Post by: Stuart on March 08, 2018, 12:15:00 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/E5wBVgj.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/ORYe59s.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/3oOdkVd.jpg?1)
Post by: Joe L on March 08, 2018, 04:53:58 PM
Joe
Post by: Stuart on March 08, 2018, 04:56:29 PM
That looks more like a P-07/09 version than the original Kadet design. Also, polymer magazines. I bet it is less expensive than the original Kadet, also.
Joe
actually its not, MSRP is about $35 more.
Post by: Psyop96 on March 08, 2018, 05:17:53 PM
Post by: Joe L on March 08, 2018, 07:18:44 PM
That looks more like a P-07/09 version than the original Kadet design. Also, polymer magazines. I bet it is less expensive than the original Kadet, also.
Joe
actually its not, MSRP is about $35 more.
Uh oh. I guess we'll see how it sells, then. I don't think this is a bullseye match gun. Hopefully a good plinker and run and gun practice gun.
Joe
Post by: DenStinett on March 08, 2018, 09:43:55 PM
They would have to prove to me, that the "Lock-up" is 100% the same, 100% of the time
Post by: Joe L on March 09, 2018, 05:44:09 AM
I gotta be careful here. I got burned on a Sig conversion for the P-226 pistols way before I got a CZ. That design was, well, difficult to deal with. I think that is why I appreciated the original Kadet design so much from day one. It was so different from the pot metal and polymer Sig (actually GSG, I think) design that I have ALWAYS been happy with it. It is worth the price. I am afraid it has become the standard for me. I'm spoiled. I automatically assume that anything else can't come close.
But modern (CZ) manufacturing allows us to buy match grade barrel fit ups in a 9mm P-07 from Academy Sports, why not in a .22 conversion? It is a CZ. Let's see how they shoot and how they run.
Joe
Post by: Stuart on March 09, 2018, 08:33:43 AM
Post by: Steve B on March 10, 2018, 11:53:06 AM
Can't see how a one piece Slide could be as accurate as the original KADET and its two piece design
They would have to prove to me, that the "Lock-up" is 100% the same, 100% of the time
Looking at the pics, it is NOT a one piece slide.
Looks like a revision of the original Kadet design.
When installed it appears the front portion would be immobile hence the barrel should remain locked in the same position.
The rear sight mounted on the moving slide portion may create minor issues, however.
Post by: Joe L on March 10, 2018, 12:22:36 PM
We'll see. I am definitely glad they came up with the .22 option.
Joe
Post by: Steve B on March 10, 2018, 01:17:05 PM
I think you guys mean the same thing, but have different definitions of one piece versus two piece slides. I'll add a third. The original Kadet is a three piece assembly, consisting of a barrel, slide body, and a reciprocating "bolt". The barrel and slide body with the sights is pinned together and do not move when the gun is fired. The Shadow has a slide body with reciprocates on each shot, and a fixed barrel, that is, it is pinned to the host frame. The slide body and sights reciprocate on each shot, so the location of the sights relative to the barrel can vary from shot to shot. How much is dependent on the clearances, which can't be very tight on a .22 or the slide body won't cycle far enough to catch the next round.
We'll see. I am definitely glad they came up with the .22 option.
Joe
Based upon the photo in the OP, only the rear sight reciprocates with the slide.
The front sight is fixed in position as is the front (and rear) of the barrel .
As far as lock up, the probability of the Shadow 2 kit locking in the same position every time is likely very close to that of the original Kadet kit, all individual firearm tolerances considered.
It is the rear sight that may not remain in consistent alignment with the front sight, since the Shadow 2 kit does not retain the long, fixed upper rail of the original kit.
It looks like CZ took the original design, split the upper rail just behind the front sight portion and incorporated that into the bolt making it into a reciprocating slide.
They also modified the recoil spring design.
Closer to the original design than the kit for the P-07 (for example) with similarities to both.
This would also explain the pricing being similar to that of the original kit.
Post by: Joe L on March 10, 2018, 02:43:38 PM
Joe
Post by: DenStinett on March 12, 2018, 11:42:18 PM
Steve, I see what you are saying, now. Stuart will have to tell us whether that is a two part seam or a change in finish between the front sight piece and the rear sight piece. If it is the way you see it, the rear piece has to have a lug below the barrel to catch the recoil spring. I assumed the front sight piece and the rear sight piece are one piece. Thanks for the clarification.
Joe
Yeah, I can see what appears to (possibly) be a seam approx 1" to the rear of the muzzle end of the Slide
So yes; the Front Sight could be fixed to the Barrel, but not the Rear .... a much different design :o
Just guessing here .... A PolyCoated Steel Bow End, pinned to the Barrel, with a full sized Alloy Main Slide as apposed to the "Slide and Bolt" set-up of the '75' KADET or K2s
Then yes; this set-up could be more accurate than the 'P' Series KADETs, but still not that of the '75' KADETs
Stuart .... wherefore art thou Stuart ?
Post by: redlightrich on April 16, 2018, 08:23:19 AM
More money to spend now.....
Post by: DenStinett on April 16, 2018, 07:53:18 PM
Post by: RegionRat on April 17, 2018, 12:50:43 AM
The slide reciprocates and the bbl and sight block are stationary. A special slide stop is provided.
Post by: Joe L on April 17, 2018, 05:31:42 PM
Joe
Post by: Steve B on April 17, 2018, 06:20:50 PM
If the rear sight reciprocates, not interested.
Joe
I would have accepted the reciprocating rear sight.
The rear of the slide could return by 0.116" off (I doubt it would be anywhere near that BTW) and error due to change in sight alignment would only amount to 1" at 100 yards.
Frankly, my eyes aren't that good for using open sights on a pistol at 100 yards anymore.
What I cannot accept is the polymer front sight block, however.
I do not trust the polymer to hold up under repeated installation, removal and slide impact over a long period of time.
My Kadet kit has been on and off MANY times over the past 18 years (got it in 2000) and is still as accurate as when I first fitted it.
Post by: Joe L on April 18, 2018, 07:40:04 AM
The problem with a non rigid barrel+sight design is that a .22 has to be very sloppy to cycle reliably. This slop translates in to unpredictable differences in the sights versus barrel alignment. It is relatively easy to get a mechanically tight centerfire design that will cycle and still be very accurate (P-09, 75B with CGW bushing, and 97B"E"). In my opinion, it is impossible to get a tight .22 reciprocating sight design that will cycle. A "loose" reciprocating sight design that will cycle reliably will not be repeatable enough for a bullseye gun, but may be fine for a plinker.
My Ruger 22/45 is as accurate as my Kadet, both are fixed barrel/sight designs, but I like the ergonomics and trigger of the Kadet much more than the Ruger so that is what I shoot all rimfire matches with. Plus, a Kadet is unusual enough to cause my competitors to just shake their heads in disgust. Only a plastic P-07 is more fun at a bullseye match.
Joe
Post by: Steve B on April 18, 2018, 06:34:49 PM
Steve, check your math or typing. I think the error at 100 yards can be much greater than that.
The problem with a non rigid barrel+sight design is that a .22 has to be very sloppy to cycle reliably. This slop translates in to unpredictable differences in the sights versus barrel alignment. It is relatively easy to get a mechanically tight centerfire design that will cycle and still be very accurate (P-09, 75B with CGW bushing, and 97B"E"). In my opinion, it is impossible to get a tight .22 reciprocating sight design that will cycle. A "loose" reciprocating sight design that will cycle reliably will not be repeatable enough for a bullseye gun, but may be fine for a plinker.
My Ruger 22/45 is as accurate as my Kadet, both are fixed barrel/sight designs, but I like the ergonomics and trigger of the Kadet much more than the Ruger so that is what I shoot all rimfire matches with. Plus, a Kadet is unusual enough to cause my competitors to just shake their heads in disgust. Only a plastic P-07 is more fun at a bullseye match.
Joe
Joe, you are correct (thanks) my math was off and I suspect I fat fingered a key on the calculator.
Although I don't have the .22 Shadow conversion to measure, the sight radius should be close to that of my Shadow-2 at 6.625".
This would equate to approx. 0.002" (not 0.116") for a 1" error at 100 yards.
The conversion's barrel and front sight are fixed (rigid) it is only the rear sight that reciprocates with the slide.
I am concerned that with repeated installation, removal and use. the polymer front would become loose among other potential issues.
I think the difference in our opinions is based upon the intended use of the Shadow-2 conversion.
From what I have read, the conversion was intended to allow low cost practice for USPSA shooting, not bullseye shooting.
Oddly enough, I have converted my Shadow-2 to SAO (not legal for USPSA) but being a CZ fan had interest in the conversion anyway.
In retrospect, for my intended use (25 yards or less) the conversion seems to be a bit too expensive as I can get around 2300 rounds of 9mm (many more if I reload) for the listed price.
Plus I already have the original Kadet kit, a P-07 conversion, as well as a Bob Marvel 1911 conversion (from when he owned the company) and several other 22 pistols.
Post by: Joe L on April 19, 2018, 07:04:48 AM
I've cleaned maybe a dozen 25 yard timed or rapid fire targets with the Kadet II. Still struggle at 50 yards with anything, however.
I think one reason I appreciate the Kadet so much is that my first .22 conversion was a SIG version for their P-226 pistol, probably made by GSG for SIG. That one forced me to find something better and the Kadet filled the bill perfectly. That SIG conversion has been in a drawer in the garage since the day I got the Kadet.
I'd love to try a Marvel conversion on a 1911 some time, however. Gonna be hard to match this, however....25 yard timed fire target with the Kadet.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Firearms/Pistol-Range-8-21-16-Ruidoso/i-xtQnLpK/0/dce22ffe/M/IMG_0652-M.jpg)
Joe