alma

Okay, so maybe I am not crazy. Clearly he is running a new A5. Am I missing something else here?

I just checked Briley and they still offer the three springs with its Browning Gold extension kits. Maybe they would sell the springs separately. Here is Briley's write up on it: http://www.briley.com/browninggold10shotmagazineextension.aspx "The Browning Gold has a unique self loading system which requires the use of an increased power recoil spring and a reduced power latch spring. The gun will not function reliably without exchanging these springs. Replacing the extension, follower and magazine spring can easily be done but the recoil spring and latch spring may require the services of a qualified gunsmith. Also fitting this extension system may prevent reliable ejection of light 1oz loads. This can usually be corrected by a qualified gunsmith."

Interestingly enough this was in the 2014 CZ Catalog.

I think HD pump shotguns are usually less than $300 so it might not be too expensive to get a dedicated one. I would worry about length of the typical extension tube in my hallways. It's also nice to have a light of some kind mounted on the HD so the setting up might be quite different. If you were going this route then you could pick up a 21 inch 1301 that could do double duty. I think Benelli also has a short tactical model with a pistol grip that might work well but in ether case I personally would want a shorter tube than the typical 9-10 rounds.

Towley, You should give Briley a call. They use to sell a Browning Gold package that included a reduced power carrier latch spring and I think a new main spring. Getting the carrier latch spring tuned to the mag tube spring tension seemed to be where most had issues. My other option is getting a longer Nordic extension on my Gold and continuing to run that. I have done a lot of work on the loading Port so far and while it's not pretty, I can now quad load well. I will post pics when I get home in January.

I have been making plans for building a new 3Gun shotgun and am trying to decide on which model to use. The easy answer is to get Benny to build a VM but part of me likes to go the road less traveled. I currently run a Browning Gold and despite other reports of problems it has been running 100% for me for years. The biggest issues have to do with tuning the springs correctly to get the Auto Load feature running reliably. While looking at new shotguns the other day I noticed that the tube in the loading port for the new A5 looked to be set more shallow in the loading port than any of the other major guns. That is combined with a forend that keeps the lines from the loading port and doesn't hit a lip (like the VM) or bulge out (like the M2). The SN runs along side the port but it isn't as low as it is on the 1301 so opening up the port shouldn't be an issue. I am wondering whether the A5 could be an ideal gun for quad loading or whether the auto load just introduced too many variables to run reliably. One possible other advantage of the A5 auto load is that it allows you to remove ammo directly from the tube without having to cycle it through the chamber. That might be a nice feature for 3 gunners who are diligently practicing loads at home. I am including a couple of pictures for comparison. The first is the side by side of the stock A5, 1301, VM, and M2 (20 gauge). Second is a Browning stock photo of the loading port, and finally a side profile. Thoughts on making the new A5 into a competitive gun?

Does it work then other way around (9 to 40)?

I used to shoot iron exclusively. I felt very competitive even against the TacOps guys until it came to targets beyond 75 yards. I just got my butt kicked by TacOps shooters on targets at distance. On some of the longer stages it was also very fatiguing on my eyes. Since I was stuck with an A2 I put a C-More on all scout mount that sped me up quite a bit. I am now running a Vortex HD but would love to put the Cmore back on the flat top of a light rifle to shoot a some fast, close range stages.

I can't wait to see that one all put back together too! How does the balance feel now with that much of the dust cover chopped, I am planning on doing about the same on mine. You may wait to answer till its all back together, I guess pesky parts like barrels and trigger groups do add a little weight... I am guessing that the frame was shortened right upon to the SN. I saw Matt's shop did one similar but with an angle taken off under the SN http://automaticaccuracy.net/?wpsc-product=deposits-for-all-automatic-accuracy-pistols So how's much goes it cost to get CZC to cut it to CTS length and move the SN?

Doubtful. Likely just leaves them with one less excuse for match performance... not saying that I am not interested of course.

My safety doesn't fully engage when the hammer is down. Pretty sure that the gun isn't designed for this. Check out the height of the safety in DA you will see it isn't as high as safety engaged on SA.

Does the Accu have any particular markings on the slide aside from the obvious bushing? I am not sure how one could distinguish an original Accu versus retrofit.

Actually doing it by pulling slide results in more reliable feed on my Kimber 1911. I guess this little bit of tension on a spring helps. Friends don't let friends do that. You should get Kimber fixed. Other than being slow and I have often seen shooters follow the slide forward before letting go giving the spring even less to work with and causing the round to not chamber completely. Using the slide stop to release the slide also applies a consistent and repeatable amount of force leading (hopefully) to greater reliability and possibly even accuracy. The accuracy supposedly comes from having the round go into the chamber with a force and motion that resembles a typical slide cycle. Not saying that it does, just saying that someone told me that when I first started shooting.

There are some better pictures around somewhere and CZC polished and smoothed mine out nicely but this should give you the idea: http://www.czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=38489.0

+1 I have never felt that using the slide stop has slowed me down in the least. It amazes me the large percentage of the gun shooting population who believe that the way to close a slide is to pull back on the slide. For example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp39PdBbDL0

Ghost stinger is great for me. My only complaint is that it could offer more clearance for the front sight. Mine dragged a bit until I worked on the holster with a file. I don't think a HAJO sight would fit since they look a bit taller but its possible that Ghost has made changes to the design since I got the model. However, TJ took a look at my Ghost holster a few months ago and observed that he didn't like where the hanger connected to the holster because it got in the way of his normal grip on a draw.

WHAT are you talking about? Since when did they add grip reductions to the OK'd list of modifications approved for production use? Please cite this in the amended rule book. I think the spirit of the game is alive and well in all classes. I think the intent behind production has fallen by the wayside. Still, the rules themselves, the way the class is set up keeps me shooting production regardless of how many bushings we shoehorn on a firearm or how much Eric Grauffel spooge comes slapped into a lube bottle... I am referring to the Gen 4 Glocks that now include an interchangeable backstrap effectively reduces the grip similar to the grip reductions that use to be illegal for Production.

I haven't noticed that. Maybe it has to do with the profile CZC gave mine?

So what's the verdict on the new Czechmate hammer over the CZC Comp hammers? I saw one post mentioning that it lightened the pull but didn't hear about whether there is a tradeoff with other aspects of the feel of the trigger. I hate to say that I don't like the looks as much and have to think that it would make it hard to manually cock the hammer. Any observations?

I understand the desire to keep with the spirit of the foundations of the Production division which was to have a place where stock guns could be competitive and shooters don't need to drop $3,000 to play. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that the Indian over the arrow analogy is alive and well in production division and for me the challenge of shooting Production is much more fun than any other division that I have tried. Not too long ago it would have been illegal to shoot a Glock with a reangled and slimmed grip in Production but the voice of the people has been heard and this is now a standard option. In my opinion what we are seeing is Production division competition having the same type of influence on the "service pistol" that early competition had in the evolution of the 1911. Just imagine if all progress in 1911 design were frozen at the introduction of JMB's A1. Features which are now standard for the industry were once very custom but the crucible of competition has helped to improve, refine, and perfect the art.

I would love the answer to this as well.

I noticed that CZ USA has a banner mentioning that they got a small shipment of Kadet adapters. They are only available by calling a phone number and are not available for standard order through the website. Good luck to anyone who is looking to get one. http://shop.cz-usa.com/P-01610/Cz-75-Kadet-Adapter-Cal-22-Lr-Black-Polycoat.aspx

I user go have the same issue with my Glock 140mm mags. I felt okay with starting at 23 but would never want to try to top off using a mag that full. Frankly I have had the same experience with some of my AR mags tryst to load 30 rounds when not locked empty.

Here is my contribution to the thread. A CZC Compact L that I picked up from someone on the Forums. I have done some obvious external mods plus internal to include CGW Short Reset System, disconnector, and pins, etc. The trigger came very nice from CZC but it's even better with the additional CGW parts. It certainly allows you to carry with confidence.

Any surprises?