rmills

Perhaps the problem is the placement of the scope mount in relation to the blast holes. On shorty pistols utilizing hybrid ports in the barrel, the ports are typically located farther back on the slide vs. a traditional 5" gun. When one mounts the scope mount directly over a hole, it goes without saying that the scope mount (and possibly the scope) gets blasted. Not quite sure why the gun makers and smiths continue to do this as the effectiveness of the ports under the scope mount is zero (and also might add odd movement due to the sideways blast coming off of the scope mount).

I shot a Glock 24 for 2 years in USPSA Limited Division. I used 180FMJ's in front of 5.8 grains of Universal Clays. Easily made PF and no KB's or pressure signs. You could certainly load down with the new PF.

Yes, the molded on thumb rest would be illegal. But, the definition of a limited pistol has changed so many times thru-out the years. When we look at pistols featuring "sight tracker" technology, what we are really seeing is a pistol with a hybridcomp barrel minus the ports, thus adding several oz. of weight to further reduce recoil. Why not allow the added thumbrest on a pistol that doesn't have one to help control recoil since other methods of additional recoil reduction are allowed such as extended dust covers, tungsten guid rods, bull barrels, sight tracker setups, etc.? This question relates to the power factor issue. Since limited pistols can easily be built or modified to allow shooting of major loads to reflect the recoil of a 9mm or less, have a minimum power factor floor (125) and eliminate the need for all of the expensive add-ons? Let the focus be on shooting, not mechanics.

Why doesn't STI acknowledge the .40S&W feed issue on the Trojans and correct it, as it is a quality control / design issue?

"A 1.30 average is pretty sporty from concealment. Shoot it without the vest and give us another total." I've been doing the IDPA "concealment" thing for two years now. I'll give it a try without. Should be interesting as my draw skills development has been focused on wearing concealment so the trained movement geometry is different . I'll give it a try this weekend.

From concealment (IDPA style): Total time 13.06, down 4 1.3 second average draw 13.06+2 (points down time added)=15.06

Just simplify everything. Squad comes to stage, stage description is read to everyone, RO asks, "Any questions?", then shoot the stage. No walk thru's, just shoot on demand.

What did Virgil charge for this service?

The SO made the correct call.

We are talking about .40's with a ramped barrel. Very few non-ramped .40 barrel'ed single stacks were made due to the issue of poor case support.

Gary: Great job in creating the single stack provisional division concept! We eagerly await the creation of the Glock provisional divison!

When I was shooting .40S&W STI and SVI Limted guns, I too loaded long. It was not due to feeding issues as the mag/barrel geometry in those pistols was correct. I loaded long due to using a 200 grain bullets and attempting to keep the pressure down. I found that with my Springfield .40 singlestack, loading long didn't really make much of a difference in regards to the nose dive problem especially on the first round. Does Virgil Tripp extend the barrel ramp by welding on new material and then machining a new ramp profile? Does this also require modification to the ramp cut in the frame?

In regards to single stack .40's we are all well aware of the various issues that have prevented this combination from becoming popular. The main issue of which being the feedramp geometry. More times than not the bullet tends to nosedive into the bottom of the feed ramp. I experienced this on a Springfield "Loaded" model albeit with the first round I attempted to chamber. After the first round was in, feed problems occurred infrequently during actual firing. But they did happen at the worst times (i.e. in the middle of a stage). In looking at most .40S&W singlestacks, the feedramp geometry is identical to the .45ACP models. The .45ACP having a larger radius tends to work well with the current feedramp designs on the market today. In looking at aftermarket barrels such as Schuemann, do their feedramp designs vary per caliber? Do the current mainstream manufacturers, whether they buy barrels or produce them, use the same feedramp design regardless of caliber? Virgil Tripp has been modifying feedramps on .40S&W STI Trojans to make them more reliable. What is the key to a reliable singlestack .40S&W in regards to the barrel? Is it the general consensus that the barrel ramp geometry is the number one issue plaguing the singlestack .40's?

Glock 35 top end at Glockmeister is listed at $405.

Tom: When will you have pictures of the magwell on your website? Thanks!

Our first match was held under the new rule book. No issues whatsoever. The new rules were a non-issue to everyone at our match.

Just wanted to clarify as to not to create confusion or perpetuate misunderstandings concerning IDPA........

I believe this one is legal as the extended dust cover would fall under the "light rail" analogy since it does not extend to the end of the slide.

"I think in IDPA we get to fixated on shooitng only 2 rounds at each target..Its definately somehting I think about since I carry a gun for a living.." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can't remember the last match where we didn't shoot at least two stages that required 3 hits on a target. You must be referring to the other sport in regards to the two rounds per target fixation.

I agree with Ross. The problem with the stage is the complete unloading of the pistol on the 1st target. When faced with two relatively close threats, one would engage both in an immediate fashion. Three rounds on the 1st target is sufficient. If the stage designer wants to have a mandatory reload somewhere in the stage, add more targets.

Rubberneck: Have your mag disconnect re-installed so that the pistol is legal. If the pistol's functionality requires a mag to be in place to drop the hammer, there are no issues with the SO having a shooter show a clear chamber then insert an empty mag to drop the hammer, . We did it for many years in IPSC/USPSA as well as currently in IDPA. This was very common with Smith & Wesson semi-auto's as well as hi-powers.

The fact that TGO was not selected for the teams indicates a serious flaw in the selection process. I don't mean to take anything away from those who were selected for the standard division team, as they are all great competitors, BUT Rob is truly operating on a higher plane of shooting existence. USPSA needs to rectify this mistake to ensure that it is represented by the best, period.

Just change the spring on your exisiting Glock guide rod. The end just "pops" off. I use ISMI 13# springs.

The modification would not be legal in IDPA SSP division.

Why go to all of that trouble? Just buy the tool that was meant for the job. Glock Front Sight wrenches can be purchased from a variety of vendors (Aro-Tek, Brownells, Dawson, etc.). Using the right tool wil save you a lot of grief. On another note, use a drop of Loc-Tite 271 and DON'T OVERTIGHTEN IT!