ck1

I have a hard time with the 3.5 connectors, they're lighter, but also longer and a lot more mushy with a longer reset. For me, according to the clock and my targets I'm actually better off with the 5.0 connectors, as it seems heavier, but shorter and more crisp > lighter, but mushy and long. I find I like them much more in Glocks that are also equipped with reduced-power striker-springs, but to run a reduced-power striker-spring 100% reliably it usually means you have to stick to Federal primers exclusivly and either load your own ammo or buy specific match stuff like Atlanta Arms, etc that utilize those. FWIW, since I shoot mostly factory stuff and have to stick to a stock strength striker-spring in order to avoid light strike issues, I've had good results with Ghost's 4.5 Ranger connector coupled with a stronger trigger-spring... The Ranger connector is pretty much the only "in-between" connector out there and coupled with a stronger trigger-spring you end up with about the same pull-weight or less as with a 3.5 connector, but it's still shorter and crisper more like a 5.0 connector. Seems Glock has a new "dot" connector to bring the heavier Gen4 triggers back/down to the same as the Gen3's, I'd like to get a hold of one of these to check-out and see if it's as good as or even nicer than the Ranger...

Which?

Cardiackid, There's no such thing as a "lighter" trigger-spring with Glocks, only stronger/heavier ones, often called a "competition trigger-spring" and/or a 6lb trigger-spring (IIRC a stock Glock trigger-spring is 5lbs)which is probably what came in you trigger kit, and they do affect (weaken) the reset strength as a side-effect of lowering the trigger-pull a bit. The way it works is: in a Glock the trigger return spring actually pulls in the same direction you do when pulling the trigger, so when installed, the heavier/stronger trigger springs actually are helping you to pull the trigger and move the trigger-bar rearward, on trigger-reset, the striker-spring does most of the work but if a heavier/stronger trigger-spring is installed it has more weight to overcome which leads to a weaker feeling reset. The side-effect of the reset weakening with a heavier trigger-spring is much more pronounced when using a 3.5lb connector instead of a 5lb connector, and becomes further amplified if one uses a reduced power striker-spring. IMO, this is one of a couple spring/connector "recipes" to avoid in Glocks: heavier/competition/6lb trigger-spring + reduced power striker spring = crappy, weak trigger-reset, so depending on what feels better to you, lose either the reduced power striker spring or the stronger trigger-spring and the stronger, snappy trigger-reset will return. A lightened plunger/FPS-spring has nothing to do with it, as long as the spring has enough strength to push the plunger/FPS down and back into place to block the striker each and every single time reliably, the lighter the better, as it just means less junk to feel on take-up when the tab on the trigger-bar presses up on the plunger to lift it out of the way so the striker is free to hit a primer. Hope this helps.

I'm with Flex, unless you are going to get the new barrel that's oversize and get it fitted I don't really see any point... I've never seen anyone get much of an improvement out of a drop-in, as said, with the drop-in's it's pure luck, one could actually lose accuracy in some cases if the fit ends up poorer than the factory barrel, and I have seen that once before. Guess if you're going to shoot lead and are concerned, that's one thing, but I shoot with many guys who shoot lots and lots of lead out of their stock barrels and have no issues whatsoever (they just clean 'em).

Thanks guys, from talking to a couple guys I shoot with, reading like 400,000 threads out there on the subject, and from the posts here, I ordered a set with the .215" tall front and we'll see what I get I guess... Seems the general consensus from what I've seen is that the .215" will probably end up a little high, more like a 6 o'clock hold, but I'd prefer that over hitting low which is what it seems a lot of guys end up with going with the .245"T option. Plus, FWIW, seems the majority of the info out there concerning where the .215" hits seems to come from guys who reload, going with heavier 147gr bullets loaded pretty light to get to around a 125ish-130pf load that meets minimum power factor requirements but is still softer shooting than most 115gr factory stuff, since in my experience 115gr rounds tend to print an inch or more lower than 147gr rounds loaded to around the same pf, hopefully I should be in the ballpark I'm looking for without printing too high, and definitely not printing low (which personally I hate). Worst case, I'll just be buying another front sight, but at least I'll have a reference to work off coming from my own hands. Thanks again.

Can anyone tell me which height Warren Tactical Sevigny competition front blade I should go with on a G34 shooting cheap factory FMJ like WWB or Federal Champion from Wallymart (.214" or .245")? I know there are lots of older threads concerning the front-blade-height question with these (yes, I've looked through them), but all of them list different shooter's results with their own specific loads (usually 124gr or 147gr loads around 129-135pf), and here I'm specifically asking for those to chime in if they have experience with or meaningful advice concerning the results I'd likely encounter shooting cheap 115gr FMJ factory loads (guessing around 130-135pf out of a G34)..? I'm looking for which option (.215" or .245") will get me closest to a POI right about at the top of the blade or maybe an inch high or so when perfectly aligning the tops of both the rear and front sights..?* *(seems most don't really consider that a true "6 o'clock hold" so I won't call it that, I don't want to use the term "POA=POI" either as that leads to even more confusion as "POA=POI" means right at the FO's dot to some, the top of the front-blade to others, and then a "grey area" too as it seems some have a different method they use and consider/call "POA" that's even different than those two...) Thanks in advance.

If you end up figuring out not going to slide-lock is as simple as inadvertently riding the slide-stop, you can try a regular 75B slide-stop which sits further forward than a SP-01's slide-stop (plus you'll end up with a spare slide-stop if you're ever unlucky and break one). I totally agree with what squirrels said about the sears too, they're not tool-steel like a 1911's, they're only surface hardened, so if you stone/polish them deep/hard enough to expose metal under the hardening you end you making them soft. I've found a little flitz or brasso on a q-tip and/or a few light passes with some 1000-grit is all it takes to clean them up and get them smoother, used with a competition hammer that's plenty of work to deliver a great trigger that'll last.

No doubt! It's funny, when the CTS .40 showed up I was like "$2000 for a CZ seems steep...", a buddy of mine who shoots custom built 6" 2011's and who's been imressed with my CZ's was like "a custom gun assembled by actual humans that'll feed the shorter rounds without the drama and comes with 3 mags that'll work and that won't need $200 tuned mags to be match-ready... you're crazy, that's a steal...".

Totally agree, Indian > Arrow. Also totally agree about sweating a few hundred bucks savings compared to how many dollars get burned up in ammo, range/match fees, sheesh, these days even gas driving back and forth to matches and such... Everything is relative, and really, for the price as compared to performance, even the top of the food chain CZ Custom shop guns are genuine bargains compared to many of the platforms being run out there... for the dollar, any of the CZ's are well worth it.

If you mean .030", I don't know if I agree, the difference in reset length between my SP-01 and Shadow is at least a 1/4" or more (.250"+)... that said, the Shadow and it's shorter reset hasn't instantly turned me into the second coming of TGO compared to how well I shot with my SP-01, and I can't say if the difference is unequivocally worth it's price considering what a Shadow costs over an SP-01 and comp hammer, but, it is nicer, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't hurt either .

DWFAN pretty much said it, the 85C's are the only other CZ's besides the Shadows born without a FPB (well, there's the TS' too but they're a different frame more suited to Limited) and that let's them deliver a cleaner trigger and far shorter reset than the FPB-equipped "B" CZ's. They trade-off is they use the older-style duck-tail frame as opposed to the higher-upswept-beavertail-type frame like on an SP-01/Shadow... for a lot of guys/hands that isn't a deal-breaker as they still feel better than most guns out there, but that said, I too prefer the upswept-beavertail guns and shooting a friends SP-01 is what got me off the fence and started down the CZ path, I say handle them both and then decide what feels/works better for you and your hands now that you're aware that there are two different types of frames (honestly, before I knew there was a difference I had no issue with the duck-tailed guns). There are a few 75B variants out there that have the higher-upswept-beavertail frame (the Limited Editions, some of the Stainless models, maybe a couple others), but they all have FPB's too so if you think you've just got to have the newer-style frame AND the super-short trigger-reset (and still be legal for gun games) it looks like you'll be saving for a Shadow. FWIW, remember that the reset distance even with the B-model guns is close to that of a Glock's and already considered pretty short at half the distance of a Sig's or H&K's reset length. The P-07's have what's called an "Omega" trigger-system instead of the traditional CZ set-up, and while they may deliver a slightly better pull out-of-the-box and Tge ability to switch from a decocker to a safety set-up, they also can't be enhanced with a CZC competition hammer, and if I told you that wasn't a big deal I'd be lying. Hear me now, believe me later, plan on installing the competition hammer, the difference it makes is just astounding... it's not just shorter hooks either, it's totally different geometry with a higher, raised sear-bed that let's the hammer "park" and sit in a different manner and while a stock hammer's hooks can be recut to get close, without the built-up sear-bed it cannot match or duplicate all of what the competition hammer does. A CZ upgraded with a comp hammer installed is about as good or better than the best 1911 triggers in SA and as good as the best revolvers in DA, it's the best $63 you may ever spend on a pistol ever.

The best option money-wise to performance IMO is an 85 Combat... they're born without firing pin blocks and at around $500 they're perfect as a base-gun to build on and a lot of gun for the money, down the road you can add a CZCustoms competition hammer and lighter hammer-spring and you'll end up with the exact same trigger awesomeness as a Shadow Custom, it'll be compatible with any of the current CZ 75-style and/or SP-01/Shadow mags and you'll be free to add different sights if you want and get current replacement parts easily. They're fantastic guns, they're fully ambi, and really, after the hammer/spring upgrade may leave you wanting for nothing. I've seen those inexpensive pre-B trade-in 75's out there too and have been tempted myself, but they take pre-B mags which are tough to get and expensive and some of their small-parts can be hard to come by... so best to skip them unless for nostalgia/collection reasons.

The SP-01's have to make 39ozs or under to be used in IDPA, period. While they're lighter than the 43ozs required to be used in ESP, IDPA considers their rail a full-length-dustcover, a no-no in ESP, thus making them illegal regardless of what they weigh... BUT, any gun that can be shot in SSP can be used in ESP, regardless of having a full-length dust-cover, so, if you can get down to 39ozs you're GTG in SSP or ESP, not 39ozs or less equals illegal for IDPA. I know, what an awesome rule, that rail, um, sorry, I mean full-length dust-cover is such an unfair advantage that it just had to be disallowed... sheesh, what's next rules keeping Sig's out (or any non-1911's) in case they start winning in CDP..?, oh wait...

You can "slow-build" (or if you wish "fast-build") a gun to Shadow-spec fairly easily and inexpensively... problem is Shadows are born without firing pin blocks and they are their own series of pistol unique amongst their CZ brothers, so even if nobody cares at local club-level matches, a non-Shadow brought up to Shadow-spec won't be legal at bigger sanctioned matches where they'll check to make sure tge FPB is intact and if not you'll get DQ'd and end up shooting for fun only and no score. It's actually so easy and cheap to turn a "regular" CZ into a "Shadow-spec" CZ that having to pay the $$$ premium just for the gun to be considered "legal" kind of seems idiotic, but rules are rules, and it falls under "disabling a safety device", IIRC the same ruling makes it illegal to convert a 80-series 1911 to a 70-series 1911 in SSTK, if it was born with a FPB it's gotta stay put and do it's thing, or else you're illegal and cheating as far as the governing bodies are concerned. What mostly makes the Shadows great and all that really enables them to have such nicer triggers than most proleterion CZ's is two things: their hammers, and no-FPB. Their hammers have different geometry than "regular" CZ's which leads to a light pull and the absence of creep. Standard Shadows have a hammer based on the older CZ Champion-series race guns, while Shadow Customs have a CZCustom's Competition hammer... good news is the CZC competition hammer will drop right into pretty much any DA/SA w/ safety CZ (75B, 85's, SP-01) and can be done DIY-style if you're halfway skilled, that get's one almost all the way up to where the Shadow's trigger is. The Shadows, without FPB's have a slightly cleaner pull (no FPB means 2 less springs to deal with) and do have a reset that's half as short as a FPB-equipped CZ (nearly as short as a 1911), but, that's really it, and keeping perspective the trigger-reset on a FPB-equipped CZ is pretty short as pistols go, on par with a Glock, no where near as long as a Sig's or an H&K's, so for many guys it's really not as big of a deal as it may be sometimes made to seem. The guys above who said that any of 'em will do and that it's really getting out and shooting that matters are exactly right... but if you are after an affordable path to near-Shadow trigger-awesomeness a $5 13lb hammer-spring, a CZC comp hammer, and a little tinkering will get you pretty darn close for low duckets, and with the FPB still intact you'll be legal. Maybe later if you want to find out what a no-FPB Shadow is like, get a $3 spacer from CZC (needed to replace the FPB-lifter) and pull your FPB... If you dig it, and just must have it that way ever after, only you can decide if you need to figure out how to score the extra $300-400 to pony up for the Shadow (that's what I did, had to:)).

Those can be a PITA to make the required 39ozs or under with, but if you can manage to pull it off you're GTG in SSP and ESP... but, to pull that off it usually means switching the grips to the factory plastic ones and then getting a hold of (3) 10rd mags which have plastic instead of steel making up the bottom 1/4 of their tubes and which can usually be hard to score, and always pricey at around near $50 a pop, then sometimes going even further and screwing around trying to figure out which small parts you can change to lighter pieces in order to scrub a needed ounce or so more, which can get annoying... especially after all that when some IDPA-rule-nazi-tactifool then comes up to you and tells you that SP-01's and Shadows are illegal for IDPA and then you have to go over it with them... For playing IDPA free of any BS nonsense, the newer short-dust-cover 75 Shadows are the way: http://czcustom.com/cz75shadowtsadablk.aspx Having owned and shot both, they're nearly identical, personally I actually like the looks of the railed SP-01 variants better as I find their mean RoboCop-ness looks very tacticool and their extra weight up front makes them drop back on target effortlessly, but that said, I actually prefer the 75 Shadow more now after shooting it a while, it's a faster feeling/handling gun that in my hands makes for quicker transitions and really it pretty much shoots almost exactly the same. Plus, it's USPSA Production legal now too, so you can do IDPA SSP running DA/SA and ESP cocked n' locked on Saturday without having to change out any parts, and then shoot Production in USPSA on Sunday, you could even load up the 19 rounders all the way, go cocked n' locked, and be competitive shooting Limited Minor as well if you're up to it... I seriously love the the SP-01-based Shadows, but if you have IDPA in mind the 75 Shadow is far less of a headache and will induce grins just as big.

Yeah, forgot about overall height, a 22rd 75-series .40 mag could be done, it'd just stick 3" past the bottom of the box . I think a $500 75SA in .40 w/ removed FPB, a CZC comp hammer and flat trigger could rock in L-10 up against $$$ S_I's. For capacity in regular Limited, the CTS seems to be the way.

Bet Henning W. could cook up some 22rd small-frame mags for the CZ no problem for half what a so-so hi-cap S_I mag goes for.

Yeah, a 75SA in .40 with a CZC comp hammer and CZC flat trigger could definitely hold it's own up against guns costing from 3 to 10 times as much. In Limited, being legal, one could toss the FPB, essentially making a .40 cal short dust-cover "Shadow". (thanks burningsquirrls, might've just found me a cheap way into limited )

Only reason one could say a Shadow would/could be considered inferior is because in 9mm it scores minor up against just about everybody else shooting major...having shot both platforms, if there were Shadows offered and supported in .40 any perceived advantage going to an STI/SVI would be purely subjective, honestly from a reliability standpoint (especially concerning feeding and mags), mechanically-speaking, a Shadow could then be considered superior as their frames/mags would have less physical hurdles to overcome as they've always been designed around the shorter OAL 9/.40 rounds (which is always a headache in 1911/2011 guns being designed and built intended for the longer OAL .45/.38super/10mm rounds). A better comparison would be an S_I vs. CZ TS .40 (or better still CZ CTS) as they're currently available and viable in Limited, but then it's still completely subjective as comparable CZ with reliable mags would nearly cost half of what a good S_I does with mags that are "tuned" and 100% GTG. I think the truth really is that CZ's are still very much an unknown quantity and people look at the hinged trigger vs. a straight-back 1911 trigger as a disadvantage having never felt a good one, and also that the 1911/2011 platform is the status quo. If most guys felt the awesomeness of a dialed in SAO triggered CZ in a gun with no FPB with all the excess pre-travel and overtravel removed they might think the 1911/2011 guns aren't as great as may think they are, especially with the improved feeding and without the need to buy $200-300 mags and become a mag tuning expert. Lots of guys run Tanfoglios (CZ-based design) with great success, but since these days the large-frame guns are the only ones around they have the same issues feeding the S_I's do, only with less support and options to address/cure it. When guys could get the small-frame Tanfo's and run them they seemed to have no trouble racking up wins against the S_I's... This topic does make me wonder why a viable Shadow in a .40 Limited platform still isn't out there... sometimes I feel like CZ & Co. wants to remain under the radar?

After literally years of trouble free function using Gen3's I was an early Gen4 adopter and regretted it having all kinds of issues with them. The SF grip and the other changes are not significant enough IMO to be worth the suspect, unreliable performance the Gen4 guns are known to deliver, sure there are some guys out there who've been lucky enough to get ones that run just fine, but the proportion of problem Gen4 guns out there seems to be greater than the proportion of all Gen1, Gen2, and Gen3 problem guns combined. Even now there seems to be a new theory being thrown around every week or so on the forums as to why the Gen4's are having so many issues without any solid consensus as to what's exactly up with them without any statement from Glock, and over a year since their release that's worth considering. When working a recent GSSF match as an SO I observed a scary amount of malf's involving many Gen4 guns compared to a single malf in a Gen3 over the course of the weekend, and the ratio of Gen3'd to Gen4's was probably 4 to 1, that's not coincidence. Plus, none of the factory Glock shooters have adopted them, strange to see a factory team not endorsing the supposed "new and improved" product when publicly representing the company in any sport...

If you're hitting high you might be better off than hitting low if you still want to go with the Harrison sight, you could shoot it then file down your front blade until POI is where you want, then just hit it with cold blue or bluing pen. You might end up liking the smaller "window" of the Bo-Mar though, even being shallow, as long as the front seems thin enough to your eyes with enough daylight on each side... Good luck.

Came across this great brief interview with TGO from The Firearm Blog guys where Rob quickly covers a few frequently discussed topics like sight pictures, grip pressure, and trigger-control... TGO shares his insight in such a casual "no big deal" kind of way, yet drops a good amount of info, covering stuff that's always helpful to be reminded about. Worth a look if you haven't already seen it: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/05/30/world-champion-pistol-shooter-rob-leatham-talks-about-pistol-shooting/

Sounds like we have similar opinions on sights , personally I hate the Bo-Mar rears and think their sight picture plain sucks, I also do not shoot well with FO fronts and much prefer an all-black serrated front blade. In the past I have found it possible to adapt to running a Bo-Mar by using a .090"W front, it's not horrible and works well once you adjust, but yeah, the notch is shallow and the lightbars around the front could stand to be bigger. If I was to do it again with a sock Bo-Mar rear I'd call Dawson and have them make me a crazy thin .080" front sight to get the same ratio as the Sevigny sights just in a smaller overall window. I actually do this now on my CZ Shadow by running a .090"W front with the Shadow's .125"W notched rear, it actually works great for me and I love the sight picture even with the smaller "window" do to the narrower .125" notch (vs. a .150" notch), but the Shadow's rear notch is deep like a Sevigny's is (nearly twice as deep as a Bo-Mar's), with the front-width-to-rear-notch-width ratio the same, after a while your eyes get used to it and they become just as fast as the wider pictured one's... in fact in my case it may be helpful as longer distance shots were always my Achilles heel and I've noticed lots of improvement, but maintaining the same "magic" ratio as the .115"/.150" pattern seems to be the key. Another route is: Dawson makes a $70 Bo-Mar-Style rear sight with a .130" rear notch (not sure if it's notch is any deeper though), paired with a .095"W front that would get you to the same ratio... That said, I think you're already on the right path choosing a Harrison Custom rear, even if you just got a stock one and used a .100"W front, as it offers not only a wider notch but the deepest notch too of rear sights out there that'll work on a Bo-Mar-cut gun (plus, adjustable rears break, I just prefer fixed rears), but even if he cuts one to a .150"W notch for you, you'll probably need to shoot it with whatever front you've already got to make the right guess as to what height front you'll need to get it to hit exactly as you want unless you get lucky and that .175"T sight is it.

I shot a friends gun with them installed and they were great. He has both the Sevigny front and rear, it's a .45 and they seemed to hit just about an inch or so above the top of the front blade, he said the POI varied from exactly the top of the front blade to maybe 2" above (slight 6 o'clock hold) depending on what gr/pf load he was using.

Because the decocker guns have FPB's. I read up a lot on this subject earlier and it seems the non-FPB-equipped pistols (like Shadows or pre-B 75's) like any other inertial firing pin designs were never designed to be carried or holstered when at half-cock. The half-cock notch in a non-FPB inertial firing pin gun design is intended to be and included as a safety feature and should be treated as such, not as an alternate carry/start option.