ck1

Yeah, I'm not really sure exactly what's going on with how the sear spring is having an effect on the reset and double-action... but it's definitely having an effect. Granted, this is a 1 of 1 sample, so it just might be how it is interacting with the clockwork of my specific pistol. (I've taken the gun down and swapped the sear springs a few times back and forth now to make sure I'm not crazy lol, the Tanfo sear spring is definitely an improvement for me.) That said, I have formed a couple hypothesis' on what I think is happening as far as the trigger-reset seeming better and the DA pull seeming smoother: I think the stronger sear spring is yielding more of a "pop" when the sear slides off the top of the hammer hooks and then catches the hooks; so, while I agree that the sear spring shouldn't really have anything to do with the trigger-reset and it's more actuated by the TRS and trigger-bar spring, the added "pop" makes it feel more tactile and thus the trigger-reset "feels stronger" even if it isn't really so. As far as the DA feeling smoother: the best guess I can come up with is that I think the stronger sear spring is maybe somehow taking some "slack" out of the interaction of the sear-cage and top of the disconnector that may have been present before with the softer CZ sear spring, and now it's keeping things "more engaged" against each other. Since I'd previously already polished up the usual places like the back of the trigger bar and bottom of the sear-cage, and have further honed it in with a bunch of DA-pulls (both live fire, and lots of DA dry-fires), I don't think the extra engagement of the parts is really adding any weight to the pull, it's just providing the "feel" or sensation of it being smoother. Again, IDK, as far as the DA-pull is concerned, I'd honestly expected the stronger sear spring to make the DA-pull/stroke heavier if anything... but in my case, again 1 of 1 sample here, that hasn't been the result... Maybe there's some guys out there who are as bored as I am during this self-quarantine with access to a Tanfoglio sear spring who can try it out and chime in with their results..? Specifically, I am using a stock Tanfoglio sear spring (part# 9.3 on a Tanfo schematic), NOT a reduced power one.

Just wondering if anyone has any long-term experience with using a 4-coil Tanfoglio Sear Spring in a DA/SA CZ -75-based gun like a Shadow or similar..? Because, so far I'm really digging it, just wondering if there are any issues to look out for down the road? So, my Shadow 2 w/ added CGW Race Hammer, CGW 11.5lb Hammer Spring, T-5 Disco, and CGW reduced power trigger-return-spring was pulling between 6-6.5lbs DA, and in SA at 1.75lbs-ish on average (SA maybe pulling a tad lower, maybe closer to 1.5lbs most of the time with my "real finger" rather than the trigger-weight gauge honestly). SA feel was still about as crisp as I've felt on a CZ (even the best pro-done ones), but I decided that it had broken-in so light hat I wasn't totally happy with it anymore (I'd got it to 2lbs when new, but it got lighter after the gun had seen a few thousand rounds), not that it felt rubbery or had gotten mushy, but breaking at around 1.5lbs it didn't have the same "snap" I was after if anyone knows what I mean... I searched the forums looking for ways to maybe increase the SA pull a bit (I know, making triggers heavier isn't a topic that comes up too often lol), but hopefully without making the DA pull any heavier (like using a stronger Hammer Spring would). Seems there's not a lot out there or on here about it, just a couple threads about guys with ridiculously light SA-only TS triggers that needed a bump to be made a tad heavier, and a thread or two from guys new to CZ's, and light triggers in general, who were looking to make their triggers heavier... but the option of using a Tanfoglio Sear Spring in place of the CZ Sear Spring did come up. Though, still very little info out there about using a Tanfo sear spring, especially in a DA/SA CZ. So, decided I'd try it out... The Tanfoglio Sear spring is 4-coils vs a CZ's 3-coils, beyond that they're virtually identical, and from what info I'd found that works out to about 4oz heavier in SA pull-weight, and from my experience that seems to be correct as far as the pull-gauge is concerned: after install my SA trigger-weight is now a very consistent 2lbs. Feel-wise, IMHO for my gun/trigger at least, it's a huge improvement in the SA's break and overall feel, the added weight is barely noticed, but the added "crispy-ness" and "snap" is very noticeable. Also, the trigger-reset benefited as well: the reset feel improved a bunch and now is as good or better than the way the trigger felt with the heavier stock trigger-return-spring in the gun vs the RPTRS; like many guys, I changed to the RPTRS because they tend be more robust and last longer while also taking about .5lb off the DA pull-weight, but, at the expense of a softer trigger-reset feel. The Tanfo Sear Spring seems to have made things right again in trigger-reset land (for me at least). Now the really weird part: for some unknown reason the Tanfoglio Sear Spring, besides the effect it had on the single-action, has now noticeably improved my DA pull!? I think I know these guns pretty well, but I still am not really sure what is going on, but for whatever reason the Tanfo Sear Spring has had the unexpected side-effect of making my DA-pull feel WAY better... and it's confirmed* on my trigger-pull gauge as it now shows that it dropped a little bit in pull-weight (around 2-4oz depending on how consistent of a pull I get when measuring), and (what the pull-gauge can't measure) somehow the whole action/stroke got wayyyy smoother!? Not sure how this happened, but it's awesome. Anyways, digging the Tanfo spring, hoping its good to go... *(after measuring DA-pulls a bunch more times, I'm now not sure it really got any lighter, instead I think because it's now so much smoother, it's much easier to get a good consistent reading with the pull-gauge)

Yep. ...and makes it much easier if you wanna cross state-lines for matches

Yeah, a drop-in pre-polished trigger bar would be pretty cool indeed... seems everybody already knows the CZ competition hammer or CGW race hammer fix up the SA-pull a bunch, but slicking up the DA-pull through polishing can be a PIA sometimes (getting into that "nook" around where the disconnector pushes/rides isn't easy). I don't think wide vs narrower hammer matters much other than aesthetics when looking at the back of the gun (but I could be missing something because I have noticed that pretty much every nice CZ trigger job I've ever felt has used the narrower hammer). That said, I DO kind of wish there was a hammer option out there that offered "wider hammer hooks" for actually more engagement... I know it might sound a little crazy, but my SA-pull while as crisp as any I've come across on a CZ, might be a wee bit too light at 1.75-2lbs lol. Over the years I've kind of noticed that some of the best 1911/2011 triggers I've ever felt actually measured out a lot heavier than they felt: like a trigger you'd swear was 1.5-2lbs because it was so super-crisp actually weighing 2+ to 3ish. This is usually just a product of dialed-in hammer and sear engagement on a 1911/2011, and a lot of good 'smiths often "rough up" the engagment to make it seem crisper. But with CZ's, there's the hammer-camming variable that comes into play, and usually once the hammer hooks and sear are in a state where there's little-to-no positive engagement (hammer-camming), the SA-pull is sitting around 2lbs and there's not a lot of material to work with... I wonder if there was more engagement surface to work with on the CZ's if it would be possible to actually make the triggers feel more crisp and feel as light, while actually pulling heavier in the same way the 1911/2011 voodoo works?

IMHO polishing with the CZ's really depends on what your trigger is like now, as compared to what you're looking for..? I've had quite a few, and some of them benefited from polishing certain things, while some of them were plenty awesome after just shooting a bunch of rounds or a bunch of dry fire; depends on the gun. I would NOT polish the rails, they'll polish themselves just fine, I've never understood why people would spend any time/energy on the rails as there's probably more potential for messing things up by removing material that doesn't need to be removed more than anything else. You can use whatever you want to polish, Flitz works fine, 400/600/1200 grit works better, just know what you're polishing and why before you go at it. The outsides of the trigger-bar that slides along the frame is what usually yields the easiest returns as far as improving the double-action, so I would start there and sometimes that, and a 1000rds and/or dry fire, is all it takes if you've already got an upgraded hammer and shorter take-up disconnector (which with an Orange you've already got). You can go further, way further if you like, but honestly some of the stuff many people seem to put a bunch of time into doesn't really do much, it's really all about knowing how the parts interact (the "why"), you don't need to polish up everything for no reason. Most of the "good stuff" that actually yields results is found on the trigger-bar; here is an old thread from David the founder of CGW from a while back that IMO is much more useful than the "Professor Atlas thread" found on here, checking it out is worth the time and it pretty much spells out usually all it takes to get your double-action smooth and down to 6.5lbs or lower using the CGW 11.5lb hammer spring: https://czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=42537.0

I've shot a bunch of the 130gr PCC-specific Syntech in my MPX and AR9, and a bunch of the 150gr stuff in my pistols... only just a little of the 124gr stuff because it seems it's harder to get a hold of. I've tried both the 150gr and 124gr in the PCC's, but not a lot, more just to see what they'd do. FWIW, the PCC-specific 130gr is hotter than the 150/124 stuff for sure, though it's still noticeably softer IMO than budget-ish factory FMJ stuff like Magtech, S&B, etc. Through my AR9 PCC the 124gr stuff is pretty soft and seems to be more accurate than the 150gr variety, the 150gr groups tend to open up at 20+yrds. The 130gr stuff in the AR9 is a wee bit softer/better than most factory FMJ, but the difference isn't huge. If I was running my AR9 most of the time, I'd probably hunt down the 124gr stuff for sure since I don't reload. That said, my main PCC is an MPX, and the 130gr Syntech stuff is my go-to along with a "match" 135grHP load I buy, but honestly the longer I have the MPX the more I'm seeing that it doesn't really care what I feed it, it's super soft with whatever, but unlike many unfortunate MPXers mine runs 100% for me, and I believe a lot to do with that is that I don't chase the pf-floor with it and shoot loads 140+pf... actually in the MPX regular FMJ 124gr S&B is actually great, but the 130gr Syntech is a tad softer and is a little nicer so I use it. Through my pistols it's a bit of a wash: with the 124 vs 150, my CZ S2 prefers the 125gr stuff accuracy-wise but recoil-impulse feels about the same between the 124/150, out of my Glock G17 the 150gr feels softer/better but accuracy is about the same (probably more to do with the Glock's glockish trigger and me than the ammo tho lol). In my case right now I use the 150gr stuff through my pistols because the other main "match" pistol ammo I use and can usually get a hold of is 147gr and shoots about equally as soft (and that way my guns print the same without me having to re-zero for elevation). The 130gr stuff works/shoots fine through the pistols and is a tad softer than most factory stuff out there, but IMO the 124/150 is far better for the pistols. YMMV...

I will never own or let a friend buy anything from RHT, I'd literally rather buy them a holster from another vendor. I bought a RHT holster for a Shadow 2 a little while back... I got one of their "HD" models from/through Shooter's Connection because they had one for the S2 in-stock, and there were no "ready to ship" models available on RHT's site and I didn't want to wait 30 or so days to use my new gun in some upcoming matches. The "HD" models are single-layer, but the kydex is really thick (just barely less thick than RHT's double-layer holsters), they are black only and they're like $10 cheaper than a double-layer. For me getting the "HD" holster right away was about getting to use the gun in matches as soon as possible, not about saving the $10. I had already planned on ordering a whole new rig from RHT that would have included a new double-layer holster, 5 pistol mag pouches, and 1 PCC mag pouch once I decided on what colors I wanted or how crazy I wanted to bling it out and whether I wanted to try one of their new belts too or not, it would have easily been over $250, probably closer to $300 or more when all said and done... Well, the holster I got must've been made around 5 o'clock on a Friday or something, not at all like the RHT stuff I had seen at matches, it was very poorly formed (seen ones done DIY in guys' garages done better) and basically had zero retention at all, totally unusable, had to crank the retention screws down to where they were sticking out the other side of the hardware nearly 1/2" to get retention, and by then, because the holster was so poorly done, it was nearly impossible to draw in any kind of normal manner... Contacted Shooters Connection about it, who then told me to call RHT first, saying it was a manufacturer issue and they'd help me if RHT wouldn't, but they couldn't imagine RHT not making it right ... Called RHT, told them what was up, they were like "send it in and we'll fix it", to which I replied "great", BUT then I asked the gentleman on the phone to email me a shipping label... He was like "we don't normally do that", I then asked why it was fair that I pay for shipping to them when their product wasn't made correctly in the first place? He agreed that wasn't fair, and had me hold for a few minutes... He returned and explained that I had to record a short video of how the holster wasn't fitting right and then email it to them, then they would determine if I was entitled to them paying for shipping in order to fix their improperly crafted holster... So now, I was starting to get annoyed, but figured what the hell and recorded a short video and emailed it to them... I then wasted some more time having about 4 back and forth volleys of emails over the next 2 days in order for them to download and watch the video (insert face-palm emoji). Finally, after 3-4 days from my first call, I got an email from RHT's owner that was equal parts condescending and confrontational, zero percent humble or accommodating; basically, and I'm paraphrasing here, he said he watched the video and that if I understood how a competition holster was meant to be used I'd know that it having almost zero retention was just fine, and me showing in the video that if I cranked the screws way down it'd hold the gun meant the holster was fine and therefore I'd have to pay for shipping if I wanted them to look at it. I replied that their lack of customer service and the waste of my time was insulting. Adding further insult, I then called Shooters Connection, whom I've literally been buying items from for over a decade, to arrange to ship the non-useable holster I had bought from them back to them (as the manufacturer wouldn't help me... and exactly as they had said to do remember), only to have their representative tell me after I explained the situation "well if it's not right we don't want it". There was more said that was even sadder, but I finally just hung up because their representative made it clear they didn't care to help either. I honestly have no idea what either of these people I dealt with at these companies were thinking about, but whatever it was, it certainly wasn't good customer service. In RHT's owner's case, I just think it was hubris... it was only over a few dollars, but you can't put a price on matters of principal. As a business owner I know him sending me, or any other unhappy customer, a shipping label would've just been another tax write-off and/or operating expense. And now, instead of it costing him a few dollars, it cost him at least one $300+ sale, plus whatever me telling this story of my experience to every other shooter I find myself in a squad with or on a forum with when the subject of RHT holsters comes up costs. His company doesn't make or offer anything that at least a few other companies do as well, and based on my experience I recommend you purchase from someone else. Sadly same with Shooters Connection, there are other places to get the same items they carry, from vendors who maybe care about customer service more.

So this has been gone over before in the past, but things/parts change as far as what was available circa 2010ish vs now in 2020... I think I want to swap out my S2's "Shadowline" trigger for a thicker one in order to move the trigger-face a little further forward (so in SA it doesn't break as far back towards the rear of the trigger-guard for me). I know I can drop in the "Thick" 97 trigger to get the feel I'm after, but in the past (circa 2010 or so) one could get a hold of a truly-original "original" version of the 85 Combat trigger that was the same exact thing in thickness and shape as the 97 trigger, only with a set-screw for over-travel (for the purposes of this post I'm going to call this the "original-original" one lol)... Now, in 2020, CZ Custom's "original" 85C trigger says "redesigned to set the trigger as far back as possible" and in their pics looks thinner than the 97 trigger or the "original-original" 85C one. Also, on CGW's site, they offer a "Old Style" trigger, which looks like it matches the "original-original" trigger's curve and shape, but sure looks thinner, and, a "Combat Trigger" which looks like it might be the new-style 85C trigger that is defiantly thinner and more curved than the "original-original" trigger. So basically, anyone know which, or if any of the newer triggers offered are like the "original-original" 85C trigger..? I can live with dropping in the 97 trigger, but my gun does have a little over-travel and I don't mind the adjustment screw since I Red Loctite them then forget about them, so the "original-original" is preferred if I can find one..? Thanks.

Word.

This goes all the way back to page 4, but those who think or are saying power factor doesn't matter as far as equity is concerned are absolutely kidding themselves and suspending reality. Sorry, but that's physics, try not to be butt-hurt about it. Most off-the-shelf 9mm (American Eagle, S&B, etc) is 140+pf out of a 4" barrel, so if a competitor could clone themselves and shoot off-the-shelf stuff vs their clone shooting their 130ish pf reloads, the clone would have an advantage every single time. Yes, I've shot 140+ stuff vs 130ish stuff on the clock, it's not imaginary, it's science. I'm not saying that shooting softer ammo is going to turn a D-class shooter into a GM, I just think it's silly to believe it doesn't have an effect on performance (if it didn't, there wouldn't need to be any rules about it). Anyways, the reason I brought it up in the first place is that the Feb.14th attached image from the BOD minutes is perhaps in some ways more telling about how some of the new rules were arrived upon than any of the presentations and such... https://uspsa.org/documents/minutes/20200214_9 Attached Image.pdf Particularly, the box in the top-right corner of the page (98.3% of Level 1 matches have no equipment check or chrono), and, at the top "There have to be some enforceable controls.", then, towards the middle of the page "What is unenforceable?". Just my take, but looks like they decided that the newer firearms models + options coming to the market were starting to get out of control to the point where it was getting debatable what firearms-specific rules could/should actually be enforced, so they decided to open things up in order to have less gray-area to try and enforce, and not require every RO and RM to be a firearms-model minutia expert. So in effect, they managed to move more of the firearms-related stuff into the "enforceable" category, which is generally good and I agree with. That said, I still think they could have used a scalpel instead of a machete with some of the changes, particularly where Production is concerned. I don't think they had to effectivly tear the weight rules up and make the weight ceiling high enough to allow pretty much anything, or the same thing with the slide-milling stuff, the "Production" rules were already very very far from "stock off-the-shelf guns", I don't think a "well, since it's tough to enforce, let's just allow whatever" approach was warranted. I think they could've found a way to let the "Gucci-Glocks" play in without opening the door for folks to turn their Production guns into "L10 Minor race guns". Now back to that 98.3% figure again... I guess there really isn't an easy way to enforce power factor at club-level matches short of a mandate of some sort, but requiring the local guys setting up matches to also have to set up and monitor a chrono would just add too much extra work. For now I guess the honor system is all we've got. Sadly though, from what I've seen over the years, I bet if there were suddenly chrono's at every club-level match, there would be quite a few folks going home early or shooting for no score, many of them with fancy shirts covered in 5% off logos lol

After some time and some rounds down range (500+rds and a 2-gun match), I think I’m digging the S2... to me there are definitely some things about it that do justify the higher price tag like the checkering and being able to get up a bit higher on the gun due to the subtle grip changes. That said, if I were to do it over again I’d probably go with the S1 over the S2, mainly because it really isn’t a huge upgrade over the original to me, and except for the thin safeties which the S2 comes with, I ended up upgrading the whole fire-control the same way and doing the same changes/upgrades I would’ve done with an S1 (which I didn’t really expect to have to do since the S2 is billed as being better out of the box). I may still end up getting another S1, because that may be the only way for me to figure out which version I like better

I see the validity in a few aspects of what they did with the new rules, but it sure looks like they reached for the machete when they should have used a scalpel : 1. The CO weight limit was just too low and required people to invest time and money in order to just shoot the guns that were already fine and they were used to shooting in Production, 45oz was just a bad ceiling in the first place and production-weight+4-5oz could have solved that easily. Having people spending $$$ to cut up their Shadows and Tanfo's etc to play in CO was just wrong... 2. The slide-lightening thing being allowed in Production IMO is clearly a nod to "Gucci Glocks" and allowing more peeps new to the sport to "run what they brung", I'm on-board with that honestly, but IMO this should have been squarely applied to polymer-framed striker-fired guns only, because that's what is being addressed and easily available in the aftermarket, allowing things like that for all the guns in Production that don't even really have the same affordable options in the aftermarket, well, makes it way less "Production" than it already is. Then, 59oz max weight for Production just seems ridiculous, arguably the Shadow 2's and Stock 2/3's etc are already too heavy and are leaning towards "race guns", I think there needed to be a ceiling, boat-anchor heavy probably isn't it. All in all, IMO the new rules just seem to me like the laziest easiest way to go about allowing more new shooters/guns, and heading towards doing away with equipment checks... If "leveling the playing field" was really the goal, Power Factor is what really needs to be addressed, because clearly there exists an advantage for those who reload vs those that don't and buy their ammo at a store, if minimum power factor was closer to 140 or more like off-the-shelf stuff, it would be a lot fairer, sooner or later I predict that'll change too...

Blah blah blah, new rules, blah blah blah. Never mind

He's not wrong lol

The worst thing about the MPX (due to their proprietary nature) is possibly having to deal with Sig if you're unlucky enough to have something turn up or go south that requires involving them. It's not like they're jerks or their CS is bad, it's not. It's just that they're a big company that sells A LOT of guns to unseasoned shooters, therefore they're very much one of the "you'll have to send it in" type of companies to deal with, and they don't exactly have their "hand on the pulse" as far as aftermarket parts and how the MPX is being dialed for competition use, so you'll have to return it to fairly "stock" before you send it in or they're likely to blame your setup/components... lots of the bigger companies are like that though honestly. That said, besides their cost ($50 if you're lucky), the MPX magazines are one of the best things about the platform. They're made by Lancer and actually rock as far as magazines go (even with +10/11 extensions like most of us around here run them). In the end they're really only about $15-20 more than Glock OEM 33rd mags, but they do actually run better and are less hit or miss than those (particularly with extensions). And, I guess expensive magazine is a relative term, because I've seen plenty of $130+ 2011 mags not seem to be able to make it through a stage hahaha!

Yeah, the MPX's height over bore can be wonky to deal with sometimes with certain things, plenty of guys aren't even aware that it's different from a standard AR platform... You could possibly try a "1 o'clock mount" like Daniel Defense makes (but it'll probably mean having to pic mount the 507 which could get more weird because it'll stick out a lot)..? For me, I tried an offset sight and in the end didn't really find it more helpful than: #1. just turning the gun and awkwardly staying behind the dot (sometimes taking the gun off my shoulder) ... not ideal, but if the dot is in the right place not being in-line with the bore isn't a huge deal (partly because the MPX shoots so soft), #2. "bumping shoulders" where you move the stock to your left shoulder (right-handed shooter) while your strong-hand remains on the grip/trigger and your support-hand comes down to the magwell like it's 1989 for a sec and put the dot in front of your other eye, or #3. just swapping over to weak-side/opposite-handed and putting the dot in front of my other eye... #2 is consistently the fastest and "best" for me when I actually remember and execute it correctly lol, I really need to practice it more lol!

How does dry fire ruin a mag? Do you mean by repeatedly dropping them? CZ-USA has both the 11155 (17rd) and 11161 (19rd): https://shop.cz-usa.com/cz-products/pistols/magazines/full-size That said, the nickel one's are $43 vs the $25 Mec-Gar MGCZ7517AFC ones which are also OEM depending on which gun you get, available here: https://benstoegerproshop.com/mec-gar-cz-sp-01-shadow-2-9mm-17-round-magazine-mgcz7517afc/ or here: http://gregcotellc.com/cart/cz-factory-mecgar-actmag-c-173/cz-75b-cz-85b-cz-75-sp01-cz-shadow-2-17-rd-9mm-mgcz7517afc-p-591.html IDK if the nickel ones are any better except maybe prettier?

I only have experience with the 150gr “action pistol” and 130gr PCC-specific stuff... but by the numbers listed on Federal’s site, the 124gr stuff works out to 130pf so that stuff looks worth a try if you can find it...

Not an extension, but for what it costs it might do the trick (5” barrel + shroud): http://wilandusa.com/ar-pcc-llw-barrel-9mm/

I also agree. IMO 150gr isn't ideal in the CZ barrels, 124gr groups much better for me too. That said, the Syntech 150 stuff isn't horrible by any means, and for those of us that don't roll our own, how soft it shoots is worth the tradeoff IMO.

I have one built from their stripped lower and their complete 16" upper... It's great, and not "just for the money". FWIW, Foxtrot Mike licensed their lower design to Wilson Combat and a few other higher-tier "names" out there, which they then slap their logos on and then sell for a bunch more money... so that says something. IMHO probably the best option out there for getting into the PCC-thing.

I've shot just over 4,000rds of it, good stuff, really soft shooting and one of the best options out there for those of us that don't reload. FWIW, try to catch it on sale and buy as much as you can afford when it's in-stock, because it sells out quick (sometimes days, but usually within hours).

IMO, one could/can, using the CGW parts, without a doubt get an SP-01Tactical w/ FB+decocker close to a non-FB S1/S2 (maybe close enough for some). But, it'll cost you, because you'll more than likely have to do springs, hammer, and the short-reset kit to get it there (I did it to a P-01 I used to have). It'll end up being a very nice gun, that'll get you far. That said, you'll never really be able to get the trigger-reset as short, or the pull quite as nice as a non-FB non-decock gun... and if you ever shoot the non-FB non-decock versions, you're probably going to wish you'd put your money into that vs the FB/decocker gun. If you already own the Tactical, I'd say just upgrade/swap the springs, maybe look up some of the polishing threads, stop there, and shoot the crap out of it... If you haven't bought the Tactical yet, I'd say pick up an SP-01 Shadow or S2 depending on what you can swing (they've literally never been more affordable then they are right now with CZC dealing the S1's for $750, S2's $1050, for a loooong time you couldn't get an S1 for less than $850 or S2 for less than $1200 if you could even find one)... vs around $600 or more for a new Tactical. You'll be used to manually decocking the hammer in no time

IMHO, I think IDPA, while no doubt very much a gun-game, still tries to be perceived as being much more "real world" then the other gun-games, but the problem is their rules don't truly reflect that. IDPA really needs to take a look in the mirror so to speak, and be honest about whether it really/truly wants its rules to reflect being more on the "real-world tactical/EDC" side of the fence, or the "competition/game" side... because for a while now, many of the IDPA rules don't make a clear case of them really going one way or the other... or maybe better yet, just allow both types of ethos to co-exist with rules that can allow individuals to choose either and/or both? It seems to defy logic that a few of the most popular IPSC/USPSA Standard/Production pistols that are actually based off "Service Pistols" can't play in IDPA Enhanced Service Pistol because they're a few ounces over 43ozs, and therefore, overly "Enhanced"..? And in "Stock Service Pistol" where more or less the only things "Stock" about the guns is how they appear on the outside, a guy with a 24oz Glock 19 that he shoots and carries everyday because that's what he can afford, has to shoot against a guy with a slicked-up gun that weighs almost double what his does and was purchased solely because it's under 43oz and was specifically designed for IDPA SSP, even though it hasn't been carried or used by an LE Agency or Military Force in "Service" in decades, if ever..? IDK, but I don't buy any of the BS about IDPA trying to keep out the "race guns", because they're in it, they've been in it, and their current rules allow them. I say make it "run what ya brung" and just tighten up and loosen the division rules accordingly so they're more fair: lower the overall weight for SSP to keep it more "stock" (the OP's 34oz suggestion seems reasonable) and allow one to decide how they want to get there if they so choose (i.e. shoot a 34oz pistol, or say, let a Glock guy keep his light attached, etc), and up the ESP weight to 47oz so the popular IPSC/USPSA Production guns can play too... more shooters at matches is better for the sport, and just leads to bigger and better matches!

I totally get this. For me, large hands as well, the problem is both guns feel good with both style grips lol! With the old S1 I tried every single grip out there before settling on the factory rubber palmswell ones (Lok Palmswell’s weren’t available yet back then). I got the Lok palmswells with my S2 when I ordered it, and think I’m sticking with those (but I could totally run it with the thin aluminum ones it came with too). For my hands though, on both Shadows, the thinner ones make the guns feel a little faster to handle, dropping mags and manipulating the controls on the gun is super easy, and if my support-hand lands right it’s like it’s in a vise... but the thicker palmswells naturally point better, and even if I get a bad support-hand placement out of the holster, I still have plenty of real estate to maintain a solid grip, though I’ve got to be deliberate to drop mags every time (big hands, short thumbs)... It took a bunch of draws on the timer for me to finally decide on the thicker palmswells... the thin ones feel great though, but the clock doesn’t lie. After just dry firing the S2 for the last couple days around the house, the weirdness/newness of it is already going away, the weight will probably take a little longer to get used to (it might literally weigh more than like half what my PCC does )