MoRivera

Right now I'm using a Magpul ACS-L w/ extended buttpad because I adjust length between two uppers depending on which multigun rifle shoot...mainly due to the ranges of the particular match. For my 14.5" (with pinned/welded brake) upper for shorter-range matches that are out to around 100yds max, I use a 1X Prism scope and put the stock at 13.5"" pull length. That's my natural pull length for a red dot or the prism mainly upright. For my 16" upper with a 1-6x LPVO when ranges are farther, I pull the stock out one notch to a 14.25" pull length to match my cheek weld to the LPVO's eye box when I'm shooting supported or prone, and just keep my cheek weld and push forward into eye box when upright. I have a pretty wide jaw so the widely-sloped stocks tend to push my head out too much when I push my cheek weld in. But the ACS-L's is still narrow enough that it doesn't, and I still get a stable and repeatable cheek weld that's just right for the LPVO. I never used to think I'd want that much length of pull (3/4" longer than a standard A2!), but that's what I found most comfortable while hunched or prone, and so I don't have to push my scope length/mount too far forward (and onto rail). It took a little while to find it, and I had higher scope mounts and it was closer with the shorter LOP, which made me have to arch my neck back when prone or supported/kneeling. That sucked. Found it much easier to just lean forward into the scope more when upright, then when prone/supported it's right on. Also, the ACS-L is a nice, wobble-free snug fit.

I use a Hiperfire Hipertouch Reflex on both a PCC and a 5.56. They come with two sets of springs for a trigger that's light and one that's extra light. Clean single-stage trigger.

No angled fore grip now? Is that recent?

https://cesar-shop.com/firearm-parts-en/pistol-en/trigger-sistem-en/cz-shadow-2-shadow-sp-01-petelin/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=hot_this_week&utm_term=2021-03-12 If you have tried it out, how does it compare in shape to the 'old style 85C' trigger? The latter I have on two SP01 Shadows and like a lot.

Yeah, sounds like what was happening with mine. The spring for the disconnector was incredibly stiff out of the box, as if it wouldn't compress at all. So consequently firing/cycling would feel like a jackhammer slapping back on your finger, you could feel the hammer just struggling to put the disconnector back just to hook it. You just couldn't move that 'hook' back at all. But after about 200-300 rounds it began to soften and then you could barely feel or hear the 'click' as it engaged the disconnector upon dry cycling. And that's when I got a six-round burst at the range then recreated it on the next shot. So I think it just bound down and flattened this spring, or it was like the spring was already completely compressed before and this just crushed it.

I had similar things happen with an RA140 trigger. Turned out that the disconnector spring had compressed and was basically ineffective, so the disconnector wasn't catching the hammer after cycling. I replaced it with one from a mil spec trigger group, having to put the tapered end down to fit in the bottom hole but it functioned fine and has been normal since.

Maybe easier to load and less chance of hang-up. Also may depend on how much of a 'leap' there is feeding into chamber in particular designs. The Scorpion mag is curved to follow the natural stacking characteristics of the slightly-tapered 9mm rounds like with an MP5, so maybe less chance of hangups within mag as gasses/carbon gets blown back. Just speculating. I just like how the Scorpion mags look better!

I have a TS slide in .40 fit to an SP01 Shadow frame (essentially making it a long-slide Shadow CTS) in which I also run a 9mm barrel. With the SP01, .40 and 9 share the same magazines as well, so it really can just switch calibers easily. So that's nice when I want to shoot major in Limited. Also have another of the same slide with an optic, so it makes a cool gun for steel/plates and knockdown in 9mm. Agreed, as this new 'standard' TS2 was going for the same as you'd get a current TSO, and the TS2 doesn't have the thumb rest/optic riser feature. But the TS2 did feel a bit better in my hands.

Just handled one in a LGS, and gotta say.....REALLY like it. I never liked the thin aluminum grips on a regular Shadow or Shadow 2 because of frame width, but on a TS Blue that I had before I did, and on this they also felt great. Sharper checkering like on S2 and TS Orange are a huge improvement over the waffle-checkering from before. Trigger break was light but not disturbingly light like on some earlier TS. It also pointed much more naturally for me than either an S2 or the TS Blue I had before. Also for some reason I didn't feel as bunched up by the CZUB magwell on this as on the older-style TS. Everything seemed to fit nice right out of the box. I want one. But if there was ever a time when it made LESS sense to get it, in 9mm along with spending another $250 or so on magazines, it's now. I had to call the store guys dirty names to get them to throw me out before I pulled out my wallet.

Oh I've had mine for years and it's worked like a champ with my regular blowback uppers. Maybe I will give it a shot with my CMMG RDB upper. But the only time I would even need that is when shooting falling steel where I'd get 33+ rounds from a Glock mag as opposed to just 30 using a P-Mag with the CMMG Endomag inserts.....and since it looks like I'll be laying low from shooting for a while with this ammo crisis, there's no rush. So you just inserted and set like you would if using with a regular blowback upper? Or did you specifically set it higher or lower in the mag well before tightening the set screws?

Interesting...there does seem to be some leeway as to how high the Stern adapter sits in the mag well, ands it has those adjustment set screws. Tempted to try it out but want to leave my Stern for other receivers I have.

I was looping at that before yeah. I just want to keep the Stern the way it is as I still use it with my other blowback uppers. Or at least I did when ammo wasn't so costly and I used to shoot regularly!

I'll keep an eye on mine too. Man that thing really takes a beating, right?

Don't tell anyone this either, but there are still 1911's out there in common use and availability that don't have one.

Wow.....so based on this, whether the gun starts with hammer fully down, at half cock or cocked n' locked, it's just as likely to fire from a drop like in that tragic USPSA mishap. Changes the outlook on using them in Shadows if true. My only question...and not insinuating anything....is whether this was determined through testing by those who make them like CGW.

Hi Randy... So you're saying that if a Shadow/Shadow 2 is dropped, an extended firing pin can ignite a chambered round from inertia alone, regardless of whether the hammer is lowered or cocked?

Yeah, that's kinda' why I wish Stern made an adapter that works specifically with a CMMG Radial Delayed Blowback upper, just to have some more options with Glock-based mags, especially configurations over 30-rds...without having to buy a 'dedicated' CMMG lower. I know you can modify the mag catches on some lowers like a Foxtrot Mike to work, but I haven't really read about much great success or reliability with that.

I already use those (CMMG ones for their RDB system), and they are great, super-reliable. I'd just like to also use Glock mag options that have even more capacity for certain matches, whereas I'm 'limited' to 30 in the Emdomags. The 'regular' Endomags I'm still iffy about, with that plastic ejector and bolt hold-open. I know they had some issues at first, wonder if they've improved.

But that's because they come from the factory that way, and they don't say that the manual-safety models should be manually decocked to the half-cock notch, so my guess is that's what the competition rules go by..even though mechanically they contradict each other. If it was somehow 'official' how CZ says the manual-safety models should be carried, then they'd probably follow suit and allow it. But as has been pointed out, nowhere in any documentation/manual does it say it should. It shouldn't have to be a question since like we said, it's mechanically evident, but I would guess that's what it would take for IPSC/USPSA to change that rule for the CZ manual-safety models. But then, it's pretty much arbitrary, safety-wise, for carry because both the decocker models and the manual safety CZ75B models have an internal firing block. So half-cock or hammer fully forward, they're pretty much both as drop-safe either way. It's the Shadow models that don't have the internal blocks, so comparing it to an internal-safety model is ultimately kind of dubious. Everything's kind of logically backwards. As for the tungsten, other guns weigh as much if not more...there's naturally a lot of variances in weight. And again I'm not saying so much that I agree if someone would complain, but a shorter double-action first pull does make it a bit easier for these guns and someone may indeed 'whine', in particular those who make or change the rules in competition. I get the impression that they'd be reluctant to make special exceptions for certain pistols, and frankly I'm a bit concerned that they'd rather just ban the model altogether from use in competition.

I guess you'd have to get it cleared with the manufacturer first, then officially documented as manual of arms, etc. before incorporating it into the rules. Otherwise I assume some may see it as a competitive advantage making the double-action pull shorter....even though again, it's already the standard way to carry for the decock-equipped CZ's. In fact that's why I first went with an SP01 Tactical because of they shorter first DA shot, but then I liked that I could get a nicer trigger with less extra movement and makeup with a Shadow so switched to that (I know, some CGW action jobs can really improve the decock models too).

Exactly what I asked as well. Mechanically, they're the same in that state....so why okay for one and not the other?

Sorry to resurrect, but I can confirm that on my SP01 Shadow, with a CGW extended firing pin and the hammer fully down, the firing pin is in contact with the primer of a loaded round (using dummy round) and the hammer face with the hammer elevated a tiny bit above the rear slide face. Meaning that if there was an impact on the hammer, I can see it being directly transmitted to the primer. I have since changed the firing pin in both my iron-sighted and optic slide to the stock firing pin but kept the reduced-power firing pin springs, since this gun starts hammer-down. With the stock pin, hammer down rests on the rear slide face (not elevated slightly like with the extended one), but still doesn't contact the loaded round. With a 12-lb hammer spring, so far the pencil test looks good although I know that's not the end-all when it comes to the prospect of reliable ignition. On my long-slide Shadow (also with 12-lb hammer spring), I'm leaving the extended pins in because that gun always starts cocked-n'-locked. Excuse the crudeness of the diagram........

One of my PCC's has a Hiperfire 24E with the higher-powered green springs, so it has a good deal of oomph behind it and thus one of my concerns with firing pin life. I don't know if AR9-specific trigger groups have a softer hammer strike than 'regular' AR15 ones, I always thought that it was more about reliable functioning/cycling...plus that bolt/carrier is generally coming back and hitting it harder than in AR15's, I assume.

I have the exact same combination in one gun. Good to hear.