CJDOUBLETAP

I've been using a Romeo 1 on a Brazos mount for around 15k rounds. No issues so far. The dot is a lot brighter than any other sight I've seen.

Yeah, Binary comp. I like the 6moa dot in the Romeo 1.

Fast turn around time, easy to work with, and builds some badass guns. Couldn't be happier with mine.

I enjoy the props that make this match unique and unlike any other. If you cant step out of a 12" high tire or are scared to fall off a 5' tall roof with a loaded gun, maybe this match just isn't for you. Area 3 has had gimmick props and raised wood platforms ever since it moved to Grand Island. I'm not sure why people that don't like this stuff sign up for the match year after year, and bitch about it year after year.. A large portion of the DQ's were caused by pulling a rope to drop a hard cover wall. The rope was EXTREMELY hard to pull and caused most shooters that chose to pull it to fly backwards when the pin dropping the hard cover wall finally popped out. That is my only criticism of the stages. The speed in which the activator rope was pulled on the random swinger thing seemed to have an effect on how it was presented on the first "pass." That was in the shooters control, so I'm cool with that.

All I shoot in limited is the MBX mags. They are awesome and I've had no problems. I've also had no problems with the old style MBX tubes in .38 super, its just the new tubes I'm having trouble with..

Nice. Hopefully I can figure something else out, but I may have to go this route. I've tuned STI mags in the past with good luck. I just buy the MBX mags for the capacity. Thanks!

I'll have to try some grams springs and followers in them. Thanks for the tip. My load is a 125gr Zero JHP loaded 1.235 long. I have sent the same pictures to MBX. They say its a stacking issue and recommend a 1.225 OAL. I'm skeptical that a .010 change in the OAL will solve the problem, but I'm going to try it tomorrow.

Thanks man!

What length are your rounds loaded to? I'm having trouble with 5 different mags all doing the same thing. About once every 25 rounds a round will get jammed up on the side of my feed ramp. I couldn't get a good picture with the c'more in the way, but the tip of the bullet is stuck between the sharp edge on the feed ramp and the frame. I've ran about 1500 rounds through the gun with STI mags with no issues. Any ideas? Thanks!

Has anyone else had problems with the new style MBX tubes using .38 super? The top center of the mag tube isn't crimped in like the older tubes. It allows the rimmed .38 super cases to pivot side to side on the rim of the case, because the rest of the case is unsupported by the feed lips. I believe these mags would work with 9mm since the length of the rimless case would be contacting the feed lips. The old style tube is on the right with the crimped in sides. It works with zero issues. The new design isn't pinched in at the top, allowing the round to point off to the side, since the rim of the case is the only thing touching the feed lips.

Thanks!

Is there a problem with the Practiscore link for this match? I'm having trouble with it..

Couldn't have said it better. This is a sport. People want to compete.

I still think a loose fitting slide (.003-.005/side clearance) with perfect squareness and ground/lapped surface finish will be the more reliable than a tight fitting slide. I looked through all the old posts in this thread and it seems like the majority of people think tight is better. Nobody seems to have a good reason why though.. I think the "a loose slide will wear out faster" theory is stupid. The increase in wear over what a tightly fit slide would get has to be extremely minimal, if any. I just can't see how this makes sense.. I'm starting to think the big name gunsmiths fit their work tight just because people that don't know what they are talking about assume a tight fit means better quality and accuracy. There are a few replies to this thread of people with loose guns that are tack drivers.. Am I just a stubborn conspiracy theorist? Its killing me not really knowing what the ideal fit is. Someone has had to have tested this before, right? I just want to build the perfect gun...

Yep, I think if there was any less clearance I wouldn't be able to get the slide to move free. I'll probably end up loosening it up a bit, but I'm going to test fire it first once I finish everything up just to see what happens. Might be able to really figure out if a tight slide frame fit really is just as reliable as a loose one..

Good to know. Thanks.

Took me 4 hours from start to finish taking all the measurements and getting the slide fit on. Probably would have taken another hour to fit the "D" dimension. I think the "D" dimension would be WAY quicker to do than the "C." The slide would be a lot easier to hold onto and indicate square than the awkward shape of the frame. If I did it again the same way I think I could do it in about 2.5hours. If I just milled the rails parallel with the outside of the frame and lapped the slide on, like most of the videos I've watched, I think I could do it in under an hour pretty easily.

Have you fit your PT frame to a slide? Is there a lot of extra material on the rails to work with or are they machined pretty close? Between having to machine my CK frame to fit my Evo grip and not having much to work with on the rails I'm thinking about starting from scratch and going with a PT frame to avoid a lot of the grip fitting.

Alright, time to revive this thread now that I have my slide and frame fit up. I started with a CK arms LDC Widebody frame and a bald STI unique 40 S&W slide. Please keep in mind I have zero experience building 1911/2011's, so my terminology could be a little wack.. Hopefully these pictures don't make this a page long post.. First off, I'm going to use this image to reference the measurements in which I was working off. I threw away the note I had all my exact measurements on once I finished fitting this up. (Wish I would have saved them for this post.) This picture was my roughest measurement, since I was going purely off the feel of the gage block fit. I used two .0920 dia. gage pins and a .5720 gage block stack to measure this. It was a tight slip fit, so I assumed there was an extra .0001-.0002 clearance between the gage blocks and pins. I was pretty bummed that there was already .008ish (rough measurement) clearance between the slide and frame on the "C" dimension and .0005-.0020 (not perfect form) clearance on the "D" dimension before I did any machining. That left me no chance to give the slide and frame an ideal vertical fit. I was pretty surprised about the amount of clearance on the "C" dimension, since a lot of the YouTube videos I've watched involved machining the top of the rails on the frame. The "A" dimension already was clearanced, which was fine with me because the "B" dimension had .006 of interference I could work with to fit the side to side play. After measuring the A-D dimensions on my slide and frame using gage blocks, gage pins, a .00005 dial test indicator, a micrometer, and a surface plate I was able to start machining. (I obviously used my calipers to ball park all the numbers before I moved on to the precise stuff..) I played around with the clamps on my grinding fixture to get the bottom rail surface that runs the length of the frame indicated within .0002 parallel with the bottom of my fixture. I placed my fixture on a sine plate and adjusted the angle on the sine plate until I was able to indicate within .0001 across the 2 inch gage pin in the slide stop pin hole. I figured I'd try to keep everything square to slide stop hole, since that part of the frame has the most influence on the barrel lockup. (I think..) Once I had everything set up square to the slide stop pin and the bottom rail, I indicated the top part of the frame where the ejector sits out to the front rails. It was only .0016 out of form from the lowest spot to the highest spot. That's pretty decent in my opinion for a drilled hole and multiple milling setups.. I dusted this top surface flat and square removing minimal material. At this point I figured .008 clearance with out of square form was worse than .0096 clearance with good form on the "C" dimension.. Once I had the top surface squared to the bottom rail and the slide stop pin hole I was able to place that surface against another squaring fixture to work on the "B" dimension. I tapped the frame on the magnetic squaring fixture to indicate within .0001 across the .2010 dia. gage pin in the slide stop hole (pin was a slip fit). When I flipped the squaring fixture 90 degrees, I checked the rails to see how far out they were before I touched off on the grinder. I was upset that when the pin was indicating straight, the rails were about .0070 out from the back to front of the frame. There was only .006 interference before I started (.003/side) so clearly I was not able to machine the length of the rails on the sides of the frame square with the slide stop pin. I indicated the rails on my fixture .0025 out of flat in favor of the direction of squareness to the slide stop pin. Still WAY out of square compared to what I was hoping for, but that was as good as I could get it while still being able to clean up the entire surface on the grinder. Confused yet?? I ground equal amounts off each of the side rails keeping them parallel with each other and square to the top of the frame, which I squared to the slide stop pin and bottom rails earlier. I ground the "B" dimension on the frame to the exact number I got for the "B" measurement on the slide. I was barely able to start the slide on the frame. (Approx. .5-.75 inches.) I debated grinding the frame further to the fit I wanted, but decided to lap it the rest of the way. My decision was based on the blasted finish on the slide. I knew it would wear quickly, so I wanted to lap it smooth to help preserve my ideal fit. The lapping compound I chose should have given me about .0002-.0003/side clearance. (I didn't measure.) I had to lightly tap the slide back and forth a couple dozen times before I was able to cycle it completely back and forth using only my hands. I cleaned lap off and the slide will slowly slide off the frame without any influence if I tip the rails perpendicular with the ground and give the frame a shake. This is as tight and smooth as I could have possibly fit this slide and still have it move free. I personally think the fit is too tight and the gun will not function once it heats up and gets dirty. I figured It is a piece of cake to loosen it up if it has reliability issues because of the fit. The perfectionist in me wants to try a different frame with some more stock so I can also fit the vertical play and completely square the rails with the slide stop pin hole. Do you guys think I'm wasting my time putting more work into this frame since there is so much vertical play?

Awesome, hopefully that will save some people a lot of PITA.

I also had to hand work the radius on the grip smaller with the dremel tool to match the frame once I had the main contact surfaces machined to fit. The radius I'm talking about is directly above the mag release. (See the sharpie marks in the picture.) The PT Evo grip is badass, but it is clearly not made to fit on a CK frame. You are looking at some pretty serious fitting with this combo..

I milled my CK frame within .001 of fitting then hand worked the last bit with needle files. Wasn't even close to fitting when I got it.. I was wishing PT sold their frames in singles. Definitely would have sold one to me.. The grip is awesome, the beavertail fit my frame without any machining.

I'm in!

Keep it coming. Good Stuff.