Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

ck1

Classifieds
  • Posts

    1,154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ck1

  1. Thanks guys. I think I’m just going to skip the strong mount and maybe modify/shorten the case feed mount/tube if I have to... I’m not too concerned about a bullet tray because I decided to go whole hog and just buy the Mr. Bulletfeeder too right from the jump because figured I’m going to end up with one, might as well be sooner rather than later (as an aside Double Alpha has 15% off for their Independence Day sale with code “4JULY20” which is what put me over the edge on just getting the MBF), and I don’t plan to change shell plates for a long while... I don’t shoot many other calibers besides 9mm in any huge volume so that isn’t really a big deal for me. Though, thinking I’m going to probably have to find a scoop, like for an ice machine or something, to pour in cases and bullets... because I’m going to be working with only 7” in clearance unless I do some cutting and modding... which looks like I might be doing....
  2. Can you be more specific with the mags? The older Gen 1 (polymer follower) Wilson’s are much less reliable vs the newer Gen 2’s (metal follower) ones... Kinda same deal with the Mec-Gar 9mm 10rd1911 mags, the latest design is worlds better than the older ones... Actually IMO the latest Mec-Gar 10rd AFC mags are the best 9mm 1911 mags that have ever been on the market (and I’ve owned them all: Wilson’s, Tripp, Dawson, Metalform, etc). That’s another story tho lol... Point is, 9mm 1911 mags have come a long way, and while rounds nose-diving used to be par for the course with them even until just a few years ago, a few of the mags out there now have finally got it figured out... That said, it might not be the mags... Another HUGE thing to check besides mags with 9mm 1911’s is extractor tension: an overly tight extractor can cause nose-dives and/or feeding problems. If you take the gun down to just a bare slide, a round should slip EASILY under the extractor from the bottom (like it would coming up from a mag), but once in place your extractor should still hold onto the round tight enough to let you knock it against your bench approximately 3-6 times until the round flys loose... if it takes too much effort to get the round to slip under the extractor and/or once in place your extractor holds on for “dear life” (round doesn’t pop loose after a bunch of knocks on the bench), then your extractor is probably too tight and removing some tension is probably needed. (Just google “1911 extractor tensioning” and you’ll find everything you need to know, it’s pretty easy, just remember you want to go just a little less tension at a time, as too little tension may cause extraction issues. The Atlas Gunworks video on 1911/2011 extractor tuning is particularly helpful IMO.) For me, with 9mm 1911’s specifically, fixing the extractor tension has turned guns that couldn’t get through a single mag into guns that run like a watch...
  3. Yeah, was thinking the strong mount is out... guess I’ll have to find a comfy stool lol
  4. So I have an XL750 + goodies on the way and wondering what guys' opinions are on height/clearance needed over the top? I ordered the case feeder + strong mount, but not sure I have the clearance for both (I'm keeping the case feeder if I have to choose). Was planning on a 36" tall bench, but am actually going to buy/build a new bench so I might be able to buy/build one at a different height... but in the area I was planning on setting up, my ceiling height is only like 7 feet (84.5" splitting hairs)... Dillon's site says the press + case feeder is 38.5", and the 650/750 strong mount I ordered is 6.75". So I'd be looking at 81.25" if I use the mount and stick with a 36" height bench leaving me with a whopping 3.25" of clearance over the press to the ceiling..... Is about 3" clearance over the top going to be enough to be practical??? Should I plan on not using the mount? Thanks.
  5. . It's funny, the main range I've been shooting at lately has mostly really sharp rocky bays (talking bigger rocks like 3-4" or bigger) because it's newly built and they haven't put down their final layer of dirt... and the thing with the Merrells is they're almost too flexible and comfy for that surface so my feet would be sore the rest of the day after shooting there... so I wore my Solomon XA Pro 3D's the last couple matches because their soles are stiffer, but I kinda hate them, and they feel so clunky and uncomfortable compared to the Merrells ...thinking I'd rather just deal with a little soreness than wear the uncomfortable shoes lol. Besides being on big crazy sharp rocks, the Merrells are great.
  6. Cool That's what I have coming (read that for most companies .356 is standard and it's supposed to be a bit better for most). Though, my load is going to end up a little different now because I changed my order to .356 135gr TC's... I got a chance to shoot some 135's and really liked them, and it won't be as big of a change for me since I've been mostly running 147/150's for a while now...
  7. Thanks, but somehow was lucky enough to snag 10k Federal match SPP’s last night from Midsouth Shooters Supply! So, should be ok for a while (Of course they’re already gone when I checked today to maybe buy more...)
  8. ^^^^^ Yep. Grease turns into lapping compound...
  9. Watching this thread. Finally decided to jump into reloading since my old model of "buy it cheap and stack it deep" doesn't really work anymore considering the times (although small pistol primers are the new toilet paper )... I have a bunch of Sport Pistol and the Blue .356 125gr TC's coming... Hoping to dial a load close to 1040fps to hit right at 130pf out of a CZ S2 and 9mm 1911, thinking 3.6g to 3.8gr @ 1.110 might get me there... Are you using the "normal" .355 Blue's or the "special order" .356's..?
  10. Maybe give Mec-Gar a call and see if they’ll send you the newest/updated guts..? https://www.mec-gar.com/firearm-magazines-accessories/9mm-1911-Competition-Conversion-Kit
  11. I’ve got over 600 more rounds down range using the new Mec-Gar mags and they’ve all run perfect, no issues at all. Best 9mm 10-rounders I’ve ever used period. And they’re cheap lol but did see that Mec-Gar has replacement springs/followers for them if needed... but for $20 a mag, I think I’ve got enough of them to last me a few years and might just get some more to throw in a drawer and forget about lol...
  12. With either gun, depending on what grips you choose, you should be just fine... the thin CZ grips (like come stock on an S2) make the grip even thinner than a 1911 with slims, and IMO the thins are great for peeps with smaller hands. If the DA reach is too much, you can add a reach-reduction kit that will bring the DA trigger in a little and shorten the reach. The S2’s grip is a bit larger than the S1/SP-01, but not by much. If you think you’re going to be playing IDPA with the gun at some point, like Rowdy said, the S1/SP-01 is the one to get because of IDPA weight limits. But also both guns have a different balance/feel and the S1/SP-01 guns tend to feel more “neutral” while the S2’s definitely feel and handle heavier. Having owned and shot both, I don’t think you could go wrong choosing either one, and while I shoot an S2 now and do think it’s worth the extra dough, there are times I miss the balance of the S1’s... Personally, one of the biggest differences to me concerning their different grips is the safeties: I absolutely hate the low-shelf safeties the S1’s come with, and change them out immediately to the thin safeties or even the ones that come on SP-01’s.
  13. Long-shot guessing here, but: maybe something is wonky with your hammer-spring and/or strut..? ...the Tanfoglio guys have to play around with their hammer-springs and struts a bunch because Tanfo's kind of stack by-design in DA due to their short hammer-springs... since CZ's and Tanfo's are pretty much cousins, maybe check there?
  14. It's pretty important, and not just for function/reliability either; if the firing pin were to get stuck while protruding from the breech-face it could be dangerous as then the gun wouldn't be safe with a round in the chamber, and if one was really unlucky it could go off while chambering a round, or burst and/or go full-auto. Honestly, In the interest of altruism or as a PSA, if one is reading this and has a CGW RPFPS in their gun that they haven't checked in a while... probably not a bad idea to give it a look... Really, regardless of brand/type of spring, it's not a bad idea to check your firing pin + firing-pin-spring every time you clean the gun, only takes a minute.
  15. Yeah, I try to only dry fire my CZ's using snap caps (except of course for the obligatory "unload & show clear" at the end of runs) and discovered a while back that the CGW RPFPS's are always mangled and/or broken in no time at all... I switched to using the Rami FPS's or the Eric G Ultimate FPS's and they seem to be much better, no issues.
  16. Those are the ones. I don't know what the "Match Grade" tag is all about but Mr. Greg has the latest ones because those are the ones I ordered and I got them from him, he's great, always good prices and he ships fast, never had an issue with him going on like 10 years. ...Mec-Gar kind of messed up though and there seems to be 3 different versions out there under the same SKU, the latest ones like I just got have a different basepad than the others that has spots/circles for marking the mags and the base is kind of a "2-piece floor plate inside a pad" setup, and they're supposed to have stronger spings in them than the older/other designs. I know some of the older type ship with some RIA 1911's, and can be identified by their base pads as they are smooth on the bottom with no marking/index circles, the oldest of the type has a polymer follower without the metal slide-stop insert. Mec-Gar really should have given these latest ones their own model # or SKU, because they are great, but one has to make sure they get the latest ones from either pics or checking with the vender... IMO they screwed up there because now it's confusing, and the older ones don't have a very good reputation (probably why they revamped/changed them).
  17. So, pending confirming my suspicions with live-fire at the range, looks like I'm done with the Wilson mags (or any of the other rear-spacer mags) after spending a little over an hour with the newest Mec-Gar MGCGOV910AFC mags that showed up. It already looks obvious compared to the Wilson ETM design that Mec-Gar has built a better "mouse trap" as they say, full stop. Yeah, I haven't had a chance to do any live-fire with the Mec-Gar's yet, but after over 10 years of messing around with 9mm 1911's and their magazine issues, and having owned/used pretty much every different magazine out there for them, I think I kind of know what I'm looking for, and IMO it looks like the newest Mec-Gar design seems to solve most of the problems that have plagued 9mm 1911 magazine designs for years. Hand-cycling through a bunch of full mags using short ST dummy rounds and then every different type of 9mm ammo I have on hand (8 different types), both short and long, round-nose, flat-nose, hollow-points, I literally didn't experience a single issue. Dare I say they acted like "normal" CZ/Glock 9mm mags and just did what mags are supposed to do. No drama. Not what one would expect with usual 9mm 1911 mags. Even when I purposely cycled extra slow and weak to intentionally cause a feed malfunction, racking the slide cleared it and fed the next round no problem (this is something the ETM mags will not do, as something to do with their stiff springs and follower means a 3-point jam locks-up solid and requires dropping the mag first to clear it). So far with the Mec-Gar MGCGOV910AFC's: The tubes have a square channel in the front that acts as a spacer and the rounds ride at the back of the tubes, there's a "mini-feed-ramp" at the top of the channels. Rounds feed smoothly, there's no "clunk-clunk" like with the rear-spacer type mags. The springs are stout, but not ridiculous, loading the 9th and 10th round still takes some real effort, but won't kill your thumbs like most 10rd 9mm 1911 mags. The polymer followers + the AFC coating on the tubes is slippery, there's no hang-ups and the followers don't stick. 100% cycling. No ammo OAL issues, seems to feed both short and long rounds. No nose-dives. Slide-lock when empty 100%. (polymer follower has a metal insert that interacts with the slide-stop) No rounds sneaking forward or popping out when dropping a partially full mag. Downloads fairly easily without needing a tool. (Also, can't confirm 100%, but looks like one doesn't have to relieve the bottom of their ejector to allow clearance like one has to do with Wilson mags, looks like there's plenty of room but my ejector has already been relieved.) - As long as the springs don't wear out quickly or something like that, I'm thinking these may be the new "go-to" for 9mm 1911 mags. Couple pics of the front of the tube and follower: UPDATE: Got a chance to go shoot with the Mec-Gar mags and put about 300rds downrange, a mix of all different types ammo... They ran perfectly except for 2 reloads that were wonky and must have missed the case gauge and 1 of the longer S&B 124's towards the end when the gun was honestly really dry and dirty (I haven't cleaned the gun in about 800-1000rds and it's probably past due for a cleaning). FWIW I'm running a lightly sprung setup, with a well worn-in 9lb recoil spring with a 17lb mainspring, so getting a hiccup now and again is kind of to be expected, with a fresher/stronger recoil spring I doubt I would've had any trouble at all. That's pretty much a record for me with a 9mm 1911, these mags are awesome!
  18. So, I let the ETM mags sit fully loaded for a few more days, then took them out to the range yesterday... I was hoping the springs would soften up and/or take a set after having sat for about a week in total, as they sat loaded for a few days before I first used them, then I used them a bit, then I loaded them up and had them sit again... didn't seem to do much. I still experienced all kinds of issues with anything loaded longer than the Syntech 150's at 1.11" OAL... Again, no nose-dive issues at all, just issues with rounds just getting plain stuck in the mag tubes and not even making it out of the tubes, or jams where the rounds were locking up when getting caught with the nose of the rounds at the top of the chamber and the backs of the rounds just barely out of the top of the tubes (think it's a case of the stuck rounds getting knocked loose from the tubes by the slide coming forward, but not having enough space/time to straighten out and make it out enough to feed in the chamber). Weirdly, the mags run like a champ with the shorter rounds and I had no issues at all with the short Syntech stuff through another 100rds of it, and I even put a couple mags of my short hollow-point carry stuff (Ranger +P bonded JHP) through them no problem just to see what would happen... However, the performance with any of the rounds that were longer was miserable. I'm starting to think that these newer Gen2 mags were probably engineered more so to fight off nose-dive issues and feed hollow-points, and to that end, the less length in the tubes makes sense and seems to work. But, all 12 of mine at least, just seem too short inside the tubes to run reliably unless the ammo is loaded short. I compared them against a couple Metalform 9743 mags that I found I still had (the Dawson/Brownells 9mm mags are the same, the Dawsons just have different pads, the Brownells a different color/coating) and the ETM'S tubes are shorter inside then those too. I put a few mags through the gun with the Metalform 9743's and they worked 100%, but they run with the same "clunk - clunk" sometimes that I never really liked about them. If all else fails I'll end up running the Metalform/Dawson/Brownells design. FWIW, I found some pics of a mag out there that I've never really seen or heard about much that looks worth a try, the newest Mec-Gar 10rd 9mm 1911 mag, so I ordered some and am going to see what I get with those... There isn't much info out there about them, but they were redesigned fairly recently, and from the only few pics I could find they have the spacer at the front of the mag tube which IMO is a better design, so I'll see what those are like in a the next couple days... - Should've taken more pics at the range because it happened a lot, but this pretty much sums up the problem with the ETM mags, stuck rounds:
  19. or located it back a bit... (Edit: Never mind, I see what you mean lol, found a pic on Google of a RTS2 + S2OR and doesn't look like there's enough room.)
  20. Seems to me that someone would need to make a Romeo 3 Max/XL-specific plate or something in order for me to realistically want to give it a go... I mean IMO, not having to permanently alter or marry a particular optic and gun is kinda the whole point of going with the OR model vs just getting an S2 cut/milled. Plus, I wouldn't want to shave/alter a $500+ optic that has a HIGH probability of having to go back at some point under warranty during it's life of ownership... Freakin' Sig they always have to do Sig-stuff and try and make everything proprietary like with their barrel threads on the MPX's... There's probably not even a good reason engineering-wise why the R3 Max/XL's have to have those extended/angled fronts on their bases other than just being different, but it makes them not truly compatible with RTS2 plates/mounts even though they share the footprint...
  21. Maybe you could see if someone will mill you one but use the CHPWS plate instead..? Their plate doesn't leave the gap open...
  22. I bet he does, adding the plastic spacer in the rear of the tube is probably MUCH cheaper to manufacture than what's needed to put the crease down the font of the tube lol! Don't forget he'll also sell you a $500 Glock with a stipple job and sights for $1300+ hahaha! I still think a spacer at the front is a better design. It's just physics, a front spacer presents the cartridges at a much shallower angle and gives more lock-time for the rounds to get out of the mags and into the chamber. With the spacer at the rear of the tube, the cartridges get stripped off at a pretty steep angle with very little room for error before the slide completely closes. Hence the "clunk-clunk" of the rounds hitting the ramp before then going into the chamber with the rear spacer mags... This is actually a very simple thing for one to test if you hand-cycle a 10rd rear-spacer mag back-to-back with one of the 9rd Metalform Springfield-style mags, it's night and day. That said, besides giving up a round of capacity, the Springfield-style mags' springs tend to wear out fairly fast and then they don't go to slide-lock reliably, not to mention disassembly for cleaning is a PIA and potentially dangerous with them if you forget to wear eye protection. Anyways, I got out the calipers and did some measuring of my Gen2 ETM mags compared to the Springfield-style mags, and also the ammo I have been running, and found some numbers that kind of back up what I've been seeing: With both types of mags the feed lips run about 8.1mm/.31" in width, and all 12 of the Wilson mags were really close/consistent. The length inside the mag tubes was very different between the two types though, the Springfield-style are 30.8mm/1.21" vs the ETM's 29.6mm/1.16" - The Wilson mags are much shorter inside. I measured 7 different types of 9mm rounds I've got on hand, ranging from the Syntech 150gr flat-nose at 28.2mm/1.11" OAL (shortest, and pretty much the only rounds that are reliable in the ETM's) to Sellier & Bellot 124gr round-nose at 29.4mm/1.157" OAL (longest I've got, and basically a no-go in the ETM's, which adds up since there's only 0.2mm of clearance...). The Blazer Brass 124gr that was giving me all kinds of trouble the other day measured out to 29.2mm/1.149" OAL (not much better in the ETM's than the S&B 124's with only 0.4mm's of clearance). My few different 147gr round-nose "small shop match loads" all measured 28.8mm/1.133" OAL (which might explain why they kinda sorta run in the ETM's because they're shortish). One thing I did kind of discover when hand-cycling/testing all the different rounds through the mags was that once the springs in the ETM's had a little "room to breath", say with 6-8rds remaining, they would feed the longer rounds... The ETM springs are still so stiff that I think that is a contributing factor. So, for now, I loaded up all my ETM's and am going to let them sit for a day or so until I can make it out to shoot again and see what I get... I'm thinking that hopefully they may run better if the springs take a set and soften up a bit... I've had them all loaded up and had let them sit for a couple days already before I first used them, but I'm not sure it was enough, so I'm giving them another go. If they are still not running right, then I'm going to have to exchange them and try some different ones because I'm not going to burn through hundreds and hundreds of rounds hoping they'll start to work. Build-quality-wise the ETM's seem great, so I really want them to work, but if they only work with short OAL ammo and that's it, they'll have to go...
  23. I know what you mean... I had a gun a while back that I had to install the EGW mag catch that sits the shelf up higher and with that gun it worked perfectly, cured it. But with the gun I'm shooting now, the mags sit up pretty good as-is; though, I did try holding the mags up higher and/or putting it on a bench pushing on the mag bases to get the mags up as high as possible in the frame and it wasn't really an improvement, if anything it actually seemed to cause an issue because rounds were nosing-up too steep and getting caught at the top of the chamber at the hood... Kind of amazingly, I'm really not having any nose-dive issues at all which is usually the achilles of 9mm 1911's. EXCEPT, when the rounds just plain get stuck in the tube which is what my main problem is lol! I'm really starting to think with 9mm 1911 mags (assuming they accomadate most OAL's) that having the spacer at the front rather than the back of the tube is better, because it isn't as steep of an angle to the chamber when the slide strips off rounds... if all else fails I might just end up having to go back to the 9rd Springfield-style mags because reliability > capacity IMO.
  24. Thanks for the comments guys. I'm going to get out the calipers and try and see if I can figure out if indeed all the mags I've got are in spec and nothing is wonky about them. Probably going to have to give Wilson a call... As an aside, stumbled upon some pics of the now discontinued Chip McCormick 9mm XP mags: looks like I may have missed the boat on those! That design looks awesome as it looks pretty much like a hybrid of the "Springfield-style" mag and a 10-rounder with the cartridges sitting at the back of the tube and the crease at the front... Not to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but does seem a little fishy that they got discontinued right around the same time Wilson Combat acquired CMC LLC, the reviews out there on the XP mags are all stellar and on average much better than the ETM mags, hope Wilson didn't kill them off because they were too good lol!
×
×
  • Create New...