Shadow 2 carry optics weight problem

[hlpressley]

Interesting to hear that it wouldn’t make weight despite you telling them what your intended purpose was. CGW was able to get mine to 44.5 oz with a DPP and leaving the protective shroud in place. That’s also using MG 17 round mags and CZC base pads. Could likely drop it a bit more if I were to swap the mag bodies and extensions. 

[GregJ]

21 minutes ago, hlpressley said:

Interesting to hear that it wouldn’t make weight despite you telling them what your intended purpose was. CGW was able to get mine to 44.5 oz with a DPP and leaving the protective shroud in place. That’s also using MG 17 round mags and CZC base pads. Could likely drop it a bit more if I were to swap the mag bodies and extensions. 

 

Yeah, kinda disappointed.  Plus my mags and base plates and spring/follower are all from CZC.   I really wanted the plate mounting system, so that I wouldnt be locked into a particular RDS.  Will try the easy stuff first.  

[PrimaryBruce]

1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

Has anyone actually taken weight out of the inside of the fldc?

Not to be that guy, but why would you want to when it can all come out the slide and you can keep all the good weight in the dust cover? No one ever complained about having more weight under the muzzle. 

Our package takes enough out the slide to make weight with PLENTY to spare. That's with a 100% bone stock gun, slide work only. So if you want to go even further with light weight grips, poly guide rod, etc, you can get pretty crazy and be well under weight. 

[rowdyb]

1 hour ago, PrimaryBruce said:

Not to be that guy, but why would you want to when it can all come out the slide and you can keep all the good weight in the dust cover? No one ever complained about having more weight under the muzzle. 

Our package takes enough out the slide to make weight with PLENTY to spare. That's with a 100% bone stock gun, slide work only. So if you want to go even further with light weight grips, poly guide rod, etc, you can get pretty crazy and be well under weight. 

Having milled my own by myself and sitting at a scale weighing all the different parts I have I'm well aware of this. I had a gun that made weight within days of them announcing the change to 45oz.

 

Your guys work is great. It was a thought exercise rather than implying there is a better way. If the sole goal was just removal of weight and a person was worried about diy and messing up their external look, then I could see how just carving a 3/8th tunnel out of the dust cover interiorly would make sense to them. Attack a big spot physically, one hidden from view and able to work in just one plane. But then again, a person with a mill and the diy spirit can probably do appropriate slide milling and not make it look ugly.

 

I have to be one of the few people that did it themselves, versus sending it off to a commercial entity. Thus the kinda of just white boarding thoughts...

Edited April 25, 2019 by rowdyb

[YVK]

11 hours ago, rowdyb said:

Has anyone actually taken weight out of the inside of the fldc?

 

Yup. Pic are inside this thread somewhere. As far as why to do it,

 

- Don't want to worry if 0.1 - 0.2 scale measurement variance or difference between various mag extensions can put me into Open. Especially after flying or driving for 6 hours after taken a few days off work.

- Strongly prefer fatter grips and heavier optic (DPP); unwilling to remove the shroud.

- Ready to accept any future optics with less concern for weight (Romeo3Max at 2.9 oz?).

- Subjectively gun balances nicer, less front heavy. Practically I find more useful in one handed shooting. 

- No adverse performance effect. I am just above 70% Prod / 60% CO shooter and I split this gun, two of them actually, in .14-.16s. Like routinely, I actually can't track it that fast and am working on slowing my trigger finger down a bit. I just don't find that extra front end weight helpful, or even desirable. My Shadow 2s are now balanced more like Stock 2s and prefer the latter.

 

[GregJ]

9 hours ago, YVK said:

Yup. Pic are inside this thread somewhere. As far as why to do it,

 

Nicely done.

 

Your pic of the slide, you pulled the sight and just have the pin in to retain the bushing.  Any issues with the pin staying in there?   I thought I had read somewhere here that the sight helps to retain the pin, and it was better to cut the sight post off and just have the base, to cut weight and retain pin.   Just seeing were I can loose a few more oz if needed.  tks. 

[Matt1]

Red Loktite on the bushing should help to hold it in


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[YVK]

3 hours ago, GregJ said:

 

 

 

 

Your pic of the slide, you pulled the sight and just have the pin in to retain the bushing.  Any issues with the pin staying in there? 

 

 No, although the pin is slightly deformed on one side, which I think helps. I keep telling myself to grind down a front sight  and install it there since I am not sure how much retention of that bushing pin alone provides, but so far the bushing hasn't moved.

[Matt1]

 No, although the pin is slightly deformed on one side, which I think helps. I keep telling myself to grind down a front sight  and install it there since I am not sure how much retention of that bushing pin alone provides, but so far the bushing hasn't moved.

FYI losing a bushing is a pain in the arse. You almost never find them again.

You can get new ones from CZ but they come unfitted. It’s possible to fit them with a deemed but I don’t recommend it.

If fitting a CGW bushing is legal for you then that’s an easy solution (they aren’t legal in IPSC so not losing bushings is more important).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jeremy kemlo]

I ended up removing the front sight going with the lok palm swell lightweight grips and switched my extended base pads to Henning. Now I am good with the shroud on the dpp. 

[lfine]

Thanks to Stu and the guys at CZC I had little problem making weight. Had them do the work and even with my extremely heavy DPP and its metal guard, regular Bogies (not extra thin), MecGar mag and CZC basepad, I was a little under 1/2 oz over so my choice was new grips or new guide rod. Got the CGW 75070 to try first. That did it.  Weight is 44 7/8 oz or 1274 g. (44.939oz) I may still get the lighter grips and put my other guide rod back but it shows you just how easy it is to make 45 with their milling.

Beautiful job by CZC. Thanks again, Stu.

 

 

 

[GregJ]

I got mine to 43.7 oz.  Front sight post bob, Acetel guide rod from CGW, DPP (with shroud), MG Mags & basepads, and LOC LW grips .  The grips alone saved me .8 oz.  

[YVK]

43.5 oz at a chrono station at last week's Magnus Cup. Dustcover milled out as posted above in this thread, three slide windows, lightened recoil spring tunnel,  part of the right slide rail removed, acetal guide rod, front sight removed, thin safeties, and custom made fat but hollow LOK grips, with Henning mag extension and an unmodified DPP. 

 

Time prevents from reinstalling front sight for bushing retention purposes. Not sure if I want steel guide rod or solid grips back, the gun shoots well and runs well.

 

[B_RAD]

Be great if shooters were vocal enough to get the rules changed? Why is there a weight limit?  Is it because someone benefits from it in some way? Could there have been some sort of scratch my back, I'll scratch yours going on?

 

Spending $400+ to make your gun more probable to breaking, I mean make weight, shouldn't be a thing. 

 

 

[Czgunsalot]

I’ll be pissed if they end up changing the rules I just spent money on slide cuts 

[Czgunsalot]

 But I agree there shouldn’t be a weight limit

[B_RAD]

25 minutes ago, Czgunsalot said:

I’ll be pissed if they end up changing the rules I just spent money on slide cuts 

Ha ha. Yeah. I could see that.  Though, you shoot that gun enough and you'll wear it out/break it. So, you'll eventually want a new one. Think how great it'd be if you could buy an OR S2!

 

 

But let's be real! I doubt the rules are going to get changed.  

Edited May 10, 2019 by B_RAD

[Red_Dot]

16 hours ago, B_RAD said:

Ha ha. Yeah. I could see that.  Though, you shoot that gun enough and you'll wear it out/break it. So, you'll eventually want a new one. Think how great it'd be if you could buy an OR S2!

 

 

But let's be real! I doubt the rules are going to get changed.  

Do you really believe that some slide cuts will induce a premature failure? Do you have any objective basis for this?

[clw42]

On 4/25/2019 at 8:19 AM, Czgunsalot said:

Recommend getting some surgery from .  primary machine.

 

Looks good, but are you locked in to the DPP bolt pattern?

[Czgunsalot]

22 minutes ago, clw42 said:

 

Looks good, but are you locked in to the DPP bolt pattern?

Yes 

[B_RAD]

2 hours ago, Red_Dot said:

Do you really believe that some slide cuts will induce a premature failure? Do you have any objective basis for this?

 

 

 

I've seen one break with my own eyes. Dust cover broke into pieces. 

 

It seems like you're thinking what I said is crazy or something.  Slides crack. Things break. When you cut holes in them, that can and usually will increase the probability of a failure. Not saying it's gonna break in the first 500. Just saying it's more probable that it could. 

 

 

[ringram]

I think you can make weight with lighter dot, carbon grips and plastic guide rod. At least thats my plan. IPSC has no such stupid weight rule. So I dont want to cut my guns up just for USPSA. Ill just swap grips/rod/dot if/when needed to make weight. Seems best.

 

I did hear/read somewhere that dropping the weight rule might be considered. After all USPSA is only one of over 100 international members of IPSC and in theory the rules are supposed to be the same. So any convergence is appreciated by those who compete internationally.

[GregJ]

3 hours ago, ringram said:

I did hear/read somewhere that dropping the weight rule might be considered.

 Talked to Area Director. Dont hold your breath on this happening. 

[Joe4d]

be pretty dumb,,, problem is CZ's milling not the rules. I mean really, if they were too lazy or unwillin g to read the rule book and see the standards why should USPSA jump through hoops to appease them ? I bet the next gen meets weight.
Sights are getting standardized, next gen guns will just be cut without the need for adapter plates.
Weight limit is high enough as is, unless they are gonna allow add on weights, which really is just adding more nonsense to the mix.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Joe4d

[rowdyb]

8 hours ago, Joe4d said:

problem is CZ's milling not the rules.

From the very beginning the idea was to put a dot on a Production legal gun as the main basis for firearms in CO. My first CO gun was a G34 with dovetail plate and RMR. I did this within days of it being announce of it as a provisional thing. Within a few months I had a dovetail mount for my SP01. Two very standard and popular Prod approved list guns in 2015. Now it is 2019 and the most popular gun in Prod by the numbers is the Shadow 2.

 

CZ-UB makes a Shadow 2 variant that is optics ready. But they absolutely refuse to import it due to it not being legal for USPSA. That is the only reason, verified to me in person by multiple employees. When the most popular basis for a gun in a division and as the stated basis for another, can't be used because of the rules..... well the fault is with the USPSA rules fully and not with CZ.

 

That said, I do understand USPSA not wanting to make a rule change constantly to a popular division. The regular Shadow 2 doesn't make weight with just an optic cut, so I'm not surprised the OR version doesn't either. But if all CO guns have to be on the Prod list to start, then I think and it's just my thought, then that should be a good enough qualifier to be in CO as well.