Clarification on CZ Shadow Target legality?

[elguapo]

AC, I hear what you are saying, however the statement I wrote that says the CZ SP-01 Shadow Target is available direct from CZ USA and CZ Custom is true since both websites list the same pistol and cite the same catalog number.

CZ USA: http://cz-usa.com/product/cz-75-sp-01-shadow-target-9mm-black-3x18-rd-mags-by-cz-custom/

CZ Custom: http://czcustom.com/shadowtarget.aspx

In contrast, I can't find the WC customized 92G Brigadier model on BerettaUSA's website, even when looking at their premium line. So as quoted from WC's website, the WC 92G Brigadier is exclusive to Wilson Combat.

But one is legal and the other is not. This is the part that is not making sense to me.

Follow the money. And follow the last name of the IDPA CEO

Edited November 11, 2014 by elguapo

[2MoreChains]

AC, I hear what you are saying, however the statement I wrote that says the CZ SP-01 Shadow Target is available direct from CZ USA and CZ Custom is true since both websites list the same pistol and cite the same catalog number.

CZ USA: http://cz-usa.com/product/cz-75-sp-01-shadow-target-9mm-black-3x18-rd-mags-by-cz-custom/

CZ Custom: http://czcustom.com/shadowtarget.aspx

In contrast, I can't find the WC customized 92G Brigadier model on BerettaUSA's website, even when looking at their premium line. So as quoted from WC's website, the WC 92G Brigadier is exclusive to Wilson Combat.

But one is legal and the other is not. This is the part that is not making sense to me.

Follow the money. And follow the last name of the IDPA CEO

Yeah, I get all that. But conspiracy theories aside, my question still stands.

[ac4wordplay]

From the WC website:

"Wilson Combat and Beretta USA have collaborated to produce the ultimate 92 Series Tactical Pistol."

So replace WC with CZ Custom, and Beretta USA with CZ USA and basically you have the same thing: "CZ Custom and CZ USA have collaborated to produce the ultimate CZ Shadow Target pistol."

Also from the WC website:

"This model is exclusive to Wilson Combat and available direct from Wilson Combat or from Wilson Combat Premier dealers only."

Or in the context of CZ: "The CZ SP-01 Shadow Target models is exclusive to CZ Custom and available direct from CZ USA or CZ Custom item # 91159."

And lastly from the WC website: "IDPA Stock Service Pistol approved"

Hmmm... I'm at a loss.

I agree with your position. In an attempt to prevent an attack on a technical flaw in your above argument, I wonder if one of your statements may benefit from a modification so that your comparisons remain consistent.

Using your original exchange proposal ("replace WC with CZ Custom, and Beretta USA with CZ USA"), and these two statements:

"This model is exclusive to Wilson Combat and available direct from Wilson Combat or from Wilson Combat Premier dealers only."

Or in the context of CZ: "The CZ SP-01 Shadow Target models is exclusive to CZ Custom and available direct from CZ USA or CZ Custom item # 91159."

One of them seems to need to be adjusted. Either this:

This model is exclusive to Wilson Combat and available direct from Wilson Combat or from Wilson Combat Beretta USA Premier dealers only.

Or in the context of CZ: The CZ SP-01 Shadow Target models is exclusive to CZ Custom and available direct from CZ USA or CZ Custom item # 91159.

...or this:

This model is exclusive to Wilson Combat and available direct from Wilson Combat or from Wilson Combat Premier dealers only.

Or in the context of CZ: The CZ SP-01 Shadow Target models is exclusive to CZ Custom and available direct from CZ USA CZ Custom or CZ Custom item # 91159.

...would seem to remove the technical flaw. It then presents other things to consider.

Respectfully,

ac

AC, I hear what you are saying, however the statement I wrote that says the CZ SP-01 Shadow Target is available direct from CZ USA and CZ Custom is true since both websites list the same pistol and cite the same catalog number.

CZ USA: http://cz-usa.com/product/cz-75-sp-01-shadow-target-9mm-black-3x18-rd-mags-by-cz-custom/

CZ Custom: http://czcustom.com/shadowtarget.aspx

In contrast, I can't find the WC customized 92G Brigadier model on BerettaUSA's website, even when looking at their premium line. So as quoted from WC's website, the WC 92G Brigadier is exclusive to Wilson Combat.

But one is legal and the other is not. This is the part that is not making sense to me.

Yes, and that's part of what I was alluding to when I wrote:

"It then presents other things to consider."

I don't doubt that what you wrote (quoted) from the different websites is correctly/accurately quoted, and I don't disagree with your premise or your general conclusion, just a minor point of the mechanics of part of your argument (the application of the substitutions that you proposed: A = B, C = D) which was incomplete. Completing it allows for two different statements (in my previous post), which when evaluated factually further illustrates the differences that concern you.

I'd love to hear IDPA HQ (and WC) defend the WC 92G BT (http://wilsoncombat.com/new/handgun-beretta-brigadier-tactical.asp#.VGF1z8lmWIw) as IDPA SSP compliant, with regard to:

• 8.2.1.1.1
• 8.2.1.3.3
• 8.2.1.3.5
• 8.2.1.3.11
• 8.2.1.4.1

It may be both educational and amusing.

Respectfully,

ac

(I should have stayed out of this frustrating topic!)

[Jim Watson]

The Beretta press release: http://www.thetacticalwire.com/story/332770

Post by the Head Knocker

We have received 198 of the initial shipment of 250 pistols and expect the remaining 52 to arrive in the next week or so. The complete order with BUSA is for 1000 pistols to be delivered as follows:

250 Oct/Nov 2014
250 Dec 2014
250 Jan 2015
250 Mar 2015

Most of the initial 198 pistols have already been sold.

If they continue to sell though well we may order more, but delivery would probably be in the 3rd quarter of 2015 due to military M9 orders in process and the pending move of BUSA to TN.

These pistols are built to my specifications which include a tight slide to frame fit and tight barrel lock up with a match grade Elite II style stainless barrel. As customers take delivery of these pistols it will become evident that they are the best M92 pistols produced to date. Actions are also pretty darn good for an out of the box production pistol. Accuracy has proven to be very good. All in all I'm personally VERY happy with how they turned out and think BUSA did a great job on them.

The following up grades are available prior to shipment: Action work and installation of our new magazine guide, however this will delay shipment 5 weeks or so due to our backlog of Beretta work.

More, with Justification of SSP by the Head Knocker The line in bold is pretty bogus considering that they have a long laundry list of parts and services for Beretta as seen at http://wilsoncombat.com/new/custom-beretta.asp#.VGGurSLF8SE

I feel I'm mostly among friends here, so I'm going to be "candid" here

First off I didn't have competition shooters in mind when spec'ing this pistol, primarily a optimized service pistol.

That being said I want to give some history as to the "why" of the project. As many of you know I have been a big Beretta 92 fan since back in the 80s and am a serious Beretta collector. While my first love has always been and will always be the 1911 platform, the B92 is of major interest to me. One thing I have normally been successful at is turning interests/hobbies into profit. I want things that don't exist, so it create them for myself and then figure out a way for the project to pay for what I personally get out of it. Example: I wanted custom work on my own Beretta's but I can't justify taking bench time from my pistolsmiths building 1911s since we're 1-3 years our on delivery depending on the model. So I had to make it a profitable business venture to do custom Beretta work. Same with the Brig Tac, I personally wanted a pistol Beretta didn't build and probably never would build. Only way to do this was to dive in deep enough to make a it a real and profitable business venture. I have another must have model in mind so stay tuned......

So based on what I just said it really comes down to my personal preference, I just spec'd out the pistol "I" wanted for myself, with very little though as to how it would be received by the market.......

The pistols I had in my collection that was the nearest to what I wanted were Elite IIs and 92G SDs, so I basically took what I liked best from each of these two models and then added what was missing.

I'm guess in everyone's next ? will be "why" do you like this or that. So here goes a quick rundown.

Starting with the obvious and working down to the meat and potatoes.....

All metal parts: If you want a plastic gun go buy one (hopefully a Walther PPQ M2), plastic parts have no place on a fully machined quality pistol

Checkering: You can't shoot a pistol fast unless you can keep it from moving in your hand

Beveled magazine well: While the standard M92 is a pretty easy gun to re-load, every little bit helps under stress

D Hammer spring: Why Beretta puts the god awful heavy hammer springs in their pistols I have NO idea, the DA is basically un-shootable with these 26#ish springs and totally unnecessary to ignite quality ammo. In my opinion you shouldn't be shooting the Russian crap ammo in a quality pistol, so who cares if it misfires. I've done a lot of testing on this and a 16# Wolff or factory D spring will reliable light any US mfg primer double action. If you stick with Federal or Winchester you can usually get by with a 13# spring. I have guns that are sure fire with 12# springs and Federal primers.

Removable front sight: WHY BUSA DOESN'T MAKE THIS A STANDARD FEATURE OF EVERY MODEL EXCEPT THE M9 I HAVE NO IDEA ????

G de-cocker: It's simply the way all M92s/96s should be............ Why you would want a safety on a DA/SA pistol is beyond me. This is one place though that I did make a compromise to assure the pistol would be accepted in the marketplace. I went with the std parts so it would be more readily accepted my the masses and be IDPA SSP approved. Personally I would have dropped the right side lever, as a right hander it's nothing but something to get hung on something.

Light rail: I carry a pistol EVERY day ALL day! I also put this pistol on my nightstand every night and I prefer to have a light attached to it because if I need it in the dark I want a light on it! Do I like it aesthetically, NO I'd much prefer the sleeker look of a pistol without it.

Stainless match grade barrel and tighter slide to frame fit: Accuracy good, it's one of those things you can't get too much of. Maybe everyone can't utilize the difference between the accuracy of a S&W M&P and a Brig Tac, but those of us that can really appreciate it. To address those comments about tighter tolerances reducing reliability I call BS, WC has been building some of the most reliable 1911s since the late 70s and we build them as tight as possible. Granted if you were in a hostile environment of dust, mud, sand, etc. looser might be better, but lets face it most American's don't subject their pistols to this abuse and keep them reasonably clean and lubed. I carry everyday here on my ranch in TX and my main mode of transportation is a UTV, it's gets pretty dry and dusty in the summer and my guns get awfully dirty, but I don't recall ever having a malfunction with any of the 1911s, B92s or ARs I normally have with me.

Now to the less obvious.

Tritium front sight: As I mentioned I put my pistol on the nightstand at night, a tritium sight helps me locate the pistol in the dark and there are times I might not have my light attached and it allows me to make decent hits out to 10-15yds in pretty dark conditions. As to daytime range play, yes I'd rather have a fiber optic, but it's not real deal breaker for me as I try to focus on the top of the sight blade anyway.

Brigadier slide: I shoot my pistols a lot, even now that I've completely retired from formal competition I still shoot several hundred rounds (sometimes a 1000+) every week do durability of my guns is important to me. The Brig slide is simply bullet proof, I've never heard of one failing, ever. There is a big debate as to whether a lighter or heaver slide is easier/faster to shoot. I've tried to quantify this for myself and have never been able to conclusively prove which is better. I seem to shoot a 4" 1911 or Centurion better up close (under 12yds) and a longer sight radius heavier slide better past 12yds, but the difference is so minute that it's really not worth the debate to me. In a perfect world I would have rather have a Vertec slide that was .060" wider than normal, I think this slide would also be bullet proof as to durability and more aesthetically pleasing, but I was limited to mixing and matching parts Beretta had already built at sometime.

G-10 grips: This is a VERY strong material, so the grips can be made pretty thin and still be serviceable, thinner is good on a double stack pistol. It was basically about thinning the grip, but they do look "quality" and pretty cool to.

WC rear sight: I personally did the design of this sight and feel it's as good as it's gonna get considering the limited space available on a B92 and the fact we're limited by a fixed front sight on most pistols. The U notch is a big aid in reducing horizontal sighting errors due to the fact it naturally centers the front sight like a peep sight. The sight gives a good sight picture in both shaded areas and out in bright sunlight.

WC fluted guide rod: I probably have not mentioned, but I wanted to put as many WC produced parts on the gun as possible while keeping it IDPA SSP approved, so we were pretty limited and the guide rod was an internal part we could change. Also we were not allowed to use non BUSA mfg parts that have any effect on function if we were to have BUSA warranty these pistols. I'm into quality and this is a quality part, fully machined from barstock, heat treated and Melonite coated. The fluting is probably just cosmetic, but it only costs pennies extra to do and looks cool so why not......

Elite hammer: Picked it for cosmetic look only, functionally the std hammer is better since you can usually run a pound lighter hammer spring with the same ignition.

Oversize checkered magazine release: Never had an issue with accidentally ejecting a mag with one and they are definitely an aid in fast mag changes, especially for those with small hands. Had to stick with a Beretta part due to the previously mentioned IDPA/warranty issues.

Round trigger guard: I just like it! All of my customized M92 have been modified to a round T guard. Serious shooters never put their finger on the front of the trigger guard so why have that ugly hook or half finished look of the M9A1 trigger guard. Dramatically improves the aesthetics of the pistol and gives it a "different" look from the rest of the pack.

4.7" bbl length: As above, I just like it. This is just one of those "preference" things.

I think that's pretty much it, as stated above I just built my "personal" dream gun and hopefully the project is successful enough to justify building my dream Centurion in the future

Whole long thread on Wilsonrettas

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13908-new-Wilson-Combat-Beretta-92G-Brigadier-Tactical

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13908-new-Wilson-Combat-Beretta-92G-Brigadier-Tactical

[v1911]

If all of this had come from the CEO of Berreta, then we wouldn't be talking about this. But regardless of how many mix and match Berreta parts were used for these LIMITED production pistols, they're still being assembled by a third party. Just market it as an ESP pistol and none of this is an issue.

But for the same reason we will NEVER see a .40 in CDP, we will now have an ESP Berreta in SSP.

[johes]

ESP Wilson Beretta in SSP. Fixed it for ya.

[elguapo]

USPSA Approved Production Pistol List FTW

[mikeinctown]

The only difference between the S&W Performance Center and CZ Custom is one of semantics.

Huh?

The Performance Center is part of S&W...same company and location. CZ Customs is not part of CZ-US. They're different companies.

That's a bit more than semantics...

CZ Custom's products are SKUs/catalog items of CZ USA. S&W Performance Center's products are SKUs/catalog items of SMith & Wesson.

Where's the difference again?

I thought I just explained that?

CZ Customs is not the same company as CZ-USA. The Performance Center IS a part of S&W.

I know this was from the first page, but it still does not make any sense at all. What should matter is that CZ made the gun. CZ is selling the gun. CZ has the item listed in the catalog along with a part number. CZ sells the pistol through their distribtors. The fact that they are partnered with a shop that does work for them should mean nothing.

What you are trying to say is that no company should be able to farm out parts of their operation due to another company having expertise in the fittment and installation of the components you wish to have on your product. ie, I build a gun but have the shop down the street do all sight work on my model A because they do better work than I can do in house. Under your assumptions, I really didn't make the gun. Likewise, under these assumptions, Apple doesn't make an iPhone.

Now this would be different for example if Cajun Gun Works was selling their version of a Shadow with a bushing. In that case, there is no CZ part number, it isn't in the catalog, no CZ warranty, and the product is not for sale through CZ or it's line of distributors.

[BillR1]

I know this was from the first page, but it still does not make any sense at all. What should matter is that CZ made the gun. CZ is selling the gun. CZ has the item listed in the catalog along with a part number. CZ sells the pistol through their distribtors. The fact that they are partnered with a shop that does work for them should mean nothing.

What you are trying to say is that no company should be able to farm out parts of their operation due to another company having expertise in the fittment and installation of the components you wish to have on your product. ie, I build a gun but have the shop down the street do all sight work on my model A because they do better work than I can do in house. Under your assumptions, I really didn't make the gun. Likewise, under these assumptions, Apple doesn't make an iPhone.

Now this would be different for example if Cajun Gun Works was selling their version of a Shadow with a bushing. In that case, there is no CZ part number, it isn't in the catalog, no CZ warranty, and the product is not for sale through CZ or it's line of distributors.

Wow, you got all that from my statement? Fascinating...

I don't see that I made a claim or judgement as to whether or not companies were correct in farming out different work. I simply stated the fact that CZ Customs and CZ-USA are different companies. The Performance Center is NOT a different company than S&W. That's it! I'm not sure why you read more into it than that.

[GOF]

I think it all comes down to the "Golden Rule" - he who has the gold makes the rules. If IDPA rules the Wilson/Beretta custom pistol to be SSP legal and the CZ Custom shop Shadow to not be.... well, who owns the "Gold".

I make no further comments, other than to note that I am sometimes baffled by the logic of some IDPA rules.

Edited to simply confirm that no edits were required to the original text. I have to keep my fan club informed

Edited November 13, 2014 by GOF

[BillR1]

I think it all comes down to the "Golden Rule" - he who has the gold makes the rules. If IDPA rules the Wilson/Beretta custom pistol to be SSP legal and the CZ Custom shop Shadow to not be.... well, who owns the "Gold".

I make no further comments, other than to note that I am sometimes baffled by the logic of some IDPA rules.

Edited to simply confirm that no edits were required to the original text. I have to keep my fan club informed

Like ac, I'd be very curious to hear the logic (or lack thereof) behind this decision...

[GOF]

So would a number of shooters who have invested money in the CZ Shadow platform and now find it illegal. They may be joined by those who invested similar money in a S&W 625 and now are uncertain of where it can be shot. That list may grow.

[johes]

So would a number of shooters who have invested money in the CZ Shadow platform and now find it illegal. They may be joined by those who invested similar money in a S&W 625 and now are uncertain of where it can be shot. That list may grow.

I'm afraid I fall into both categories. I have a Shadow Target and a 625 PC. As you say, that list may grow. The way it's headed, there are two kinds of members, those that have been affected by HQ's actions and those that will be.Giving us a "cookie" like removing the flat footed reload to give the illusion that they are really listening to the members is only a very small start, but if you read the suggestions submitted, there were many good suggestions that were obviously ignored.

[elguapo]

So would a number of shooters who have invested money in the CZ Shadow platform and now find it illegal. They may be joined by those who invested similar money in a S&W 625 and now are uncertain of where it can be shot. That list may grow.

I wonder how many will leave pre-emptively?

[tbarker13]

I know this will pretty much be the final straw for me.

A few months ago, I decided to switch from Limited to Production. One of the reasons was that I'd have a gun to use in the IDPA matches that I've helped run for the last 3 years.

I picked the Shadow Target, because I just love adjustable sights.

And now this.

I'm not buying another gun to use in IDPA matches. At this point, I really don't see me doing much more than shooting the occasional match with my CCW gun - where there's nothing else going on.

[BillR1]

I've recently purchased a few CZs to use in IDPA. I researched the rules ahead of time and bought guns that fall within the guidelines. It CAN be done, even with CZs.

[tbarker13]

Well I thought I was following the rules. And if it were so crystal clear, they wouldn't have had to issue this muddy clarification.

As it stands, they still haven't actually outlawed the Shadow Target. They ruled against the Accu Target.

[BillR1]

I never said the rules were clear. I intentionally stayed away from externally modified guns (non-OEM milled slides, etc.) that could be ruled out later.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Shadow Target was ruled illegal for SSP because of this.

If an adjustable sight was that important, why not just get an 85 Combat?

I guess I'd just rather stay away from walking such a fine line with regards to equipment. If that makes me less than competitive in my class, so be it.

[motosapiens]

I guess I'd just rather stay away from walking such a fine line with regards to equipment. If that makes me less than competitive in my class, so be it.

I think perhaps some people are making the argument that the line shouldn't be so fine, and also shouldn't be so squiggly, curving around so as to leave some things on one side of it, and other seemingly similar things on the other side of it. It might also be nice is the line was just in one place and stayed there, rather than moving at the whim of corporate.

[GOF]

+1 to that. If there is a 'line' on allowable equipment, don't keep moving it. Competitors spend money to get to that line, with the understanding that it is "the line". Moving it at "corporate whim" is a disservice, and cost members money --- and money they wouldn't have spent if they'd know the 'line' was going to move again. Just ask the 625 revolver shooters.

[BillR1]

I guess I'd just rather stay away from walking such a fine line with regards to equipment. If that makes me less than competitive in my class, so be it.

I think perhaps some people are making the argument that the line shouldn't be so fine, and also shouldn't be so squiggly, curving around so as to leave some things on one side of it, and other seemingly similar things on the other side of it. It might also be nice is the line was just in one place and stayed there, rather than moving at the whim of corporate.

I completely understand your point. It's frustrating when the line is constantly "clarified" (changed?), at least partly because people like to get right up to the edge. I guess I look at it like driving down a 2-lane road. It's safer if you stay as far from the center line as possible. Less exciting is good sometimes.

[tbarker13]

I guess I'd just rather stay away from walking such a fine line with regards to equipment. If that makes me less than competitive in my class, so be it.

I think perhaps some people are making the argument that the line shouldn't be so fine, and also shouldn't be so squiggly, curving around so as to leave some things on one side of it, and other seemingly similar things on the other side of it. It might also be nice is the line was just in one place and stayed there, rather than moving at the whim of corporate.

+1

[BillR1]

+1 to that. If there is a 'line' on allowable equipment, don't keep moving it. Competitors spend money to get to that line, with the understanding that it is "the line". Moving it at "corporate whim" is a disservice, and cost members money --- and money they wouldn't have spent if they'd know the 'line' was going to move again. Just ask the 625 revolver shooters.

IMO, the 625 issue had nothing to do with any "line". IDPA felt it necessary to eliminate a dying division that saw very little participation. The 625 happened to be one of the only guns that was competitive in that division.

Now if you're referring to the change several years ago that eliminated 5" 625s in favor of a 4" barrel, then please accept my apologies.

[Thomas H]

I guess I'd just rather stay away from walking such a fine line with regards to equipment. If that makes me less than competitive in my class, so be it.

I think perhaps some people are making the argument that the line shouldn't be so fine, and also shouldn't be so squiggly, curving around so as to leave some things on one side of it, and other seemingly similar things on the other side of it. It might also be nice is the line was just in one place and stayed there, rather than moving at the whim of corporate.

I completely understand your point. It's frustrating when the line is constantly "clarified" (changed?), at least partly because people like to get right up to the edge. I guess I look at it like driving down a 2-lane road. It's safer if you stay as far from the center line as possible. Less exciting is good sometimes.

Why should it be a problem to get right up to the edge of the line? After all, that is exactly as legal as if you are completely far from the edge of the line.

"Safer" --- yes, because competitors should have to worry about whether or not their gun choice is legal one day and illegal for competition the next. (Where the sarcasm emoticon?)

Some people seem to have this idea that making the best possible choice for winning legally is somehow "wrong" in IDPA. Some people also seem to have this idea that choosing equipment based on what saves time and improves accuracy and is legal is somehow "against the spirit of IDPA."

Either something is legal, or it isn't. "The edge of the line" is legal. Therefore, it is just as legal as everything else.

Blaming people for legal choices makes no sense.

[2MoreChains]

As it stands, they still haven't actually outlawed the Shadow Target. They ruled against the Accu Target.

I saw that. LOL!

http://www.idpa.com/misc/RC/IDPARulesClarification-v2014-10-31.pdf