Arc Angel

On this current gun show practice (and with genuinely sincere regret) I have to agree. Over the past 15 years I am aware of two local gun stores (both of them good-sized) that were driven out of business by lawsuits that resulted from two apparently normal looking customers who walked into the store, asked to see a fully functional handgun, and then playing with it for awhile, before inserting a secreted live cartridge into a chamber, and ‘swallowing the barrel’ — right in front of horrified store personnel. I frequented both businesses; and, try as I might, I can’t imagine how either business could have avoided these events without, first, rendering their display weapons inoperational. (Yes, we are talking about ‘weapons’ here, OK.) Neither is this the only gun show/store horror story that I‘m able to imagine — Horrific firearm scenarios that might be caused by nothing more than merely handing a fully functional weapon (Yeah, there I went and said ‘weapon’ again!) to a complete stranger. The (brutal) reality is that, with America’s historical ‘God’ now officially dead; and formerly vital American, Judeo-Christian, social principles, now, formally defunct, we are all presently living inside an alien landscape of myriad bizarre personal behaviors of which violence with guns has become a common everyday occurrence. (Ahh ...... poor, sad, unrealistic, and disillusioned Americans who insist upon continuing to desperately clinging to their guns and their bibles!) Hey, don’t blame the messenger! I don’t like it anymore than you do; but this IS the current sad reality that mankind-in-general has allowed itself to fall into. Which is NOT to say that I, alternatively, agree with the idea of solving all of mankind’ s social ills by (stupidly) attempting to solve the problem by taking everybody’s guns away. Me? I don’t believe in mere coincidence — Not anymore I don’t! Instead, a long life has taught me that there are, indeed, dark and mysterious managerial forces at work in the world today which — I am increasingly convinced — are the causative factor(s) behind these: despicably created, deliberately amplified, cynically managed, and continually reoccurring 'mad shooter' events. I once worked, part-time, in a very busy gun store; and, if anybody is wondering: Yes! I, also, sold a whole lot of guns to a whole lot of people. (So, please, none of the usual gun shop salesman jokes — OK!) Today, and even though I could use the extra cash, I wouldn’t want my old job back. 'Why?' Because I’m just not comfortable with the idea of handing a fully functional weapon to a complete stranger — THAT is ‘Why!’ Yes! We NEED gun shows; we NEED gun stores, and shooting ranges, as well. What we do NOT need is any more of these tragic, meticulously orchestrated, organized, news media events. America’s — in fact the world’s — logarithmically expanding ‘shadow government’ clearly and unmistakably wants to take away everybody’s (once upon a time ‘God-given’) inherent right to protect themselves. My advice would be to do everything in your power to prevent all such evil intentions from succeeding. The immediate future is sure to bring on more and more of these horrific firearm-related events. Perhaps with the covert assistance of certain others — Who really knows? What America’s honest, moral, and responsible gun owners and everyone else who supports the Second Amendment need to do, right now, is NOT to make everything so ridiculously easy for the 'dark forces' which move among us to succeed. (Remember the ominous admonitions that are written on the darkly mysterious 'Georgia Guidestones'; and do not allow yourself or your loved ones to become the incited, but gullible, victims of an — albeit well intended, but, nevertheless insidious — scheme for ‘world population control’. ‘God’ does NOT want you to die in order for everyone else who’s left to be happy — Got it!) These heinous, firearm-related, and exceedingly tragic gun massacres are going to continue — They are! — and the promulgated 'insane logic' that disarming the world is going to, somehow, improve the situation is no better than a (I would think) deliberately distorted illusion. The glaring historical — the obvious — truth is that: ‘Carnivores eat herbivores; and omnivores eat anything they can stuff in their mouths!’ This is the unquestionable way of a world that has ‘fallen from grace’; and only 'God' can (and, I believe, ultimately will) change that.

My Glock pistols are, all, 'working guns'. I use a 6 lb striker spring, a standard weight striker-safety spring, and a 6 lb trigger return spring. (All of the 6# springs are Wolff 'Xtra Power'.) My trigger pull weights (Which are NEVER truly consistent on a Glock.) vary between 4.9 and 5.2 lb. I always laugh to myself whenever I read about the so-called 'mush' in a Glock trigger. Nobody ever seems to appreciate that by using heavier or, alternatively, lighter striker-fired trigger mechanism springs that 'mush' (or 'additional take-up') actually works as an additional safety precaution on a Glock trigger mechanism that has been modified to fire and/or reset more readily than the standard factory design. In a typical year I'll fire off about 10 - 12 thousand pistol rounds. I shoot my Glocks just fine. Why? Because it's always been more a matter of me getting used to the Glock (Which I admit has a slightly improved trigger mechanism, OK.) rather than heavily modifying the Glock with all sorts of really expensive trigger gizmos that are never going to make anybody into a truly better pistolero, anyway. For operational reasons, Jeff Cooper used to always say to keep your gun(s) as close to standard configuration as possible. Mas Ayoob always says the same thing, too, but for different (specifically legal) reasons. The only real way I know to improve a gun's firing characteristics is to, simply, use it more. Personally, I've still got the standard (but, again, slightly modified) Glock trigger bars in my pistols; and they work so well that there is no way I could justify 'going for my lungs' on one of these outrageously high-priced custom Glock trigger setups that I'm always reading about, or receiving special discounted offers to purchase. The two heavier springs mentioned above, and a good '25₵ trigger job' give me Glock triggers that operated more than well enough! As one of my home area's leading gunsmiths once said to me as he handed my Glock back after firing off an entire magazine, 'Well, I don't know what you did to it; but it, sure as hell, ain't no Glock — Very nice trigger!' (Yeah, and all it took was a mere $10 bucks worth of improvement!)

Well, over the years, I’ve participated in numerous discussions on things like proper grip, both one handed and two handed, and correct placement of the thumbs. I’ve seen popular arguments that say the thumbs are only minimally used, and side pressure should NOT be applied to a pistol’s FRAME; and I’ve also seen this argument change to the assertion that it’s impossible to shoot a pistol well WITHOUT applying a certain amount of subtle side pressure while firing. What have I personally learned? OK, I’ve learned that it’s important for a right-handed pistol shooter to: (1) Squeeze a semiautomatic pistol frame in a manner that is almost exclusively (or should I say primarily) applied from front-to-back; AND, (2) to also maintain a slight (secondary) pressure with the thumb(s), towards the right-hand side of the gun. Now, ‘squeezing a semi-auto from front-to-back’ does NOT mean that a shooter should ‘heel’ a pistol’s butt into his hand. (Which is one of the gripping mistakes that I believe you are making; or, at least, if not with the CZ then with your buddy’s M&P 2.0.) Listen, a lot of these pistol shooting skills normally occur on an almost subconscious level of personal perception. (You know: Like the newbie shooter who goes to a gun school, fires two or three thousand rounds over several days time and, all of a sudden like, he becomes a reasonably competent pistolero; BUT, if his life were to depend on it, he couldn’t really tell you either ‘How’ or ‘Why’ he’s able to do it!) Look, every pistol’s backstrap is different; and, although you might not be consciously aware of it, each backstrap has its own particular ‘sweet spot’. (This is the one spot on every pistol’s backstrap that your grasping hand needs to learn how to use in order to more skillfully control the pistol.) There’s one ‘sweet spot’ on your CZ; and there’s another ‘sweet spot’ on your buddy’s M&P 2.0. I think your present problem has a lot to do with discovering and, then, learning how to use this, so-called, ‘sweet spot’ on your buddy’s gun. Right now I believe you’re ‘heeling’ that M&P whereas you are NOT ‘heeling’ your own CZ. I, also, believe that the lighter frame on the M&P is causing you to anticipate the snappier recoil this plastic framed pistol is sure to produce every time it’s fired. Remember: If you’re ever going to shoot a pistol well then your personal concept of recoil MUST CHANGE from that of some damnable force that you need to master and control into a more natural (and nonthreatening) physical reaction which you need to cooperate with in order to shoot straight and handle a pistol well; or, as I often say when I’m teaching: RECOIL IS YOUR FRIEND! WITHOUT IT YOU CANNOT SHOOT STRAIGHT; AND ESPECIALLY NOT AT SPEED. What is a workable solution for you? Well, I’d suggest that you should first get the ‘wrinkles ironed out’ in your overall grip. Look for AND find the ‘sweet spot’ on that M&P’s backstrap. This will go a long way toward helping you to disarticulate your trigger finger from the rest of your hand and help you to achieve a highly desirable, straight back, trigger pull. It, almost, goes without saying that you need to carefully watch your front sight through the entire, up and down, recoil cycle. (Don’t worry about precisely ‘nesting’ your front sight. Allow it to sit a little high up and remain un:nested. The correct way to compensate for a high front sight is to pick a slightly lower than usual aim point on the target’s COM. Then, on repetitive shots, tap the trigger the moment your SLIGHTLY ELEVATED front sight falls just below the center of the target. Remember: Don’t forget that it’s the ‘sweet spot’ on the pistol’s backstrap which actually controls all of the rest of the pistol’s movement. Always make certain to place the ‘sweet spot’ correctly along the governing heel of your grasping hand — Which, while we’re on this subject, is the very first thing that I do whenever I grasp a pistol. Now, thumbs — Thumbs! Your thumbs and the slight ancillary side pressure they provide are usually, but NOT always, orientated forward — Forward! The most outstanding exception I know occurs when a right-handed shooter starts to drop his shots to the low-left. Whenever this starts to occur the orientation on the thumbs should be readjusted from pushing the thumbs straight forward to: (1) applying a slight sideways pressure towards the right-hand side of the pistol; and, (2) slightly dropping your strong side elbow and very gently twisting your gun hand in towards your body’s centerline. (This will alleviate the natural tension in the ligaments along the top of your grasping forearm, and greatly reduce the tendency to flinch as you pull the trigger.) In more than 25 years of teaching people (and certain, already very competent, government shooters) how to more skillfully use a pistol, I have never seen these grip adjustments fail to compensate for the pronounced tendency of ALL PISTOLS to break towards the weakest part of the grasping hand — The fingertips, OK! I’m a little concerned about a comment in the original question: If your thumb(s) are, in fact, in contact with the pistol’s slide then STOP doing this. It is always verboten for a thumb and slide to touch one another. Everybody, and I do mean everybody, grips and holds a pistol differently. Right now you need to learn what is the best way for you to place your thumbs, strictly, on a pistol’s frame. (Thumbs as forward as possible on a semiautomatic; and thumbs downward for a revolver.) Unless your target strikes begin to indicate that you might need to: Do NOT consciously push against the side of a pistol’s frame. (As your familiarity improves, and you learn how to watch your front sight better, this ‘lateral 7 o’clock slippage’ will pass!) Whenever I grasp any pistol, the first thing I do is to look for that pistol’s ‘sweet spot’. Then, I’ll try to make my thumb(s) as comfortable as possible. Next, I’ll think about disarticulating (and correctly placing) my trigger finger, and begin to look for the proper sight picture I know I’ll need in order to repeatedly strike the target’s COM. After more than five decades of using pistols I, personally, (and quite strongly) prefer to use what I consider to be a more natural — more ‘body friendly’ — ‘REVERSE CHAPMAN STANCE’. (It’s, almost, the same stance as D.R. Middlebrook’s ‘Fist-Fire Grip’; and, yes, in my old age, I consider D.R. to be something of an authentic pistoleering genius.)

Yeah, my other left. Thanks, guys! (That'll teach me to pay attention.)

Funny! I've been struggling with Glock's BTF (brass-to-face) problems for more than 5 years, now. It ain't an inconsistent grip that causes all of the more recently built Glock pistols to throw their brass all over the frigg 'in place: left side, right side, forwards, and backwards towards your face. This problem first appeared and is rooted in the Glock factory's decision to replace their more expensive precision-built steel extractors with more poorly adhering and looser fitting MIM extractors. Now that I've spent hundreds of (I think wasted) dollars and several years trying to figure this problem out, I'll offer this. (This information is free; so if anyone doesn't like it, think about all the time and money that's been saved!) The claw on one of Glock's crappy MIM extractors lacks the precision fit and metallic adhesion of the more exact profile on the older machined steel extractors. Consequently an extracted case is allowed to slip more freely than the former machined steel extractors would ever allow an extracting case to do. Once the exact center of a withdrawing case head is allowed to slide down below the extractor's centerline, that case is, then, free to fly in any direction. It also may, or may not, hit the ejection port. Who knows in what direction a downward slipping case might go? How do you tune a Glock extractor that never should have been put in the pistol? Oh, it's an art — an art! I'll offer you this: Start by using the stiffest recoil guide rod you're able to find for your Glock. A stiffer (often steel) rod will help. You can also use a White Sound, 'H.R.E.D' EDP rod. Alternatively you can play around with trying to use different SLB's, and/or other extractors. Sometime you'll hit on discovering a different SLB and/or extractor combo that speeds up the extraction process (and, thus, gives a case head less time to slip), and other times nothing you try will work. I, quite honestly, do not know whether or not the Glock factory has changed any of the finished slide dimensions in order to match up with their use of these MIM extractors? They may, or they may not have; but, if they did then this problem will be with all of us Glock owners for many years to come. Apex Tactical has tried to fix this problem by offering aftermarket machined steel extractors of their own; but a perfect (and final) cure has proven to be illusive. I bought one; but it did NOT work in my G-19. My older G-21's, with the original machined steel extractors in them, will throw ejected brass straight out to the righthand side of the gun for a good 8 to 10 feet! My more recently purchased G-19, with the newer MIM extractor, just 'humps' the brass out 'a the ejection port in, at best, silly looking 3 foot arcs; but, at least nowadays, I've finally succeeded in keeping 99% of my ejecting brass on the righthand side of the gun. (No small feat! It took me about 2 1/2 years to accomplish, too.) Believe me: This problem isn't being caused by your grip; and it isn't being caused by my grip, either. It's a modern, pain in the butt, Glock manufacturing phenomenon; and it has been caused by the Glock factory's use of cheap MIM extractors.

Let me qualify the following remarks with a little background data: I shoot well; and I've been shooting pistols well for a good 30 + years. 9 x 19mm, 357 Magnum, 40 S&W, 10mm, and 45 ACP, they're all the same to me. I can shoot any of them straight; but ....... I strongly prefer to do all of my serious pistol shooting with 45 ACP. 'Why?' Not because 10mm/40 S&W aren't serious cartridges; (They are!) but because 10's and 40's are so much more (What word shall I use?) 'arduous' to skillfully fire, aim, and control. I honestly truly believe that one of the principal reasons 'Why' 10's of 1,000's of police officers can't hit their targets squarely during CQB pistol combat is because modern police departments have done an excellent job of 'out gunning' themselves! I do a lot of high speed pistol shooting; and, personally, I hate having to work as hard as I must in order to control and accurately place 10mm/40 S&W pistol fire. I can easily put out two, or maybe even three, accurate rapid-fire pistol shots with a 45 ACP pistol; but the reverse situation would be impossible for me to accomplish. I have long regarded (and completely agree with the late Jeff Cooper), both, 10mm, and 40 S&W to be poorly thought out solutions to a CQB pistol combat problem that, in reality, never existed. Instead of inventing a pistol caliber that was both powerful and accurate enough to be expeditiously used in personal combat — No combat pistol caliber, except maybe 10mm or 357 Magnum, is reasonably controllable and powerful enough to quickly guarantee taking a person out of the fight — FBI ballisticians went to powerhouse extremes and came out with two difficult-to-control and, for many people, hard to shoot straight 10mm and, then, 40 S&W rounds. Personally, I am convinced that this choice of combat calibers was (is) a serious mistake that has subsequently caused a great many law enforcement officers to either (1) altogether miss their targets, or (2) place widely dispersed and consequently ineffective bullet strikes onto their targets. 45 ACP cartridges have none of the 10mm/40 S&W difficult handling or accuracy problems. I don't need to be young; I don't need to be particularly strong; I don't need to fire an absolute minimum of 300 rounds each week in order to work well with a 45 ACP pistol; but, ....... I do have to use extra concentration, keen visual acuity, and extra muscle in order to do the same thing with any of my friends': G-20's, G-22's, and G-29's; and the older I get the more I adhere to this opinion. Given a choice I'll always choose 45 ACP for serious pistol shooting; and if I can't get my hands on 45 ACP then I'll use 9 x 19mm. Yes, I've seen certain other well experienced pistoleros fire 10mm pistols very well; but, these people are invariably the exception rather than the rule. I would suggest thinking about this: Properly placed 357 Magnum and 10mm bullets WILL get the job done; however, both pistols are, by comparison, slower to operate skillfully, and more difficult to fire in straight shooting, nice tight groups. (This is NOT my opinion; it is well known fact.)

OK! Yes, a heavier recoil spring will help to alleviate this problem; but it will not stop it from occasionally reoccurring. The problem is being caused by the fact that the slide is moving faster (and, consequently, out of sync) with a slower magazine spring. (Hence, the hotter the ammo the more likely this problem is to occur.) In addition to using a heavier recoil spring I, also, suggest you change out your magazine springs to Wolff Gunsprings', +10%, 'extra power', magazine springs.

I’ve been shooting Glock 45 ACP caliber pistols for more than 15 years. Mine have aftermarket Bar-Sto Precision barrels, and modified internal trigger mechanisms that I built for very clean 4.9 to 5.2 lb trigger pulls. I don’t have particularly big hands either; (My glove size is 9.) but I shoot standard frame 3rd. gen. G-21’s; and I shoot them well. (I EDC either one of two identically built G-21’s. Like yourself, the pistols I use at the range are the same pistols that I, also, carry all day long!) A standard frame G-21 is slightly too large for my hand(s); and the distal joint of my trigger finger just — just — clears the trigger’s face when the trigger is all the way forward. I have, however, learned to adjust my grip in order to accommodate the large size of a standard G-21 frame. (I’m ‘old school’. I was always taught to adjust myself to the gun rather than to expect the gun to adjust to me.) I very much like my G-21’s; but, if I were to start out all over again today, I’d probably go with a pair of G-21SF’s. (Short Frames). The G-30SF pistol you're interested in is — in both my own opinion, as well as the opinions of many other pistol shooters who own G-30’s — one of Glock’s most unusual pistols. The G-30 (in either ‘flavor’) has garnered a reputation for itself of being one of the easiest and most accurate Glocks to shoot. I’m not exactly sure ‘Why’; but apparently the barrel and slide lockup tends to be very smooth; and recoil is easy to handle. The G-30’s tight (and quick) trigger reset and barrel lockup appear to offset any disadvantage the shorter sight radius might, otherwise, create. A G-30 also feels very good in the hand; or should I say ‘in my hand’! I’m reminded of the comments I’ve heard from other Glock pistol shooters who prefer to use G-19’s in IDPA competitions: In comparison to those who prefer to use longer barreled G-17’s, or G-34’s, a number of these shorter barreled G-19 shooters have told me that, when indexing multiple targets, they prefer the speed that comes from using a shorter barrel over the slightly greater accuracy offered by the longer (and heavier) barrels. What are my own thoughts on this subject? ....... Well, at the distances most IDPA target engagements take place any barrel longer than either a G-19, or in this case a G-30, isn’t going to cost a competent pistolero anything. (Yes, this particular experience is NOT typical for all pistols; but it is true for Glock’s G-30’s and G-19’s.) Nowadays, the principal reasons ‘Why’ I carry a larger G-21 is simply because (1) I have long regarded any brand new, out of the box, Glock pistol as a ‘starter kit’ for what I both want and need a pistol to be; (2) I, also, spent more than the original cost of each pistol modifying it to suit my own personal preference and style of shooting; and (3) the G-21’s I presently own are so useful and perfect for my own everyday use that I cannot justify either the cost, the admittedly greater carrying comfort, or the concealability of getting a smaller (third) 45 ACP pistol. The larger G-21’s I have work very well for me. In EDC I’ll admit that a G-30 would, probably, work better; but with what I’ve already invested from my fixed income in my G-21’s I’ll stay with the excellent, ‘no complaints’ performance of what I’ve already got. Yes, it is true that I’m able to index targets faster (and fire slightly quicker) with a G-19 than I can with a G-21; but, this slight increase in speed is (I think) almost moot — On steel ‘pepper poppers’ the targets are going to go down within small fractions of a second of each other; and, where a peripheral hit with a 9 x 19mm might only cause a steel target to shiver, almost any hit with a 45 ACP round will put a steel 'popper' down! In the G-30SF I honestly believe that you will have the best of both worlds: excellent accuracy, concealability, and (at typical CQB distances) very useful pointability. The only caveat I can imagine is that a new G-30 owner must already be very familiar with using pistols in general, and already know how to shoot well.

OK, frankly, I've never heard of leaving a gun barrel THAT dirty for THAT long! (But what do I know?) A lot of different things could be causing your accuracy to decline; this is the internet; and there's a lot I don't know about you and your G-34; but, if you really want to determine whether or not your Glock's barrel is worn out after only 60,000 rounds, then, I suggest you do the only thing you really can do: 'slug' the barrel; and, then, use a caliper/micrometer to measure the slug. (Brownell's sells the stuff you'll need.) An, 'in spec' 9 x 19mm Glock barrel should come in at, or about (within ±.0001") .356". Personally, I'd expect that Glock to come in at something like, 00.3559". If the measurement you get is +.356" then I'd say you might be looking at a new barrel.

I've been using Bar-Sto Precision barrels for the past 25 + years. I like them a lot; and, with Irv Stone's DVD, you should have no problem at all fitting your new Bar-Sto barrel into a nice tight lockup! (Noticeably better than factory, 'Drop-in'.) https://www.amazon.com/Bar-Sto-Precision-Machine-Barrels-DVD/dp/B003IDA9MU

THIS!

I don't understand what you are saying here. Got a couple pictures of your grip/arm position so I can see what you're trying to describe? You can see what I'm talking about in Robert Vogel's video on proper grip; and the same information is also shown in one or two of Middlebrooks' 'Fist-Fire' videos - Especially the one where his wife demonstrates the proper, 'Fist-Fire' grip while D.R. stands next to her and points out various features of her grip. It's been several years since I last saw that Middlebrooks' video. I remember D.R. commenting that he'd taken a lot of criticism for recommending this type of grip; but, now, after what Vogel has done with it, I think any possible doubts have all been swept away! I know it's helped me with my own pistol shooting; and, quite frankly, I've never shared this information with anyone else before. (Better to keep 'um guessing - Right!)

Been a while since I watched those Fist-Fire videos. I mostly remember Middlebrooks advocating a fully rolled-over and locked weak hand wrist which I thought was similar to what others suggest doing, but with different word cues that may work better for some shooters than others. I'm not sure if you are advocating something else here -- maybe an asymmetry in the arms where the weak arm is straighter and the strong arm elbow is bent and anchored to the body? I'd be interested in further details. You ask good questions! I, also, agree with you. Many, but not all, of the top handgun trainers are saying exactly the same thing; but, as might be expected, with a unique, 'twist' of their own. Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference between what Robert Vogel is presently teaching, and what D.R. Middlebrooks has been teaching, 'under his own brand and label' for many years now. Yes, I am advocating an (as you say) 'asymmetry' between the support, and gun arms. You need this asymmetry in order to compensate for, and align the pistol with your (correct) dominant eye. Years ago I took to heart something Middlebrooks said; and I paraphrase from memory, OK: 'If I were going to stay in pistol shooting then I needed to find a way to be easier on my wrists and arms.' Well, wouldn't you know! I was, also, at that stage in life where I needed to learn how to be, 'kinder' to my wrists and arms, too. So I took Middlebrooks' advice: I gave up the isosceles and Chapman stances; and began to work with a, 'Reverse Chapman' or, 'Fist-Fire' grip and stance. HAPPILY, IT WORKED FOR ME; AND IT WORKED VERY WELL FOR ME, TOO! But, here's the, 'kicker'! In order to be able to truly compensate for a pistol's natural tendency to recoil and break towards the fingertips - which is the weakest part of everyone's grip - I found it to be imperative for me to: (1) ADOPT AN, '1/8TH HOMIE' GRIP on the pistol at precisely the same moment as I lowered my gun hand elbow; as well as to (2) SPLAY THE LOWER EDGE OF THE PALM OF MY SUPPORT HAND away from the pistol's frame by adopting Middlebrooks' (or Vogel's), 'open space' at the bottom of the support hand side-panel. Do it any other way; and you WILL sacrifice a certain amount of control over the pistol's muzzle. Should you maintain strong conscious control over a pistol's backstrap? ABSOLUTELY! Precisely controlling a pistol's muzzle begins with controlling what I like to call, 'THE SWEET SPOT' on a pistol's backstrap. Now I can't speak for anyone else; I can only tell you what I do; (and what I do works!) Myself, and a lot of other pistol shooters I know have argued about this topic for years; but, speaking personally, YES, I do apply a significant amount of pressure to the support side of a pistol WITH MY THUMBS, and especially with my support side thumb! When I shoot a pistol with my right hand (I'm ambidextrous.) all of the other things I've just mentioned contribute to keeping my shots away from the, '6 to 9 o'clock quadrant' on the target; but, the additional pressure applied by my thumbs to the support side of the pistol REALLY helps to keep me away from dropping shots to the weakest side of my grip; and this is especially true whenever I'm shooting a compact pistol like the G-19 that I usually carry, and always need to be sharp with! With me it's not a matter of placing my pistol shots with the higher precision of a one-handed postal target shooter. If this were the subject matter, here, then we'd be talking about different pistol shooting methods and techniques. For most of the combat style pistol shooting that I do, nowadays, bringing the muzzle up and quickly into line with the target's COM is more than good enough for me to accomplish the desired purpose. I want to set up my pistol's muzzle as fast as I can on the target's center; and I want to be be able to do this with as much of a guarantee that my shots are going to go where I want them to as it's possible for me to achieve. So far nobody has given me better pistol shooting advice than Robert Vogel, and D.R. Middlebrooks; and, perhaps with my own, 'spin' on the subject, that's what I'm repeating now. This is, 'How' I've personally discovered that things should be done; and, to date, I know of no better way. I find it much easier (and a lot faster) to lock my wrists on the sight picture I'm looking for as I drop and lock my gun-side elbow below the proper (gun-side) eye.* * 'Why'? Because dropping the elbow seems to improve the lock on both of my wrists. I'm going to, 'freak' some people out with this; but, many years ago, I developed the ability to fire a handgun well by aiming with either eye. All I have to do is to squint for a moment with the eye that I do NOT intend to use; and, voilà, I'm able to switch my so-called, 'master eye' over to the other side. (I've been doing this for decades, OK; and it's always worked for me!)

I'm glad to see that pistol shooters are finally starting to get away from Ayoob's, 'revolver-orientated' style of pistol shooting. The above remarks are just another way of saying what's already been discussed in the past few pages. I think you've got the right idea, and your understanding is correct; however, I have the impression that you might be imagining the pistol needs to be held more loosely than is actually the case. A correct grip has to be firm enough to smoothly manage, both, the vertical and the horizontal pressures that a shooter's hands apply to the gun. Vertical grip pressure is necessary in order to control front sight dwell time, and maintain the bounce (or, 'rhythm') to how the front sight moves up and down, and returns to the target's COM. Horizontal grip pressure is necessary in order to keep the frame from torquing in your hand(s) towards your fingertips - The weakest part of your grip - and to prevent the muzzle from tending to follow the direction of your moving trigger finger and, thereby, dropping shots between 9 and 7 o'clock (for a right-handed shooter, of course). What you do NOT want in your grip is excessive tension - When you're shooting well there's no place for, 'hard tension' in either your hands or your arms! Personally, I think of a proper grip on a pistol as a form of, 'relaxed tension': Firm, but with pressure applied to all the right spots on the pistol's frame. Then it's just a matter of locking your wrists and allowing your arms to flex, smoothly, as the pistol fires, and the muzzle moves (ideally) up and down while remaining free of any side-to-side wobble. Towards the beginning of this thread someone mentioned, 'locking your elbow'. He was, thereafter, immediately challenged and told that this is wrong. Actually, though, this comment isn't all that far off. Whoever said it appears to have considerable experience firing a pistol with one hand. However, 'lock' is, perhaps, too strong a word. Me? I like to say, 'anchor' instead. I DO shoot, 'from my elbows' and from my shoulders, too. I'm going to give something away, here: From a Middlebrooks, 'Fist-Fire'; or, 'Reverse Chapman' presentation - Which I consider to be the finest pistol shooting grip and stance discovered, so far - I DO, indeed, anchor my gun hand elbow. This is the point from which I create a, (What shall I say?) 'relaxed tension' between the pistol's backstrap and my gun hand elbow - An, 'anchor' that allows me to more skillfully manage the backstrap on my pistol and, thereby, indirectly control the muzzle. So, 'lock' might not be the right word; but, 'anchor' isn't too far off, either. Personally, I think a pistol needs to be anchored at the elbow(s).

With or without the video, (The link isn’t working!) this is another very good question. Over the years I’ve seen numerous pistol shooters use highly individual grips and shooting styles in order to win matches; and, they DID win matches! As time passed I came to the personal conclusion that: A pistol shooter can teach himself how to do almost anything in order to win. It’s all a matter of what you regularly practice and habitually teach yourself how to do. As for myself? I’ve been shooting pistols for a long time; and, for a while there (back in the early days) I did, indeed, seek to control muzzle rise; and, to a certain extent, control my muzzle’s direction by using my support index finger in order to ride the front of the trigger guard. Yes, this technique can be made to work; and for certain pistol shooters does, indeed, work; however, I am also positive that it lacks flexibility, and is NOT readily adaptable to a wide variety of different pistol shooting circumstances. For instance, riding the front of the trigger guard is great for pulling the muzzle down between shots; and I also think that it helps to point the muzzle at the target, at least, some of the time; but - but - at the same time riding the front of the trigger guard is - in my experience - a poorer way to manage the all-important, ‘sweet spot’ on every pistol’s backstrap. Again, in my opinion, a (right-handed) pistol shooter can do a much better job of keeping his shots centered, and avoid dropping them to 7:00 o’clock on the target by using his support thumb to do exactly the same thing that’s he might, otherwise, do by riding the front of the trigger guard. Personally I, ‘steer’ my pistol’s muzzle by using my support arm ALL THE WAY BACK TO MY SHOULDER. Something that would be lot harder for me to do if I were to splay my fingers and extend the index finger of my supporting hand. I’ve, also, found it to be faster to use a conventional, two-fisted grip; which, once again, allows me to maintain tighter control over the, 'sweet spot' on my pistol's backstrap. (Something that, if I do not do, can send my marksmanship ability with a pistol straight to Hell.) When I shoot with both hands I use a Reverse Chapman grip (Middlebrooks’ ‘Fist-Fire’); and I fully agree with D.R. that this grip is considerably less fatiguing, overall, and far less stressful on the wrist and upper tendons of the strong forearm. Although D.R. Middlebrooks, and Robert Vogel, each, teach it in different ways, both pistol champions maintain tight side-to-side control of their pistols by using a conventional two-fisted grip, and side pressure from their thumbs. Then (and by varying degree) they, each, ever so slightly, splay the bottom of one or both hands outward - Which, when done correctly, tends to cant the top of the pistol into a gentle angle that some pistol shooters jokingly refer to as a, ‘homie-style’ grip. The side-to-side muzzle control I’ve enjoyed while using this particular grip technique has allowed me to do some of the best pistol shooting of my entire life - Even after I was badly injured and, 'forgot' how to handle a pistol for awhile. I know I certainly wouldn’t encourage any pistol shooter to ride the front strap on his pistol’s trigger guard; and, in my opinion, you should stop immediately. Nobody uses this grip with a revolver; and, as far as I’m concerned, nobody should do it with a semi-auto either. Being fast, by the way, is something that an intermediate pistol shooter should just allow himself to naturally fall into. The subtle way in which your brain and your body’s proprioceptive reflexes seem to recognize sight pictures; and, then, harmoniously blend them into complimentary muscular reactions seems to occur quite naturally, and without a need for any additional outside input from the shooter’s conscious mind. The only real additional requirement(s) I’m aware of in order to shoot a pistol quickly and well are the very real need for frequent practice, and the means to fire a good 1,000 to 1,500 rounds each month. Believe me, in time, it’ll all come to you. Once you start to match the rhythm of the pistol's recoil with the pattern of your front sight bouncing, up and down, you’ll simply be there! This is what happened to me; and I’m sure it’s happened to a lot of other pistol shooters, too. The only additional advice I have to offer is that when you want to learn how to shoot a pistol really fast, practice and condition yourself to firing your pistol at between 12 and 20 yards; and do NOT waste time trying to precisely, ‘nest’ your front sight into its rear notch. Teach yourself to fire, ‘OFF THE TOP' of the front sight, instead. Do NOT waste your time practicing on the close-in targets. Other than, perhaps, getting warmed up, shooting close-in is too easy; and you won’t really learn anything.

I've hesitated to respond to this remark because it's so difficult to address. Things happen really fast when firing quickly; and, at least for me, it's difficult to sort everything out in order to be able to grasp it with my conscious mind; and, I’m of the opinion that for many shooters, it's also exceedingly difficult for them to understand, 'Why' or, 'How' they shoot so well without being able to rationalize their body's own physiological functions. (In other words, many people shoot well; but are unable to explain either why, or how they manage to do it - They simply do it without a conscious explanation for either themselves, or others.) Personally, I shot well for many years without truly understanding how I was able to do it. This wasn't a problem for me until I injured myself, and had to stop shooting for awhile - only to discover that my previous (mostly) instinctive shooting skill just seemed to evaporate! The lesson I learned is that a, 'naturally depreciating skill set' like pistol or rifle shooting is exceedingly difficult to maintain over time UNLESS the rudiments and proprioceptive mechanics of that elusive skill set are able to be consciously explained and, thereby, understood. Nowadays when I go, 'off' I'll stop and mentally review the do's and don'ts of what I've learned about pistol shooting. When I was a young shooter I shot, more or less, by instinct. Today, though, I tend to fire by a very deliberate method of conscious recall. This recall occurs on BOTH a mental and physical level; and it works a whole lot better for me than merely firing by rote. Because I'm able to consciously recall and adequately understand what I need to do in order to (repetitively) hit the target, it's no longer necessary for me to have to reach into, 'the netherworld at the back of my mind’, or to fire thousands of rounds in order to regain a skill set that I've been unpracticed at for awhile. Instead, I’m able to rely upon actually understanding the mechanics of pistol shooting; and I can consciously recall whatever I need to know in order to keep on hitting the target. In the above cited instance I think that proprioceptive trigger control ('driving the gun') operates, or should operate, off the visual cues supplied to the shooter's brain by his apparent front sight picture. As I said, everything's happens very fast; and, yet, I do believe that there's an, ‘essentially mindless’ preconditioned reflex that can cause a shooter to drop repetitive shots as the distance to the target increases, and/or the front sight picture becomes narrower and narrower. As best as I'm able to determine: I think the brain actively interprets the decreasing front sight picture and adjusts the proprioceptive mind/body reflexes accordingly. All of which indicates to me that if a shooter is dropping his shots as distance increases, then, he's firing mainly by rote (by instinct) without the advantage of being able to actively process his visual inputs by using alert conscious recall. Too abstract for ya? OK! If you can't adequately explain something to yourself then you certainly aren't going to be able to explain it to anyone else, either. When I'm regularly practiced (not now) I don't drop shots. No matter the distance I put everything into nice tight 8 inch circles. Personally I attribute this to being able to almost instantly read and, then, immediately respond to my own visual front sight pictures. It is at this point that deliberate conscious recall, and firing by instinct (or rote) come together, and blend into one. Because there is no deliberate thought involved in intentional proprioceptive reflex, front sight dwell time reduces itself to almost zero. (I wish!) However, when the front sight picture changes so does my trigger stroking technique; and if that isn't happening then, as far as I'm concerned, the problem becomes a matter of me not truly understanding what I’m trying to do. Rather than being a, ‘thought driven shooter’ who understands, ‘What’ he’s about, I’ve allowed myself to become an, ‘instinct driven shooter’ who is merely firing by rote, and operating on nothing more than preconditioned physical reflex. (I’m saying that mind should never be surrender to emotion - NOT if you want to be consistent, and continue to perform well. Once again, skillful shooting performance is a lot like playing a musical instrument and being able to, ‘keep the beat’ and carry a tune.) In my opinion, any such muddled pistol shooter will continue to drop his shots until that moment when he consciously realizes and, then, grasps onto whatever he's doing wrong; but, more than just timing or simply, ‘driving the gun’ are involved. There’s another, closely related, pistol shooting anomaly that I’ve also noticed: A few weeks ago I got tapped on the shoulder by another senior instructor who said to me, ‘Don’t take this the wrong way.’ ‘You shoot well; but I’ve noticed that you shoot better when you fire faster; and I’m sure of it, too.’ He was right; and, yes, I was already aware of the problem. I think I know, ‘Why’ too. It was my sight picture! I was having trouble holding onto and maintaining it between slowly fired shots. Whenever I fired more slowly I, ‘lost the visual rhythm’ and reduced my physical control over the, ‘rock and roll’ of the pistol. As the rate-of-fire slowed down I had to work harder and harder in order to recapture the previous front sight picture. All I can say, right now, is that timing and rhythm are also involved in the problem with dropping quickly fired repetitive shots. It’s. kind ‘a, like playing a musical instrument: As the beat changes the shooter has to stay in tune; and everything a competent pistolero does while firing a gun is closely related to, and centered upon keeping his rhythm - A feat which is impossible to accomplish without: A proper grip on the pistol, a skillful trigger stroke (or, ‘tap’), and a very carefully watched front sight picture.

Hello Lior, It's been a long time! Let's see what I can tell you? If you're right-handed, and the pistol is moving towards the weakest part of your gripping hand while firing then the gun is breaking towards your fingertips and you're throwing your shots to the left - probably towards the lower left. I, myself, came to polymer frame pistols late in life and after spending more than half a century running narrow, steel frame 1911's. It wasn't an easy transition for me to have to make, took quite some time to get used to, and where I really noticed it most was whenever I tried to point shoot. After awhile I began to realize that it was the wider front and backstraps on the new polymer frames that were throwing me off. My best guess is that (I almost hate to say this to you!) you're not fully grasping the pistol from front-to-back in quite the way that you should. Try this little test: Do some point shooting out of the holster; the distance to the target doesn't matter. I'll bet you will no longer be bothered by the pistol torquing in towards your body's centerline while you are point shooting. Why? Because necessity will force you to tighten up the tendons in the top of your forearm, and you'll tend to fire from your elbow more than from your hand. (It, also, helps to put a slight crook in your elbow by allowing it to cant downward and, thereby, tighten up the muscles in your upper arm - NOW, you'll be firing, 'from your shoulder' and that's a good thing for any one-handed shooter to do.) Whenever you shoot one-handed you need to use more of your whole arm in order to control your shots. During my own transition from steel to polymer frames it took me a good year and a half to finally handle the wider frames and lighter muzzles of polymer pistols in the same way that I was able to manage a steel frame gun. So, yes, I know what you're talking about. Tighten up your grip from front-to-back, put more conscious control into managing the tendons in your upper forearm, and develop a sense of firing, first, 'from your elbow'; and, second, 'from your shoulder'. That's how I did it! Once you learn how to aim the pistol with your entire arm, working one-handed with the sights will come much more easily to you; and that tendency to allow the pistol to torque inward towards your fingertips should greatly lessen. Regards, David

My compliments - Really! Coincidentally, I was thinking about this just last weekend when I was shooting very well, experienced a misfire during a string of shots and, sure enough, the muzzle suddenly took a mysterious dip! Before I read this thread I had already come to the conclusion that the dip was caused by me, 'driving' the gun; but I wasn't really 100% certain until I read this thread - Thanks!

That's very interesting! Does the barrel assembly groove fit both rod heads equally well? Has your frame also remained unmarked after extended firing? Thanks!

Remove the factory-stock, ribbed trigger and bar that came with the pistol. Install a G-17, smooth-faced trigger and bar in its place. Take something like a (flat) extra-fine grit, diamond knife sharpener, or even a fingernail file, and - with the trigger bar removed from the pistol - push the trigger safety lever all the way forward and remove ONLY the very tip of the lever. This should make repeatedly pressing your Glock's trigger more tolerable for you. Contact Ghost, Inc. and put in one of their new, 'EVO' connectors. If you don't know how to fit the connector tab then let an armorer do it for you. In order to do a genuinely useful polish job you'll need to use a Dremel Tool. I would suggest that you use a round fabric wheel and Flitz Metal Polish. Run the tool at no higher than medium speed. Work barehanded so that you'll be able to sense heat buildup in the metal; and, whatever else you do, DO NOT BEAR DOWN HARD ON ANY PART THAT YOU'RE POLISHING, AND STAY AWAY FROM ALL CORNERS AND EDGES! With a Dremel Tool, even when it's running at medium speed, 12 - 15 seconds is a long time to polish any one spot. Generally speaking: If the metal feels warm to the touch, you're finished. (If the metal is actually hot to the touch then you went too far!) On my EDC Glocks I use all Wolff Gunsprings; and I increase (rather than decrease) the weight of both the trigger and striker springs to 6 lb. each. My resets are clean and crisp - very noticeable - and my trigger pulls (although typically, 'clunky like a Glock') range between 4.9 and 5.2 lb. If you decide to (lightly) polish any edge on a Glock's trigger bar it should be the lower edge of the cruciform's, 'sear tab'. (This takes experience; and it's NOT a job for everybody.) Just so you know, everyone I've ever done a Glock trigger job for has loved the result. It's, 'all the rage' right now; but, I do NOT use reduced weight striker safety springs. Two personal preferences I have are for: (1) TruGlo, 'TFX' Sights; and (2) Extended Slide LOCKS. As a safety precaution I change out my slide LOCK springs at around 15,000 fired rounds. (Because the slide LOCK spring is the one part on a Glock that HOLDS THE SLIDE AND FRAME TOGETHER.)

Wolff Gunsprings doesn't offer all-steel guide rods for 4th generation G-17, or G-34's.

Thanks for that!

What specific type of leading are you experiencing? (1) Streaking along the entire length of the barrel lands; (2) splotches towards front of the barrel; or (3) a fog-like film that coats the entire barrel; and, (4) exactly where is most of this leading occurring inside the bore? Mic your bullets. How does the bullet’s diameter compare to your actual bore? In your case an ideal bullet diameter would be, something like, .401 to .402 inch. Finally, what is the BHN of those BBI bullets you are using? NOW, SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING WITH LEAD BULLETS WILL BE BETTER ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. Exempli Gratia: A harder bullet that falls inside a BHN range of ≥ 16 to ≤ 24, which your bullet most likely does, that is being pushed by a moderate charge of powder might cause streaking down the entire length of the barrel. My best guess, based on the sparse information you’ve provided, is the coated bullet is, perhaps, ever so slightly too large and/or too hard; the powder charge is ever so slightly too light; and the bullet is failing to obturate (conform to the barrel lands and grooves) as it passes through the barrel. I very much doubt that there's anything wrong with your Tightgroup powder. Question: Are the bases of those P/L HI-TEK lubed bullets you’re using fully coated, or are they open, exposed lead? If you need to clean your barrel of lead while you're in the field then use a cotton patch WRAPPED AROUND A HOPPE'S BRONZE BRUSH. Coat the patch with Flitz Metal Polish, or IOSSO Bore Cleaner, and begin scrubbing the bore - All the way through, and all the way back. Three or four patches and something less than 10 minutes should do it. 'Lead-Away' cloth patches also work; but you'll have to cut them to size by hand. The last patches through the bore should be clean, dry, and (almost) white.

A priceless reply, (and oh so true!)

OK, MarkCO is the best. I know he's a talented (plastics?) engineer; I know barrel leading isn't linear; but neither is it logarithmic. It's variable, and can vary from shot-to-shot. in fact I'm able to think of multiple reasons, 'Why' leading occurs while I'm typing this reply. I'm sorry; but I honestly believe that I understand barrel leading too well to buy into the above argument; and a few test by any single party aren't sufficient to change my mind. In short: Control the variables; and you'll control the problem. (No offense!) I've participated in many of these discussions. The issue of polygonal rifle leading isn't really complex; it's only poorly understood. If I have one suggestion about which powder to use I'd say that I'm inclined to stay away from, 'ball powder'. I'll agree with what Double Tap has said; but, with the following caveat: You need to slug your Glock's polygonal barrel and make certain that the bullet diameter that you're using is no more than .001" oversized. A lead bullet that falls within a BHN range of from 17 to 24 will go a long way toward reducing leading. The gas check (and Alox lubrication?) make a sufficiently hard cast bullet even less likely to lead up a polygonal barrel. Yeah, what else is new? There are multiple reasons, 'Why' that, 'Glock 40' (sic) might have blown up; and soft lead is only one of them. (Probably NOT the most significant reason - OK!) Ahh, ....... No! If you're getting tumbling, then, either the barrel is too short to stabilize the particular bullet that is being used; or there is too much variance between the bullet, and bore diameters. (Perhaps both!) If the rifling has sufficient time and makes sufficient contact in order to engage the bullet, then, there is no good reason for a bullet to tumble. Just like all of the other parts on Glock pistols, the barrels, themselves, have gone through multiple - frequently unannounced - changes. Over the years I've often read about sizable bore diameter variations, too. (In some cases more than .001".) Personally, I wouldn't use the expression, 'bare lead bullets'. The question is more about whether or not a selected bullet is simply cast or extruded from soft lead (wire), or hard cast. If the chosen bullet is above 14 BHN, properly lubed and, maybe, gas checked; AND if a sensible powder charge is used and velocity out of a typical pistol length barrel is kept below 1,000 fps, then, there shouldn't be any problem with (severe) leading. As always: Thoroughly brush and clean out the bore when you're finished shooting for the day. No, today you've got company! (Me) All you're telling me about those Stonewall Bullets is that they're, probably, not wire-extruded soft lead. If the BHN is above a minimum of 12 and the powder charge is fairly light, you should be fine. You seem to have the good habit of watching your loads AND bore. So, be as, 'tight' as you like; I, very much, doubt if you continue on this way that you'll be in any danger. Mark, I'll admit you're a genius, and very good at what you do. Over the years I've learned a lot from you, too; but, this time, I think you're, 'going off the deep end' in recommending a general BHN of 23 or more. Anytime a bullet is too hard you're going to get inferior performance. (Because of a possible mismatch between bore and bullet diameter as well as, 'the reluctance' of a very hard bullet to expand properly during the ignition impulse; thus, causing hot gas, 'blow by'.) In most Glock pistols, a BHN of 23 or more is right up there at the very top of the hardness range. Here, read the section titled, 'Bullet Hardness Requirements' given here: http://www.lasc.us/Brennan_3-3_CastBulletHardnessRequirements.htm That's true!