Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, TRUBL said:

late next week? early the week after? we are close.......BTW, we polish the entry to the chamber and we have about .060" more throat length for your pleasure!!

I think I am going to have to try one of those. keep us posted!

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, BD Williamson said:

I wish I had done more research on the Colt lowers as if your look at the lowers from QC10 they have built in feed ramps which I would think should solve the feeding issues that all the Glock lowers seem to have. Now if we can get the barrel manufacturers to throat the barrels a bit more!!

colt.jpg

Early QC10 glock lowers used to come with a feed ramp. One thing to remember is that QC10 were the original developer of the glock mag pattern AR9 lower receiver (QC10 used to be the company known as DDLES before they were taken over and renamed QC10). The point is that they have been doing the glock pattern lower longer than anyone else. QC10 eliminated the feed ramp in their glock lower for the simple reason that as the cartridge is stripped from the mag, the nose of the round actually enters the chamber while the rear of the cartridge is still held by the magazine feed lips, meaning that in the QC10 glock lower the feed ramp was not needed. 

Try it with a dummy round and you'll see. 

Mag well placement in the lower is the key. 

I cannot comment on other brands of glock pattern lowers but my bet is that those that are having issues with feeding are experiencing "bullet jump" where the round has left contact with the mag feed lips before the round has entered the chamber or the angle of the magazine is such that the round takes a slight nose dive during feeding, which is what a feed ramp would help to cure. 

 

Mick

Share this post


Link to post

Hello: I would have to agree that QC10 does control the rounds coming out of the mags better. Here is a pic of my QC10 Glock with a factory Glock 33rd mag with Arredondo base pad and stock spring. Notice the round is still held in place by the magazine and has just touched the feed ramp on the barrel. Thanks, Eric

IMG_0951.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MickB said:

Early QC10 glock lowers used to come with a feed ramp. One thing to remember is that QC10 were the original developer of the glock mag pattern AR9 lower receiver (QC10 used to be the company known as DDLES before they were taken over and renamed QC10). The point is that they have been doing the glock pattern lower longer than anyone else. QC10 eliminated the feed ramp in their glock lower for the simple reason that as the cartridge is stripped from the mag, the nose of the round actually enters the chamber while the rear of the cartridge is still held by the magazine feed lips, meaning that in the QC10 glock lower the feed ramp was not needed. 

Try it with a dummy round and you'll see. 

Mag well placement in the lower is the key. 

I cannot comment on other brands of glock pattern lowers but my bet is that those that are having issues with feeding are experiencing "bullet jump" where the round has left contact with the mag feed lips before the round has entered the chamber or the angle of the magazine is such that the round takes a slight nose dive during feeding, which is what a feed ramp would help to cure. 

 

Mick

Well thats really interesting Mick as I bought the lower in the pic yesterday. Maybe they realized they needed back in there now???

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BD Williamson said:

Well thats really interesting Mick as I bought the lower in the pic yesterday. Maybe they realized they needed back in there now???

Colt pattern lowers have always had the feed ramp in place due to the feed angle of the magazine used. This style lower has been around since the very beginning. Glock pattern lowers came way later.  The feed angle of glock pattern lowers is also different to that of Colt pattern. 

Since you now have a Colt pattern lower I would suggest you stick to Metalform manufacture mags like those from Brownells or PSA. The mag in your picture looks like an ASC or C-Products mag (orange follower) which are not the most reliable.

 

Mick

Edited by MickB

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 1:44 AM, Neomet said:

I went with the MPX.  That said my two buddies run GMR-13s and there isn't a darn thing wrong with them.  Well, other than no ambi mag release and me being a lefty.  The MPX is an expensive option as others have said.  Sig appears to have just jacked their price up and at a minimum it needs a trigger and stock.  Mags are to my mind overpriced.  You either need to get the gas port opened if you want to shoot fast powders or just shoot slow powders.  I choose the latter.  That said (having changed to slow powders) I now have an extremely reliable, soft shooting PCC that runs 40 round mags like butter.  That works for me, but then I come from Open so every gun in this division is a bargain.  :-)

+1. As an Open shooter, I laugh at how cheap parts are for my MPX; I'm like give me two please (force of habit). I just switched to shooting CFE pistol and it is almost like cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm a fan of anything Colt.......Seen lots of glock lowers fail in matches and they always say "I've never had this issue before, well, maybe once or twice at practice"....guess what? My colt style lowers do not fail.....they feed and feed well. Proof is in the puddin', and every week....I see Glock fed lowers bobble at league, never see the Colt fed lowers go down. Might be cause there are so many more Glock lowers.......but oh well.
 

The are 6 guys in my club with Colt style lowers and only one that runs reliably, which is why I went to a Glock lower. Glock mags are cheaper, more plentiful, and much less problematic than colt mags. I've never dropped a Glock mag and had all the rounds go squirting out like the Colt mags, but I've dropped several Glock mags without incident. Magazine extensions and weights are easily available from multiple suppliers for Glock, but not so with the Colt. The only guy that still shoots his Colt style lower in our matches is the one guy who's gun runs pretty well. One of my friends sold his Stag PCC to get the JP GMR-13, and has never been happier. I still have my Colt lower, but it will likely never see any use now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post

Hello: The trick with the QC10 Colt lower I have is good magazine springs. I bought the Wolff extra power springs and all has been good with my Metalform mags with Taylor Freelance base pads. They only hold 38 now but have been 100% reliable. The 20 round mags have been good right off the shelf. The only 10 round mags I have are the ASC ones with the orange follower and they are working fine. Thanks, Eric

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, BiggMike said:

+1. As an Open shooter, I laugh at how cheap parts are for my MPX; I'm like give me two please (force of habit). I just switched to shooting CFE pistol and it is almost like cheating.

THIS: +2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, 1911luvr said:


The are 6 guys in my club with Colt style lowers and only one that runs reliably, which is why I went to a Glock lower. Glock mags are cheaper, more plentiful, and much less problematic than colt mags. I've never dropped a Glock mag and had all the rounds go squirting out like the Colt mags, but I've dropped several Glock mags without incident. Magazine extensions and weights are easily available from multiple suppliers for Glock, but not so with the Colt. The only guy that still shoots his Colt style lower in our matches is the one guy who's gun runs pretty well. One of my friends sold his Stag PCC to get the JP GMR-13, and has never been happier. I still have my Colt lower, but it will likely never see any use now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah......my BS meter is pinning on this one. Who cares what happens to a dropped mag? I empty and reload all mine anytime I drop a mag. 6 guys with colt style lowers having issues? And not one Glock lower? yeah......doubt it.

 

Glock mags are MORE expensive btw......ASC, PSA, metalform all can be had for $20 and that is for 32 round mags

Edited by TRUBL

Share this post


Link to post
Yeah......my BS meter is pinning on this one. Who cares what happens to a dropped mag? I empty and reload all mine anytime I drop a mag. 6 guys with colt style lowers having issues? And not one Glock lower? yeah......doubt it.
 
Glock mags are MORE expensive btw......ASC, PSA, metalform all can be had for $20 and that is for 32 round mags

I'm sorry to hear your BS meter is broken. Perhaps you can buy a new one with the money you save on magazines here:
http://gunmagwarehouse.com/elite-tactical-systems-glock-18-9mm-31-round-magazine.html
Here:
https://www.botach.com/ets-advanced-polymer-translucent-glock-magazines/
Or here:
http://www.opticsplanet.com/elite-tactical-systems-glock-17-9mm-10-round-pistol-magazine.html?_iv_code=2A9-PMG-G17PTLMG-GLK-17-10-10RD
Which represent the most common sizes of Glock magazines from 10-31 rounds, and ALL under $20!

Since I'm not rich and actually have to pay for my Ammo, I care what happens to it- especially if I have to pick up out of the dirt and reload 10 rounds that fell out of a crappy magazine. It would surprise me greatly if you had never heard of this known issue until now.

Whether or not you believe my experience matters exactly zero to me. Like you, I am simply relating my experiences so others can use the information to their benefit. Since your experience differs greatly from mine it's worth noting, lest others believe the Colt platform is infallible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

The BS meter works fine.. Yes it is a known fact that shells come out of the colt style mags.....still, unless it's a classifier.....ZERO mag changes. And yes......this is the VERY first time I've heard of 6, yes 6 all at the same club having FTF with Colt style lowers. What I normally hear is I love my Glock lower.....then, what can I do make my Glock lower feed better. Rarely....do you hear that with a Colt style and if you do, it's normally the chamber entry has too sharp of an edge (yep, one of the many issues with glock lowers too). Had you said a couple......or said, I've run into a few that have had issues with a Colt lower, that would have been ok.....but you went to 6 and at the same club. Sharing experiences is great and encouraged......but don't cross the BS line.......good luck with the ETS mags. I'll be interested to hear about all the FTF's you have. I will say this.....of all the glock lowers out there.......the GMR-13 and GMR-15 feed the absolute most reliable. On the Colt side......well, I just can't seem to pick one that is bad.....maybe an insert block in a 223 lower.

 

And for further ref: http://gunmagwarehouse.com/asc-9mm-32-round-stainless-steel-magazine.html 

some have had issues with the ASC and swear at them, others swear by them.

 

Edited by TRUBL

Share this post


Link to post
The BS meter works fine.. Yes it is a known fact that shells come out of the colt style mags.....still, unless it's a classifier.....ZERO mag changes. And yes......this is the VERY first time I've heard of 6, yes 6 all at the same club having FTF with Colt style lowers. What I normally hear is I love my Glock lower.....then, what can I do make my Glock lower feed better. Rarely....do you hear that with a Colt style and if you do, it's normally the chamber entry has too sharp of an edge (yep, one of the many issues with glock lowers too). Had you said a couple......or said, I've run into a few that have had issues with a Colt lower, that would have been ok.....but you went to 6 and at the same club. Sharing experiences is great and encouraged......but don't cross the BS line.......good luck with the ETS mags. I'll be interested to hear about all the FTF's you have. I will say this.....of all the glock lowers out there.......the GMR-13 and GMR-15 feed the absolute most reliable. On the Colt side......well, I just can't seem to pick one that is bad.....maybe an insert block in a 223 lower.
 
And for further ref: http://gunmagwarehouse.com/asc-9mm-32-round-stainless-steel-magazine.html 
some have had issues with the ASC and swear at them, others swear by them.
 

If you look at what I wrote, I said one of the 6 runs reliably. Those 5 that do not all have the same set of problems- double feeds or followers that get stuck. I've seen it with the ASC 20s and 32s, but not 10s. I've seen the same problem with another brand but can't remember the name. I've tried tuning the feed lips to match original spec, checked the tubes for burs, smoothed the followers, but they were still unreliable. It doesn't much matter anymore, because of the 5 one switched to a Sig MPX, another the JP, another a Glock lower, and the other 2 seem to have given up on them as I haven't seen them shoot PCC in a long time.

I don't have any problems with my ETS mags. I can feed almost everything from 100gr to 160gr. I say almost everything because 125gr truncated cone coated rounds used to have a feed issue with my old barrel, but seem to be fine with this one. The only real feed problem I've have was with a brand new factory Glock mag which had a manufacturing defect, but others have been fine. Maybe I'm in the minority with my ETS mag reliability, but that's been my experience. As I think back about it, in my last 6 steel challenge and USPSA shoots the only issue I've seen has been projectiles stuck in the lands when trying to eject/show clear, and brass separations- neither of which are attributed to the lower.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, 1911luvr said:


If you look at what I wrote, I said one of the 6 runs reliably. Those 5 that do not all have the same set of problems- double feeds or followers that get stuck. I've seen it with the ASC 20s and 32s, but not 10s. I've seen the same problem with another brand but can't remember the name. I've tried tuning the feed lips to match original spec, checked the tubes for burs, smoothed the followers, but they were still unreliable. It doesn't much matter anymore, because of the 5 one switched to a Sig MPX, another the JP, another a Glock lower, and the other 2 seem to have given up on them as I haven't seen them shoot PCC in a long time.

I don't have any problems with my ETS mags. I can feed almost everything from 100gr to 160gr. I say almost everything because 125gr truncated cone coated rounds used to have a feed issue with my old barrel, but seem to be fine with this one. The only real feed problem I've have was with a brand new factory Glock mag which had a manufacturing defect, but others have been fine. Maybe I'm in the minority with my ETS mag reliability, but that's been my experience. As I think back about it, in my last 6 steel challenge and USPSA shoots the only issue I've seen has been projectiles stuck in the lands when trying to eject/show clear, and brass separations- neither of which are attributed to the lower.

ASC mags is a clue. ASC is the old C-Products. 

OEM for Colt is Metalform. For a brief period Colt tried using C-Products/ASC but quickly went back to Metalform for reliability reasons. 

As Tim also mentioned the other FTF issues in the Colt system is the feed cone of the barrel entering the chamber. Barrels with insufficient angle or sharp edges will cause the incoming round to hang up on the way into the chamber or even worse, drive the projectile into the case. Not all PCC barrels, bolts, and lowers are created equal as people are finding out.

 

Mick

Share this post


Link to post

Hello: The problem I had with the ASC 20 round mags is that they would not even go into the QC10 lower or two different mag inserts I have. The 10 round ones fit fine. With all the different combos out there it is hard to find what is the best setup for Colt or Glock mags. The uppers are different and not standard as you would believe. The bolt bore is at different heights on different upper receivers which can cause feeding problem. Bolt design are different also. Mag catch position are also different. So add all this up and you could have a problem child. Is one better than the other, not sure about that, I need more testing time. Maybe in a year or two I will have a preferred setup. Thanks, Eric

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×