Now even as a sometime ruger fanboi I can't let this one slide. The only things equal between the P95 and CZ P01 are caliber, firing mechanism and rumors of reliability. However, from an engineering point of view, they're vastly different.
Many folks seem to discount the importance of the frame in a handgun. Comparing Dow Isoplast to a high grade aluminum alloy is a sin...I'm pretty sure Moses brought that one down too
And the primary basis of the accuracy and "pointability" (not a word but all shooters know what I mean) advantage of the CZ, comes from that hardened aluminum alloy frame. Now, if you want to take a step back in time and instead compare my beloved KP89D to the CZ P01...then I'd at least let you talk. In fact, by a slimmer margin I'd prob still give the pointability and accuracy nod to the P01...however, for me the P89 has always fit my large frame hands better and I dare not discount the many thousands of rounds of junk that I've put through my Ruger without a single malfunction. Even with professional exposure and training with firearms, I've always been overwhelmed by the steadfast performance of my $325 adopted child from Ruger. So even with the pointing/accuracy nod to CZ...a single malfunction 5k rounds into it's life would send me running back to Ruger. While I don't own a P95, my best friend of the past 23yrs does, and nearly every round he's fired with that 13 y/o P95 has been alongside me and my P89, and I've never been able to say "ha ha, your's busted and mine didn't"... so the Ruger reliability DNA is obviously shared in both.