Gunsby_Blazen

Good luck with getting it running! Hope it works out great. i have heard some bad things about the Daniel Defense large hole uppers where the "holes" were not in the right place. The pins would not line up. i dont know if it was a bad batch or what but i hope you got a good one. Test one out and make sure it lines up before you do anything else in case you got to send it back or send it in to DD for assistance. I just wanted to give you a heads up as i remember reading about that a few years ago. but that was a few years ago and it might not even be relevant anymore.

i got an Aimpoint Pro, Burris Fastfire, and that new Vortex Crossfire red dot (like a Aimpoint Micro). My brother has Aimpoint pros, some weird Meprolight Trudot, and an Aimpoint Micro. THe Aimpoint Micro is the best of the bunch but its very expensive for what you get. its really clear and sharp. I have astigmatism as well. It preforms a hair better than the Aimpoint pro but it is much, much, lighter. Its also much much more expensive. (and this is the H1, not the T1) The Aimpoint Pros are good and there is some blossoming of the red dot with my eyesight. Its heavy on my Colt and i noticed the other week when i took it off to shoot irons with it. What a difference in weight there was. I wasn't expecting it. That being said, its not super heavy and i consider them to be THE SIGHT for a hard use gun, a sight that wont break the bank. They are clear as well without much color variation from the real world due to lens coatings, in my opinion. The Vortex Crossfire red dot replaced their SPARC line and its pretty good. ITs well made but you can see the diode projector inside the tube while aiming down it. I got it as a "good" economy red dot optic. It is not in the same league as the Aimpoints but its very good for the money. Its not as bright but i didnt expect it to perform as good as the Aimpoint Micro. The dot color has a slight orange to it, more than red. I got it for that Ruger PC Carbine that i plan on buying but right now its on a Ruger MK III pistol. Its fun on there.... It was a good buy and i recommend it but keep in mind that the diode housing inside the tube is viable. The view through the sight has a slight green hue due to the lens coatings. Its more noticeable than the Aimpoint Pro for sure. It might "star" a slight bit more than the Aimpoint as well when i use it without my glasses. The Fastfire that i have is a first generation and it is lousy.... the screws were soft and mushed when adjusting it. They have fixed the problems with the sight by the current (thrid) generation. I almost bought a gen III but the Vortex came out and it looked nice. I keep that Fastfire on a .22 rifle now. The oddball is the Meprolight which is a square. Its very clear and i like it. It has a huge open view and its does not give you that tunnel view that most red-dot optics have. That being said, i think it is primary used on Tavor rifles. It seems to have the right height for that use. Its pretty clear too. i would go with the Aimpoint Pro if i was going to get a serious use red-dot. Or a Micro if you got the money to burn. in regard to parallax shift, i notice a slight bit in all of them to be honest. I haven't used the Trijicon red dot but i may give it a try. I know that i like the Aimpoint Pros. I wish i could help you more.

oh i know it will be accurate, i just dont know how fast it heats up. I have had plenty of experience with barrels that heat up and shoot poorly as a result. i dont see how a JP barrel would be different after it heats up. i am just going to debate this some more with myself. i really dont think the weight difference with the heat sink on the ultralight compared to the light barrel justifies it. i dont know if i am gaining anything from the ultralight over the light in that configuration. i planned on the titanium brake. mostly because i think titanium is cool.... hahaha I am feeling the same way GIO, about having more "meat on the bone" as you put it. i know the lightweight ones are good but i am WANTING the ultralight. and i know the heat sink would hit the inside of my hand guard when fired due to the tight clearance. just the vibration alone would make it wack the inside. So thats out the window anyway right now.

The first thing i thought was, "that looks Klingon" It looks dangerous and i am prone to accidents so i would probably cut my hand on it. Sharp objects like knives, sharp pokers, and hooks dont mix well with me. that being said, for some reason, guns dont cause me problems. its just sharp objects. thats a good thing. QAPLA!

i would get a MK IV and upgrade it with Volquarsen parts as you go along. I have a MK III with some trigger components in it. I got the Hunter model and swapped the fiber optic sights out for traditional ones. I had a red dot on it for a while but took it back off after a few months (actually i had a couple different red dots on it). with the MK series pistols, there are lots of aftermarket stuff you can get from Volquartsen or Tactical Solutions. you can get different "upper" receivers (which is actually the registered part and considered the "gun" on these pistols, the upper receiver has the serial number) later if you want to make it lighter. if you want to go all out and spend a bunch of money then you could just guy a Volquartsen built MK series Ruger but i think that is excessive for most people. it all dpeneds on what you want and how much you want to spend. I like the standard models over the 22/45 models because there seems to be more parts available for them. I would pick them up and see which one you like in your hand better. when i got my MK III, it had problems with light strikes and extracting. I got a replacement extractor and firing pin from Volquartsen (i drop that name a lot but i had a lot of good luck with their parts) and that seemed to fix my problems. I haven't had an issue since. I highly recommend those parts due to my experience but you might not have those problems. I love my pistol and will be picking up a MK IV later on and doing something less traditional with it in regard to appearance. It will be more target/competition oriented. i say get a new MK IV as they take down easier and get a few upgrades. if you want to go cheaper, get a MK III and buy parts for it. They are going to be in less demand due to the MK IVs being out. If money isnt the issue, the MK IV is heads and shoulders better than the MK III due to how it breaks down..... you push a button and thats it. I would say a Volquartsen trigger is the only upgrade you need at first. They shoot nice. I am long winded and often redundant, sorry about the long post.

Looking at getting a barrel for a build. I like my brother’s JP lightweight barrel but I am using a billet receiver (mega) and an older stock that I have (Magpul UBR or something, cant remember) that is somewhat heavy. It does not bother me because the weight is in the back and not up front on the end that gets swung. I reckon I will be using heavy stuff AND lightweight stuff on this but its what I got and its what I am going to use. anyway, I was looking at 16 inch barrels from JP comparing the lightweight to the ultralight weight. The ultralight is crazy light at 1.6 pounds including the gasblock and muzzle device. the lightweight is 2.2 pounds in the same configuration. (no thermal dissipater, that’s the one thing I didn’t like about my brother’s rifle. It is just added weight) then I got to thinking, Ultralight and pencil barrels heat up fast so the heat sink might be a good idea on that barrel and needed more than the other JP barrels, including the light weight one. The heat sink on the ultralight brings the weight up to 1.9 pounds. So thats only a 5 ounce difference between the light (without radiator) and the ultralight (with radiator). Is the ultralight really even justified at a five-ounce difference? I understand there are weight junkies out there but I am going to be using a Geissele M-Lok handgurad which leads to other problems with that radiator. (It fits but it JUST bearly fits) My guns are heavy and I was just wanting to build something light for a change. Wondering what other opinions might be on this. Lightweight w/o Dissapator: 2.2 lbs (35.2oz) Ultralight w/ Dissipator: 1.9 lbs (30.4 oz) Ultralight w/o Dissapator: 1.6 (25.6 oz) and crazy light but i think it will heat up like nobody's business I was excited about that ultralight since i first read about it but i am thinking it probably isnt worth it in the end.

No, it's for the full size Glock, Henning don't have one for the 43. Thanks for the clarification. It could be easily machined to be smaller, though, just as long as it fits. Does anyone know if the dovetail is the same? I am not 100% but I think it is. The slide is just thinner. I cannot confirm it though.

Is the sight specifically made for the Glock 43, or for a full-size clock? Full size Glock sights are too wide for the 43. I think they'll work but the edges of the sight will be hanging over the sides of the slide. I didn't see any specific Glock 43 sights on the website. Maybe I just missed?

Ruger is starting to use Novak cuts but i dont know if they are regular Novak cuts or what... I Really like my SR9, i shoot it better than my Glocks. I honestly like the factory sights as well. Dawson makes sights for the SR series of pistols as well. Galloway has a nice red dot mount for the MRD type sights. I would like a really tall front sight to go along with it though.

Well, i have had the Wilson Combat sights for a while. The figure-8 type sights like on Heinie were something that I couldn't get used to. I liked the Wilson Combats on the G19 and the set that i have on the 43 are great. The edges are sharp but that does not bother me; they will want to snag clothing if you let them. I never had them scratch my side or snag my clothing on a draw. I have been shooting it for a few months and they are not even comparable to the factory plastic sights. The Wilson Combat sights have orange tritium in the rear and a bright green tritium lamp in the front. They work very well in low light and have used them for some dusk drills in the woods. They work like any tritium setup should. All three dots line up and the elevation is dead on whether you can see the the clear sight outline in the daylight or just the dots at early morning/dusk. I have noticed that tritium vials dont line up perfectly on some sights but these are perfectly level. The have sharp edges and offer good and clean definition looking down at the front sight post. They are serrated and i haven't had any problem with glare. I opted for these over the orange paint type front sights with the tritium such as the Trijicon HD and the Ameriglo alternative because they made the front sight much too wide. These Vickers/Wilson Combat seem more precises to me. Machining and finish were as they should be (better than the Ameriglo) They are top tier sights like the Dawson and Heinie. They are just about everything i wanted in a CCW sight. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED! Nice, crisp sights. There is no point of impact shift from the factory sights. My groups did get tighter but i am not sure if that has to do with the cleaner definition of the sight picture or my subconscious appreciation of the new sights. (yeah, i like them that much) The Rear sight is partially serrated and has this half doughnut non-serrated machined area around the rear notch. The rear notch is not square and is a half circle/U shape. I really like this but i am not sure if it is any "faster" than a regular square notch. Its supposed to draw your eye up to where you subconsciously focus on the top edge of the front sight but i don't know if this is true. I tell ya what, i prefer the U notch in the back. It does seem to help me center the front sight post a little better than the conventional sight. For folks that care, they have a ledge that you can hook on to your belt and boot heel. This functions very well as i tried it out a few times. Its not something that i work into my drills but probably should. I did drift the rear sight slightly to the right, just a hair to correct my windage. You cant even notice that i did this unless you really look at it hard. I still shoot a little off but its not by much. I just use some Kentucky windage. I know why i do this and it has nothing to do with the gun, its my finger and how the trigger breaks. My brother shoots it dead on... ONE MORE THING i did install the Taran connector and that thing really made my trigger feel better. I usually like leaving defensive guns stock but i decided to give in and put the bar in. It greatly improved the trigger pull. The trigger still feels like a Glock and still retains that wall before the break. it is not any more mushy than a factory Glock, simply lighter. I am able to hold it on target much more consistently. I am still not a huge fan of the Glock trigger but this made it tolerable for me. I can almost shoot the 43 as well as a 19 now. All Glocks shoot to the left a slight bit for me. The Taran connector made it better but i still need a bunch of practice to get consistent. Some days i shoot it outstandingly well and others not so much. If anyone has anything they want to ask, shoot me a holler. I had mine professionally installed (not going to do that again) and he scratched the rear sight a tad bit. I drifted mine with a soft wooden dowel. At least he didnt scratch my gun.... (i did that on my own just carrying it. HAHAHA)

You know what, i think over-travel is the biggest problem with this pistol. On the full size Glocks you can get a better grip on the gun but with these smaller ones the over travel makes you move the gun after the trigger breaks. This is what i think makes the sight move slightly when shooting the 43...

Fascinating! Both the Ghost and the TTI have a similar feel?

i heard that the Trijicon RMR with the user adjustable brightness settings fail when mounted to a slide. I dont know and have not tried it but that is what i read on another forum that focues primarily on black rifles.

Finally got it out and put a few boxes of ammo through it. One thing is for sure is that i can shoot it much faster. My groups, which were awful, are cut in half and i can feel good about shooting paper targets with it now. I still shoot a little low and to the left but it is drastically better. I feel so much more comfortable carrying the gun now that i am more confident that i will hit what i am aiming at. It cut about three inches off my groups (they were that bad, 6 inch groups that were low and to the left. Oh man i hated it and was actually embarassed to shoot it at the public range). I was tessting it at 15 or so yards and was able to hit the bullseye when i really tried. I was really pleased with that. I think i just need to practice with it. I am really glad i picked up that connector. I did a couple "mag dumps" too just to see how fast i could pull the trigger. I was impressed with that as well.... (i tested out at my "private range" out in the country that i built on family property. I didnt do a mag dump at a public range...) You cant even compare it with the factory conector. Very smooth too. The only thing i want to change on it now is that grooved trigger. I dont care for that. I am very impressed with the improvement. You guys did a great job! I will see how it holds up long term but I dont see anything failing with it.

Have the TTI in my gun and have been doing some dry firing over the past couple days. I hope I can do some shooting with it this weekend but I am not going to hold my breath... plans usually never go through. So far it has made it a lot slicker, the nickle plating really helps smooth things out. I think that i will be able to call my shots now as I can tell how the gun is behaving in my hand. The trigger pull is lighter but it still has a pretty distinctive break. Before, I didnt hold the 43 like i do most handguns and used my first joint to pull the trigger like i do with a double action revolver due to my inability to really control the trigger. I now ues the pad of my finger and the pull is much more consistatnt. It seemed to be money well spent. I dont have the Ghost to compare it to, I may get one further down the road but i will have the Taran connector for quite a while before I decide to test that one out. I think it will work out nicely.

Taran, I see what you mean! sounds good to me! thanks for explainging that. Good to know you keep tight tolerances.

Also, there is a major factor in the connector that can cause reliability problems. If the angle of the connector is too obtuse, meaning that the angle is too white and there's too much forward pressure of the trigger bar, it can cause the trigger bar to slide along the frame and sometimes fail to reset. We make sure we press fit that angle before they go out. I am somewhat confused. Press fitting deforms metal so that it fits in a specific application. The parts are mated togeter when they are press fit to eachother. If you press fit the trigger bar to test it then it will be matched to the part you are press fitting it to. Perhaps I am confused to as what press fit means in this application. Could you straighten me out on this? Thanks, G_B

Thanks everyone, I have been looking everywhere trying to find some info out about these connectors, mostly the new TTI one. The descriptions on the websites could be more informative. I have been skeptical about trying one because i was worried about reliability because my SR9 had some light primer strikes but i am thinking that was that junky Winchester practice ammo and not the Ghost connector.... And like i said, i don't use that connector anymore (its been years). I had the equivalent of the Rocket with that overtavel stop and it made the trigger feel weird with the SR9 because there is no real wall with that trigger. It just breaks, i can predict it because i shot the hell out of it but it will surprise someone who does not know the gun if they are trying to stage the trigger. I reckon it would be better on a Glock as the overall feel of their triggers feel drastically different. Thanks TTI for letting me know that problems usually come mostly from redesigning. I knew that but you restating it reassured me. Well, i knew it could happen from swapping springs but i assumed it also occurred from swapping out the connectors. So that gave me enough peace of mind to try it out. So, i reckon i am going to buy one and try it out for a month or so before it goes back on carry-gun duty. I am somewhat new to Glocks so its taking some time to get used to. Thanks everyone for replying. I got more information in one day on this site than i have on all the other forums and there has only been a handful of posts here. I might end up getting both the TTI and the Ghost and see how they both work as you folks have said they are both worthwhile upgrades. Going to start with the TTI. Will report back after I get the new part, ordering it on Monday.

Taran connectors vs Ghost connectors... I really cant stand the trigger on my Glock 43 so i am considering getting a new connector for it. I have used Ghost in the past in my SR9 but swapped it for the factory one after i polished it because i didn't like how the Ghost made the trigger feel. This was on a Ruger SR9 and not a Glock so it might be different. I haven't used a Taran. Looking for folks to chime in with their experience with using these connectors and preferably in the tiny G43 pistol. How do they feel? I have noticed these connectors take the crisp break out of the trigger on some guns. The 43 seems to have a more pronounced break than a Glock 19. Do the connectors for the 43 have less of "mush" to them than connectors in larger models due to the length of the connector? I would like someone to set me straight on all of this stuff.... I am also worried about reliability as this is one of my carry guns. I am just way too used to light triggers to be able to handle, what feels to me to be, over-travel after the heavy break on that 43. The gun moves around too much in my hand after the break. Its the only gun i have that does this to me. Thanks again! -G_B

Well, i e-mailed Wilson Combat about the Vickers sight and they will be coming out with one in a couple months. I reckon i will wait and see what they look like before i pull the trigger on swapping out my sights. The Vickers sights are like the Heinie but have a half circle notch instead of a square. Aside from that, they are like the Straight Eight sights. I like the Vickers sights on the G19 so i am going to wait and see how these go. I just wish the Tritium vials were brighter on the Vickers sights. They are small vials so that might have something to do with it. I appropriate how think the front sight post is. It is the same thickness as the Dawson, .125 Thats all that i got for now I will post a write-up of whatever sights i get for it in this thread later on after i get them installed. Thanks for your help, fellas!

the 43 makes my .38 snub revolver seem big and bulky. I really like how think the 43 is. But, i am still going to keep my revolver as a backup in case something goes wrong with the pistol. Also, i dumped too much money into the revolver and holsters to consider selling it. I am a much better shot with the tiny Glock as well. I am glad i picked one up! Good review! fascinating data.

Heinie sights? (straight eight) i hear a lot of good things about them.... any experiences with them? They have a wider rear sight and i think that might be a good thing for this application. Is the 2 dot style sights ok to deal with? (the only sights that i have had hands on experience with are factory sights, Meprolight, and the regular Trijicon. Oh, and some hi-viz brand sights that i didnt care for and put standard black iron sights on instead...(various handguns) by the way, i really like those Vickers Glock sights but they dont make any for the 43. If anyone was intersted in those. They are crisp and have a good definition. I like how the rear sight is serrated but also has this non-serrated flat black/matte half circle around the u-notch. It really draws your eye to the center of the rear sight so that you can focus on the front. To be honest, i hated it at first but started to really like it the more i shot it. The rear notch is fairly wide and the front tritium post (no white dot) is .125 width (i think) so its nice and thin for a tritium sight. They are on the tall side as sights go. I figured that i would pass this along in case anyone was looking for compact or full size Glock sights for another gun.

i almost placed an order for the Dawson sights (tritium rear and front) but the rear notch and the front sight are both .125 and that combined with the short sight radius of the 43 seems to be too narrow of a rear sight. Now i feel like i am back to squire one. i am probably making all of this more complicated than it needs to be.

I have Trijicon HDs on my Glock 19 and love them. Sorry in advance for a stupid question, but can the HDs from my 19 fit a 43? i would think they would be too wide to fit the 43. Also the 43 uses a taller rear sight than other 9mm glocks, if i am not mistaken (long bar over short bar) i think it (43) uses the same height rear sight as the long slide 9mm.... from the factory....

i think i am going to try to do it myself after watching his videos on the youtube. again, i dont have a pusher, do you think using a delrin punch can bust tritium vials. i called up my local shops and they just use a pusher to push the sights in and dont really fit the sights to the dovetails. I like things done the right way and know i can do it on my own except i dont want to bust the tritium tubes as i install the sights. (i am going to go for rear tritium as well, my carry revolver has tritium in the front and black rear and i would prefer it to be all glowy in the back as well. My brother has a 3 dot tritium setup and i prefer it.) seems i got some thinking to do. If you guys have any advice on tritium sight installation then i would appreciate hearing it. thanks again, GB