ck1

Harrison makes a fixed sight you can go to in the future if the adjustable starts to get on your nerves (I'm with you, once set-up it's usually me who needs the adjusting, not the sight): http://shop.harrisoncustom.com/category/53-sights.aspx

The Spartan's have the same S-7 steel sear and hammer that come in their upper echelon guns (means you could skip the EGW parts and just pay labor only), that alone is probably worth the extra $150 (not to mention putting a price on having a Texan who's probably seen some mighty fine 1911's looking it over before it ships out), plus IIRC the bushing they get is a higher quality fitted version too. (FWIW, I happen to think RIA's are great guns, and actually prefer the fixed rear to the LPA that comes on the STI)

I have shot both and would say go with the Shadow. The Expert is a great gun, but the ergos and trigger aren't nearly in the same league as the Shadow's.

The recoil springs are the same, they work great. Skip the variety pack IMO and just get a 13#, it'll work great with loads 120ish-140pf (you could try an 11# but lots of us have experienced weak lock-up and the extra 2# is better for feeding reliability anyways). I'm not sure if the striker-springs are exactly identical as far as size/weight, but a Glock striker-spring will fit and work perfectly in an M&P.

Dawson rules, I just got a black serrated .090 front for my SP-01 (if you think finding a front for a 1911 is bad, try finding anything for one of these). Something you may also want to check out: http://shop.harrisoncustom.com/category/53-sights.aspx Harrison makes fixed rears that'll retrofit without looking like crap if that adjustable-rear starts to get on your nerves (or if you want a wider notch without having to break out the ol' file).

^^^ Awesome, glad to help. If you need to do a special order to get a serrated black one just give 'em a call (I spoke to Cathy and she rules, so nice to be treated to such good customer service), the FO's are on the site. I guessed and went with a .170" height and seem to be hitting at the top of the front blade at 7-15 yards, slight 6 o'clock at 25 (.170" + .090" for the dovetail = about 6.6mm give or take, CZC recommends a 6.5mm so seems I guessed pretty much right).

Think you'll dig it, .100" is already better than .125" though, and who knows, maybe you'll end up going back to that, it's being able to go thinner and have more options that is nice, even if it's just to try out. The front blade being the same width as the rear notch dates back to guys swearing by the Weaver stance and using a push-pull teacup grip, times change, things get figured out, daylight around the front blade is good. IMO the only thing lacking in the CZ was the sights, and that just happens to matter to me more than just about anything else... I'm psyched now. The only stone unturned is if the narrower "window" will be slower than with the .150" notch/.115" blade... I'm thinking it will be a bit, but also think it may make up for it by producing lots of A's and 0's, I may try the "wider" set-up out at some point if I find I'm losing too much quickness but so far I'm feeling good about the new set-up.

My front sight showed up from Dawson Precision... and it's excellent. I'm running the Cz-Custom's Tactical Rear with it, so now my "light-bar-to-front-blade-width ratio" is real close to what I've been using in the past on my Glocks running the excellent Sevigny competition sights. Now my sights are a .125" wide rear-notch paired to a .090" wide front-blade (.170" height) which ratio-wise looks just about identical to the Sevigny's .150" rear-notch width and .115" wide front, similar looking but a narrower overall "window". FWIW, I ran the CZC .125" wide front for a couple weeks with the CZC Tac rear while waiting for the Dawson sight to show up, and it's pretty good, although I had to get used to the skinny light-bars, I was shooting pretty well with it (no matches with this particular set-up though). That said, with the Dawson .090" installed, it's just no contest... WAY FASTER. If I had to guess by what percentage it's faster by, I'd say maybe 300% faster, it's like I just got better/faster eyes. So much better, no comparison. Here's a crappy pic, not really "correct proportion" but you can get the idea, best I could manage with an iphone4 (you wouldn't believe how many tries it took to even get this crappy one, as the iphone doesn't want to focus on the front blade when held in correct alignment): P.S.: I had to special order this one to be plain-black serrated as I do not like FO's and that's all they had offered on their site, it took 4 weeks and it wasn't any more expensive than an "in-stock" plain-black sight ($30 including shipping). FYI if you decide to order one, the Dawson sight comes with a minuscule set-screw that goes from the top to the bottom (no front sight pin), I still had my CZ front-sight-drill-bit and my sight-pin was still in good shape so I decided to pin it as CZ-normal (good thing too, as I found it's unbelievably easy to strip that minuscule set-screw). Cool looking side profile:

Any word from HQ on this?

+1 on checking the feed lips, I'd start there.

Unfortunatly you've run into one of the most common issues when trying to run the shorter OAL 9mm rounds in a gun that was designed for a longer OAL .45. Check your feed lips on your mags, if they're too wide that'll cause what you're experiencing. Also, loading to a longer OAL will usually help too. I've heard of guys getting +10% mag springs to combat the same issue in Tanfoglio guns. Tripp's are usually pretty stout springs though and tend to be about the best one's out there for 9mm 1911's, might want to check that you don't somehow have .40 or .38s follower in there or something weird like that? What sometimes helps is if you take out the mag spring and put an upward-bend on the end 1/2" of the top coil against the follower so it puts a bit more force towards the front of the follower to hold the noses of the rounds up. Sadly, while the 9mm 1911 IMO is one of the funnest platforms you can shoot, also happens to be one of the hardest to make run right. Makes me wonder why no one's tried really making a true designed-for-9mm 1911, like a full-size, perfected Springfield EMP...

+1.

they a good when they arrive..might shoot it for a few hundred rounds and see where it breaks in for you. that said..they can be made to have a lighter/smoother trigger. +1. Even if it doesn't break-in to quite where you want it, if you're even a little bit of a DIYer and not completely un-mechanically inclined you should be able to get to where you're happy no problem just by following the trigger-job info found on the CZ forum's home gunsmithing section. Not quite as easy as working on a Glock, but much easier IMO than working on a 1911, after a lighter hammer-spring (which a custom Shadow will already have installed) it's really just dealing with the sear and hammer interaction, no bending or fiddling with springs. Plus, seems the CZ crowd is a pretty helpful bunch and eager to convert the masses to Czech iron. I'm pretty new to the fold and have had just about any and all questions answered quickly by the resident CZ forum lurkers here.

Just made the switch from a Glock 17 to the CZ SP-01, highly recommend trying one if you can, I really dig mine. I found a good deal on a like new regular SP-01 and just did sights and then the trigger job myself based off great info on the CZ forum, works better for me than the Shadow actually since it's easier to get the standard model to make weight for IDPA which I tend to shoot the most. Post-trigger-job mine feels real close to a custom shop gun with comp hammer, so it can be done with a stock hammer and firing pin block but it did take a few tries to get it there. If you don't want to deal with any of that just get a Shadow from Czcustom. Now DA is like a nice revolver, and SA breaks like a top-shelf 1911 (except this thing runs WAY better than ANY 9mm 1911 i've ever seen). Just a way easier gun to shoot well, first time I shot it I was like "wow, I'm good!" and I put it through 1100 rds without cleaning it to see if I'd have to get used to less reliability, but so far I'm really impressed.

There's a couple good videos on Henning's site that shows how to pull the trigger and get it back in (his Brake Cleaner-tube-as-slate-pin is genius btw), he's working on a Tanfoglio but the triggers are pretty much the same thing as the CZ: http://henningshootsguns.com/tech/tech.tanfoglio.frame.assembly.html After you re-install the DA trigger, pretty sure the only other thing you'll need to do is re-install a DA hammer that has a disconnector attached and hanging off of it. I've never actually done it myself mind you, but I'm pretty sure that as long as you install the DA hammer with the disconnector hanging over the trigger-bow so it can catch, then think you should be GTG. Hope this helps and good luck.

How do you figure? And yes, comments like "...in many ways they need to give themselves a couple FTDR's when it comes to being perfectly clear and wording things in a manner which cannot be misunderstood," if they continue, will get this thread closed. Please read the rules for posting in this forum and then ask yourself if that was really a constructive comment. Ok, sorry, I was only joking, but I do get your point, not trying to cause any strife, respectfully, just looking for the clear answers. (As for the G34-possibly-being-illegal-thing, comments that will no doubt surface will probably just in danger this thread of being closed and I do not feel it can be discussed openly and fairly here without it becoming a problem, so think we'll just have to let sleeping dogs lie.)

Hey, I love shooting IDPA, but when it comes to clarity with some of the rules sometimes I think some people take any questioning of them as trashing IDPA when it simply is not, in many ways they need to give themselves a couple FTDR's when it comes to being perfectly clear and wording things in a manner which cannot be misunderstood. After all, as an example, according to their own wording concerning equipment rules, one of the most popular guns used in the game, the Glock 34, should be illegal. For the purposes of this discussion, CDP has already been tackled in the addendum, from a vague 42ozs to a more specific 42.0ozs, but now the specifics for SSP and ESP not being included in the addendum in some ways makes the rule in question even more confusing and muddied as in: was not clarifying the weights to the nearest tenth or hundredth for SSP or ESP done on purpose and supposed to mean that the pre-2010 weighing practices are to be continued (ignoring a possible + .9oz variance as practiced before)?

So the ".0" in "42.0" (and also added consideration of a possible .02 scale variance) included in the addendum makes it pretty clear for accepted legal CDP weight, with that said, still think there's some confusion with some of us still wondering about SSP and ESP?

That's the long held belief by most people, but in my lifetime of shooting is been just the opposite. I've done some truly horrible things to them (like dropping my bullseye gun onto a cement floor and landing right on the Bomars), but it's only the "fixed" sight (drift windage only) ones that have ever come unadjusted at the wrong time. In fact the last match I shot was ruined by my Shadow sights moving. Not just a belief, myth, or whatever, adjustable's usually move 'cause that's what they're supposed to do. Stinks your fixed ones moved on you, red Loctite on the set screws will usually cure that forever, green Loctite you get at auto parts stores will actually work between the sight and dovetail itsekf as it's a penetrating type, finally there's even another way, take off the sight and with a wack on a screwdriver make a dimple in the middle of the rear dovetail, it'll pull the dovetail in tighter ever so slightly so when you reinstall the sight it'll fit tighter.

Ha! Please see the "Shadow vs Target" thread... Guess I'm not the only one.

I'm with Duane, took a while but i've come around to being a believer in the all-black irons, TFO's look like Christmas Trees to me, super distracting IMHO. I think the lightbar-to-front blade width is what's really important and the less distracting the better. Night Sights aren't a make-or-break thing to me, but I know they are for a lot of guys, I tried a friend's Hiene's the other day and if I was going to go with tritium it'd be those, what's unique is there's no white ring around the tritium, so it makes it easier to ignore the dot when shooting normally, but the glowing dots are there for you in low-light/dark if you need, good compromise IMO.

From what I've experienced IMO if you're going to run a reduced power (4lb) striker spring either plan on using Federal primers or plan on getting light strikes, not if, when. Do I think the lightened-strikers are more often reliable with other harder primered stuff than the stock-striker? Yeah, seems so, as they usually have a longer tip and are moving faster... 100% reliable? Nope. I know there are a few out there who've had no trouble, but seems for every guy who's had 0 problems with light strikes while running a RP striker spring and lightened striker you'll meet quite a few guys who've had them, and in the case of myself and out of the guys I know who've tried running like that, only the guys running Federal primers haven't been bitten.

This is one of those things where I was like "why did it take so long for me to figure out that I'd probably shoot better if I could just hang on to the gun better?", remarkable impact, also remarkably obvious (or at least should've been). I work harder on my support-hand as I've noticed most of the really good shooters I've talked to tend bring it up more than the other things, seems easy to get caught up in over-thinking how to pull the trigger when in actuality it'd just be more beneficial to get better at pointing the gun where you want it...

I have a similar issue to what Bart describes with FO's, I see the glowing dot in the notch and I think I'm lined up so I pull the trigger (many times before I've gotten a real solid picture leading to misses)... FO's are faster to pick up and draw your attention, they make it faster and easier to find the front sight, but in my case they also tend to make me lazy and I am far more accurate with plain-black sights as they keep me honest, and while a hair slower, they still work better for me. If you're the type that can really keep it "color, corner" then they are faster, the FO in the sun jumps right out at you.

Yes. Read this thread a couple months back, was doing 150 reps with the cheap commonplace grippers while just hanging around the house or while driving during the first month. Finally ordered a CoC #1 and have been using that for the last month or so, as many reps as I can stand, same thing, no real routine, I just tend to have 'em on me when I'm kicking around or driving, paying more attention to my support-hand then strong-hand... My shooting has improved A LOT, recoil-control, sight tracking, etc, has helped all of it really, just have so much more command over the gun now. My old "relaxed grip" had me holding the gun at maybe 50% strength compared to where I am now, except I'm probably even more relaxed now as my new "relaxed setting" is so much stronger. S**t like this is why benos' forum rules. Thanks! I will have to pick one up then. You're welcome! FYI, the CoC's are no joke, they mean business for real (I could barely close the #1 with my strong-hand when I first got it and I'm fairly strong guy), I'd suggest you pick up some $6 grips at wallymart or something and start with them while you wait for your CoC ones to arrive. You can use them as warm-up grips later, and even though they're like toys compared to the CoC's after a few days you'll already start to feel a difference when you grip your gun. (FWIW, in my case, I probably do 3-4 times the reps with my support-hand as I find most everybody's strong-hand is already proportionally stronger) Good luck.