ZEV OZ-9X Combat for US DOE

[Bret]

Sure, the weight is really no big deal, but paying extra for it and passing it off as a selling point for better accuracy is a big stretch. If that's the case, I hear that IWI's offering quantity discounts on Desert Eagles chambered in 9mm. Buying a Glock and spending the difference on ammunition for training would likely go further towards the goal of protecting the critical locations.

[Coal Dragger]

You must not shoot pistols very much, or you must not shoot them proficiently. Probably both.

Take a look at what top pistol shooters in various competitive disciplines use from Bullseye to IPSC, and you find a bunch of relatively heavy pistols in the hands and holsters of guys and gals who are winning matches. Yes a heavier pistol that soaks up recoil is easier to run fast while maintaining accuracy than a lightweight pistol. You think all those guys and gals use heavier sidearms for the fun of it?

Furthermore you seem to be under the impression that the DOE nuke protection guys aren’t training, or lack training resources and ammo. That is laughably ignorant. Those dudes shoot. A lot. Like enough rounds and skills development to be able to take advantage of a factory tuned up Glock clone. We’re not talking about an underfunded podunk PD that has to stretch a training budget real thin on lots of stuff. The DOE guys who carry those blasters have like one purpose in life: escort and transport nuclear materials point “A” to point “B” and crush any dumb mo-fo who tries to stop them. They train accordingly.

[Bret]

Coal Dragger, there's no need to start dishing out insults. I shoot all the time, but admit that I'm more of a collector than an operator. So what? I'm also a taxpayer that's not interested in having his tax dollars pissed away by the government. Could the difference in cost between that pistol and a standard duty firearm be used by the federal government in a better manner to defend our country? There's no doubt in my mind. Someone had the budget, so they bought cool toys. Failure to spend the money would mean less budget next year.

A pistol is a gun that you take to a gun fight that you're not aware you're going to (or as a backup to another firearm). In other words, it's a compromise. Otherwise, one would avoid the situation or come with a more substantial weapon. The guys that shoot at pistol matches frequently do things to their pistols that they wouldn't in real defensive scenarios. Lighter triggers, trading reliability for accuracy and light pressure (or higher) loads are a few that come to mind. While matches can be good training, they're not real world. What's good for a pistol match isn't necessarily good for defensive carry.

[sidewaysil80]

You’re completely missing the point. It’s not that the simply “made the gun heavier”. A side-effect/fringe benefit of their modular receiver (think of Sig 320’s) is that it adds some weight to the gun. That’s not it’s purpose, that’s not it’s sole function, it’s just an extra benefit or edge it gives the OZ9 over other Glock platforms.

At the end of the day if comparing back to back to other Glocks (like in a T&E process), the OZ9 shoots flatter/faster. So if the weight difference is negligible in hand but it shoots better…it’s no surprise they selected. Don’t take my word for it…

“ZEV 0Z-9 handgun not only scored the highest overall technical score among six (6) 9mm gun manufacturers, but the ZEV 0Z-9 handgun received the highest individual testing criteria scores in regards to weight, damage resistance, low light operations, pointability, ergonomics, malfunctions, recoil management, and overall impression”

Just because you can’t understand why they chose it (based on your own admission of inexperience), doesn’t mean the reasons they did so are invalid. I say that not in an effort to be rude, but I suspect that’s what the crux of the debate is.

[Bret]

You’re completely missing the point. It’s not that the simply “made the gun heavier”. A side-effect/fringe benefit of their modular receiver (think of Sig 320’s) is that it adds some weight to the gun. That’s not it’s purpose, that’s not it’s sole function, it’s just an extra benefit or edge it gives the OZ9 over other Glock platforms.

Well, that was a benefit that was brought up, so I responded to it. As stated earlier, I'm still not seeing the benefit of a modular received (currently own 3 pistols that have them), but that's another topic of discussion.

At the end of the day if comparing back to back to other Glocks (like in a T&E process), the OZ9 shoots flatter/faster. So if the weight difference is negligible in hand but it shoots better…it’s no surprise they selected. Don’t take my word for it…

“ZEV 0Z-9 handgun not only scored the highest overall technical score among six (6) 9mm gun manufacturers, but the ZEV 0Z-9 handgun received the highest individual testing criteria scores in regards to weight, damage resistance, low light operations, pointability, ergonomics, malfunctions, recoil management, and overall impression”

I'm assuming it's a better gun. But what sort of practical real world performance increase do the tax payers get for over twice the cost? Increased real world performance of the operators is theoretical at best. Hopefully, we'll never have a situation where an operator needs to take a 75 yard pistol shot where it might actually make a difference.

Just because you can’t understand why they chose it (based on your own admission of inexperience), doesn’t mean the reasons they did so are invalid. I say that not in an effort to be rude, but I suspect that’s what the crux of the debate is.

I do understand. They're spending taxpayer money so they can maintain the baseline budget for next year. I don't blame them for wanting a better gun. It's just that in the big scheme of things I think the difference in money could be better spent. Of course it's just a drop of water in the ocean of government spending. They gave up on that long ago.

[Dan_B]

Superior grip/ergonomics but due to steel receiver its is heavier and has noticeably less muzzle rise/flip.

That, an excellent trigger, and great accuracy all out of the box. Mine even came with an RMR. Probably the only guns I left “as is”.

The price is also very good when compared to upgrading a Glock or paying someone else to do so.

Oh, and it has a personally. Good one too.

[1168]

Wait, it scored the highest score in the category of weight, but it weighs more than a factory Glock? Was better score=more mass? If so, was there nothing heavier tested? Why did it score highest in low-light operations?

[titsonritz]

I'd rather pay good money for the nuke protection guys over an army of IRS pricks who will no doubt have a fraction of the training as the DOE teams.

[Bret]

We could eliminate the IRS pricks all together as far as I'm concerned.

[sidewaysil80]

I'm still not seeing the benefit of a modular received (currently own 3 pistols that have them), but that's another topic of discussion.

We already discussed the performance aspect, but the ability to switch grips on the fly is probably very important to them since they alternate between overt and covert escorts. So having one gun that allows the individuals to switch grips for ccw where concealment is priority as opposed to purchase two separate guns seems like a good idea.

I'm assuming it's a better gun. But what sort of practical real world performance increase do the tax payers get for over twice the cost?

The people literally driving around with nuclear components should have the best gear possible. If they tested 7 guns and they all feel this performed the best, I’m refreshed to see they chose it based on that as opposed to what was cheapest.

I do understand. They're spending taxpayer money so they can maintain the baseline budget for next year.

That is your opinion and the T&E anecdotes don’t support that. In fact that entire premise is based on maintaining annual budget requirements which usually has nothing to do with purchases like these, hence the T&E process.

Wait, it scored the highest score in the category of weight, but it weighs more than a factory Glock? Was better score=more mass? If so, was there nothing heavier tested? Why did it score highest in low-light operations?

It could mean weight in terms of balance or compared to heavier pistols tested I guess. Since it was an individual criteria vs technical one, I’m inclined to think the weight category was how it felt in hand or something to that affect.