Ludde

I used a 12.7mm but think 12.8mm would have been optimal.

I have been a fan of the Lee sizing die for 9x19 in terms of how it sizes the brass. The drawback with the die has in my opinion been the decapping assembly and the fact that you have to manually reset the decapping pin after it has risen. I've always had good luck with the Dillon pistol die spring assisted decapping assembly. So I decided to combine the two and the result was great!

https://www.luckydelta.com/shop/marken/cz/cz75-ts-orange-czechmate-c-more-mount-90/

It is my own design, have designed both straight and forward angled ones. Currently I am liking the forward angled design.

Now I've finally designed, fitted and tested my new and improved compensator. There are two main things that are changed compared to the first version. First of I added a semi full profile to the comp in order to cover the reverseplug and most importantly keep the barrel from wobbling when goin in- & out-of lockup by adding the guide rod hole into the design (much like the oem czechmate comp). The second thing and the big improvement in terms of compensating effect and softness. I changed the port angles a little bit and extended the compensator upwards to make better use of the available gasses/forces. This is working very well and is a big improvement compared to the ~4 different comps tested on the old shadow and the first model tested on the Shadow 2. Here I am using 20 lbs main spring, 9 lbs recoil spring, 2mm buffer, 165 PF, 124gr AlsaPro RN, 3n38

Bad english on my part. What I meant was how do you have it set currently. Enough overtravel for the sear to not rub on the hammer hooks...

How is the overtravel screw adjusted?

The disconnector is not disconnecting early enough for the DA not to catch in SA. You are essentially breaking the SA shot but the disconnector catches and engages DA mode.

In short, I like it.

These are some of the things to consider when switching mainsprings. First off the triggerpull (crispness of break & weight). Depending on your hammer and sear engagement surfaces, mostly how "clean" or polished they are will effect the ammount off difference the mainsprings have when switching from light to stiff. Personally I do not alter the angles of the surfaces, I believe that the CZ hammers and sears are only surface hardened and will wear if you start to really cut different angles into them. I do not like a ultra light trigger (it makes it hard to prep the trigger on the fly, "No click banging here"). With the CZ SA hammer (TSO or Czechmate style), for me when switching from 16lbs main spring to a stronger one made my trigger feel a little bit gritty and creepy. I did not dislike the weight but the grittyness. Currently I have a DA/SA hammer with the disconnector removed since this hammer has less engagement surface than the SA hammer the trigger pull weight and crispness was not negatively effected by the increase in main spring weight. I tested even the 24lbs main spring and this produced a quite light and crisp break. I also have a tanfoglio sear spring in my CZs to get a more well define wall before the trigger breaks. Then the other positive thing with going up in main spring weight is that you can somewhat reduce the slide speed. The increase in main spring weight will reduce the slide speed as it has to cock the hammer while it is starting to move rearwards. In all my tests so far when analyzing the video footage frame by frame it is evident that the gun does not rotate upwards until the slide bottoms out on the frame. You can even se that when the compensator is working as the slide cocks the hammer the gun even rotates down a little bit by the effect of the compensator). Then how to limit the flip or rotation upwards when slide bottoms out on the frame... by reducing the slide velocity (and/or weight) by the help of the main spring (initial slide velocity) and the recoil spring (helps a little when it bottoms out on the frame). Here are some examples of trigger pull weight (average of several slow consistent pulls). This is with a CZ DA/SA hammer and Tanfoglio sear spring (to increase the defined wall before it breaks). 22lbs Main spring 680grams (1.5lbs) 20lbs Main spring 560grams (1.2lbs) The SA only hammer increased the trigger weight by approx. by 150grams (0.3lbs) compared to the DA/SA one. Again I had nothing against going up to ~750grams in trigger weight but I did not like the grittyness that came with it. This might have been possible to solve with some additional polishing or worst case changing of angles. Regarding the RDS mount and thumbrest options, I think it is a matter of preference and the real life result when shooting. Seeing how the dot tracks and returns. Not necessarily what "felt" good but more how effective or repeatable the result is. Having many mounting options allows you to tailor it for the best performance. The frame was cut back ~6mm and the slide ~14mm, this is a combination around which I designed the comp and the relief cuts in the comp (rearward travel during unlocking) along with the length of the barrel extending past the slide etc.

Yep you guessed it, more testing done today! Now I am running a 20lbs main spring, 11lbs progressive recoil spring @ 166pf 123grain RN. In the transition segment I was focusing on letting the gun do its thing while observing the dot, the feeling and the behaviours of the gun rather than putting down all A's

The tests continues. Now I've tested 16, 18, 20, 22 & 24 lbs main springs also with both factory radius & prototype square firing pin retaining plate. The videos here are with the factory radius fprp. I did not like the feel of the square one it felt harsh in the beginning of the slide movement when it quite rapidly increases the main spring force compared to the radiused one. In the description you will see the spring rates (20 & 24lbs) in these videos. I settled for the 20lbs main spring it felt most controllable with this setup for the moment. Going through the video frame by frame both it is evident that both setups stays flat while the hammer is being cocked (comp is doing its job) and the gun stays flat until the slide hits the frame in its most rearward position. During this anaylsis it is also clear that they both have pretty much identical flip up once the slide hits the frame. The 24lbs main spring setups seems to have a little bit less vibrations coming back down as the slide returns. With the 24lbs I felt like I had to really focus on my grip pressure and vrists not to let the gun rotate as the slide overcomes the hammer (at least that's what it felt like). With the 20lbs I could be a bit more relaxed while still being close to the same muzzle rise as the 24. I might also like the 24 if I would get enough practice with it and build more strength. Once I get some more practice with this setup I might revisit and revise the setup. Never ending story in Open Division, but that's the charm also. 20lbs 24lbs

Bear in mind a Nemesis or Artemis with a threaded on sight block has not been approved until now* and that is a fact *assuming they extend their barrel to the end of the block they will be approved. Check the attached documents earlier in this thread if you are unaware of the official ruling that has been in effect a long time.

Latest OFFICIAL update on this topic: " IPSC President Newsletter - March 2021 Spanish version is below. Dear Regional Directors, Dear Athletes, Dear Range Officers, Dear Instructors and Trainers, I would like to share some news from the recent Executive Council meeting: 1) IPSC ESS was approved by the President to be used as an official scoring program for IPSC competitions. 2) Terms of Reference of Course Design Committee were presented to the meeting and after minor changes they will be uploaded to the Regional Director protected page in a short while. 3) It was decided that weights attached to the barrel of a Standard Division handgun that do not extend beyond the muzzle will be permitted. " This means that some versions e.g. Atlas Gunworks Nemesis (if you could fit it in the standard box by trimming the beavertail and magwell) would not be allowed because the sight block extends past the end of the barrel. - 5 inch barrel extended by block to 5,4 inch (Nemesis) - 4,6 inch barrel extended by block to ~5 inch (Artemis) AGW Nemesis sightblock: Another example, CZ Czechmate would be allowed because the sightblock sits flush with the end of the barrel. And all other one piece barrel/sightblock configurations.

Something new for 2021 CZ Shadow 2 modified for Open division. Shortened slide & frame. Czechmate reverse plug. Own designed comp, 2 first ports angled rearwards. Own designed red dot mount inspired by Seboweapons model. Further rear, more thumbrest mounting options. M-arms magwell. Delta Optical Stryker 6 moa red dot. Eemann tech large high safety trimmed down.

I have tested CZ Pre-B, Shadow 2 0.2 and CGW disconnectors. Comparing them between each other and to the factory one, they simply does not reduce the reset. They do shorten the pre-travel in the trigger movement. This has been tested on a SP-01 Shadow and Shadow 2

The fitting that you describe is to limit the amount of pre travel, not reset.

Taking this animation as an example at which point in the Single Action cycle does the disconnector play a role in the reset of the action? When the hammer is fully cocked in SA mode the disconnector is already dis-engaged playing no role in the reset sequence of the trigger. Depending on the "thickness" of the disconnector "leg" you can adjust the amount of pre-travel in the trigger in SA mode but not the amount of travel required during reset. Animation

Unless we are completely talking about different things the Disconnector does not reduce the amount of reset. Reset in short means the distance that the trigger has to travel forward after a shot is fired in order to re-engage/reset trigger bar engagement on sear leg (Single Action). The disconnector reduces the amount of Pre-travel (slack) in DA and SA.

How is the SA break now with those parts? Any creep? How heavy is the SA break? Noticable wall when trigger is prepped?

Just for the fun of it. I saw these two videos some time apart and started to wonder. Might this be the same gun that now at least 2 different gunsmiths have worked on... I don't know but they sure are looking similar except the grip, popple holes and red dot setup. Both seem to have the same deep cut into the extractor channel. https://www.instagram.com/tv/CHNltPkJlo2/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

https://www.luckydelta.com/shop/produkt-kategorie/cz-teile-tuning/schlittenfanghebel/ Here you go!

You can find all necessary OFFICIAL information on the IPSC.org website if You want to figure out the current state of rules that apply. Personally I tried to push this subject in the right direction a while back and the attached document is what I shared with the regional RD and persons on the official IPSC FB page. The definition of Compensators in the rulebook and how should we interpret it for Standard Division.pdf One more source of information of the current state of interpretation is also the following: https://www.ipsc.org/ipsc-rules/rules-faqs/ " Standard Division 1. Standard Division prohibits compensators. If I have an attachment extending forward of the barrel & slide of my gun, but there are no holes in the attachment other the hole in the barrel from which the bullet exits, is this legal? No. A weight attached to the end of the muzzle is still deemed to be a compensator, even if it does not have holes. " It does not really matter if someone has competed with a sight block gun or not in some matches. If that is allowed then there has been a local interpretation made that has gone against the current official rules and their official explanations. Wish they could officially update this stupid interpretation of the rules.... to what we all deem is common sense. Then the next official information on the subject is. But please note that until the official rulebook or additional clarification is made it is not yet official.

Hmm, there I do not agree with you completely. Unless it is revised and added to the rulebook or as a additional clarification to the Rules FAQs page on the official IPSC webpage. It is not official regardless of what people want to think. Just because someone discusses (general assembly) and has their opinion about it it is not official until the documents (rulebook or clarification in the FAQ) are updated and released officially.