You send the pistols to CZ-usa, in Kansas City. When I had to send something in under warranty, CZ paid shipping and I got it back in 2 weeks. But remember, in this respect, CZ is much similar to Glock: EVERY part on a CZ can be purchased and installed by the user (unlike some brands we could mention). CZ-75’s are modestly more complex than a Glock (they have around 44 parts), but most people are still able to work on the basics at home.
Not to hurt your feelings, but in my town, most CZ’s are found in the used/consignment section in the gun shops, or on craiglist/backpage.
That’s funny: I see all kinds of guns in the consignment racks at my dealers. I can hardly see the number of pistols in a consignment rack in one town as some indicator of a pistol’s quality and reliability. The numbers of pistols available for sale in different regions can ebb and flow at different times, and for different reasons. Recently for instance, when there were some lay-offs in my area, there were a number of high-end 1911’s for sale (like Les Baers, Wilsons, etc.) in my local shop. Surely you wouldn’t conclude from that fact, that these guns are second rate?
BTW, if the OP is interested in CZ, it is also worth considering the new P-07 “duty” model, in 9mm. It’s a bit smaller than the Phantom, and very close in size to the G19. While the gun does not have a track record yet, it does have CZ behind it, and THEY have a pretty good track record (see some of my previous posts). One of the nice things about this gun is IMHO, it can be carried cocked and locked, like a 1911.
Patrick Sweeney has a nice review of it in the latest Guns and Ammo, here:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/New+Age+9?packedargs=pagenum%3D1
(Sorry this turned out so long - I can be long winded…)
The volume of shooting from the competition shooters would certainly lend information on how the CZs perform. The number of militaries and police around the world that adopt them do not prove (nor disprove) durability, in my estimation. I don’t think most of the militaries and police agencies around the world shoot much. Certainly not as much as many US police and military organizations.
A pistol being issued in an Eastern Bloc or third world country doesn’t mean it’s passed the same vetting that one would have to go through in the US. Take the Makarov. I don’t believe it would hold up to the volume of shooting that a Glock would, but it’s been issued by the millions.
I also felt the durability seemed inconsistent in the CZs. Some may get 8,000 rounds out of a slide release, some may get 1,200 rounds. I didn’t want the gamble.
I will say, they do point very well, feel good in the hand and shoot well. The usability issues I had - and again, this is me, were:
-
The thumb safety didn’t fit me well. I’m accustomed to 1911 and HP thumb safeties and the CZ safety seemed too far forward, without enough of the ledge extending back toward the back. I didn’t hit it as reliably. The factory “extended” thumb safety doesn’t extend any farther back (and it’s ambidextrous). It’s limited to the location of the safety pivot pin.
-
The slide, having reversed rails, didn’t have as much area to grip quickly.
-
The DA trigger was farther forward than other DA triggers I had/have. The single action triggers weren’t as good as other SA triggers I had/have.
-
The spring quality was poor. (pistol and magazines…)
An interesting side note. Something Marcus said about design flaws with the 97 that haven’t been addressed in 12 years stuck a chord with me (I’ve never had a 97). I had a good number of CZ rifles. The Safari Magnums have had a reputation of cracking the stocks (.458 Win Mag, .375 H&H). The fix is to add a second cross bolt through the rear of the action area in the stock. CZ knows this and has refused to fix it in their manufacture. I had a couple of these Safari Magnums and when CZ announced their “American” version of these a few years ago, I placed an order for a .458 Lott and .375 H&H with the nice figured Walnut. When they arrived at the dealer, we took them out of the box and observed:
-
The stocks were marginally nicer than the standard stocks (and I paid double for this). The stocks also had many little “pinholes” in the wood.
-
The blueing was no different. Same as for the standard Safari Magnums.
-
The recoil pad on one of them appeared to be glued on and was coming off of the end of the stock.
-
The .458 Lott was stamped .458 Winchester Magnum, which was CROSSED OUT, and .458 Lott was stamped under this.
All this on rifles that were $1500 at the time. Rifles that were sold for around $750 in the standard version. All of this made me realize that CZ isn’t going to appreciably improve any of their products. (I left both rifles with the dealer, who also expressed surprise at them and shipped them back to CZ.)
For me, since I have pistols that do everything the CZ does as well or better, there just wasn’t a reason to keep them. I mentioned I had five, but I wasn’t counting the two pre-B models I had in the 80s. (I do regret selling those.) I really wanted to like the CZ and I’m not saying it’s a bad gun, just that I disqualified them due to my expectations.
In the 80s, the standard of a reliable pistol were lower - most people didn’t shoot the volume of ammo that is fired today. The CZ fit the bill better, then. Couple that with the mystique of an Eastern Bloc high capacity pistol brought back by a GI without import markings and it held intrigue. I’m not so intrigued today.
Either gun would serve most people adequately. But it’s hard to deny that the Glock is going to be easier to maintain and more durable.
The CZ is a shootable gun, but their reputation among most in the community is for relatively poor durability by today’s standards. The exception seems to be those folks who are willing to send their guns to the CZ pro shop for custom tuning by Angus Hobdell and then take the necessary steps – in terms of maintenance and regular parts replacement – to keep the guns running.
Hmm, a gun that really only runs its best with expert gunsmithing and dedicated maintenance … where have I heard that before? 
Easy day,
G17.
I know what you mean Todd, and agree: CZ’s ARE very like 1911’s in that respect. But honestly, IMHO I see some of the same trends with other recent plastic guns that have been popular and well-liked. And no one seems to have a problem with these guns, just because they need a tweak or two coming from the factory.
Examples:
-
The HK45. This is a really popular plastic gun, but Larry Vickers himself (who was in on the design of the gun) says that there were some issues: “…overall I think it turned out well but frankly there where a few things that HK Oberndorf overlooked late in the final development of the pistol” (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=13580). He goes on to describe some issues around the trigger guard, and suggests that users should send the pistol to Bowie Tactical to get them addressed.
-
The M&P. I love the M&P, own two, and am signed up to get the “Pistol Training” model. Great gun. But they have had a few teething issues, and to run at their best, a LOT of people seem to agree (especially where triggers are concerned) that they need to go back to Dan Burwell, David Bowie, etc. In that respect, they are similar to the CZ: they work out of the box, but they work BEST with additional trigger work. Exactly the same thing, IMHO. My CZ’s have always worked out of the box, but I REALLY like them and shoot them well after I get trigger work done. Similarly, I am planning to get trigger work done on the full-size M&P that I own.
On this issue of guns needing a few mods from the factory, I think LAV summed it up really well, quoting from the thread above about the HK45:
"I’m sure a number of you are saying ‘why the hell should I have to have a pistolsmith fix a $900 pistol that should be right out of the box’ - no argument there as it definately should not have to be done
But I have come to realize that most every weapon I buy has to be modified to suit my needs - that is part of being a savvy end user - and I no longer hold it against a given weapon because of that fact".
I have had two CZ75’s in the past and really liked them. Great ergonomics and very reliable plus able to carry them cocked and locked, both broke slide stops within 3000rds. Just got a chance to handle one of the Phantoms and hated the trigger pull, way too gritty, heavy and the real deal breaker, a decocker. Ergonomically speaking though it felt good in the hand.
Personally, although it is not one of your choices I would take a good look at the M&P before making up your mind.IMHO
I won’t go into a history lesson on the CZ 75, or why it is a great pistol, used by who, etc. I’ve known the pistol or its clones since mid ´80s.
I don’t know if the Tanfoglio or Jerico pistols break the slide stops often, they seem more durable… my country (Paraguay) had a number of IMI Jericos (made in part by Tanfoglio) adopted for police an military use in the ´80s and ´90s. We are a third world country and they don’t shoot much, but I´ve never heard of this problem with them.
Same with CZ 75s in South Africa (I lived there in 1991-92), they were very popular pistols due mostly to their competitive price compared to other quality western pistols, and they had a very good reputation. Many SA shooters shot quite often, and major parts breakage was not a problem.
But for pistols made in the 90’s I know from a few samples (one mine and 4 others from friends) that slide stop break very early, at about 6000 rounds or less. The spring quality is also hit or miss. Nobody has problems with major parts(frame, slide, barrel) but any sring or slide stop problem puts the gun out of service. I think the problem may have something to do with design, but most probably poor QC. It is a shame because they are great pistols while they run.
I’ve had 4 CZ’s-two CZ75B’s and 2 CZ83’s (the first in .380 and the second in 9 X 18 Makarov). The first 75 and 83 were problematic; both suffered from mid-magazine malfunctions, both were sent to Minneapolis when CZ USA’s predecessor (I think it was Magnum Arms) had the concession, neither were satisfactorily repaired. The second 73 and 83 were much better; perhaps not coincidentially the were obtained AFTER CZ USA established their foothold. I can’t recall experiencing any problems with the latter pistols during my ownership (and all of mine were purchased brand new).
Ultimately, however, for me, I index and shoot better with my Glock 17 (and my other Glocks). I also regard the Glock as easier to field strip, easier to maintain, more durable, and more weather impervious.
I respect the CZ as a design, but consider them to be overshadowed by the merits inherent to a Glock.
Best, Jon
maximum – I think the examples you gave are of a much different quality than what we’re saying with the CZ, though. Both the HK45 and the M&P function reliably and durably. People aren’t sending away the HK45 to get it set up to run properly, they’re sending it away to deal with some ergonomic issues. The same is true for the M&P, it’s not a function issue it’s just that some shooters want the trigger to feel different.
Again, I’m not attacking the CZ. The ones I’ve handled have run well and they’re definitely very shootable guns. But they are not in the same “treat it like shit and it will still work” class – or even the same universe – as the G17.
I just noticed this response, had not been back to this thread for awhile. 
I don’t think the examples I gave concerning the HK and the M&P needing work from the factory are different AT ALL. It’s exactly the same thing: the huge majority of CZ’s are perfectly functional and reliable from the factory, but will often be far more effective with a good trigger job. I don’t even know a single person personally (and I know many CZ owners at my 3000+ member range) who has had to send a brand new CZ off to factory to get it to function correctly. Sure, a few examples are given here (in a Glock-dominated forum), but that’s what you expect.
The issue is that all these guns–the CZ, the M&P, the H&K–benefit from some smith work to make them function OPTIMALLY. Hence the examples I gave for the H&K (per Larry Vickers’ comments) and the M&P (which often benefits from a good trigger job to remove the “crunchy” feeling). That does not make any of them undesirable or unreliable, and in that respect, the CZ is in the same class as the others. And in the respect of ‘shootability’ which I elaborated above, I think a well-tuned CZ is pretty hard to beat among 9mm pistols.
Guy at the range comes up to me and says “Whatcha shootin’?” I say “CZ75” he goes “yea that thing is nothing but a boat anchor” and proceeds to show me is polymer G17. He loads a mag and shoots and misses all of the six steel targets except one out of a whole magazine. I didnt say anything and then shot all six targets with 6 rounds. He didnt say anything either.
I wouldn’t have faulted you for saying: “Dude, you suck” 
Lots of “interesting” comments about the CZ’s in this thread, and it seems that unfortunately some of the same rumors & lies I’ve heard pretty much forever are still alive and well.
I’m not interested in making a decision between the two, as I honestly think that it would come down to personal preference over which gun you would like more. Both have their own strengths and weaknesses. Like just about everything in life, every choice is a concession one way or another, it’s all about what concessions you can live with.
As for the CZ’s themselves…
I hold the CZ slide stop thing in about the same regards that I do Glocks kB!'ing, HK’s frames cracking/breaking, M&P’s breaking barrels, XD issues, etc. If you listen to every report you hear on the internet, you’ll likely find that every gun every created sucks and is guaranteed to fail in some catastrophic manner when you need it most fighting off mongrel hordes of well trained zombie soldiers.
Right now there is somewhere around 9-10 CZ’s sitting in my safe, as well as parts to probably assemble at least a couple others. They have been my pistola of choice for a while now, in competition/plinking/carry roles. I’ve never replaced a slide stop on any of them, and until fairly recently hadn’t actually met anyone in person who had. Both were using CZ’s as competition guns, one of whom had been shooting his in USPSA production class for a couple years and had a slide stop break. The other changed his out because he said it started developing a hairline fracture near the junction of the pin and release lever. FWIW, I attribute much of this hoopla to a couple of very public incidents a while back, in which the last I had heard CZ had admitted to finding a frame run that had the slide stop holes drilled off-kilter.
As for CZ somehow acknowledging the problem via including extra slide stops in their guns; please. They include THREE extra slide stops in their Tactical Sport/IPSC ST model which was designed specifically for IPSC/USPSA shooting. They aren’t even a really popular gun, are not interchangeable with '75/'85 parts, and I doubt hardly anyone has considered using them for a “serious” role. I bought one used with a couple K rounds through it according to the PO. It’s admittedly not a high volume gun for me, but I haven’t needed to replace the slide stop on it either. I’ve got a couple extras laying around, and will likely change that and the trigger spring out on one of my high volume pieces soon just for piece of mind. Total cost for both will likely be $50 or so, as I’ll go ahead and replace the recoil and extractor springs as well. To have to do that every 10K rounds or so is pretty much inconsequential to me personally, given the costs associated with actually shooting a gun that much in today’s times.
As for CZ QC issues… Meh. I don’t feel they are any better/worse than most other brands. They do not have the same level of interior fit and finish that some guns exhibit, and the design is such that you can “feel” that more in the trigger. I think a stock CZ trigger is no better or worse than most other contemporary offerings, but it cleans up to be VERY nice with $50 and some polish. That Angus’ custom shop is so popular could likely be testament to how good the triggers turn out to be, and who usually buys CZ products (race guys, most of whom really want a good trigger). Angus is hardly doing full house work-overs on these guns. Many/most CZ “action jobs” are really just changing out the springs (both main and recoil) for lighter weight examples, installing the factory competition hammer, and polishing smooth a couple mating surfaces. There have certainly been some bad runs of springs and frames in the past, but from my understanding CZ claims they were a fluke. I dunno… I personally haven’t ran across one of the “fluke” guns yet and don’t lose much sleep over it.
As for gripes that I have/have heard that I feel are more legit: The trigger reach sucks if you have short fingers. I have big hands, but short fingers and prefer thinner grips on all my guns. I’ve also seen two problems with the extractors (and have heard firsthand of a couple others). Both were solved by an extra power Wolff extractor spring. I do know of some people who re-profile the extractor itself, and bevel the breechface to allow for better F/F with longer OAL rounds, but I haven’t noticed that problem, but I don’t think that’s exactly commonplace even amongst the CZ tuning community. Also, the factory sights suck IMO. The replacement rears that Angus sells are worlds better, but likely not ideal for carry.
Either way, buy whatever makes you happy. Glock logistics rule supreme, but I shoot CZ’s better (and enjoy doing it more), and decided that I didn’t mind living with those particular concessions. YMMV. I don’t see you making a “bad” choice out of either of those.
Buy Ruger SR9c, USA. Otherwise, I like my CZ Phantom a lot. I had Cajun Gunworks fix it up for me. It is every bit as good as the M&P and Glock.
The 2013 edition of the CZ-97B has fixed the ramp issue, and now they feed hollow points fine from what I have been told. I do not have a 97B, but do have a 75B, 75D PCR, and the excellent Kadet Kit .22LR conversion. I’ve owned them for 13 years, with countless of rounds through the 75B, and Kadet. I have less rounds through the PCR as that is my main carry gun, but I do shoot it regularly. I have replaced some recoil springs, and mag springs along the way as preventative maintenance. There have been no failures, and both pistols are accurate, and reliable.
I have only used CZ-USA customer service one. My Kadet Kit is an older version, and I was getting some light strikes on the .22LR. I called CZ, and they indicated the newer ones had a different shaped firing pin. They sent me a new firing pin, firing pin spring, and retaining plate all FREE even though I offered to pay for them and shipping. They refused any money, and I received the parts in a few days. The Kadet Kit is now extremely reliable with even bulk ammo.
Choosing a gun is a very personal thing. Shoot some Glocks, and some CZ’s if you can, and see which you like better.