10-8 and Dawson make sight sets.Originally Posted by David C.
10-8 and Dawson make sight sets.
My time with a friends P10 was a solid meh. I mean, it was ok, not terrible but not exciting or exceptional either. Pretty much sums up my experience with every CZ I’ve ever owned or borrowed. They’re ok, but there’s plenty of other stuff that I like a lot better.
Exciting and exceptional (subjective criteria) aren't qualities that I look for in a polymer pistol. Accuracy and reliability are what I look for. And the P-10F that I have delivers both in spades.
That’s exactly what I meant. No more reliable or accurate than several other options that are already out there to make it exciting to me. It’s also relatively unproven compared to several other designs.
That's an opinion
I’m unaware of any large scale contract type testing that’s been done on the P10 in the US. I’m also unaware of any major agency adoptions, or any other similar type contracts in the US. If you know of any, I’d love to hear about them.
I don't base my buying decisions on those.
Right, you said you want accurate and reliable up thread. P10 gives you that. But there’s a lot of other options out there that will give you that, and have also been thoroughly tested and vetted by large scale end users. I just don’t see the point in giving up that peace of mind, at least for anything used for SD. Gun games or range use, whatever.
Then again, if the pistol that is well tested and vetted is also accurate and reliable, then it’s probably just as suitable for gun games or range use as the off brand stuff. So again, like my general disinterest in the PPQ that started this thread, and the P10 too, there’s just no real upside for me at all. Plenty of potential downsides too.
Thoughtful comment.
Since you’re the OP of this thread, if you don’t mind, I’ll elaborate a little bit. I’m assuming you haven’t made a purchase just yet. Maybe you’re still weighing options.
Here goes:
Large scale contracts, agency/military testing and adoptions can really prove a handgun in a way that other things don’t. At least not as quickly. Look at the Beretta 92. It’s on, a think, the third generation of locking block. That came out because Beretta learned that previous generations of locking blocks broke more often. The large scale use forced an improvement in the design. Glocks have also gone through numerous changes (note we are now on Gen 5).
Let’s look at SIG’s 320. It’s been tested, it’s won some big contracts. SIG is about to learn a LOT about their pistol over the next 5 years or so. Things they may never have learned without those large issue contracts. Hell, look at the drop fiasco. Had it just been a couple of people that had it happen and there were no big contracts at risk, maybe the response and engineering changes are different t. Just a thought. Either way, the 320 is shaping up to be one of the major players in the striker fired polymer framed pistol market for a long time and it’s because of the adoptions and testing.
Now let’s take the PPQ and since it got tossed into the mix, the CS P10. I’m not saying they are junk. Not saying they’re “less than” the more thoroughly vetted designs. It’s just that there could very well be an issue lurking in one or both of those designs that’s not getting uncovered because what they’re mostly seeing is limited use by individuals. Even if one individual puts 10k on his particular sample, it’s still just a sample of 1. It’s not a lot of data about the ability of the manufacturer to turn out thousands of pistols with solid QC. I say that knowing full well SIgs rep for haphazard QC.
Now, I’ll say again, if the gun is for USPSA, IDPA, shooting at the range, I’ll shoot whatever. But if I’m gonna carry it, that means I’m betting my life on it. And if I’m gonna do that, I’d prefer to have a design that’s as tested and proven as possible. That’s peace of mind to me. And yes, I’ll still personally vet my individual sample to make sure it’s not the Monday morning piece that slipped past QC.
Reply With Quote