CZ Handguns (NOT) to be added to Mass Roster

Hmm.. Looks like some nice pistols. Do those Shadows really go for $1200ish? If so I think I'll stick with my Sig. (yikes!)
 
Hmm.. Looks like some nice pistols. Do those Shadows really go for $1200ish? If so I think I'll stick with my Sig. (yikes!)

Except that an X5 (the only Sig pistol approaching the same class) will cost you a hell of a lot more than $1200 these days. Not to mention I'd bet nearly anything the SA sears in most of the CZ pistols are likely way better than anything in most of the Non-X series Sigs you find nowadays. (Maybe I have exceptionally bad luck, but with only a couple of exceptions, most of the typical P-series Sigs I've tried, they SA all breaks at over 5 pounds.... meh. )

-Mike
 
The one I posted on the first page is a $1,200 Shadow Target Custom with Aluminum grips. It is out of Angus Hobdell's custom shop in Arizona. He works on the trigger, sear, and other internals to make them super smooth. It is my first CZ and let me just say....the trigger and accuracy is outstanding! It is one of my favorite firearms to shoot!
 
I love my CZ-75B. Just saying...

It's stock, out of the box, with no fixes or additions.

I have a Sig X-5 as well, and it is an amazing firearm. Incredibly accurate, well balanced, and a great target gun.

If I had to keep just one, I'd keep the stock CZ-75B.
 
Except that an X5 (the only Sig pistol approaching the same class) will cost you a hell of a lot more than $1200 these days. Not to mention I'd bet nearly anything the SA sears in most of the CZ pistols are likely way better than anything in most of the Non-X series Sigs you find nowadays. (Maybe I have exceptionally bad luck, but with only a couple of exceptions, most of the typical P-series Sigs I've tried, they SA all breaks at over 5 pounds.... meh. )

-Mike

CZ also makes an SA only version of the normal 75. With the SA trigger, 4.7" barrel and slide design, that has a lot of promise as a cheap alternative to an X5.

http://www.cz-usa.com/products/view/cz-75-b-sa/
 
Of course the ones that the competitive shooters really want CZ 75 SP-01 Shadow Custom isn't on the list. It's probably the lack of firing pin block or the low volume.

Most accurate 9mm that I own. The reason it is not on the list is probably because it comes with 19 round mags. You can get them to ship 10 or 15 round mags instead. that is what I did.
IMGP0636.jpg
 
Most accurate 9mm that I own. The reason it is not on the list is probably because it comes with 19 round mags. You can get them to ship 10 or 15 round mags instead. that is what I did.
IMGP0636.jpg

Will it pass the MA drop test without a firing pin block? (I'm curious, I don't know)
 
Do CZ's come with a mag disconnect, 10+ lb DA trigger, or loaded chamber indicator?

No CZ'S have loaded chamber indicators. Who cares about a 10+ trigger! I own a 40B,40P,75B and an SP-01 Shadow Target. The triggers on all the CZ'S are terrible until you send them to the Custom Shop and have the competition trigger and extended firing pin installed. Along with the reduced lb. mainspring. All this for $160. All my triggers are now 3.5 lb SA and 8 lb. DA and smooth as butter. The Shadow Target came with all this done already.

Some CZ'S you can get with either a decocker or manual safety. The decocker drops the hammer to half cocked.

Interesting that the 40B is on the list. Based on a 1911 frame it was a venture between CZ and Colt that never went through so there were not that many 40B's made and it is not currently in production and has been discontinued. It took me over a year to locate one.

IMGP0714.jpg
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Except that an X5 (the only Sig pistol approaching the same class) will cost you a hell of a lot more than $1200 these days. Not to mention I'd bet nearly anything the SA sears in most of the CZ pistols are likely way better than anything in most of the Non-X series Sigs you find nowadays. (Maybe I have exceptionally bad luck, but with only a couple of exceptions, most of the typical P-series Sigs I've tried, they SA all breaks at over 5 pounds.... meh. )

-Mike

The SiG X series are very large and heavy and not great if you have small hands. The CZ's on the other hand fit like a glove no matter how big or small your hands are. This is the reason I love CZ'S.
 
The SiG X series are very large and heavy and not great if you have small hands. The CZ's on the other hand fit like a glove no matter how big or small your hands are. This is the reason I love CZ'S.

The X5 is large and heavy but as double stack pistols go, it's fairly easy to grip for people with small hands. The stock plastic grips are quite thin and it's quite a bit easier than a stock 226. I think you need to try one again.
 
The SiG X series are very large and heavy and not great if you have small hands. The CZ's on the other hand fit like a glove no matter how big or small your hands are. This is the reason I love CZ'S.

I have small hands and I had no trouble with it. Then again it's all about perspective. I had an HK MK23 that was gigantic and I still found running that gun to be easier than running it's smaller USP counterparts.

-Mike
 
The X5 is large and heavy but as double stack pistols go, it's fairly easy to grip for people with small hands. The stock plastic grips are quite thin and it's quite a bit easier than a stock 226. I think you need to try one again.

Don't have to try anything again. My friend who is an ffl owns every Sig Custom Shop gun that Sig makes and he brings different ones to the range every week and I have shot every one. Besides he had wood grips on each one and they are very large so maybe the plastic grips are better but as custom shop guns go they don't use cheap plastic grips and I have never shot any of those with plastic grips.
 
CZ-USA.com Representative just emailed me saying that CZ hand guns are in process to be added to MA roster. He confirmed that all the handguns on the approved california roster are in process for sure.

By 'in process' you must mean 'CZ has had internal discussions about it'.

Not to be the turd in the punchbowl here but I have it on good authority that CZ hasn't even submitted an application to the GCAB yet.

I wouldn't get my hopes up too much.
 
I have small hands and I had no trouble with it. Then again it's all about perspective. I had an HK MK23 that was gigantic and I still found running that gun to be easier than running it's smaller USP counterparts.

-Mike

Did you sell the MK 23? I've been lucky enough to fire this gun several times and I've never enjoyed another firearm half as much! A 45 with the recoil of a 22. How could anyone not love this :).
 
Besides he had wood grips on each one and they are very large so maybe the plastic grips are better but as custom shop guns go they don't use cheap plastic grips and I have never shot any of those with plastic grips.

XFIVE-COMP-detail-L.jpg
 
Did you sell the MK 23? I've been lucky enough to fire this gun several times and I've never enjoyed another firearm half as much! A 45 with the recoil of a 22. How could anyone not love this :).

Yes, I did, a long time ago. I disagree the recoil is that low.... I mean it's not horrific, but my Glocks and 1911s have less muzzle flip and recoil than that gun did. I will tell you one thing, though.... there is no polymer framed .45 ACP handgun on the market that is more accurate than that, though, or that can take the pounding that gun can. You can run tons of .45 ACP loads through that gun as hot as the brass will handle, that's how beefy that gun is in that regard. The barrel was also rediculously easy to clean, too. Whatever treatment they did to the bore made it so that deposits of anything never really stuck to it.

-Mike
 
By 'in process' you must mean 'CZ has had internal discussions about it'.

Not to be the turd in the punchbowl here but I have it on good authority that CZ hasn't even submitted an application to the GCAB yet.

I wouldn't get my hopes up too much.


The guy did also say to look for them later this year. It's just a tid bit of information directly from the company.
I'm not holding my breath either but I'm optimistic. Why would he lie to me? To piss me off? He entertained 2 more emails from me after the first one that had all this info in it.
 
The guy did also say to look for them later this year. It's just a tid bit of information directly from the company.
I'm not holding my breath either but I'm optimistic. Why would he lie to me? To piss me off? He entertained 2 more emails from me after the first one that had all this info in it.

I'm not saying the guy is lying, just that there has been nothing filed with the state yet.
 
Time to un-ban Scrivener (Atty. Keith Langer). If he were not banned from the forums, he could have directly posted his first hand knowledge that there has been no submission from the factory (the ONLY entity that may submit roster applications under the CMR), and that the reports of CZ application and approval are very much exaggerated.
 
Time to un-ban Scrivener (Atty. Keith Langer). If he were not banned from the forums, he could have directly posted his first hand knowledge that there has been no submission from the factory (the ONLY entity that may submit roster applications under the CMR), and that the reports of CZ application and approval are very much exaggerated.

Is there a source to confirm if an application has been submitted?

Otherwise I feel like negative (in emotion OR state of CZ approval) comments are about more than just striking down optimism for this family of handguns.
 
The only real deal is gun X Y or Z ending up on the published roster. Anything short of than that is effectively just talk by the manuf, at this point. It is good to know they have some sort of intent, though. Most have sworn off this state completely (eg, Springfield).

-Mike
 
Is there a source to confirm if an application has been submitted?

There is a source that says one has not - Scrivener (Keith Langer). That means that if you have a source that states an application has been submitted, and it's not a new development in the last day or so, your source is wrong.

The guy did also say to look for them later this year. It's just a tid bit of information directly from the company.

Very few people at out of state gun companies know exactly what the deal is with MA. Unless you are dealing with someone who really understands the nuances of lab testing; steps for target roster certification; standing required to submit an application (manufacturer only), and the significant procedural differences between the MA and CA roster process, all you're hearing are conclusions from someone who heard something and thought they understand it. If I see Angus at the Shot Show, I'll ask him to see if he can get NES info from whomever (if anyone) is handling the certification process.
 
Last edited:
In addition to Rob's response, let me shed some light on the process for MA:

- Mfr MUST submit samples to one of ~5 MA EOPS Approved Test Labs. Only the Mfr can do this, with brand new guns that get destructively tested. [If done at the same time as the CA testing, the cost in time and $$ is a marginal difference. But CA had >5K handguns on their List as of a few years ago and MA only had ~1500 on their EOPS List.]
- Mfr submits test results to GCAB for review.
- At the next GCAB meeting (monthly) they review test results and vote to RECOMMEND the addition of said gun to the EOPS Roster. Said Recommendation goes to the Secretary of Public Safety (EOPS) for approval. It can sit on the Secretary's desk for as long as he/she wishes before action is taken (or ignored forever) at the whim and pleasure of said Secretary. [In the past I was told by someone in the know that GCAB Recommendations sometimes sat for as much as 6 months before action was taken by the Secretary. No idea of current situation.]
- After the Secretary's approval, NO GUNS CAN BE SOLD until it is officially added to the EOPS List by PUBLICATION in the dead trees full page advertisement (yes the state pays thousands to do this each time) in the Boston Globe and Boston Herald ~quarterly.

So as you can see above, it can easily take as much as a year after a company submits the gun for testing before EOPS Approves the gun and it gets published.

NEXT, the Mfr has to Certify to the Distributors and Dealers that the gun ALSO MEETS the AG REGS. Until and unless this is done, the gun in question can ONLY be legally sold/transfered by a MA Dealer to a LEO (LEO sales are exempt from AG Regs, as specified in CMR). The AG will NOT approve any handgun for sale in MA!! It is a Mfr self-certification and the AG reserves the right AT ANY TIME to take exception by sending a "cease & desist" letter to the Mfr and every Dealer in MA, demanding that they retrieve every such gun sold or face a $5K/gun fine (this is what happened to Glock).

So EOPS List is only the FIRST STEP of a TWO STEP process, with a major "gotcha" potential from the AG.
 
NEXT, the Mfr has to Certify to the Distributors and Dealers that the gun ALSO MEETS the AG REGS. Until and unless this is done, the gun in question can ONLY be legally sold/transfered by a MA Dealer to a LEO (LEO sales are exempt from AG Regs, as specified in CMR). The AG will NOT approve any handgun for sale in MA!! It is a Mfr self-certification and the AG reserves the right AT ANY TIME to take exception by sending a "cease & desist" letter to the Mfr and every Dealer in MA, demanding that they retrieve every such gun sold or face a $5K/gun fine (this is what happened to Glock).

This is not exactly true. Although a mfg's declaration of compliance has become a common practice, the use of the term "has to certify" is, when precisely analyzed, not correct. "Self certification" does not impact the legality of sale, but may impact dealer/distributor confidence in selling said models, and lay the groundwork for one possible defense if the AG disagrees with said certification.

The AG's office publishes standard (vague though they may be), and refuses to interpret them. There is no statutory or regulatory (CMR) requirement that the mfr "certify" the gun as compliant. A number of manufacturers to issue statements that their guns are in compliance in order to convince dealers the guns may be sold, and some have been known to send notice to the AG's office informing the AG that the manufacturer considers it's gun compliant. Although the AG does not respond to such letters, the intent of such letters is to lay the groundwork for a defense showing a good faith effort on the part of the manufacturer to comply with the regulations. The theory is that a letter on file saying basically "We believe XYZ model to be in compliance, please advise us if your opinion is not in agreement" will increase the incentive for the AG's office to deal reasonably, and not be faced with the spectacle of prosecuting someone for something the AGs office was advised was going to be done, and which the mfgr offered to not do if advised the AG did not agree with it's interpretation of the AG's regs.

Furthermore, the AG's office retains the right to assess a $5K civil penalty to each gun sold, period. The "retrieve every gun sold" technique used against Glock was a tactic designed to intimidate, impose a penalty, and present a solution that did not result in Glock and/or Glock dealers deciding that funding defense was the best strategy.

If the AG considers a gun "compliant", the mfgr certification is irrelevant - there is no regulatory or criminal offense of "failure to self certify a gun as AG compliant". Similarly, if the AG determines a gun "non compliant", the existence of a certification letter sent to the AG's office may, or may not, influence how the situation is handled by both the AG and the courts.
 
Last edited:
Rob,

You are technically correct. However TTBOMK it is very common for the Mfrs to do both, send a letter to the AG's office and to their Distributors/Dealers. If they didn't do so, many of the larger dealers in MA would be very reluctant to stock/sell their products.

I also agree with your assessment of why the AG proceeds against Mfrs/Dealers as I stated above. And it is very effective as far as the AG is concerned.
 
You are technically correct.

I am big on "technical correctness". Descriptions that attempt to simplify by substituting inaccurate terms like "have to" or "...cannot be legally sold unless...", when it take a paragraph to describe the situation accurately, can be misleading on key points even though they correctly convey the essence of the situation.

And your TTBOMK conclusion is absolutely correct. I never doubted your knowledge of the subtle nuances; just commenting on the precision of the presentation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom