RNA

If anyone is interested, i have a springco recoil reducer for the Stock 3 I'll sell for cheap!

Bump. Anyone?

Hey all, i was wondering if anyone knew which battles or wars the cz 75 pattern has been fielded in. I have heard czs referenced as battle proven, but can't seem to find evidence of the gun being carried onto major battlefields. Thanks!

Shadow Line! Yeah!!! Too bad CZ made, like, three of them and probably aren't going to make anymore. It was the perfect gun for me: scalloped slide (no rail showing past the short dust cover frame), short steel frame with the upswept beaver tail and standard trigger system. Since they are next to vaporware, i settled for the 75 Omega, which ain't too shabby if you all me -- and less than half the price!!

Bump!

So if I'm looking for a 9mm drop-in conversion barrel for the .38 super Stock 3, I should be ordering the 4 3/4" LS barrel? (http://eaacorp.com/barrels-compensators-and-compensator-kits/)

Hey all, I know CGW is starting to support the Omega system in the P07 and P09 guns, but do you happen to know what parts are available for the 75 Omega? Does anyone know if either CGW or CZC will be introducing any hammers for the 75 Omega? I'm trying to decide if I want to buy one, and knowing that a new hammer and other goodies will be available in the future will help me out with my decision. Thanks in advance!

Is it definite that 9mm barrel should drop into 38 super with no issues? How difficult is it to source a 9mm barrel? Very tempted.

Wouldn't be Production legal, so what for? I'd convert the 40 to SAO and use it as a Limited gun. I don't shoot competitively, so it would just be for plinking and HD. But alas, Jim Bodkin confirmed that a 9mm barrel and magazine won't work in a 40 Stock 3 because different breach face. But you guys think a 9mm limited slide assembly would work on a 40 Stock 3 frame? Hmm, does EAA sell 9mm limited slide assemblies?

Tempted to buy the 40. Do we know definitively if we can drop in a 9mm barrel and magazine and have it run reliably?

I really regret selling my Stock 3 in 9mm -- a mistake i will not be making again should i happen upon another.

Agreed, both undeniable pillars of the cz community. We're lucky to have them as invaluable resources. Kudos, gentlemen!

Hey Alpha, mind saying where you found the Stock 3 in stock? Thanks!

Sounds like your transaction with the other member went smooth. But i DO have feedback on the extreme grips: they're a little thin, even for my medium-small hands. I had a Stock 3 and felt that the factory wooden grips were much more comfortable than the anorexically thin extreme slabs. YMMV, of ccourse.

Just got back from the range comparing my CZ PCR (tricked out with all the trigger goodies from Cajun Gun Works) vs. my buddy's E2 P229 with the SRT. I was totally expecting to convert him to CZs, but damned if I didn't get the best group of the day with his weapon! I'm totally sold on Sigs now and was wondering how different would an E2 P229 feel compared to an E2 P226 Stainless Elite? As far as I understand it, the P229 comes with a slightly thicker grip than the P226. Would getting an E2 shrink everything down tot he same size? Please help a converting Sig fan out, and thanks for the responses so far!

So would X-five wooden grips fit on, say, a P226 Stainless Elite?

I'm a total Sig newb and I'm trying to do my research before considering buying one for range fun/HD. Not having been able to compare them in person, to my eye, it looks like the Sig X-five comes with the E2 grips. But reading through various forums, it seems like the X-five grips are proprietary to the model and aren't the same E2 grips of the P226. Are the P226 and X-five grips incompatible? I really love the look of the Hogue G-Mascus grips for the X-five (http://www.g10grips.com/pages/g10-auto-grips.php), and was really hoping they would fit on a P226. Thanks in advance for clearing up the confusion for me!

Haha, I'm REALLY regretting selling my Stock 3. Probably wouldn't have of I knew they would be impossible to get again.

Hey eerw, the former was the question I intended to ask. You're right, I know the answer won't be found on any forum, but I was just voicing a little disappointment at the design. Everyone is entitled to their own ideas and gun designs are obviously no different. But in my opinion I think having that safety + hammer down option would have been nice. And thanks for addressing the mechanical explanation of how the design works currently. I just recently started carrying concealed and I guess I just need more time and mileage before I get more comfortable with the muzzle of a loaded gun aimed directly at my junk or femoral artery (appendix carry).

"Not quite. The gun was not designed to be carried that way and items such as clothing could get in the trigger guard causing the trigger to be pulled when re-holstering. That is not going to be an issue with the gun on DA or with the gun cocked and locked." The question is why ISN'T the gun designed for hammer down safety? That same tangle of clothing and debris that you fear can pull a single action trigger during reholstering can pull a double action, too. And here's another question: what negative impact would it cause you if the option was available? I would think none.

Do the weak mag springs occur in only full size cz magazines? Are these weaker springs also in the mec gar compact magazines? What about the mec gar full size?

So far, there hasn't been a good explanation about the design decision NOT to include the feature of hammer down + safety engaged. If you don't feel the new, don't engage the safety. That's your choice. I'm simply making the argument that CZ should have designed their safety so you CAN engage hammer down, if that's what you want to choose.

"Its not about being flustered but you simple do not need a safety on a DA handgun. If you can't trust yourself then you should not be carrying a gun." That's a bit reductionist. Why not just carry hammer back and no safety. Afraid you might pull the trigger? If you can't trust yourself...

I have a pcr, which doesn't have a safety anyway, but I would prefer one that allows engagement with the hammer down over a decocker any day. All of the arguments so far are supportive of CZs choice, but I still don't buy it. Yes, proper training should make an accidental pull off the trigger improbable, but I'd still like more safety in case clothing or anything else gets caught in the trigger guard and puts pressure on the trigger during reholstering. It's not as big a liability as people argue. HK pistols use a safety/decocker that allows hanger down engagement and they're considered one of the best combat pistols on earth. There's a way to do it, obviously, so it's not a question of a lack of engineering. More options are always better.

As the subject states, why don't CZs allow safety engagement with the hammer down or half cock? I know the double action stroke should be "safe enough," but I carry AIWB and I want as much protection as I can. Doesn't seem like there are any disadvantages to allowing for this option, only limitations.