New guy questions

[wisconsin75]

I posted the other day with pics of my Satin Nickel 83 that I won on Gunbroker for $400 + fees of $60.  Love the gun but haven't shot it yet.  I live in the city and it's January in WI so my trigger finger is itchy.  I've read many posts in this forum and you guys are very knowledgeable.  CZ guys are true shooters, they don't buy because they are over advertised to they buy because they understand quality and value.  So here are my questions:

1.   What are people's experience with Buffalo Bore '97 .380 loads.  I've shot the .44 loads and they are fierce.  Holding the 83 I know it can handle them but I'm curious as to the recoil and if that affects how quickly you can get back on target.  The low bore axis and heavy frame of the 83 leads be to believe it should do ok.  I'm intrigued by the flatnose hardcast and the heavy HP.

2.  Is there a good source for recoil springs and do they have stronger ones available to help tame the BB ammo and reduce wear and tear?

3.  So I told you what I paid for the gun and it is minty fresh.  Owner said less than 2 boxes through it and I believe it.  All boxes, paperwork etc.  The import is CZ USA California and frame is stamped 97.  I read CZ was only in CA 1 year before moving to KC.  Is there anything about this batch of guns I should know?  Does the CA import make it any more desirable?

Answer any or all if you can helps.  Thanks!

[JoePfeiffer]

Wolff (gunsprings.com) sells both standard and stiffer springs. I've got the stiffest they sell in my CZ-82.

[wisconsin75]

When using the heavy springs do you have any issues when shooting the softer stuff Am Eagle  or White Box?

[JoePfeiffer]

No. It seems to feed pretty much anything the same.

[loyloyola]

can't go wrong with Wolff!

[Ramjet-SS]

I must ordered the spring calibration packs for both my CZ82 my hand loads are just tad hotter than factory about 100 FPS more. My thought it will help reduce wear and tear some.

[Skookum]

What are people's experience with Buffalo Bore '97 .380 loads.  I've shot the .44 loads and they are fierce.  Holding the 83 I know it can handle them but I'm curious as to the recoil and if that affects how quickly you can get back on target.  The low bore axis and heavy frame of the 83 leads be to believe it should do ok.  I'm intrigued by the flatnose hardcast and the heavy HP.

I got my .380 83 in 2012.  At the time I evaluated various rounds for self defense and concluded the following:

- FMJ in will ensure adequate penetration to meet the IWBA's minimum criteria.
- The only JHP round that appeared to be marginally adequate (in terms of penetration and reliable expansion) was Federal Hydra Shok.
- Buffalo Bore seemed interesting, but they do not conduct terminal ballistics testing, and, while I am confident their FNHC rounds will easily meet penetration criteria, I cannot justify paying a premium price for untested ammo that is almost certainly no better than FMJ.

Since then, someone posted a BB FNHC .380 penetration test on YouTube that shows, if my recollection is any good, 44 inches of penetration.  While I do not worry about overpenetration of standard FMJ loads, 44 inches seems irresponsibly excessive.

A fellow with the screen name of ShootingTheBull conducted a .380 Auto ammo quest and posted his tests on YouTube.  He used a pocket pistol with a barrel a full inch shorter than ours, so extrapolate with caution.  He showed that Federal Hydra Shok is indeed effective, and some few other JHPs are worthy of consideration.  Two recent developments:

- Federal has released a .380 HST, which should be promising.
- Lehigh is making a unique penetrator in .380 that looks to be excellent -- the bullet looks like a fat Phillips screwdriver, with enough of a FMJ roundnose profile to ensure reliable feeding, but with four areas scooped out that turn the bullet into a viscious tissue destruction machine.  STB has posted a video on his channel.

I see no reason to use BB cartridges in your .380, but I can come up with several reasons to steer clear of them.

[Ramjet-SS]

Here is a run down of the tests they did if you search alittle more you will see individual testing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GNtPHYwcDts


I shoot Fedral Hydra shock in my 380 as does my wife in her Glock 42

[CPTKILLER]

My police surplus CZ 83 has done fine with Buffalo Bore defense ammo.  Specifically I have "380 Auto +P Ammo - 100 gr. Hardcast F.N. (1150fps/ M.E. 294 ft. lbs.)" in it.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=127

[Skookum]

Here is a run down of the tests they did if you search alittle more you will see individual testing.

Here's the addended video showing his test of the Lehigh Defense Xtreme Penetrator, his new winner:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LczfeWK9lHw&index=33&list=PLgNSGOEQko_MjOCGyqlMTiM2njdQQRbdg

[Skookum]

My police surplus CZ 83 has done fine with Buffalo Bore defense ammo.  Specifically I have "380 Auto +P Ammo - 100 gr. Hardcast F.N. (1150fps/ M.E. 294 ft. lbs.)" in it.

Turns out it is STB who did the BB FNHC testing:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgOa25NhFio&index=35&list=PLgNSGOEQko_MjOCGyqlMTiM2njdQQRbdg


For what tactical reason do you choose BB +P FNHC rounds?

[ZardozCZ]

- Lehigh is making a unique penetrator in .380 that looks to be excellent -- the bullet looks like a fat Phillips screwdriver, with enough of a FMJ roundnose profile to ensure reliable feeding, but with four areas scooped out that turn the bullet into a viscious tissue destruction machine.  STB has posted a video on his channel.

Has anyone tried these in their CZ 83? Any feeding issues? Sounds like a very good SD/HD round for the .380. Lehigh and Underwood use these X bullets in cartridges they sell.

[bugboy]

I have not used +P in my 83. I have HydraShocks and FMJs and I figure those should work.

 If I need more power I'll carry the P-01.  If that is not enough I'll step-up to .357, .44 special, .45acp or .44 magnum.

[Skookum]

- Lehigh is making a unique penetrator in .380 that looks to be excellent -- the bullet looks like a fat Phillips screwdriver, with enough of a FMJ roundnose profile to ensure reliable feeding, but with four areas scooped out that turn the bullet into a viscious tissue destruction machine.  STB has posted a video on his channel.

Has anyone tried the non +P version in their CZ 83? Any feeding issues? Sounds like a very good SD/HD round for the .380.

To my knowledge, Lehigh Defense does not make +P ammo in .380 Auto.  In fact, there is no such thing as SAAMI-approved +P in this caliber -- another good reason to steer clear of stuff labeled as .380 +P. Lehigh Defense reports their XP round penetrates 17.0 inches -- http://www.lehighdefense.com/products/380-auto-90gr-xtreme-penetrator-ammunition.  Thus, there is no need for +P.


There is a discussion of feeding reliability on the page at the above link.  No evidence of testing in a CZ 83, but they state the XP is not reliable in Kahrs, because of the design of their feeding mechanism.

[ZardozCZ]

To my knowledge, Lehigh Defense does not make +P ammo in .380 Auto.  In fact, there is no such thing as SAAMI-approved +P in this caliber -- another good reason to steer clear of stuff labeled as .380 +P.

http://www.underwoodammo.com/380-acp-p-90-grain-xtreme-penetrator-box-of-20/

I wasn't specifically stating Lehigh, as the penetrators are not unique to them. Yes, I will steer clear of said +P, that's why I was inquiring about non+P pentrators in their CZ83. Prompted by the fact that they don't feed in Kahrs well, I wondered if some have tried them in their CZ83s with success.

So have you or anyone else? I'm a bit short until after taxes are paid, so won?t be buying any for a month or more, or I'd post how they work. The video shows an impressive 'wound channel' in gel, so they look like great self defense rounds.

Every time I bring this CZ83 to the range, I shoot it better and like it more. Deadly double taps like I've never been good at. Makes me think this would be a good carry piece with the right holstering. Instinct shooting with LaserLyte also supports this thought.

Sorry for the thread drift. My bad.