In a world where even North Korea has produced a clone of the CZ-75, the unique aesthetic of the IWI Jericho 941 really still stands out. But there's more to it and the R (R indicating this is the slide decocker safety version) models incorporates some features that conspicuously stand out from other clones and even amid the many iterations CZ itself offers. While the F models and their frame mounted safeties still bleed cool, they are primarily just a Tanfoglio with mostly (not entirely!) cosmetic differences and some different part dimensions. This is technically also true of the R models as well but it still has other things to bring to the table, though that's partly because new production Tanfoglio's with slide mounted decocking safeties
with a firing pin block are just not imported into the US much. Or maybe not at all. I've never seen one here myself anyway. New R model Jerichos
with a firing pin block are relatively tough to find, but they are around and it's still hard to call them super rare.
This post is intended to go over the features of the R model, aggregate and document some of the more obscure information that is tedious to find into one post, and finally, explore and disseminate to what degree aftermarket parts are compatible to upgrade the pistol (Quite a lot more than I had expected and perhaps you as well.). Nearly half of the components in the weapon have been replaced or otherwise upgraded.
Strap yourself in because this is gonna be a long one. With today's lazy youth I'll begin by incentivizing reading through it despite the length by quickly teasing everyone with two of the major achievements.
An impressive, much improved single action break and reset is possible without entirely destroying drop safety or making the double action crappy in exchange.
Ok, brace yourself for this next one...
Ready?Behold:
Yep. It is now a decock only!I'd like to point out a lot of non-factory parts are used from several manufacturers. None of this is endorsed by any them, all of this is done at my own initiative at my own expense with my own research undertaken by my own hands.
I want to make it absolutely clear: This is a project gun, not a serious EDC piece. While I perhaps have appreciably better than lay knowledge in some firearms I have particular interest in I do not pretend at or suggest that remotely approaches persons certified as gunsmiths and other associated professional credentials.
The OEM guide rod has been replaced with one from a Tanarmi TA90, which is just an early Tanfoglio TZ-75 under a different name. The Jericho pistols were more directly derived from these and that is why this rod fits with no problem. It is a little longer than the factory rod but just a little shorter than the barrel. Why do this? Well, I think it looks cool. Does that matter? Sure, why not.
Replacing the trigger pin and annoying recurve trigger itself is a Cajun Gun Works floating trigger pin for a Canik and their 85C style trigger for same respectively. The Canik being also derived from the Tanfoglio, I was aware the 2.5mm floating trigger pin would work and suspected I could get the 85 trigger to work, and I did with some minimal effort. Of course the dimensions are a bit different and it was never directly intended to work in a Jericho or anything else that isn't called a Canik. By the way, they no longer offer that trigger for the Canik, but I know they still do for the SP-01 Phantom which also used a 2.5mm trigger pin. Maybe that would work? The provided trigger bar pin understandably is just a drop in pin because once installed your typical 75 derived pistol will have this pin partially occluded by it's position within the frame. Due to very slightly different dimensions of the Jericho, in double action the trigger bar pin is not occluded by the frame. In addition, the trigger bar's hole is wider than the new trigger bar pin. These sound like potentially big problems but both were easily remedied. Actually, the one remedy fixes both at the same time.
Because of the different trigger bar spring mechanism compared to the CZ-75 (typically refered to as the "trigger bar guide". We'll get into that later) being located so close the trigger, there is enough upward spring tension to keep the trigger bar pin in place. The potential of that pin walking itself out is really only vulnerable to vibration. Uh-oh. Well a firearm is certainly going to be subject to much vibration. However, during the time it is subject to the most intense vibrations, that is when discharging a round (duh), it will be to it's rear and WILL be occluded by the frame. See below.
The only way I found that would very slowly make it walk out was using the decock lever. The trigger would naturally slam to it's double action position. Because the trigger bar pin is narrower than the corresponding trigger bar orifice the two briefly are not in contact at the very end of forward travel during a decock. I think that may have been what was causing that. Blue loc-tite with proper time to cure on the trigger bar pin seems to have defeated this problem and now it does not have any walk out I have been able to see.
Although there are other aftermarket triggers for Tanfoglio pistols that would likely work in models descended from them, none of them had a forward pre-travel screw and all of them were in my opinion, brazenly overpriced. I do not want to pay $100 for a trigger if there is a cheaper alternative that accomplishes the same thing. The CGW trigger was a bit less than half of that and did have that forward pre-travel screw in addition to rear over travel. Turns out it also is actually a better fit to frame than the OEM trigger, much less capacity to wobble from side to side. The over travel screw position may look like the uncorrected over travel is unbelievably bad, but no, the top of the trigger would reach the frame and stop well before the rear of middle ever could have. That is why it sticks out so far.
Other internal changes caused some excess slack in double action, effectively creating a small reach reduction I had not delibritely intended but had no problem with. This is why I wanted the pre-travel screw hole.
Bold engineers at IMI, of whom surely some had at least 1 normal hand, perhaps even 2, insensitive to draconian orthodox conventions with regard to fasteners, decreed that the grip screw location would not be near the middle of the grip panels anymore, no. Instead it will go nearer the bottom.
May I ask why? Because of the change to the rear contour of the frame? Maybe someone else here knows. Because of this, you need to get the screws quite tight if you don't want it to be noticably loose.
I have to say, the stock IWI grip panels are not good. It has a texture. Or rather a pattern I can observe. It does nothing to help the users grip. Also the IWI logo is kind of bland. The IMI one at least had wings. I think. Maybe it was an animal. Anyway it had better visual appeal though was no better as a matter of creating friction against unintended path of recoil energy.
Replacing them are the obligatory Cowboy Bebop style G10 grips from Lok. I chose the roughneck texture, the grippiest pattern which Lok offers. It's a big improvement, that thing . Torx screws were provided which I promptly ruined. Woops. I am able to get the factory flat head screws adaquetly tightened anyway.
The Tanfoglio Xtreme Titan hammer replaces the factory one, which had trigger creep that annoyed me some. Hand polished, it's addition was a piece of work because of how the firing pin block works. We'll enter into detail on this when we get to the firing pin block and sear cage as all of these are interconnected.
Factory sights are retained, although the rear is now blacked out instead of 2-dots. I am not a fan of 3-dot sights but recognize it's inclusion on a service pistol is understandable. It renders it obvious what a proper sight picture looks like to a novice who may have no experience with these things. On the other hand it creates some unnecessary visual noise when reacquiring the front sight after a shot. No one has trouble finding any rear sight under daylight conditions and at night the non-illuminated dots are of little to no help anyway. I think of It like this: Your front sight is your gross point of aim and so should stand out more than the rear. The rear, while obviously still important, is for fine tuning.
The sight picture. The rear is exactly in line with my preferences, a deep and wide notch. At some point I'll replace the front sight with a night sight.
Major contact points on the trigger bar are lightly polished. Half of it isn't visible in these 2 photos, being under the sear cage.
The trigger bar guide replaces the conventional CZ-75 trigger bar spring and magazine release spring and is an indication of being Tanfoglio derived. This keeps the trigger bar pushing up under the sear cage so it can do it's job and helps prevent excess lateral wobble of the trigger bar. It does affect the trigger pull weight a little, and also provides the upward force for the reset. The factory trigger bar guide has been replaced with an Xtreme Tanfoglio version, which has a slightly lighter spring and comes pre-polished to some degree. I polished it more anyway. It also maintains the magazine release, magazine release plunger, and magazine release spring (Not pictured.). Apart from the three parts I just mentioned it is a captured assembly held together by a teeny tiny pin you will never ever find if you took it out and it leaves your hand, and this tiny pin is not sold separately anywhere I've found. Woops. I was just trying to figure out how it was held together! Lesson learned.
The trigger return spring, the weak link of the 75 series, remains and did eventually break. Replaced with the CGW reduced power trigger return spring. Luckily the trigger return spring and sear spring are mostly a universally compatible part among the CZ-75 family and their clones.
The sear cage removed. The disconnector and hammer are visible. We'll come back to this.
