Tom in Ohio

I realize that this is Brian's site, so you would, of course, expect positive reviews of his book, but you simply cannot underestimate its value. Personal testimony: I grew up shooting. My dad was a police firearms instructor, competitive shooter (PPC), and avid hunter. I competed in high power service rifle at Camp Perry as a teenager. I competed in 3 position indoor rifle in college. I became an Infantry Officer in the Marines and was a high expert shooter, rifle and pistol. I worked as a contractor after the Marines. I'm now a police officer, firearms instructor, SWAT trained. I thought I was pretty good. I started shooting IDPA and was humbled. A fellow shooter recommended Brian's book. Talk about "you don't know what you don't know." My understanding of shooting took a huge leap forward, as did my skills. The best money I ever spent in regards to shooting. While Brian's book is explicitly directed to a competitive audience, shooting is shooting - the pistol doesn't know the difference. I've greatly benefitted as both a shooter and instructor by his book. I only wish I would have read it on the day it was first published.

I used to have the same problem. No matter how hard I gripped the pistol, my support hand would still shift while shooting. I had an epiphany one day, though. I was sighting in a pistol over a bench. I noticed that with my upper body pressed against the bench and my arms resting firmly on top of the bench, the perceived recoil was much greater and the pistol really was breaking my grip. I realized that all that energy had to go somewhere and in the chain of body parts connecting the pistol to the ground (hands, wrists, elbows, shoulders, back, and legs) my hands, no matter how strong, were still the weakest link. The more rigid I made the rest of my body, the more my hands received the blow. I now think of it in terms of catching a heavy object thrown to you. Do you catch it as rigidly as possible? No, you relax and absorb it, slowing it down slowly. I found that by relaxing my elbows and shoulders, my pistol no longer twisted from my grip. Years later, I now teach students at the Police Academy and have them try a simple experiment. I have them start by firing a few rounds holding the pistol as tightly as possible, elbows locked out. I then have them relax different parts of their stance and grip and note what effect it has. I think this helps them find their "sweet spot" regarding their grip and stance.

I think that one of the reasons that the 1911 has endured is that there has been virtually zero advancement in small arms technology in the past 100 years. Compare small arms technology (I'm talking the arms and ammunition themselves, not optics and such) between 2010 and 1910 and then compare 1910 with 1810 and you'll see that the technology has totally stalled. Apart from some slight advancement in bullet technology (but nothing truly revolutionary) ammunition from 1910 is the same as in 2010. Apart from modern manufacturing techniques and the use of polymers, nothing in small arms themselves has really changed. Its all just slight variations on the same ideas. This has allowed a good design from 1911 still be a good design today. Why the 1911 and not the other arms from that era? Simple. The US Army. Unlike rifles, pistols have never been a primary military weapon and the 1911 performed well enough that there was little impetus to adopt a new pistol for 70 years. Once the US military finally got around to looking at its replacement, the 1911 was firmly established in the US. The subsequent adoption of the Beretta M9 only helped to cement the 1911's popularity. I suspect that had the military replaced the 1911 with a modern design in .45 ACP the 1911 would not be enjoying as much popularity as it currently is.

I'd replace them all at the same time, and here's why. The springs all work together and you'll only know how they work together if they're all in together. Any problems caused by the springs will be different from each other and it won't be hard to figure out which spring is causing which problem. I run a G34 and this is what I'd say about the springs. Recoil: I've gone as low as 12# with the stock striker spring and extra power trigger spring. It doesn't even come close to pulling the slide out of battery and has functioned perfectly for 1000's of rounds. Less than 12# I don't know. I'd say you're fine experimenting between 12-17#. Any problem caused by the recoil spring wouldn't be caused by any of the others you'd replace. Firing Pin: About the only problem a weaker firing pin spring would cause is light primer hits and none of the other springs would cause this. Trigger: The only problem I've ever had with an extra power trigger spring is when I've used it with a 4# firing pin spring. The trigger does not fully return and the trigger safety doesn't engage. If this happens, I keep the extra power trigger spring and use the stock firing pin spring. The trigger pull is very similar with either the extra power trigger spring or the reduced power firing pin spring but with less chance of a light hit. Firing Pin Safety: The only problem you could have with the reduced power firing pin spring would be a bizarre set of circumstances which would cause an accidental discharge. I would guess an internal part would have to break or be seriously out of spec at the same time the pistol took a very sharp blow from a specific direction. No problem you would ever notice firing it. What I run: Ghost Rocket 3.5# connector, Wolff reduced power firing pin safety spring, Wolff extra power trigger spring, Wolff 13# recoil spring with non-captured SS guide rod. This has been 100% reliable for about 3000 rounds and the trigger is very smooth and short.

I noticed something odd today. I was shooting steel today - a dueling tree - and I noticed that when my eyes' focus began drifting toward the target, I would get some misses and as I maintained a hard focus on the front sight, I slowed down. What was odd was that when my eyes' focus was kind of in between, I was both accurate and fast. The targets were about 6" round and the range was 10yds. By having a "mid-range" focus, I was able to maintain awareness of the location of the targets - as they kept re-appearing in different positions as my "opponent" shot them back to my side - and I was able to have a pretty good sight picture. Not a hard front sight focus, but a softer focus - not blurry either - just not super clear. Has anyone else noticed this?

Its kind of amazing how many parts the Glock can have missing or broken and still work. When I took the armorers course we demostrated it working without a trigger spring. They'll also run without any extractor parts or firing pin safety parts (sometimes), with trigger safeties fallen off, broken locking blocks, broken or missing slide stops, and incorrectly installed slide locks (the slide might fall off the front though).

Glock came up with the spring loaded bearing so that they could use the same spring on all of their pistols. The cheap plastic spring loaded bearing is specific to the caliber and is different thicknesses to both make up for the longer slide on the 45/10s and different tension for the 40/357s. The spring loaded bearing for the 9mm is the thinnest, so the most likely to function if missing. I've never tried it, but it would likely cause more problems in the other calibers if it were missing. It also functions as a bearing, as the name implies, by allowing the slide cover plate to slip into place. Without the SLB, the slide cover plate could easily bind on the extractor spring or bend it as the slide cover moves into place.

Like everyone else has said, they are good sights. Here's my two cents. Get some inexpensive plain sights, front and rear, and a small safe edge file. Get a relatively tall, wide front sight (.125") and a narrow rear notch (probably .125" as well). You can also use the factory plastic sights for this, just black them out. Use the file to narrow the front sight and/or widen the rear notch until you get a sight picture that works for you. You can also find out how high your front sight needs to be in relation to the rear sight for the correct elevation. This will save you some money trying different sight combos. Then you'll have a good idea of what size sights you'll want to spend good money on.

I got a "dueling tree" steel target for my police dept. about 12 months ago. I'd have to say that it is one of the best training devices I've ever used. I would have to say that the experience of using it almost forces me to "become one with the gun." When placed at the correct range (for me) the targets are small enough to be challenging, yet the stress of competition forces me to be fast. I've found that when I'm "in the groove" the shooting just happens. I don't have time to consciously think about what I'm doing, yet my awareness tells me what I am doing and if the hits don't come, I feel myself correcting it on the next shot. I can shoot all day at paper or steel targets and not be able to get myself into that "zone". I'm either too deliberate or out of control. The dueling tree really helps me just kind of fall into the groove. Sometimes when I shoot it, I get done and think to myself, "Wow, am I really that good?" The experience is also helpful because by feeling that "groove" so well, I can now fall into it easier when I am shooting cardboard either by myself or against a timer. The effect is that I am not "aiming" when I'm doing it right. I just tell myself to go and it happens. Its almost like my conscious mind becomes a supervisor while my subconscious mind is the laborer. I'm fully aware of what is happening, seeing my sights, feeling the trigger and knowing when something goes wrong and deciding which target to shoot next, when to reload, etc. I would have to equate it very closely with driving a car. I don't think about the mechanics of steering wheel input, pedal pressure, which mirror to look in, etc. I just drive. My conscious mind is thinking about where to drive and how fast and my subconscious mind worries about the mechanics of getting it done. That's probably because I've driven way more than I've shot in my life. Note: For those who might not know, the "dueling tree" is a vertical steel stand with six table tennis-esque steel paddles arranged vertically up the stand. The paddles are the targets, and by hitting them, they will swing to either side of the stand and stay there until hit again whereby they will swing back to the other side of the stand. To use it, two shooters stand side by side facing the tree. The paddles are initially set with three on each side of the stand. On the "go" signal, both shooter simultaneously try to shoot all the paddles from their side of the stand over to their opponent's side while their opponent tries to shoot them back. The first shooter to clear his side of the stand wins.

I've been searching for a better trigger setup for my G34. I use this pistol for both IDPA and duty, so I have to make sure that I keep it as reliable as possible. I also want to do it myself and I'm not ready to start hacking up the trigger bar. I've tried just about every 3.5# connector out there with every type of spring arrangement and I thought they all suffered from the same problems. A lot of creep, kind of "mushy" feeling, longer reset than with the 5# connectors, and weak reset with a lighter pull. I just fit a Ghost Tactical connector - 5# with a fitted over-travel stop. I also added a + trigger spring and heavier (6#) firing pin spring. I like the way it feels. The trigger pull weight seems low for a 5# connector. I didn't use a trigger pull gauge (don't have one anymore) but it feels no heavier than the Ghost 3.5# connector. The take-up is very light and has a distinct second stage making take up on extension very easy. The let-off is very crisp (for a Glock) and the reset mimics a 1911. After take-up, the trigger feels amost exactly like an out-of-the-box SA Loaded 1911 trigger - in other words a middle of the road 1911 trigger. It feels like a very good trigger for my purposes. I'll be at the range for two weeks straight with a new academy class, so I'll be able to put it to the test. I plan on running some drills with a timer and repeating them with different "swap out" trigger parts to see what real difference it makes. Has anybody tried a similar setup?

In the law enforcement community (I'm a LEO firearms instructor) it is mostly a generational thing. The truth is that the vast majority of law enforcement firearms instructors neither compete nor have been in gunfights. The Weaver stance is what the older ones were taught, and with the big targets and liberal time limits of most qualification courses of fire, its worked for them. In their limited experience, they see no advantage to a large amount of the techniques written about on this forum and widely accepted within the competitive shooting community. Thankfully, it is changing.

Shooting near to far and far to near targets is a good way to learn what you need to see to make the shot at various levels of target difficulty. Have someone watch you. Time yourself too with a shot timer. Your splits should change and you should hear/feel yourself shooting at a different rate at different ranges. Speed, for me, has relied on two things: (1) Learning what is an acceptable sight picture for the target and committing to it - meaning firing without hesitation when I see what I need to see. (2) Efficiency in movement. One way to learn to be faster is this: Time yourself drawing and firing one round as fast as you can with no regard to shot placement (within safe reason of course). You can either do it into the berm or with your eyes closed. Just fire as soon as you reach full extension. Get a good average and write it down. Now set your timer's par setting to that time and start shooting a target, trying to match that time. You can also go "backwards" and do the same thing timing your shot on a target shooting A's. Then set your par timer.1 sec lower and try to beat it. Keep lowering the par time and see what it does. What you'll probably see is that you can force yourself to shoot faster, to a point, with no loss in accuracy. The fact is that you are probably on target a lot sooner than you think you are and you are wasting a lot of time waiting for your conscious mind to catch up and press the trigger.

I don't believe that a too-light recoil spring will cause the slide to unlock while chamber pressures are too high. I believe the event is just too fast and it is the mass of the slide and barrel and the locking effect of the pressure on the breech face that keeps everything locked up until pressure drops after the bullet has left the barrel. I know that people have demonstrated this by firing 1911's with no recoil spring at all. The problem in a Glock, though, is that the firing pin spring is pulling against the recoil spring. If the recoil spring is too light, you can actually pull the pistol out of battery while pulling the trigger. This is an important test if you have installed a light recoil spring. One of the genius things in the Glock design is that as the springs wear out, they still stay in balance with each other as they act against each other.

I ditched both the extended slide stop and mag release. I don't need either. The potential for accidentally holding down the slide stop was too great and the mag release, while a bit easier to operate, tore up my support hand palm.

I made an interesting observation the other night. I was running a range for my P.D. We were conducting a night shoot for qualification. I brought out my new Glock 34 9mm. I have been shooting a Glock 21 for almost three years now, both on the job and in competition. I realized that I was pushing or "driving" the G34 down after my shots. I had unconsciously developed this from shooting the .45 ACP. I also realized that it wasn't necessary - or at least not to the same degree - with the 9mm. I also realized how much faster the sights returned to alignment - and how much more precisely. The pistol was faster than I was. The big realization I made was in how amazing the human mind is. Three years ago, when I began shooting competitively and concurrently read Brian's book, I never would have believed that my mind was faster than the cyclic rate of a semi-auto pistol. I have since realized that my processing speed is at least faster than the Glock 21 and that my mind was actively doing things (conditioning the post ignition push) to speed the pistol up to match my mind's processing speed. I am very interested to see what will happen as I begin to shoot the Glock 34 more. Will my mind catch up? I can't wait to get out the timer and see.

I have both a G21 that I did a grip reduction and stipple job on and a G21SF. Even with the grip reduction, the G21SF has a smaller/better grip. I would stipple the G21SF too, but it is a department owned weapon. I have had zero failures with either pistol, and I have been shooting the G21 on duty and in IDPA for almost two years now. I used to shoot both a .45 1911 and a .45 Sig P220. The G21 controls recoil and muzzle flip better than either of those two pistols. My G21SF is bone stock. My G21 has the following mods: Ghost 3.5# rocket connector, Wolff extra power trigger spring, $.25 trigger job, 13# recoil spring with stainless steel guide rod, Heinie wide notch rear sight, Ameriglo .125" tritium dot front sight. I love the G21. I thought the grip was too big at first, but in reality I have no problem reaching the trigger correctly (that is all that really matters about the grip size). Once I got used to it, it just seems to fit and I have medium sized hands (I've always had trouble reaching the mag release on a 1911). Shot recovery is fast due to the low bore axis. Magazine capacity is great. If you decide to get one, I would recommend the G21SF with the Glock rail and the standard mag catch (not the ambi. one). I have the ambi catch on mine and prefer the standard catch on my G21 (I can use any G21 mag I come across and it doesn't scrap my palm). Hope this helps.

I haven't worked on STI's but I have done grip jobs on Glocks. There is not a lot of material in the side of the grip on a Glock. The best I think you could do would be to grind down the "hump" on the side of the grip. It is not much use anyway if you use a high hand grip. Really, though, I would recommend looking at a Glock 21SF. I have both a 21 and a 21SF. I did a grip reduction and stippling on my 21 and my 21SF is stock. It is still easier to reach the mag release with the 21SF. The 21SF's grip reduces the distance from the web to the trigger face by about 1/8". It doesn't sound like alot, but if you are "just" missing the mag release on the 21 it will make a big difference.

Thanks for all the replies. At less than $30 from TopGlock, I think I'll try the .125" Ameriglo's and attempt to thin the blade some more myself. I think a little careful work with a file can shave off .020" easily enough.

Thanks for the reply. What I don't like about the Heinie tritium sights, though, is the silver ring around the vial. I had a similar set before and under some light conditions it would cause glare on the front sight. I prefer tritium sights with the white ring around them - Meprolight makes the best IMHO but they are REALLY wide (over .140").

I have a new set of plain Heinie rears with the "race cut" and a .105" Dawson FO front. I really like the sight picture. The problem is that I shoot IDPA and carry my G21 on duty as well. I really want one set up that I can use for both duty and competition. I am thinking of keeping the plain Heinie rear sight and installing a tritium front sight. My question is does anyone know of a tritium front sight which is thinner than .125"? If not, is a .125" front sight width too wide for competition? Any advice will be appreciated, thanks. Tom