socman777

That is exactly why I developed my sight spreadsheet, as it takes into account sight radius from your eye, allows you to plug in your current or proposed combination. It will return the lightbar percent of the named combination, will also return ideal front for the rear named, and ideal rear for the front named. I am happy to sent the spreadsheet to anyone, just PM me and give me your email (as the file is a spreadsheet file, can't be PM'd).

That'd be Mr. Dude to you, my good friend. I consider this forum to be among the most intelligent and respectful on the net, and I'd respectfully suggest that you restrain yourself from the obvious cheap shots that fail to educate, and that dominate your quickie post. Gentlemen can disagree with dignity, and there is surely room for different approaches to a problem. I happen to be a big fan of Enos's principles and I would not be as quick as you to denigrate them. Awareness is a key element that you do not seem to either understand or accept. So allow me to respond - not to your cheap shots - but to some of your reasonable statements... ********* Quoting the Bulldozer (italics), and responding... "There's a third choice. Stop screwing around trying to figure out something that you're only going to think you understand, focus on what you actually want to have happen, learn how to make that happen and get beyond the problem entirely, and forever." You still don't get it. I'm not "screwing around" (relax, please), or "...trying to figure out something". Awareness - as Enos speaks of it - is not analysis, which is actually your strong suit. Let's recall that it was you who bragged of your high tech, slow motion video analysis of milkers, apparently to help them "figure it out". You can't have it both ways. "Besides, if your theories are right why is it you're still having the problem sometimes? There's a reason why some of the true experts stopped replying to this thread a while ago." I'm not having the problem - don't make things up. Once I had the eye-opening experience of becoming aware of it, I simply stopped it. Fini. Apparently "true experts" can be wrong. "The reason it's a backwards solution is because you're talking about trying to stop something rather than talking about trying to DO something, which is keep the sights aligned as the shot breaks. How you get to keeping the sights aligned as the shot breaks isn't nearly as important as actually getting there." Pardon me if this doesn't register with you, but the Zen of it is that doing nothing is doing something. The notion is to stop milking, not hope that doing (or not doing) something else might cover it up. "If you milk the grip and the bullet doesn't go where you wanted it to, it was because the milking happened before the shot broke, and the sights were no longer where you wanted them to be, but you didn't see the change." We agree. Most people don't see the change, and don't even know they are milking as it happens. Watching the sights won't help them. "I've seen this with many, many shooters and I've seen the actual proof of what's happening in graph and slow motion video form from two or three angles on each one so I'm not talking theory here, I'm talking about what really has to happen to cause the symptoms you're describing." Which does nothing to increase the shooter's awareness while it is happening. A fun experiment though. "To suggest that the sights are aligned when the shot breaks and that the bullet hits somewhere other than where the sights were pointed because of milking tells me whoever is saying it doesn't really understand the process and how it all fits together. I'm not saying that to be mean, but physics in this sort of situation isn't really negotiable." I don't mean to be mean either, but I didn't suggest that. Don't misrepresent me. We all know that milking moves the sights, don't be ridiculous - the issue for most is that they are simply not aware of the sights moving at the last moment, no matter how hard they try. Please. "You said you started having the problem while shooting .22lr and I have no reason to doubt that. I just said that 99% of the time people with the low, left, milking problem don't normally have it with a .22, but there are going to be a few who that doesn't apply to." I'd say that there are many. Low and left is probably one of the most common issues for new shooters and it matters not what's in their hand. "Further, someone trying to analyze something that they really don't understand, and focusing on what they don't want to do is counter-productive." I couldn't disagree more. It is you who fails to understand the value of awareness in shooting. This has nothing to do with technical analysis (your approach) but with in-the-moment awareness (Enos). I believe that good shooting is ALL about awareness. Focusand reliance on technique can be counterproductive. Until you are fully aware of everything you do when you are shooting, you will remain stuck (refer Enos). "They need to work on getting the desired results first, then they can go back and break down the process later if they feel the need to...." Enos would disagree, and I most certainly do. Although we all practice technique, in real shooting he'd advise you to concentrate on becoming aware and to forget about the results. Become aware, and the results will naturally follow. "But they won't need to if they learn to call their shots because they're going to stop doing whatever it is that's causing the sights to move before the shot breaks. The key is learning to see the movement rather than learning to "not milk the grip"." In the world of medicine we call this treating the symptoms (rather than treating the cause). The tail doesn't wag the dog, and watching the sights does not stop milking, it merely tries to correct for it. A time consuming stop gap. "When we put someone with this problem on the system with the trigger graph and the video glasses they get to see the shot in slow motion. It's very easy for them to see that the gun dips low and left just before the shot breaks. Essentially we're shortcutting the process of learning to call the shot by using slow motion video." Yes, a crude first step is proving to them that they are, in fact, milking. But until they can become fully aware of it - not on video, but while it is actually happening - nothing will change much. OTOH, when you become aware in real time of your milking - while you are doing it - you'll be able to call the shot low and left regardless of where you thought the sights were. Heck, once I've aligned the sights, I can close my eyes and tell you if I'm gonna go low and left or not by the feel alone. "For those without access to a gadget like this it'll take longer, but when they learn to call the shot, they'll see the same thing and they'll stop doing whatever it is that's causing the problem." Au contraire. It took exactly one trip to the range for me to finally become aware of what I was doing - as I was doing it - and to simply stop it. "To take it a step farther, the real root of the problem, since you're talking about really, really understanding it isn't actually in the flexing of the grip pressure....at least in the overwhelming majority of cases. That's almost always a symptom rather than a cause. The cause is accelerating the trigger press too rapidly." Again you misrepresent me, I guess to make your own point. You apparently can't stop thinking in terms of technique as "solution". The solution is not any given technique, or lack thereof, but first in awareness. Let me defer to Brian once again, who makes it clear that the issue not rapidity (speed) but smoothness. Pull smooth - sans milking - and you can pull smooth AND fast. Let's not confuse trigger slapping - or pickling as you like to call it - with milking. "I have never noticed myself "milking" the grip. What I did notice when I first started shooting, was that I was anticipating the recoil, which led me to push the barrel down, and to the left right before (during?) the trigger pull. How I cured it was just to focus on the sights and the target, and totally ignore what my trigger finger was doing..." Oh now I get it. Because you weren't milking and your "solution" was to "focus on the sights", that oughta work for everyone else who IS milking. Huh? In truth it's important to be fully aware of everything you do, including the trigger finger. "After several sessions of doing this, it came naturally, I didn't have to think about focusing the front and rear sight on the target, or keeping my eyes open, or anything else. Again, keep the sights aligned, and the bullet will go where it is aimed. Personally, I think that if you are physically trying to "fix" the milking problem, you are thinking too much." You aren't trying to "fix" everybody's milking problem? With all your data filled posts, coulda fooled me. Let's see, you take copious slow motion videos and x-ray studies of their shooting techniques, from various angles, and with all manner of technical apparatus, timers, post-analysis and discussion and you accuse me of "thinking too much"?! That's a good one. The kind of awareness I'm talking about requires quieting the mind, not shifting it into high gear. I'm not wedded to any glib solution, simply to Enos' well taken notion that awareness is the basis of good shooting. What each shooter will learn is different, but one thing is for sure: becoming aware - of milking or of any other practice - is the basis of good shooting. Being shackled to technical "solutions" is not. Bottom line: You are truly the bulldozer. All about brute force, glib treat-the-symptom solutions to what is an insufficently understood problem. You don't need no stinkeen awareness. Just check into the outpatient clinic, we'll wire ya up, scope ya, run a buncha slo-mo videos, show ya what yer doin, and then - to heck with awareness, just don't move them sights, you'll be fine. Ooooooooo K! One last thing: my dear Mr. Bulldozer, we disagree and that's fine. It is obvious you believe in your slice and dice, wired up and videotaped analytical approach. But if I've achieved anything here, I hope it was to open people's minds to another, more Zenlike point of view, namely the value of awareness in becoming a better shooter. I hope I've achieved that with the respect that you, I and all the other posters here deserve.

In "Making Glocks Rock" the presenter talks about the "click" that will indicate that the slide lock is properly installed in the groove in the thick slide lock (grooved) pin. I didn't quite get it for awhile but here's how I finally learned to do it right and test it. All pins are installed right to left side. 1. Install the thinner (locking block) pin first. Push it no more than flush with the frame (later you will push it slightly inside the frame). 2. Install the thicker (slide lock) double grooved pin to the second groove. The rest of the pin will be sticking out. 3. Install/push in the slide lock all the way in, so that it is in its usual position on the frame. 4. Then push in the thicker slide lock pin by hand, wiggling the slide lock back and forth as necessary until the slide glock pin passes through. Push it by hand until it is close to or flush with the frame. Now here's the "click" part: 5. Lift the slide lock all the way up while pushing down the slide lock pin into the frame to its final position. You will hear a definite and clear "click" (as the slide lock clicks into the groove). This is the final position. You can now test this by lifting the slide lock all the way up, keeping it there, and pushing it in and out. There will be movement (in and out) IF the lock is in the groove. If it is not, there will be no movement. But all in all be sure you learn how to get the "click" - every time - on assembly. The test is only confirmation. If you don't get the "click" (and test "play"), then the slide lock is NOT in the groove and the pin can move. I'd bet dollars to donuts that this is your issue... good luck! ********* BTW I push all my pins no more than flush, until I am satisfied I got the "click", then I push the remaining two pins, in my case) to final position centered just inside the frame.

This quote pretty much sums up the problem for so many. And will all due respect to dear "all ya gotta do is keep your sights on the target" Bulldozer, I'm gonna leave this one to Brian: I couldn't agree more and that has been my point in my previous comments (above) on this matter. Before you go running off solving an inadequately understood problem you must become fully aware of it - while it is happening! In the case of milking this may involve some sympathetic tightening of the fingers of either hand, but more likely those of your shooting hand. It is essential that - before you rush to perform the laundry list of "solutions" - that you fully understand and become aware of exactly what it is you are doing, and this is key: while it is happening. If the only proof of your milking is noting - after the fact - that your shots are low and left, then you really don't have a clue. Any solutions that you apply cannot possibly solve a condition of which you are unaware in real time, and that you really don't understand. What the solutions can do - at best - is to compensate or cover up your presumed milking by some measure of force. A great example is Ayoob's well known advice regarding milking. He feels that the sympathetic response of the other shooting hand fingers is unavoidable. Accordingly, he recommends his "crush grip". Does this solve the milking? No, it merely covers it up and crushes it with a heavier force so the milking fingers can't move. The other popular myth is that the solution is to "watch your sights", keep em on target. In this "solution" your shooting hand fingers are free to continue milking, the sights either do move (or want to), and you keep bringing them back through the shooting sequence. Or you are unaware of any last moment milking. Again, have you solved the milking? No, this time you have simply engaged in a series of mini-corrections during the shot. The problem with all the many "solutions" ususally suggested is that none of them directly focus on the milking itself. Think about it - if you can become aware of your milking, exactly what it is and how it feels to you, while you are doing it - can you understand how valuable that awareness can be? It's much easier to stop something that you fully understand and of which you are fully aware. As Brian puts it: You'll simply cover up that of which you are not fully aware - milking. Now let's consider real awareness. It doesn't take much to become aware of your milking (assuming you really are milking and not something else). Just go to the range and do some nice slow fire. Don't change anything, allow whatever you are doing to simply happen. Draw and align your sights as usual, but as you start your trigger pull change your focus to your fingers of both hands, but especially to those of your shooting hand. If you are like the many who really do milk, you will become shocked to actually notice and feel your fingers tightening "milking" the grip (and ruining your shot)! This will be an eye opening moment. It sure was for me. Why? Simply because you will become keenly aware of something that you'd been unconsciously doing. You will actually feel and understand, perhaps for the first time, what milking actually is. You will become keenly aware of it. How aware? Very! To the point that you will be aware of it as it is actually happening! You will be able to call the shot low and left before you actually check the target. You will know - as you do it - that you are in fact, doing it. And then, if you are like me, you will simply stop it. I, among others, disagree with Ayoob. With focus and awareness, it is entirely possible to relax the shooting hand and separate the trigger finger from the sympathetic response - if not completely, certainly to the point that a normal and relaxed (not crush) grip will predominate. A bunch of focused dry fire will help you tremendously. Once you have full awareness of the "milking" action, it is so much easier to stop it. You soon learn to shoot in a relaxed manner, with the trigger finger reliably separated from the other (relaxed) shooting fingers. Once aware of it, the milking ceases to exist. Your mind will take care of it. It will not hurt if you also visualize what you want to happen. In closing, you have a choice. Either you can never really be aware of what you are doing, and throw a series of mind diverting stock "solutions" at your "problem" - or - you can become fully aware of exactly what you are doing as it happens, and simply stop it! *********** You can't stop milking by changing the cow...

Bart, aka Bulldozer - and you are well named - I think we agree more than not. I'm really not into parsing but occasionally it has value in dissecting an issue... "That's honestly a backwards solution. . To try and learn, disect and focus on what you don't want to do is a negative view." Actually, it's a frontwards solution. To stop something - anything - it's important to know just what it is we are trying to stop. The vague assumption that you are "milking" doesn't mean much, and accordingly, a solution to something that may not even be happening may not be a solution at all. Remember, the original poster asked "What does milking mean?". It is clear he doesn't know what milking is - or whether he is "milking" or not. In response he got a lot of replies solving a problem not yet really identified. My suggestion is to FIRST work to become completely aware of just what is happening, and exactly how it feels. To first answer his question. And THEN to solve it, once he is completely AWARE of what it is he may or may not be doing. "Nothing matters but having the sights be where you want them when the shot breaks... I have seen absolute proof that the front sight can be buried (visually) against the side of the rear sight notch when you shoot and the impact will still stay on the target at 25yds". Your observation assumes no milking. Milk and the impact will NOT "stay on the target" at 5 yards, much less 25. You could just as well say "nothing matters but shooting accurately" and that would be equally helpful. "The idea that a perfect trigger press is necessary is false as well... as long as the sights are in the right place when the shot breaks, it really doesn't matter." Ibid. Assuming no milking. You quote the intended result as the solution. Nothing matters but shooting accurately. "In probably 99% of the cases you can take the "grip milker", hand them a 22lr pistol and they won't hit low and left after about five seconds. " Really! Not so fast. Just so happens I started out shooting my Glock 34 with an Advantage Arms 22lr conversion kit, and surprise! That's when my low and left problem started. If 22lr was the solution, no one told me. For me milking had nothing to do with recoil or power - by the time the gun fires the damage is done. Rather, "milking" has everything to with, uh, milking. I think you're conflating flinch with milking. And milking - and becoming aware of just what it is - remains the first step in stopping it. This is true of any problem in life - first become aware of it, and THEN solve it. All the techniques you read do nothing but cover up or compensate for milking without directly identifying or addressing it. "If you're trying to shoot a match and thinking about whether you're milking the grip or not....well, you're going to be very limited in ultimate potential from the get go." Here you misunderstand me - the goal is to eliminate milking - to go beyond it to a new, milk-free awareness. Developing keen awareness of "milking" is simply an initial (and temporary) step in ELIMINATING it. You can't eliminate something of which you are not aware. Once eliminated, there is nothing negative of which to be further aware! Your new awareness will be of proper shooting. Capish? "The problem is that it's not easy to just start watching your front sight and calling your shots and people want to go faster than what they're capable of seeing so they try alternative solutions that are usually a longer road to the same place. " You can watch your sights all day long, and try to call your shots - but if you are unknowingly milking - it really won't help. Believe me, I tried. On the other hand, once you DO become aware of exactly what milking is to you, and how it feels - only then can you simply stop it, and focus on the sights. It's easier to stop something once you know what it is. Now. Not to complicate things but I think another piece of excellent advice is that by Duane Thomas, above, regarding the subconscious. Also keep in mind that Brian himself has advised that trigger pull practice - without sights and with FULL AWARENESS - has great value. Think about it. First become aware - then stop it! You can't stop milking by changing the cow, or the bulldozer, lol...

Let me try this again (see my previous post above). I listed a number of items - seemingly endless - of typical interventions to stop "milking". From grip tighter, to watch your sights, and many more. And now we can add "calling your shots" (actually a pretty advanced technique, especially for the new shooter). They all fall into the category "...if you do A, or B, or C or....Z, then you will overcome milking". But none of them - none - really make you aware of the act itself. This is Job One - to understand and become aware of milking - AS IT HAPPENS. I believe the first task is to keep milking - and focus on it - until you understand exactly what it is, and exactly what it feels like. Mind you I had tried every trick, every focus in the book, slow careful dry-fire, over and over. And to be honest still was not aware of my milking. Some improvement, yes, but still more low and left than I wanted. In my low and left case, I went to the range and put my focus entirely - entirely - on the fingers of both hands (but especially the right) as I pulled the trigger. I forgot about the target, sight picture and sights completely. Lo and behold I was amazed to discover - and feel - my right fingers moving in a classic milking movement, each and every time I pulled the trigger, no matter how smoothly or slowly. Now - for the first time - I really understood and BECAME COMPLETELY AWARE of the milking and EXACTLY how it felt. And then I simply stopped it! Capish? I'd then align my sights, and pull with awareness of my other fingers - if I felt them tightening I'd stop and repull. I focused on relaxing my right hand - except for the trigger finger alone. I immediately noted the sights then held better. By focusing, learning and becoming fully aware of the milking it was easy to stop by simply - stopping it. I'll leave it at this - I do not believe that one can effectively work around the problem - or attempt to smother it - by focusing on other issues - sight, grip, calling the shot, etc. YMMV... You can't stop milking by changing the cow...

I've had this problem and have read the three or four threads on this subject. The usual advice typically includes varying solutions like: 1. use a death grip, isolate the trigger finger (Ayoob) 2. go to a 70/30, more pressure on the support hand 3. watch your sights 4. dry-fire and watch your sights 5. concentrate on pulling straight back - toward the BASE of your thumb 6. use some dummy rounds 7. shoot with the other hand (ad nauseum) I think these all shoot around the issue (and, at least to my way of thinking, before or after the fact). The issue is you are milking. The solution is to become aware of it - not AFTER the fact, not BEFORE the fact. You must identify it while it is happening - present tense - and become one with how it feels and what you are doing. Then just stop doing it! For me, I had to become aware of the milking as it was happening. Once I knew what milking felt like - while it was happening - I simply... stopped it! Let me explain (btw, this advice was given to me by a old timer at Glock). What he said was this: "You are milking and it has nothing to do with your grip, hard or soft. Next time you go to the range, take aim and as you pull the trigger, simply focus on your fingers - of both hands - and simply notice what is happening. It can be either hand. Then stop it!" In my case, when I pulled the trigger with my focus on my fingers I immediately became aware of my right (dominant) fingers tightening in a classic milking movement. It was so obvious, yet up until then something of which I was completely unaware. In all my dry-firing and sight watching I was simply oblivious of my fingers. Having learned that I focused on those fingers, and I just stopped myself from doing it. As soon as I'd feel my right fingers tightening, I'd relax all of them except the trigger finger. I practiced pulling the trigger with relaxed fingers, and did not allow them to tighten. The result: no more (in my case, right-handed) low and left! Gone. I was shocked. Bottom line: I personally believe that this is problem you can't practice around. It is essential to attack the milking directly. To identify it - and stop it - while it is happening. In my case, milking was natural and unconscious. Let me be a little zen about it... You can't stop milking by changing the cow, lol...

As some know, I developed a spreadsheet that was designed to calculate Brian's ideal front sight width based on the notion that he believes a sight picture based on a "perceived" light bar of 50% of FS width, on each side of the FS. If anyone is interested, please PM me with your email and I'll be happy to send it to you. Meanwhile I thought an analysis of some of the fine shooter here, including Brian would be revealing.... ************** Me - the spreadsheet calculated Brian's ideal at 40% each side. Tdean: "...I took about .015" off my Dawson fiber-optic front post. It's now at .120" with the rear Bo-Mar notch at .138". The "light bars" on either side of the front post are perfect (1/2 the thickness of the post) at my arms length.." Me - No, not half, actually this works out to 38% each side. Munitor: "...The Russians found that a front sight that was the same or slightly wider than the apparent width of the bullseye gives the best accuracy with the least eye fatigue, but because Olympic pistol targets have a wide bullseye, they found that rule impractical to implement for pistols. Instead, they settled on a front sight, 0.125-0.145 wide, which their experience has shown to give maximum accuracy and minimum eye fatigue..." Me - this does not discuss the apparent width of the rear opening... Munitor: "... You described your previous sight setup as .090/.112, which is a calculated 0.80 and approximately a visual 0.46 (or 2.2:1 if we use the apparent rear to front ratio like the Russians do). That gives you a bit more than half a front blade's width on each side..." Me - actually it's more than a bit LESS than half, specifically 43% on each side. Joe: "... I widened the factory fixed 3-dot rear notch on my Commander from .125 to .150, keeping the front at .125. This has given me a very fast sight alignment. I did the rear notch because it was the easiest to modify..." Me - this gets a bar width of 41%. T-Dean: "...I'm using a .075" front and a standard .110" rear notch. That puts me at .68 ratio. Pretty low by most standards it seems, but I love it..." Me - this is truly one-half, at 51%. Rhino: "... You guys are the first group I've seen that narrow the front specifically to get more light on either side. The reason I narrow the front sight is so it won't obscure as much of the target at 25 anf 50 yards..." And... Loves2shoot: "... I got convinced to go to a wider front sight last year and I (for whatever reason) pick it up faster, I still have a thin sight on my single stack and it works fine but I shoot tighter groups with the wider FS." Me - Hmmm. Rhino goes narrower to expose more target, Loves goes wider to pick up the sight faster. And in another thread, Flex pointed out to me that the front sight needs to be your first choice, and only then, the rear sight to get the light bars you want. My spreadsheet is bisexual - solves for ideal front (based on rear) and the reverse. Kevin Kline: "... When I was working my way up and made GM in Limited and shooting my best, I was shooting my STI with a .070 front and standard .110 (I believe) rear Bomar. I loved it and felt very fast with it..." Me - 54%. LPatterson: "... This is a great thread, I just my sights changed to a .09 front & .125 rear and went from middle of the pack to 3rd in division..." Me - 49%. Dragonslayer: [/qu"... Im running a .1 front and a .110 rear for .9 ratio. The light bars on either side are very small and i cant get a sharp front sight focus..." Me - 35% BKeeler: To Dragonslayer (.1/.110), "... Try a .125 rear and a .110 front. I like a .015 difference between the front and rear." Me - 37%. BK's advice really wouldn't change Dragonslayer's ratio much at all (35%). This shows the need for the spreadsheet. **************** Summary Here's the conclusions I draw: 1. Brian's ideal of "about one half", based on his own sights is actually about 40%. 2. The use of the Russian and other "sight ratios", eg. 2.2 to 1, are not particularly accurate. They imply a 50% ratio, but are actually less (closer to Brian's actual 40%). 3. There is a case to be made for choosing your front sight first - based on target coverage, or visibility, or whatever - then finding (or modifying) a rear sight to produce your desired light bars. 4. The most popular sight picture among experienced shooter posting here, not least for Brian himself, is about 40% (which I guess is "roughly half"). But it is NOT half. Do keep in mind that my comparisons were based on an average 7.5 sight spread, and a FS radius of about 26 inches. I also found that, within reason, the FS radius was not particularly critical. Accordingly, this analysis is fair. Enjoy...

By now you've probably picked your freebie, but I too started with a G34. I decided to stay with 9mm for all the good reasons, and decided to skip over the 17 (too close to a 34), 19 (too much of a compromise) to end up adding a G26. Why? It's a no compromise concealed ready gun, that is amazingly accurate - perhaps moreso than the 19, fast, longlasting and reliable. You would not be the first to compete with it either, and perhaps, win another Glock...

+1 Not to mention that going to a lighter recoil spring will increase felt recoil. The stock springs are perfect as is, and completely reliable. If you want a lighter pull, just put in a Glock 3.5 lb connector and do a modest trigger polishing. The rest should be left alone on a defense weapon. The only changes I made to my carry G26 are the Wolfe rods (stock springs), Glock 3.5 lb connector, Glock extended slide lock, and a polish. Trigger pull is about 4.7 lbs, perfect and safe.

FWIW, the G-26 is not a "cut down" anything. It was designed "from scratch", just as alleged for the Kahr. The G-26 is considerably more accurate and reliable, and offers all the ease of maintenance and upgrades of all Glocks. Love mine, fast on target, fast to acquire sights. My only changes: to Glock 3.5 lb connector, Glock extended slide stop which are very useful. Also steel guide rods with stock springs - but this was not really necessary as the stock guide rod assembly is plenty tough and stiff. Last - removed the stock plastic front sight, replaced with an Ameriglo tritium ($29). It is entirely effective for night use. By the way, the guy that said he had to clip his slide stop spring simply didn't install it properly. This is not an issue on any Glock.

Verrrrrrrry interesting, thanks. For the math challenged among us, I took a min with my spreadsheet and got the following. For a 7.5 inch sight spread, 23.5 inches to FS: Front Rear .090 .128 .100 .142 .110 .156 .120 .170 .125 .177 .130 .184 .140 .198 These would be ideal "Enos" 50% light bar combinations for a G34, a fairly typical gun, and for a typical sight radius. Flex's makes some interesting observations re target coverage - you might want to check this link for a formula on target coverage by the front sight. A standard (0.140) fat front sight covers: Coverage: At 25 yards = 4.7 inches At 15 yards = 2.8 inches At 10 yards = 1.9 inches At 50 yards = 9.4 inches Don't even ask me what a "big dot" covers, lol...

I'll take your word on that. As an older guy, I kinda like the Glock stock (0.140) front sight, it grabs my focus. Turns out that a 0.200 rear would then work (and Ameriglo happens to make one). My spreadsheet (available for a PM) can work it either way and it's easy enough to rearrange the formula... if I'm not mistaken: FS = RS / RR * FR / 2 (solve for front sight) RS = FS * RR / FR * 2 (solve for rear sight) FS = ideal front sight width RS = rear sight opening FR = front sight radius RR = rear sight radius Flex, a question. Just what are the common front widths chosen, and the reasons for doing so?

I really don't think the G-19 is the best of the 9mm's. The models at the ends - the G-34 and G-26 make no compromise. The 34 has been concealed successfully and is a very accurate gun, certainly moreso than the 19. It is the opinion of many that the G-26 is more accurate as well, mostly due to it's very solid slide and double-spring recoil rod. Not much play here. The G-19 is a compromise size - not as ultimately concealable, and no more accurate, indeed possibly less so. To me the G-26 is the winner hands down. It is ultimately concealable, and there's nothing to prevent you from using or carrying a higher capacity magazine. Of course I bought a +2 extender, not only for the additional 2 rounds but also for the additional finger rest. I needn't have bothered. With not a lot of practice I found that I actually like the stock 26 with it's two finger grip. Still mag extenders are effectively used by many who feel they need them. It is very fast and you pick up the sights fast. Another discovery: I found a deal on an Ameriglo tritium front sight only and it's really perfect for me. I get to keep my Glock in-the-bucket rear sight during the day. At night the sole front Ameriglo is perfect. If I'm high I get a reflection off the barrel lug (see a double dot)! If I'm low, left or right I don't see it. So simple. Grab the target, chunk the single front glowing dot on it and that's all she wrote. I went front only cause I'm cheap, but now I'm glad I did.

The following summarizes a spreadsheet designed to calculate the ideal width of a front sight based on Brian Enos' suggestion that the "perceived" (not actual) light bar on either side of a front sight should be about 50% of the front sight's width. He believes this gives you "enough room to work with", but not too much. It is important to note his emphasis on "perceived". This refers to the fact that the actual rear sight opening (which is closer to the eye) is perceived a bit wider out by the front sight (farther from the eye. The following spreadsheet and formula account for this and will allow you to select an Enos front sight without need for experimentation. The following formula requires these measurements: 1. front sight width, and radius (distance from eye) 2. rear sight opening, and radius The formula for the ideal front sight width is: FS = RS / RR * FR / 2 FS = ideal front sight width RS = rear sight opening FR = front sight radius RR = rear sight radius Easy to use, no need to experiment. The calculated ideal width is - for all practical purposes - quite accurate enough for choosing a front sight based on a specific rear sight opening. For those of you who'd like a copy of my handy dandy spreadsheet - it's fun to play with - drop me a PM and your email, I'll send it to you... For example here's a stock G-34, stock plastic sights... Inches Front Sight (width) 0.140 Rear sight (opening) 0.125 Rear to Front (distance) 7.50 Front Radius (distance) 25.75 Rear Radius (distance) 18.25 Front Apparent Opening 0.176 Perceived Light Bar (%) 20.6% Ideal Front Sight (width) 0.088 (for 50% light bar)

Don't know about your Glocks, but my G34 and G26 are both pretty new (less than 6 months). Both came with the stock plastic sights, adjustable for the G34 and fixed for the G26. And both mic out at 0.140 or a tad less (depending on how much you compress the plastic, lol...). It would appear the newer Glocks are 0.140. Another tidbit - both of the plastic front sights attach with a full length hex head screw, not staked on.

Hitting left and low, or low and left if you prefer is pretty darn common, especially with newer shooters (of which I am one). Yes, I went through lots and lots of dry fire practice, working on Enos' natural point of aim and exercises to develop index. Worked too on follow through and working hard for a surprise break and keeping my front sight on target. All helped, but only to a degree. Finally - and on a nonrelated matter - I called Glock, was just curious as to how stock Glocks are sighted in by the factory. Turns on they are sighted in at 25 yards and slightly to the right (as Glock believes most right handed shooter tend to shoot slightly left). But I digress. When I mentioned to the very experienced tech about my low and left problem, he asked me what I thought the problem was. Since I thought I had a pretty good hold, I felt it was trigger pull, but that it sure wasn't apparent in dry-firing. He immediately disagreed. "You're milking the trigger". I went on to note my isosceles stance, and current grip. "Doesn't matter what your stance or grip is, hard or soft, you're probably milking. Do this - when you go to the range, set up and aim and as you are pulling the trigger focus on your other fingers, both left and right hand. It could be either hand. If you feel anything changing, you are milking. Then all ya gotta do is relax and stop it!". Whew! So off to the range I went, and voila! I set up, got a good aim and hold, started to pull the trigger and voila! I immediately felt my other right hand fingers tightening along with my right trigger finger. My left hand was stable. Believe me, with all my practice this came as a total surprise to me - I had no idea that I was doing this! I then reset myself and proceeded to shoot while forcing myself to really relax my right hand, with focus on the trigger finger and leaving support to my stable, strong left hand. Smooth trigger pull, surprise break, nice sight return after the shot. The effects were immediate - compared to my usual wider, low and left group - a nice centered 6 inch group at 25 yards. May or may not be your issue, but worth checking out...

Sight Coverage of Target Here is a useful formula I found that will give you a close approximation of target coverage by the front sight. The following are based on two stock Glocks, the G26 and G34 (the 34, of course, has the longer FS distance. Not relevent, but as an additional factoid the stock rear sight on these Glocks is close to 0.125. The stock front is about 0.140. Glocks are sighted in by factory for a dead-on hold at 25 yards. Currently the factory also sets the rear sight ("...a few thousandths to the right") on the basis that they believe most right-handed shooters tend to shoot a tad left. Formula: W/(D x .0003) = C W = width of front sight in inches D = distance of sight from eyes in inches C = coverage of target by sight in inches at 100 yards For G-26 (std 0.140 front sight): Front sight distance = 23.5 inches Coverage: At 25 yards = 5 inches At 15 yards = 3 inches At 10 yards = 2 inches At 50 yards = 10 inches (9.93) For G-34 (std 0.140 front sight): Front sight distance = 24.75 inches Coverage: At 25 yards = 4.7 inches At 15 yards = 2.8 inches At 10 yards = 1.9 inches At 50 yards = 9.4 inches To get the target coverage for your front sight, simply multiply the above outcomes times (your sight width/0.140).

Sight Coverage of Target Here is a useful formula I found that will give you a close approximation of target coverage by the front sight. The following are based on two stock Glocks, the G26 and G34 (the 34, of course, has the longer FS distance. Not relevent, but as an additional factoid the stock rear sight on these Glocks is close to 0.125. The stock front is about 0.140. Glocks are sighted in by factory for a dead-on hold at 25 yards. Currently the factory also sets the rear sight ("...a few thousandths to the right") on the basis that they believe most right-handed shooters tend to shoot a tad left. Formula: W/(D x .0003) = C W = width of front sight in inches D = distance of sight from eyes in inches C = coverage of target by sight in inches at 100 yards For G-26 (std 0.140 front sight): Sight distance = 23.5 inches Coverage: At 25 yards = 5 inches At 15 yards = 3 inches At 10 yards = 2 inches At 50 yards = 10 inches (9.93) For G-34 (std 0.140 front sight): Sight distance = 24.75 inches Coverage: At 25 yards = 4.7 inches At 15 yards = 2.8 inches At 10 yards = 1.9 inches At 50 yards = 9.4 inches To get the target coverage for your front sight, simply multiply the above outcomes times (your sight width/0.140). **************** As an aside, there are a number of confounding variables: 1. actual front sight and rear sight widths, sometimes expressed as a ratio 2. actual light space, which seems to be (rear width - front width)/2. This is misleading as the both the sight radii to the front and/or rear sights and sight radius for different shooters are quite variable. This calculation may be grossly comparative between different sight combinations, but not much more. 3. perceived light space in actual useage. This solves all the issues raised above, and is Brian's observation and recommendation. He advises that a "perceived" light space of about 1/2 of the width of the front sight, on each side of the front sight "is about right". Please note though that the target coverages listed above are actual. And perceived, lol...

I said: And I would have bet my first born on this being the reason for most competitors installing steel or tungsten. I was dead wrong, at least so far as Dave Sevigny is involved. And I quote: I wouldn't feel right without straightening my own butt out. No less than Sevigny told me that the accuracy is NOT the primary reason for his going to SS. Most do it, but it may just be that ease in spring changes - not ultimate accuracy - is the primary motivator. I also had a chance to talk with Glock. Of course they gave the standard "we don't recommend aftermarket parts" talk; but they added that the plastic rod flex is intentional and considered an important part of their design/goals. Reality bites, and I got bit. I do everything 110% and screwing up is no exception. I'll likely go back to stock plastic. But it's been a fun thread, and I sincerely thank all who both agreed and disagreed with me. To your health!

Once again some great stuff, and thanks to all. We're exploring some interesting concepts here. One of the reasons I went to the NY#1/3.5 connector was to increase the pull. Ayoob performed an interesting study wherein he measured pull (1) at the tip of the trigger and (2) at the middle. These two points will differ based on leverage. Std Glock (5 lb connector): ....... 4 lb 2 oz at the tip, 6lb in the middle. NY#1 with 5 lb: ........................ 6 lb 1 oz, and 7 lb 2 oz. (well worn) 3.5 connector: ......................... 3 lb 4 oz, and 5 lb 1 oz. NY#1 with 3.5: ......................... 6 lb, and 8 lb. in the middle (new). It can be assumed that a well-worn/polished NY#1/3.5 should perform in the 5.5 to 6.5 lb range. In other words the NY#1/3.5 combo is close to stock pull (slightly heavier), but is often used as it is known to be crisper/smoother. It pulls more evenly and is known to be heavier from the get go, gets rid of some mushiness, and the standard's light pre-load. Glockmeister measured it differently: Peak Take Up and Final Break. Std Glock (5 lb): .............. 3 lb, 5.25 lb NY#1 w/5 lb: ................... 4.4 lb, 7.6 lb 3.5 connector: ................. 3 lb , 4 lb NY#1 w/3.5 lb: ................ 4.4 lb, 6 lb The Glockmeister results confirm Ayoob's rough tests. Bottom line: the NY#1/3.5 combo comes in just a bit heavier than stock. Pre-load is heavier. There are many, many users who swear by this combo for carry. They believe it's firmer, smoother, crisper and more predictable for LE work. Although there are many reports of std springs breaking, the NY's are respected as bulletproof (pun intended). I find the trigger reset to be just clear, strong and clicky crisp. Can't really tell the difference from stock. I do agree about the extended SR and MR on the G-26, depending on the size of your hands and grip. It might be better to be safe than sorry, I agree. And in retrospect, I wouldn't have changed the standard guide rod and spring. It was only after I cut it that I realized the larger diameter spring guide is metal, and only the inner is plastic. On the G-26 this is a very, very sturdy setup. I should have left it alone. The G-34 is a horse of another color. The rod here is long, all plastic and I could easily flex it easily with my hands. G'man's amazing video citation says it all. There was noticeable slide movement on trigger pull, and the Arotek SS rod somehow got rid of it. No movement either on the G-26, post Wolff steel rods. BTW the original NY#1 was a leaf spring; the newer one (which I installed) is a captive coil spring in a plastic housing, like a car's shock absorber. No "ears" that are know to wear and break. It is also noteworthy that the top competitors could use a de-capped stock plastic rod - now uncaptured - for the purpose of changing out springs easily - but they don't. Their goals are, or should be, the same as ours - reliable accuracy. That they use SS or tungsten whenever they can is meaningful.

Great stuff here guys. Entertaining AND informative, thanks. G'man, I was confident the plastic rod flexes, but the video you cited really opened my eyes! The amount of flex you describe is quite astounding. And certainly Glock is aware of this. Could it be that this flex is an important design feature? Maybe the qualified observation that "flex is important for harmonic balance" may indeed have some validity. Could it be the flex softens the recoil a bit (like special rod designs that add a secondary spring)? Is pounding a problem without it? Hmm. Joe, your hypothesis that a loose slide has no effect on accuracy is worth examination. On the surface, it sure seems to have merit. And I know 20/1000's doesn't sound like much. It sure isn't at the barrel. But out 25 yards? Correct me if I'm wrong but after dusting off my HS algebra, I come up with 3.6 inches of variance. Of course that's assuming there isn't a last moment correction for the 0.20 play. But do we really need yet another factor to correct at the last moment? There's a good case to be made for reducing error, assuming reliabilty is maintained. And there are some secondary effects. Some of the top pros do tighten their slides. They believe there is a very minor but real improvement in fine aiming. But that's not all. Perhaps more importantly, by tightening the slide they get rid of the trigger slop and get a crisper, more controllable break. Result is more and reliable accuracy. It's the same reason trigger polishing improves accuracy. And last we all need to consider the microseconds the bullet spends in a recoiling gun. How does this affect accuracy? Does the heavier rod - SS, and esp. tungsten - reduction of recoil and flip, however minor, reduce any inaccuracy resulting from these factors? I think we really need to go to school on the Sevigny's, et al. In IDPA SSP, Sevigny uses a stock plastic rod without it's retainer - in effect, uncaptured - to meet the rules. And if he chose to, he could use this uncaptured, stock plastic rod for all his events. But he doesn't. As soon as the rules allow, the plastic is gone and he changes mostly to SS, and occasionally to tungsten. You can be sure its all about accuracy, consistency, smoothness and reliablility. So it really isn't so simple I think. And please recall that a simple change to the Arotek SS rod eliminated the play in my newish G-34. I continue to be surprised and pleased by that. I know this: I haven't hurt or damaged this gun by doing so. I am confident it won't break, chip or fail. The play is gone. And if I get some minor improvements to recoil and flip, or a slightly crisper trigger - that's some nice gravy on my Idaho mashed... Again, great comments, great discussion, thanks...

Joe, your point about "accidents" emanating from extended slide and mag releases is well taken, and one that I must reconsider. For now, and for whatever reason, my hands - which are on the smaller side - seem to be safely distant. In my own case, I really have to work at it to get to, and operate them. But I can see where these can be very valid concerns. I'd like to throw in another consideration: slide looseness. I'm sure most of you are aware of this issue. Glocks, by design, have a slide that is a bit loose. On trigger pull, it has been observed that the slide will drop slightly when the trigger bar contacts the connector, and moves up and down as the bar moves down the connector. On my nearly new G-34 I checked this and could see a noticeable drop. Robin Taylor ("Glock in Competition") estimates the looseness at about 20 thousandths, "noticeable in fine aiming". In short, a designed in tradeoff - a loss of a bit of accuracy for a gain in reliability. Some competition shooters will tighten their slides for this reason. This is a delicate matter, better left for the pros, no way for me. But I made an interesting observation. I decided to recheck my G-34: with an Arotek captured SS rod, using the stock spring, the slide movement is now gone! Or at least so small I can no longer see it. Believe me, it was quite noticeable with the stock plastic rod. Here's what I'd speculate. It may well be that the plastic rod is a reasonable compromise in cost vs performance for Glock. A very small loss in accuracy for a (plastic) rod that is very (but not completely) reliable. Inexpensive and easily replaced as a kind of maintenance item. It is hollow - to stiffen it - but as most know it is still flexible. And you can be sure it flexes in operation. There is no practical way to predict in what direction the plastic rod will flex - before, during and after the shot - and in conjunction with the loose slide, voila! Acceptably - but reliably - bit less accuracy. All fine for a duty weapon. I'm beginning to believe that a SS rod - ala Sevigny - is an awfully inexpensive and simple upgrade for the purposes of reliability, smoothness, consistent function and accordingly, a tad more "fine accuracy". BTW, this opinion and a buck buys ya a cuppa java...

Thanks for your replies. Couple of comments. Does this mean you favor SS over the stock plastic? If so, what led you to use the SS? If not, I know that Dave Sevigny stated that when he shoots IDPA/SSP he uses the stock plastic rod with the cap removed so that it is, in effect, uncaptured. Otherwise he uses a SS guide rod in almost all other events: USPSA Production, Limited, Limited 10, IDPA CDP, Tactical Shooting Association Full Size and Steel Open. I have to believe that his choice to use SS guide rods must surely be for good reason, and one would have to assume improved reliability, smoothness and accuracy must surely play a role. Oh, and as an aside, I picked the G-26 more for it's size, accuracy and reliability. Needless to say it is a relatively light and compact weapon. The addition of the SS rod is unnoticeable, at least to me. Whatever trivial weight it adds only makes it more desireable to me in terms of balance, recoil and flip.

To begin, thanks in advance for your help and observations. Background: I bought a G-34 for range & self defense, soon to be followed by a G-26 (carry). I truly love these two pistols. I've left the G-34 as is except for a light polish on the trigger, etc. I added only a captive SS guide rod with the stock spring. I now envision this pistol for the range, maybe some IDPA to improve and maintain my defensive skills. The G-26: 3.5 lb Glock connector, NY#1 spring, with a Glock's extended slide release and extended mag release. And Wolff hardened steel, non-captured guide rods/tubes, again using stock springs. My main concerns are my use of the steel guide rod(s) in these pistols. My goal was strength, smoothness and reliability first, and improved accuracy & reduced muzzle flip second. I do know that the plastic rods have been known to wear, chip and break. First question: will the steel rods serve these goals? Are there any negatives to using them? Next, I have read two interesting claims: first, that the stock plastic guide rods are designed to flex, and it is claimed that this flex serves to promote harmonic balance. It was claimed that a steel rod has the opposite effect, ie to cause harmonic imbalance and perhaps damage the slide in some way, say pounding for example. Second, I also saw one report that the hole in the stock plastic rod is purposeful, and somehow acts as a cool air pump! If true, I'm not clear what effect a steel rod would have. My own sense is that these two rare claims have little validity, except for the fact that both were made by seemingly competent resources (Remtek and Robar guns). So in sum: 1. Will the steel guide rods add reliability and strength? 2. Will they aid accuracy? 3. Will they reduce muzzle flip? 4. Are there any reasons to avoid steel, eg damage to the gun? 5. Are the claims re the stock plastic rods adding flex and harmonic balance, or cooling air valid? Again, my sincere thanks. These matters are of concern to many ordinary shooters.