Ludde

Yep, it fits. I have a couple extra plates that have not found a home yet. I am located in Europe so the overall cost to have it shipped from Europe to US with all related expenses might be high. If you are interested DM me.

This is a adapter plate version I designed for a friends OR with the same type of optic. This keeps it a bit lower and further back.

https://www.m-arms.eu/set-monarch-1-short-grips-magwell-for-cz/ These magwells comes in brass also.

Usually I just put some oil on the threads before I assemble everything after a thorough cleaning.

Interesting, can you take some measurements of the chamber sizes in the comp. It would be interesting to compare with all the many versions I have designed myself for my CZs. Also are the comp chambers angled or are they perpendicular to the bore?

Goood!

From the video it looks like you have enough clearence and also made a nice clean cut, but still try the following. With the whole gun assembled, slide, barrel, recoil spring etc. in the frame. Grab a hold of the frame with one hand and push the comp/barrel straight rearwards until it stops (this is the point of the barrel bottoming out on the slide stop pin and unlocking from the slide). At this point, do you have light between the slide and comp? At the same point, while applying force, you can also try to wiggle/force the comp up/down a bit to see if there is a possibility for any movement (most likely there is and its ok as long as there is clearence) of the comp in relation to the slide that you might have not taken into account in you previous attempt.

Have you remembered to check the clearence between the slide and comp after the modification? Make sure you never have contact between the slide and comp face, also during the movement when the barrel is about to go out of battery. Barrel tilting down at the chamber and muzzle tilting up closing the gap between the upper portion of the slide and comp. I recommend using feeler gauges. in addition to that you can also with the gun assembled push rearwards on the front face of the comp to force it into its most rearward position in relation to the slide before it (barrel) completely unlocks from the slide, during the whole time you should have light coming through the gap between the comp and slide.

Did you combine this with floating die rings or did you use a oem dillon toolhead with conventional die locking nuts?

The CZ open build thread shows pictures how the reverseplug is fit to the slide. I use a slightly modified Czechmate reverseplug.

It it not a comp. It is a full profile steel block with the front sight dovetailed, cone for tight lockup in the slidr and room for guide rod and reverse plug. Very similar to how the Czechmate standard division gun is made.

Getting the Standard Division sight block CZ Shadow dialed in. Close to perfect return to Zero. Minor 124gr Frontier FP VV N320 just below 130PF. 16lbs mainspring, 12lbs recoil spring, 53mm total stroke.

38SC?

That's what I am trying to point out. That CZs and 2011s do not behave the same and therefore you might not get the expected results if one base it on e.g. 2011 dos and donts when tuning a CZ and vise versa. The initial muzzle rise if any would/could potentially increase because of the square FPS, more force required to cock the hammer resulting in more rotating force and more initial muzzle rise unless the comp keeps the muzzle down during that phase of the cycle. All of the many setups I have run have been recorded in slow motion and later exported frame by frame to really see what happens. More detailed than the YouTube stuff. I have also tried to find some food for thought and the few sources I could find clearly show that there is a significant difference in slide velocity/acceleration between CZ type construction and 1911/2011. BUT I am still looking for some solution that could still improve on decreasing the secondary recoil.... The search continues. Unless it is patent pending or an absolute business secret I would be interested in seeing what kind of comp design you have found works well for your setup. It is always interesting with more potential influence.

Have you tested on a CZ style gun?

Based on my own testing I would like to disagree. No this is not a 2011 but a CZ. So the construction and some of the behaviour does differ. This is one of many test, not the setup i run now. But you can clearly see the gun not lifting at all until the slide hits the frame and then the muzzle rises. When analyzing more footage there are cases when the muzzle even dips just a tad when the comp works. Based on this and other tests I have done, by looking at slowmo footage frame by frame all my open gun tests have produced a flat recoiling gun, all the muzzle rise comes from the secondary recoil. I.e. when the slide bottoms out on the frame. If anything on my guns the popple holes would likely just increase the slide velocity resulting in even more secondary recoil and more muzzle rise. The popple holes don't do any work anymore once the slide has moved a bit. Today I use a 24lbs main spring and my own made square firing pin retaining plate, all this to slow down the slide velocity. But please remember that 2011s and CZs seems to react differently to similar changes. E.g. I tested and simulated a heavy barrel/steel comp on my CZ and it did not decrease the unlocking speed by any noticable difference (slide speed) however I did notice another phenomena, I could clearly feel the barrel impacting the frame/slide stop before the slide bottomed out. It was not a good feeling setup and it did not improve my sight recovery or return.

Thats how it should be. If you place a case under the extractor at the height of the recess you will notice that that recess is what keeps your case flat to the breach face during feeding/ejection.

It would have been interesting to see how much effect you would have seen from all the tuning without the popple holes.

These are my creations. Not the typical 2011.... First I made a Open gun out of my old SP-01 Shadow, later turned that into a Sight block SD gun. After that i started converting my Shadow 2 to a Open major gun.

Why not cut of the comp from the one piece barrel, turn down the OD of the last part of the barrel and make a new extended threaded section (of course fit to the inner slide diameter) and you can use what ever comp you want.

If you read the thread and check Atlas webpage it clearly states: - 5 inch barrel ( but the gun overall length is that of a 5,4 inch gun) extended by block to 5,4 inch (Nemesis) -> 10mm extension past the muzzle - 4,6 inch barrel extended by block to 5 inch overall (Artemis) -> 10mm Nowhere in the rules can you (at least yet) find an exemption, so why would 20mm, 10mm or even 2-3mm be negliable? I have pointed out this issue to Atlas Gunworks and also one of their team shooters that marketed the Artemis as a IPSC SD ready gun and I can say that there was and reaction so to say. Personally I think this made an ok rule into a stupid rule.... just allow any config. as long as it fits the box... why does it have to be so hard to get the rules right..

This is a CZ Shadow 2 I have built. I have no extreme grip strength. 9mm Major roughly 7.95 grain 3n38 166pf 124grain bullet. No popple holes. Mine is not perfect, but I contribute alot of the gun movement to technique or lack of. For me going up in pf above 168pf has only negative effects. Looking at this same footage frame by frame clearly shows the gun staying flat, even dipping a tiny bit as the comp works and the hammer is cocked. The muzzle flip comes from the slide bottoming out on the frame. With the previous comp I used I even went up to 24lbs hammer spring, ended up selecting 20lbs because at least earlier it felt like a good compromise when looking at farther distance target hits/splits/dot movement and feeling (rotation) in hand. I will revisit the hammer spring weight soon with this new comp. Frame by frame: