Stock 2 vs Stock 3 vs CZ SP01

[Onagoth]

Well..thank you for the review.

I will have two of the three guns come December, at that time I will be able to partially validate your results for myself.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Onagoth

[beltjones]

Well..thank you for the review.

I will have two of the three guns come December, at that time I will be able to partially validate your results for myself.

I bet you will love them both equally.

[kneelingatlas]

I bet you will love them both equally.

That's the trouble with CZs and Tanfos: I bought a TS and a Limited thinking I would keep the best and sell the other but I can't pick so I have to keep them both!

Edited November 4, 2013 by kneelingatlas

[Sandro]

Does anyone know if using magazines from a CZ on a Tanf. is production legal? Meaning using CZ mags on the Tanfoglio?

[Steelhead]

Does anyone know if using magazines from a CZ on a Tanf. is production legal? Meaning using CZ mags on the Tanfoglio?

Aftermarket mags are legal in production (appendix D4 17.1). The problem is that stock 9mm CZ mags are to short to fit in Tanfoglio guns, at least it is the case for my stock3. Tanfo 9mm mags fit great great in CZ shadow however, as long as you dont mind a small gap between the base plate and the magwell.

[beltjones]

The mecgar AFC tubes work in the tanfo, but you need to swap to a basepad with a thinner lip.

[ogiebb]

i would love to do my own comparison or review once i get all the guns im waiting for.. this will include

EAA Limited Pro

IFG Stock 2

EAA Stock 2

IFG Stock 3

Tanfoglio Extreme Stock 2 (Still Waiting)

CZ Shadow

MR Baby Eagle

Sphinx 3000 Competition (Still Waiting been 8 months already)

Chances are they will all be the same but would love to see the differences and machine work

Edited November 6, 2013 by ogiebb

[kneelingatlas]

I feel like sending you my TriStar T120 to put into the mix. The machining of the internal parts really is finer than any of my Tanfo, CZ and IMI pistols.

[ogiebb]

I feel like sending you my TriStar T120 to put into the mix. The machining of the internal parts really is finer than any of my Tanfo, CZ and IMI pistols.

we could do that as well... i was surprised to see how clean the Baby Eagle and Canik frames were no machine marks or anything

i wish they would make a 5" barrel Baby Eagle..it becoming my Fav dryfire pistol now

[BeerBaron]

I was a little disappointed in the review. I thought it would be more in depth, but the price was right. so I can't really complain

I own a CZ SP01 Shadow and a Tanfog stock II (mine is a large frame 38 super but I also shoot it with a 9mm barrel). I have shot the CZ a lot in IPSC, have not shot the tanfog as much but will be shooting it more. Have not shot a stock 3 but have played with one and dry fired one.

Some of my own thoughts.

The stock II (and stock 3) feel much more tightly 'fitted' than the CZ (mainly slide fit).

Out of the box the CZ trigger is much nicer and the tanfog trigger does stack.

out of the box the stock 3 trigger is nicer than stock 2 (less pre-travel). apparently Eric G shoots a stock 2 with a stock 3 trigger parts....

Stock II is the only one of the 3 with a bull barrell (cone lock-up). this should help accuracy and also adds a bit of weight at the muzzle end. it also helps account for it's higher price.

stock II is the most expensive of the 3 guns. stock 3 was apparently built to compete more directly with the CZ shadow (hence why it comes standard with just a blued finish and is cheaper than stock 2).

checkering on stock II and 3 is much more serious than the CZ (I run skate tape front strap and back strap on my CZ, no need on the tanfog)

The nickel GK finish on the stock 3 special is beautiful and definitely worth the extra money over the regular stock 3 (for that extra money you get the nickel coat and alloy grips)

Yes mag-well on the tanfogs (both small and large frame) is a bit nicer than the CZ but the CZ is also decent for a production spec gun.

I have also found a lot of the trigger jobs people do on the stock II's means they struggle to ignite harder primers (noted in the test they found that problem).

stock 3 trigger parts will fit straight into your stock 2 and are still IPSC production legal.

stock II and 3 both come with adjustable rear sights (and they are buried into the slide and are decent to use). CZ comes with fixed rear.

CZ comes with a fibre optic front. stock II and stock III do not.

CZ comes with rubber grips (which are actually quite good if you have medium to large hands, not good for small hands), the stock II and 3 come with nice wood grips, stock 3 special has nice alloy grips.

the slide serrations in the stock II and stock III are much deeper and wider than on the CZ

Shadow is poly-coat (not blued, it's a very durable finish), stock 3 is blued (not sure how durable it is), stock 3 special is the GK nickel coat, stock II limited is hard chromed.

CZ shadow and stock 3 have a rail, stock 2 does not.

all 3 effectively have a full length dust cover

I find the stock II is the heaviest of the 3 pistols. still not overly heavy if you're used to say a steel 1911 etc.

Overall the tanfogs feel nicer quality. Better finished and better assembled. the CZ's can sometimes be a bit off, but mostly are also very nicely put together.

Put it this way. the CZ really does look and feel like a duty pistol with some nice bits to make it an IPSC/target gun. The tanfogs feel like a IPSC/target gun from the ground up that happens to somewhat resemble a duty gun.

In the hands of most shooters I'm not convinced there is much difference between them. Plenty of guys shoot very, very well with a CZ. My own CZ is nearly 6 years old and has been shot a lot. I broken a couple of front sights, but still has the original slide stop (can see it's getting worn though, I keep a spare JIC).

There is a difference between a CZ and a large frame tanfog. Some will much prefer one grip over another. With big hands I like the large frame grip. I like the CZ grip too though. Both are nice to hold for me.

In Australia we pay $1350 for a CZ shadow with 4 mags. We pay $1495 for a stock 3 (with 4 mags, custom negrini case etc) We pay $1695 for the stock 3 special (also with 4 mags, custom case etc), Stock II was $1950 (also with 4 mags and custom case). All prices are AUD so approximate to USD within about 10%.

For me if I was starting new the choice would probably come down to a Shadow or the stock 3 special. for the extra $200 (in aus) over the regular stock 3 you get nickel coating (which is usually a $200 option on guns anyway if not more) and alloy grips. It's a really nice looking coating. The stock II is very nice and realistically the best featured of the 3 pistols. but at least here it's a good $600 more than a shadow.

So if money is no option it would probably be a stock II with stock 3 trigger set-up.

At the end of the day, try and see if you can at least hold all 3 as they all feel different in the hand. buy the one that feels best in the hand. You won't be disappointed with any of the three.

[Zerwas]

BeerBaron,

Thank you for your input! It just so happens that I started looking at the Tangfo line of pistols after the IPSC nationals. I currently shoot a 39oz 2011 Grundhauser gunworks custom in standard division. I absolutely LOVE his pistols as they are extremely tight and super accurate (2" off hand at 50M accurate...no joke).

To me, accuracy is king and that alone will give you the confidence in your abilities. A very accurate pistol takes away any doubt that you can make a tough shot with no shoots hanging all over the shoot target, or hard cover, or...well, you get the idea. So, I'm wondering if there is much of an accuracy difference between these 3 pistols at 50M? The stock 2 has the coned barrel (like you mentioned), but the stock 3 has a longer site radius, as does the SP01.

I do have a question for you (or anyone else on the forum). In the research I have been doing on these Tangfo pistols, I am a bit confused on small frame vs large frame. I hear mixed reports that there are no external dimension differences in the two. Is that correct or??? Some say there is, some say there is not. Either way, I plan on removing the stock grips (either Stock 2 or Stock 3) and installing the Grauffel grips.

[beltjones]

On the guns I've handled there is no difference in external dimension between the small frame and large frame.

[Zerwas]

And that was the answer I was wanting to hear.

Thank you.

By the way, what size accuracy groups were you getting at 25 yards with the 3 pistols?

Just curious.

[BeerBaron]

Zerwas, I believe you are correct. no difference in external dimensions between small and large frame, though I thought I felt a difference in grip between a mates 9mm small frame stock II and my large frame stock II. could have been in my head!

accuracy wise the stock II is definitely the better. the cone lockup for a start is sure to help as is the bull barrel which has a better crown. however all of them are pretty much a tack driver at 25 yards. 50 yards is a bit tougher ask on a short-ish semi-auto but they still punch above their weight at that distance.

sight radius in australia our stock 2 is slightly longer I believe as we have a 121mm barrel (same as stock 3) that fits flush up to the slide/dust cover. they made a special model for us as the regular stock II barrel was too short. I believe the stock II's you get still have the competition type crown. off the top of my head sight radius is the same stock II to stock III here. our CZ shadows come with a slightly longer barrel (sticks out about 10mm) but sight radius is the same as everywhere else. overall there is very little between the 3 in terms of sight radius.

for someone like yourself who cares about accuracy above all else. I'd say the stock II is probably the best choice. it's the only one with a bull barrel.

have a look here at the specs on the aus versions:

http://www.tanfoglio.com.au/c/122/stock.html

[Prov1x]

I have a large frame stock 2 and I handled erics stock 3 which is small frame I believe and they felt different to me. I prefer the large frame as it just felt better and there seemed to be enough room for my hands to fit comfortably. The stock 3 grip felt very similar to the cz spo1 shadow.

[Magsz]

I dont believe you're going to see any "real" measurable difference in accuracy between the guns. The Stock II's are probably the most accurate because of the barrel but ALL three guns are EXTREMELY accurate with the right ammo.

Throw in the Accushadow (once it becomes production legal) and you've probably narrowed that gap or eclipsed it entirely with the accushadow coming out on top.

I doubt the accushadow will ever be IPSC legal so that removes that factor from the equation if that is your particular game.

[djb25]

There is no significant difference between the small frame and large frame "competition" frames.

The regular frames, at least the older ones, are different. The small frames have a smaller grip, very similar to the cz75 (identical, essentially).

[Prov1x]

There is no significant difference between the small frame and large frame "competition" frames.

The regular frames, at least the older ones, are different. The small frames have a smaller grip, very similar to the cz75 (identical, essentially).

Thats what i thought too

[mwc]

Just my two cents now that I have a Stock II and CZC Target...

Accuracy for both was fantastic. I can shoot headshots all day long with either at 25 yards.

Recoil goes to the Stock II. I was shooting 135 pf loads and the front sight never seemed to leave the target.

Trigger goes to the CZ by a large margin! I got the double action pull down on the Stock II to a comparable level with the CZ, but then it is only reliable with Federal primers, while my CZ has run everything including Tula and CCI. Also the reset on the CZ is much shorter.

Reloadability...for me goes to the CZ. I don't know why exactly but the Stock II is just harder for me to reload quickly. It just seems less forgiving when things aren't lined up just right. Nothing some serious practice couldn't fix I guess.

I like them both for different reasons, but I will probably shoot the CZ until I can improve the Stock II's trigger and reliability.

Edited November 20, 2013 by mwc

[Sandro]

Just my two cents now that I have a Stock II and CZC Target...

Accuracy for both was fantastic. I can shoot headshots all day long with either at 25 yards.

Recoil goes to the Stock II. I was shooting 135 pf loads and the front sight never seemed to leave the target.

Trigger goes to the CZ by a large margin! I got the double action pull down on the Stock II to a comparable level with the CZ, but then it is only reliable with Federal primers, while my CZ has run everything including Tula and CCI. Also the reset on the CZ is much shorter.

Reloadability...for me goes to the CZ. I don't know why exactly but the Stock II is just harder for me to reload quickly. I just seems less forgiving when things aren't lined up just right. Nothing some serious practice couldn't fix I guess.

I like them both for different reasons, but I will probably shoot the CZ until I can improve the Stock II's trigger and reliability.

Interesting...

[Nealio]

Reloadability...for me goes to the CZ. I don't know why exactly but the Stock II is just harder for me to reload quickly. I just seems less forgiving when things aren't lined up just right.

I've noticed that the mags will bind if there are any sharp edges in the mag opening. I would polish up the mouth a little and make sure the top edge of "funnel part" (ie the part the grips touch) doesn't have a sharp edge on it.

[LoLeft]

Just my two cents now that I have a Stock II and CZC Target...

Accuracy for both was fantastic. I can shoot headshots all day long with either at 25 yards.

Recoil goes to the Stock II. I was shooting 135 pf loads and the front sight never seemed to leave the target.

Trigger goes to the CZ by a large margin! I got the double action pull down on the Stock II to a comparable level with the CZ, but then it is only reliable with Federal primers, while my CZ has run everything including Tula and CCI. Also the reset on the CZ is much shorter.

Reloadability...for me goes to the CZ. I don't know why exactly but the Stock II is just harder for me to reload quickly. I just seems less forgiving when things aren't lined up just right. Nothing some serious practice couldn't fix I guess.

I like them both for different reasons, but I will probably shoot the CZ until I can improve the Stock II's trigger and reliability.

This....

[mwc]

Reloadability...for me goes to the CZ. I don't know why exactly but the Stock II is just harder for me to reload quickly. I just seems less forgiving when things aren't lined up just right.

I've noticed that the mags will bind if there are any sharp edges in the mag opening. I would polish up the mouth a little and make sure the top edge of "funnel part" (ie the part the grips touch) doesn't have a sharp edge on it.

Good call! I knocked down the sharp edges and noticed a huge improvement. Its fun learning about a new platform.