ck1

I run the same. Great pic. +1. I've run the same ratio with a tighter "window" on my CZ's (.125" rear notch & .090" front) that kicked ass too, but the CZ rears only come serrated, the plain non-serrated Warren/Sevigny rear is subtle genius IMHO and wins hands down. Crisp, uncomplicated, almost downright elegant in how simple (though effective) it is.

I'm a fan of and one who practices the "one gun" ethos too, and that has led to a greater appreciation of the classic G17. After owning more than a few of both the 19's, and 34's as well, I ended up finding that the 17 is the best of both worlds and can do it all (at least for me). There's lots of chatter out there on how the 19 is the "all-around" champ, but it kind of depends on one's particular hands IMO, as I feel the differences in finger-groove spacing between the full-size and compact frames is a WAY bigger deal than the 1/2" of grip/barrel in overall size. The first finger-groove on the compact-frame 19's is too tight and uncomfortable for MY hands/fingers, so I prefer a G17, other people with different hands/fingers I'm sure might feel differently. For carry, if you can hide a 19, you can hide a 17, in my case I now carry using the innovative Raven Vanguard 2 worn AIWB, so even a 34 is easy to conceal... Don't get me wrong, I like the balance of the 34's, that bit of extra metal out front does feel/work pretty good, but I'm not sold on the longer sight-radius really making much of a difference at the distances we shoot (<30 yards). The size of the 19 is great too, but I'd rather have the 17's dimensions if it only means an extra ounce of weight. I consider the Glock trigger set-up a wash too, as it takes 30 seconds to swap a connector and springs, and I stick to the stock striker-springs as I tend to think willfully making a Glock potentially unreliable just to take maybe a pound off the pull weight is kind of foolish when there are less reliable platforms to run that offer a lot more upside in trigger-quality-race-gun-performance if that's what one is after... The choice is real subjective, they're all about equal performance-wise in my book (it's the Indian not the arrow), but the 17's are the happy medium IMO for a dude who wants to shoot matches and carry the same gun. Hell, even though mine wears all-black Sevigny Competition irons, I slap on a rail-light and use it for armed security work too. My only real preference when it comes to Glocks between the models is that I think the Gen3 RTF2 guns were the best they've ever put out to date, the better grip translates into real performance gains the average shooter can notice (JMHO).

+100. I cannot stand the regular Shadow safeties. IMHO it's almost like they were engineered to be the perfect profile to absolutely suck for guys who've spent lots of time with Glocks and/or 1911's; they're too low for one's strong-hand thumb, and they stick out too much, so the f'up one's support-hand. I would like to try the thin-safeties at some point if they're ever back in-stock anywhere, but the difference the SP-01 or 75/85 safeties make is huge. It's a shame CZ or CZ Custom doesn't offer the Shadows with the different safeties from the jump, as it seems there are so many of us changing the stock ones out...

Weird, IDK? Stu will be along to enlighten us in no time...

Did the previous owner change out the safeties? The "D-type" safeties which the SP-01 based guns use are different than the "thumbler-type" that the 75SA/85 Combat guns use, using the wrong type, while they might sort of work, might lead to the loose sear-cage condition you're describing.

+1 same here. After trying most everything under the sun available, I eventually came to the conclusion that the things I don't like about the Glock's trigger can only be truly overcome by shooting a different platform that's blessed with a different trigger action/system... I like the stock springs w/ the "dot connector" in a 3rd Gen Glock, it's lighter than the stock connector, almost the same as the 3.5/4.5 connectors, but still crisp without any of the mushiness the those connectors add, and feels just as short as the stock connectors too.

I've been wondering about this for a while too... IMO, the SP-01 "diet" and having to make SSP weight (39ozs) for playing IDPA has always been kind of dumb. The max weight rules for IDPA ESP seem to be pretty much what they are in order for 9mm 1911's to have a place to be used, and the "full dust cover" caveat is there so a "race gun" STI Edge cannot. That said, in the case of an SP-01, what IDPA considers a "full length dust cover" is designed as, and what most consider, just an integrated accessory rail. The weights for divisions/classes makes sense, the "dust cover rule" is arbitrary and subjective, like saying all guns that are not black finish are not allowed. In keeping with the "spirit" of IDPA (using a defensive/duty weapon rather than a "race gun"), a rail makes sense (more sense than a notoriously finicky 9mm 1911 IMHO). The logic in excluding a defensive/duty platform in stock form, and requiring them to be altered to be allowed, is real hard for me to discern. As far as the Tiger Team's lack of updates, or movement on the matter, they should have addressed this issue by now, it doesn't take all-day to recognize sunshine as they say... Maybe it's a conspiracy..? The Edges are the most popular Limited platform in USPSA/IPSC, and they're not allowed in IDPA, maybe the popularity of the SP-01's in USPSA/IPSC Production is why they are excluded as well..? Not bashing IDPA here, it just doesn't make much sense. C'mon Tiger Teams, let's make some improvements already...

I had SS 75 that with a 11lb spring I had to cut coils off to get it to sit on the guide-rod without a bunch of "snaking" (SS75's are "old school" with no guide-rod hole up front). Think I took like 4 coils off to get it to sit/work right; felt like it ended up maybe as soft as a 9lb spring... Shooting factory 115gr stuff it was just awesome, flat as hell, like a freaking stapler, good fun. YMMV, try it...

I don't get polishing frame rails at all, doesn't make sense to me as you can't judge what has to be smoothed or relieved where or how much... It'll just smooth itself out where it needs it in a couple hundred rounds (and most likely run fine the whole time). I get the $.25 trigger/polish job, but even with that, Glock fire control clockwork is all stamped sheet metal and has as much to do with luck as anything else. One guy's "Brand X is the best" connector will be killer in one of his Glock and crappy in another, again we're talking cheap, mass-produced, sheet metal here with many variances, slightly different bends, slightly different levels of polish and rigidity, different "batches"... To use a guitar player's analogy: any big music store will have a wall with 25 different Fender Stratocasters hanging on it ranging from $100 - 5k+, made in the USA, Mexico, Taiwan, etc. - one of them may play better and sound better than all the others, sometimes it's the $100 one, sometimes it's the expensive one... IMHO, since they're all pretty much put together with the same randomness of parts fitting together, it has more to do with the luck or "magic" of one coming together "just right" more than anything else... Glocks are lot like Strats, you just try some different parts combos to see what works best, there's no real science to it, some are just better than others...

Unless you're planning on shooting Limited in USPSA (.40 is king, minor sucks as they say), I'd go Shadow. IMHO, with 2011's, it's not the guns that get pricey, it's the mags with the tuning and such, not to mention that they're tougher to get them truly reliable. The Shadows come out of the box very good, and with very little effort become great. Just be aware that an SP-01 Shadow is tough to get down to weight for IDPA, if you plan on playing IDPA a lot then the 75 Shadows are the way to go.

I don't buy that, I think I totally get what the OP is talking about; with a 12lb recoil-spring in my 9mm 1911 it feels like one of those "bullet-time" action sequences from the Matrix movies, slooooow... In .45 I'm not sure I've ever even thought about slide-speed beyond just springing them a little lighter to have 'em shoot flatter.

As others have already said, sounds like an f'ed up extractor. My CZ's have always run like sewing machines with 11lb or 10lb springs with factory stuff (mostly cheap Wallymart Fed Champion, WWB, or Sellir & Bellot). I have heard of guys having steel cased Wolf getting stuck in the chambers and extracting s**ty with CZ's, but I've even been lucky with that more than a few times...

I'm all for using as light of a recoil-spring as you can get away with in a 9mm 1911 to get the slide-speed feeling slick, and have had pretty good luck using a 9lb spring shooting 115gr loads running about 130-135pf. 115's have always felt snappier to me in CZ's and Glocks, and I think that helps in the 1911. IMO, the limiting factor on how light one can go has to do with how well one's gun feeds and which game; for SSTK where slide-lock reloads are undesirable and can be avoided I'd run a 7lb spring regardless of bullet weight at 130-135pf, but in IDPA, reloading from slide-lock a lot, even a 9lb spring seems to be pushing it when trying to get the suckers to chamber when dropping the slide (from slide-lock the stronger springs seem to be more reliable). I've recently been playing with the 9rd Metalform "Springfield" mags for IDPA (and the required slide-lock reloads), and so far, so good. They do feed better than anything else I've tried so far, so I think I might try going to a 8lb or maybe even the 7lb spring to see what I get...

Not 100% sure (but pretty sure), the safety shouldn't be able to engage with the hammer fully down and fully decocked... I'd think if it did then it might not be working and blocking the sear from moving (no bueno). That said, many engage at half-cock, I just prefer that they didn't, so I'd fit a new one more carefully. As far as swapping to a different style safety meaning a bump to Open, I've wondered about that, it is kind of murky..? The Rami-style come on the Adam Tyc models, so I'd guess they'd be ok on an SP-01 Shadow, but not sure about the 75 Shadows? The standard 75/85 style safeties come on the Sp-01's and Stainless 75 models with the same frames as the 75 SA's and 75 Shadows, so I'd think they'd be ok, but not totally sure really..? Anyone..?

As it stands, think I'm going to just pick up 3-4 of the 9rd Metalform "Springfield" mags to shoot IDPA with and then get 1-2 each of the couple other 10rd mags (Dawson's and Metalform "Ultra" mags) and try to see what seems to work best. I liked the way the Wilson ETM's and Tripp mags were built, but I experienced my fair share of nose-dives into the feed-ramp lock-ups with them, and had to tune both as well more than I hoped. The other day I loaded up one of my buddies 9rd "Springfield" mags into his Trojan 9 with the Gold Dot JHP's out of my carry Glock and tore through the full mag of 'em just fine... they're pretty blunt, so running those was impressive...

Been down the 9mm 1911 road a couple times before already and I'm fairly well versed/accustomed to the mag issues that go with it, but looks like I'm going to try it again as they're so fun to shoot... Planning on using it for ISPA ESP and sometimes SSTK (though I'll likely move to .45 for USPSA if I find myself getting more into it)... Over the last year or so I've been running into quite a few shooters have great success with both the 10td Metalform "Ultra" mags (same Dawson except for the base pads as far as I can tell), and even more so with the 9rd "Springfield" mags. Looking for thoughts on what is working for guys in their 9mm 1911's..? I've had lots of time with the 10rd Wilson ETM's and Tripp Cobra mags, but from what I've seen, I'm pretty much convinced that the Metalform mags with the bent-metal pseudo-feed ramp built-in is the more reliable way to go. The main difference I'm curious about is that the "Ultra" mags stack the rounds more forward (spacer in the back of the mag tube) vs. the 9rd "Springfield" mags putting them against the tube's back..? Thanks in advance.

+1. 11lb recoil & 13lb main (15lb hammer spring when not in a gun equipped with an extended firing pin) has worked worked 100% for me with everything from cheapo $10 a box Wallymart stuff to +P Gold Dots to my friends bunny-fart-probably-doesn't-make-PF reloads...

IMO, if you've got a CZ where the safety moves too easily and it bugs you, then there's really no other solution that'll really last other than coughing up $30 for the new part, and then fitting it how you want it (new left-side safety for ambi's). On CZ safeties there's a raised, square pad that sits towards the left side of the frame and tucks up and under the sear arm the protrudes out of the top of the sear-cage/ejector-housing... In order to get a the safety/safeties to engage, you have to file off the front corner (or back corner, can't remember exactly without looking at it, just take your slide off and you should be able to see what I'm talking about...) of that pad so the safety can be raised and allow that pad to butt up against that sear-arm, blocking the sear from moving. So if one is patient, and resigns themselves to taking things apart and reassembling as many times as it takes, you can file off just a little each try until you get it to where with a fair amount of muscle you can force it to engage. Voila, stiff safety on and off, maybe stone it real quick to smooth things up (or not and just let it wear in) and that's it, you should be good. (IMPORTANT: make sure the hammer is back with the gun in SA mode as you're checking things out!) Anyone who's installed a competition hammer before probably already knows what I'm talking about here, but to get 'em to snick on and off with authority you've pretty much got to go slow, trying, and re-trying until it's right there. There's a fair amount of room to over file where the safeties will function and do what they should, but engagement won't exactly feel real positive, I've actually had a couple guns (and heard it's fairly common) with competition hammers that were where they allowed the safety to be be engaged with the hammer down in DA or at half-cock... Done as described above, there's no safety movement at all with the hammer down and engaging it has to be totally deliberate with the hammer back in SA mode. It's actually quite easy, but go to far and the part is toast so be aware and try more, and file less, before you go too far. (sorry for the any typos, long posts are a bitch on an iPhone) Hope this helps.

A few things I'd like to see changed (some mentioned already): (1) Increase the weight limit in SSP from 39oz to maybe 42oz (still prohibiting add-on magwells, stippling, and other accoutrements reserved for ESP) - an extra ounce or two isn't going to make an Expert into a Master, and there are actually more than a few off-the-shelf stock/service DA/SA guns that are on the line or just can't play IDPA due to their heft. Specifically, or as an example: CZ SP-01's (standard and/or Shadows) are quite popular in USPSA Production (which most of us play as well) which more or less mirrors IDPA SSP, and while they're heavier, they don't dominate over the lighter Glocks or anything else. Guys should be allowed to shoot whatever "stock/service" gun they like shooting... IMO the logic that a weight of more than 39oz compromises "the spirit of IDPA" concerning shooting only "carry guns" goes out the window here, as pretty much any/all full-size 1911's weighs more than 39oz, and obviously they're still considered "carry guns" or they'd be out too (instead of basically having CDP mostly to themselves). (2) While I'm not a fan of them, XD's should be allowed in SSP. Anyone of us who's familiar enough with stripping, or working on M&P's, and has seem how they work has to admit that other than the ATF calling them DAO, there isn't a whole lot DA going on (or more so than an XD's function), and they're allowed. (3) For rifles, or specifically DMG, 5.45x39 should be allowed - with what ammo costs these days, not allowing 5.45 when it's cheaper than 9mm, pretty much equal ballistics-wise to 5.56/.223, and becoming increasingly more popular, doesn't make any sense. Rifle ammo is expensive, so a more affordable (for the time being anyways) option might lead to more and more guys looking for more multi-gun type matches out of their local clubs, and more shooters = more competition = more fun. End tirade.

This is very encouraging to hear as I'm still on-the-fence about picking up a GP6 without the STI association (with all due respect to Robby's future venture). I spoke to STI last month and was told that dropping the GP6/5's from their line wasn't necessarily set in stone... was told there might be some news by mid August, so time will tell... The guns themselves are relatively inexpensive (especially considering their out-of-the-box trigger quality), but kitting out the platform for serious use with extra mags, holsters/pouches, and decent sights puts them in the same neighborhood as many other more ubiquitous choices. So for now, I'm still tentative and skeptical on taking the plunge...

Everybody's hands (and thumbs) are different... There are two other types of safeties that can be fitted to Shadows/CZ's: besides the the 75SA-style that come on the 75SA's and Shadows which sit lower and are extended, there's the regular 75/85-style which sit higher and more low-profile to the frame, and also the Shadow "thin-safeties" like are standard on the Adam Tyc models which are Rami-style and even more low-profile to the sides of the frame... For me, in MY hands with MY thumbs, I found that I do not like the 75SA-style safeties at all, and much preferred the feel of the 75/85-style (like how a standard SA/DA non-decock SP-01 comes), changing out the safeties on my Shadows made them much better for me. I'd like to try the thin Rami-style safeties too at some point if they are ever back in-stock to see if I like their feel even more. Seems I'm not the only one either as I've seen a few pics posted of other guy's Shadows with the safeties swapped out... Might be worth a try..?

I generally agree that a 13lb or 14lb recoil spring (leaving the striker-spring stock) will be fine with factory stuff and shoot a little flatter and feel a bit better... but, that said, when the softer recoil springs start to wear and go south, the pistol will start to pull the breech-face (and striker) further away from the primers while pulling the trigger leading to light-strikes or worse... Now, I'm not suggesting kaboom paranoia, it just seems like those light-strike issues tend to show up at super-awesome times, like half-way through a match . I just don't think fudging the margin of reliability in a Glock is worth the slight upside in most instances since most of the reason I like Glocks has to do with their reliability. IMHO there are other choices that are more forgiving to shoot well, and that have better triggers that I'd rather run if I was deciding to willfully compromise reliability is all.

IMO, after trying all the lightened strikers available and all the other ways to go down this road with factory ammo, with Glocks, unless you can load your own ammo, don't even bother with changing out any springs, they're bot to bad the way the are, leave them alone and concentrate on shooting your best. Shooting factory loaded ammo there is very little upside and lots of downside to going to marginally softer springs. There is already thread, after thread, after thread out there on guys experiencing light-strikes due to unnecessarily swapping springs, no need to add to the fray... Guys who roll their own can use and stick to Federal primers and then get away with reduced power striker springs, then of course go to softer recoil springs.

Ha! There's actually TWO other parts of the puzzle going on there that makes things even more confusing... It might be helpful to to attempt to clarify this nonsense further for any future CZers who may stumble across this thread looking for sight info...: As if CZ/CZC listing their sight heights in mm, and Dawson listing theirs in inches wasn't confusing enough... standard 75/85/SP-01's have a different rear dovetail location than the Shadow models. AND/BUT on Shadows specifically, there's also the fact that the CZC "competition/tactical" rear sights have a different rear height (changing the POA/POI) due to them extending further to the rear of the slide as compared to a Shadows "standard/factory" fixed rear, so that's another variable to be considered for some.

RIA's are great guns, IMO the only real negative is their odd-ball sight dovetail cuts. Due to the couple I've owned, and most of the one's I've handled, they honestly have me wrestling with passing on a very good deal on a like-new STI... As for the same money using one as a base gun (doing most of the work myself), I can can have an RIA with top-shelf EGW fire-control, Aftec, SVI trigger, G10 grips, and magwell.