>>30024181
>suggestions?

get the vp9. CZ are garbage.

>>30024181
how much have you actually shot the cz?

>>30024181
>CZ
>VP9
Oh god, you have all sorts of problems.

>>30024181
>replace garbage handgun with another garbage handgun
put garbage in, get garbage out.

>>30024181
They are very different guns. The VP9 is a striker-fired, full size pistol. The P-01 is a compact DA/SA pistol with a decocker. I will tell you that I've owned both of them and ended up selling both (this was long before I saw MAC's video, which has been debunked, btw), but I may end up re-buying another VP9 just because the prices have come down so far on them and I've come to prefer a lot of the features that this gun has.

As for the CZ 75 P-01, it felt good in the hand, and I agree about the trigger pull being gritty, but you might want to give it another shot. It's really not a bad gun in any sense, and the VP9 isn't a huge step up from this, depending on your use; just a step to the side, to something different.

If you want a nice compact handgun alternative to the P-01 and are curious about HK's guns, take a look at a P2000 (not the SK). You can get them in DA/SA or LEM, and the LEM can be converted (just swap a couple springs) to light LEM, which is, IMO, a higher quality consistent trigger than any striker-fired pistol. P2000's run about $625 online, so it's not hugely expensive. Either version, DA/SA or LEM, has a way smoother trigger pull than any decocker CZ, and it's polymer so it's going to be lighter than the CZ.

>>30024244
>>30024232
Why do people like you even bother replying?

>>30024181
CZ is better than the shitty ass unreliable VP9.

>>30024227
I'd guess around 500 rounds, not a huge amount, but enough that I thought there would have been an appreciable difference by now.

>>30024446
Thanks for the info, ill check it out.

>>30024181

Install competition hammer and do some polishing and you get excellent trigger for sub-$100.

G19 or M&P9c

I went through the whole 'DA/SA' thing and realized I hated it; having a consistent trigger pull is fairly important in my opinion. Get which ever of the above mentioned guns that fits your hand best, depending on grip angle (G19 is more like a luger, M&P is more like a 1911) and how naturally they point.

>>30024202
Retard he already has a vp9 can't your read

Eh, my p-01 smoothed out after a few range visits, didnt keep count on rounds.
As for the stiff slide, that's mainly the hammer spring being a bit on the high side + the smaller slide surface for you to get a purchase on. I solved it by going overhand, but the trigger pull on DA was still up there, didn't have a measuring device but it felt double digits.

I just ordered a 2-3 lbs lighter hammer spring off Wolff and things got much better, can even slingshot rack with hammer down. You can go even lower, but you'll have to replace the recoil spring and get a longer firing pin.

Also, if you're going to replace or do some work on the P-01, make sure you replace the trigger roll pin with Cajun Works' floating pin, that thing is horseshit to get out.

>>30024828
Full disclosure. I own two USP Compacts, but I'm recommending the P2000 because it's basically the same gun, a little lighter, has a better grip texture, and is $200 less expensive. If I had to do it over again, I'd get one or two P2000s instead of the USPc's, simply for the cost.

>>30024886
This post is so cringey.

>>30024902
>Eh, my p-01 smoothed out after a few range visits
Not him, but just from my experience, I really doubt that it smoothed out as much as you think it did. The reason that the decocker CZs' trigger pull - we're talking double action here - is perceived as gritty has to do with the design of the gun. It's not even entirely grit, but partly the fact that the weight of the trigger pull changes as it moves through the pull, engaging all the different springs and levers. Next time you're at a gun shop, try pulling the trigger on some regular model CZ and tell me that the double action trigger on your gun is smooth.

>>30024181
Just get an M&P and an Apex kit. You won't feel like a special snowflake but for fucks sake is as good as it gets.

>>30024967
Oh, i m not saying the factory trigger on my p-01 is the best now, but there's definately a perceivable smoothing out. It used to feel like crunching sand on the last leg of the trigger pull. It could be the decocker as you've said, but let's be honest here, CZ doesn't exactly polish their innards unless you buy a higher end model or get a job done on it.

>>30024828
500s so not that much then thats nothing and not enough to really change a meh trigger into an ok one
give it a chance dont be that guy looking for the perfect pistol cause you will never find it
you buy a vp 9 fire 100 rounds decide this isnt right either then off to the next brand where the process repeats

shoot at least 1k preferably more through the thing before you decide to replace it. im not going to say cz is perfect if its fails during that thousand sell it and move on

>>30024446
>which has been debunked, btw

His failed, how was that debunked?

>>30025100
>one gun failed
This isn't interesting, though. You're forgetting that the reason people cared about his "torture test" is because they thought that the conclusions could be GENERALIZED across all VP9's. Since then, there have been many water tests done by other VP9 owners, and people have not been able to replicate his results, which is an essential element of the scientific method. He drew the conclusion that all VP9's would fail the water test, and this is all that matters. That's the part that was debunked.
>but his gun failed the water test
Yes, and that's is called an outlier. Until we can figure out exactly how his methodology differed from all the other people who have done these tests, we have to set his results aside and either factor them into a statistical analysis or else perhaps discard them.

>>30025167
>He drew the conclusion that all VP9's would fail the water test

Viewers drew that conclusion, he didn't. Never heard him say that all VP9s would fail in that condition, just his.

>This isn't interesting, though.

How is it not?

>>30025237
>Viewers drew that conclusion, he didn't. Never heard him say that all VP9s would fail in that condition, just his.
Wow, you are really grasping at straws here. There would literally be no point in doing any sort of test on any model of gun, for his own time, or for the time of his half a million subscribers, if the tests had no generalizability. Explain how his particular gun is supposed to be different in any important ways from a standard VP9 taken off the shelf. It's not because that would be meaningless.

>How is it not?
How IS it interesting that there is a single gun out there that fails a test when the results can't be replicated by independent testers? This is like all the people who claim to have invented cold fusion, but when independent testers come try to replicate their results, they find that all they invented was a non-functioning reactor.

>>30025348
>if the tests had no generalizability.
There's no credibility to the claim that the test has no generalizability when no other tester even tried to simulate his methodology. The only other test I can think of is the Hughes one which was a fucking joke that was nothing more than him repeatedly dunking the gun in water and in no way replicated the ingress of degree that caused MAC's gun to fail. You're looking at such a small sample size of both tests and testers that just assuming one is an outlier while the other isn't, isn't reasonable. Writing off the test as statistically insignificant when there haven't been enough tests to actually put together a statistic is stupid.

>>30025482
>There's no credibility to the claim that the test has no generalizability when no other tester even tried to simulate his methodology.
Excuse me?? No, that's not correct. Every other tester I have seen HAS tried to simulate MAC's test, to the exclusion of destroying their guns by throwing it into a steel shooting plate. You do not understand how science works if you think people do tests like this because they DON'T want to generalize to other samples.

>The only other test I can think of is the Hughes one which was a fucking joke that was nothing more than him repeatedly dunking the gun in water and in no way replicated the ingress of degree that caused MAC's gun to fail.
MAC's main claim was that the culprit of his gun failing was WATER. This is how science works: if you want to test whether just water was the cause of the failure, then you test with just water. Although, I believe in the video you're referring to, there was quite a bit of grit in the water as well, which was likely also present in MAC's creek puddle. None of these tests have been very well controlled for just one variable. Also, there have been quite a few people on the HK Pro forum that have tested their guns with the same results. I am not sure why you keep saying that there's just one.

>You're looking at such a small sample size of both tests and testers that just assuming one is an outlier while the other isn't, isn't reasonable. Writing off the test as statistically insignificant when there haven't been enough tests to actually put together a statistic is stupid.
Again, I've seen quite a few tests showing that the VP9 works fine in water, but even one test that falsifies MAC's main claim is enough to give pause to his conclusions.

>>30024181
>Thinking about buying a VP9 to replace my CZ-P01


>thinking about buying a gun that stops working when it gets wet to replace my gun that works perfectly fine.

>>30024202
t. fanboy retard

>>30024181
trigger job is cheaper than a new (and by all accounts shitty) gun

>>30025596
>MAC's main claim was that the culprit of his gun failing was WATER
This is the real issue here. His conclusion that water caused the gun to fail is false. His methodology was not controlled enough to demonstrate that, and the other tests showed that water did not cause the issues he had.

It's worth noting is that when starting the test he specifically mentioned that he was exposing the gun to more than just water, but also debris in the form of mud and silt, which makes it odd that he blamed the failure specifically on the water and not the ingress of debris. As with the mud test he attributed it to the debris.

So the point is, his claim that the failures to fire were caused by water can be concluded as false. The other testers debunked his conclusion, not the test. In the test he presented a specific circumstance which indisputably caused the gun to fail, where he went wrong is attributing the failure to the wrong factor.

>>30024967
BS! My cz has become smoother and lighter after 500+ rounds and many more dry firing. DA is now way, way better.

>>30026162
What's BS? I didn't say that the trigger pull won't ever smooth out relative to what it was when it was new. I just said that it will never be as even or smooth of a pull as the non-decocker models, which is true.

File: 20160207_203734-1.jpg (4 MB, 2184x2290) Image search: [Google]

4 MB, 2184x2290

Vp9 is great have one myself and I love it no jams even after 500 rounds easy to clean very accurate price isn't bad and customize the grip to your Palm what's not to like about it

>>30027028
>no jams after 500 rounds

wow anon 500 whole rounds? that's like one whole day at the range!

>>30027082
>spending $100 on ammo in one day

Really?

>>30027594
operators shoot $100 per day