CXS for 2023
- Thread starter oldguy19
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
sorry nope.
Since earlier false reset ones, I've felt one no reset no dingus bottom hitting trigger guard, and another just barely noticeable that I did a mag dump out of. So I wonder if they heard complaints and did a couple rolling changes.
If they get trigger figure out a bit better, a 3.7" XL with a bigger/wider thumb safety and a front orange ameriglo night sight would be somewhat of interest.
Otherwise...a Shield Plus does it all just as well.
Since earlier false reset ones, I've felt one no reset no dingus bottom hitting trigger guard, and another just barely noticeable that I did a mag dump out of. So I wonder if they heard complaints and did a couple rolling changes.
If they get trigger figure out a bit better, a 3.7" XL with a bigger/wider thumb safety and a front orange ameriglo night sight would be somewhat of interest.
Otherwise...a Shield Plus does it all just as well.
A DAO or DA/SA would get my attention.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Erich
Member
They sure aren't selling around here. People I respect really like them (if you're interested in one, it's worth checking out Mas Ayoob's review in American Handgunner), but . . . well, that doesn't mean they're what the market wants. I like the teensy ambi nature of it, but I don't need another pistol in this niche at all. I keep telling friends to watch CDNN and PSA for a giant blowout of the CSX pistols in early summer 2023, because I think that's what'll happen to these.
And then, just like the S&W 242 and 296 (blown out for nothing on CDNN), they'll become collector's items.
And then, just like the S&W 242 and 296 (blown out for nothing on CDNN), they'll become collector's items.
sigp220.45
US Veteran
I was seriously considering buying one. I didn't care about the false reset or the other nonsense. I was ready to join the polymer parade, but wasn't about to become a Sig 365 cultist.
Then I found this .45 Shield and the hunt was over. Seven .45s beat a hatfull of 9s any old day.
I hope Erich is right and they get discounted a bunch. I'll get one then as a range gun.
Then I found this .45 Shield and the hunt was over. Seven .45s beat a hatfull of 9s any old day.
I hope Erich is right and they get discounted a bunch. I'll get one then as a range gun.
Attachments
I noticed Mas's article says that S&W "does not recommend a loaded chamber except for cocked-and-locked carry".
Reading between the lines, does this suggest the CSX has a non-inertial firing pin and thus no option for Condition 2 carry? Anyone know?
Reading between the lines, does this suggest the CSX has a non-inertial firing pin and thus no option for Condition 2 carry? Anyone know?
LVSteve
Member
I think S&W don't want you relying on the trigger dingus for carry.
LVSteve
Member
S&W quietly changed the firing pin block about 6 months ago, solving the false reset problems.
I am quite happy with mine as a CC firearm.
So what did the old one look like?
LVSteve
Member
It is a source of some hilarity for me that every time that a manufacturer comes out with a small, sleek carry gun, there are people demanding that it be made bigger in some way.
Look, I get that those with large hands probably have issues gripping and manipulating the controls of a small gun or other device. However, all that tells me is that those with large hands are not the target audience for that item. Those of us who are svelte of frame appreciate every mm shaved of the width of a carry pistol, and if it leads to difficulties for the beefier shooters, so be it.
FWIW, I own the spiritual ancestor of the CSX, the Star Firestar in 9mm. I bought one off Brokegunner to be my carry gun because it was small and flat. Alas, the grip shape is such that I cannot get it to point the same way twice in the draw because of my long, slim fingers and skinny hands. That's something I was never going to find out even if I had rented one.
From a post on 1911 Forum
the original firing pin stop was black plastic, and it looked something like this:
The shiny part the red arrow is pointing at is a sharp slope on the firing pin stop. During trigger reset the arm that pushes that stop up would snap rather sharply down that slope and when the arm popped off the release of tension would produce the brunt of the soft reset. One of the guys on the S&W forum called up S&W and procured a new firing pin stop because someone had noted theirs was white plastic, not black plastic and he wanted the new part. I asked him if he could take a photo of it, and this is what the current firing pin stops look like:
Last edited:
I would be interested in learning more about this also.
Erich
Member
Um, doesn't all this firing pin safety discussion answer everybody's questions about "non-inertial firing pins"? 
And, gosh, now why might the company say not to load the chamber except for safety-on carry? Well, maybe because that would entail either 1) no-safety carry or 2) lowering the hammer by hand without a decocker on an ultracompact pistol.
Can I get a show of hands of our liability lawyers who'd recommend S&W endorse either of these options? Anyone?
And, gosh, now why might the company say not to load the chamber except for safety-on carry? Well, maybe because that would entail either 1) no-safety carry or 2) lowering the hammer by hand without a decocker on an ultracompact pistol.
Can I get a show of hands of our liability lawyers who'd recommend S&W endorse either of these options? Anyone?
Last edited:
Gosh, that's great Erich. You should explain to Col. Cooper that he didn't need to name that condition. And since you didn't add any info about the CSX's firing pin design we're still where we started.
Ain't that weird the way the 1911 hammer defeats the grip safety when you pull it all the way back? Almost like some idjiit designed it to allow lowering the hammer even tho there's NO DECOCKER!!!
You don't need to put non-inertial firing pin in quotes, btw. It's an actual thing. Design choice for like 100 years.
Edit: On reflection, I was able to think of other S&W firearms where there's NO DECOCKER and the only way to lower the hammer is with your thumb and over a live round. Maybe you can think of one, here on the S&W Revolver forum?
Ain't that weird the way the 1911 hammer defeats the grip safety when you pull it all the way back? Almost like some idjiit designed it to allow lowering the hammer even tho there's NO DECOCKER!!!
You don't need to put non-inertial firing pin in quotes, btw. It's an actual thing. Design choice for like 100 years.
Edit: On reflection, I was able to think of other S&W firearms where there's NO DECOCKER and the only way to lower the hammer is with your thumb and over a live round. Maybe you can think of one, here on the S&W Revolver forum?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,020
- Reaction score
- 7,101
The CSX has an inertia firing pin and a firing pin safety. That said, Condition 2 is always a bad idea. Col. Cooper named all of the conditions, in order to easily differentiate one condition from another. That does not mean that they are all ok for carry.
A single action pistol should always be carried in Condition 1.
Once a round is chambered, to get to Condition 2, you have to safely lower the hammer. That is an accident looking for a place to happen. And, it requires the user to cock the hammer on the way up during an emergency. Bad idea. Then, if you insist on cocking the hammer manually but you don't like or are scared of Condition 1, you are back to de-cocking.
Condition 3 requires you to chamber a round during an emergency, and as much as anyone thinks they will have all the time in the world, they are wrong, they will not, and they will get themselves killed. Plus, due to injury or a fight in progress, you may not have both hands available.
The CSX model was a bad idea from the get-go. That said, if anyone insists on this thing, carry in Condition 1. If you cannot stomach that, then get a different gun.
Last edited:
I'm curious… JMB didn't put a thumb safety on the 1911, not 'til the last iteration. And then he added it only because the Army asked him to add it. And they wanted it so the user could put the pistol on safe *after* firing. That's a matter of history.
So how did he get it so wrong?
Ok, I'm just adding to thread drift here. Back to conventional wisdom, everyone…
(Oh, and thanks for the pin design info, THAT is what I was after!)
So how did he get it so wrong?
Ok, I'm just adding to thread drift here. Back to conventional wisdom, everyone…
(Oh, and thanks for the pin design info, THAT is what I was after!)
Flyingfool
Member
Can someone explain how the CSX is dramatically different than the Sig 938. Other than it has a higher capacity.
The CSX seems a higher capacity 1.0 shield with a much easier to rack slide. It is a lighter EZ or equalizer. But smaller and easier to carry.
I disagree that it offers nothing. The CSX may not appeal to those who already have a smaller carry pistol. But is about perfect for my wife. And I suspect a lot of others if they are not sold the super high capacity "need". It also has a crisp single action trigger. Seems like a very desirable combination.
How many people swap out triggers and what not in the std shield? How many people wanted a couple more rounds than the std shield (mag guts made how many millions on that?). How many people do not like the grip safety of the EZ or equalizer? How many women or those with arthritis etc wanted shield that was easier to rack?
Gee. The CSX seems to "solve" all those issues. And it "only" requires that the manual safety is a must, rather than an option.
The CSX seems a higher capacity 1.0 shield with a much easier to rack slide. It is a lighter EZ or equalizer. But smaller and easier to carry.
I disagree that it offers nothing. The CSX may not appeal to those who already have a smaller carry pistol. But is about perfect for my wife. And I suspect a lot of others if they are not sold the super high capacity "need". It also has a crisp single action trigger. Seems like a very desirable combination.
How many people swap out triggers and what not in the std shield? How many people wanted a couple more rounds than the std shield (mag guts made how many millions on that?). How many people do not like the grip safety of the EZ or equalizer? How many women or those with arthritis etc wanted shield that was easier to rack?
Gee. The CSX seems to "solve" all those issues. And it "only" requires that the manual safety is a must, rather than an option.
Last edited:
SnidelyWhiplash
Member
The Army asked for the thumb safety because the Cavalry wanted it. Apparently there was some common sense there as not having a safety while on a moving horse might prove problematic.
