The P89, your unbiased opinion.

[P94/GP100]

Leucoandru and TruthNotRelative-I don't recall exactly when Ruger initiated the barrel/slide change that re-positioned the barrel; I believe that it was in the late 1990s, as a previous Davidson Special P89TH that I had had it as well. According to Coffeepot, the change had to do with timing, lock-up, and barrel stability for accuracy. And yes, Leucoandru, yours is accordingly one of the "later"/most ideal P89s that I discussed.

Normal accuracy for a one-piece barrel P85 (and subsequent P85 Mk II and P89) is around 3"-if it's worse than that, Ruger actual had (and presumably still has) a fix for it in individual guns concerned.

Coffeepot and Todd Green and I have concluded that the exception accuracy exhibited by my individual specimen is not the norm, and probably has to do with a fortuitous barrel breech/slide breech niche fit, which is exceptionally good.

I've read with interest the discussion regarding CZ75s; my personal experience with the CZ75 model involves 2 CZ75Bs, both obtained brand new; one consistantly suffered from a mid magazine malfunction (involving multiple magazines)-the CZ vendor of the time was unable to satisfactorily resolve the problem. A later CZ75B was extremely reliable. While I find that CZ75s possess an exceptional grip, the trigger/trigger arc in older CZ75s and CZ75Bs was positioned too far foward, making DA trigger finger positioning difficult (later rectified by a better curved trigger). The position of the frame-mounted safety I also found to be less than ergonomic. Due to its mechanical architecture, I also found the triggerpull itself to be less than steller, although it was certainly acceptable.

While certainly well priced, and ultimately well supported once CZ-USA established themselves as the CZ vendor in the US, I ultimately sold off my CZ75Bs and CZ83s, as I had other guns in their respective niches that I felt were superior. My experiences, and in following the experiences of others leads me to conclude that getting a good CZ can be a bit of a crap-shoot, but that CZ-USA does an excellent job in support/problem resolution. I recommend a P89 over a CZ75 accordingly, but a CZ75B (particularly the later varients) is likely to be a good combat/self defense pistol-my preference is simply to the Ruger P89 as discussed.

Interestingly, earlier varients of both the CZ75 (a CZ85) and the P89 (a modified P85; the modifications were subsequently incorporated into what became the P89) performed quite well in the DoD pistol trials of the 1980s.

Best, Jon

 

[revhigh]

leads me to conclude that getting a good CZ can be a bit of a crap-shoot

Jon, with all due respect, I have to say, you are the FIRST person on this forum, or other forums, who have said anything like the statement above. It's your opinion, and that's fine, but I don't buy it for a minute. I don't douibt you had issues with your older 75, but I'd welcome ANY documented links/reviews/anything that stated ANYTHING at all like you state above.

Also, you may not like the 'arc of the trigger', or the 'angle of the trigger', but that is a preference, not a defect.

Your statement above is simply not a valid statement. I would certainly agree that your'tack driving' P89 is an anomaly, as you infer, and most certainly not the norm.

REV

 

[P94/GP100]

Revhigh, I would strongly suggest that you visit some of the professional user/operator forums, notably the www.m4carbine.net (among others), and utilize the search function. You will quickly find some detailed discussions relavent to the CZ75 (and other) handguns that amplify my comments.

Best, Jon

 

[revhigh]

Hey Jon,

You made the statement ... you back it up, please. Until I see data from credible source(s), not some forum's internet chatter, I don't buy it, which is why I'm not going to search the net to prove YOUR point !!

Not trying to be a wise guy, just putting the burden of proof where it belongs ... on the person who made the statement. IT's really no big deal ... I and everyone else who's experienced them knows what the CZ75's are and can do. If you prefer the 89 to the 75, that's certainly your right, but you'll be in a very small minority with that preference, in any venue other than the present one, which is fine.

REV

 

[Leucoandro]

......Until I see data from credible source(s), not some forum's internet chatter, I don't buy it, which is why I'm not going to search the net to prove YOUR point !!

Rev,

quiet defensive. That is logistically daunting. Heck, with everything that I hear you say about the P89, what if I asked you to prove it? Then I said you could not use internet chatter, only creditable sources. And then if I said that I do not consder Gun Rags as good examples, because they always try to present any gun in the best light possible. Then I also said that I believed you had issues with your Rugers, but that those were probibly isolated examples, so I would discount those.

I would guess you would be hard pressed to prove anything. About the only thing that you could prove is that it had at least combat accuracy, which would mean that at 15 yards it could put all bullets into a 6" circle, or a 1/2" circle.

I however tend to lend some credit to what people say. Also, when I see enough chatter on internet forums, it tends to indicate a problem.


Just my thoughts,


Charlie

 

[revhigh]

[when I see enough chatter on internet forums, it tends to indicate a problem.

I guess you mean like with the P345 a few years ago, the LCP about a year ago, and the SR9 in an ongoing manner in our own semi-auto forum, right Charlie ??? Quite a few problems there .... especially with the SR9. I guess that says it all ... peening ... trigger reset issues ... recalls, etc etc.

I never said anything discounting gun magazines or reviews, which is precisely where you'll hear the term 'combat accurate' regarding the 89, and we all know what that means.

I've honestly NEVER heard ANYTHING negative about CZ's in general, and especially about the 75 platform, before Jon's post, but I'm sure there are many LOL.

Hey, what the heck, get a 89, the majority of shooters will never know the difference anyway, from what I've seen at most ranges.

REV OUT !!!!!!!!

 

[Leucoandro]

Rev,

You can not pick a fight with me about the P345, LCP, SR9, MKIII, or the SP101 in 327. I agree on them.

I do not suspect that I will ever own the P345 (which to me had worse issues, where you could break the gun by pulling the trigger with the safety engaged. Did they ever fix that?). I seriously doubt I would ever buy a MKIII either (receivers cracking after 60,000 rounds). I do not suspect that I will buy an SR9 (no use for one unless as a range toy), but might buy an LCP.

Remember I was the one that requested the SP101 327 Problem thread be mad a sticky. I was one of the earlier people to think that the sticky extraction, and grossly expanded cases indicated an issue.



In my post I was simply pointing out that you should apply one standard. It makes no sense to quote all the forum talk about Ruger Handguns, but then not allow the same talk when it relates to CZ.

As to the gun rags, I could be mistaken (and if I am I am sorry), but I could swear that several times I have seen you discount what a magazine says because of a whole host of reasons, usually related to the companies recieving advertizing dollars from the gun companies.

As to combat accuracy, I typically hear that a glock provides combat accuracy. My point with the term "combat accuracy", is that it provides a person with very little information. According to various articles I have read, the CZ, Luger, Walther P38, Sig, 1911, Glock, Beretta, Ruger, etc. all provide the user with combat accuarcy.

Exactly what is combat accuracy? Is it a defined perameter? As far as I can tell all it means is that all of the above listed pistols can keep a certain percentage of bullets on a Human sized target at a 25 meters (at least that is what it seems to mean in the Military), and I have seen all of them refered to as combat accurate.


Charlie

 

[P94/GP100]

Revhigh, you can't have it both ways...for over a year on this forum, you've consistantly disparaged and denigraded the P85/P89 guns based on generalized unattributed statements, and your personal anecdotal experience with your empirical data base of apparently 2 guns-a P89 and a P91. It's disingenious, to say the least, to hold me (or others) to a standard differing from the one that you've apparently established for yourself in your postings.

When you've discussed your negative accuracy experiences before, some very knowledgeable participants on the forum (to include a former Ruger engineer/manager intimately familiar and personally associated with the P85/P85MkII/P89 series) have politely informed you that normative accuracy with a P85 possesing the latter one-piece barrel on is 3", and if accuracy problems exist in an individual weapon, Ruger had a fix. I'll quote a response from Coffeepot on a 2008 thread that you were a participant on: "...Apparently you had one of the ones that didn't shoot very well. Actually, the P85 really got a bad rap on that. The percentage of guns that were inaccurate was really quite low when compared to the overall number of P85s that were made. The issue, if I remember correctly, was insufficient 'pinch' as we called it at the barrel muzzle interface. They had a fix for it and we improved the accuracy on a lot of guns in those early days. Unfortunately, most of those that had the bad ones never contacted Ruger about it, but rather just complained a lot..."

And that was just regarding the P85-Ruger subsequently continued to improve accuracy as has been discussed previously on the subsequent P89, by modifying the barrel/slide positioning relationship, among other improvements.

If my comments on the CZ75 offended you, so be it. They are my personal assessment of the CZ75B series guns, based on a combination of my personal empirical experiences with 2 CZ75Bs, and similar experiences with 2 CZ83s (one in .380, which had similar functionality issues, and a similar lack of resolution by the CZ vendor prior to CZ-USA's establishment in Kansas City, and another in 9 X 18 Makarov, which was impeccibly accurate, but had sight seating issues and some grip issues). If my comments are the first balanced/negative comments on the CZ75 series, then I can only conclude that you haven't followed similar conclusions in print by Massad Ayoob and others. Balanced internet discussions concerning the CZ series guns can be found by using the search engine on the www.m4carbine.net forum (which has a high proportion of knowledgeable users/trainers/industry experts/and LEO and military participants), and I also commend you to Stephen Camp's largely favorable, but very balanced review and assessments of the CZ75 on his www.hipowersandhandguns.com forum, in the "Other Guns" section.

While this is an excellent forum, and this particular thread has some excellent discussion, I'm beginning to find your strident comments and overall lack of specific knowledge of the platforms discussed a bit tiresome. It's one thing to assert a personal preference(s), and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but I begin to take intellectual offense when one attempts to reach and stipulate universal conclusions based on limited experience/input/data pools.

I would suggest that you might be well served by researching on this forum some of the very knowledgeable postings by such participants as Coffeepot and T.A. Workman (among others), particularly on the P85/P89 platform.

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit offensive, but some people can use the internet (and other media) as a bit of a bully pulpit, to which I do take offense. I appreciate give and take, but it should be based on mutual courtesy and intelligent comments, based on valid experiences and research-and respect for the experiences and research of others.

Best, Jon

 

[Cheesewhiz]

Interestingly, earlier varients of both the CZ75 (a CZ85) and the P89 (a modified P85; the modifications were subsequently incorporated into what became the P89) performed quite well in the DoD pistol trials of the 1980s.

Best, Jon

Well, that's a load right there. Post a link about the CZ75 being in Shoot-Off II.

 

[homeyclaus]

I have a G19, CZ variant (a turkish-made AR-24 full size), and a P89. I like them all.

I bought my P89 as a fun gun, I always wanted one, and because I have always wanted to know what the haters have against it. It shoots well, and I like shooting it (so I do). It's totally, absolutely reliable - I have not found ammo or handloads it does not like. No regrets at all.

I don't think the trigger is all that bad, either. It's certainly different, and takes getting used to, but it probably has contributed more to my accuracy with other pistols than anything else.

Size is the only real quibble. I can't conceal it well except in a northern winter, but it is a duty sized pistol anyways. And I am on the fence about Hogue grips - I put them on there, it's nice, I take them off, it's also nice. Worth trying if you don't like the grip.

 

[Skeleton King]

Let's keep it civil, kids. I'd like to keep this thread open!

I've been over the past 10 pages or so on every forum on this site, and I like what both of you guys (P94 and Rev) have to say. No doubt you're both well informed, educated and experienced with the proverbial matter-at-hand, but Rev, man, be a little more open minded here.

CZ's are pretty amazing for what they are, and I can see you likem', but does that make it impossible for one not to work well? Frankly, I've heard chaff out of almost every gun made, CZ's included, but that doesn't mean everything isn't worth shooting/owning. What would make a 'Zed any different? You (Rev) say you've had a couple P-series pistols that were dog-ish, why don't you try giving P94 the benefit of the doubt and flip it around? Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong either, 'just putting some stuff out there.

I'm not going to play nanny here, you guys can work it out while I pop some pop-corn :twisted:, but seeing this thread grow into something more proactive than a slap-fight would be nice not only for me but anyone interested in the P89.

That reminds me, WHY did Ruger drop their last metal framed semi-auto 9 :?: /sigh
--

Another thing, 3' groups at 25 yards seems adequately "combat accurate" to me, Leu. :lol: For a $300 gun that doesn't die or choke up, ever, even if you wanted it to, three inches at that range seems like a good accuracy, and even better if P94's abominable P89 rings true.

And yeah, putting it the way you did, I don't even know what "combat accurate" means anymore!

 

[tkarter]

I have a G19, CZ variant (a turkish-made AR-24 full size), and a P89. I like them all.

I bought my P89 as a fun gun, I always wanted one, and because I have always wanted to know what the haters have against it. It shoots well, and I like shooting it (so I do). It's totally, absolutely reliable - I have not found ammo or handloads it does not like. No regrets at all.

I don't think the trigger is all that bad, either. It's certainly different, and takes getting used to, but it probably has contributed more to my accuracy with other pistols than anything else.

Size is the only real quibble. I can't conceal it well except in a northern winter, but it is a duty sized pistol anyways. And I am on the fence about Hogue grips - I put them on there, it's nice, I take them off, it's also nice. Worth trying if you don't like the grip.

You've said it all there.

The trigger starts out tough on a P89 in my experience although I shot well with it when it was tough. After plenty of shooting it got or I did used to it.

When I care to use the sights now days I can shoot some really impressive groups. When I choose to just point and shoot I hit really close to where I am looking so there is no better pistol for me.

It is a bit tougher to carry than other but I have carried mine a lot of hours and miles. Concealed.

Rev may just be the single cause for all the P89 questions with his constant they aren't accurate as my CZ posts.


There are some of us been around long enough to just not pay attention to the P89 is just combat accurate and not a tack driver.

It is a tank and does what tanks do. It will level the world if need be.

I have handed my P89 to a better shot than I and it showed up on the target. After seeing that target that day I will say there isn't a 9mm anything that will shoot a tighter group than what was shot with my P89 by a good shot.

Rev can call me names and say it is just typing.

All I have seen of the CZ is Rev's typing.


One would think he would leave us to discuss the P89 once in awhile without the CZ reference.


tk

 

[Hoosier]

The P89 is my all-time favorite range pistol or anytime pistol I should say. It looks good, feels good, shoots great and is just so d--n dependable. I bought a second one NIB to sell but I could never depart with it now. The P89 is a classic 9mm and will forever hold a place in the handgun hall of fame.

 

[rick357]

not trying to add to the debate because I'm definately no expert but I do think alot like the duck commanders with their benelli shotguns, when I pull the trigger on a gun all i want is for it to go boom every time. My 89 was built in 03 and it has never had a ftf or fte. As for accuracy, out to 25 yds if I can put every shot into the heart and head area of a target of a full size mans silohuette, thats good enough for me and mine does just that Rick

 

[Mike J]

I don't have experience with the P-89 so I can't comment on that however Rev I do feel like you should be willing to listen to the other side some regarding CZ's. I have actually expressed the opinion in the past when people here were upset with you for slamming Ruger autos that I like to see you post. The reason being you stir things up some cause things to be questioned & evaluated. This would be a useless forum if all we did was talk about how wonderful Rugers are.
With that said I do read other forum besides this one & I am of the opinion that all manufacturers are pushing harder & harder to cut manufacturing costs & get product out the door. This is hurting quality. Also I have read about several manufacturers having problems with new products. Here is a link that might interest you with some folks having problems with CZ www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=46 ... ghlight=CZ
Just in the interest of fairness you might need to realize that all manufacturers have their dogs.

 

[Mike J]

Link is wrong-I will correct/corrected

 

[P94/GP100]

Cheesewhiz, the best discussion of the CZ75/85 in the US Army's XM10 trials is to be found in Gene Gangarosa's "Modern Beretta Firearms," p. 141, where he stated "...At some point between the XM9 trials and the XM10 retest, American military officials were able to import sample CZ-85 pistols. An updated CZ-75 with its legendary durability and reliability, the CZ-85 added fully ambidexterous safety levers and slide stops to the CZ-75 design; this fulfulled the U.S. military requirement that its adopted handgun be operable by either right- or left-handed shooters. The Czech-made pistols performed extremely well at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, equalling or surpassing the Beretta Model 92F and SIG P226 pistols in most respects. Without a hammer-decocking safety lever, however, or a firing-pin safety lock to deactivate the trigger, the CZ-85 was more likely to fire accidently if dropped. Moreover, the CZ-85's origin in a country then dominated by communists made it politically as well as technically unacceptable for U.S. purposes."

I would add several caveats to this: First, it's clear that while the CZ-85s examined performed impressively, I doubt if they went through the complete XM10 testing protocol in its excruciating entirety that the actual XM10 trials participants were subjected to.

Second, even in perusing CZ's own literature regarding the PO1, it's clear to pass the rigorous Czech police test standards, the CZ-75 format needed some significant revision, beyond merely providing an alloy frame with light attachment rails. In the firearms analogy, I suspect that the revision was similar to what Walther had to do in the 1970s German Police Pistol Trials, where the P38/P1 and its moderately revised successor, the P4, were found wanting, particularly in the 10,000 round durability requirement, necessitating significant redesign, resulting in the ultimately successful P5.

While I liked the final CZ-75 that I had, and I like and currently have a Beretta 92 (a 92D), I think that in many ways the P85/P89 would have been a superior gun for the U.S. military. The P89 is simply more impervious to neglect (especially regarding recoil spring replacement), and requires a bit less lubrication. Don't get me wrong-I think that the Beretta 92 is an excellent (and elegant) pistol, but I think that the slightly cruder P85/P89 might well have been a slightly more ideal battle pistol, especially in long term use when subject to indifferent operator maintenance and scanty higher-echelon support (which unfortunately is what the Beretta M9 has had to endure in military service to its detriment, as reported in detail in an excellent Shotgun News article by Larry Vickers a year or so ago).

Realistically, the XM10 competition was Beretta's to lose-which it didn't. The best information that I have is the P85s tested actually passed, and passed well-but the Beretta M9 didn't fail; Beretta's failing the XM10 trials would have been an essential precondition for Ruger (or any other successful XM10 trials participant) to have have been offered a contract, or given an opportunity to present a bid for contracting consideration, in my opinion. In retrospect, it's unfortunate that the P85 was not quite ready to compete in the original XM9 trials, where the competition would have been on a more even playing field, and where I suspect that Ruger might well have prevailed in the specification's criteria compliance and comparisons, performance phases and in the subsequent bidding phase.

As a former troop leader and field-grade officer, I much preferred a general-issue pistol to have a hammer safety/decocker (although, of course, the previous single-action M1911 did not). That makes a Beretta 92F or a Ruger P85/89 more desirable (especially in a general-issue weapon likely to be utilized by personnel of varying skill levels) than a CZ-75/85 (although in fairness, CZ later came up with the BD varient, which has a decocker, as do subsequent CZ pistol models).

Mike J, thanks for the thread link. It's worth reading through.

Best, Jon

 

[wildturk]

......Until I see data from credible source(s), not some forum's internet chatter, I don't buy it, which is why I'm not going to search the net to prove YOUR point !!

Rev,

quiet defensive. That is logistically daunting. Heck, with everything that I hear you say about the P89, what if I asked you to prove it? Then I said you could not use internet chatter, only creditable sources. And then if I said that I do not consder Gun Rags as good examples, because they always try to present any gun in the best light possible. Then I also said that I believed you had issues with your Rugers, but that those were probibly isolated examples, so I would discount those.

I would guess you would be hard pressed to prove anything. About the only thing that you could prove is that it had at least combat accuracy, which would mean that at 15 yards it could put all bullets into a 6" circle, or a 1/2" circle.

I however tend to lend some credit to what people say. Also, when I see enough chatter on internet forums, it tends to indicate a problem.


Just my thoughts,


Charlie

I totally agree Charlie..... and don't even get him started on his Colt's

 

[Mike J]

Skeleton King-I realize we got off on a thread veer but I would like to know what your final decision was.

 

[Skeleton King]

Skeleton King-I realize we got off on a thread veer but I would like to know what your final decision was.

Welp, I do believe I'm going to give one a go, Mike. It meets up with what I'm looking for in a semi-auto 9, and I don't have to pay out the nose to get it or find one (I'm more of a revolver aficionato myself, and I like to spend the "real" money there 8)--I'm also looking for some good .38 reload gear, so the price is good.) I haven't even had a centerfire semi-automatic pistol in five years, and I think it's about time to have one around for family/friend 'auto training, and that I can abuse with +p+'s :twistedI have a feeling it'll just shoot fire & laugh at me.)

It's not my absolute first priority to hunt down a good deal and snatch it, but I'm keeping my eyes peeled; I'll grab one by thanksgiving, surely.

I will say I saw a CZ75 with the Kadet kit for not much more than 5 (good), and a minty Colt Anaconda for 6 shock @ a shooting gallery/pawn shop not too far from my house, but, sadly, I'm not in the market for another wheel, and I really think I want a parabellum that'll take the punishment I'm probably going to be dishing. Again, I'm not knocking the CZ, I just wouldn't want to tear one up and/or deal with repairs.

Cheers