CZ Trigger Parts Conundrum

[Jaywalker]

In light of ToddG's recent post on "Parts, Mods, & Priorities" (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...ighlight=parts) I attempted to determine what lengths a gunsmith has gone to in order to ensure a part change has been thoroughly tested. In regard to a double action reach reduction kit, I asked about the extent of endurance testing and whether a materials engineer was involved in the design process. (I also made some assumption about the design that were wrong and asked questions related to the assumptions, and they straightened me out - fair enough.) As I expected, I was told I was over-thinking the issue - not the first time someone has told me that.

Still, the meat of the response was as follows:

We use a factory 85C trigger and install a heat treated alloy steel pre-travel set screw into the upper area, which allows the trigger to be physically moved reward to an exact point. We have our own disconnector that has a higher carbon content than OEM and is heat treated to RC53 (factory is RC45). Our disco's are computer/EDM and are dimensionally perfect and repeatable. One of the key personnel that helped (the gunsmith firm) design and select the criteria for our (the kit) discos is an professional engineer and works solely in the firearms industry. We have also sold over 1,000 of all variations of our discos with no issues.

We have sold thousands of the (the kit) and it is our most popular significant option, whether purchased from a customer or installed in our shop. We have -0- issues with the (the kit) and it has been on the market for nearly 3 years now. It has been totally reliable in every way. We have Marines overseas (that are allowed to carry the sidearm of their preference) as well as US Border Patrol Agents with this option in their CZ's.

So, this kit uses a pre-travel set screw and a engineer-designed and someone-built disconnector that's harder than the parts it connects. Set screws tend to back out inconveniently and harder parts wear softer parts. I received no response regarding the extent of pre-delivery endurance testing, but do have indications of a satisfied user base. I did not ask about "action parts insurance."

ToddG wrapped up his initial post by saying, "Before you walk around with a gun full of parts that came from an unknown vendor to a "name" smith, think about your priorities." That's easy - I want reliability in a CCW, and the best way to get that is to run factory parts. The problem is that my broad hands and short fingers cannot manipulate the DA trigger of the CZ PCR, even at half-cock. Single action is not an alternative in the CZ - I have a perfectly serviceable Browning HP for that.

So, hand size, reliability, overthinking - I need a different point of view to break me out of the circular reasoning I seem to be caught in. Thanks.

[JeffJ]

The bottom line is that you need to decide what you're comfortable with. I personally carry a modified CZ, I'm comfortable with the modifications that I've made but that doesn't mean that you should be. For me, I don't care if my pistol won't go 50,000 rounds without small parts breakage - I think it absurd to subject a carry pistol to that kind of round count anyway. I do shoot the thing however and try to keep it clean and lubed, if there are any parts that I'm especially concerned about I'm a believer in replacing them before they break.

[ToddG]

I'm scratching my head about the USBP thing. According to the list I have in front of me, no CZs are authorized for any CBP or ICE personnel. The list could have changed very recently I suppose but given the testing that went into the DHS-ICE thing and the fact that the only other guns on the list (that I have) were legacy as opposed to recent additions, I'd be interested in knowing more.

[GJM]

The bottom line is that you need to decide what you're comfortable with. I personally carry a modified CZ, I'm comfortable with the modifications that I've made but that doesn't mean that you should be. For me, I don't care if my pistol won't go 50,000 rounds without small parts breakage - I think it absurd to subject a carry pistol to that kind of round count anyway. I do shoot the thing however and try to keep it clean and lubed, if there are any parts that I'm especially concerned about I'm a believer in replacing them before they break.

I come down with JeffJ on this -- as an individual, you need to decide what you are comfortable with, test it as you see fit, and carry on.

In recent weeks here at PF, we have variously heard that modern handgun manufacturers are:

1) either expert designers, or complete idiots that largely do what others have done.

2) that major manufacturers have world class manufacturing QA/QC or none.

3) that custom modification of carry firearms is either untested and risky, or the cat's meow.

In my case, I am happy to range and game away with my Mink tuned, no firing pin safety SP01 Shadow pistols, but wouldn't carry one defensively. I am carrying my lightly tuned CZ P01, and have passed 750 rounds without a single anything. Willshoot is through 1,500 rounds with his similar P01. I have two buddies with three P01's and neither has had a single problem. I have two similar decocker pistols, with firing pin safeties in process, that I plan to test and then carry. Others may make different judgments.

[YVK]

Since I've been asking an identical question, although about different CZ aftermarket part, and I've been thinking about it / looking it up, the best that I can say it that all of them were designed on an empiric basis, tested to an unknown extent before a release, beta tested by consumers seemingly in large numbers and proven OK, subject to a reporting and ascertainment biases, and that's the best we're going to get. While this may sound somewhat skeptical, I'd like to point out that from where I am sitting it is no different than big gun/part manufacturers. I am not privy to the rigors of HK/Sig/Glock/yada testing protocols; it is assumed as given that they are sufficient. That said, from consumer's standpoint, the biggest difference is that OEM parts are more prevalent and one would expect a more robust post-market reporting, like recent Glock or MP issues.
It is also worth noting that smaller manufacturers do not have as much financial stability to survive significant negative outcomes of poorly designed or executed products. Regardless of their capabilities to conduct pre-release testing, I would imagine that small shops like Cajun would've gone under if there were systematic reports of their parts failing.
Short of it, I am going to give it a shot, but with a heightened degree of awareness and scrutiny, but no particularly different than what I did with Grayguns P30, for example.

[jetfire]

I'm scratching my head about the USBP thing. According to the list I have in front of me, no CZs are authorized for any CBP or ICE personnel. The list could have changed very recently I suppose but given the testing that went into the DHS-ICE thing and the fact that the only other guns on the list (that I have) were legacy as opposed to recent additions, I'd be interested in knowing more.

Maybe they're off-duty guns? Just spitballing though.

[Jaywalker]

Asked the question and will post response, if any.

[Jaywalker]

The response was as follows, "I will not discuss any of our specific customers, their intended usage, nor the scope of work performed on a public forum. I hope you understand."

I responded, "I certainly have no need for names, but it would be useful to know if any agencies have approved this mod. If purchased under contract or purchase order, the agency involved would be public record. Is there anything you can tell me?"

[GJM]

By chance, David from Cajun called tonight to tell me he was shipping my P09 he just finished up.

We discussed the agency question, and there would be no upside to him elaborating further -- I would just let it be.

[YVK]

By chance, David from Cajun called tonight to tell me he was shipping my P09 he just finished up.

We discussed the agency question, and there would be no upside to him elaborating further -- I would just let it be.

It is amusing how polar people's attitudes to agency's purchases are. Some tend to trumpet any minor contract as a supportive evidence of their product's worthiness. Others take an opposite stance, citing opsec/persec/whathaveyousec. As George and Jeff said, it's pretty much what one's comfort zone is.