YVK

I've both, trying to move from Stock 2 to Shadow 2 because I can't get Stock 2 run reliably. Ergonomically, main differences are grip size, balance, safeties and DA trigger reach/travel. Stock 2 has somewhat larger grip which is for many was a big point. This difference can be negated by using larger grips on CZ. Shadow 2 is slightly heavier and more nose heavy. A little less nose flip, a little easier to overswing on transitions. Safeties, I am not sure if they matter but if you're somehow at a slide lock, can't use strong hand thumb to drop it on Stock 2. DA trigger pull is shorter on Stock 2, I prefer it that way. Matter of preference, I like conventional rear sight on Stock 2 although Shadow 2 rear sight should be more robust theoretically. Magwell on Stock 2 is visually larger but due to internal geometry you can still have mags hang up there a bit. I reload Shadow 2 better. From a personal experience, and I understand that this will irritate some here, I think that Stock 2 are a crap lottery and this makes it unacceptable to me. Some run, some don't. I guess I didn't win this lottery. I have had two for two years, they started with a work over by Jim Bodkin, had to go to him once for a look-over, and then I send both to Joe Wilson at Patriot Defense. In between, Ned Christiansen looked at one of them. I've seen every kind of malfunction that exists. Last one, I sent a pic to Joe, he replied he had never seen it. The variance in dimensions is a well known fact, somehow people don't talk aloud about it. Barrel to slide fit issues, rear sight dovetail variances that made Primary stopped making dovetail mount optic plates. Joe couldn't fit one of his connectors in one of my Stock 2, having tried five of them, not enough space in there. With all that work, I now have one that runs more or less OK, yet still throws in a light strike with 14 lbs hammer spring on a Federal ammo. So, that's just one dude's experience. I am sure there is a bunch of people whose Stock 2s run. Mine don't, I have no expertise or time to fix them, and external sources that I mentioned above could't make it happen either. The only reason that I have Shadow 2 is because of that. Take that for what it is worth.

Thank you. What tube do you use, CZ or Mecgar?

for a Shadow 2. I am thinking of shooting Limited in 9 mm over the winter, simply don't want to pick 3-4 mags out of mud/snow. I presume I could just load my 17 rounders to the capacity but if I wanted to extend that to 22-24 rounds, what would be a good setup?

John, I've had these issues recurring from my early stages with Stock 2 for two years now. Joe worked mine over as well, I've tried different firing pins as well. They have become less frequent but never went away. I could go for several hundred rounds no issues, but two last majors, including nationals, I got one light strike each. I haven't clipped fp coils and haven't gone up to 15.5 lbs hammer spring. I got Shadow 2. I do have one observation. I don't think that factory Federal ammo means the same as Federal primers in quality hand reloads. I've gotten some AA ammo to run through my Stock 2 but frankly I am fed up and Shadow 2 now has its chance with me.

I've done some experimentation with an assymetric grip when I shot HK P30, as it is very easy to do on that gun with its replaceable side grip panels. I couldn't prove any practical benefit of that arrangement.

In my experience, the pull through is more universally accepted method. I do think that is important to not be dogmatic and let your sights dictate. Ernest Langdon was mentioned above, he is a big advocate of a non-stop trigger motion. I watched him shoot very small targets in DA once. There were times when hammer stopped moving - when he lost required sight pic or alignment and needed to readjust that before finishing the pull. It doesn't mean he was staging, he wasn't or didn't intend to, but from outside it looked all the same as if he was staging. I do intend to pull through every time. However, if I am practicing a 25 yards upper A shot and the sight pic is not there, I will stop pulling until I get a pic.

Recent owner, just picked up Shadow 2 from a friend who got it from another friend. Gun was unfired. It has a CZ Custom work-over with 13 lbs mainspring, competition hammer and disconnector, light firing pin spring and extended CZC firing pin. One thing, that has nothing against gun itself, is that 0.160 Dawson sight actually turns out to be .190 due to excessive clearance over the slide, the provided set screw is wrong size, and cross pin started to walk out after 120 rounds. Maybe I didn't drive it in right, who knows. The disappointing part with the gun were two light strikes on a factory Federal American Eagle ammunition, 115 grain if that matters. Both were in a single action mode, first two rounds of a session as I was zeroing the gun. Both rounds ignited from DA and SA out of my carry PX4CC that actually has a reduced power hammer spring. No problems with the remaining 98 rounds of Fed and some 20 rounds of WWB that I had with me but I am bummed a bit. The reason I am trying to switch from my Stock 2 is just that, having a gun that can run reliably with factory ammo. Reloading is not going to happen for me.

It is a typo, 9 and 0 being next to each other on a keyboard. It was a Glock 19 with a DeltaPoint Pro.

A friend, who is a member here, shot day one of a level II match with a G19/RMR, and day two - with a G10/DPP; that was a couple of years ago. There was a significant difference in performance and placement during those two days. Granted, different stages, day to day variability because of shooter's factors etc, but I don't think he ever shot a match with RMR ever since. Shorter barrel is a non-issue for CO; however, there is a common opinion that larger grip of G17/34 allows to control the pistol better.

I don't know him or have his gear but he is [relatively] local and a couple of local GMs are using his holsters. I've examined those and I think they are excellent. If I truly commit to these Tanfos, I might get a setup from him.

Make sure to remove batteries after use. I left mine in for maybe 2-3 weeks, they oxidized and killed those plugs for good.

Not as much but I've never figured out how to adjust retention on mine for a wiggle free Stock 2 fit.

I have 5 GR mag pouches for my Production rig and I find them average. Great idea but the execution is less than great. Unless the mags are set at their lowest ride point in their base slots, they don't stay where I placed them. They slide down and I had to shim them in their slots at their desired heights. I set them at somewhat complex angles, trying to capitalize on 360 degree adjustment option. Each pouch has its own little orientation. I love that part, allows for much less interference when accessing those mags. Unfortunately, several of them twist a little at the attachment point (mag body to that metal ball thingy). I had to literally try each different pouch for each different belt position to see if it'll stay solid at an angle I wanted it to stay at. I am more or less there but pouch # 2 still shifts a bit. Metal "rectangles" that slide into the plastic belt slots are of different thickness on my pouches. I can't think of a reason why that would be good. Another GR user that I know lost the mag body screw and can't find a replacement. I loctited mine in after that. I think they probably would work very well at their lowest ride position if set at a traditional bullets forward or bullets out orientation. I wouldn't recommend them for someone who might think that they would stay put at all kind of angles that their design allows to attain. I don't know if all metal execution would have been better.

Absent any required [safety] standards or [testing] requirements , should this issue ever arise in court, the factors that become relevant are "reasonable" expectations (usually defined by expert witnesses and generally based on historical performances of similar devices or products), degree of risk and potential consequences to the users, damages that have already occurred, company's openness and willingness to correct the problem, and perhaps some other factors.

How often does that happen? I don't own a Lim or Open gun but on my custom 1911s triggers and trigger shoes are lightened to a minimal weight and there is no trigger bar with its weight attached to them. From what I understand of SIG recall, their primary solution is to lighten the entire lock work and that should be sufficient. Aren't game 1911/2011 already set with a very light components. That's an honest question. I am aware of muzzle down drop discharges and testing on series 70 guns but never heard of trigger bounce drop discharges.

Fair point. The 320 has been on the market since '14 and, on a basis of SIG's press release, they are aware of four live ammo drop discharges within the last year. Is that about the rate you see the 1911/2011 go off when dropped?

In a legal sense, yes, which is why SIG is using it. From this point on, the responsibility is with the owners and SIG is not required to fix every gun. SIG is hedging their bets on gun passing the ANSI etc standards and they may be absolutely correct in doing that. Or they may be found negligent if they knew about the vulnerability and didn't react in a due time. We have no knowledge of this and it is outside the scope of this discussion. What's not changed is that any (definition of extent) stock p320 can be presumed unsafe when dropped at that specific angle (definition of content). Alma, you're absolutely right, drop safety is not required, functional drop safeties are. I do take it as those safeties are presumed to be the surrogates for a gun being drop safe since, as Sarge has pointed out, actual safety testing is not feasible. To me when manufacturer says that boom may happen and has happened when stock 320 dropped, and manufacturer is offering a fix to all affected pistols (regardless of words used), the surrogate requirements become superfluous. Tokarev, I don't know why someone wouldn't. I think it would be unethical not to.

I already mentioned this earlier. No gun is known to be drop unsafe a priori, whatever you and I suspect. If gun is modded to an unsafe state, it is on the user. The unique situation here is that SIG admitted drop vulnerability on stock pistols, is going to offer a fix that would be extended to some 500,000 pistols, and is implementing pistol replacement programs for the police departments that field a 320. As far as "recall" vs "upgrade", yes, sure, SIG can choose whatever words they wish. That doesn't change the content or extent of a problem.

I'd like to think that it is within the USPSA rights and responsibilities to act on available information with an utmost care for members safety first. If manufacturer says gun can fire if dropped, and not in an abstract way like a warning in a booklet but as in a proven fact, USPSA must say something. I think you're touching on how enforceable the upgrade compliance might be. I think that it would depend on what the upgrade is. If a new lightened trigger is visible or has a tab, it is easy. If the upgrade is not readily identifiable, then we have a problem.

Does it really matter if it passed safety tests when the manufacturer has publicly admitted that their gun can fire when dropped and is about to offer the safety upgrade? I tend to think it still runs contrary to the rule. I freely admit that I don't understand the verbiage of rules. However, there's also a spirit of the rules. Gun can fire if dropped, and the obscure angle cannot be guaranteed to be avoided in the USPSA match. If not the rules, then liabilities? I don't get an argument of other guns not being drop safe. This may be true. For all we care, Glocks, VP9s, and PPQs might explode from -30 drops. However, this is neither a public knowledge nor was it acknowledged by their manufacturers nor upgrades are planned. No gun that enters a match is known a priori as not safe to drop at any obscure angle in its stock form. Except for the P320. I truly believe that once SIG has acknowledged it and is offering the upgrade, however statistically unlikely the problem is, there's really no other way around but to send guns for an upgrade.

I do believe that. However, the untended consequences of rule's wording are such that there are no apparent granted exceptions that I can recognize. If competitor removed a firing pin block and is caught, he/she will be penalized. If a competitor received a 1911/2011 from a builder and the thumb safety doesn't work, same thing even if it is not his/her fault that the safety is not functional. In this case, the unfortunate P320 users are in possession of guns that have, according to a public announcement from the manufacturer, "a vulnerability to -30 degrees negative" drop. Current drop safeties are not functional to a full known extent. Manufacturer is about to offer a fix. I honestly don't see how both USPSA and P320 owners have much of the choice here.

I am new to USPSA and I am not well versed in the rules but I do believe that USPSA required that all safeties are functional. Thumb safeties, firing pin block safeties (that are in fact are parts of a drop safety mechanisms). SIG has just admitted that existing drop safety mechanism on their P320 guns is not functional under a specific set of circumstances. It doesn't matter whether their guns passed ANSI or what have you. What matters is that 320 can fire and allegedly have fired if dropped. If a manufacturer admits to the fact that their drop safety is not fully functional, I cannot understand how USPSA can allow these guns to be used until upgraded and, subsequently, I don't understand how anyone who wants to shoot them in USPSA can avoid sending them for an upgrade.

Two of mine were re-profiled by a professional gunsmith. Heated and bent in and up a little, with post-reprofiling filing down of high spots. Ammo is/was a factory ammo, 115 to 124 to 147 gr Federal or Lawman. The symptom was not just a faulty ejection but a faulty ejection with a spent brass extracted and held completely in line with the chamber. Meaning that the ejector was completely missed by that brass. Recoil springs tried from 9 to 12 lbs. The chambers had been reamed and extractors tuned for a higher tension. Reprofiling helped to reduce the frequency to " not a lot" on gun #2 but did not completely alleviate it. Replacing the extractor with a new unmodified one sprung with Wolff extra spring took "not a lot" to 0 over last 1000 rounds. Gun # 1 is still in process of further testing.

It is an interesting design. I handled a prototype on someone's gun, but handling does not tell you much, got to shoot and compare times. Some people believe that grips with flat sides are easier to control but I've not found a hard data to support that.

Sure, will do when I get around to take it apart. What specifically am I looking for?