I didn't want to drag the current CZ threads down by adding this to them directly, but all the talk about all the different aftermarket parts got me thinking about something that, candidly, I wouldn't have expected around here.
Tom Jones and I could have been producing and selling Gadgets two years ago. We proved the design internally. Since then, it's been under constant testing by a wide range of different people under different circumstances in different guns of different calibers, eras, and conditions. We've done testing related to how enviro factors can impact its safety and reliability; and, we have more of those tests planned. Until we're certain it's reliable enough for a police officer to put on his exposed gun in a sandstorm or a snowstorm, nothing will go out the door.
When you throw a part on a gun, especially something made in tiny quantities by a small shop, you're taking a risk. Even some of the best smiths and engineers in the industry at big companies screw up small parts. We've certainly seen issues with other custom shops whose springs or trigger kits end up having unpredicted failures because they weren't adequately tested. It's simply a fact.
Having an awesome trigger is awesome. I'm all for it. I just wrote recently how I picked my next gun based primarily on how I can get the trigger set up. I get it.
But if you're replacing half the internals in a gun your life might depend on, you owe it to yourself to ask whether that pound of trigger or .03 difference in a split when you're warmed up playing on the range is worth trusting your life to if your fancy sear fails or your aftermarket hypertuned spring breaks.
Someone can put a million rounds through an IPSC gun and call a mod/part "good." There's a reason why IPSC isn't used as a test bed in LE/military reliability and durability evaluations.
Before I was going to put something like that in my gun, I'd want to know:
- Is the part insured by an independent company and if so, who? (there's really only one player in the industry for things like action parts insurance)
- What kind of endurance and reliability testing was performed during the development of the part?
- What conditions were the test guns subjected to during that evaluation?
Like I said, we know even big companies like Glock produce parts that end up being problematic. The amount of money they invest in testing is orders of magnitude more than MyBrandSmithTM will make in a lifetime.
Before you walk around with a gun full of parts that came from an unknown vendor to a "name" smith, think about your priorities.