About the CZ P10 striker mechanism

Your reasoning seems to be based on a number assumptions and inferences that may or may not apply.   You seem to assume that because failure of a similar striker design was a problem for S&W, CZ would have the same issue -- despite the fact that the designs are only similar not the same.  The problem may have been something as simple as an incorrectly designed part of the S&W striker or an early production glitch.  That forum made NO mention about how the problem was resolved -- but it apparently didn't  involve a redesign of the slide or the overall striker assembly.     

I'll note, too, that you started out complaining about the lack of safety mechanism in the slide that could prevent a discharge, but have subtly changed your focus to striker--failure and an implicit criticism of the striker design.  In your most recent post, above, you've focused on the use of springs in the safety mechanism.  Changing horses in mid-stream?   

• If the P10 striker were to break while firing, there would be no "next" round.  The striker could not be reset.  Whether the gun would actually fire when the trigger was pulled is open to question. [/l]

• The striker in the link you posted had been modified -- apparently someone ground metal away on the part that broke, in an effort to improve smoothness.

• When the S&W striker failed, it didn't cause an accidental discharge; it simply didn't function.  (The only safety issue was that the gun wouldn't fire, when it conceivably needed to fire, and n a self-defense situation, but a number of other, arguably more likely issues, like a trigger return spring failure could cause a similar problem.  This is NOT a safety issue, but a part breakage which disabled the weapon.  Any number of other such breakages could have the same effect.

• If the P10 striker were to break while firing, there would be no "next" round., because the  trigger could not be reset and the striker spring partiall charged by slide movement.

• While the M&P, Glock, and CZ p10 striker use a simialar design approach, you seem to overlook the fact that the CZ striker is NOT an M&P or Glock Striker.

• The P10 striker assembly has not been modified, and there is no history of (S&W-like striker failures).

Regarding dropping a slide containing a barrel with a loaded chamber:

• The only way to do that is to load the chamber AFTER the slide is removed from the gun.  You must first clear the weapon and pull  trigger to get the slide off the gun, which releases the striker.  Taking the slide off the frame moves the slide in the other direction, and the striker spring is in it's uncompressed state, not even partially charged as would be the case with a dropped and loaded weapon.[/li[

• Your evidence for the existence of a problem occurred when you removed the slide from the frame, making the trigger bar's function as part of the internal safety design inactive.

• In your test, you could only get a primer to ignite by substantially compressing the striker spring -- something that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT happen if a slide containing a loaded chamber is dropped form some height and hit a hard surface just right. Why would you do that?

Unless you can show us a real safety issue, perhaps by actually drop testing a loaded slide from a great height, your entire argument seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

 

[earlan357]

I think I need to clarify a bit why I made this post -

For those who did not rear the entire original post, I am NOT claiming the P-10 is measurably less safe without a working firing pin block. I think the P-10 series is overall a well-made firearm that I truly enjoy. I'm not sure why I am being attacked for supposedly being a Glock fanboy. For what it's worth I like my CZs way, way more than I like my Glock. I think these issues with the striker block are incredibly unlikely to ever cause a problem or injure someone. I can't imagine a situation apart from incredibly soft primers and a broken striker in which this would cause an ND.

However, I did think it was important to bring this to the attention of people who have chosen this firearm for their needs. You can take or leave the information, doesn't bother me either way. The points still stand that:
1-A safety system that CZ included in this pistol and has advertised as a feature does not function correctly.
2-The explanations given by CZ-USA as to how this safety functions do not match the actual workings of the pistol. For those that care to look, another member on the CZ subreddit has made a modified cover plate that allows access to the internal components with the pistol COMPLETELY assembled. The striker block is held in place only by its spring.

It is not my intent to paint the P-10 series as a poor choice or to attack CZ-UB/CZ-USA. I just want to bring this to light so that people can do what they want with the information.

If I bring up something negative about my F150 on a Ford forum, inevitably someone  will call me a Chevy fanboy.  People get emotionally invested in their purchases.  Guns are no different, probably worse, although this forum is pretty decent.

I got flamed on Sigforum when I showed pics of how similar the cross section of my p320 x5 grip was to a Glock 17.  My post was literally just: “Here’s my new X5 grip module.  It’s very Glock-like in circumference.”

  I think the contention stems from you highlighting a problem that only occurs outside of the operating parameters of the gun.  Like if I said “Honda’s side airbags are ineffective if you get hit while the doors are open.”  It may be true, but it feels like someone is moving the goal posts to prove a point. 

In our current era where people are weary of click-bait and hyperbole, your thread title sets people up to be defensive before even reading your post.  “PSA: The P-10 firing pin safety may not function as intended under certain conditions” is less of a declarative statement, so people are less apt to form an opinion before reading the info.

A trick I learned recently is to read informational posts and comments in Ron Swanson’s voice.  I’m less likely to assume the worst in people on the internet that way.

[Grendel]

Hurry up and get your (reasoned and polite) posts in gents, before someone steps in it and wins a time out.

This thread is like trying to convince a vegetarian to eat meat, you'll never do it using logic and evidence.

It's going away tonight before people fall upon their swords.

[Walt Sherrill]

If I bring up something negative about my F150 on a Ford forum, inevitably someone  will call me a Chevy fanboy.  People get emotionally invested in their purchases.  Guns are no different, probably worse, although this forum is pretty decent.

This forum is actually unusually decent, when it comes to criticisms of the CZ line.  You read it here -- and I've been among some of the critics -- but it's generally about matters that can be clearly defined and sometimes proof-tested/evaluated.

• I've noted that CZ triggers out of the box just generally aren't that great.  Its worse now than it was 10-15 years ago.  Witness (i.e., Tanfoglio) has similar models that have very good triggers out of the box.

• I've been one of the many critics of the way the single-action trigger often (depending on the gun) cams before it drops, leaving you with a less crisp trigger.  We know that a slightly redesigned hammer (ala CZ Custom and CGW hammers) solves that problem.

• I've  noted that the design of CZ firing pin block more negatively affects trigger pull than does the Tanfoglio design.

• In a recent discussion here, I said that the design of the CZ firing pin block mechanism (using a firing pin retention roll pin rather than a firng pin stop at the rear of the slide) was awkward and possibly trouble prone -- but I understood WHY it was done the way it was done.  (I also noted that some years ago a member suggested that if the change was made to the cuts on the top of the firing pin so that the pin hits the firing pin spring rather than the firing pin retention roll pin when sent forward, there might be less damage to the firing pin retention roll pin. (That was just an idea, and it was discussed on this forum.  I think you really need that pin to keep the firing pin from going out the back of the slide, not too far forward!)

• I've criticized CZ much-repeated claim about the CZ handguns being the most widely-used handgun in the world.  (Wide in what sense: physical distribution of it's users, or the most guns in use.  I think we know the answer to that question. I think it was pure sales hype and nothing more.  CZ could have said "one of the most widely used around the world " and it would have been true, and not questioned.

• I was also one of the many who raised a stink when, upon buying a CZ75B SA model, found that it came with a plastic trigger.  I haven't bought any of the more recent 75B SA models (now discontinued), but I haven't heard any complaints about plastic triggers in a long time.

When I made those comments and others, I wasn't attacked.  A number of folks agreed, and others used those comments as a starting point to discuss some of the related technical issues (like the firing pin design.)

I've found that there are MANY participants here who really understand how the various CZ models work, and that understanding is based on their own experience and their home gunsmithing or professional gunsmithing work.

Criticism of CZ design or features, on this forum, is generally well-received -- it's not like the Glock or SIG forums where you often wonder WHY you even participate.   But you've got to have a valid criticism if you want to avoid being dumped on.   

I think highly of CZs,  (I gave up on SIGs some years ago, and while I still like Glocks, I've focused on other rollmarks/brands in the past few years.)  I applaud CZ's new designs, including the Omega system, the P-07 ad P-09 and, of course, the P-10.

I wish I could afford to buy more CZs.  I now mostly TRADE into the guns I want, and I'm waiting for my chance to get a P-09.  I missed one last year by a day or so on a forum I don't visit regularly.

[GypsyDanger]

2-The explanations given by CZ-USA as to how this safety functions do not match the actual workings of the pistol. For those that care to look, another member on the CZ subreddit has made a modified cover plate that allows access to the internal components with the pistol COMPLETELY assembled. The striker block is held in place only by its spring.

I feel that we are overlooking this relatively substantial piece of information.

I was also given the run-around during the P-01 Omega decocker debacle. Were it not for a few inquisitive minds, we would have chalked it up to a few lemons here and there, rather than an inherent flaw in the design.

I, for one, welcome this kind of discussion. I don't think that we should assume OP has malicious intent. Dude is legitimately concerned and I see why.

And until things are clarified by CZ, I'm going to carry my P-09 for work instead of my P-10F.

[Grendel]

Okay. All done.