Looking at a transitional cz 75 for uspsa backup and some idpa

[TobyJ]

Long story short-ish...I shoot a shadow 2 in uspsa, and I'm looking to put something together with similar size and feel, that could be a backup to my shadow 2, but also allow me to shoot idpa (shadow 2 is too heavy).

 

The easy answer is probably a 75 shadow, but in researching those, I found several folks who had built up pre b 75's, and claimed 'shadow like' performance. I've also come across some so called transitional 75's...no fpb, but square trigger guard, pinned front sight, etc.  With a few upgraded parts and some polishing, I could see this becoming a real competitor. I dont see a lot of shadows on the used market, and when I do, they are pretty pricey, so the transitional project seems like it would be a winner there. As well. And I enjoy projects...

 

But I'm far from a cz expert, so I'm looking to you all for anything I might be overlooking, tips, thoughts, etc. 

 

Toby J

[IHAVEGAS]

Any 75 variant with the right Cajun Gun Works goodies will be an excellent performer for USPSA, IDPA too if you watch the rules. "Shadow" and barrel bushing related tweeks are nice for bragging rights but they will not effect your match score and I have yet to hear of a base model CZ that does not have excellent accuracy. The FPB is not a big deal and also certainly not enough to effect your match score, particularly if you install a CGW lighter FPB spring.

 

Were it I, first I would look at what is to be found used, great deals pop up. Buying new I'd look to a base model SP01or 75 or 85 depending on which felt best in hand & then Cajunize it myself, or have it one by someone like CGW if you do not like to tinker. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by IHAVEGAS

[TobyJ]

Thanks IHAVEGAS

 

This is exactly what I was thinking...buying used and then building up.   The transitionals I have been looking at are the first real 'deals' I've seen on used CZ's in quite some time, and I figure even if the fbp isn't a deal breaker, why mess with one if you don't have to.   I figure I'll be replacing just about everything inside, anyway, so what I'm really buying is a frame, slide, and barrel.  

 

I like to tinker, and have successfully cerakoted a few guns, so this should save a few bucks, and be a fun project.

 

Toby J

[MoRivera]

I bought a used SP-01 for a good deal, found a shadow slide on CZ Forum, sold the SP-01 slide, did a little customer work with trigger and removing firing pin block lifter, and I have an SP-01 Shadow for hundreds less than buying a base Shadow.  It's my go-to for IDPA and USPSA Production.  I actually sold my Shadow 2 because I liked the regular Shadow 1 better.  Granted it's not like you find just the Shadow slides for sale very often.

Edited January 30, 2019 by MoRivera

[Blockader]

I have been waiting for a good deal on a used SP01 to come up so I can convert to SAO and do a grip reduction to fit my wifes weird midget hands. After a year of nothing remotely dealish I am coming to terms with buying new. 

[IHAVEGAS]

1 minute ago, MoRivera said:

removing firing pin block lifter,

 

Careful with the rules on this one. If you start with a no FPB gun that is cool, if you disable a FPB that can cause a bad day if there is a knowledgable person checking equipment. 

[matir]

14 hours ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Careful with the rules on this one. If you start with a no FPB gun that is cool, if you disable a FPB that can cause a bad day if there is a knowledgable person checking equipment. 

IIRC, that only applies in production/carry optics?

[MoRivera]

On 1/30/2019 at 10:40 AM, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Careful with the rules on this one. If you start with a no FPB gun that is cool, if you disable a FPB that can cause a bad day if there is a knowledgable person checking equipment. 

With an actual Shadow slide, which has no firing pin block, then it's a non-issue because it is now a Shadow frame, which comes stock with no firing pin block lifter (since it has nothing to do).  I.e., there is essentially no difference in the frame between a manual-safety CZ75 SP-01 frame and a SP-01 Shadow 1 frame outside of that lifter when needed.

 

If you took a regular SP-01 or CZ75B and removed the firing pin block plunger in the slide as well as the lifter in the frame, then that'd be a violation/disabling of a safety feature.

 

 

 

 

 

CZ75B/SP01 slide underside...

 

 

 

 

Shadow slide underside...

 

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by MoRivera

[Ken6PPC]

6 hours ago, matir said:

IIRC, that only applies in production/carry optics?

 

That is incorrect for IDPA.  Disabling any safety device is not allowed in ANY division. 

 

See section 8.1.8, copied below:  

 

8.1.8 Non-IDPA-Legal Features and Modifications for All Divisions The following features and modifications are not allowed in any division unless otherwise specifically allowed in the rulebook. A. Compensators of any type including hybrid or ported barrels. B. Add-on weights. This includes (but is not limited to) weighted magazines, tungsten guide rods, brass magazine wells, weighted grips, and weighted grip plugs. C. Heavy and/or cone style barrels without a barrel bushing except as allowed in ESP, CCP, BUG and CDP divisions with length restrictions. D. Sights of non-standard configuration (ghost rings, Bo-Mar ribs, etc.). E. Disconnecting or disabling of any safety device including (but not limited to): manual safeties, grip safeties, firing pin, striker, and hammer blocking safeties, 1911 series 80 firing pin safeties, 1911 Swartz safeties. 1911 series 80 frames may be used with series 70 slides or vice versa. Revolver actions may not be modified so that the hammer can fall when the cylinder is open.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Ken6PPC

[Ken6PPC]

6 hours ago, MoRivera said:

With an actual Shadow slide, which has no firing pin block, then it's a non-issue because it is now a Shadow frame, which comes stock with no firing pin block lifter (since it has nothing to do).  I.e., there is essentially no difference in the frame between a manual-safety CZ75 SP-01 frame and a SP-01 Shadow 1 frame outside of that lifter when needed.

 

If you took a regular SP-01 or CZ75B and removed the firing pin block plunger in the slide as well as the lifter in the frame, then that'd be a violation/disabling of a safety feature.

 

 

The way I believe the rule was intended, replacing the slide will NOT change the fact that the frame was manufactured with a firing pin block.  It does not matter that the firing pin block feature was eliminated by changing the slide, that pistol was intended to have a FPB. 

 

Therefore, it would STILL be an illegal modification to remove/disable the FPB.  The only way to adhere to the rule is to start out with a frame and slide that was manufactured without a FPB to start with!  

 

However, I also must quote the section of 8.1.8 E which states, "1911 series 80 frames may be used with series 70 slides or vice versa" seems to allow swapping out the slide to bypass the FPB feature.  That would actually contradict the first part of 8.1.8 E! 

 

So, it isn't really very clear...  

 

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by Ken6PPC
additional info...

[IHAVEGAS]

58 minutes ago, Ken6PPC said:

The way I believe the rule was intended, replacing the slide will NOT change the fact that the frame was manufactured with a firing pin block.  It does not matter that the firing pin block feature was eliminated by changing the slide, that pistol was intended to have a FPB. 

 

7 hours ago, MoRivera said:

With an actual Shadow slide, which has no firing pin block, then it's a non-issue because it is now a Shadow frame, which comes stock with no firing pin block lifter

 

I could see reasonable people arriving at either interpretation. I'm guessing HQ (either) would allow the mods if you pushed them for an interpretation/ruling , some poor slob at a match equipment check station who is obligated to follow the letter of the law might feel he had to dq you though. 

[MoRivera]

How would they know that it's not originally a Shadow frame or a factory/OEM replacement?

 

Unlike, say, Series 70 vs. Series 80 1911's, all CZ75/SP-01 frames are manufactured without a firing pin block lifter.  The lifter is part of the interior sear cage assembly that comes out separate from the gun when you detail strip.  The cage is interchangeable (same factory part) between any CZ75B/SP01/85C/Shadow that has a manual safety....depending on whether or not it's a Shadow or regular SP-01 upper, you have a lifter in the cage next to the appropriate sear or you don't.  Series 80 1911 frames have an actual hole for the lifter whereas Series 70 frames do not.

 

 

CZ75B/SP01 (non-Shadow) assembled sear cage...green arrow points to lifter....

 

 

 

Shadow assembled sear cage....same cage, no lifter, wider sear.... 

 

 

 

 

Series 70 and 80 1911 frames, the part with/without lifter hole/mechanism is not separate from frame itself.....

 

 

 

 

So no, the SP-01 frame is not originally manufactured with a firing pin block lifter, that's a feature added to the sear cage depending on whether paired with a Shadow upper or not.  There's nothing on the frame that indicates it should have a lifter or not installed in the sear cage that it's supposed to go with.  By the rule, one could even have an original Shadow, get a stripped factory CZ SP-01 frame and replace it (maintaining Shadow internal mechanism) and still be within allowable mods, since it's the same OEM part as originally shipped from manufacturer, and what the manufacturer itself uses to assemble your same gun.  The only possible difference is perhaps a slight difference in magwell beveling...but that would be nearly impossible to notice without specifically measuring, and we're talking with calipers (and that might not be the case on every model of Shadow).  But again, it's still an OEM replacement frame.

 

 

Quote

 

8.2.1.2 SSP Permitted Modifications (Inclusive list):

1. Sights may be changed to another notch and post type. Slides may not be machined to accept different style

   sights.

2. Grips may be changed to another style or material that is similar to factory configuration and do not weigh more

   than 2.00 oz. more than the factory standard weight for that model.

3. Magazine releases, slide stops, safety levers, de-cocking levers, hammers, and triggers, that are stock on one SSP

   legal firearm may be used on another SSP legal firearm from the same manufacturer provided they are drop in replacements. Parts in this list must come factory installed on standard production firearms. Special parts that are available installed only from a factory custom shop are not eligible in SSP.

4. Recoil spring guide rods and dual spring recoil systems made of material that is no heavier than stainless steel.

5. Frames may be replaced with identical frames from the same manufacturer.

6. A slip-on grip sock and/or grip tape, skateboard tape, etc. may be used.

7. Internal action work may be used to enhance trigger pull as long as safety is maintained (no visible external

   modifications allowed).

 

 

 

 

Hence if the gun has a slide that says Shadow, there's no reason to even look for a firing pin block mechanism anywhere in the gun, and there's no way to tell if the frame itself at any time had a firing pin block lifter in its sear cage assembly.  If the slide only says sp-01, then yes one could inspect to see if the internal firing pin block is intact, if so inclined to make sure.  But a Shadow is a Shadow.

Edited January 31, 2019 by MoRivera

[IHAVEGAS]

1 hour ago, MoRivera said:

How would they know that it's not originally a Shadow frame or a factory/OEM replacement?

 

By asking ?

 

 

Seems very unlikely they would though. 

[MoRivera]

22 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

By asking ?

 

 

Seems very unlikely they would though. 

And a 100% truthful answer is that it is an OEM CZ frame, which is allowed by IDPA rule #5 in section 8.2.1.2.

 

Why would they even hypothetically ask?  The only 'giveaway' would be different serial #'s on the frame and slide, but again, it's still OEM and Shadow serial #'s/markings aren't any different than those on 'regular' CZ75B/SP-01's.

Edited January 31, 2019 by MoRivera

[TobyJ]

I think it's highly unlikely to ever come up in USPSA, but if some official (or another competitor) wanted to be a hard ass, the burden of proof would fall to the shooter. This is from the production appendix D4 section 21:

 

Please note that, during a match, a competitor may be required to demonstrate that their gun complies with Division rules by identifying a specific rules clause or published interpretation
authorizing any disputed modification. If the competitor cannot identify an authorizing rules clause or published interpretation, the Range Master shall rule that the modification is
PROHIBITED for Production division use and shall move the competitor to Open Division.

 

At which point, said shooter would have to defend how they did not break rule 21.1 in the same appendix:

 

ALL Factory safety mechanisms, whether internal or external, must remain functional.

 

And then it would come down to integrity...if said shooter really doesn't think they disabled a factory safety mechanism, which was on the gun as it was originally manufactured, they could argue such, but might lose.

 

Again, probably would never come up, but I prefer to err on the side of caution

 

TobyJ

 

 

[MoRivera]

29 minutes ago, TobyJ said:

I think it's highly unlikely to ever come up in USPSA, but if some official (or another competitor) wanted to be a hard ass, the burden of proof would fall to the shooter. This is from the production appendix D4 section 21:

 

Please note that, during a match, a competitor may be required to demonstrate that their gun complies with Division rules by identifying a specific rules clause or published interpretation
authorizing any disputed modification. If the competitor cannot identify an authorizing rules clause or published interpretation, the Range Master shall rule that the modification is
PROHIBITED for Production division use and shall move the competitor to Open Division.

 

At which point, said shooter would have to defend how they did not break rule 21.1 in the same appendix:

 

ALL Factory safety mechanisms, whether internal or external, must remain functional.

 

And then it would come down to integrity...if said shooter really doesn't think they disabled a factory safety mechanism, which was on the gun as it was originally manufactured, they could argue such, but might lose.

 

Again, probably would never come up, but I prefer to err on the side of caution

 

TobyJ

 

 

And in the Shadow, all internal and external safety features are fully functional as is with any Shadow.  The Shadow is originally manufactured without a firing pin block safety.  If I use a frame from a CZ75 SP01 and the same sear cage assembly as a Shadow, then it is the same as a Shadow from the factory.  By mechanical and functional definition, nothing has been disabled.  

 

A Series 80 1911 frame with the lifter removed and the hole for it conspicuously empty in the frame would be a different story.  CZ75's/Shadow's are uniquely constructed in this case, since it's not an actual part off the raw frame.  So there's really nothing on or IN the gun to even identify or raise such a question that wouldn't be brought up on virtually any and every CZ Shadow in existence.

Edited January 31, 2019 by MoRivera

[TobyJ]

9 minutes ago, MoRivera said:

And in the Shadow, all internal and external safety features are fully functional as is with any Shadow.  The Shadow is originally manufactured without a firing pin block safety.  If I use a frame from a CZ75 SP01 and the same sear cage assembly as a Shadow, then it is the same as a Shadow from the factory.  By mechanical and functional definition, nothing has been disabled.

 

But in this case, a fully functional SP-01 was purchased, and then the lifter removed, the slide discarded, and a shadow slide added.  I'd say that some stuff was disabled.  The fact that a firearm with those same features disabled could be purchased, is irrelevant by the language of the rule.

 

Now if a blank sp-01 frame were purchased, and then was built up to be a shadow, that is a different story...but then that would seem to go against the 'gun must be on the production list' portion of the rules, as blank frames are not on the list.  

 

I get the argument,  I'd tend to agree with the logic, and it will likely never come up...but I don't see where it is supported in the rules.

 

TobyJ

 

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by TobyJ

[MoRivera]

On 1/31/2019 at 4:33 PM, TobyJ said:

 

But in this case, a fully functional SP-01 was purchased, and then the lifter removed, the slide discarded, and a shadow slide added.  I'd say that some stuff was disabled.  The fact that a firearm with those same features disabled could be purchased, is irrelevant by the language of the rule.

 

Now if a blank sp-01 frame were purchased, and then was built up to be a shadow, that is a different story...but then that would seem to go against the 'gun must be on the production list' portion of the rules, as blank frames are not on the list.  

 

I get the argument, and I'd tend to agree with the logic, but it is not supported by the rules.  

 

TobyJ

 

 

Nope, not if you replace the sear cage assembly (which is separate from the frame) with one configured for a Shadow...same as the factory does, essentially.  And there's no way of identifying whether or not a fully functional SP-01 was purchased as opposed to just the frame, or a nonfunctional one, etc.  The actual frame shares the exact same features (and even markings) between SP-01 and Shadow.  Heck, you could even keep the SP-01's sear cage around and show that the lifter is still in it, if so inclined. 

 

And I bought the SP-01 used...and the slide is long gone.  I have no way of knowing if the former owner took the frame from a Shadow or purchased it stripped, inserted an SP-01 Sear cage, and attached an SP-01 slide to it.  So how can anyone ask or prove with certainty that it didn't leave the factory as part of a Shadow if I can't?  That last part being moot when all is said and done.

 

Heck....look here on CZ Custom's own site.....

 

https://czcustom.com/new-firearms/cz-pistols-custom/cz-75-parts-kit-frame.html

Quote

This is set up as a Non B frame for slides without firing pin block, you have choices, 
Use a Non B slide. 
Use a B Slide without the B Parts, in the slide.
Use a B Slide and replace all the B Parts in the frame.

 

 

Where someone would hypothetically raise eyebrows is if they visibly grind down the leg of the lifter in the sear cage and leave it in there.  But if you replace the sear with a regular Shadow sear, or use a CGW spacer the sear cage is no longer an 75B/SP-01 cage (or just the whole sear cage assembly), it's one for an 85C or a Shadow...and no safety feature has been disabled since it's not supposed to be there in the first place.  The frame has stayed the same.  The entire gun is by definition a Shadow, and really, by the same reasoning of questioning this particular gun they'd have to question every other Shadow as well, and there'd be no demonstrable differences.

 

Now....one could say the these are technicalities unique to the CZ75 (as opposed to a 1911), but nonetheless they are mechanically and functionally factual, and really if one would to scrutinize that it certainly wouldn't be in the actual 'spirit' of the rule, which is to prohibit the disabling of a safety feature that is supposed to be present in a given gun's factory configuration, the underlined being key.  One cannot disable something that's not there to begin with.  If a shooter has constructed a Shadow using the same OEM parts in the the same configuration/combination the manufacturer does, by any quantifiable measure it is the same gun, at least in this case. 

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by MoRivera

[TobyJ]

Ok...last post from me...this has gotten way off the original topic, which was mine

 

I don't think you can use one rule (the ability to use other OFM parts) to allow you to violate another (the clear prohibition on disabling a safety), but that's just me.  Probably would never come up, but if I were shooting in a major match, it wouldn't be worth it to me to try.

 

You also are not shooting a shadow...it may be splitting hairs, but your gun did not leave the factory that way.  Could you say you are?  Absolutely.  Would it work?  probably.  Would I do it at a major match...nope.

 

You've obviously got a gun you like, and that's cool.  You also believe you are in compliance with the rules, also cool.  The only way to really settle this would be to either have it come up at a match, or email Troy McManus (DNROI) and get a written opinion.  The former is not likely to happen, and the latter is probably opening a can of worms.

 

That's my 2 cents, and it's probably not worth that...I've got no skin in this, so let's agree to disagree.  I really appreciate that you kept this civil, though

 

Good shooting

 

Toby

 

 

 

 

 

[MoRivera]

I think the big concern, which has been alluded to, is that since this is such a technical and academic subject, judges/officials/etc. would likely be more apt to err on the side of caution in lieu of really understanding the CZ design on such a detailed level.  It's less time consuming to just say no than to get into all the nitty gritty.

 

So the 'danger', so to speak, is the possibility of that.  Ain't the first time that CZ/CZ-customization has caused ripples, and I could see someone just not wanting to deal with it....prohibiting someone for the sake of just bringing such a pain in the ass issue into the mix.  So yeah, proceed with caution.

[MoRivera]

2 hours ago, TobyJ said:

Ok...last post from me...this has gotten way off the original topic, which was mine

 

I don't think you can use one rule (the ability to use other OFM parts) to allow you to violate another (the clear prohibition on disabling a safety), but that's just me.  Probably would never come up, but if I were shooting in a major match, it wouldn't be worth it to me to try.

But see here's the key....nothing has been violated.  The frame has not been changed, it's being installed around a sear OEM cage configuration that's appropriate for its slide.  Nothing's been disabled unless you use it with a regular SP-01 slide which has had a firing pin block removed.  The firing pin block plunger  is the safety mechanism, and the Shadow has never had one.

 

Quote

You also are not shooting a shadow...it may be splitting hairs, but your gun did not leave the factory that way.  Could you say you are?  Absolutely.  Would it work?  probably.  Would I do it at a major match...nope.

And again, you can't say it isn't because neither I or you have any way of knowing if the SP-01 I picked up used left the factory as an SP-01 or a Shadow either, as I no longer have the slide.  I only acquired it second (or more) hand with an SP-01 slide and sear cage.  

 

Before you 'leave', please just answer this question: Presented with this very gun....what exactly could one point to in or out of this gun that shows anything being disabled?  Like if you were a match official, what would you ask...and why?

 

We've already demonstrated how a Series 80 1911 could be distinguished/identified from a Series 70...in a Sig P-series you could see if the decocker is still in place and look under the slide for the firing pin block safety, Glock/M&P/any striker gun on the bottom of the slide as well and look for the lifter tab on the trigger bar.  What would you look for in a CZ Shadow?

 

Quote

You've obviously got a gun you like, and that's cool.  You also believe you are in compliance with the rules, also cool.  The only way to really settle this would be to either have it come up at a match, or email Troy McManus (DNROI) and get a written opinion.  The former is not likely to happen, and the latter is probably opening a can of worms.

 

That's my 2 cents, and it's probably not worth that...I've got no skin in this, so let's agree to disagree.  I really appreciate that you kept this civil, though

 

Good shooting

 

Toby

 

And yes I am shooting a Shadow because what specifically distinguishes a Shadow from a regular SP-01 is the slide (and not just what's written on it), and this slide did leave the factory as a Shadow slide.  With gun in front of them, assembled or disassembled, there's no identifiable factory tell-tale feature that one could point to and say with certainty that the gun isn't a CZ75 SP-01 Shadow, and the burden of proof would be on them to do so.  Which they can't, because technically and functionally/mechanically, it IS a Shadow....no splitting hairs about it, and every other Shadow in existence proves that I am in full compliance with the rules, because my gun's identical.  It's certainly not an SP-01, is it?  I seriously can't understand your problem with that, respectfully of course.  I can only imagine that you're adding things in between the lines, which I can somewhat understand if one is being extra cautious.  But if that's the case, there are probably a plethora of other things that one could scrutinize in anyone's setup.

 

Again...how would it 'come up'?  What is there to bring it up.....a sticker or something?  They would have to specifically be looking for or notice something that functionally stands out from any other Shadow that they would personally inspect or look up.  What is that thing, and why would they speculate over this gun as opposed to any other?  Granted, again it would be hard to spot externally if a Series 80 had been 'converted' to a Series 70, but then you could identify that on the inside by an unused hole/slot in the frame.

Edited February 1, 2019 by MoRivera

[MoRivera]

Also...should have mentioned this, but I also own an SP-01 Accu Shadow that I bought complete, and that I'd have handy as a backup if I ever shot a big national match anyway.  So if anyone did have any issue with the regular Shadow.......

 

 

 

 

......I'd just take the slide off and put it on the AccuShadow's frame.  Same thing.  

 

 

 

 

(can anyone identify which of the below frames is 'original' Shadow and which isn't...or none..or all?)

 

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by MoRivera

[TobyJ]

3 hours ago, MoRivera said:

Before you 'leave', please just answer this question: Presented with this very gun....what exactly could one point to in or out of this gun that shows anything being disabled?  Like if you were a match official, what would you ask...and why?

 

This really will be my last post on this, and that's only because you asked here and via pm...

 

I'm no expert on this...I am a USPSA RO, but I've never been an MD or a RM, so I've never had to decide something like this.  And as you say, there is no way to easily tell, and I agree with that.   But let's say it came up, like at chrono, and I  asked you what gun you are shooting,  so I can see if it makes weight...

 

If you said 'shadow', that would probably be the end of it.  But for the sake of this post, lets say that you volunteered the fact that it is an SP-01 with a shadow slide.  Because I know a little about CZ's, I'd probably then ask about the firing pin block, at which point, if you were being honest, you'd tell me that the shadow slide doesn't have a provision for it, so you changed the sear to a shadow sear, getting rid of the lifter.  At that point, I'd call the MD over for guidance, as I believe this is direct violation of the rule which says that you cannot disable a safety. 

 

This situation probably has an infinitesimally small chance of ever coming up, but I do believe you are in violation of the rules.  You keep saying nothing is disabled, but when you bought the gun, it had a firing pin block, and now, because you changed parts around, it doesn't.  Sounds like the textbook definition of 'disabled' to me.  It had it, you took an action, now it doesn't.   I'm not reading anything between the lines, and I'm not really concerned...actually, I don't care at all.  This started as a simple 'hey watch out here' and then I did get sucked into the debate, but I still have no skin in it.  I don't know that I'm right, nor do I need to be.

 

In this case, I agree that you basically just built a shadow, and therefore have zero competitive advantage over any other shadow, nor is your gun any less safe, so it should not be an issue.  But is that true for every possible combination of bits, for every manufacturer? Is there some other situation where I could swap bits around, disable a safety, and either get some competitive advantage or create an unsafe gun?  I don't know, neither do you, and neither do the RO"s...the rules are there for a reason, and one of those is to set clear boundaries for both the competitors and the RO's.  Personally, I think this is a good thing, as we don't want RO's making any more judgment calls than they already have to.

 

TobyJ

 

[MoRivera]

1 hour ago, TobyJ said:

 

This really will be my last post on this, and that's only because you asked here and via pm...

 

I'm no expert on this...I am a USPSA RO, but I've never been an MD or a RM, so I've never had to decide something like this.  And as you say, there is no way to easily tell, and I agree with that.   But let's say it came up, like at chrono, and I  asked you what gun you are shooting,  so I can see if it makes weight...

 

If you said 'shadow', that would probably be the end of it.  But for the sake of this post, lets say that you volunteered the fact that it is an SP-01 with a shadow slide.  Because I know a little about CZ's, I'd probably then ask about the firing pin block, at which point, if you were being honest, you'd tell me that the shadow slide doesn't have a provision for it, so you changed the sear to a shadow sear, getting rid of the lifter.  At that point, I'd call the MD over for guidance, as I believe this is direct violation of the rule which says that you cannot disable a safety. 

 

This situation probably has an infinitesimally small chance of ever coming up, but I do believe you are in violation of the rules.  You keep saying nothing is disabled, but when you bought the gun, it had a firing pin block, and now, because you changed parts around, it doesn't.  Sounds like the textbook definition of 'disabled' to me.  It had it, you took an action, now it doesn't.   I'm not reading anything between the lines, and I'm not really concerned...actually, I don't care at all.  This started as a simple 'hey watch out here' and then I did get sucked into the debate, but I still have no skin in it.  I don't know that I'm right, nor do I need to be.

 

In this case, I agree that you basically just built a shadow, and therefore have zero competitive advantage over any other shadow, nor is your gun any less safe, so it should not be an issue.  But is that true for every possible combination of bits, for every manufacturer? Is there some other situation where I could swap bits around, disable a safety, and either get some competitive advantage or create an unsafe gun?  I don't know, neither do you, and neither do the RO"s...the rules are there for a reason, and one of those is to set clear boundaries for both the competitors and the RO's.  Personally, I think this is a good thing, as we don't want RO's making any more judgment calls than they already have to.

 

TobyJ

 

Sounds about right, and yeah I would just say that it's a CZ Shadow and that would be the end of it.  That's an honest, factual and demonstrable answer, and there's certainly nothing 'dishonest' about not sharing that I originally bought the frame as part of a used SP-01 (again, who knows if that even left the factory as an SP-01?) which isn't even part of the discussion.  I guess if someone really wanted to dig, as I mentioned before....because it could be such technical (even pedantic) back-and-forth, in the interest of just keeping everything moving an official could probably just prohibit it out of lack of 'clarity' (created by them, mind you) and not wanting to waste more time about it.  And then I'd have to protest, and I doubt either party would see much use in that possibility, when it's pretty obvious the the gun is just a Shadow.

 

And agreed, the key term is 'competitive advantage', and in that case, it's still no different than any other Shadow out there which is allowed as a firearm by the rules.  Had I disabled the firing pin block in an SP-01 slide as well, then there'd be no question about both 'improving' the trigger as well as making the gun less safe.  And I also get that you don't want to leave the door open to a lot of interpretation within rules because you just blur the lines more and lead to more headaches.  But at the same time, I think the CZ platform in question is pretty specific and unique from others, so in that respect there'd really be no basis for further questioning beyond 'It's a CZ Shadow' and maybe showing the internals.  And I 'm not talking about making an exception for CZ's, I'm talking not lumping it in with actual/identifiable technical violations which are different than this.

 

Quote

If you said 'shadow', that would probably be the end of it.  But for the sake of this post, lets say that you volunteered the fact that it is an SP-01 with a shadow slide.  Because I know a little about CZ's, I'd probably then ask about the firing pin block, at which point, if you were being honest, you'd tell me that the shadow slide doesn't have a provision for it, so you changed the sear to a shadow sear, getting rid of the lifter.

Just saying and showing that there is no firing pin block in a Shadow is 100% factual and honest, and as much info as would be relevant.

 

And again, I will stand by the fact that since the frame is no longer part of a non-Shadow gun, nothing is disabled because the re-inclusion of a lifter arm would not be ENABLING anything.  There is no firing pin block in the slide, there's no safety feature that would be enabled.  And there is nothing to indicate that the lifter should be there in the frame, unlike the aforementioned Series 80 frame.  Can't show that something that's not there or isn't supposed to be there is disabled.  There's no

evidence nor is there a mechanical contradiction that doesn't show it to be a Shadow slide just as the factory configures/assembles it.  But as we've mentioned, it's moot, because the gun is a Shadow and can't be shown to be anything else.  Even if there was a 'full disclosure' on all of this technical info, I believe that nothing has been disabled.  But no need to fuel more interpretation/judgement arguments iff they serve no purpose beyond the initial relevant facts.

 

That's really the point here in that if it did ever 'come up', it can't go any further than 'it's a CZ Shadow'...which I firmly believe is 100% honest, and in no way betrays, re-interprets or skirts the true function of that rule...there's nothing actually there to go on.  It'd be just as likely to be asked about the name of my high school girlfriend.....like what the heck made you ask that, right?   But if it somehow did, then I think there'd have to be something more dysfunctional going on than just the gear check.  Either a judge would be looking to bust someone/anyone, or the shooter is being difficult, or a combination of both....and it most likely wouldn't be about the gun or rules anymore.  Thankfully I'm usually on my best behavior at a match, so that hopefully removes part of equation.

 

Appreciate the response.

Edited February 1, 2019 by MoRivera

[robertbank]

Well if nothing else you could always use the gun in ESP. in IDPA.  That said,  the CZ75 Transitional frame is not identical to the Shadow frame.   The gun you created by marrying the two would be fine for ESP but miss the mark for SSP as it is not a gun made by CZ.  My take anyway.

 

There are lots of Shadows floating around up here used.  I get the US market is different and Shadows might be a bit harder to find.

 

Take care

 

Bob