ck1

So shot my first IDPA match in kind of a while (2 month-old newborn here...) and changed many variables since my last one: new gun, new sights, etc. Shot the Gen4 G17 with "L" backstrap installed, result: finished with "Most Accurate" with only 20 points down over 4 pretty tough stages, finished 7th overall amongst some very fine shooters (winner finished with 35 points down and won with quickness...). I've never gotten the "Most Accurate" tag at a match before and there were some tuned STI's and Nighthawks and such in the field... the "L" is staying on the gun.

I'm getting kind of annoyed with my Gen4 G17 because of the new spring assembly even though I really am digging it for the most part. All of us who've shot 3rd Gens for a long time know it's too stiff and it's been long enough now where I'm not sure how much longer I'm willing to wait for Glock to address it, sick of guessing what and when they'll do something, I'd like to just shoot it 'till it gets softer, but if it's designed to go 10,000rds in the .40 who knows when it'll be broken-in fully with the 9mm, Glock's slow reaction to their customer's wishes can be annoying as hell IMO, if they acted faster they'd still have the share of the market they lost to the M&P already, this is more of the same BS. I'm glad Jager has got an aftermarket option out already, but $40 + $17 in shipping is about close enough to the same amount I'd have to cough up to trade-in for an RTF2 model with the old reliable assembly that we all know works, if I wasn't digging the "L" backstrag on the new gun I'd probably just go that route... FWIW, I don't think the recoil spring issue is that big of a deal to most shooters, but for guys on a forum like this one it is something that's for sure on the radar. Noticed that even after winning the indoor championship with a Gen4 G17 Sevigny went right back to the 3rdGen G34, hmmm...

Finally no freakin' monsoons in the forcast! I'll have to let you shoot it to see what you think, it's weird I picked up a G20 at the shop at the range... still didn't really like it, this feels different.

150rds tonight, would've shot more except a small party of annoying post-teens who've never handled firearms before decided they'd like to spend their evening muzzle sweeping me over and over... Verdict: Duuuddde! If it fits your hand it's worth trying for sure. I tried to stay pretty robotic and go through drills that would bear out whether or not this was working or if I was just BSing that it was better... Did 50 of 5-shot groups from 10yrds to 25yrds, 50 draw-to-2 and 3 shots at 7yrds, and 50 of kind of both types of things... All I can say is I didn't throw a really bad shot even once, out of 20 or so, I had 2 draw-to-headshots at 20yrds that I missed by less than an inch, the rest landed in a fist-size group dead center of the head (averaged about 2 seconds per shot according to my trusty iPhone shot timer). I was pretty happy with the results. The whole time I was able to track my sights really easily and get the sights to steady themselves very quickly from the draw. I'm going to shoot it like this at the match tomarrow ans see how it goes but think I'm sold... never would've thunk it.

I think this is going to work better for me as I tend to shoot a lot better when I've got my support-hand and trigger press working right and even only in dry-fire thus far it seems to make it easier to keep those things in check, and perhaps even more important, consistently repeatable, which can sometimes be my achilles heel. We'll see what the targets and timer say later... after handling the gun this way it's become clear that it's important to disassociate myself from just how good the gun feels in the hand long enough to really see what works better for me when the sights lift...

Picked up a Gen4 G17 mainly 'cause I really liked how the new grip felt in it's "SF" form (no backstrap installed) and have been shooting well with it over 1000rds... Thing is, got curious and decided to play around with the backstraps for a minute (just to see how they attach and such), and found the gun with the "L" backstrap installed feels surprisingly good and it occured to me that like the thinner "SF" configuration is new on a G17, the configuration with the "L" installed is completely new also since a G17/22 isn't as fat as 10mm/.45's are; I never liked the feel of the G20/21/21SF's so I never really even thought of trying it. Anyone try this? I'm curious how this configuration may have worked out for any longtime 3rdGen G17/22 shooters... I'm planning on shooting an IDPA match tomorrow, and I was planning on shooting the gun in "SF" form... but after dry-firing and drawing for a little while I'm starting to really dig all the real-estate I get for my support-hand and how the extra trigger-reach makes it pretty hard to get too much finger on the trigger with the "L" installed... seems counter-intuitive but I think it forces me into a better shooting form. I dunno, going to try to hit an indoor range if I can tonight to check it out, or I might just go ahead and try it "cold" at the match anyhow...

+1 for Ameriglo's. Lots of options for Glocks in notch width and such, and don't think you can beat 'em for the money.

I shoot both the same, but tend to like the G17/22 size better for all-around living with. I know a lot of guys find that if they're loading bunny-fart loads they can go softer and still make PF with the longer guns, and the longer sight radius may be better for some I guess, but I don't think there's really that much difference otherwise.

I've gone to a Gen4 G17, problem solved. Buying a new gun for 2mm's difference in grip size, a better textured grip, and a bigger/better mag release seems kind of foolish... but after the fact, and after shooting a Gen3 G17 for years, it's really made the gun work better for me. Yes, the new dual recoil-spring set-up is probably a little too stiff for the 9mm, but it's not nearly what it's been made out to be and it's completely shootable and it'll wear in.... and the Gen4's DO indeed shoot flatter, it's just that IMO they're flatter shooting because they have more weight up front under the barrel and that the new grip gives you so much better control over the gun.

I don't think the rail and extra quarter inch adds 10 oz. I had both the old and new, and they both weighed 33. The new had the rail, but with the contoured slide it weighed the same. Carrying IWB is even easier than OWB. Like you said, with the right belt and holster, it's not a problem. bluestringer Better check your scale, the Match w/ Rail I had in 9mm w/ an empty mag inserted came in overweight for IDPA ESP (43oz is the limit... the one's w/o the rail just squeak by).

If you go with a reduced power or clipped striker spring you WILL have light strikes, it's not if... only when.

I tried to carry a Match a few times and believe it can be done. That said, CCW means IWB to me and a Match is 43oz, not 33, more if it's a newer one with the rail so it's a big heavy beast fully loaded, so better plan on a really good belt. Beyond that I'd say the best route would be to have a custom kydex holster formed with the safety in the "on safe" position so it cannot be holstered with the safety off and it cannot be bumped off by accident. Can be done IMO.

Was just speaking figurativly about the guns in ESP, was trying to make the point that my measly illegal mag release that's actually shorter than what's legal will have me in a division that allows a pretty long list of allowed mods... Guess I'll just use the standard one and give the Vickers one to somebody or something, whatever. It's even made from the same kind of plastic as the Glock one, the rule still seems dumb, but oh well life goes on.

Picked up a Vickers extended mag release, for those who've never heard of one they're slightly longer than stock, but NOT as long as a Glock factory extended one. Here's the thing: I've searched some topics on 'em and by most accounts it's decided that the part is ILLEGAL in IDPA SSP division... but I just can't see why, as the WAY longer factory extended mag releases ARE, and all the "slippery slope" and it's not "factory" enough arguments don't seem to hold water as it could be argued just as easily that some of the connectors and stuff that people use should be made illegal as well. I dunno. I like the part, and in the spirit of IDPA (more so than many others) I run exactly what I carry, but if I wanted to use it (and not be a cheater) I'd have to move to ESP and run against single-actions with huge magwells and such... seems dumb. I won't run it in IDPA as I don't want to ruffle anybody's feathers, but this rule should change IMO. Opinions?

That's it right there... it's not really the lightened strikers. In fact I had started a whole thread not too long ago about looking for a striker spring that's "in-between" in strength as I'm starting to get convinced that's the solution I'm looking for... I'd be cool if all or some of these companies that offer lightened strikers would offer alternate striker spring weights/strengths... as while most of us who shoot Glocks want the benefits the lightened strikers provide, we would like to keep the level of reliability we've come accustomed to with the Glocks... Seems a lot of you guys are making it to around 1000 or so before a light strike, but beyond that it gets iffy (not to mention in my experience with recoil springs, the actual strengths of the springs can vary wildly), so for now, not sure that's enough built-in reliability after being spoiled, not sure if I want to go this route. I've got my trigger and gun to a pretty good place where it's subtly enhanced over stock yet still bomb-proof, so part of me is now thinking there's a limit to pushing the design of the arrow to where I wish it were, and I'd be better off just pushing the indian so to speak. Thanks to all for the info thus far, appreciate it, this forum more than any I've found is made up of real shooters with real experience, very helpful and refreshing.

By "good luck" do you mean 100% reliable? ...and through how many rounds?

Thinking of getting a lightened striker as I've heard it should allow me to run a reduced power striker spring with it and get the better trigger while keeping the gun reliable enough to set off all the factory ammo I'm likely to encounter (Please, I don't reload and am not going to anytime soon so no need to share your load data or how you check your primers are seated right...), well "reliable" so I've heard... Every thread I've found on the subject has someone posting of going back to a stock spring due to light strikes or breaking their lightened striker... So, can it actually work reliably? If so, who makes the best option (Jager, Glockworx, Lightning Strike, etc.)? (please refrain from posting how you made your own by using a lathe or whatever, I'll be buying a manufatured one not making my own thanks) TIA

"GT-504" set to be used on 9/.40/.357 Glocks... (the "GT-505" set is for the 10mm/.45acp's) http://ameriglo.net/catalog/sights/pistol-sights/glock/black-sights/complete-sets I found the sights on their web sight right away, I was wondering what model gun you had the sights on in the photo. DaFUnk That's a G17 in the pic, but it's not proper sight focus, best the ol' iphone could manage...

"GT-504" set to be used on 9/.40/.357 Glocks... (the "GT-505" set is for the 10mm/.45acp's) http://ameriglo.net/catalog/sights/pistol-sights/glock/black-sights/complete-sets

I recently got a set of Ameriglo "Defoor Tactical" sights and I'm digging them A LOT. They're a plain .150" wide rear notch paired with a .115" wide serrated front which is the exact same ratios as Sevigny Comp's yet these sit lower on the slide at factory height and shoot POA/POI at top of the blade at 25 yards instead of a 6 o'clock hold at 25 yards with the Sevigny's, which was the only things I didn't like about the Sevigny Comp sights. They're a lot cheaper too, use "defoor" as a coupon code at check out and they're like $45 with shipping (if you were going to buy as many sets as you're talking about you might just want to email Rick at Ameriglo since he's a great guy and may be willing to even cut you a better deal). IMO, the .150 notch with the .115 front width is the magic numbers, really fast, but with all the accuracy intact.

Thanks guys, but I've detail-stripped a CZ before... that's NOT what I'm looking for, between that, hammer-camming and squishy trigger pre-travel, I consider the Tanfo's to be far superior. Still looking for updates on the performance of the new 9mm mags...

Bump... Still looking for info if you guys with the new 9mm mags are still running trouble-free? Early next week I've decided to pick up a new gun and am trying to decide if I want to try a Match in 9mm for the second time if the mags will run right now, if not I'm going to go the more expensive and less detail-strip-friendly route of going with a 9mm 1911-patterned gun.... so please chime in if you're running the newer mag design. Thanks in advance.

It depends honestly... When brand spanking new it can be rough against your skin worn IWB, but they do break-in and the texture becomes less aggresive from handling/shooting 'em. A friend of mine got one recently and he wore it in by rubbing it in with a rag he made from some old denim jeans... after the wear-in they're just fine for CCW IMO.

If your hands are large enough for a Beretta than there is nothing the Gen4's can offer that a Gen3 with some skateboard tape can't (or skip the tape and grab a Gen3 RTF2)... except headaches, most Glock guys including myself are overwhelmingly underwhelmed with the Gen4's and they've already earned a rep for being less than Glock-like in terms of reliability.

If you wanted to, you could use it for open too, all in the same day even, and be more than just competitive if you were up to it... all's you'd have to do is get a hold of one of those rail mounted optic mounts and a punch or heavy duty paperclip to slap on a slide-racker back-plate and a few things. I really like the S_I guns, and believe their nice SA triggers do in fact make them easier to shoot well as they are more forgiving to kinks in one's technique, but there are a lot of variables in play with them that for some can take much of the focus required to shoot well off the practice and technique aspects of shooting well and have you scraping together funds for $120 "tuned" mags and wondering if your extractor is dialed in just so for it to run right... IMO Glock's are more "caveman" in that as long as you don't try to get too smart for your own good and tinker with it too much, then out-of-the-box you've got a gun in your hands that can deliver everything you could ask it to do in order for you to do well ( as long as you do your part that is). I know I've not been shooting nearly as long as some of you on here, and also know I am not nearly as good just yet either... but that said, in about two years removed from having ever even held a real handgun I've managed to come close to making master already with my crummy plastic pistol and have passed quite a few guys who've been into this stuff pretty seriously for a long time shooting far more expensive set-ups. My reasoning is: Glock + a boatload of practice + ammo > sweet $$$ gun + less practice + less ammo. JMHO.