I didn't realize they came stock with the DPM recoil spring setup.
I also feel like they should have made the base model optic ready. It's not a CC handgun, so the footprint of a red dot is a non issue. It took a long time to get an OR model for the 9mm, and CZ should have learned. There really isn't a reason to have non-OR models at all, Walther seems to have figured that out. They already have the slide in the mill, it can't possibly add that much extra cost.
I don`t aree on this!
Specially for competition shooters, where the pistol has to fit in a box, running a OR Model with higher sights can cause the pistol not to be allowed.
The P10 F has a very long grip and overall pistol hight, measuring 150mm with standard sights and inserted magazine. The Co Whitness Sights increase the overall pistol hight.
Here in Germany we have competitions where the P10F as standard version (non OR) with work, as OR it won`t. This has nothing to do with 9mm or .45 Auto.
The max hight with inserted magazine fits flush into box, as non OR.
Why would the OR model HAVE to have higher sights? CZ could make a lower set of sights if the competition market was the primary driver of sales, or the blank plate could have a dovetail that fits standard CZ sights at standard height. Or, the blank plate could have the rear sights milled in directly. The competition size box is an artificial constraint and engineering solutions from the factory are as mind-blowingly simple as they are numerous. If you just mean that cowitness sights are taller, I don't see why cowitness sights would be standard with the gun. The gun isn't being sold with a red dot, it's going to be sold with a blanking plate under the assumption that many users won't bother adding a red dot right away. A new set of sights is easy, milling a slide or buying a new slide or gun isn't. My argument is that the ability to mount an optic at the user's convenience and choice is an option that
shouldn't add additional cost and
should be standard on every gun they ship.
Furthermore, I don't think this is marketed as a competition gun. It's a full frame duty pistol in 45 ACP, emphasis on "duty". I imagine a single mil or leo contract will easily outweigh all the sales to German IPCS competitors interested in running production+major PF class (As will sales to a single state like Kansas or Arizona in the US). I don't mean to belittle the needs of a small subset of the global market for firearms, but tailoring a mass produced polymer frame gun for the IPSC box and ignoring the single biggest technological advancement in firearms technology (compact, reliable, no-hassle optics) when all of their competitors (Glock MOS, Walther PDP, Beretta APX OR, SIG M17, etc.) and CZ themselves (P-10 OR models) obviously see the market demand, is not a good management or sales strategy.
I will also posit that, if CZ intended the P-10 for competition primarily, they would be selling a billion special models like they do with the hammer fired steel frame line (it's getting a little silly with how many SKUs they have). They make no money from the current aftermarket triggers from HBI/CZC or APEX parts whereas they probably make a killing on the TSO, Shadow 2
(insert model name here), etc. They could have come out the gates with all manner of aftermarket if they really cared about the competition scene. Instead, we got a simple, robust, and fantastic handgun clearly aimed at trying to displace the ubiquitous Glock from LEO hands. (yes, I know a striker fired poly frame gun is much simpler in lockwork and they wouldn't need half a dozen different suffixes for the different safety/trigger/decocker/FP block, but I bet they could try)
-end rant-
