BallisticianX

The things that stick out to take into consideration when building the gun: Titanium Comp, reduces nose weight for less nose dive and easier transitions. I've found a appreciation for the CFD comp recently...New Bedell comp is a good choice as well. Aggressive grip texture, keep that hot rod from slipping in your grip when you make unknowing grip pressure changes while swinging it around. Flat trigger, the flat trigger just gives that consistent feel regardless of where your finger rests on the face of it. To go a step further get the SVI trigger system so you can change those flat inserts out to find your preferred insert length. Choose a slide cut/lightening scheme that gets your slide to 10.5 ozs. That will reduce nose dives when everything else is tuned up to reduce flip. Also when choosing this slide cuts pick something unique and eye catching. Remember sex sells so make it sexy in order to increase sell ability when you inevitably find the desire to build another one. I finally will also suggest the PT Evo steel grip. I've found it to be an awesome addition to balance and dampening weight in the most impactful spot to reduce felt recoil and muzzle flip while not affecting transition speed. The Evo Profile is comfortable and naturally gets that dot on target in line with my eye. (Ps; if you go with an Evo or another steel grip, have it done with the build. Overall labor is cheaper that way versus adding it later by a gunsmith. If you think your gonna install it yourself later on your in for a long tedious task. Trust me if you have a busy life it's worth the money spent to get it installed. It's quite possibly the worlds worse gunsmith job bestowed on us! That's my two cents....hope it helps. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My open Pistols: Custom STI Spartan 1911 donning a TacSol 2211 top end. Gun was gutted and aside from the frame I upgraded everything. Custom M&P 9 for 3 gun. Internals upgraded to Apex, KKM Barrel, Carver Comp, semi aggressive stipple job, and trigger timing tuned. Bedell Custom Blaster in 38SC

No doubt that the MBX tubes are far superior to STI. Thicker, stiffer and no sharp edges to deal with. They don't deform from abuse easily. Unless stepped on they just stay where they need to be. Not to mention I've never had to tune the lips on any MBX, always where they needed to be. The single drawback to the tubes is the upper geometry. They are a hair larger than STI and you have to either precision hammer them in certain spots or radius the inside shelf of the frame to eliminate sticking on some guns. No big deal really. As I previously mentioned the followers protruding forward and hard loading loading characteristics were my only gripe. Fixed with Grams.

Despite today's balmy Temps in the teens I sucked it up and went to the range to test the grams guts in the MBX tubes. I fired each mag loaded to capacity as fast as I could and not a single issue. All mags would drop free without follower interference on the feed ramp also. I will stick with grams from here on out....only drawback is the grams spring is not profiled on the bottom coil the same as the MBX and it makes for a more difficult removal of the base bads. But it can be done and overall advantages is worth one inconvenience so Ill deal with it.

This thread is reminiscent of listening to a Ford vs. Chevy argument....LOL. My recent experience with MBX is mixed. All 5 of my 140 tubes would not drop free on my Bedell 38SC. They were binding on both sides in the tapered area of the tube body into the frame (contact point was just below the feed lips). I fixed that with a small nylon faced hammer and precision strikes! Next I found the followers would get drug forward after chambering the last round. It was forward enough that the nose of the follower would protrude beyond the mag body and hook the feed ramp not allowing it to drop free. Also the "non-lock back" followers would still rub the slide stop tab enough to also cause some resistance, Bedell grinds that tab on the slide stop back some too. And finally I found the mags were hard to load with or without an uplula, lots of drag and the spring stacked up bad after 17 rounds. So I decided to ditch the MBX spring/follower and replace them with grams guts. They load easier, follower does not shift forward at all, and minor spring stack up. So far Grams appears to be a better option for a spring/follower to me. I had the opportunity to fire one mags worth and no issues with the grams guts. Need to spend some more time putting rounds through them to make sure no reliability issues exist, if the weather will ever allow it! The MBX 140 tubes load the same at 23 with both the MBX and grams guts. Despite being tight with 23 over the grams guts they are re-loadable and seat easily in my Bedell blaster. I think the MBX tubes and base pads are a good product but I am not a fan of the followers. My $.02

Bear with me I'm over tired but here goes.......They aren't necessarily a problem, just unnecessary. Pistol Powders used in the burn rates for major will ignite just fine with a std pistol primer. The "spark provided" when you have a case full of powder is less of a concern than a half case of powder where you now have a potential of extended distance for the spark to travel if the powder is rolled to the front of the case. Rifle primers were used under the idea that it was necessary to safeguard against pressures approaching rifle levels. Reality is a .223 can run up to just shy of 50k psi. A 38 Super Major load is between 36k to maybe 40k. The 357 mag and 44 mag run in that same area and no one ever preached the need for a small or large rifle primer(respectively) should be used. They do usually call for a magnum pistol primer in those magnum calibers only because the slower magnum powders have more flame retardant in their composition. Magnum powders that are in a class of their own beyond typical major powders I might add. The downside to rifle primers in a pistol caliber are; requires a harder hammer hit whereas trigger pull could be heavier than if not using them; the harder cup does not flow/expand as easy and could allow gas blow by in the primer pocket beating up the breach face. I suppose if you want extra "spark" I would rather use a magnum pistol primer and utilize a better seal in the pocket and the softer cup to utilize light triggers. I shot a whole lot of std small pistol in major loads and never had any problems with consistency, accuracy, or piercing.

9mm 124 Berry's FP, 4.0gr TG, COL: 1.10"......very accurate, soft, and consistent load for minor. 124 Precision Delta JHP, 6.1gr HS-6, COL: 1.10".....very accurate and flat load for minor with a comp'd barrel (my 3 gun load) .223 Extreme 55gr FMJ, 25.0gr H-335, seated to cannelure......MOA accuracy out of a JP rifles barrel, perfect load to feed my Precision Armament M4-72 comp the magical amount of gas for perfect feel, overall a good cheap 3 gun load.

Fast powders with light bullets are not automatic pressure builders. Each powder has a burn characteristic. Each bullet has a characteristic of hardness and diameter that create added or lessened resistance for a given weight. Fast powders generally build pressure quicker in the pressure curve as compared to slower powders. General physics tells us pressure will be affected by the mass the pressure is pushing against to propel. For example given the same powder and charge weight (not recommended to do between bullet weight, consult a loading manual), heavier bullets will generate higher pressures in the chamber in order to produce the needed energy to propel the greater mass as the movement will theoretically occur latter in the pressure curve. A lighter bullet will require less energy to begin propelling it and theoretically begin movement sooner in the pressure curve. Now you have other factors to affect this; bullet seating depth, short COL will increase pressures in the same load vs. long COL. Crimp and how much of it can increase pressures ( not as significant as COL but does affect it). So a blanket statement of fast powders with light bullets are more prone to pressure hazards is simply not true. I've shot 9mm minor loads with 124's at 130 pf with fast powders (mainly TG & Bullseye) and never saw a problem with it. When I shot 147's with the same powders I saw no problems either. As long as you keep to the published data and COL there is no worries. So a true blanket statement is "any caliber, any bullet, and any appropriate powder for the caliber can be dangerous if you don't pay attention to your published load data during development"

I forgot to mention TG, Im ashamed at myself.....

Unfortunately my steel 9mm load is a 115 gr over bullseye and that powder is not that available. (Bullseye, though over 100 years old, is still the most versatile powder for light to full power loading in most non magnum calibers) Take into account the basis of Light loads are usually light bullets with fast powders. WST, Clays, 700x, Solo 1000, would all work. You could also load up some 90-95 grain lead bullets with the powders mentioned above to be low recoil. Its been a common practice for years for guys to load up those 380 weight bullets in 9mm for steel. It would be cheaper to do as well. Acme bullet Hi-tek coated 95 grain RN are like $200 for 3k. If you prefer Jacketed Precision delta 95 grain bullets are like $260 for 3k. If you call these bullet/powder people you may get a better discount if you tell them what your doing for the kids! good luck

I agree with kneelingatlas, no such thing as a flat shooting open gun. The "dot never leaving the glass" is a perception not a reality. A expectation that is not realistic but many people hear the tale and get disappointed when it doesn't shoot flat like a 22 lr. The comp when properly fed enough gas will do its job as intended and push the pistol back down so quickly that in real time the human eye can not process it ever leaving before its back in sight. So the goal back here in the world of reality is to get a gun to return as quickly and effectively as possible. A fine line exists though between perfect return, not enough return, or to much (muzzle dip). That's where preference comes into play. Each shooter and the differing variables such as their grip, stance and arm strength play a significant part to ones comfort zone. A load can be too hot with to much gas for one causing muzzle dip for one whereas that may be perfect for another and so on and so on. Open pistols are the ammo tweakers dream really. With a dynamic recoil device you have even more room to change a pistols feel and impulse with components. My preference with 9mm major was HS-6 and Sil. Autocomp was snappy for me...but thats me not you, your a different person with different characteristics. Best thing is to get as many of the powders out there that guys use in 9 major and experiment until you find that load that makes you happy!.

Biggest things to pay attention to, is as already mentioned, the internally stepped brass. Throw it to the side for minor loads only. Another thing is range brass shot from a glock. That little bulge they sometimes develop can blow out with a major load and stick inside the chamber. I found Remington brass was especially prone to the glock buldge blow out. I had it happen twice at matches both times it was a Rem/UMC case. So I purged all my Remington, Tula, PPU, S&B, & Ammoland brass. I also bought a Magma Case Master Jr to bottom size all my sorted range brass to mitigate any bulges and never had a problem after that. As far as primers go just use std Small pistol primers with no worries. I used Winchester & CCI regularly in my 9 major The whole rifle primers in 9 major and 38 Super is unnecessary.

For 9mm minor in production guns my go to is TG. It was Accurate, consistent, and soft with 124's. I admittedly never tried it behind 147's though. I will mention TG is best suited for plated or jacketed bullets in the 9mm. When I was developing TG loads with Hi-tek coated lead pills it was very inconsistent and accuracy was not so good. It also seemed to lead the bore pretty well. Something about TG with lead in the 9mm just doesn't work well. Take the same bullet with WSF, HS6, or bullseye and it didn't lead and shot fine. This anomaly seems to be isolated to the 9mm as something with high pressure small capacity cases and TG burn temp/characteristics behind lead is not agreeable. TG behind a Hi-tek coated lead pill in the 45 ACP was superb and my usual 1911 load for best accuracy. I also want to give honorable mention to HS-6 for Minor 9mm. It was a consistent powder with great accuracy. For a slower powder it is soft shooting. It is my definite go to if you run minor with a comp for 3 gun, the HS-6 actually delivers gas to the comp with 125-130 pf loads so it actually utilizes said comp.

I settled on W296/H110 in the .357 mag. It had great accuracy and velocity. I have on my to do list to try some Lil' Gun. Wasn't a whole lot of published data for Lil" Gun for .357 mag a few years back when I first got this powder to try in a .44 mag. so I didn't bother to pursue it. But I can tell you Lil' Gun in the .44 mag is by far the best powder I ever used...superb accuracy and some impressive velocities. ( I don't recall the velocities but it was no problem to get 3 shot groups that were covered by a quarter out of a Super Blackhawk at 50 yards). So based on that I would bet it's worth a try in the .357 mag. I tried other powders mentioned here and most weren't bad but the two that stick out in my mind were Blue Dot and 2400. Blue Dot was a high flash powder. Early morning or last light shots while hunting would be one shot opportunities as the flash was blinding. Then 2400, some people swear by it, my experience was always dismal results in both .357 and 44 mag. It was the "best option" for a magnum powder back in the day. Most of the modern magnum powders today surpass it in my opinion.

I just came across this post. After reading the theories of why the poor mans cylinder split I can tell you a couple of things. A squib load lodged in the barrel of a 929 WILL NOT blow the cylinder (assuming of course the cylinder was in spec). I can attest to this as it happened to me with a 929 with 9mm 135 gr 127pf loads at the ICORE NER in 2015. A batch of cases were not holding size (springback) and bullets were working themselves loose and sometimes falling free of the case into the cylinder throat. I found out latter what was going on! Anyway one of which when fired never ignited the spilled out powder fully and got jammed in the barrel. Unknowing at the moment, thinking I had a bad round/primer I pulled off another shot. It had a louder boom than normal but I continued to shoot the stage. When scoring the target where I thought was just an innocent click had 7 holes in it instead of the 6 that went boom. One of those holes was a tumbling tear. The moonclip had 7 cases with primer hits and all missing bullets! ....The 929 ran the rest of the day and most of this year without any problems other than its usual sticky extraction. As far as detonation goes, its a long argued phenomenon. One I believe is possible but the conditions are specific and rare. WHen I was 21, and time on my hands I had an old beater revolver that was not worth the scrap price of its weight. Using the precise method of a 2 jaw vise vise and a string around a corner I loaded 38 specials with Red Dot, Bullseye, Unique, & 231/HP38 in .2 gr increments below the starting loads until I got squibs. with 158 LSWC. No detonation just some bunny farts and squibs. I know this is not the ultimate argument solver but it showed its not something that can "sure as shit" happen every time you load up sub starting loads. I will say that detonation is a real and existing problem with deteriorated powder. This I have experienced with the reddish dust that forms on bad powder. In my case IMR 4350 in an '06, A mauser action that will never be the same. So I am not convinced this cylinder was the result of detonation or a squib. My feelings are double charging, a bad batch of Ti that was the wrong alloy (ie alpha alloy instead of alpha-beta alloy), manufacturers rely on certifications from material suppliers so it is possible of a mix up. Or a cylinder that was never heat treated after it was annealed for machining. Titanium is a hard material to work with and is easily screwed up. With S&W the way they have been in recent years not only is a manufacturer defect just "possible" its "probable" .

Im not exactly sure what positions are your problem so Ill explain what I found with problems I experienced for all areas. For stoppages at the halfway point on the lifter (where shell end doesn't make it to the mag tube entry): Is the front edge of the shell hitting the the edge of the elongated slot cut into the lifter? My Beretta 1301 had that happen. The radius of the shell could just drop into the elongated slot and the crimp edge could hook on the edge of that slot cut. The cure for that is to file the front edge of the slot in and create a angled ramp. Also make sure to use shells with a taper on the crimp. (I found Federal Shells have a healthy taper leading into the crimp shoulder, even the Federal bargain packs at Walmart have it.) The stoppage at the mouth of the tube mag entry: If its hitting the upper edge of the mag tube entry (upper meaning the 12 o'clock position closest to the bolt with gun held upright); With a factory unmodified lifter it could be the lifter pushes in far enough before it stops exposing the upper edge of the tune entry. If that upper edge is not well chamfered or ramped for the shell to slide over up and over that will stop it dead. The easiest cure is welding the end of the lifter. That's the common practice for this reason and mitigating thumb pinch if you twin or quad load as well. By extending the lifter slightly and squaring off the lifter end you get the lifter to stop where it acts as the ramp for the upper mage tube area as it can no longer push in so far to expose the upper edge of the action leading to the tube. Its less headache than trying to cut and smooth the actions edge to mage tube area and much more reliable. If its hitting the lower mag tube entry edge (6 o'clock position with gun held upright): It could be either the lifter is not getting depressed enough because of the loader tube tongue is short or your angle is to light. Sometimes holding the loader tube parallel to the chute angle is not the best approach. For this try increasing the angle of the loader when pushing the shells in. Meaning leave a gap between the tube and the chute at the rear when the front is hooked. See if that improves it. The other possibility is the 6 o'clock area of the action leading into the tube are is to square and needs to be rounded or modified for clearance. My 1301 needed to be cut back as the shell would hook that area. So I hope this helps to give you direction.

I off'd my 929 after a year and a half of frustration between having to send it in, eventually repair myself, and band aid extraction issues. (Read the posts on the 929, including my review for specifics) Needless to say I had it with it. So I decided to get a 627-5" PC to replace it. As a 38/357 I felt their experience with that caliber and the fact all the components for it are dimensionally specific for that caliber's chambers/bore/throats requirements (unlike the 929) it would be a better experience. Well I get it and found that the PC couldn't even mount the barrel correctly. Its canted (over-rotated) quite noticeably. The front sight leans over like a drunken sailor! The single action hammer hook was shallow and would allow the hammer to fall with depressing of the trigger..I don't recall ordering the single action hammer fanning kit on this gun unless it comes free of charge!(some humor to lighten my disgust here). Both of those problems were not going to be a problem for say, I was mounting a red dot so need need for the front sight picture. And I was installing an apex bobbed hammer for double action only. But the last draw was the cylinder beginning to drag across the barrel face after firing less than fifty 120 pf 38 spcl test rounds. It has a bit more end shake than it should as a brand new gun but it's more of (or at least in part to the end shake) the barrel's over rotation positioning the barrel face further in the frame subsequently closing the cylinder gap off. Regardless of what it is this is a complete fail on S&W. These are obvious issues that should be caught and rectified before it goes out of the shop. One can argue this, but it stands to question, what is wrong with QC at S&W? How does this happen on a higher expense gun that it supposedly given extra care and personalized fit/assembly as an upgraded class of firearm? Let me stress that I'm not a born S&W hater. On the contrary I've been a lifelong S&W fan and have quite the collection of them. But the modern S&W products seem to be the subject of these types of occurrences way to often. As a matter of fact their Warranty repairs Dept must be drowned with influx from all the "send in's" I hear about, read about, and personally have done. I am just disappointed in all this.....2 PC guns that were embarrassments in less than 2 years including 2 M&P's sent in as well with horrific accuracy and FTE. I will only buy the old hammer nose era of revolvers from here on out, they were the babies that worked as good as they felt. So in a poetic sense S&W its like seeing an American Icon of legendary quality and beauty slowly die of cancer. Unfortunate. Disclaimer: "Poorformance Center" is a registered trademark of the Smith Handgun Ownership Troubles Consumer Reporting of American Pistolmen (SHOTCRAP), it may not be reproduced or disseminated without written consent from me.

4.2 gr over a cast and hitek coated 135 gr RN made 123 pf out of my 627-5 PC. Accuracy was not too good. I will do some more experimenting with different weight bullets. Unfortunately it wont be for another month. The Barrel was mounted on a considerable cant(over rotated) of which I was gonna let slide as Im shooting open revo and the canted sight was a non issue. But after my second round of test loads the action got stiff and I found the cylinder is dragging across the barrel face. Most likely because the barrel was overtightened closing off the cylinder gap. THen again it could be too much end shake too. It's not out of the question for what I've seen roll out of the S&W Perfromance (or as I call it the "Poorformance) Center. It on its way back to Springfield MA for a proper fix, or hopes of a proper fix....never know with them these days!

Ti cylinders peen worse than stainless. Ask SeanC about his skipping out of time twice rendering the gun useless resulting in him sending it out for repair (once I witness it happen to him. Couldn't even finish the shoot it was so screwed). I don't think he had but a few thousand rounds out of his (have to ask him for exact round count). I had 30,000 rounds out of a 686+ stainless cylinder that I bought used from a guy whom had that many or more...never peen'd that bad ever and it never failed to lock up correctly ( to give you an idea it was enough rounds through it to require .012" of end shake bearings though). . My 929 on the other hand showed worse peening after 3500 rounds and had noticeable end shake already...never got to the skipping point but was just a matter of time. I also oiled the ever loving sh@# out of those stop notches after seeing what happened to SeanC. I figured it might buy me some time. With brass sticking in the 929, it more than just a case movement in the clip. My array of TK custom clips held them just as firm as any .38 spcl or short colt clip Ive used. I matched clips to brass brand for best hold. Didn't matter on what combo I tried, they stuck. Over the past year I have heard many complaints on Ti cylinder ejection issues. Its just a improper material for the purpose. I am sure some of the sticking issues could have been mitigated with switching over to long colts in the 929 as it would have been the proper case dimension to cylinder bore. But Im sure it would have been a problem sooner or latter with them too with the poor wear characteristics of Ti. As far as what Smith & Wesson will tell you, not much other than "if your having a problem send it in". They wont admit anything even if they are aware of a shortfall...bad for business. It took me 3 phone calls and stern persistence to finally get the PC head honcho's to tell me the targeted bore specs for crying out loud.

I owned a 929 as of May of 2015 if I recall. That ownership has ended as of 9/5/16. This is not a dedicated 9mm. It's nothing more than a short cut to market a "golden gun" for competitors. It is a 38/357 barrel and 38/357 cylinder cut down (.3565 to .3575 bore diameter spec per S&W). Cylinder throats measure to .357" exactly. My particular 929 had a .3571" bore. Of course the rate of twist is 1 in 10". The barrel diameter creates issues as the 9mm uses a .355 bullet with some plated and most lead at .356. Jacketed bullets will not obsurate to seal the bore with ICORE minor loads, Ive found with most plated and coated lead wont seal the bore with .356" diameter bullets at ICORE PF loads either. (I've shot several different bullets and powder combos during load development...alot more than I wanna remember!) This is evident with extreme spreads of velocity and heavy fouling. When I loaded .357" diameter bullets it tightened groups, reduced fouling and velocities became consistent with lower ES. So now you have to load 38/357 projectiles in a 9mm case. Now the case mouth flare needs increasing and reduces case life to stuff in those .357 pills! The rate of twist does not yield itself to good accuracy with the 115 gr and is only slightly better with 124's traditionally(not a firm rule but usually close) but it shines to 147gr. So a 135 to 147+ gr pill is in order to harness best accuracy. For Revolver moonclip speed loads you want a RN profile...good luck with a commercially made .357" diameter RN projectile in a 135 to 147 gr range. I ended up having a mold made for a 135 RN and Coating them myself and therefore sizing them to .357". Now onto that gem of a cylinder. A 9mm is dimensionally smaller at the base than a 38/357, the 9mm has a narrowing taper to the mouth whereas the 38/357 is straight walled. What you have is an over sized chamber. Or in layman's terns a whole lotta room for the case to expand beyond normal 9mm chambers. That creates two negative impacts; reduces case life with overworking the brass in sizing them down from an enormous fired dimension. It also contributes to cases sticking with so much room to freely bloat up or even split. Now the Titanium material; They built a titanium cylinder to reduces overall gun weight and reduces double action pull with less mass to move within the action. Looks good on paper but Titanium itself does not work well as a material for the intended purpose here. Titanium is a grainy material. It naturally oxidizes on that grainy surface of itself for protection often creating an even grainier surface. An acid induced surface oxidation also does not produced a smooth surface. You can polish it, but not very well due to the open grain structure and re-oxidation. Though a good polish will help the oxidation be a bit smoother surface but will not last long. The surfaces of titanium and of all commercially produced alloys of titanium have relatively poor wear resistance. In particular, titanium surfaces in contact with each other or with other metals readily gall under conditions of sliding contact or fretting. Even with light loading and little relative movement, complete seizure of surfaces can occur. This situation is caused by adhesive wear in which microscopic asperities on the metal surfaces come into contact as a result of relative sliding and they tend to weld together forming a bond at the junction which can have a rupture strength greater than the strength of the underlying metal. Fracture then takes place at one of the asperities causing metal to be transferred from one surface to the other. The debris so formed gives rise to the accelerated wear that occurs with titanium. So all this adds up stuck spent cases in the cylinder quite often. Use of fast powders(higher chamber pressures)will exacerbate cases sticking whereas slower powders(lower chamber pressures) will reduce the chance somewhat. A stainless cylinder is a less finicky breed with the same thermal conductivity as the titanium and much greater wear resistance and ability to polish to reduce galling. The only advantage to titanium is weight savings in sacrifice to reliability and wounds to your ejection thumb/palm! I personally had all the sticking problems, went to slower powders, had the chambers polished, removed the un-chamfered razor edges of the charge holes. It improved but was short lived and actually became worse with use. So my estimation of the 929 is that it is not a good design, a short cut to create a market nitch, and horrible fit and craftmanship work from the PC, that is not necessarily specific to the 929 as all PC guns are not worth the extra money. What you pay for and promised to get is drastically undercut from what you actually receive. The 627 PC I got as a replacement for this 929 was better worked internally when compared to the 929 but has issues such as the barrel being quite canted relative to the frame. Bottom line is I am a Master ICORE shooter, I rely on my equipment to perform. When it does not and causes problems it affects your confidence and hinders the overall performance with or without a actually failure. So thats why mine was sent packing and others seem to be wising up to it. Thats why the price has dropped and more used units pop up on online auctions. If you want one and shrug me off, go for it but dont say you weren't warned!

I just got a 627 and intend to 38 Shoot Short Colt brass out of it for ICORE. I have a plethora of WSF powder on hand as I stocked up for use with 9mm in my now retired 929(learned to hate that gun). I norrmaly just set out to R&D loads myself and enjoy doing so. Unfortunately I dont have the time to spend collecting data and results these days. Si I am going the time saver route and asking you folks if you have already experimented with WSF in the short colt and to share your data and load as well as dislikes or likes. I appreciate anything you can share.

I like the ArmsTec loaders a lot better than the Arredondo. They are smoother to load, they also hold each shell in the column tight with tension from the plastic tube being undersized a touch, and because of the latter they do not rattle like a loose bag of change when you walk or run like the Arredondo. That Arredondo rattle also causes the the first shell in line to fall past the retention blocks and fly out when pulling them out to reload. This is not a problem with the ArmsTec.

Oh, Didnt know his first name.

Ok, Details on Ralph and his speedloaders Please? Wasnt aware of another option out there besides Arredondo. I have some Arredondo tubes but they dont hold shells in the tubes well even with the aggressive detent blocks. The swift movement up while drawing them is enough to lose a shell. When you sprint the force of planting your foot will also dislodge one. I modified my Safariland holder with standoffs in the pockets to rest against the face of the shell in order to eliminate the dead space between the last shell and the tang. Anyway I am curious about Ralphs....let me know.

I myself have not seen any of the AR variant shotguns at local matches up here. Thats in part to the NY SAFE Act whereas a pistol grip semi-auto magazine fed gun is illegal. So I am going on what I read and some feedback in a few conversations. I also havent seen them on any televised 3 gun events. A few youtube videos of guys shooting the Turkish AR variant didnt look promising. SO wasnt sure if they were worth it. It is good to hear they are working and gaining traction. I would have bought one of the SKO 12's but cant (Thanks Cuomo).