Walküre

But allowing calibers smaller than .40 make major also allows things other than 9mm Major - things like .38 Super, which has multiple published loads stated to be within acceptable pressure limits that will make major. The biggest driving factor to retaining the .40 caliber requirement is probably indeed the equipment race angle.

With an unlimited budget, there are basically two base choices for USPSA Production: CZ 75 SP-01 Shadow CZ 75 Shadow If you aren't really concerned with IDPA, then the choice is a matter of personal preference for full-length dustcover (and a heavier gun) versus a short dustcover (and a lighter gun). If you really do want to run in IDPA, though, you really are stuck with the 75 Shadow; the SP-01 Shadow is difficult to get to make weight. BTW, I would think most running safety-equipped CZs in IDPA would tend to shoot ESP, given that (a) you can just run SA the whole time and ( you have a higher maximum weight for a 75 (SP-01 still has to make SSP weight due to the dustcover). Beyond the SP-01 versus 75 distinction - in particular with regards to IDPA - the rest of it comes down to what you personally prefer. The "T" or "Target" variants are simply milled for adjustable sights; some people like to have adjustability, others of us prefer the simplicity of fixed sights. The rest of the options on the pistol can always be mixed-and-matched if you are ordering direct from a place like CZC.

Last I checked, my TS was around 1.6#. Mine has the comp hammer and flat trigger with an action job from CZC. CZ needs to ditch the Czechmate - particularly with including all of those superfluous parts - and come out with a true Open gun, built around the true Open caliber: .38SC.

I run 124gr Montana Gold CMJ @ 1.150".

Currently sorting through the 300-some-odd photos I managed to grab - staff from Friday and squads from Sunday when our stage was vacant. I didn't have the Nikon with me on Saturday, as I was shooting (and working a bit too). ETA: Photos up on my Flickr now: http://www.flickr.com/photos/69192854@N05/sets/72157631884532077/ If anybody wants originals, or wants more of a particular shooter, let me know. As I said, I've got 300-some shots here. I think I shot my Nikon more than my CZ.

So are staff purely staff for these, or is it just that the staff shoot time is not available for regular competitors to shoot? And do we have a contact for the SS/Prod/Revo MD if we want to help out? I see an email address for the Open/Ltd contact, but not for the SS/Prod/Revo match.

I was on the "team" back in college. It was really just a club - with the "team" being whoever wanted to go to a particular match. We would very rarely get anything more than the ~$1000 allowed to normal clubs from the university for the entire year. We paid our own way entirely for everything but Nationals. Even then, we relied heavily upon donations from alumni and membership at our host range to keep out-of-pocket costs down. We normally only had entry fees, rental car, and lodging covered. Transportation to and from San Antonio was up to us, as were meals and other "on-site" expenses for the better part of a week (as I recall, Nationals ran Wednesday-through-Sunday). Facilities are another possible concern; that depends largely upon your locality, though. Where I went to school, the closest range that could host any kind of practical shooting was several hours away. In contrast, there were several sportsman's clubs offering clays facilities within half-an-hour or less. There's also the very real problem of handguns being problematic legally for those under 21 in certain states. Hard to keep your team/club alive if underclassmen can't handle the firearms unless under specific conditions with super-strict supervision. I'd love to see it, but it's something that will be very, very hard to get off the ground. (Also consider that you would really need several schools to get in on the action for it to stick; and even then, if your only competition is on the opposite side of the country, you probably aren't going to be competing much, which can hurt the ability to attract fresh members.)

The grip (frame) of the TS is larger than a large-frame Tanfo. There is a lot of steel on there that isn't strictly needed; many shooters have had grip reduction work done on their TSes (grinding down the grip area of the frame).

I would never, ever buy a CTS because I do NOT want the dustcover cut back. I don't mind the standard TS grip frame, so I don't really want to pay for the grip reduction either. I also don't want the sights that are in the CTS package. Aside from the hand-fit slide/barrel, I have everything else on my TS, and it cost hundreds of dollars less than a CTS. My TS is also ridiculously accurate, so I don't see the need to pay for the hand-fitting either. The CTS is only a deal over a stock TS if you specifically want the frame cut up. Some of us don't.

You do realize that there are equipment (magazine carrier) rule changes slated for Production and SS in 2013, right? And did you miss the whole 3#-trigger-pull fiasco? Production is fine where it is. We don't need to go allowing even more deviations from true "production" pistols.

No. My TS is on the original slide stop with no signs of stressing, and it's run literally thousands of loads from 171-180 PF with what many consider to be very light recoil springs. I normally run a 12# in it, but have used both a 10# and an 11# with several coils cut. (That one felt like less spring force than the 10#; probably a 9# equivalent, hence my old comment above.) Slide stop breakage isn't a CZ-exclusive problem, nor is it all that uncommon across the board. (Not terribly common, but certainly not unheard of by any stretch. I carried a spare slide stop for my SS 1911 long before I started carrying around CZ slide stops, all just-in-case, and none ever used.) No. If that were the case, I have a feeling that lots of us would have cracked slides. Also, the force returning to battery isn't going to be squat when compared to the force that takes it out of battery (that is, recoil). Plus, the slide isn't striking much of anything when returning to battery. (Again, compared to possibly striking the frame in recoil.)

Pre-travel, not overtravel. They install a pre-travel screw in the trigger; overtravel screws can already be had (perfectly Production-legally) by using a CZ 85 Combat trigger. IIRC, they may also reprofile the trigger, which itself wouldn't be legal even without the visible pre-travel screw. (Though they may just be using the silly "thin" trigger that new CZs come with.)

I don't run an overtravel screw in my Shadow. It had so little overtravel that it wasn't really even doing anything, similar to what it sounds like you found. I would rather take that tiny, tiny little bit of overtravel than worry about the screw. The more common malfunction to get with a maladjusted overtravel screw is that you can't drop the hammer at all; the screw moves back so far that the trigger can't move the sear enough to clear the hammer hooks cleanly. (My 75B SA, on the other hand, is an entirely different story when it comes to overtravel. There's a significant amount, and having the screw makes a noticeable difference.)

Other way around. 9.4.5.3 states that stacking is prohibited unless specifically allowed by the WSB. You don't ever need to say "no stacking", you only need to say "you can stack shots". As to the issue at hand... The way it is written, I would say 9.4.5.3 only prohibits stacking across multiple strings; that is, putting more or fewer shots on target(s) for one string, then accounting for the difference in a later string. That, to me, doesn't seem to be the intent that it was going for, but we have to go by what it actually says and not try to read other things into it. I don't quite see a legal problem with having "no stacking" stated in the WSB; the only place I see "stacking" defined is in 9.4.5.3, and that's in the context of multiple strings. Basically, if "stacking" can only be done in multiple strings, then I don't see why saying you can't do something impossible becomes a point of stage illegality! There was a big thread recently about mandatory reload penalties for VC stages... the penalties for a situation like this might have been discussed there.

That's interesting. I have a couple of the CZ 19 rounders as well as the Megar 17 rounders... I load to about 1.150 and haven't noticed any problems.... yet. I load to 1.150 and have ZERO problems. I used to load out to 1.160, and had zero problems with any of the mags taking them. Maybe there is something else going on with your mags - weak springs, sticky follower?

Can't speak to others, but the typical fitting that can be required for a Kadet is pretty minor. A few swipes with a small file is about all it takes. If you are running a CZ with a significantly lightened mainspring (as many of us do for getting DA pull weight down for Production), it is highly unlikely to have any success with the Kadet. I flat-out cannot use my Kadet on my Shadow. The Kadet does hold-open, though not 100% reliably. Mine works more times than not; others have the opposite experience. The magazines are full size (after all, no frame blocks or anything else), so they work fine in normal mag pouches. The Kadet itself on the other hand, might not work in your holster. The Kadet upper is slightly different in dimensions when compared to a normal CZ slide. This equates to a Kadet-equipped CZ not always fitting properly in every holster without modification (to the holster).

My Shadow does it too. It is the only CZ I own that does it, though. ETA - Personally, I've never experienced any problems with SA after lots of DA practice. I myself don't do exclusive DA dry-fire; I also include some SA.

That would be fine with me! We should just run a CZ squad.

Photos up: http://www.flickr.com/photos/69192854@N05/sets/72157629769579745/ Taken with my Nikon D5000; I believe all of the ones I ended up with in this set were with my 55-200m f/4-5.6. (The ones taken early in the day with my 50mm f/1.8 didn't turn out so well. That's also because we were on stages 8 and 9 in the morning, and those bays aren't particularly photo-friendly.) ETA - Anything that doesn't have me in it was taken by me; the ones of me were taken by a squadmate - which shows that even DSLR noobs can manage to get some great photos. (look at DSC_0406!)

While slightly disappointed in my own performance (mainly caused by overconfidence), not disappointed in any way with the match itself! Absolutely amazed at the prize table; sponsors have really gotten behind this match (and with good reason). There were more high-dollar items up for grabs than I have seen at many larger two-day matches. Didn't get back up to NEOH until close to 1:30AM, so I'm just going through the photos now.

No. I had one. I will never buy one again. Ever. You couldn't pay me to own another Omega. The design isn't as robust as the traditional 75 setup, and its integration of the FPB lifter (between the sear and trigger bar) means that you will never be able to get a trigger as nice as a standard 75, if you consider reset to be an important quality (especially if you compare to something like a Shadow, without a FPB at all).

Looks like the frame issue is in the polycoat to me. Not sure what you are calling out on the slide, unless it is the polycoat wear on the "overhang" of the rail (the part that contacts the top of the frame) in front of the rear serrations. Nothing on the slide appears out of the ordinary to me, at least from what I can discern in those photos. BTW huskerlrrp, the word you are looking for is "porosity"; that is, how porous the casting is (its percentage of voids).

Personal choice. I despise adjustable sights, and will not run them on anything that I care about. I've had two adjustable sights fail on me during matches, and have seen the same happen to others. It is simple enough to determine the front sight height you need for your load, and it's not hard to drift the rear to set windage.

My SP01 Shadow couldn't run factory Federal 147gr ammo, the throat was pretty short and the ogive was hitting the rifling. I think that factory Fed 147gr was in the 1.090" range (not near my notes right now). Not that I really wanted to run factory ammo, but I couldn't really develop a safe load for heavier bullets before I reamed the throat. Strange, my buddy gave me some of his 147 gr CMJ loads from MG loaded out to 1.15 and they fired just fine in my unreamed shadow barrel. I run 1.150" OAL with 124gr FMJ/CMJ RN and they feed fine in ALL of my many 9mm CZs.

I would guess 13lb or 15lb. 13# works for me with normal pistol primers (CCI and Winchester). It does not work with my Kadet kit, however. I believe the 75B I have that runs the Kadet upper has a 15#, but it might even be a 16#.