YVK

https://www.henningshop.com/T900-Two Axis Magnetic Magazine Pouch_it-1510919.aspx?CAT=13737 These have been pretty much universal for all steel double stack 9 mm mags, with the exception of 2011 that need own pouches, for me. Setting up the PDP SF belt was as easy as taking my spare CZ belt and replacing a holster.

Thanks for reporting. I am simply sharing what I found in my own research.

See attached screen shot of email from TTI

TTI website doesn't indicate that versatile extensions fit in 140 mm gauge with Walther mags. The description says 140 is OK with Beretta, SIG 226, or Canik mags but doesn't say so for Walther or 365 Macro. Anybody checked that with the gauge?

14 pounder loaded on a standard length rod may be no less compressed because it has to fit on a shorter rod. Assuming constant rate springs, what you're saying will only hold true if long rod's spring is at least half inch longer in its relaxed state than spring loaded on a standard length rod. Do you know if that is the case?

I presume that if there is no lockup issues with 14 lbs spring mounted on full length rod, there should be no issues with 14 lbs spring mounted on standard length rod. I got Rune guide rod with their spring pack for testing.

If one uses a lower spring weight and the lockup is not good enough, how does the ZR guide rod improve on that when it also uses a lower weight 14 lbs spring? I am not good at pistol mechanics and I am trying to understand that. Can you replace recoil spring on this guide rod? I looked at their site photos and can't figure it out.

Is it staying in that position under use? I don't imagine that you've had a ton of reloads through steel frame but perhaps enough through the Pro. My understanding is that mating surfaces are flat and only screw tension is holding it in place.

There is a conventional round type, and there's a teardrop. Anybody ever used the teardrop in an angled position and had it stay in place without moving?

Cool. Let us know what you think. I hear that choice of holsters for these is limited so far.

It still weighs more than polymer, maybe by a couple of ounces. Surface traction and ergonomic options aside, there is much bigger discussion about what exactly we are looking for when we discuss "recoil", "performance", energy transfer etc. Somebody else mentioned "simple physics". I bet that physics here is not as simple as people think. Mr. Perez above is right, it is really about timers and targets. Practically, I myself have no time to futz around with different grips but I have pretty decent prior experiences with various gun weights. For me 40 to 45 oz dry weight is optimal for 9mm minor pf with no added benefit to go to 50 oz or above. In 2011 world that means aluminum grip and I honestly don't care how recoil feels.

The screw went bad and twisted on itself. Completely fooled me. I noticed that my witness mark on that screw was off and I thought that it simply backed out. When I tried to remove and remount it, it broke in two.

CZC plates have thicker 8-32 screws and have a lesser chance of stripping than thinner optic mounting screws. This Cajun milled Shadow 2 slide below was $125 charge to fix. Had that screw got stripped in a plate, simply replacing that plate wouldve put me 80 bucks ahead. In addition fixing it took some threads out of the slide. If I ever have to get any gun milled again, it will be a plate system as long as it uses good coarse screws.

I can maybe understand it when talking about monolithic poly frames like Glock etc where they could be flexing under the rails, or forward of a grip. With 2011s and their metal frames I just don't see what's there to flex.

If trends from another slide mounted optic, minor pf division mean anything, the real question is aluminum vs steel. Between that and other variables in those grips that are hard to adjust for in testing, like surface aggressiveness or different ergonomic shapes, I haven't bothered to even consider the polymer.

Yes. See my pics in this thread. This was done mainly to be absolutely certain about making 45 oz limit of those days. I've two guns with lightened frames and slides. Dry weight without mag is 39-some oz. Last year, out of curiosity, I bought a brand new irons Shadow 2 and had it milled for SRO. No other mass removal from anywhere. I failed to detect any performance advantages over my old guns and sold it. Interestingly, my modified Shadows have a very close total weight and upper/lower weight distribution as Atlas Athena I am shooting now.

@tt350z thanks

When did it go into effect and how do you make old from new?

Nice review; this is the first one on the Priest that I've seen. I've been exchanging emails with them since February; they have been very responsive. They said that they were expecting to have a full dustcover / rail option later in the year which is the setup that I'd prefer. Interesting on the slide being sluggish perception. Slide weight is something that I had asked them very early on. They stated that, without optic or parts, is was 12.1 oz. It is not super-light but also is not that heavy comparing to other 9s out there. I wonder if that sluggish perception is related to the fitment of slide/barrel/frame, or to springs rather than the weight.

Ammo makers are selling everything they make as is. Major brands would not change their manufacturing to cater to needs of some five thousand people who shoot uspsa regularly. Boutique makers would but they will charge accordingly. If you exclude a bulk of available over the counter ammo, you limit the access to the sport. Chrono or not chrono is a different. We still give our mates an implied promise that we're competing fairly, local or not, and that our ammo meets minimum standards.

I've been shooting factory 9mm only since I joined 9 years ago. In standard non +P loads the closest to 140 is 147 AE that on paper is 1000 fps. In reality their bullets are often are sub 147 and velocities are sub 1000 leaving a very little margin, if any, over 140. I have shot a lot of it and never chronoed over 143. In addition it costs 30% more than similar quality 115 or 124 ammo. So, yep, making minor pf 140 would severely limit commercial ammo options and will cull the herd.

IDPA membership would grow because USPSA would become exclusively a reloaders' sport and people who shoot factory ammo would have to quit.

What's better option is a matter of a personal opinion and philosophy. While those things could be interesting to share, they are irrelevant in a practical sense. What's relevant is that nobody at the high table is sending surveys about what to do with CO, or is planning to do anything with it. Over last 7 years or so the board consistently moved that division from "carry-like" to a full-on gamer-like. That, in turn, made that division the most popular in the sport by a wide margin. There's no reason or impetus for them to mess with it. If they were at all interested in fixing redundancies between their star performing permanent division and a two months old provisional division, logic dictates that changes will be made in the latter.

I shoot Carry Optics now and I'd shoot LO major either as my main, or at least in equal share. In their current forms, LO and CO do not have enough discriminating differences or added values. Sure, metal 2011s with big ass magwells are easier to perform with but ultimately they are both slide mounted optics, practically unlimited weight, light triggers and equal mag capacity divisions. To add value and growth potential, they have to be different enough to matter. Either make LO major/minor, or take CO down to where "carry" in its name is not a joke (G19-ish size/weight/capacity, maybe even trigger weight). I am fine with either option. And no, I never owned a Limited gun.

Yup. My favorite was the lim ops' last question. No different than the last time around. There's a reason why professional surveys are collected by professionals in data collection.