racerwong

So far so good... roughly 3 months in

I went from a DPP to Holosun 510C to the XL. So far the XL is working great and I wouldnt go back to the others.

Hard to see and I cant slow motion on YouTube, but here was the 510C blasting away. I have some marks on the back of the optic mount as well but never had an ejection issue in almost a year of shooting it.

I also went from a 510C Green. I actually like the Holosun but the optic was ugly and heavy. the gun feels so much lighter now on the top end and I feel my transitions can be faster now. Will have to do an outdoor match to see how I like the XL in the sun

I guess I should go check and make sure the optic is flush with the mount surface

I don’t recall having any issues.... I don’t even think I saw index tabs on the mount surface, but I could be wrong

It’s on. Gun feels lighter and looks better now. This is with new Atlas Romeo3xl mount. Noticed it sits way further back than the Holosun.

Just need my mount to come now

Some people prefer the round housing for looks.

hmmm, challenge?

I was told by Atlas that the front of the R3Max/XL has extra material so it wont fit the older mounts. YMMV I also just bought a R3XL.Mainly caus the 510C is so ugly in my opinion on the gun Now question is do I put it on with only a week until Nationals? hmmmmm

Didn’t your Tevo shield come with longer screws? Mine did

That MikeV interview had a bunch of ideas thrown out w/ no real plan. USPSA is made up of a board and the President cant just do all those things he is saying. USPSA buying their own range in the middle of the country? come on! Aside from the actual cost , the infrastructure needs to be there too. Giving ROs discounts on membership? meh. There are plenty of clubs around here racinready300ex... there is a reason why some clubs fill and others dont. The quality of the matches and level of competition draw people in. Just having more clubs doesnt automatically mean success. I'd still like to see an interview w/ Foley. This was all I could find but from beginning of 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cP1GelhBAU

The Atlas mount sits further up than the Tevo. I just ordered a Tevo blast shield though.

Just for looks and maybe protection against banging it on stuff.

On my Atlas, I slapped it on. Havent had any ejection issues. Shot a major and a bunch of level 1s so far.

Thanks! Gonna try these out. My current method of poking holes in standard plugs doesnt work very well.

Got a link to some good aftermarket replacement tips? The ones that come with the Walkers are way too short

Late to this thread but have been using a 510C without a blast shield for a couple months and almost weekly matches. The soot on the front glass is just that... soot. The glass isnt getting pitted at all. I even leave the hood on my 510C because I think hood-less looks even worse I have the Atlas mount but may try the Tevo blast shield down the road. Just dont feel like taking everything off again!

But both are common in open.

I have one ... make fair offer and it's yours!

Don’t know length for that particular dot, but the thread pitch is a 6-48. Romeo 1 I believe was 0.350” length. i have a box full of various sizes leftover from when i was figuring it out. Can send you some forna few bucks

Saw this posted by Bruce Gray in another group: "Bruce GrayGroup Admin Hi! SIG’s engineers did some very clever things to remove the variability in the sear-striker engagement which can contribute to inconsistent and long, spongy trigger pulls. Think of that variability as extra “play” in the mechanical register between the slide-mounted striker and frame-mounted sear. In typical striker guns, that engagement value, or register, can be affected by the clearances designed into the slide-frame fit, striker-striker housing fit, and so forth. To assure adequate minimum sear engagement, the designers build in more engagement to compensate for these inevitable tolerance-induced variations. In that regard, the original P320 trigger was still quite excellent; but how to make it better? The new voluntary upgrade fire control system uses a novel controlled-engagement sear face, which essentially presets engagement at a consistent .043” or so, versus the considerably taller engagement of the original system. That means your finger doesn’t have as much engagement to pull through (after first-stage pretravel) before coming to the final pressure wall afforded by leverage changes and stacking from the striker spring. That reduced initial engagement in some pistols might be defined enough to be perceived as “sponge”, but I predict it will resolve with use, and the final release is still going to settle in cleaner and a pound or so lighter than the original system. For the record, I much prefer the voluntary upgrade, and all our future P320 enhancement work is based on it. I hope this helps. Thank you! -Bruce"

Did you miss the part where I said I could not find it, but that is where the argument is arising from? No need to get all passive aggressive snarky.

racerba, it was written somewhere that if the profile/shoe is the same, then it's good to go. Cant seem to find that now, but that's why the argument is there for its legality.