regor

Frame mounted on a CZ Czechmate.

My elevation shifted pretty considerably, but windage has been fine. This weekend's match had some tough stages where not knowing your POI at distance was really punishing (misses or no shoots). I thought it was me but rechecked zero mid-match at the advice of squad mates and was glad I did. I originally zeroed at 17 yards. At the match I checked on what was probably a 15 yard target and my impacts were 2.5-3" high. No idea when it originally started to drift but I put the XL on it at the start of July and I'd guess it's seen 2500-3k rounds through it since then. Would love to know if there is a way to increase the tension for elevation as well. We have our state match coming up soon and I don't think there is enough time to count on a turnaround, and don't want to have to check zero every few stages.

Are the blue bullets smokier than running FMJs or JHPs?

It's definitely doable to shoot 100% in Open shooting static from both the corners with the current HHF, as long as you can move fast. I shot it in 5.77 entering on the center target and finishing on the partial, which would be 95% clean, but unfortunately I dropped a mike on one of the open targets . I did not video it but I don't think I had a particularly quick draw or transitions, so I think a sub 5 second run static is doable.

Cycle times on pistol slides are <0.1 second, probably closer to .05, adding 0.2" to a gun that already has a 2.0" stroke is only going to increase that time by one or two hundredths, so unless you are consistently shooting .10 splits or faster then stroking a slide won't put you close to the mechanical limit of split times. It might feel different, and that might slow you down a little bit while you get used to the change, but long term it should not have any impact.

Most of ours show up same day, but sometimes they take a few extra.

I definitely prefer the CZC extended safety over the original. I used to occasionally lose contact with the little nub on the factory safety and bump it up with my support hand just enough to prevent firing, but I have not had that happen since switching to the CZC one since it allows much more contact with my strong hand thumb.

This is definitely thread creep, but it would be interesting to see this info on a nation wide scale. Of the handful of DQs I've issued to new/fairly new shooters I don't think I have seen any of them back. It definitely does seem that conversion of new shooters is low, I wouldn't be shocked if it was <50%, although a lot of them seem to have already paid for membership going into their first match (I know I did). I think there are a variety of things that contribute to that, but that's outside the scope of this thread.

I agree with you that I should have been DQ'd in that match, and the MD should have been called. But I still think the MD would have overturned it because the RO used non-approved range commands that caused confusion. What rule are you referencing? There are very clearly defined approved range commands to be used when communicating with the shooter (8.3), and the only mention therein of non-approved commands is that the RO can issue interim commands between strings of fire (8.3.6.1), or issue safety warnings (8.6.1). ROs have a responsibility to be clear and concise with shooters and not cause any confusion. Issuing commands other than approved commands can and will cause confusion and should be considered by the MD in assessing a DQ. There is clearly some subjectivity there, but as a narrower example, suppose the first thing I say to a shooter is "Ready?" If they draw, it should technically be a DQ, but any reasonable person recognizes that it would be very easy to mistake that on a loud range and as such the DQ should be overturned by the MD. My actual experience is in a more grey area, but in my opinion would still warrant overturning. Of course, you can argue that the approved commands only apply to the COF, which doesn't start until "Make Ready", but ROs should share some accountability if their commands lead to unsafe behavior, just as sweeping the RO can be overturned by the MD as RO interference (which is not a defined term in the glossary, so you could argue this scenario is also a case of RO interference). At the end of the day all of this is easily avoided if you stick to only using approved commands from when the shooter steps up for their turn until the Range is Clear command. Other than clarifying shooters' questions about the COF or start position there is no need to have additional communication.

I try to avoid using anything but the official range commands when communicating with the shooter until the COF is complete. If I notice they are doing something questionable that could get them a DQ in certain circumstances (e.g. flicking the mag out on a reload, which would cause them to break the 180 if they were shooting close to the 180 already, or not squaring down range to unload and show clear) then I will say something to them after they have made safe. If they commit a DQ-able offense during the COF and I am certain it happened then I issue a DQ. It's the shooter's job to ensure they follow the rules, it's the RO's job to ensure accountability when the rules are broken. As to the drawing a pistol before "Make Ready", I actually did this in one of my first matches; the RO said "Range is hot", which I misconstrued with "Make Ready" and drew. There were multiple ROs in the squad and they decided not to issue a DQ because the RO running the timer used unofficial commands.Looking back at that situation now, as an RO, I understand their decision because a shooter would probably win an appeal to the MD, however I think that calling over the MD is the correct way to handle that. "I think the MD would overturn this" is not sufficient reason to not issue a DQ. In a more cut and dry case like the shooter drawing or tabling a gun when not under the ROs supervision then a DQ should absolutely be issued. As a shooter, if you are unclear if you are under Make Ready, just ask and stay out of the start position until you are sure.

At a bare minimum the CGW ultra lite kit will get you a substantially lighter trigger pull for $49 https://cajungunworks.com/product/54420-ultra-lite/. Following the polishing guide will make it even better. If you want to go whole-hog then the Pro Package for 75 manual safety pistols plus polishing would be the way to go https://cajungunworks.com/product/75110-pro-package-for-75-series-manual-safety/

Max Michel - X5 KC - He's a Zev Tech ambassador so I am assuming their OZ-9 Nils - Cannik TP9SFX Luke Cao - Based on social media seems to be running the Q5 Steel Frame Arris Austin - Glock Hwansik Kim - Q5 SF The X5 list weight is heavier than the Q5 SF, so basically 50-50 polymer vs heavy/steel gun.

@Ludde showed some prototype 170mm extensions for 18 round cz75 mags that fit 29 rounds and I’m sure other manufacturers would hop on if CZ built their new open gun out of them. I have 18 round mags with the CZC long base plates which fit 26 rounds and are very reliable and still well under 170mm.

Eric Grauffel did an interview on the Firearms Nation podcast recently and mentioned he is working with CZ to build a new open gun. I don't expect it to hit the market for 2 years minimum, but it will be interesting to see if the build it on the Shadow 2 frame.

This echos my experience, 9mm 140s needed tuning, but .40 mags shouldn't since the body of the tube is the same width all the way to the extension.

Good lesson for why you should always request a video chat or at least photos with a current newspaper showing date included. If a seller refuses that then they are not someone you want to do business with.

I think comp design probably has an impact on leading. I've been running FMJs for the last ~2k rounds in a Czechmate with @kneelingatlas's aluminum comp and have not seen any noticeable leading. I do have a little bit in the OEM comp from before I switched to the aluminum one. From behind the glass I can't tell a difference between FMJs and JHPs from a smoke perspective. On video the JHPs seem slightly less smokey but in both cases the force from the comp is dissipating the cloud pretty quickly.

Do the sear cage screws eliminate the need to align pre-allign all of the parts and springs with a slave pin and then knock them out with the actual sear pin? If so, that is an extremely nice feature.

I was going to write a python script that will scrape the uspsa.org/classification/[membernumber] page to calculate the distribution of classifications in each division, but I went to try to manually determine the approximate range of valid member numbers for L, A, and TY memberships and got blocked after submitting about 20 different requests in 1-2 minutes, so I really don't think it's a viable approach. USPSA says they have 31k active members, so even if I had a list of every single active member number and assuming a 5 second wait between requests would be tolerated (I doubt it, based on what I saw) it would take almost two days to run the program. I think the only way this is reasonably going to happen is if USPSA publishes it or shares the data so someone else can analyze it.

Anyone know how common this is? Happened to one of our Local GMs at the WA state championship last year, but this is the second time I've heard of it. I swapped mine to my backup to shed some weight, but do really like it.

As mcmotorsports said, no hole in the bottom like with the OEM. You basically just push the the extension off, which requires some force because the spring is trying to keep it in. It might lead to some warpage of the springs, but I've not noticed any actual issues from it.

That part can get jammed into the bottom of the extension so I would definitely take it out. It should give you a little more room for the last round as well so it won't take quite as much pressure to seat.

Is there a disadvantage to using the 75 mags with the grips that make them work? The obvious standout is you cannot easily swap grips until manufacturers start making similar designs.

I've seen enough 25-28 round shoot on the move stages locally with HHFs >10 to make me think hard about whether the handicap of 26+1 is worth dealing with. This past weekend had two, one was 26 rounds and winning time was 9.9, the other was 27 rounds and winning time was 12.1. Sure, both of those are doable with 26+1 without a reload, but they were technical enough that I would not have wanted to shoot them without a couple makeup shots on deck. It wouldn't kill your match to have to toss a reload in, and if you aren't already on the faster end of the competition it will matter less, but it'd be enough to make me think twice about shooting .40 Open when 9 Major is so widely available.

The one thing I've learned shooting Open with a Czechmate when everyone else is shooting 2011s is that if your gun is reliable and your capacity is similar then for 99.9% of people the gun is not what is holding you back. I think most people in Limited shoot 2011s because everyone else shoots them and anyone looking at switching is told to get one, kind of a self enforcing loop.