regor

Yes, I did notice that after checking the rules and seeing what is actually allowed, but the description mentions a bushing as well, so I was confused about whether or not it actually has one/if they offer two different versions. Maybe they just use a generic description for all of their models...

Is anyone running one of these in USPSA and can speak to their reliability/general experience? Contemplating getting a .40 1911 to have some fun in Single Stack without having to get into .45ACP and Bul seems to be one of the only places with current factory production options in .40.

I've done the same, and it is a much more obvious visual reminder if you forget it before going to a match. I suppose it will change the dryfire DA trigger pull a bit on the safety versions, but on the decocker versions the foam earplug still allows you to lower to the decocker notch.

Is it using a Czechmate barrel or the 1/2x28 threaded CZC one? I’d love to see more up close photos/video of the upper.

Anyone have a more up-to-date E2E time for orders? Their website changed to say 2-3 weeks but last time I ordered they were well over their stated backlog.

Another thing you can try is putting in a heavier hammer spring. It doesn't make a huge difference in reset but it takes out some of the mush.

I purchased some spare slideride mounts off the classifieds here a few years ago and one of the mounts was slightly different and would not fit on my TSO. So at some point (maybe with the earliest versions) the OEM mount was not compatible. The one that came on my 2019 CM was compatible with my TSO.

No

Going to a lighter hammer spring will make the trigger pull lighter but in my experience it also makes much mushier so I would not recommend it. I actually switched all of my SAO CZs to 22lb hammer springs to make the trigger pull more sharp and reset slightly better, trigger pull wasn't that much heavier.

CZ should go to a double-sided mount for the CM2 anyways; no reason not to. Or at least a 5 screw mount. Not holding my breath on any of those changes though.

I think it's a really cool concept to see how far you can take the Glock platform. Unfortunately the price is ridiculous. I understand it's a single guy in his personal shop making them so he can't leverage economy of scale, but at $5k you're into custom/semi-custom open gun or Laugo Alien territory and it just doesn't seem justified. The carry-comp version may be able to draw sales from the STI/Staccato tactical crowd at least so maybe he will have success there. He is working on an open version which I think is the more interesting route for this over-built glock but I have the same cost concerns there. He dodged my question about price on that version on instagram but if the carry-comp version is $5k then I'd expect the open version to be even higher and I don't see why anyone would spend that kind of money for an un-proven product.

What is your setup for adding the holes to the existing frame? My main concern with drilling and tapping the TS2 for the CZC mount would be messing up the alignment of the frame holes just enough to make the optic at too great/too little of an angle relative to the bore. The optic mounting surface is canted slightly down so that the line parallel to the mounting surface intersects the line parallel to the bore; if you measure the CZC mount you'll notice it is tapered from rear to front. Napkin math based on measurements I shared in this thread say it's about a 0.75 degree cant. 100 MOA of vertical adjustment gives you roughly +- 0.8 degrees up/down assuming your zero is perfectly centered. Getting the frame hole alignment off by 1 degree might make it impossible to zero the rifle and require shimming the optic, which is a pain, especially with a 2-screw MRDS. So how confident are you that you can get that level of precision out of your setup?

Posting this here because I couldn't find anything about this combo anywhere else. The IPSC Alex double sided mount for RTS2 lists the Romeo3 and Romeo3 Max as compatible optics, but not the Romeo3 XL. All share the same footprint so I figured I'd order a pair for my CMs and try it out, knowing that it would probably have a slight overhang at the front since the XL is a little longer than the Max. As you can see, the overhang is very minor, 2.3mm v. 1mm for the CZC mount I've been using. I don't foresee that causing any issues. The mount was a very tight fit for my primary gun; probably a good thing but unexpected. The one that I put on my backup (a slightly older Parrot with the larger front strap checkering) went on with much less pressure needed. Maybe just tolerance stacking or the newer frames are slightly thicker. Compared to the CZC mounts the Alex mount puts the optic about 1mm lower and 2mm further back. About half of that vertical offset comes from having a thinner surface for the optic to sit on, so the Alex mount has considerably less thread engagement for the optic mounting screws. The IPSC Alex mounts have steel threaded inserts and steel locating pins instead of threading directly into the aluminum surface and the threaded inserts provide only 3-4 threads of contact, which is my only concern about this mount. The length of the optic mounting surface is slightly shorter on the Alex mount but with the rearward shift the back edge extends 2.5mm further back than the CZC mount; I doubt that's enough to impact ejection at all, but there's 1-2mm of excess material at the rear I could remove if needed. The weight of my CZC mount that came off this gun is 32g, the weight of the IPSC Alex replacement is 25g, so we're shaving a little bit of weight and shifting the weight slightly further back, though not enough to notice. The weight savings come from overall thinner material. The frame mounting arms are 3mm thick for the Alex mount and 5mm for the single sided CZC. At the optic mounting surface the Alex mount is 3.1mm thick vs the CZC which is tapered from back (3.6mm) to front (2.9mm). CZC mount is also much thicker at the edges, tapering from 4.8-4.1mm. The screws that came with the mounts are a little too short IMO, both for the optic and the frame. Both end slightly below flush with the last thread so I will probably get some extra M4 screws/bolts and cut them down to maximize thread engagement while still allowing proper slide clearance. I was going to have to do that with to frame screws anyways to mount the thumbrests I use, so not a huge deal.

It was probably 3-4%; I shot one and know of 4 others who definitely did as well, and I'm sure there were more I'm not aware of, but it's definitely a small number. That being said, if MBX came out with a line of reliable Czechmate mags they would likely become the new norm, at least for the 170s. The $160 MBX charges for their other 170s is cheaper than it costs to get a factory CZ big stick ($130) + CZC extension ($38) and springs to take it to a true 170 and require tuning to run reliably. I'm sure they can be made better and more reliable, the question is whether the R&D for that would provide a meaningful enough ROI for MBX.

I have found that G10 wears down fairly quickly. A fresh pair of Log Bogies is the closest thing I have felt to an aggressive steel 2011 grip, but after a couple months of regular dryfire the points round and they are much less aggressive. They still provide a decent texture, it's just something to be mindful of if you are getting the brass + bogie insert ones because they use a non-aggressive texturing for the brass portion. I have found the aggressive brass ones hold up better over time; they aren't as good as fresh bogies but they are better than worn down bogies.

Spot on with the TK blued moons. At a match yesterday one of my buddies came over to check out my setup and tried to pull a TK blued moon off my belt... he had a hard time! I bought 40 TK stainless moons to be my main match moons and I have found it to be a near optimal amount of magnetic attraction with the DAA moon holders. Enough to keep everything solid while running but light enough that everything pulls off without a hitch even if I pull at an off angle. The blued ones are my first moon for loaded starts now, everything on the belt after the start signal is stainless.

Yes, I'll share the link in this thread as well.

That’s my video. I’ve had a lot of requests to do a mag tuning one. I have three new magazine bodies and have a few new extensions on the way from Springer Precision; I plan to make a video in the next couple weeks once I have them. Could be as early as next weekend if the SP parts arrive this week.

Contact CZ USA customer support, they generally seem to be able to help out with small parts like that.

I'm not sure exactly what size those tiny thumbrest screws are, but the ones that secure the optic mount to the frame are M4x0.7. Someone on here may know the correct size for those smaller ones, but you could also measure it and compare to a metric screw chart to figure out roughly which one it is. From their my suggestion would be to go to a hardware store and buy spares. You may need to trim them to the correct length. Alternatively you could call or email CZ-USA and see if they will send you spares. I've had good luck with that in the past with small parts that they don't sell online (like their side by side hammer shotgun hammer springs).

Take the springs and followers out and put the base pads back on. Look into the magazine with a flashlight and look for any overlap at the magazine body/extension transition. You can also run a pick along the inside and feel for any snagging points. If there is only minor overlap you can probable just add some beveling on the inside of the mag/extension to smooth the transition, but if it's major overlap then you should just send it back to the manufacturer.

I just got my backup’s upper back from CZ custom with two 3/16” popples so I took it out to the range with the Sebo titanium comp and some brass accessories for some side-by-side slo-mo analysis. Only thing I didn’t try out was Sebo comp + popples since the comp needs to have a hole drilled through it and I didn’t want to commit to that prior to testing.

I had the same issue with some Everglades bullets I was using and an RCBS seating die. I tried a Hornady seater and it was better but didn't fix the issue. I ended up doing something very similar to what SeattleDude suggested and drilled out the center of the seating stem until the tip of an inserted bullet was free floating and then polished the inside circumference of the seater with one of those ball sander bits for a dremel to ensure even contact. That fixed the issue.

Yep. The left two targets of the middle array should not be visible from rear. That considerably changes the amount of movement required to shoot it. Not the first time I’ve seen this range mess up classifier setup in ways that make it substantially easier. Mistakes happen (we messed up one of the 20s at a classifier match and had it rescinded), but when it’s habitual you really have to wonder…

That classifier is definitely set up wrong, unless they were just copying the stage and not using it as a classifier. Hopefully the MD sorts it out with USPSA.