ck1

Got to put about 150rds through a buddies Springfield Loaded 9mm 1911 today... had 5 or 6 malfs shooting 100 FMJ, just a bunch of issues with the box of 50 jhp. Couple things are happening to me at this point as far as observations go: (1) I'm getting more and more pissed at some of the IDPA rules, as if it wasn't for a mere 1.5-2ozs putting it over legal weight I'd be done deliberating and be just shooting a Shadow, as it's an actual" working gun" that really gets issued to actual "operators/agencies", it not being legal in stock form is starting to seem more and more ludicrous as I look for a substitute. (2) Starting to feel like a 9mm 1911 can be made to run for sure as a game gun shooting FMJ... but a game gun only, 'cause from what i've been seeing, as far as I can tell, a 9mm 1911 being able to run both FMJ and JHP and pull double duty as a "working gun" that's good for SD, HD or anything besides competition just seems like a stretch. I was leaning Trojan 9mm as there's a lot to like about a 9mm 1911, but that said, I got into competition shooting to sharpen up my skills for the real world and running a 9mm 1911 is starting to look as a "gamer" option only, I wouldn't carry one... I dunno, waiting to see what the new Shadow gets cleared for competition-wise as in my eyes thus far, that's the one a guy could shoot comp's on weekends with and then still load it up with JHP to defend his home and family with as well... Decisions, decisions...

About to pick up a new gun and have been trying to figure out if I should go with an adjustable or fixed rear sight? I tend to lean towards the fixed as it's one less thing that could possibly fail, and many of the sights I'm used to are available for a Novak-cut (Warren/Sevigny's, Heinie's, etc.). When it comes to the Bo-Mar adjustables I see no real apparent advantage, in fact, by today's standards the notch-widths are real tight and narrow, so what am I missing? The Bo-Mar's are obviously quite popular on the guns we use in our gun games so there's got to be something to that, but at this point in time does that have more to do with tradition than function? Seems just about everyone I know who runs the adjustable Bo-Mar-type ends up just turning them into a 'fixed" anyhow by hitting them with loctite once they're dialed-in, so again, what am I missing? TIA.

That seems like it shouldn't be so, my SP-01 with an empty 19rd mag and wearing VZ G10 grips and competition rear sight was 38ozs... You sure the scale you were using was tared out accurately?

You forgot to remove "the devil's slide-release", thought those extended one's are only for guys who like surprises.

blind bat, well, thanks for chiming in (and great taste in 9mm's), thanks for adding any info. Guess the first couple things I'll bother you about are: which do you think is easier to shoot well (totally subjective I know, but curious what your impressions are)? Also, could you share a bit more info on how both seem to be running if you've noticed anything else or have any other observations? Then finally, the obvious and obligatory in this case "If you could have only on which would it be"? Thanks a lot as I'm not sure there are that many guys out there you have both (especially considering how new the SDC Shadow is). I hear you on the reloading-thing, it'll happen soon, but probably not this year (besides the space, I've got an 8-month old and 3 other kids ages 6-11, so time is short too, having time to dry-fire and/or practice, let alone make matches, is hard enough these days). I'm not real concerned with where I'll fit in as far as USPSA is concerned right now as like I mentioned I don't have the oppurtunity to hit those matches as often as IDPA matches, I want to be able to play of course but how competitive I want to be is something for down the road, less than 3 years ago I'd never even held a real handgun, let alone shot one, so skills-wise I'm an SS classification in IDPA who should be able to make EX this year, but don't think I'll be storming through the ranks of USPSA for a while... Already this thread has been helpful as it's got me re-thinking and re-considering my first option which is just to bite the bullet and get the original SP-01 Shadow and just deal with the nonsense of making weight for IDPA as that gives me a platform that can participate and be competitive in 3 divisions without having to wait on how any of the approvals come down with the new SDC Shadow. On the other hand, moving to the 1911-platform seems almost inevitable as 3 years from now you can pretty much bet on me having at least one 2011 and a 550B so who knows..? Thus why I'm confused... Added a poll in case guys have an opinion on which to go with but don't feel like jumping into detail (though considering shear popularity I think the Trojan will end up on top regardless).

Justaute, thanks for your input. I'll say this, I'm leaning towards the CZ due to it's utility, likely all I'll have to do is put bullets into it and shoot, while the 9mm 1911 will be a longer story most likely... You bring up a good point too as part of me thinks jumping through the hoops to make 39ozs for IDPA SSP does bring the benefit of getting one a gun that can be run in both SSP and ESP without changing anything other than the starting position of the hammer on the first shot. Trigger-time = improvement, and that's really what I'm after. No go for the CZ in single-stack as it's born a double-stack, but yes a SAO Shadow is scary good trigger-wise and is a definite option if I'm to just end up shooting ESP mostly, but it also has the side-effect of making one illegal for USPSA Production (gotta remain DA/SA)... Leaning CZ but until the verdict is in on whether it's ESP only, SSP too and/or USPSA legal the Trojan 9 is still an option, thing is I've just seen so many people have issues with 9mm 1911's that I'm very weary... think I'm feeling out if it can be done, I've read lots of posts of guys claiming flawless performance with them, it's just that most 1911-guys will forgive/ignore a lot more than this guy (who's shot mostly boringly reliable G17's for the last couple years).

Trying to decide what's going to be my new 9mm and guess I could use some insight in case there's something I might not have considered... oh yeah, to work on the "Indian" more than the "Arrow" I've decided I'll be shooting the one I decide on for all of 2011 (excepting of course a some range trips here and there with whatever closely-related model smaller pistol from the respective companies becomes my EDC). I'm down to 2 guns: the newly released CZ 75 Shadow (aka short-dustcover Shadow) OR STI Trojan 9mm. FYI, I do not reload, due to my current living situation (young kids and no real space for a reloading bench set-up) I mostly tend to shoot lots and lots of cheap 9mm from wallymart (Federal Champion aka Blazer Brass 115gr or WWB 115gr). I know all about how 9mm in USPSA makes me shooting minor and am ok with that, but mostly I end up shooting IDPA anyways since usually the weekends USPSA matches are happening in my area (at the same range I tend to hit most IDPA matches, 45-60 min drive away), it means there's a closer IDPA match happening in a town right next to mine that's only 10 mins away (so due to having family-time I usually will end up doing that). Here's the deal as far as my experiences with the two canidates: I know 9mm 1911's can be a PIA, I'm an SO and have been to enough matches and seen enough guys run them to where I've witnessed many (maybe too many) of their issues first-hand, that said, doesn't mean I still don't want one 'cause they do shoot like a dream when they run (and somehow deep-down I have myself convinced I might be able to get mine to run since maybe I'm special or something). I've owned and run a CZ SP-01 that I upgraded and brought up to "Shadow Spec", thing was flawless through 3000+rds with very little cleaning or attention, I did really well with it and only got rid of it as once I got curious and removed the Firing Pin Block I didn't want to ever put it back in ever again (cleans up the pull a hair, but makes the reset dramatically better/shorter than a "B" CZ), so I knew I'd have to just pony-up and get an honest-to-goodness Shadow (Shadows are born sans-FPB's so they're legal, otherwise I'd be breaking the rules). The reason I don't already have a Shadow already is that the IDPA rules concerning them are "interesting" (annoying), you actually have to de-tune them somewhat and use crappy grips and such to get them to make weight to be legal, I'd prefer just to be able to shoot with whatever grips fit my hands or whatever else without feeling like a cheater or just not really using it to it's full potential like I'd like to use it, and due to some subjective/questionable logic from IDPA HQ making a Shadow work for IDPA can just be a chore. FWIW, I consider either gun to be about equal in potential accuracy in my hands so that's a non-starter IMO (although the lock-up of the 1911 design may indeed have the edge even though SP-01's/Shadow's are freakishly accurate for a production gun). Both guns cost about the same, though the CZ is probably at least a $100-200 cheaper when getting a whole set-up together (but that's not really a concern). So, here are some of the "Pros" and "Cons" I'm already considering, feel free to comment or add input as you see fit: http://www.stiguns.com/guns/Trojan5.0/Trojan50.php STI Trojan 9mm Pros - No drama concerning it's legality, ESP in IDPA, SS minor in USPSA (but that's it). HOLY AFTERMARKET! (I can change or customize it to my liking no problem, try different stuff to see what works best if I need to). Trigger: shortest reset available on the planet. Re-sale value (If I decide it's just not for me I won't lose a whole bunch and it'll take about 15-30 mins to get rid of it at a fair price in the benos classifieds). If it runs it'll shoot flat-as-hell and be super accurate. STI Trojan 9mm Cons - It's a shorter 9mm in a longer .45's body which takes a design that already needs some TLC into high-maintenance relationship territory. If Tripp mags don't work hopefully Wilson ETM's will, if they don't work hopefully Metalform's will, so on so forth, etc. Vague trigger reset (this is really a non-issue since it's so short but there's no real "snap" upon reset like one gets with a Glock or something). I'll need to I HAVE to get a magwell for $85-$120. I'm going to break the ejector and need another one at some point. http://czcustom.com/cz75shadowtsadablk.aspx CZ 75 Shadow Pros - Dubious legality at this point-in-time: Legal for IDPA ESP... maybe even for SSP too at some point, but waiting on USPSA Production approval. Known quantity: I've got lots and lots of experience with Glocks, and IMHO CZ's are all-metal Glocks from Eastern Europe, reliable with a capital "R" and simple operation. I shot the crap out of my SP-01 and it just yawned at me, one-hole groups at 15 yards were routine without trying very hard. Fast reloads, no magwell needed. Mags work! While sometimes expensive, mag issues in CZ's are rare (I've never had any or witnessed any ever). Trigger is as close to a nice-1911 as it gets with a "snappier" albiet ever so slightly longer reset that may work better for a recovering Glocker. Low bore-axis, slide riding in the frame is a great design, the grip shape is also very awesome for getting under the beaver-tail and really controlling the guns. CZ 75 Shadow Cons - Dubious legality at this point-in-time: Legal for IDPA ESP... maybe even for SSP too at some point, but waiting on USPSA Production approval. When it comes to aftermarket, if Angus doesn't make it at CZCustoms, then you are SOL. Poorer resale maybe? Totally worth a fair price to those who know, but there are easily more guys who own at least 10+ 1911's than those who know CZ's who maybe have ever even shot one... Ok, there's some more things to add, but you get the idea... Just looking to get some opinions from some real shooters to hopefully make the best choice. Oh, if you haven't shot both, please mention that, as it's very relevant as lots of guys just have no idea how good a Shadow or CZ with no FPB and competition hammer installed really is while many guys know lots and have lots of trigger-time when it comes to 1911's... Thanks in advance.

Nice.

I am having the hardest time not getting one of these yet... I promised my wife I wouldn't buy one until after the holidays but it's getting harder and harder, especially after reading posts like this... My only hope is that they'll make them in in SAO only too, as, if you've ever felt a CZ's trigger with no FPB with a comp hammer installed you know that it's pretty much like cheating.

Tried a different Wolff reduced power striker spring with my borrowed Glockworx lightened striker: zero light strikes through 300rds of my ammo du jour (Federal Champion ala wallymart). No lightstrikes, albeit delivered a mushy pull with a weak reset, sticking with the stock striker spring here but looks like it's a combo that can indeed be reliable if one wishes to try running it to get their trigger pull-weight down.

Red here. Switching sights means Glock slide upside-down on top of an oven burner for a minute (when wifey isn't around of course).

Thanks. It's funny what you said about the psychological consequences of not having a gun you know is 100%... after going on about how much I liked the 13lb recoil spring I've already pulled it out and reinstalled the ol' faithful 15, best to stick with what works.

Did some parts swapping, testing, observing, swapping, testing, etc. - it's without a doubt the reduced power striker spring throwing the wrench into the works. The brand new 13lb ISMI spring I was using is really only a hair lighter than the 15lb one I've got about 6000rds on, lock-up into battery is just fine with it (even with the stock power striker spring installed). So in my particular case the light strikes aren't due to the recoil spring being too soft or worn out (though that might be what's going on for the OP...). After all the swapping and testing I've come to the conclusion that if I'm going to risk sacrificing any reliability it's going to by running a 13lb recoil spring with the stock striker and spring, not going to the reduced power striker spring and lightened striker. With a fairly fresh 13lb recoil spring the chances of problems not returning to battery or getting a feed jam are extremely low even with a very dirty gun (almost not worth worrying about if I actually clean the thing), however, short of reloading and using your known-to-go-bang primers running the reduced power striker spring seems sketchy no matter which way you cut it IMHO. Truly this seems to be a YMMV sort of thing as evidenced by all the guys having good luck with the reduced striker-spring + lightened striker combo. Think in my case, having a slightly heavier trigger that's without question 100% reliable, has a better reset, and that I can still make shorter and more to my liking just works out better as a plan for me. Over time I'll notice the extra pound of trigger pull-weight less and less, and reliability remaining intact is more important to me. I'll say this: it's been a while since I've shot with a 13lb spring in the gun after switching to a 15 (over a year) and I was really surprised how much of a difference I noticed shot-to-shot as far as sight-tracking and the gun settling down is concerned, it's a change I'm going to make so I guess my tinkering isn't totally over with.

By any chance have you changed recoil springs to a lighter one? It's a shame that first impressions usually stick with us forever as those numbers you are getting seem very odd. That is alot of light strikes. FWIW I shot an indoor match last night. I used CCI primers and the gun ran 100%. I did change recoil springs... I ran a new ISMI 13 (I usually use a 15), really I was pleased with the sight tracking of the 13 more than anything. I've heard that not all 4lb striker springs are created equal so there's a chance I could have gotten a real light one I guess...? Might give it another try in a couple days when mine shows up, but thus far starting to think in my case it might just not be meant to be.

Well, turns out a friend of mine happens to already own both the Jager lightened striker as well as the Glockworx, he reports 100% reliability while using them with Winchester SPP's as he rolls his own, since he's more of a 1911-guy he went to the reduced power striker springs in his Glocks to shoot them more easily (claims he can't hit the broad side of a barn using the heavier stock spring). Borrowed the Glockworx one which he believes is a slightly older version of the newest "V4" one I ordered (about 6 months old so a V2 or V3). The one I ordered is en route and should be here in a day or two, but after today's shooting results looks like I might just be returning it... shooting through 300rds of wallymart Federal Champion, and while using a brand new 4lb Wolff striker spring and thoroughly cleaned striker channel I experienced about 25+ light strikes, all but 3 went off on a second try. Here's my impression: the reduced power spring did indeed take about 1 pound or more off of my trigger pull weight which I liked, seems to allow one (or at least me) to be more "sloppy" with their pull and still not end up printing left as the lighter trigger comes straight back and breaks without pulling the gun slightly off-line while "stacking before the pop" as can happen with a heavier Glock trigger, that said, the typical Glock "snappy" reset suffers quite a bit, while certainly not lethargic, a pound or more comes off the reset strength too which IMHO is undesirable and a negative side-effect to running the RPSS. Couple other things that came to light: the 3.5 connector still feels like a 3.5 connector when using one, just lighter - meaning it's still a longer pull with a longer reset than with the heavier one's, I tend to prefer the Ghost "Ranger" connector which is an "in-between" feeling connector labeled as a 4.5 (feels lighter than a stock 5, shorter and crisper than a 3.5), going to the 4.5 Ranger connector made things more crisp but erased much of the pull-weight loss, also, I bend the trigger-spring tabs outward closer to a 90 degree bend on my Glock trigger bars to shorten them up and get rid of some of the take-up slop, IMHO makes the pull much better, but with the RPSS installed I had no choice but to decrease the bend to ensure that the trigger-safety would engage reliably every single time (which in-turn made the pull longer) due to the lack of reset "snap". So I dunno... Thinking it's not for me. What I gained in lighter trigger-weight I lost in other trigger-feel areas, and while the newer V4 striker I have on the way may be more refined and have some advantages to the one I was trying, IMO it'll still leave too much of a question-mark for future potential for light strike headaches for me to want to train with. Looks like I'll put the idea of running a reduced power striker spring away for the time being and the light striker money back in the piggy-bank for hopefully someday down the road when I pick up a Dillion and can just load Federal primers.

Ok guys, ordered up a Glockworx/ZEV striker (Jager's is on backorder), it's lightened and has an extended tip so hopefully it works out, also ordered a few Wolff 4lb reduced power striker springs, if it proves reliable I'll order a bunch more, decided I'll change 'em out about every month or so and see how it goes... I'll report back once I've put some rounds downrange...

So... been watching this thread with much interest, truth be told I've practically got the CC out and am ready to order up a $60-90 lightened striker for my Glock to shave that extra pound off my trigger's pull weight. Except, I don't care about the $60-90 for the lightened striker, I care about light strikes ruining a fine saturday and thus far there doesn't seem to be a real consensus on this... Seems "reduced power striker-spring + Federal Primers = 100% reliability (Federal's ONLY mind you)", but thus far the question of whether " reduced power striker-spring + lightened striker = 100% reliability (with ALL/ANY primers)" still seems sketchy... Joe D. thinks so (and is using CCI's regularly), JBP55 thinks so (at 7,500rds and counting), and MarkCO sort of thinks so (said to avoid CCI's when running a RPSS on page 1), and there are a couple others - so after 3 pages we've got roughly 2.5-3 guys voting full reliability with all/any primers running RPSS's + lightened strikers compared to (just guessing) hundreds of threads/posts out there of light strikes occurring in Glocks when running RPSS's and primers other than Federal's. So long story short I want to give it a whirl (fully knowing I may regret it, as with my luck there will definitely be no light strikes until I'm shooting a match), but someone tell me this, why aren't there more guys chiming in that the "RPSS + lightened striker = GTG", as with all things Glock there should be more than a few examples yielding positive results and if it was really a GTG practice wouldn't it be ubiquitous by now? I don't reload and end up shooting A LOT of CCI primers (Wallymart Federal Champion), and if this is the way, I'm in, that said I'd rather just spend the $60-90 on some more ammo than just finding out the hard way that this just has more to do with luck than nuts and bolts reality... Thinking the only way to find out is to just give it a try, but I'd rather just skip it if it requires the stars to be aligned just so (or to reload using Federals), and will only distract me from just working on the Indian instead of the arrow. Thinking I'll just give it a try and see what happens... TIA.

Ahh, see here we go, after a bunch of searching around it seems that from what I've found that it's more likely that "Federal Champion" is really "Blazer Brass" (with cheaper, harder CCI primers) re-packedged into a new box rather than a "true" Federal offering (the theory is wallymart had them do this since when the ammo-shortege was in-effect last year LGS's were buying up all the Blazer Brass at $10 a box then putting it on their shelves and selling it at a mark-up). ATK is the parent company of both so that's why I'm asking (seems the FC = BB theory/story might check out...), I've inquired with the company but have never gotten an answer...

Anyone know what primers are used in cheap wallyworld Federal champion 115gr 9mm? As easy to set-off as other Federal primers? TIA.

Duane, I'd mention the smiths' by name but not so sure they want to be pulled into a Glock Gen4 flame-war at my expense... The guys who suggested "timing issue" to me build 1911's and 2011's ground-up, and usually the cost of one of their guns will get you 5 or 6 Glocks easy, and the theory is really mine so don't want to slander anybody. You're correct, just a theory, no proof since I'm not a physics professor or engineer, that said, it makes the most sense to me as there seems to be guns out there that some guys swear up and down are the best thing since sliced-bread, while at the same time there's a fairly loud buzz coming from less than stellar experiences with many others.... Most of us on here who've played with different strength recoil-springs have experienced first-hand how much they can affect how a gun runs, seems to me these new dual-springs make that variable twice as complicated and in general my impression of the Gen4's is that it seems to be more a matter of how lucky you get with your recoil-assembly than the rest of the gun, and appears Glock is still figuring it out fully themselves... Chuck, thank you for the very informative post.

Guys, if your Gen4 9mm's run fine consider yourselves lucky and I'm glad they're working out for you, the grip is better, the texture is better, the mag release is better, even the trigger's, while slightly heavier, now break more crisply, so they're better too IMO. With all do respect, there are lots of reports of issues with the Gen4 9mm's and they're not all coming from me and based on what has been experienced and reported in the past with the previous generation guns it can't just be pure coincidence. If you disagree that's fine, no big deal. That said, after talking to a few very talented and experienced gunsmiths' I do not think it is a too stiff/too soft recoil spring issue but in fact more of a timing issue, here's the theory I think makes the most sense: the new recoil-assemblies in the Gen4s are a dual-spring set-up yielding different spring-rates for both lock-up and slide-velocity separately, so it's now become more complicated than simply going up or down in spring-strength, now it needs to be addressed differently - what's the right strength for the inner spring? What's the right spring-strength for the outer one? They work together and effect each other greatly. They have to be tuned to work right in a relatively light recoiling 9mm once the slide-mass becomes great enough to be a factor (probably why the dual-spring works just fine in the sub-compacts, less slide-mass). Under-recoil the "hiccup" that happens in-between the recoil-impulse switching rates steals and bleeds off a small amount of energy that would normally go into cycling the slide (again, this actually a plus in the subcompacts). Now, losing that small amount of energy isn't the only thing that could be causing problems, that "hiccup", and the changing of spring-rates mid-recoil-impulse can also affect ejection/extraction: normally, or in the "old single-spring design", the recoil-impulse generates a smooth backwards stroke as the gun unlocks and starts to cycle, the case rim is under the extractor hook so the extractor rips the empty brass out of the chamber, the back of the case backs up into the ejector which gets it out from under the extractor hook and voila, the empty brass gets thrown clear... In a Gen4 that "hiccup" between spring rates puts a stutter into this operation, while slight and occurring lightening fast, it interrupts a smooth backwards stroke enough to where every now and again the brass can be shifted under the extractor hook before it makes contact with the ejector exactly like it's supposed to, what once was routine is now random, and random is bad, and also, if the spring-rate controlling slide-velocity is strong enough to overcome what recoil-energy that's left over after the "hiccup" it may not even be cycling fully (If you wanted to see what I'm talking about an easy experiment would be to use some snap-caps, pull the slide back to the rear smoothly, it'll throw out the snap-cap, now try pulling it back not all the way, like 95% with a "flick", most of the time the brass will fly out, sometimes it won't, smooth is better than the "flick"). If the dual-spring is dialed-in correctly the gun should run like a top, which is why I think there are guns out there that guys swear by, but, if the springs are off from what was intended (and variances in spring strengths are pretty common and darn likely) you get a gun that runs like s**t and stovepipes every now and then. Glocks are mass-produced and modular, and their new fancy dual-spring-recoil-assembly only has a limited window of variance before the trouble starts, since I highly doubt they're putting lots of time and energy into making sure the spring-rates on each and every recoil-assembly are correct and work right before they go into the guns on the production line, the end-user becomes the spring tester, some will be great, some will not be so great, some will flat out suck. If smiths' who are experts at hand-building top-shelf race guns happen to think dual-rate springs are hard to tune to get to run correctly and reliably, then I have no idea why Glock is putting them into an assembly-line production gun. The old single spring worked just fine and like the guns themselves prove that that less is more IMO.

9mm in a 1911 is iffy as it is, trying to run JHP's is asking too much IMHO. Trojan 9 + the Tripp's seems to be one of the recipes that works pretty well with FMJ though (mostly)...

I had a Gen4 17 and had many many problems through over 5000rds, nothing like anything i've ever experienced with more than 5 times that many rounds through the Gen 3 17's. Also, FWIW, of the several that have showed up since a few months back at our local club since they were released, exactly none were spotted at yesterdays match. Hearing of a few issues here and there might mean nothing, just an accident, but judging by the shear number of issues being reported with them, it seems to be closer to a trend. If you're getting 2 anyways, make at least 1 a Gen3. Memphis, while entertaining, your "beginner's spring" theory might need a little more research, do a search and you'll find guys who are long-time Glock shooters and certainly not beginners (Larry Vickers, Ken Hackathorn, etc...) reporting many of the same issues and things that have been popping up all over the firearms forums since the Gen4 17s were released (and by coincidence that never surfaced with the Gen3s). BTW, I have no problems closing a COC #1 gripper with my support-hand and will be moving to the #1.5 this week, if that means I have a grip like a little girl and am obviously limpwristing then you must be really really strong.

Yes. EAA Witness Limited = Tanfoglio Limited. Gunbroker is usually the best bet to find them, or just go to Henning, he's the man for all things when it comes to Tanfo's (pretty much hope that you never have to deal with EAA, great guns, worst importer ever).

This is a fine article on the subject that explains it pretty well: http://grayguns.com/physics-and-short-45-caliber-pistols-a-discussion/ FWIW, before i knew any better, I once had a 3" Kimber Ultra Carry that was such a POS that it almost made me swear off 1911's forever...