cheby

I am loading 124 RN Berry's to 1.127 for my Shadow 2.

Switching to optic sights could be useful for various skills development in my opinion. Things like shot calling for example.

So what was the problem?

Make sure the trigger bar lifter spring is fully in grooves of the bar. Sometimes it gets out of the alignment (During the cleaning of the gun for example) . You may even have to bend it a little. It happened to me a few times. I remember there was a thread in the past addressing this situation as well

Hwansik, Could you please specify what kind of work out would you do before the match? Running? light weight lifting? Thanks

I am pretty sure it comes with the GM card in the box

Thank you! Good to know

Did you clean the extractor lately? I mean removing it and cleaning it as well as the slide pocket.

just buy a new gun in 40SW. It will come with the slide and the mags and no fitting needed. At the end it would not be much difference in the price.

After that recent incident at A3, I would not be surprised to run into the same kind of BS with Accushadow 2. Especially considering that accushadow is specifically listed on the production list.

well I am not so sure about that...

I found berrys to be more consistent compared to xtreme. Admittedly, I have not shot those bullets as much as I shot the coated ones. So far, I have shot around 6K of xtreme and 3k of berrys.

I have come to the same conclusion recently. I have shot close to 200K of various coated bullets through various guns and they do vary a lot even from the same manufacturer. I switched to Berry's (I prefer 124gr) and I do see the difference

This is correct for not Shadow pistols. The shadow modification is different and the Shadow manual states: "Since the trigger mechanism has been specifically adjusted, it is possible to move the safety onto the "SAFE" position even if the hammer is placed on the safety notch or leaned against the slide."

Below is the post from a different forum addressing this issue. I think it is spot-on: In 100 years of those non drop safe guns we have heard of them going off when dropped, even with very lethal outcomes, but not in any alarming rates despite a very large number of those guns in circulation. The 320 has been on the market only for three-four years and according to SIG's admission, there were 4 discharges in last year alone. Whatever SIG's apologists say about rarity of this event (500,000 guns sold etc), it actually may represent a significant rate of drop discharges. From a statistical analysis standpoint, the denominator should be a number of 320 dropped in a year, we don't have it but we should presume that dropping guns is not that common. The numerator is 4 but we actually don't know that either; it may be higher (underreporting bias) but it is unlikely to be less. That drop discharge rate could be actually in 1-4% rate, for all I know. It is distinctly possible that 320 in its current form is no less safe that a series 70 1911 but there is a possibility that it isn't. Regardless, the latest in a firearm design should be clearly safer that a 100 year old design yet there are doubts, as there are doubts that it is safer than 30 year Glock design with millions in circulation and barely any reports of drop discharges. In regards to the culpability and litigation, I am nearly speechless that SIG has chosen to "hide" behind the ANSI testing standards vs real life occurrences. In my line of work post-release device safety failures have costed manufacturers huge settlements even if devices had passed all safety standards during the development and received independent pre-release approvals. Based on these precedents, I believe that SIG will get their ass handed out to them in courts with their ANSI and NIJ standards if somebody gets injured with their "safe as is" 320. The instructors and match organizers may or may not be found negligent, depending on the case, but they will be sucked into the litigation. SIG calling it a voluntary upgrade is both a character flaw and a mistake. I am not an attorney but, having been detailed in numerous device safety recalls, I would advice trainers, ranges and match organizers to distance themselves from 320s (and any gun that is acknowledged to be unsafe in any way by its manufacturer) until a proven fix is implemented.

Exactly!

I just reread the manual again and I think the RO should not have even tried to put the safety on because " the trigger mechanism has been specifically adjusted, it is possible to move the safety onto the "SAFE" position even if the hammer is placed on the safety notch. In this case, however, it is strongly not recommended to engage the safety because the trigger mechanism might be damaged when cocking the hammer" Basically by trying to do that, the RO could damage the trigger mechanism. (BTW, what exactly could be damaged?) I think the wording in the manual could be presented as the statement from the OFM. I also think those two CZ's that did not pass the chrono stage at A3 were just fine. The problem, however, the A3 incident created the precedent that needs to be addressed ASAP because we are in the middle of the season and have the Nationals in 7 weeks (And CZ-USA being the main sponsor!!)

Please let us know if you get a response.

Okay how do we fix this? I have 2 shadows and 2 shadows 2s. All have identical parts in them: CZC hammers and discos. I can put the safety on on three of them while the hammer is down and move the trigger. One gun is different for some reason. Luckily, it is my main match gun. Any idea what needs to be replaced on those three guns? Hammers? Discos?

This might be true and while it is debatable if "the chances of a gun going off when dropped is higher with 2011's with pinned grip safeties than the P320's", there is one important difference. 1911s and 2011s may go off while hitting ground with their muzzle, therefore, potentially discharging into the ground. In case of 320, it is quite opposite.

good question...

The following is from the Shadow 2 manual: "Since the trigger mechanism has been specifically adjusted, it is possible to move the safety onto the "SAFE" position even if the hammer is placed on the safety notch. In this case, however, it is strongly not recommended to engage the safety because the trigger mechanism might be damaged when cocking the hammer by force or pulling the trigger. If damage to the trigger mechanism occurs, let it be repaired by a certified gunsmith" This is from the Shadow manual: "Since the trigger mechanism has been specifically adjusted, it is possible to move the safety onto the "SAFE" position even if the hammer is placed on the safety notch or leaned against the slide. In this case, however, it is not recommended to engage the safety because the trigger mechanism might be damaged when cocking the hammer by force" It looks like the above should be enough to demonstrate that Shadow and Shadow 2 are different from SP-01 and should be okay for that A3 chrono check..... Right??

Please let us know if you receive any response from Troy.... really don't want to get into this shot at Nationals...

As I understand, CZC sells some extended safety. Does this solve the issue? Looks like this one: https://czcustom.com/cz-parts-all/safeties/cz-tactical-sports-cz-ts-extended-ambi-safety-lhs.html

Excellent photography!!