CHA-LEE

I have several Limited Optics Setups and have posted about them on this forum. I have shot a bunch of different setups and prefer lighter ones. If someone is going to buy a gun already built for Limited Optics I would suggest the Atlas Athena. That blaster is setup perfectly for 9mm Minor and Limited Optics.

The "Few folks that have done this with no problems" need to go buy some powerball tickets or actually shoot their guns with a decent amount of rounds to prove functionality. The 9mm barrel in a 40 Slide swap debate has been going on forever and the lifecycle of "It works until it doesn't work" continually repeats for the next person who thinks they can prove everyone wrong. The people who claim that this setup "Works" are also usually the same people who claim that their gun never jams, yet it jams every match and they seem to forget that it happened. Think about it this way, if it actually worked reliably long term don't you think that it would be universally accepted and sold as such broadly? It's not and that in of itself should tell you the answer you are looking for.

Ultimate Build = No Custom Build. Buy an already optimized setup from a known good vendor/builder and shoot the crap out of it until it wears out or breaks. Throw it away and repeat.

Pick one option below.... You can't have both and it be 100% Optimized. Everyone leans towards the "HEAVY WEIGHT" setups because they feel soft shooting but actually suck if you want to maximize on the clock stage performance. This is going to hurt peoples feelings because I just described their gun as "Sucky". Before people get their knickers in a twist, Put in some live fire range testing on both setups and measure actual On Target hit quality and Shot/Transition Splits. Spoiler Alert, High Performance setups are usually not super "Soft" shooting or "Heavy". 1 - Do you want a High Performance setup (Light Weight) - Shot to Shot the whole gun settles fast but also has a harsher felt recoil which you actually have to grip HARD. The gun is also easier to transition between targets because its less mass to sling around. 2 - Do you want a Super Soft Shooting setup (Heavy Weight) - Felt recoil is super soft but transitions will suffer due to excessive weight. There will be muzzle bounce when the slide snaps forward because displaced mass will return.

A slide mounted dot will have a reduced life regardless of what caliber you shoot. Slide velocity is what does the most damage vs actual caliber. Dots also have warranties so run it like a rental until the dot breaks then swap it out. Rinse & Repeat

I wouldn't say there is "No Chance" of anything changing associated with the Limited Optics division. Its almost guaranteed that something will change with regards to the Limited Optics Division rules or requirements. There has NEVER been a division deployed by USPSA which didn't go through several rule changes. This is especially true when a Division transitions from Provisional to a Normal Division. With regards to Major PF being adopted in Limited Optics, this has already been shot down several times by USPSA HQ so its unlikely to be deployed. But nobody really knows what will happen including USPSA.

I think that LO still needs something more significantly different than CO to differentiate it enough to justify a completely different division. It has been proven countless times over the decades that the pistol used to win matches isn't the primary thing that lead to said win. Its the skill of the person shooting the pistol which is the primary differentiator when it comes to winning or losing. With "The Gun doesn't matter" fact accepted, I think that USPSA should completely reassess the current Division insanity to make it less complex. All we need are 4 pistol divisions. Optics Minor, Optics Major, Irons Minor, Irons Major. Or better yet, ditch Major all together and then you only need 2 minor divisions (Irons & optics). THEN you can apply a gun type/manufacture Category. That way all of the people who think that using a Glock is a disadvantage to a 2011 are only competing against their fellow "Glock" Category shooters. Doing it this way would also make it MUCH easier for matches to generate Sponsorship interest in major matches. I think it would be a pretty easy pitch to ask xyz Gun Manufacture if they would be interested in sponsoring THEIR Category. I can envision something like this.... High Glock Category, which is also Sponsored by Glock, goes to Joe Blow... USPSA has always created Divisions and Gun Division Rules in a vacuum with the expectation that manufactures will actually give a crap about whatever limitations or requirements USPSA has set for their Divisions. That is completely backwards from what it should be given the overall public gun market vs the drop in the bucket practical shooting market.

When people whine about high failure rates of their reloads I ask the following questions..... I am yet to have anyone having ammo issues also produce the correct answers to all of these questions. Usually they are screwing up one or more of these things leading to their high failure rates. 1 - Are you Roll Sizing or Push Through Sizing the brass before you reload it? 2 - Are you continually changing manufactures or types of Bullets, Brass, Primers? 3 - Is the TV, Radio, Podcast, or other Distracting thing "On" while you are reloading? 4 - When was the last time you replaced your reloading Dies? 5 - Does your press have regular stoppages during your reloading session? 6 - Are you in a hurry when you reload the ammo? 7 - Do you inspect the Brass before you reload it? 8 - When was the last time you fully disassembled, cleaned, assembled and calibrated your press? 9 - When was the last time you confirmed that each position/stage of the shell plate was actually doing what it should in the middle of a reloading session? 10 - Are you actively paying attention to what is going on while reloading?

"Does it matter on the clock?"..... The answer to that is obvious when National & Area Titles are being won with $1000 or less plastic fantastic guns. If your only requirement is the minimum functionality to "WIN MATCHES" then get an off the shelf gun that is reliable and accurate then invest $5,000 - $10,000 into your training and ammo. . But embracing the suck to put in the $$$, time and work to actually perform better in matches isn't as "Fun" as buying cool looking expensive guns. This is why you see a bunch of competitors at matches with an Expensive gun on their hip with very little invested in their training.

Price increases are never fun, but this is really business 101. As a business owner, if your product supply is struggling to meet the demand then it makes sense to increase the price of the product. That and welcome to the reality of inflation....... Everything is increasing in cost, why would this not apply to that reality? You think that custom builders are NOT also raising their prices as well?

Have you tried applying a generous layer of Red Locktight between the slide and optic to serve as a gap filler and additional structure? If not, I would suggest trying that with higher quality 6/32 screws. That being said, 6/32 screws are likely not "Beefy" enough for the job. There is a significant screw thread and diameter difference between 6/32 and M4. As I stated before, if the slide was milled specificaly for that optic the chassis of the optic should be butted up against the front and back of the slide cutout. If they made the optic cut where the slide material in front and back of the optic are not touching then that is the root of the issue. If the slide cut is too big, you can have more material welded back onto the slide and then cut it again so that the chassis of the optic is being retained by the slide. Given that you have to use smaller diameter screws due to the firing pin tunnel proximity, using the slide material front to back to capture the chassis of the optic is the optimal rout. I also want to point out that the bottom of the topic should have location pin detents. The slide should have been milled in a manner that includes upward pins which engage with the detents. If that didn't happen then they can drill holes in the proper locations and add pins to engage with the optic detents.

It sounds like you are trying to solve the "Shearing Screws" issue by deploying things which are causing even more issues. Have you tried leaving the gun in the stock config but instead trying higher quality or grade of Red Dot mount screws? All screws are not the same quality or hardness and if you are getting them at a local hardware store, rest assured that they are the cheapest low quality screws available. If I was in your shoes, I would buy some high quality higher grade optic mount screws then use High Quality tools to install them. Cheap-O "L" style Allen wrenches that came with the sight likely also suck. Lastly, if the sight mount screws keep shearing off even after using good quality screws, then you should invest in getting the slide cut for a direct mount which uses the frame of the sight to "Secure" it in place along with the mounting screws. Most of the sight plate systems out there truly suck and will not hold up to violent recoil cartridges like 10mm. What you are trying to do currently is the same as trying to put a bigger bumper on your car so you can continue to ram it into a brick wall. Will a bigger bumper work "Better"? Sure, but it will still fail after enough trips into the brick wall. You need to ditch the car and replace it with a Tank. Then the brick wall won't matter anymore.

As for the PCSL "Kilo" targets, they basically nullify most of the Major PF points advantage because the A-Zone goes from the belly of the target all the way up through the head and also have the K-Zone which is an automatic 2 Alpha. On a normal USPSA target it has a bunch of C-Zone through that same swath of vertical portion of the target. When you Partial up a USPSA target, most of the time, this pushes up the meat of the target to shoot at into the neck area which is predominately C-Zone. That is a target presentation scenario where it becomes a significant shooting pace difference between Major and Minor PF. Major PF divisions can chain saw at the C-Zone neck area of a partial target and not get murdered by points down. You can't do that when shooting Minor PF or you will get killed by the number of C-Zone hits. That very common Partial Target scenario where you can bleed a bunch of points is eliminated when using the PCSL Kilo targets because there isn't a C-Zone in the neck area. The Outlaw matches that I have shot using PCSL Kilo targets basically eliminates most of the Major PF Scoring advantage you have. In the context of USPSA, they could change the scoring zone of the standard USPSA target to have the A-Zone go all the way up from the body through the head just like the PCSL targets. This would in effect achieve the same goal of increasing the shooting aggressiveness on the target because the A's are "Easier" to capture. But then it would also apply to all minor divisions.

This thread is funny to me because people think that trading ideas on forums like this will somehow translate to changing the minds of people in charge of USPSA. USPSA can't even be bothered with effectively maintaining High Hit Factors for their Classifiers and they have ALL OF THE DATA already. Do you really think they are going to put much effort into figuring out what the best approach will be for a new Division? Or continue to use the existing process of spinning a proverbial wheel of fortune and whatever it lands on ends up being the decision. Lazy people will continue to do Lazy stuff.... That is the pure definition of human nature.

Limited Optics should be Minor Power Factor but Scored Major. Doing this would change the fundamental game play enough to significantly separate it from Carry Optics. If the Target Hits were scored as Major it would promote more aggressive shooting & movement. I pitched this idea to one of the USPSA Area Directors and it was met with a monumental amount of "Fudd Mentality" resistance. Because somehow making another division which is basically the same thing as an existing division makes more sense......

That will only work if the blank blade is tall enough to allow the notch to be .125 deep. Most of the Bo-Mar style adjustable sights have blades which are too short to facilitate a .125 deep notch.

Give Kensight a call and see if they will make a custom blade which is taller by 0.05. Or better yet, see if they will cut you a custom blade to the exact notch width and depth.

DUDE!!! Where have you been? We need to see you back at the local matches!!! To answer your question, you are going to be hard pressed to find a Bo-Mar style sight which has a notch deeper than 0.120. That depth is about as far down as you can go before you start getting into the base of the sight frame. What you CAN do is get a Harrison Design Fixed Bo-Mar style sight then have them cut the notch to whatever dimensions you want. I have done exactly this several times with Harrison and they do a great job. Going with a Fixed setup like this will obviously require you to adjust your elevation by changing front sight height. But it is what it is if you want custom stuff. https://www.harrisoncustom.com/hd-002-extreme-service-rear-sight

Let us know how many rounds until the screws start to back out because they will when only torqued to 18in/lb.

You are correct, a smaller diameter slide lock pin hole in the link would help fix the upper lug issue, but then could lead to the Barrel bottoming out on the link instead of the frame and breaking. Hogging out the slide lock pin hole in the link is a bandaid to fix barrel that was fit poorly in the first place. When a barrel is fit and timed properly the ONLY job of the barrel link is to pull the barrel down out of upper lug engagement as the lower lugs clear the slide lock pin. After that initial downward "Tug" the barrel links job is supposed to be complete. The problem with the 1911 design is that a barrel can be fit incorrectly causing the barrel to bottom out on the link instead of the frame when the barrel is in the Down & Back position and this will "Work" until the barrel link eventually breaks. If your gun was built properly using a #3.5 barrel link, then you should be able to simply put a new #3.5 link in there and it should pass all of the timing tests and work fine without breaking the link again. I don't want to say that barrel links are always made perfectly and they never break due to manufacturing defects. Anything man made can and will have the possibility of failing prematurely. But the Probability of a barrel link being made incorrectly to the point of it failing is very very low. Versus the HIGH probability of someone fitting the barrel incorrectly. This is especially true on the proven horrid build quality track record of the STI DVC 2011's.

I hate to say it buddy but the STI DVC Series of guns usually had HORRID barrel fits. I have seen a bunch of them where the slide lock pin hole in the barrel link was hogged out to a preposterous size which caused the upper lugs to eat each other. Take the barrel out of the slide and look at the leading edges of the lugs in the slide. If they are rounded or chipped then the gun is a lost cause. I have also seen others eat barrel links like candy because the barrel wasn't fit to the slide & frame properly. I would suggest sending it back to STI to fix their crappy initial build. A properly fit barrel should NEVER break the barrel link. There were a bunch of the STI DVC Series guns which looked like they were built by monkeys. Yours is likely one of them.

For the Frame Mount to Frame screws, they are usually 5-40 size screws which are not very big, but I have ALWAYS tightened them to almost "Twizzler" a normal "L" shaped Allen Wrench level of tightness. That and use Red Lock Tight on the screws. The standard "inch-Pounds" torque spec's for those tiny screws is absolutely not enough to prevent them from working loose.

If you use a Thinner Follower, like the TTI Thin SV, then you can easily get a +1 in both the 170mm and 140mm Atlas mags. In 38SC I could cram 25 rounds in the 140mm mags. I wouldn't reload to a 25 round crammed mag, but I would start with it. It has already been mentioned before in this multi-page thread, but I will mention it again. If you want absolute maximum capacity you need to use a very thin follower and you also need to roll size your reloaded brass prior to loading it. If you ammo isn't roll sized and the base of the case has any amount of "Belly" that will consume at least 1 round worth of space within the tube after you stack 20+ "Chubby Belly" rounds on top of one another. There is no free lunch here people. If you want absolute maximum capacity then EVERYTHING involved needs to be optimized. Tube, Spring, Follower, Base Pad, AND the Ammo. If you are trying to stuff chubby belly ammo into the mag then don't expect absolute maximum capacity.

I have always used super narrow thumb safeties as the heel of my left hand palm rests on the side of the safety with my "Normal" support hand grip. Since the safety is below the top of my support hand, my strong hand thumb lays on top of my support hand. The higher your support hand palm is on the side of the gun the more leverage you have against the muzzle flip. If that means cutting the width of the safety down to a mini shelf that is only big enough to flip off/on as needed then so be it. Dremels are made for a reason