djb25

That’s just poor stage design. Did the description instruct you to take steps to p4? Or did it say to move? Because it sounds like you did move to p4, you twisted your waist and adjusted your aim. Something else to think about - there’s only supposed to be one fault line per point of cover. I realize this is two points of cover, but I’m pretty sure that rule exists to avoid this type of situation.

Interesting. I’ve heard good things about the Rock Island 9mms. Is the sig stock or did you have work done?

Like the title says - anyone running a Sig 1911 chambered in 9mm? I have a Shadow that pretty much runs flawlessly, but I thought maybe I’d change things up and run something a little different. However, it seems like every 1911 chambered in 9mm has some sort of reliability issue. Are the sigs any better, or more of the same?

Ah, it is blued! That makes so much more sense. Thanks!

I just received my brand new Shadow Duotone. I have several tanfoglios, but this is my first CZ. It seems like a very nicely built pistol. Money question, though - the finish on the slide doesn't seem like polycoat. I suppose it could be, but it doesn't have that thick "paint" look that I've seen on other CZs. Do they use a different finish on the duotone slide? Is it some sort of nitride or something? Or is it just finished better than the regular SP-01s I've handled?

Honestly, the IDPA rules are so poorly written its no wonder people have such trouble. Full length dustcovers used to be an excluded feature under ESP, but they removed that section in the latest version of the rules. But a full-length dustcover isn't listed in the "permitted features and modifications" - so how is it now legal? Or, to get really ridiculous, are non-full-length dustcovers legal? One of the "features" of the regular CZ-75 Shadow versus the SP-01 is that it doesn't have a full-length dustcover. So... which is legal? How about something a little less pedantic? There's something else missing from the "inclusive" list - RAILS. There's no language in there saying that an ESP gun can have a railed dustcover (full-length or otherwise). Maybe you could argue that the length of the dustcover isn't really a "feature" - but a rail? It gives the gun the ability to mount a light or laser or whatever. That's definitely a feature. Anyway... I mostly shoot local matches, and I have a few "fully legal" pistols that I can use if I end up in a more serious match.

I appreciate the advice, but I have no idea how the screw holes in the frame could cause a problem - at least not under the current rules. It's an ESP gun, because it is SAO. It isn't a weird gray-market pistol or anything, it's just an older EAA Witness model. The model I referred to above is just the current version of my pistol. As far as I am aware, the current model isn't imported to the US. I suppose there could be a problem in SSP as far as meeting the minimum production requirements, but it isn't an SSP gun, so that's not really an issue. I don't want to turn this into a lengthy IDPA rules discussion, but I also don't want to leave this out there for someone else to come across in the future. That's how we end up with people saying, "Oh, yeah, I read that you can't have screw holes in the frame of an IDPA gun." HOWEVER - since this discussion came up, I took a closer look at the frame of the pistol. Mainly because there is a weird mark near the front screw hole. It turns out I was wrong anyway - the mounting holes in this gun were added at some point in its life. Well, more accurately, the mounting holes were moved. The frame originally had three screw holes on each side. At some point someone filled the original holes and drilled and tapped new holes on the left side. I'm not sure how I didn't notice this when I cerakoted the frame, but there you go. The holes are also further back than on the factory guns. Ultimately, though, the pistol has a EGW sear and hammer, so there's no firing pin block. That's pretty clearly not IDPA legal...

Oh. The screw holes aren't a modification (as far as I know, anyway). I have another small frame with the same holes. The older ones have three holes, and the later ones have four. They still make basically the same pistol, but I don't think EAA imports it.

Is this an old rule? I'm not seeing anything in the rule book that would make those screw holes illegal.

I think the color is tungsten, but I'm not 100 percent sure. I'll see if I can figure it out over the weekend.

Haven't shot it yet. I'll let you know how it goes once I get to the range.

A 3D printer would be nice for small gun projects... very cool. I wasn't sure what to use for the guide rod. I considered nylon, but acetal is supposed to be easier to machine. Any idea what the manufacturers make their polymer guide rods from?

Thanks! If I were you I would watch GunBroker and eBay. The prices for the conversions from EAA have become insane. They pop up for much more reasonable prices from time to time. Or check out the classifieds here.

Yep, it's a 4.75" barrel. Same length as a limited pro, but it doesn't have the fancy polygonal rifling.

Just thought everyone might like to take a look at the pistol I pieced together for IDPA competitions. I have a large frame limited pro that I usually shoot, but it just barely fits in the IDPA box. You kind of have to force it in there, and I worry that I'm going to be DQ'd at some point. I had bought a bare competition frame a few years ago that was coated in a peeling black paint. I also picked up a 9mm long side conversion for it. I got as far as cerakoting the frame, but never really went beyond that point. I recently decided that I needed to finish the damn thing, so after a bit of digging around in my parts stash, I came up with the following pistol. It's an older small frame competition model with a brand new 9mm longslide conversion. Limited Pro extended safety and an extended mag release from an older competition model. EGW hammer and sear, factory SAO trigger. With my custom-made acetal polymer guide rod, the pistol weighs 42 oz with a mec-gar 17 round magazine. Everything internal has been polished to death, and the trigger pull is right around 2 lbs with a 15 lbs Wolff hammer spring. Even better, the small frame pistol is roughly 3/8" shorter than my large-frame limited pro, so it fits nicely in the IDPA box. I also have a Henning flat trigger on order (short reach). I've been very tempted to go to a CZ Shadow, as I prefer the smaller grip of the CZ pistols. However, the slightly deeper radius cut of the small frame Tanfoglio competition frame is quite comfortable for me. I definitely prefer it over the large frame models, which surprises me, as they don't seem to be that different.

My 9mm large frame Limited Pro with EGD grips and a mec-gar magazine weighs 43.4 oz - just over the 43 oz. limit for ESP. I was weighing various parts the other day, and I discovered that the factory steel guide rod weighs a full ounce. So I decided to make a replacement guide rod out of delrin/acetal. A little bit of screwing around on the lathe and I have a brand new guide rod. Dropped the weight of the pistol to 42.4 oz. without any fuss. So now I have a nice little cushion in case I run across a scale that reads a bit on the heavy side. It's a little rough looking because I started to include the thinner portion like the factory rod, but then I realized that I didn't need it. Plus I figured leaving it thicker the entire length will make it a bit stronger. No difficulty installing into the slide, because the acetal bends a bit. It's actually easier to insert than the steel rod. The only other change I made was to make the end a bit thicker, in hope that it will hold up better. There's not much material in the frame holding the rod, so I was just covering my bases.

Is this correct or do you have it backwards? I'm not very familiar with .38 super, but I thought the semi-rimmed case would mean that the 9mm breach face is slightly smaller?

Ok, here's the frame. The forum didn't like the size of the photo on my iPad so I had to switch to tapatalk to post it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Hi everyone, I haven't posted here in a while, I've been shooting my Beretta Elite II in most matches (I shoot IDPA and my Limited Pro is right on the line of legal). Anyway, I am in need of a few parts to finish my third Tanfoglio. I'm using an earlier competition small frame with a 9mm long slide conversion. The frame is an early "limited" frame, meaning it is a short dustcover like my limited pro, but it is drilled and threaded for an optic (like the current long dust cover limited models). I bought the frame more or less bare (it came with a few parts). It was painted with something but was peeling when I got it, so I stripped it to the hard chrome, sandblasted it, and then cerakoted it "tungsten." To finish it up I'm looking for a few parts: - "custom" safety (the thumb rest version like on the limited and limited pro) - slide stop - SA trigger - trigger bar guide and spring - silver extended mag release Id like to get a silver safety and slide stop, but if you have black ones you're willing to part with, I will probably take those and just Cerakote them silver. I also need a pair of Eric Grauffel's aluminum grips for a small frame. Silver or black, just in case someone has a pair they're willing to sell. I'd also be interested in a pair of black large frame Grauffel grips. Send me a message if you have anything! And here's a pic of the frame in its current condition:

Well, the new release fixed it on the ipad, but the posted scores still do not have an uncategorized "overall" result. The overall sheet still shows the scores broken down into the individual classes and divisions. There still doesn't appear to be a "combined" sheet.

Yep, iOS. It looks like the new update may very well be addressing the problems we're having. It looks like it was released today. Thanks!

We have been running practiscore for our match results for a few months now, and we've been very happy with the program. However, after yesterday's match, we were only able to see a single "combined" results sheet that broke the participants into their respective classes and divisions. I realize that is the way IDPA wants the results to be presented (different classes and divisions don't compete against each other) but losing the "overall" results sheet is a problem for our club. We typically only have about 25 shooters. Completely breaking the results down results in a large list of people all taking first, second, and third. We're not an affiliated club, and many of our shooters aren't IDPA members and only come out occasionally to shoot, and they want to know how they did compared to everyone else. So... what's the deal? Where'd the other result options go?

That's a nice looking trigger - not cheap, though.

The receiver of my stock 3 is not marked 9mm. For all anyone knows, it could be either a 9mm or a .40. Right, it's the same as a Glock frame, which could be a 17, 22, 34, 35, 24, etc and you can't tell what it was originally once you take the slide off. It's still breaking the rules if only you know you're breaking them. What exactly is the reasoning behind this rule? As far as I can tell, there's no safety concern and no performance advantage. I mean, why have a rule that has no purpose and is impossible to enforce? Isn't that pretty much the definition of a bad rule?

Actually, Wolff has a "service pack" with pretty much every spring for the beretta for $18.99.