Tanfoglio vs CZ parts quality/issues

[xdf3]

7 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Anything reported that does not involve a ransom rest, more than one example of each gun, and a good bit of load development I would personally take with very few grains of salt. 

 

They are both proven to be accurate enough to win any USPSA/IPSC event. 

 

Tanfo's fit my hand better so I sold the Shadow 2. 

One has a cone-fit barrel, the other one has nothing. So I would believe the difference.

 

Rests apart, I've never heard the opposite. I've hear more than once that more accuracy was achieved with Tanfoglio Stock 2, so I'm curious.

 

With shadow2 I've read that it's more about luck with the bushing. 

[IHAVEGAS]

5 minutes ago, xdf3 said:

With shadow2 I've read that it's more about luck with the bushing. 

 

Tanfo's have a well deserved reputation for a lot of variability. I would need to see real data before I would think it likely that they have less variability in accuracy that a Shadow 2. 

[xdf3]

1 minute ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Tanfo's have a well deserved reputation for a lot of variability. I would need to see real data before I would think it likely that they have less variability in accuracy that a Shadow 2. 

I'd like to know that

 

I'm talking about stock 2 only, not other Tanfoglio's. It may be a big difference 

[IHAVEGAS]

35 minutes ago, xdf3 said:

 

 

I'm talking about stock 2 only, not other Tanfoglio's. It may be a big difference 

 

I've fitted 5 Tanfo's (3 stock 2's and 2 stock 3's) and 5 CZ's (85, SP01, Shadow 2, 75, and Compact) with all the competition goodies from CGW and Patriot Defense.

The wildest dimensional tolerance is a Stock 2 in 40 with the old style frame, the gun where everything seemed to just drop in and fit easy and the slide/barrel/frame fit seemed tightest was the Shadow 2. As a rule the Tanfo's had more variance, could not tell a difference in variance between the 2's and 3's. 

 

Any of the shops that work on Tanfo's will confirm that they have a lot of dimensional variance if you care to ask them. 

 

[MemphisMechanic]

1 hour ago, IHAVEGAS said:

Any of the shops that work on Tanfo's will confirm that they have a lot of dimensional variance if you care to ask them. 

 

 

Yes, but that’s primarily related to internal fitting of parts; safeties, disconnectors, and the like. Hell, Tanfo can’t even get the depth of the hammer spring pocket consistent. 

 

But... The cone-fit barrel and the fitting of the upper have been very consistent on every Stock 2 that I’ve encountered. The very nature of a cone barrel allows for far more accuracy with the same degree of machining consistency than a bushing design. That’s why it’s desireable.

 

I’ve never seen a Stock II fail to be a tack driver with quality ammo, regardless of how it was tuned/modified internally.

 

I can’t comment on the CZ side of things from personal experience, but all the Shadow 2s I’ve seen run at matches had happy owners.

 

I firmly believe both guns are great and neither has some inherent mechanical advantage. Shoot both. Buy the one that feels more like it was molded specifically for your hand - for me that was a Tanfo. For a lot of others it’s a Shadow 2. 

 

 

[IHAVEGAS]

 

I can't comment on cone versus bushing ultimate potential, Les Baer does a 1.5" 50 yard accuracy guarantee with their bushing guns so certainly the potential is high. Above is a CZ 85 with the triangle style red dot sight off a bag at 20 yards. I think I had installed the the CGW bushing on that gun. A better shooter or a ransom rest would very likely improve that group. 

 

My bottom line is the same as yours "I firmly believe both guns are great and neither has some inherent mechanical advantage. Shoot both. Buy the one that feels more like it was molded specifically for your hand - for me that was a Tanfo. For a lot of others it’s a Shadow 2. "