Author Topic: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison  (Read 8586 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline davekoch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2019, 02:42:26 PM »
Can the 10320 striker be used with the OEM spring for a smoother but not so light trigger?

 Or maybe better way to ask: is there any benefit to using the 10320 striker with the OEM spring over the 10300 striker?

« Last Edit: October 07, 2019, 03:23:51 PM by davekoch »

Offline earlan357

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2019, 08:53:16 AM »
Can the 10320 striker be used with the OEM spring for a smoother but not so light trigger?

 Or maybe better way to ask: is there any benefit to using the 10320 striker with the OEM spring over the 10300 striker?

Yup.  The 10320 with the OEM trigger spring will just reduce the break weight by about a pound.  Everything else (pre-travel, wall, reset, etc) should be about the same.

Offline davekoch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2019, 09:14:54 AM »
Awesome. Thanks for the reply and the interesting thread!  8)

Offline atilla17

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #18 on: October 11, 2019, 01:45:49 AM »
Would either of these strikers eliminate creep? I've got a P-10S that I'd like to eliminate the small amount of creep from. I'm not concerned with pull weight so much as I'd like a trigger without creep.

Offline Earl Keese

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5191
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #19 on: October 11, 2019, 06:57:55 AM »
Would either of these strikers eliminate creep? I've got a P-10S that I'd like to eliminate the small amount of creep from. I'm not concerned with pull weight so much as I'd like a trigger without creep.
The 10320 reduced the creep in my P10C, but a small amount remains. It definitely feels better than the 10300. I don't think you can eliminate it completely

Offline earlan357

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2019, 09:15:45 AM »
Update:  I was testing recoil springs when I my P-10F doubled.  This is after about 1500 rounds, two matches, and a lot of dryfire with this setup.  At first I thought I had inadvertently bump-fired the light trigger, but it started happening even after pinning the trigger to the rear.  This was with my heavily modified trigger group and the CGW 10320 striker and one of the heavier recoil springs I was testing.  I think the slight radius/angle cut at the tip of the striker leg, coupled with the extra forward slide velocity and my light striker/trigger springs, was bumping the trigger bar down instead of catching it and pulling it forward.  The tip was still sharp, as was the sear, and I had a full 0.050" of sear engagement.  I think the problem is my rear insert.  The holes in the polymer frame are elongated and allow the insert to move vertically a few thousandths of an inch.  Hard reloads were pushing the rounds up into the ejector. (which has broken twice now)  I've since cut my replacement ejector to prevent future contact, but the movement is still there.  I'm going to re-drill the insert and frame holes for 2.5mm roll pins to remove the slop, but I decided to go ahead and modify the striker.  I mounted the striker in the endmill and recut the leg to 92 degrees, just enough to remove the radius and flatten the leg.  Then a full stone/polish taking care to keep the tip sharp and even.  I didn't cut it to 90 degrees since that's already the OEM angle, I just wanted to land conservatively between OEM and what looked to me like a 5-6 degree angle on the 10320.  The break increased from 2lb 14oz to 3lb 2oz.  The oem profiled 10300 originally broke at 3lbs 5oz. 

This is not an indictment of CGW's striker.  Obviously my trigger setup is way outside the normal operating tolerances so I'm not surprised the striker started misbehaving.

Not sure if related, but I modified a rear slide plate with a screw to prevent the striker from travelling far back enough to release from the trigger bar.  It lets my dry-fire 95% of the trigger stroke without the break so I don't have to keep cycling the slide on multiple target drills.  Unlike holding the slide slightly out of battery, it doesn't reduce the trigger weight.  But unlike traditional dry-fire where the sear surface only slides down the striker leg, I wonder if the down and then up motion of the trigger bar wore the striker leg in some weird way.

Offline Joe L

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7381
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2019, 07:07:45 AM »
Earlan357--I've read through your update.  All I can conclude is that you have gone too far.   :) :)

But that isn't a bad thing, now you know the current limitations and can proceed to overcome them.  Keep it up.  Even if no one really understands but you.

Joe
CZ-75B 9mm and Kadet, 97B"E", two P-09's, P-07, P-10C, P-10F, P-10S, MTR

Offline Togmaster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2019, 03:36:44 PM »
Earlan357--I've read through your update.  All I can conclude is that you have gone too far.   :) :)

But that isn't a bad thing, now you know the current limitations and can proceed to overcome them.  Keep it up.  Even if no one really understands but you.

Joe

He's just pushing the envelope like Chuck Yeager.
Let's go Brandon!

Offline Wobbly

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12784
  • Loves the smell of VihtaVuori in the morning !
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2019, 06:21:06 PM »
He's just pushing the envelope like Chuck Yeager.


Except in this case, the envelope has a gun in it !!   ;D
In God we trust; On 'Starting Load' we rely.

Offline Rocket99

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #24 on: December 16, 2019, 04:14:16 PM »
Anyone having trouble with their P-10 failing to reset with the 103200 striker?  Mine failed twice yesterday at a USPSA match yesterday. Up until then, I had not had an issue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Wobbly

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12784
  • Loves the smell of VihtaVuori in the morning !
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2019, 06:25:39 PM »
As of 12/16, the 10320 is currently on backorder.
In God we trust; On 'Starting Load' we rely.

Online RandyMan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2019, 07:11:31 PM »
As of 12/16, the 10320 is currently on backorder.


I spoke with CGW today and was told they stopped selling this striker.

Offline cfrock

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2019, 09:52:54 PM »
Reasoning given?

Don’t leave us guessing.

Offline Togmaster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
Re: CGW P-10 10300 vs 10320 Striker Comparison
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2019, 08:07:15 AM »
As of 12/16, the 10320 is currently on backorder.


I spoke with CGW today and was told they stopped selling this striker.

Interesting...Let us know why.  I have one now and I am considering purchasing another.  I think I will hold off until I find out why they have stopped selling them,
Let's go Brandon!