The CZ-P07 Goes Through the “Gauntlet” – The Inverted Rail Succeeds

Normally, one should look at the various torture “tests” as largely entertaining affairs. Conducted by various content creators, the “tests” rarely have real-world validity due to the often incredible conditions that leave one incredulous. Noted examples have pressed debris into the action and then left it through through various subsequent outlandish procedures.

In stark contrast to that assertion stands Tim over at Military Arms Channel, which has created the home-grown “Gauntlet” testing, which takes a handgun through the basic environmental conditions it may be reasonably expected to undergo during operations. While the test itself may not be completely relevant to the real-world, Tim’s efforts are laudable as he has put multiple weapons through the exact same test under the exact same conditions. Therefore, the test may not be completely┬árelevant to the real-world, but they are relevant to each other.

Latest to go through the testing is the CZ-P07 a modern centerfire polymer-framed, Browning tilting-block short-recoil, DA/SA handgun. Various striker fired handguns have been largely reliable, but hammer-fired options have had some difficulty with debris getting into the hammer gap – notably the Beretta 92.

But, the CZ largely breaks that trend with the hammer proving generally reliable and the hammer indeed may have proved its mettle if MAC had tried a second-strike which double-action hammer fired handguns are capable of.



Frank.K

TFB’s FNG. Completely irreverent of all things marketing but a passionate lover of new ideas and old ones well executed. Enjoys musing on all things firearms, shooting 3-gun, and attempting to be both tacticool AND tactical.


Advertisement

  • Slab Rankle

    This test is brilliant, and certainly earns Tim his 15 minutes of fame, or even more.

    I just wish he would stop downplaying his own test by constantly saying it’s unscientific and only for entertainment. Is he worried about legal action from manufacturers?

    They should adopt his test! It’s simple, repeatable, cheap and effective, and it’s very scientific, in the sense that it’s repeatable and consistent. The only “unscientific” aspect is that it’s a sample of one.

    If manufacturers used this test, we would have more reliable weapons. Look how badly the much lauded VP9 and P226 did. They died!

    If I owned either one of these pieces of junk, I would sell them off as the unreliable paper weights that they are, fit only for paper punching under ideal range conditions or hanging on the wall, not weapons of war that my life might depend on. Disgraceful!

    Brilliant test. Keep it up, Tim!

    • Jack

      You’re at 11. Can you bring it down some?

    • pun&gun

      Other YouTube gun guys have put VP9s through considerably worse and had them come out fine, and of course the P226 has a heck of a proven track record. That “sample of one” thing really, really matters.

      • Haulin’ Oats

        There is a cost factor here: MAC aka Tim pays for most of these guns out of his own pocket. If you are willing to step up and give him a few thousand dollars for additional hardware, ammo, and expendables, then I’m sure he would do some additional testing.

        Patreon.

    • hking

      It is unscientific for multiple reasons. many variables of the test are uncontrolled, such as the grit/fineness of the sand, thickness and mixture ratio of the mud, pressure applied when pushing the gun into the material, and many others. The biggest problem is sample size and repetitions, hes only testing one sample and doing the test once. Running 10 of the same guns through the test 10 times each would be better, but for obvious reasons that is not practical for Tim to do.

      I do enjoy these tests he does because its nice to see a casual debris test but its hardly a final say on the dependability of most guns and laughable to call it a “scientific” test.

    • DIR911911 .

      and how much is he paying you?

    • M&M’s

      Clearly unscientific. If you don’t think manufacturers do environmental testing of their products that are actually scientifically designed. You’re mistaken. Not to mention the requirements for for many many contracts are won and lost on environmental test requirements.

  • Phillip Cooper

    Took me a bit to realize what they meant by the inverted rail. It’s a reference to the CZ and clones’ reverse iteration of guiderails on the slide and receiver.
    I have my eye on this gun, considering it in lieu of the Glock

  • Dougscamo

    The Arex Rex Rero 1 passed the test with flying colors! The shocking thing to me was how poorly the 226 and VP 9 performed….failed early on.
    Of course as to the mud test being criticized as being unrealistic by some, I can see a parallel with dropping your pistol into a cow pile….a not uncommon element in my part of the country…the woods are full of them!

    • Ratcraft

      I had been looking at a Rex Zero. After his video of it I bought one back in November. Great gun.

  • Edeco

    I’m basically an outside rail fan.

    • Giolli Joker

      Same. Really bummed by the lack of this feature in the new CZ P-10.

    • Giolli Joker

      Same. Really bummed by the lack of this feature in the new CZ P-10.

  • rennsport4.4TV8

    Yet CZ changed it on the P-10 because Glock? I wish the P10 had normal CZ rails. It would definitely put it higher on my list.

  • 8166PC1

    I use to have a P07 and I always thought it was a good gun.

  • Nathan Means

    I wish he had done a second pull on the rounds that failed. I doubt that it was really an issue. I have a p07 as my daily carry. I have put over 2,000 rounds with no failures. Even limp wristing, shooting dirty, shooting dry, running cheap russian ammo caused no issues. I trust it without question. I would pick it over any modern handgun out there.