by Tom Gaylord
Writing as B.B. Pelletier
CZ P-09 BB and pellet pistol copies the firearm closely.
This report covers:
• Daisy Premium BBs
• ASG Blaster steel BBs
• Air Arms Falcon pellets
• RWS Hobby pellets
• H&N Finale Match pellets, 4.50mm head
• Trigger report
• Overall evaluation
Today, we’ll look at the accuracy of the CZ P-09 Duty air pistol. Remember, this pistol shoots both steel BBs and lead pellets through it’s rifled barrel, so we’ll look at both types of ammunition. BBs are first.
Since the circular clips on each end of the magazine hold 8 rounds, I decided to shoot 8-shot groups instead of 10. All groups seen here will have 8 shots in them.
For BBs, I set up the 5-meter range (16 feet, 4 inches). I sat on a backless stool and rested my gun hand on the UTG Monopod, which is as steady as any bench rest.
Daisy Premium Grade BBs
I first tested Daisy Premium Grade BBs. I used a 6 o’clock hold, and the BBs hit the target low and to the left. Eight of them went into a group that measured 1.305 inches between centers. That’s tin-can accuracy, but nothing better.
Eight Daisy BBs made this 1.305-inch group at 5 meters, rested.
ASG Blaster steel BBs
Next, I tried ASG Blaster steel BBs. They hit the target in practically the same place, but were spread out more vertically. Eight made a group measuring 2.081 inches between centers. This would be a second choice BB, only if the Daisys were not available.
Eight ASG Blaster BBs made this 2.081-inch group at 5 meters, rested.
Rather than just showing the paper targets with groups that are hard to see, I decided to also show both groups on the fresh cardboard backer, so you can gauge the relative sizes.
The cardboard backer shows the relative group sizes better.
If it seems like I’m going through BBs rather fast — I am. This pistol has a rifled barrel, and I really want to see what it can do with lead pellets. When it comes to accuracy, I always go for the more accurate probability; and, in this case, that should be pellets.
I shot all pellets from a rest. The distance to these targets is 10 meters, and I shot from a conventional bench rest, with my hands rested on a sandbag. Once again, the groups are all 8 shots.
Air Arms Falcon pellets
First up were 8 Air Arms Falcon pellets. I seated them in the circular clip with a pen for uniformity.
The Falcons went into a 1.812-inch group that was low and left of the target. I saw no trends with this group, so I moved on.
Eight Falcon pellets made this 1.812-inch group at 10 meters.
RWS Hobby pellets
RWS Hobby pellets were the next. These fit the chambers of the circular clip much tighter than the Falcons and had to be pressed in hard to enter. They popped in when they went.
Eight of them landed in a group that measured 1.225 inches between centers. That’s a lot better than the Falcons, but it still isn’t a target gun group and it’s still low and to the left.
Eight RWS Hobby pellets made this 1.225-inch group at 10 meters.
H&N Finale Match pellets, 4.50mm head
I tried H&N Finale Match Pistol pellets with 4.50mm heads. These were the last pellets I shot. Eight landed in a group that measured 1.347 inches between centers. The final 6 pellets are in a smaller group, but there were no called pulls, so that doesn’t matter.
Eight H&N Finale Match Pistol pellets made this 1.347-inch group at 10 meters.
I did shoot a second group of the Finale Match because of those 6 tight shots, but the pistol was loosing gas pressure and the group was elongated vertically. So, with pellets at 10 meters, 40 shots are all you can count on for the best accuracy.
The Hobbys did best of all, but it still wasn’t that good. No doubt a little experimentation would discover a pellet the pistol likes even more.
The trigger-pull is long, and I can feel the trigger advancing the circular clip for the next shot. Once all of that’s finished, the trigger stops at the sear break point and the break is clean, if very heavy. The trigger-pull did not play a part in these groups because the gun was rested.
Buy this air pistol if you like the CZ P-09 styling. Don’t buy it as a target arm. As a plinker and for action targets, it’s accurate enough, but the heavy trigger and fixed sights work against any target shooting.
The pistol was completely reliable throughout the test. Every shot went off as it was supposed to.
32 thoughts on “CZ P-09 Duty BB and Pellet pistol: Part 3”
BB and readers,
As far as I know, there are 3 semi target/sporter CZ rifles.
The 630, 631 and the 634. The 634 runs at about 10-12 fpe. It has the same externals as the 630&631: target stock and barrel lock.
I would be very pleased if you or a guest-writer could do a write-up about the 634. Im very interested in its accuracy, handling, build quality and power. .
Maybe some of the today’s readers have one of them 634’s, and feel like commenting on todays blog on its accuracy, handling, build quality, power, stock, and what ever they want to mention.
I myself have given this air rifle serious consideration. One thing it has going for it is the barrel lock. Something else it has going for it is it does not have glowy thingy sights. It also does not look like a Mattelomatic.
I too hope someone in the audience has one and feels inspired to do a write up.
If a rifle has a barrellock, and a tyrolean….. Then Im totally sold! I just cant help myself… 🙂
Some people say the CZ600 series are rough on the edges and twangy….others claim the same accuracy as their tx. I dont believe all thats written, but I feel on this blog people tend to be honest.
Suggestion for blog item:
Pellet trajectory VS barrel angle: shooting under an angle
I don’t quite understand your blog idea.
When shooting under a 45 degree angle, the pellet has a different trajectory apposed to a flat angle
For the blog idea, are you talking about trajectory and canting?
No, I mean when you shoot a quarry in the trees, under a 45 degree angle, the pellet trajectory is different apposed to a horizontal point of aim
If I could pick up one of the new 634s for say, a hundred dollars, I might do such. I would like to see if a good tuning could bring out the best in one. As for the low power, that is probably a plus.
I have written about the 631 a couple times. And I will write about the 634 if one becomes available. They just aren’t represented well here in the U.S.
I have purchased 3 of the plastic stocked 634’s that appear on firearm auction sites (I’m guessing grey market as they don’t appear to support them at CZUSA.com). Very similar to my wood stocked 631, with a shorter barrel. They shoot very well with JSB domes and material & craftsmanship Is workmanlike no frills. The downside is the scratchy trigger but that can be overcome with concentration. They make an excellent ladies break barrel as they are light and with the modest power, easy to cock. They are obviously not built to compete with Weihrauch/Diana/Air Arms, but at least they have great fundamental accurate barrels. Personally I think its a shame that CZ isn’t interested in marketing them here,
I bought a CZ 634 in 2009, and it is a fine rifle. Mine has a beech stock. With 8.4 grain JSB pellets, it’s a very consistent 735 fps – about 10 fpe. Mine is very accurate out to 30 yards. The trigger is a bit tricky, with a long creep to the break point. B.B., you would be welcome to borrow it for a test.
Thanks for the offer, but I think I’ll pass. I don’t like to borrow guns to test. Too many liabilities.
If you want a similar combat style pistol that is very accurate and fun to shoot, you might look at the Smith & Wesson M&P 45 CO2 pistol
I have the firearm in .40 caliber and it is my “night stand” pistol. The CO2 version uses the 8 round Umarex round magazines and It sells for $64.95 on Pyramyd Air. The double action trigger is smooth and it can be fired single action by cocking the slide manually. We have combat matches which consist of speed and accuracy and the M&P will hang with the Walther CP88, which is a much more expensive air pistol. We NEVER shoot bb’s in these pistols and the preferred pellet is the RWS Hobby. I have found the S & W M&P 45 to be a very accurate low priced combat style air pistol that is fun to shoot.
Great test. I think buyers of this and other replica guns really don’t seem to require a high standard of accuracy. They seem to focus more on the realism of controls, so they can train for their “real steel” firearm. As such, I see this level of accuracy sufficient. Otherwise, these and many other airsoft and pellet pistols would not sell at all! Are the manufacturers misleading us into guns that are inaccurate but realistic, or is there something that can be done to improve accuracy but would increase the cost to the point of no return? What do you think, BB?
I think ASG has done everything they can to make this a good pellet pistol. As you point out, it is more realistic and less of a target gun.
I am a target shooter and so target use is why I shoot handguns. Therefore a pistol like this is not for me.
I imagine that the accuracy of this gun is pure chance dictated by the magazines chamber consistency. A little to the barrel, but I would place 20$ that if you got, say, 10 more magazines as accessories, one of them at least will have consistency in its chambers to give surprising accuracy. Like how people buy these guns and one in ten raves and argues he can hit a can at 32yds… he probably can but its not more then luck of the magazine draw. I theorize the bb/ammo/pellets release from the mag is the major affector to accuracy. Take a micrometer to a few different mags and see if you find a good one, it should shoot better, theoretically.
I think you have nailed it. Whenever a magazine gun has accuracy issues, always suspect the magazine first. That’s true for pellet guns and to some extent for firearms, as well.
I have a Beretta 92FS with rotary mags. and I thought the same thing on the “mag/pellet release”. Calipers showed very good fit at the exit side,(.177 and .176 if I remember correct. The inlet side was good also, but bigger, revealing a funnel effect.
I took a #16,.1770,4.5mm drill bit in a tap handle and “sized” 2 of 8 of the mags. Very easy and almost no effort. I wish I could say that it made a difference, but it did not. But, no worse.
I should mention that I shoot cheap Wally World Bejamins through it and they vary in head size and weight quite a bit. So I give more credit to that than the mag. Still need to get some good .177 for it, but feeding the TX all the premium lead has priority.
Plus in the end,…it is what it is. ( fun and sweet, nickle w/wood grips)
One thing though, reaming the pellet mags. (eliminates one variable). And any time you can do that, it is a good thing!
Non-conventional airgun projectiles…
Yesterday’s blog on the Benjamin Bulldog big bore mentioned casting bullets which got me thinking about the shape of pellets and their (relatively) poor ballistic coefficient.
Bullets on powder-burners have a flat base for mounting into the casing and as a face for the propellant to push against. Airgun pellets have weight-forward design with a skirt to catch the air.
There are a number of pellets on the market that have plastic points or bases attached to the lead so the technology is advanced enough to consider these in a production scale. Has anybody seen a projectile with a lead head and an aerodynamic base? Something rocket-shaped?
Theoretically, we could use a ball or bullet shaped head with a cone shaped tail (maybe with some stabilizing fins molded in) to give a weight-forward, positive COG (center-of-gravity) projectile that would not bleed off its velocity so fast. The “skirt” to ride the rifling and provide the seal could be at the shoulder instead of the back of the projectile.
Might be fun to experiment with non-conventional shapes.
There have been a number of solid bullets made for airguns — none of them successful to this point in time.
They are too difficult to load because pellet makers do not understand how muzzleloading bullets load in a rifled barrel. Your fingers become short-starter and it’s not pretty!
The fins haven’t been tried yet to my knowledge.
How about a boat tail pellet/bullet with a small o-ring groove to seal the air pressure?
Just a half baked idea.
An actual O-ring?, or a ridge, like an O-ring? “Groove” means what?
I’m sorry, I should have been more explicit.
Make a pellet/bullet shaped with a round nose, spitzer or what ever shape for the front of the projectile then a boat tail at the rear if you wish. The outside diameter would be small enough to not engage the rifling but tight enough to stabilize the projectile. Then there would be a circumferential groove near the rear of the body before the boat tail (if any) or at the rear (if a straight outside) in which is placed an o-ring or perhaps molded into the groove in order to both engage the rifling and seal against leakage. The o-ring material would have to be robust enough the both seal and spin the projectile for stabilization without creating too much drag. This might be made of PTFE or other low friction material.
The inside diameter would need to be drilled from the rear to establish the desired weight.
Interesting idea. I like the inside/rear drill idea to control weight. Balance would be “off” at some point though.
Are pellets (cast) in final form OR do they start out as a cast “slug” and then pressed into their final shape? I do not know.
What about a total PTFE shell, with a lead core?
Some what (easy to load/press into breech) would be a factor as well.
My 21.14 HN Barracudas fit (much) tighter than the other lighter pellets I have.
Swaging – pressing the lead into a mold – is the usual method used to make bullets and pellets.
Casting is easier for larger bullets than smaller ones but pellet molds are available, seen them for sale on a British site.
Casting is fun. I’ve made lots of fishing jigs and special weights ranging from fractions of an ounce up to down-rigger weights up to 10 pounds that used a 6″ cast-iron frying pan as a mold.
The idea of making my own pellets is probably the strongest attraction to buying a large caliber air rifle.
I have a fully rifled 12 gauge (that’s about .610 caliber 🙂 ) barrel that might be interesting to hook up to my scuba tank with a regulator and a solenoid valve. Would make an interesting test bed. LOL!
I always enjoy your comments. It appears we are still searching for the “Holy Grail” of pellet design.
A while back, in a past blog, B.B. asked for ideas on pellet design. It been awhile, but I believe that he said “been tried, did not work” to most.
I like your “fin” idea”. My RWS Superdomes have nice ridges on the outside of the skirt. Maybe the same fins in a (spiral) or (twist) pattern? Or deeper ridges?
And talk about pellet design,…I just got some .22 Pred. Metal Mags. Talk about a well executed design. As fine as finish as any I got. Want to try ’em at 30yds. Which can not be done at this time. They may look cool, but shoot like crap. We’ll see.
For simplicity, the fins could be straight (with the axis of the pellet) but airfoil shaped in cross section (flat on the bottom, convex on the top) to provide aerodynamic “lift” to augment the rotation imparted from the rifling.
I was able to shoot fairly tight centered groups at around 20 feet with Crossman Competition wadcutters
I’m curious why you did not try your ‘go to’ pellets: Crosman Premiers.
Because of the gun’s lower power I wanted to use pure lead pellets only to seal the bore.
Interesting report, sadly this one isn’t for me. I would like to see one on the CZ 75 bb pistol, but I don’t see it in the catalog, at least not online; it is in the last paper catalog I received.
I enjoyed the first part on the Benjamin Bulldog. I am pleased to see Crosman come out with another .357. This one seems more balanced that the Rogue. I hope it performs well and does well in this, the year of the big bore. And about those Nosler’s, I wonder why the .25 disappeared.
this pistol is not billed as a targetpistol but as a replica plinker. For the price it does a good job. What is missing from the airgun market is a 177,or 22 semiauto with a blowback action ,target trigger,adjustable sights and a detachable mag.Like an updated Corpsman 600