|
Post by ruber on Sept 23, 2023 18:40:42 GMT -5
The CZ firing pin block keeps the firing pin from moving forward when it is at rest and allows it to fire when the plunger is lifted out of the way by the lifter arm. Tanfo used a fpb that blocks movement when the sear pushes up on the plunger and allows it to fire as the sear moves to release the hammer. In this case, the firing pin is free to move when the fpb plunger is at rest. The CZ method is very positive in releasing the firing pin but the lifter adds complexity and affects the trigger pull and reset. The Tanfo method is passive in that it relies on the spring to push the plunger out of the way when the sear moves. Personally, I like Tanfoglio's setup, I think the Witness is what CZ's 97 should have been, but I wondered what people here thought. ETA: by 'fpb plunger is at rest', I am trying to describe the state of the plunger with nothing acting on it, as if the slide assembly were removed from the frame. The slide assembly of the Tanfo when removed from the frame allows the firing pin to move. While assembled and the 'gun is at rest', the Tanfo fpb plunger is being pushed up by the sear thereby blocking the firing pin. Here is a link to a post in Brian Enos's forum on fitting an extended FPB plunger on a Witness: forums.brianenos.com/topic/242319-fitting-an-extended-firing-pin-block/?do=findComment&comment=2698712
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reed on Sept 24, 2023 22:39:49 GMT -5
This is a tuff one, Chris.
While I'm not as against the FPB on the BHP and the Series 80 COLT'S as I once was - I still don't like the FPBs, but, due to the High Powers design it lent it's self nicely to the change. Plus, I believe the High Power should have had a sear lever spring from day one, simply to prevent the sear lever from hitting & dinging the top, rear edge of the frame as the slide returns to battery.
That said, if forced to have it and despite the gaping hole in the cocking rail, I would still pick the BHP FPB over the others.
|
|