ck1

Looks like Angus doesn't think it's a horrible idea either... BOOM: http://www.czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=44081.0

Yes, kinda like the 40P, think STI Tactical vs. an Edge, or maybe the Springfield Operators with the half-rail instead of the full-rail... I know it's kind of splitting hairs, due to my location I just end up shooting IDPA more often than USPSA and tend to prefer the feel of the SP-framed Shadow over the 75 Shadow, this would be ideal for me.

(notice the abbreviated/shortened rail/dustcover)

Was looking for something and came across a few pics of the Combat II today and they got me thinking... Why did it never go into production? Anyone know..? (I know it's a small contest, but if IIRC Adam Tyc only used one to edge out Dave Sevigny in a little match called the World Shoot a few years back...) I've owned both the SP-01 Shadow (full-dustcover model) and 75 Shadow (short-dustcover model), and while both are fantastic, IMHO the Combat II would really be the best of both worlds, a little faster handling, and with grips on the lighter-side likely able to make weight and be legal for IDPA, but with that little extra mass out front to have a closer feel to the SP-01 framed guns which IMHO track shot-to-shot like no other... I don't know, the 75 Shadow seemed to come about from CZ Custom answering the cry from shooters for a Shadow that would work in USPSA and IDPA, and I'm guessing they seemed to have sold really well considering how fast they made numbers to get approved. Why not give us a third option in Shadow-land, seems they'll just end up with another winner... Attached a poll, who knows, maybe someone with some influence with CZ will take notice... If you've never seen one, or have no idea what I'm blabbing about: CZ Combat II (notice the abbreviated/shortened rail/dustcover)

+1. IMO it just shows you're putting in your work. Maybe get it Hard Chromed if it really bothers you, HC guns almost never show too much wear. It's funny, with nice guitars guys actually spend LOTS more to get ones that have been made to have that "relic" or worn in look as it looks so much cooler... I kinda think it works the same way with guns.

These are vids for Tanfoglios, but they're virtually identical to CZ's so these can be helpful, were for me anyway... http://henningshootsguns.com/tech/tech.tanfoglio.frame.assembly.html http://henningshootsguns.com/tech/tech.tanfoglio.upper.assembly.html

I had a m&p pro with the apex kit and I own xdm with a custom shop trigger job. IMO the sa triggers on the cz shadow, polymer guns with kits and 1911 are all usuable triggers, but for production the cz was just plain easier to shoot, it fits my hand like a glove and i am noticebly more accurate with it. I sold the m&p, the xdm is a nightstand gun and I compete with the cz. I personally like the design of the CZ better then the 1911, I dont like the grip safeties and I like the large fram area to put your thumbs on the CZ due to the internal slide when using the "thumbs forward" grip, imo the only thing the 1911/2011 series guns have on the cz design is a plethora of manufacturers, parts, and smith support. +1, me too. I've had no XD's, but have had a few different M&P's; 1 with an Apex kit, and a couple with full-on custom trigger jobs that put the Apex drop-in stuff to shame. I've had a few 9mm 1911's too, the most recent being an STI Trojan that's trigger was pimped out with an SVI trigger, EGW fire-control, 15lb mainspring, and Konig hammer... I decided I prefer the CZ's ergos much more as it allows for more support-hand on the gun and seems made for a high thumbs-forward grip. IMHO a Shadow's SA pull is as good or better than the best 1911 out there... but really it's the 9mm round that seals the deal for me. In 9mm, 1911's are a headache, CZs run like steel Glocks.

You're pretty much describing the original VZ grips that were available for CZ exactly, think they're called "tactical diamonds" these days. They're slightly thicker (and better shaped IMHO) than the thin AL grips and are very, very grippy without being too harsh. FWIW, I'm a fan of Larry Davidson's "Shredders" on 1911's, and since the VZ Diamond Backs are probably the closet thing to that available for the CZs, a set is in my future... Give me a holler if you decide you want to get rid of them...

Nice

I know, I lucked out. It's got the beaver-tail and ambi safeties that I prefer so if anything I've got the lower-half to a potential 75 Shadow... reminds me, anyone know if It'd be legal to just add a Shadow top-end and shoot it in Production and IDPA SSP..?

Newest CZ, for $450 with less than 200 rds through it I couldn't resist... way more "blinged out" than any gun I've ever had before but it's kinda growing on me. Did a quickie trigger job with some 400 grit hitting the sear and removing about 98% of the hammer-camming and did sights, trying to lay off the aftermarket stuff and just flip it towards a new Shadow once christmas is passed, but honestly don't know if I'm willing to wait that long or if I need to even go that route. Been shooting Glocks exclusively for the last year nearly, and coming back to the Czech-side is like going from a 1987 Chevette to a Ferrari, even with the FPB in place, the reset is still on par with a Glock 3.5 connector and those of us who've owned/shot Shadows are spoiled and maybe partially OCD, take a step cback and there's really nothing too bad about the B-model guns at all.

FWIW, the Duty Ones are available with bushing-barrels too (in fact that's what most of the usual suspects like Shooters Connection, Dawson's, Brazos, etc. order as they know the rules in our games), the bull-barreled ones are out there though, so I could have been more specific. Also, in all honesty I need to amend my earlier comment: having owned and shot a few Trojans, and also having shot a few Spartans, between just those two, I'd say just get a Spartan... IMO as a Trojan owner the only thing better about it is the under-cut trigger-guard, otherwise, the Spartan is just as awesome. Especially in .45 (more so than 9mm or .40), the Trojan's ramped-barrel isn't really worth as much as one might think function-wise, and the STIppling isn't much worth raising a fuss about... That's why I mentioned the Duty One, and for a couple more hundred there's the Sentry as maybe a better option. Those guns offer things that are a cut above what the Spartan offers, the Trojans really only offer the ramped-barrel and under-cut trigger-guard, and the Spartans and Trojans are put together and fitted equally as well IMO from the several I've handled.

Most of your decision depends on what YOU are looking for in your new blaster, if I could add anything I'd mostly just remind you that in the grand scheme of things, with ammo costs, match fees, gas, even time-off to shoot, the gun is the cheapest part, don't let a mere $200 sway your decision. While many of us don't have the ability to spend exorbitant amounts on these things like some, dropping $1k+ on a "toy" isn't small potatoes, so get what you'll be happy with without wishing you had spent a little more. That said, my opinion only here, forget about the finish, HC adds $300 and is really just bling, get the better quality gun and hard-chrome it in a season or two when the finish $$$ doesn't sting so much, besides AGW does STI's HCing anyways and it's cheaper to just send it straight to them then buying it as an option. If you're into fixed sights and are ok with a rail, the Duty One is actually the best deal as you get a Trojan's nice features like undercut trigger-guard, etc. plus ambi's and frontstrap checkering for around $150 more. Otherwise, if you can spend $1k, get a Trojan, if you can't, get a Spartan, simple as that, both are fine guns.

ck1 - I think you mean extractors, not ejectors. Yup.

Some of the more recent Glocks have MIM ejectors instead of whatever type they used to use... whether MIM or not, if they work, they work, thing is the newer MIM ones don't seem to be machined or fit exactly quite the same way as the older ones as with all of my trouble-free Glocks the ejectors will fall right out of the slide and into your hand just by tapping on the slide after you've removed the spring-loaded bearing thingy and striker block/plunger and spring, many of the newer ones don't do this until after they've seen some real use. My newer Glocks with the MIM extractors work fine now after some weird early extraction behavior, as after they've seen some rounds their extractors have loosened up and will now do this (fall out) as well. If yours doesn't, you could take it out and give the top and bottom of the extractor a few passes over some 600 grit and/or stone until yours falls freely as described... might fix you right up, might not, it can't hurt and IMO is probably worth a try... Good luck.

Know wha'cha mean, it's just that after going from an SP-01 to a 75 Shadow, I found I really missed the SP-style frame's weight bias more than I thought I would... if I could set-up an SP-framed Shadow to work in both games without having to use the crappy 10rd mags plus all the other changes it usually takes to get to IDPA weight I'd be psyched. Don't get me wrong, the 75 Shadows are really great for IDPA, I'm just one of those who was hoping for a Combat 2 instead, the way the nose-heavy SP-framed guns handle and drop back on target is second to none IMO...

Stu, very nice. I'm curious if you think the Tripp install might take off enough to bring it down to IDPA weight with only having to go to plastic grips..? If you've got a scale handy, I've got a request... let us know what that sucker weighs w/ an empty mag and w/o grips now...

Ha! At first I thought this thread was going to say Glock was going to let guys exchange their problem Gen4's for Gen3's that work properly... Considering the Gen4's have been out for 2 years and that they're still putting out new RSA's, revised ejectors and such (which is expensive and 180 degrees from what they probably had in mind with Glock's history of parts sharing/interchangeability), I'm starting to wonder when they may hit the tipping point of where it makes better business sense to shut down the plagued Gen4 design and focus on getting a better working Gen5 to market.... sheesh.

Yes, they're kind of a lot different... The Sevigny Comp sights have a "bolder" rear sight that presents more of a traditional-ish "block" to the shooter, which to my eyes, makes the notch seem deeper and more crisp as compared to the Warren version's "wave" profile. I believe the concept of the "wave" is that it's supposed to obscure less of the target which some shooters/eyes may like better... again, to my eyes, crisper = better, so I much prefer the Sevigny rear's bold, uncomplicated "block" profile, YMMV. The other difference is the Sevigny rears have a squared-off notch instead of the "U-notch" the Warren sets have. Also, the Sevigny Comp front blade is thinner, .115" compared to a .125" with the Warren sets, this makes for larger "light bars" and more daylight around the front blade, again, my eyes find the skinnier front more crisp, YMMV. There are plenty of guys who dig the Warren sets, they're better than most out there for sure, having tried both I solidly prefer the Sevigny sets, everybody's eyes are different so it's subjective... One thing I'd point out though is the "U-notchs" seem to work best and be designed more for guys who like a dot or FO in their front blade, think the idea is for one's eyes to be able to match up the round dot/FO in the round hole, since I prefer a plain serrated black blade I'd guess my eyes do better matching up the right-angles of a squared-off notch and blade, once again YMMV.

Light-strikes from using a reduced-power-firing-spring is just something that is going to be inevitable unless you move to sticking to stuff loaded with Federal primers exclusively. You can gain a measure of added reliability against potential light-strikes by using a lightened striker with the reduced-power spring, but again, if you're looking for 100% reliability it means that the reduced power striker springs must be used in tandem with Federal primers or of course just going back to a stock striker and striker-spring and dealing with a heavier trigger. FYI/FWIW, Federal Champion like guys get at Wallymart DOES NOT have easier to set off primers than WWB, the only thing "Federal-ish" about it is the name, I have it on pretty high authority that it's the same ammo that used to be sold as"Blazer Brass"... that means hard-ish CCI primers (and possible light strikes with reduced striker springs).

That "something else" will most likely be a a trigger-return-spring or possibly an extractor and/or extractor-spring so it's good to have those around, though you're right, changing either at a match is kind of pushing it...

WWB = Winchester White Box, as in the 100rd "value packs" from the local Wallymart. My $0.02 to this thread is this: While it certainly sounds like a classic example of your wife "limp-wristing" the gun now and then, as a guy who tried 4 different Gen4 9mm's and experienced all sorts of different problems with them after putting at least 1k through each of them (about 5k through one of them)... My opinion is that the Gen4's engineering is f'ed up, whether it's the recoil assemblies, the extractors, the ejectors, or all of the above, I'm still seeing threads about issues with them, and personally mine gave me all kinds of headaches I've never experienced with owning 10 different Gen3 specimens... and Glock Inc. seems to be still tinkering around trying to figure it out fully which isn't very encouraging. IDK, it's such a simple design that it could even just be the newer/different/stiffer polymer they're using with them, but their timing isn't the same and the Gen4's just tend to F' up a lot more than what most of us long time Glock guys are used to... Honestly, it's not just the 9mm's either, 3 guys in my agency went back to their old Gen3 22's after getting too many hiccups while practicing for our yearly qualification, and this is with full-house duty JHP's... While I don't exactly love them, if she really needs a smaller grip, I'd see how she does with an M&P Pro with the small backstrap...

Word, pretty much nailed it. Maybe the only thing I'd add (and that he probably just forgot to mention) is adding the factory extended mag release (Glock OEM part# 1981), the few mm's of extra plastic matter more than one might guess... Also, I'd second what was said about the reduced-power striker-springs requiring Federal primers exclusively (and sometimes a lightened striker too)... if one can just manage to deal with a half-pound heavier trigger-pull, then the stock striker and spring will work every time and is far less of a headache. A SS, tungsten, or whatever guide-rod isn't really a necessary change either IMO, you can just pull the plug off the front of the stock polymer guide-rod and run it un-captured, Glock frames are designed to flex a little under recoil and the polymer guide rod is part of the original design, changing that to a metal one just to gain a half ounce of weight doesn't seem quite worth it to me.

CZ, just plain easier to shoot well and does one more favors (a heavier all-steel pistol and trigger 100x as good will do that). I've got lots of experience with both platforms and I'd say mastering a Glock's single all-the-time trigger-pull is 1,000,000X harder than mastering a Shadow's DA pull IMO. Honestly, a Shadow's DA pull is on par with a super-sweet revolver and better than most Glock pulls anyways...

I lean more towards where I think Brian is talking about than the classic meaning many think of when they hear "6 o'clock hold", maybe sort of an in-between I guess... Maybe call it a "modern 6 o'clock" or a sort of hybrid hold as I prefer all my guns to hit the same as my 9mm Glocks do with Warren/Sevigny comp sights (black serrated fronts, no FO's for me): POI is exactly at the the top of the front blade at 7 yards and POI moves slightly up from there as distance increases to where to hit a 6" plate at 25 yards, I simply put the plate on top of the front blade and it'll drop every time with a center hit (so maybe 3" - 4" above the tip of the front blade @ 25 yards). What I like about it is that a 6" target zone at 25 yards will appear small enough to where the front blade will completely cover it up and mean one has to guess, so the POI being a little high allows me to see what I'm trying to hit and really aim rather than just winging it. It's not something I have to think about, I put the tip of the blade where I want the bullet to go and that's about it, the "6 o'clock-ness" or whatever takes care of itself and seems to just happen naturally as distances increase without me having to consciously think about it as it's instinctual to look at the target then transition focus to the blade. I can't stand a "hold over" sight picture anymore, and now find it really sloppy and imprecise, that said, if I were still shooting FO's I might feel differently as it seems most guys tend to "drive the dot" only using the top of the blade for longer shots.