Jeff226
-
Posts
255 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jeff226
-
-
1 hour ago, SGT_Schultz said:
The "hammer resting on the firing pin" is not a CZ design flaw. It's a USPSA rules flaw.
ALL DA/SA CZs have a half cock notch to prevent this very thing. Many DA/SA CZs also have a firing pin block in addition to the half cock notch.
DA/SA CZs which come equipped with a decocker will drop the hammer to the half cock notch upon decocker operation, BY DESIGN.
So it looks to me by simple deduction that CZ intends its pistols to be carried with the hammer on the half cock notch when in DA mode.
For whatever reason USPSA rules require DA/SA pistols without a decocker to be "manually decocked" by lowering the hammer all the way down past any half cock notch that may exist in the pistol. However, the very same rules state that a DA/SA pistol is "fully decocked" wherever the hammer stops upon decocker actuation. See Appendix D4 Special Condition 1 and Appendix D7 Special Conditions 1 and 2.
When the hammer is fully lowered it doesn't rest on the firing pin, it rests on the slide. A fully lowered hammer on a STOCK DA/SA CZ is the most safe hammer position. Yes, the firing pin will be pushed against the lowered hammer under spring tension but the hammer cannot transfer energy independently to the firing pin because of contact with the slide.
The half cock is DESIGNED to catch the hammer if the full cock notch is broken. If you carry a non firing pin block CZ around on half cock it is more dangerous than the fully lowered hammer because if the hammer is broke free of the half cock notch it could in theory apply force independently to the firing pin which would be protruding from the back of the slide.
Firing pins don't inertia fire when dropped on the butt...only muzzle down. However, triggers can be inertia pulled when the gun is dropped on the butt from sufficient height. That height is reduced when you start lightening springs.
-
2 hours ago, Intheshaw1 said:
Limited minor isn't competitive. Expanding production would probably bring back some CO guys. I'd agree that P10 would be small, but it's sort of like cutting of your arm to save your body. P10 would die but production may survive.
2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:Firs who cares if they are competitive? We can't make divisions for everything to be competitive.
2nd if we know P10 would die why would we bother with it in the first place?
Limited minor makes more sense than any other division we currently have or that people are dreaming up.
You can compete with affordable 9mm factory ammo with any 9mm double stack pistol (which is about 80+% of the handguns sold currently) modded in almost any manner that you like without requiring hundreds/thousands of dollars in optics/optics ready options and reloading equipment.
This division should not only be made competitive, but it should be the center of the sport and if we had it we probably wouldn't have to bother with most other divisions if their eventual death was the mitigating factor.
-
2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:
I think it's great that 9mm divisions are doing well, that doesn't mean we should make all the divisions 9mm. Certainly not just because we think some day it might be harder to find brass for 40. We're more likely to end up with more capacity restrictions forced on us from the government then we are to run out of 40 brass.
I agree with that.
-
On 9/30/2020 at 8:49 AM, Racinready300ex said:
Revo is a good example of why commercial use of ammo doesn't matter for USPSA. When they started allowing 8 shot minor Revo shooters started loading 38 short colt. When was the last time you saw that on the shelf? How many departments are carrying wheel guns with short colts today?
For our purposes we will spend the money required to get the things we need to compete.
How is it a good example of that when it consistently has the lowest participation? How many new competitors are going to flock to USPSA to reload 38 short colt in a revolver?
Participation is growing in 140mm+ mag divisions where commercial 9mm ammo is not at a scoring disadvantage. Not a coincidence.
-
4 hours ago, motosapiens said:
dunno if it's so much about 'winning' as about testing myself against the deepest field I can find.
the more the rules relax for production (which i support, btw), the less sense it makes to not let 1911's with carry-style magwells compete too. Although I think that would probably kill singlestack for good, at least there would still be a place for the lord's own handgun to compete.
Single stacks have a place to compete...they have a whole division of their own plus can shoot in limited, limited 10 and open. Why do we need to change production to accommodate people who already have their own division plus 3 more options? If you don't like your division, then buy the right gear and pick another division to compete in. If you need to see how you did against a deeper field you can sort practiscore and compare against anybody you want to. Since some single stacks can shoot major, it makes no sense to combine them with production.
-
1 hour ago, MikeBurgess said:
power factor came from 45ACP and 357 magnum being harder to shoot fast with than 9mm and 38spl, there needed to be some way to even up the playing field, yes the early practitioners were under the belief that a 45 was better than a 9mm in a gun fight.
When looking at it as a game though a 45 with 8 rounds vs a 9mm with 13 makes for a pretty interesting choice, but now we have 141.25mm mags with 20-21 in 40 and 23-24 in 9mm, 3 rounds at that capacity doesn't make for the same decisions
Agreed. In addition to that, the power factor for major has dropped from 185 to 165 (so much for manning up and going to the gym) so the scoring bonus for shooting major is way too generous for the negligible difference in recoil and capacity.
1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:Simple if you want a points advantage you must deal with more recoil. Don't want to deal with more recoil you give up some points.
Nothing to do with EDC or the FBI's caliber or choice, nothing about damage to flesh or any other stuff. This is simply a game with rules that you don't like.
It is a game with rules that don't make sense in some cases. The rules have been changed almost every year since inception so why would they stop now? Baffles me why some people are so intent on maintaining an obvious imbalance in the rules.
-
7 hours ago, waktasz said:
There are too many divisions as it is, and SS participation is declining. I think the sport would benefit more from this Limited-minor talk more that it does by having SS as its own division. You could name the Prod/SS division "Factory" or something.
I don't think adding one more division while we let them all shake out will break the system but I agree with you on taking a closer look at all of the 10 rd divisions. If we have to consolidate/reduce divisions for some reason, and considering Production is so far from "production" at this point, one division that combines production/single stack/ and limited 10 into a 10rd minor/8 round major division would result in a net reduction of 1 division after adding limited minor. If we are being honest, single stack is the only division where DVC still matters and that would be our opportunity to keep it IF we wanted to. Unless we totally get rid of power factor (which I do not advocate) then having 10 rd single stack major in the same division as production minor creates the same issue we have with limited.
-
5 minutes ago, ima45dv8 said:
So unless I misunderstood you, it sounds like you want to see Limited Minor as a separate division instead of making all of Limited a minor-only division? Either way, that's what we have today, in terms of SCORING. All one division, but some are scored Major; some are scored Minor. It's easy enough to break out the different PFs scored in PS if that's what people want.
Correct, limited minor a separate division and Limited Major continue as long as people want to shoot it. I don't agree with making everything minor, which from all indications is what seems to be coming at some point.
Similar to your point, it would be easy enough to break out Production and Revolver scoring if we tossed them into limited division as well...but we don't do that because there is a competitive difference. We all know minor is not competitive in limited and splitting it out would allow it to have its own classification hit factors...which would be much more similar to production than limited.
-
9 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:
Here's what we do, no more divisions just run what ever you want. At check in you'll get your trophy, sort of like running a marathon. Just by showing up you're already a winner.
If we have 13 divisions like SC and 6 classifications we're already going to have 78 winners. May as well just let everyone win.
I would gladly trade classification winners across the board for a proper competitive limited minor division vs leaving it the bastard stepchild of 40 Smith and obsolete for 5 more years. I can't see the logic in arbitrarily limiting divisions, especially one that makes as much sense as limited minor, because of trophies/prizes.
-
1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:
Another option, guys who don't want to shoot major could just pick a division where they can be competitive with minor. Crazy town right? Not many come to mind, but they could try CO, Prod, SS, Rev and PCC. Hell, L-10 nationals was won once using minor shoot that, beat 4 guys and you can probably be the Area champion.
None of those are limited minor. You can't keep selling Model Ts to people that want Chevrolets.
-
5 minutes ago, Overscore said:
When I get voted in as USPSA president this November, I'm eliminating the whole major/minor PF business across the board. It's total nonsense, and it's at the root of all these debates about divisions. We all know that if I shoot someone in the kidney with a .40, it will not have a 33% greater effect on that person's life than if it had been a 9. Same with the forehead.
Last time I talked to Foley he said such a move was inevitable but they were hand wringing over people being stuck with worthless equipment....which is why I think Limited Major should continue as a division...and open should still provide for a major power factor for that matter.
-
11 hours ago, shred said:
We've already seen that Limited Major beats CO head-to-head on the same stages from Nationals.
So if anything scores will be slightly better competing no-dot CO against dot CO rather than Lim Major.
And either way, there's no need for the mandatory dot in CO, is there?
What would be accomplished by making the scores "slightly" better when there is still a glaring disparity? It would also create the problem of limited minor disappearing into carry optics...how would you know how many used an optic vs who didn't?
You "need" an optic in carry "optics" more than you need major power factor in limited. The optic requirement levels the field in a division created for competition with optics. Major power factor perpetuates a known scoring disadvantage against limited minor.
Putting these two together doesn't do anything to solve the problem...it just shifts the problem. I don't see the benefit in messing up carry optics, a well defined competitive division that is very popular and growing, just to avoid adding one more division into the computer or just replacing production with limited minor.
-
On 8/20/2020 at 5:27 PM, shred said:
More people shot Lim Minor on purpose than shot PCC in 2019 and that's twice as many as Single Stack and 4X Lim-10's "We need it because so many people in bad states", and a crapload more than Revo, yet nobody questions the demand for those.
If a dude wants to play USPSA with a duty gun and flashlight, or noob want to run full cap mags, or shoot a Revo or Single Stack or PCC because they like it, that's demand. We may not like it, but it's there.
That Lim Minor is so un-competitive that most actual competitors shoot something else probably means if it were a competitive division, there would be even more participation.
Am I lobbying for Lim-Minor? No.
I'd rather dump the mandatory dot in CO first and see what happens. It's stupid-easy to do. Iron-hicap-CO still won't be very competitive, but it's a slightly saner place to put noobs and cops with duty guns than dropped right into Limited. Then we could see if there's really demand for LimMinor or if its all just people playing or noobs without enough mags.
The only way to measure the true demand for limited minor is to offer it as its own division...not keep coming up with arbitrary ways to keep/stick it in another division where it is disadvantaged. Anybody who has taken the time to get good with a dot knows it is better than irons.
-
21 hours ago, shred said:
Yeah, a split would make six roughly equal-size divisions-- PCC, CO, LimMaj, Open, LimMin & PD, plus 3 smaller ones, SS, L10 and Revo (SS is about half PCC, L10+Revo together is half of SS). Feels like a lot of slices in the pie. Probably PD would lose some shooters, but 2/3rds would have to go to get down to SS levels. Plenty of people claim to love PD, reloads and all here, so maybe not. Some division consolidation could be done but that's a different argument..
That is only 9 divisions...computers can easily handle that. If they actually wake up and respond to the demand to split out limited minor, then Production will quickly fall into the "smaller ones" category, Limited major won't be far behind, and CO will continue to lure away open shooters. Let people have all of the division options at level 1. Level 2 and above can limit participation to only the 5-6 most active divisions if prizes for all 9 are a problem. If the market decides limited major is obsolete then so be it.
I keep hoping some energetic person will just start a new organization that has their own limited minor optics, limited minor irons, and "all other" divisions. That will be much easier and quicker than pampering those hanging on to DVC even though we all know it hasn't been relevant in limited or open for a long time.
-
On 7/25/2011 at 9:33 AM, aztecdriver said:
Because grip safeties are "add-ons". Think about their function for a second - it only stops the trigger from being depressed if your hand is properly positioned in the rear of the grip.
As the primary safety is working on the 1911 - the thumb safety in this situation - everything is good. They function completely different.
ETA: This is NOT the case with production division. In production division - ALL factory safeties must remain functional.
BTW: Just so you know, being that you have indicated that you don't care what the rules say about this - perhaps your question is better suited in the 1911-style pistols section of the forum. They might be able to tell you more of a functional reason behind the disablement - and why the grip safety is more a pain than anything in the 1911 design.
It actually functions as a drop safety...it stops the trigger from inertia firing the gun if dropped on the butt. Making sure you have the exact grip on the gun before it would fire was not its primary purpose.
-
1 hour ago, Sarge said:
I can remember we collectively would say this will never happen. But these days things change radically and often.
Luckily the market seems to have more influence than the naysayers...unfortunately it just takes too long.
-
At this point, if they just allow the 140mm magazines in production I will be content until my eyesight forces me to go to carry optics,
-
6 minutes ago, davsco said:
limited minor would be pretty cool and there'd be a ton of crossover with 2 & 3 gun where lots are shooting 9mm 2011's.
I agree, limited minor and carry optics are the two biggest growth/longevity opportunities for USPSA.
-
2 hours ago, waktasz said:
These new rules don't obsolete any existing guns. Killing major in Limited would
Major wouldn't be killed in Limited if they just added a separate Limited Minor...which would be far better than what they are doing to production to appease the people that really want Limited Minor.
-
9 hours ago, pete627 said:
Knowing what I know now ... if I were just starting ... I would buy 9mm ...mail order ... in bulk ... shoot it and let it lie (seems to be getting very inexpensive).
Go shoot ... go home and watch TV .. no reloading ... no picking up brass.
I think this is part of what is helping with the growth in Carry Optics and PCC, production holding steady even though people aren't happy about the 10 round limit, and would contribute to significant growth in limited if limited minor wasn't hurt by the scoring. Back in the day, we all reloaded but there are a LOT of people that don't want to sit there and pull that crank for hours and to be honest, I have had about enough of it myself.
-
On 4/23/2019 at 6:58 PM, Chui said:
That alone points to “Pistol” not necessarily “Person”.
I conducted an experiment with two (2) Glock 43 pistols.
One shot 3” left of POA at 5 yards/ offhand and from ransom rest.
The other one shot 1” left of POA offhand and from a rest.
So...
(1) I switched upper assemblies
(2) I switched only barrels.
(2) I switched only the slides.
The problem followed the lower assembly.
I assume it is the locking blocks.
Wherever the rear sights are drifted when the pistol is brand spanking New is where they NEED to be to be point of aim: point of impact.
I used to mechanically center them and then scratch my head.
I now know so I hand select them based upon where the rear sight is located in the dovetail.
I’ve found Gen 5 triggers to be remarkably consistent so it’s less critical compared to, say, Gen 3 and, to some extent. Gen 4 triggers.
Sold that left-shooting pistol with full disclosure to a guy who was adamant it was me. I was glad as Hell to rod myself of that craptastic plastic and began paying much closer attention to such things as the position of the
Rear Sight in the dovetail.
I have planned on doing another experiment with purchased locking blocks to see what differences they may make (essentially checking dimensional tolerances or variability) but it would require much more equipment and effort than I’m willing to invest and it’s not MY problem; it’s Glock’s problem.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI am going through the same process right now with a Glock 22 that shoots way left. I shoot all of my 9s and other 40s straight and most other people's Glocks straight but this one is definitely off and low round count to boot.
-
32 minutes ago, shred said:
Hah. Last major I shot Open at, I believe I was right about even with Ben Stoeger who cleaned everyone's clock in PD. No worries there
I've been shooting Single Stack Major and Minor mostly lately. I can tell you that in major matches and better club matches, strings of 8-8-8 are in no way typical. So yeah, if your locals are like that, go to some better matches. That's all I said.
I never said matches were all 8-8-8...can you quote that? Maybe even tell me what you think the work typical means as that could be where the disconnect is. Typical <> "always"
So instead of continuously misreading what I write, how about telling me what is typical at these better matches that would make me all giddy about a 15 round production magazine?
-
2 hours ago, shred said:
If your typical match has a bunch of 8 round strings, you need to get to some better matches.
Since the max scoring targets per firing position is 8, I would say 8 tends to be pretty typical...but I didn't say every match I go to has only 8 round strings...can you quote where I said that?
I don't think forcing extraneous round counting on the 10 and under crowd vs good stage setup makes for a better match. Are you one of those Open/limited guys that hates getting beat by production shooters?
-
On 5/30/2019 at 2:52 PM, Racinready300ex said:
If it comes to that I'd rather see major get dropped and leave minor as it is. Giving minor more points with so little recoil is just going to raise HF's and make everything a hose fest. It would dumb down the game IMO.
On 5/30/2019 at 2:59 PM, motosapiens said:agreed. I am against *any* such changes, but if I were changing something, it would be to go minor-only, so people would have to learn to shoot.
I think these are good points. No sense in changing minor...especially since factory ammo will easily make 125 pf. Either give minor their own divisions (which doesn't make anyone's major gun obsolete)...or just go all minor.
CZ Shadows / TSOs not drop safe
in CZ
Posted · Edited by Jeff226
A stock CZ is VERY safe with the hammer FULLY lowered on a live round. Why design the gun with a double action first pull if the gun was not designed to be carried with a round in the chamber???