Time to sell it and move on?

[Objekt]

My history with CZs has been full of frustration and disappointment.  I was having a pretty good run with my second .40 S&W CZ-75B, but now it's returned to "jam-o-matic paperweight" status, and I'm pondering my options.

A little background:

My first CZ, a CZ-75B in .40 S&W I purchased in 2003, was  garbage.  It wouldn't feed or extract reliably with anything but Sellier & Bellot FMJ, and I don't have room in my life for a gun that will only work with one brand of ammo.  After a couple of factory repair attempts, replacing the extractor spring, and replacing the recoil spring, it still wasn't reliable.  The last straw was when half of the safety lever flew off during firing.  CZ had me send in the remains and replaced the gun under warranty.

The replacement .40 S&W CZ soon proved almost as unreliable, whether I used factory ammo (Winchester white box, mostly) or my reloads.  The same malfunctions happened, just a little less frequently.  

Swapping out the stock springs for a Wolff standard-power recoil spring and extra-power extractor spring magically made things OK for the next 5000 or so rounds.  

Then, a few weeks ago, extraction failures started happening again.  It occurred with the same reloads (3.5 grains Titegroup under a 180 grain, moly-coated cast lead bullet) which had worked fine for 500-600 rounds.  Usually, if I have doubts about a gun, I test it by running at least 100 factory rounds through it.  However, I am reluctant to throw good money into a known-unreliable gun, especially with the ever-increasing price of factory ammo (30/round and up locally for .40 S&W).

I promptly replaced the recoil spring, extractor spring, and even the firing pin spring.  No dice.  The gun still has "double feeds" every couple of dozen shots or so.  The extractor just isn't doing its job.

The brass I'm reloading is not especially worn out.  While I have reloaded most of it several times, it has almost all been mild loads, some up to 20% below max pressure.  What I'm saying is, I don't think my reloads are the problem, and it isn't my shooting technique either.  My other autoloaders, including a 1911, Glock 30, S&W M&P, and Ruger Mk II, have had no such problems.

The gun certainly shouldn't be worn out.  The extractor itself looks fine, with no unusual wear, chips, or cracks.  
I don't understand why a gun would be reliable for several thousand rounds in a row, then start to suck again.  

This isn't the first or even the second time I've had trouble with a CZ.  I briefly owned a CZ-2075 RAMI in 9mm that went through a similar "multiple malfunctions, replace parts, send gun in for repair, gun still malfunctions" cycle.  Once was enough, there; I traded it in on a rifle.  My girlfriend had even less patience with her compact .40 S&W CZ-75B.  CZ attempted to cure its feed ills by polishing the feed ramp, but when that also failed, she sold it quickly.

I've thought about sending my CZ in for warranty service yet again, but I'm not sure I want to deal with the hassle.  While CZ will pay the shipping for warranty work, they insist on having FedEx pick it up, which is inconvenient and problematic in its own ways.  I am also hesitant to waste reloads on testing it still another time when it gets back.  My .40 S&W M&P has been 100% reliable from the start, and this with a steady diet of my reloads.  I am very close to just selling my last CZ & moving on.  What would you do?

[JDG]

Sell the .40, and get a 9mm. My CZ75B 9mm, has been perfect in 4000+ rounds.

[Dos]

I hope for your sake CZ will replace it again with a New One.  Then sell it NIB and get something else.  I'd be fed up too with two lemons in a row.

[Walt-Sherrill]

I know you don't think your reloads are the problem, but until you shoot some with factory ammo and see if it has the same poor performance you won't know for sure.  

Otherwise, you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If it performs the same with factory ammo, you'll know for sure -- and can decide what you want to do.

CZs are great guns, but if you continue having problems with CZs, regardless of the reason, its time to move on.

I've had several .40 models, and they've all performed flawlessly.  But I prefer the 9mm versions.

[Stuart]

I'd be interested in it ..let me know if you want to sell..
Love project guns..

I don't think you should give up on CZs..sometimes the .40s can be problematic..

let me know

[Unregistered(d)]

Your problem is a common one for people using guns designed for the 9mm and then changed over to .40S&W.  Just about every gun that was designed for the 9mm has issues when modified to use .40 S&W.  The .40 S&W is a defectively designed round and a solution to a non-existent problem, shot placement is more critical then size of bore. Just switch to a CZ-75 in 9mm and prepare for bliss.  I have long ago given up all interest in the .40 S&W as all it does is batter gun frames to an early grave, cause massive flinch in inexperienced shooters and jam guns. The only guns designed from the start to use .40 are HK USPs, which were then down sized to 9mm later, so if you must shoot a .40 get an HK.

[briang2ad]

So...

There are NOT shooters here who have shot tens of thousands of rounds through there 75B forty without a host of issues?

[Walt-Sherrill]

I'm not sure I agree that none of the guns originally designed as 9mm guns work as .40s.

I haven't seen or heard of many problems with the Glock 35, nor with a 22, which are variants of the 34 and 17. Seems as though that gun was originally designed for 9mm.  

The Beretta 92 was originally designed for the 9mm round, but the 96 (which is almost identical) does well with the .40 round.

SIG makes a number of guns that started as 9mms and then shifted them to .40.   The Browning HP is almost the same gun.  There were minor mods in some of them.  (More in the P-239.)

I think the main reason most guns were [NOT] built around the .40 round is that its a uniquely-US round, and it was slow to get wide acceptance.  When it finally caught on, they had good guns to work with.

[briang2ad]

I went to the CZshooters site, and there seem to be more 40 posters there - and many good reports.  The 40B site here also has good reports on the 40.

I know one thing - my 75B forty has as close to FULL case heard support as it can come - I looked at it tonight - looks to be 100%.  Hopefully mine will run better with a REAL 40 slide stop!  (Last time out wasn't bad, even with the wrong one).

[atblis]

The 40 S&W HiPower supposedly was designed as a 40S&W from the ground up, and is not simply a 9mm chambered in 40 S&W.  There's an interesting article about that floating around somewhere on the net.

[mbott]

Quote:There are NOT shooters here who have shot tens of thousands of rounds through there 75B forty without a host of issues?

My CZ 75B in .40 caliber was my first CZ.  Don't have 10s of thousands of rounds through it, but I'd have to guess that the round cound is well over 5-6 thousand easily.  No issues at all with mine.

--
Mike

[Walt-Sherrill]

The 40 S&W HiPower supposedly was designed as a 40S&W from the ground up, and is not simply a 9mm chambered in 40 S&W. There's an interesting article about that floating around somewhere on the net.

You may be right about the BHP, as I think a few key specs. are subtly different, but the design is pretty much the same.
(If I remember correctly, they did have failures, early on, on the .40 versions -- until they beefed up the 9mm version to better handle the .40 round.)  Do you call that a different design, or the same design with some subtle changes?   (Either assertion is probably correct.)

With the BHPs, however, the .40 versions of the guns were failing, not just "not functioning" as they should.

The older EAA/Witness 9mm and .40 guns could be converted from one caliber to the other with only a slide change.  

Over time, EAA changed the guns so that only a barrel change was needed.  Perhaps that is considered a new design, but I'd say it was just an modification of an existing design.  It clearly wasn't designed from the ground up to be a .40. The Witness .40s are pretty successful.

The dimensions on the Beretta aren't different -- and slides will interchange.  In fact, you could, at one time, buy a kit from Beretta with both the 9mm and .40 slide in the same box.   A friend has one.

I'm pretty sure the frames on all of the GLOCK 9mm and .40 guns are the same.  There may be subtle changes there, too, but I don't think any one say it was designed from the ground up to be a .40.  (I' ve heard they've strengthened the frame on the .357 SIG version of the same gun to handled that round.)    But none, as best I can tell, were designed from the ground up to be .40s.

[atblis]

It appears they did try simply modifying the 9mm and it didn't work, and then later did a redesign around the 40S&W.  Mark III maybe?

HiPower frames are a touch on the weak side.

[briang2ad]

Is this also whiy the 75B 40 does NOT have the kidney shaped cam to interface with the slide stop???  How does this "help" the ability to handle the forty?

[Stuart]

most of the modifications that are made to guns to run the .40 is too add more mass to the slide..if you look at every gun that is .40 and has a 9mm counterpart..usually the slide is heavier..sometimes modifications are done to the frame..to lessen areas where cracks may occur..

the BHP had some trouble when they switched to forged frames..they made the frames too hard and they had tendency to crack..