Detail on CGW extended firing pins....

[Racinready300ex]

18 minutes ago, lstange said:

I think this is the best explanation. The lowered hammer is not all the way forward, and the firing pin protrudes back from the hole in the firing pin stop.

 

I'm not saying that isn't a thing

[lstange]

26 minutes ago, MoRivera said:

look at those ball bearings

Your explanation makes perfect sense. Since the lowered hammer is not all the way forward, the rest of the discussion about bearings is unnecessary. The hammer hits the firing pin before the slide.

[MoRivera]

23 minutes ago, lstange said:

I think this is the best explanation. The lowered hammer is not all the way forward, and the firing pin protrudes back from the hole in the firing pin stop.

So like this...in my case a stock-powered firing pin spring, and an 11.5-lb hammer spring....

 

 

I can see that, but as I alluded to before, that firing pin spring is pretty strong so I would think it might be enough to keep it from going to far forward, whereas that reduced power spring would.  Tough call.

[MoRivera]

19 minutes ago, lstange said:

Your explanation makes perfect sense. Since the lowered hammer is not all the way forward, the rest of the discussion about bearings is unnecessary. The hammer hits the firing pin before the slide.

I would agree...BUT....if you see here...

 

4 hours ago, je85 said:

This was unfortunately the perfect storm.

 

I did some non scientific testing. 

Shadow 2 11lb hammer spring

Federal match primers.

I used a heavy rubber mallet.

 

1. extended fp and worn out light fp spring.

1.1 Hammer down hitting beaver tail,

Nothing.

1.2 hammer cocked Safety off hitting beaver tail, nothing

1.3 hammer down hitting hammer, bingo ignition.

 

2. Factory fp and factory spring, above testing done in same manner with no ignition.

 

3. Extended fp factory spring

Above testing done in same manner with no ignition

 

Note all above testing was to me equivalent to throwing the gun on a very hard surface not dropping it.

I have not done simulated testing for gun dropping on muzzle.

 

Jumping to conclusions on this accident is not smart. Are we all Democrats now? We need the actual facts. 

 

Even before this incident I felt we needed a better platform for training new shooters before shooting a match.

 

If you don't feel safe going to a match after this incident than go find a different hobby, we don't need you in the sport. Sorry not sorry.

 

My thoughts and prayers go out to both families. 

 

 

Since I know that with an 11.5-lb hammer spring, an extended firing pin and a reduced-powered FP spring, the hammer rests fully against the rear of frame, that's the starting condition highlighted in bold at #1.3...a la, there was not rear section of firing pin protruding and hammer was flush against frame.  But somehow energy was transferred enough to still propel the firing pin forward enough to ignite a primer, whereas in #3, no ignition with a stock FP spring, which would have the hammer and rear of pin slightly out as I have shown in the GIF I made above, which has the hammer resting slightly back and the firing pin protruding a bit.

 

If we go with what you pointed out then the reverse should have happened...#3 should have ignited and #1.3 not.

Edited November 11, 2020 by MoRivera

[lstange]

2 minutes ago, MoRivera said:

I know that with an 11.5-lb hammer spring, an extended firing pin and a reduced-powered FP spring, the hammer rests fully against the rear of frame

Maybe for one gun, but not the other. There must be quite a bit of variability.

 

I don't have a Shadow handy, but I checked three Tanfoglios (with factory springs) and see the same thing as in your GIF. The only difference is that Tanfoglios have firing pin block, so it should not be a problem.

 

I still think that if the hammer is all the way forward, you won't be able to make the gun fire by hitting the hammer with a hammer.

[MoRivera]

17 minutes ago, lstange said:

Maybe for one gun, but not the other. There must be quite a bit of variability.

 

I don't have a Shadow handy, but I checked three Tanfoglios (with factory springs) and see the same thing as in your GIF. The only difference is that Tanfoglios have firing pin block, so it should not be a problem.

 

I still think that if the hammer is all the way forward, you won't be able to make the gun fire by hitting the hammer with a hammer.

So we're at least looking at both possibilities, no?

 

Its's the same on my Shadow long slide (TS slide on Shadow SP01 frame), which has the same firing pin and springs, and I recall the same on a Shadow 2 I used to own.  So I think it's a pretty good bet the same would hold true for the example I've given...that reduced power firing pin spring is light! 

 

To me it could be and either/or, or a combination of both lighter firing pin springs and lighter hammer springs ta tend up exceeding the safety threshold of the design.  Other things is that so far, we don't know if any of these things were upgraded or changed by the competitor in question.  For all we know it could have been a stock Shadow or Shadow 2, with stock firing pin spring and (IIRC) 16-lb hammer spring.

 

ETA: according to this, it could be both!!

 

18 minutes ago, mveto said:

With an extended firing pin and reduced power firing pin spring, when the hammer is down the firing pin will slightly protrude from the breech face.

How do I know, I took a small dowel and inserted it from the muzzle end and made contact with the tip of the firing pin. If I pushed on the dowel towards the breech face I could actually see the hammer move.

 

So I would assume if a live round was in the chamber and the hammer was down, the firing pin would actually already be in contact with the primer and the hammer not actually bottomed out on the slide like it’s designed. The impact on the hammer would cause the firing pin to hit the primer hard enough to set it off.

 

With a standard firing pin, the reduced power firing pin spring and a CZC 10lb main spring it will still reliably ignite federal primers, not sure about others since I don’t have any other primer types currently.

 

3 minutes ago, MoRivera said:

You're right, I never checked that but just did.  You can see with the slide locked back too.

 

So maybe it really is the extended pin regardless of which FP spring you use.  I would have thought there was more room before it protruded.

 

This seems to give both possibilities of a regular FP spring and the the hammer resting slightly back, but also a reduced FP spring with hammer forward but still in contact, since you've basically got a solid connection from hammer to pin to primer!

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by MoRivera

[lstange]

46 minutes ago, MoRivera said:

you've basically got a solid connection from hammer to pin to primer!

I don't have that type of connection on Tanfos with factory firing pins. The firing pin does not protrude from the breech face when slide is locked back. Inserting a dowel into the barrel and pushing back on it does not move the hammer back.

 

I thought extended firing pin has the same length, it just protrudes more from the back. If it is actually longer and can protrude both from the back and from the breech face then it certainly could pose a serious problem.

[MoRivera]

7 minutes ago, lstange said:

I don't have that type of connection on Tanfos with factory firing pins. The firing pin does not protrude from the breech face when slide is locked back. Inserting a dowel into the barrel and pushing back on it does not move the hammer back.

 

I thought extended firing pin has the same length, it just protrudes more from the back. If it is actually longer and can protrude both from the back and from the breech face then it certainly could pose a serious problem.

It looks too be that way with the extended CZ pins. I just changed all my pins and FP Springs back to stock.  Turns out I never needed etc extended and lower-powered springs, the pencil test still launches it with the stock pin/spring.

 

Yes, pin extends farther from back but because of that the hammer rests against it and the front makes contact with primer or close enough to make no difference when it is flush with back of slide.  Standard pin, that 0.037 shorter length is just enough not to when the rear is flush with slide, and stronger FP spring keeps it farther back even though it suspends the hammer a slight bit.

 

But if I recall, I brought this up with Cajun Gun Works a few years back in the CZ Forum ands they assured that it wasn't an issue.  Personally I'd rather not test it myself if I know I can get reliable ignition with stock pin/spring.  Looks like even an 11.5-lb hammer spring is plenty.

Edited November 11, 2020 by MoRivera

[Tok36]

Using the pencil test to determine weather or not you will get consistent primer ignition with different parts seams questionable.

[MoRivera]

32 minutes ago, Tok36 said:

Using the pencil test to determine weather or not you will get consistent primer ignition with different parts seams questionable.

Yeah as I mentioned in a PM, you could have a firing pin that sticks out of the breech hole farther but may not have as much power to light off a harder primer as something with a shorter protrusion but stronger hammer behind it.  I realize that, but I'm also comparing it to prior tests I've done in the same pistols.  Obviously best way to know is to test out.  Also, if these can set off rounds from a three-foot drop on a lowered hammer, this has definitely got to be more than that.

Edited November 12, 2020 by MoRivera

[shred]

Questionable, maybe... but it works pretty well.

[-JCN-]

On 11/11/2020 at 4:05 PM, MoRivera said:

It looks too be that way with the extended CZ pins. I just changed all my pins and FP Springs back to stock.  Turns out I never needed etc extended and lower-powered springs, the pencil test still launches it with the stock pin/spring.

 

Yes, pin extends farther from back but because of that the hammer rests against it and the front makes contact with primer or close enough to make no difference when it is flush with back of slide.  Standard pin, that 0.037 shorter length is just enough not to when the rear is flush with slide, and stronger FP spring keeps it farther back even though it suspends the hammer a slight bit.

 

But if I recall, I brought this up with Cajun Gun Works a few years back in the CZ Forum ands they assured that it wasn't an issue.  Personally I'd rather not test it myself if I know I can get reliable ignition with stock pin/spring.  Looks like even an 11.5-lb hammer spring is plenty.

I swapped FPs and the FP springs back to stock and it only changed my trigger weight 1/4 pound. I can feel the little bit of difference but it’s not much. It also works 100% with Federal Syntech. 

[MoRivera]

13 hours ago, -JCN- said:

I swapped FPs and the FP springs back to stock and it only changed my trigger weight 1/4 pound. I can feel the little bit of difference but it’s not much. It also works 100% with Federal Syntech. 

Did you change hammer springs?

[Racinready300ex]

13 hours ago, -JCN- said:

I swapped FPs and the FP springs back to stock and it only changed my trigger weight 1/4 pound. I can feel the little bit of difference but it’s not much. It also works 100% with Federal Syntech. 

 

I don't understand why you trigger changed at all from changing the FP. What else did you change?

[-JCN-]

18 hours ago, MoRivera said:

Did you change hammer springs?

 

18 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I don't understand why you trigger changed at all from changing the FP. What else did you change?

I did not change the hammer springs before and after the FP change, but it’s the lighter one and not stock. 
 

I am not sure why the trigger changed, but it does “feel” different and appears to have gained a touch of weight but I could be wrong. 
 

I don’t know if the longer FP “preloads” the hammer more? It seems like it shouldn’t have any effect at all but it “feels” like it does. 
 

(double action)

 

I could be suffering from placebo effect though. 

Edited November 18, 2020 by -JCN-

[SGT_Schultz]

1 hour ago, -JCN- said:

 

I did not change the hammer springs before and after the FP change, but it’s the lighter one and not stock. 
 

I am not sure why the trigger changed, but it does “feel” different and appears to have gained a touch of weight but I could be wrong. 
 

I don’t know if the longer FP “preloads” the hammer more? It seems like it shouldn’t have any effect at all but it “feels” like it does. 
 

(double action)

 

I could be suffering from placebo effect though. 

 

You can't just go by "feel"

 

There is no physical connection or link between the trigger system and the firing pin until the hammer falls and hits it.  Whatever you think a longer firing pin did to your trigger pull force, it didn't.

[SGT_Schultz]

On 11/11/2020 at 11:01 AM, MoRivera said:

Or...as has been brought up, perhaps the competitor actually tried to catch the falling firearm and grabbed the trigger, and that detail hasn't been reported yet (but that's purely speculative/hypothetical from another related conversation, and not meant to allude here). 

 

*ETA: TO CLARIFY, EXISTING REPORT IS THAT THE GUN FELL DOWN ON ITS HAMMER.  IN NO WAY IS IT BEING SUGGESTED THAT SAID REPORT IS FALSE OR THAT SOMETHING IS BEING COVERED UP.  SHOULDN'T NEED TO BE SAID, BUT APPARENTLY IT DOES SO JUST IGNORE THAT LAST PART.

 

You should really delete all of that from your original post. 

 

@Sarge is right about the known facts and speculation adds no value to any discussion.

 

I'll be glad to delete my reference when the original is gone.

Edited November 18, 2020 by SGT_Schultz

[-JCN-]

1 hour ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

You can't just go by "feel"

 

There is no physical connection or link between the trigger system and the firing pin until the hammer falls and hits it.  Whatever you think a longer firing pin did to your trigger pull force, it didn't.

Agree with single action of course. 
But double action? Probably not, too. 
 

But that’s where I felt it. Probably wouldn’t hold up to a double blinded experiment. 
 

I probably just imagined it. 

[Racinready300ex]

3 hours ago, -JCN- said:

 

I could be suffering from placebo effect though. 

Probably this one.

 

The FP is just kind of chilling there waiting to get smacked on the ass by the hammer. It doesn't really effect anything. Did you clean the gun at the same time? I could see that having more effect then the FP ever could.

[SGT_Schultz]

1 hour ago, -JCN- said:

Agree with single action of course. 
But double action? Probably not, too. 
 

But that’s where I felt it. Probably wouldn’t hold up to a double blinded experiment. 
 

I probably just imagined it. 

There is no maybe.  There is no debate.  Firing pin length has no effect on either DA or SA trigger pull force in any CZ 75 variant.  

 

If your trigger got heavier (and that's a huge if since you have no measurements) it was due to something else.

[yigal]

57 minutes ago, SGT_Schultz said:

There is no maybe.  There is no debate.  Firing pin length has no effect on either DA or SA trigger pull force in any CZ 75 variant.  

 

If your trigger got heavier (and that's a huge if since you have no measurements) it was due to something else.

it's new secret striker slide  from cz. 

[MoRivera]

6 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

You should really delete all of that from your original post. 

 

@Sarge is right about the known facts and speculation adds no value to any discussion.

 

I'll be glad to delete my reference when the original is gone.

I believe the disclaimer I added to clarify should be more than enough, that it is no way meant too imply that it may be the case.  Should be plenty for anyone who bothers to even read it to ignore it.  Besides, I can't edit that post anymore even if I wanted to as the function is no longer available after such-and-such time.

 

And I fully agreed and acknowledged that speculation adds no value as Sarge mentioned, he just didn't need to be an ass about it.  But by now it's a non-issue and not being brought up anywhere else.

Edited November 18, 2020 by MoRivera

[MoRivera]

7 hours ago, -JCN- said:

 

I did not change the hammer springs before and after the FP change, but it’s the lighter one and not stock. 
 

I am not sure why the trigger changed, but it does “feel” different and appears to have gained a touch of weight but I could be wrong. 
 

I don’t know if the longer FP “preloads” the hammer more? It seems like it shouldn’t have any effect at all but it “feels” like it does. 
 

(double action)

 

I could be suffering from placebo effect though. 

Yeah, I'd say it's placebo and/or your fixating on the pull somehow.  As has been pointed out, the FP doesn't have any contact with the hammer or trigger mechanism until the hammer falls and strikes it.  And frankly, if it's only a 1/4-lb in difference you feel....maybe it's a cleaning/lube issue.

Edited November 18, 2020 by MoRivera

[IHAVEGAS]

Was there a thorough inspection of the firing pin channel? 

No crud which may have prevented the pin from fully retracting?

[johes]

A sore subject for some, but would this be a good time for USPSA and IDPA to rethink the rule to lower the hammer all the way instead of half-cock?