Clint007

Thank you. I’m now carefully trying a very fast powder, N310, with comfort established by some Vhit published data using 100-124gr bullets. 108PF is in the range of the published velocities for these and the fast speed should achieve full burn and hopefully stable velo and accuracy. Testing starts this weekend. I waved off N310 years ago because of it’s fast speed. Makes it a very delicate powder to reload with but I’ve had much more experience since then. And happily there are some published loads showing good outcomes. Fair number of bull’s-eye people use this and also for soft plinking loads. C

That is indeed an impressive feat! What was the amount of slide milling was required? Pics maybe? They give you 2 extra ounces over the normal 43 ounce limit for ESP (for the optic) to get you to 45 ounces max weight. All dimensions fit in the box then? If I recall, especially with a beefy safety, it could be just over 1.625 inches in width… Years ago before they raised the weight limit, I had a 1st generation shadow that was just a bit too heavy, and I had the slide milled to get it just underweight for ESP, and then they relaxed the weight limit…. C

Full size shadow 2 is too heavy for any IDPA division. Have to lose almost 4 ounces. Hard to believe it could be lightened enough with cuts, but no one would care at the T1 club match….awesome rig tho.

I have a DWX Compact I am now starting to shoot for CCP. I have a CZ P01 shadow line that I was going to use for CCP. But the DWX compact changed my mind. I’ve never held a shadow 2 compact but I’d love to try one someday. The DWX compact is a very nice shooting pistol, better than the PO1 for me at least, comes back to baseline very quickly, and in fact, no harder to control than my shadow, which has always seemed to oscillate more at the end of a shot compared to this DWX pistol. Maybe it was the increased mass, my less than strong man, grip, etc. I’m struggling with finding is a good load that isn’t too over minimum power factor for CCP (105) that is accurate with good SD and ES. I can make 105 easily enough but finding a published that achieves good chamber pressure seal with resultant stable accuracy, and SD, without blow by, is the challenge. Love to hear anyone’s success on this. C

The learning here for me is that the heaviest gun isn’t the fastest/smoothest back on target just because it’s heavier.

I spent awhile years back on this and settled on a 10 lb recoil spring. Fiddled with bullet weights and powders and studying the front fibers oscillation pattern as the guide for this tuning. But even with that, the lighter P01 is easier to shoot. it (the lighter spring) is a little harder on the slide stop. I put a new or lightly used. slide stop in for each sanctioned match….

Thank you both. I’m reassured there are others with this impression.

I’m a B class shooter. Been shooting a heavy CZ Shadow for awhile. Recently changed over to a a CZ P01 with an aluminum frame/steel slide for IDPA CCP. I dont have the strongest grip or forearms. But I have been surprised at how much easier this compact is to get back on target compared to the heavy Shadow. It’s just back naturally dead on the original index point right after the first shot, whereas I struggle a bit more with the Shadow. Same ammo PF for both by the way. I’ve never studied this as carefully as I probably should have. I just automatically assumed that a overall lighter gun would be harder to manage for a given power factor. This is not the case. The sites may be moving more with the smaller gun (I’m actually not convinced of this, it’s looks the same) but it certainly seems to settle back on the target faster and more importantly more reliably correct, than with the heavier Shadow. I’m assuming the light frame compared with steel slide changes the recoil’s center of rotation up higher…AND the lighter gun has less momentum to overcome on post recoil recovery? School me. Anyone else noticed such a phenomenon? Clint

There is nothing in the rule book explicitly forbidding reholstering during a string. Unsafe actions are of course a DQ. There is precedent in multi-string Courses of Fire for holstering between strings, so any criticism must consider that fact. If we’re allowed to run backwards with a gun over our shoulder pointing down range for muzzle safety, it seems counterintuitive that holstering the gun would be considered less safe! Along with the unsafe action consideration, drawing a firearm from the holster except under supervision of an SO during the course of fire or other specific stated circumstances is one of the examples for a DQ. But the course of fire starts with “range is hot…” and ends with “range is clear”. So 2.2.E makes it legal And an SO would be hard-pressed to defend penalty or DQ if the shooter holstered and then re-drew the gun as long as it was done safely, during the string. Some shooters have jumped the timer and drawn before the beep but that’s a PE or FP, not a DQ. I have seen this happen at club matches but it’s never come up at a sanctioned (Tier 2+) match. I’m sure some well intentioned but imperfectly educated SO has levied a PE or DQ at some point for this…

3.4.6 is that rule. As long as they don’t use it later it’s not staging. the more I learn about the rules and administer matches the more I realize the rule book is amateurishly written. There are many holes and omissions that could have been corrected over the years but were not. Many of the terms are not defined. So folks argue endlessly about the practical definitions of exposed, stow, left behind, arms (but not hands!) hanging naturally at sides, may interrupt, etc etc. different clubs have adopted parochial interpretations of these and are then shocked and scandalized when another region has a different interpretation, because there’s almost never an official globally communicated clarification from HQ.

I have an Evolution Pro set up with the automated priming system. I'm currently using a resizing die, with the depriming assembly removed, as a 'back-up' die at Swage and Priming stations. So I'm running brass through a resizing die three times in a row. This does reduce the shellplate flex and has further reduced the primer seating variations I saw, even with the shellplate screwed down as tight as it could be consistent with being able to move by hand. An engineer friend said the shellplate flexion was the issue, not the case, so why not use a Lee universal decapping die - with the decapper removed- screwed down OVER the brass so it prevents the shellplate flexion by physical contact on the shellplate. This will work the brass less and reduce the force (and clutch setting maybe) needed for the system. I was a bit nervous about having that metal-on-metal action for thousands of cycles... but wondered if anyone else had a thought? Then I was envisioning some hard plastic piece for this contact around the brass. Anyone have a solution to this already so i don't have to think anymore? Edit: I had used a Dillon swage back-up rod, but that worked by pressing on the bottom center of the inside case, and I found there was variation in that height by headstamp...So sometimes it'd trigger a clutch stop, and other times it would allow too much upward deflection of the brass. plus it was squashing down the sometimes curled up inside edges of the flash hole and I thought that might affect performance. C

I don't have that problem you describe. Pics would help, show us a close -up of that portion of the plate under the plastic tab and just before it. I have a hard time imagining why 80% of the proper orientation primers would fall down. Was it perhaps dremeled by the prior owner for some reason? I have intermittent troubles with mine, but I live in Scottsdale and have taken the machine in twice in 6 years for free service. They never tell me what they do, other than to clean and 'adjust it'. Usually I get one inverted primer every 34k rounds now. I have to clean the yellow dust off the plate every 4-6 months...I have had that plastic cover tab lift up and permit primers to jam, stopping all the action. My solution was to tape it down or wedge a soft earplug fragment over it so the clear cover plate holds the plastic cover tab down flat. The tolerance for primers is pretty narrow I guess. C

For some reason I cannot post in the Classifieds section.

ADDENDUM 9/14: Okay, I answered by own question below...after exploring various degrees of lock nut position, my primer height variances have resolved. I had the shellplate too loose after all. Mark 7 was curious why my machine was apparently so prone to primer jams etc. Despite some attempted work-throughs by phone, nothing seemed to work. I offered to remove the priming system and send it in, but they kindly suggested we just swap out the entire machine. So they will have my old machine, and I now have a new Evo. Very good customer service all things considered. My priming issues have mostly resolved. The only issues I have are those same darn WMA cases with ringers, that slip by the Swage Sense. But hopefully those will stop as I cull those cases out. but the 1-2% primer jams that were occurring with all headstamps has ceased. Something was up with my priming system and hopefully Mark 7 will learn from my machine... I am having a 'new' issue now, actually. I'm getting highly variable primer seating depth. Some are too low, some are too high. The variance is extreme, so it's not going to be resolved by adjusting that bolt that drives down on the rocker from the toolhead. I sent an email and I'm awaiting a reply. But today, while on my lunchbreak, it occurred to me that too much vertical play in the shellplate might contribute to that issue. I had to install my shellplate, so maybe my lock nut is too loose? Maybe I need the lock nut screwed down more. But how tight? If you are NOT having primer seating depth issues with 9mm, and can post a video of a view of the side of your shellplate during cycling, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to know how much up-and-down movement of the case is normal during the primer insertion phase of the cycle. Is your lock nut just loose enough to allow rotation of the shellplate with some mild effort? Or tighter? Are you using a back-up (hold-down) die of some kind at priming...such as a resizing die with the de-priming center removed, as suggested by Mark 7? I was originally using a 0.32 caliber 'back-up' die from a Dillon 1050, but I noticed the bottom of that die would actually squash down the burr on the primer hole, making the primer flash hole variably smaller...and didn't want to introduce that variable into my loads just right now. So I'm using a resizing die as suggested.. C

Key question then: does your successfully reloaded WMA brass have that 'ringer' before it's primed during the loading process? Show us some of that brass after it has left Swage station but before priming, if you can.... I was able to hand swage one case to accept a new primer WITH that ring inside, this was before tanks above shared the judgment that this IS a ringer, not a unique case construction feature. I tossed that case, sorry I didn't keep it for illustration. Don't do that anymore obviously. C