45 Raven

Not Wagner . . . . Wegner.

Dawson Precision's website contains a simple formula for calculating what you need for a front sight height if you already know your current sight height and point of impact.

4.0 TiteGroup over 124 gr.Montana Gold JHP @ 1.140 COAL = 1965 FPS/132 PF from Glock G34

Dawson Precision .245" tall X .125" wide fiber optic front sight. Dawson Precision Part No. 528-021 Warren Sevigny rear sight with .150" wide notch.

What AHI said!

Delete double post

I agree with S&W686 and have had identical results as he stated.

2 springs without the rod for me. I could never determine that the "new" set-up provided me with superior measurement accuracy with either pistol or rifle loads or with different size powder bars or different powders.

124 MG JHP @ COAL of 1.140" over 4.0 to 4.2 Gr. of TiteGroup for PF of 132 to 136 depending on powder charge. Accurate and feed well in an XDm.

Well, I guess it depends on where your bullets are impacting at this time with your chosen load. If you are happy with your load and your POI and Dawson has told you they do not sell a sight of the correct height to maintain the current condition, then you are out of luck (at least for a Dawson F/O sight). If you don't mind a POI change, then it appears Dawson provided you with some sound advice, and you can follow their web page math formula to calculate what you need. Unless your gun has an unusually tall or unusually short front sight, you should be able to obtain a F/O front sight that puts your POI very, very close to your desired location at 20 yards or so.

If you are going to use your existing rear sight and just replace the front sight, it should be pretty easy to calculate what height front sight you need. You will need to determine where your load of choice impacts now as a base for your calculations, then obtain the correct sight to keep your point of impact where it is now. If your point of impact is currently higher or lower than you desire, then when you order the new sight, you can order a taller or shorter sight height as needed to correct to the desired POI. The math formula is simply explained on the Dawson Precision website, and if you have any questions, the folks at Dawson are very good about helping you out before you order.

The others who responded are correct . . . . get used to it and build up a callous on your knuckle. But if you are too uncomfortable, buy some of this and make a couple of wraps around the knuckle for protection: Nexcare™ Absolute Waterproof Premium First Aid Tape 731, 1 in x 5 yds

I've shot them both quit extensively in competition and believe it is purely a personal preference issue. The one XDm and the two G34 pistols I have shot were all completely reliable and accurate. I settled on the G34 because I wanted my competition pistol to be of an identical platform as my two primary carry pistols (G19 and G26).

+1. Invest in a bullet puller!

I'm also using 4.0 of TiteGroup under a 124 gr. Montana Gold JHP (with the aforementioned 13 lb. spring), and I also don't notice much, if any difference between an 11 lb. spring and a 13 lb. spring.

Showing my age . . . . S&W Model 28 Highway Patrolman .357 Magnum revolver with 6" barrel (loaded with 200 grain cast bullets in .38 Special cases!)

Captured 13# Glockmeister on a stainless rod/

I shoot both 124 CMJ's and 124 JHP's from MG over TiteGroup. COAL is 1.140" on both loads and they function fine in STI, XDM, Springfield EMP, and Glock pistols.

45AUTO 9X19G34 GLOXROK DOWNZRO Got 'em all.

The radio has been turned off for the past 10 years, for exactly the reasons you state. I totally agree with your assessment.

I totally agree. 100%. Too bad they haven't made any real country music (with very few exceptions) in the past 10 years!

This from another forum: "The small numbers are either tool numbers (which cavity produced the part) or revision numbers. On an extractor, I'm almost positive that is just a cavity number. Zero significance to you unless you want to know which part of the mold produced it."

If the way you are pressing the trigger is resulting in less movement of the gun and is a methodology that is repeatable, then the answer to your question is: YES. Do what works for you! What you described makes perfect sense considering the geometry of a 1911 trigger compared to the geometry of a Glock trigger.

Are Hodgdon's numbers for a 180 grain plated bullet, or a jacketed bullet?

Oh man, what a bummer. Thanks for the information.