taadski

Quick google search turned this up. It's for a 220 SAO, but may help. https://www.manualsdir.com/manuals/710871/sig-sauer-p229-p227-p226-p224-p220-p239.html?page=56

Yes. The milled slides can be used to replace the original stamped ones without issue.

To the shooter’s left.

Couple Wilson team members have been shooting them in some larger matches in ESP.

Sorry, just saw this. It's a .285 like comes with their XD set.

The difference in length between a round nose bullet design (like the berry's 124 TP RN) and the flat point bullet you're loading is significant. If you start looking at these lengths, you'll note that the FP load will have a MUCH shorter OAL if the same seating depth is maintained. My production load is 1.065 with the bullet you're using and the seating depth (amount of bullet in the case) is very similar to the Berry's 124 RN in an OAL of 1.150. FWIW.

You can also use one of the “R” clips from a primer tube in a pinch. I actually have about 18K on one currently and it’s still going strong.

I shoot a pair of X5 Allrounds in production and I have XL hands. But I admittedly press the trigger just inside the crease also. I use stock plastic with an aftermarket stipple job, but I realize that may not be an option for IPSC. The largest combination I've found for the 226 framed guns are either the rubber Hogues like mentioned above (I realize these aren't legal either) or the stock rosewood grips that come on the elite pistols here in the US. Their texture leaves a bit to be desired IMO, but size-wise they're similar to the Hogues and I've seen them on some variants of the 226 LDCs being sold in Europe, so I think they're likely an IPSC legal option for you. Especially given the LDC is allegedly a purpose built production gun for the sport. The Tanfoglio frames are a good bit longer in the grip (front to back) than the Sigs. They very well might be pretty good ergonomically for you and have a number of purpose built models. I can't speak to the legality of tinkering with their action parts, but the Xtreme variants come out of their custom shop stock with action work, if I'm not mistaken.

The bullet feeder on the 650 alone will increase your productivity pretty significantly. I’d recommend making that upgrade and reevaluating. You’ll need it to automate the 650 anyway and It’ll swap onto a 1050 setup also if you wind up going that route. It’s an obvious next step.

Those are all very fair points, fellas. Thanks for taking the time. I agree with them for the most part. The two games are quite different in some respects, no question. I agree in particular that USPSA is the more difficult of the two; longer courses of fire, more movement and athleticism, longer and potentially more difficult shooting requirements, etc... And that’s not even factoring in the stage planning. But I think even some of the stage planning in IDPA (read “paint by numbers”) still requires many of the elements of memorization, visualization and then execution that USPSA does (on an admittedly smaller scale) and that it’s actually a nice stepping stone for folks learning the action shooting thing. I haven’t personally ever found it a hindrance stepping back up to bigger more complex USPSA stages. In fact the opposite, which is why I asked. One could also argue that having a course of fire with less potential options would be a better test of the pure shooting, in contrast to ones stage breakdown/planning skills. At any rate, the folks capable of shooting As/zeros the fastest and the most efficiently are the ones winning both sports. I think the mechanics cross over pretty significantly. Just my take. Thanks for entertaining the question. t

I'm curious as to the sentiment that shooting IDPA would/could hinter USPSA development. I'm interested in hearing more of the rationale. Having spent a goodly amount of time regularly shooting both sports, my sentiment is that it could be plenty valuable, in particular for a newer/younger shooter.

Heres a quick iphone pic of the Dawson rear. Again, not the prettiest solution, but a relatively functional one.

The 320 has the same size dovetails as the rest of the P-series pistols. And they both have the same size dovetails as the Springfield XDs. Dawson makes their adjustable rear for the XD line of pistols. I have a set on a P226. The design rides a bit higher than is ideal, in my opinion, and requires a taller front sight, but it's a serviceable solution and they've held up for me quite well. L.P.A. also makes a workable adjustable set that will work. I've not used those though. The Sig "team" 320s had an adjustable rear sight that was a much more elegant solution. Very similar to the sight that comes on the X5 Allround, IIRC. But they were done custom by Bruce and last time I asked, it wasn't a service they were going to be providing. Unfortunately. Anyway, here's a link to the Dawson rear that I'm using... https://dawsonprecision.com/springfield-xd-xdm-adjustable-black-rear-sights/

Given the volume you're talking about, I'd absolutely recommend you go with the 650. It allows for the most upgrade options and is, by a long shot, the faster of the three machines you mention. If you don't buy one now, assuming you continue shooting the amount you are, you'll be wanting to upgrade in short order anyway. FWIW, I was in a pretty similar place 6 or 7 years ago; I was a new reloader, shooting a lot and wanted to buy a press that I could both learn on and wouldn't disappoint down the road. I bought a 650 and it was definitely the right choice. I added a case feeder almost immediately, added a bullet feeder a few years later and I'm still perfectly content with it. It's a great machine, and aside from some minor tinkering/tuning/learning you'll get with ANY press, it has been seamless. t

Same same.

A .205 tall front with the stock Dawson rear (which is .225 tall) would raise your POI about that much. Guessing that's what you meant?

I can't answer your question as to why they put the .170 tall fronts (#6) on those two guns in particular. But the solution is to print the pistols at 20 or 25 yards and correct with the appropriate height adjustments from there. In general a .01 front sight change will result in approximately a 2" change at 25 yards on those guns. Once you figure out what front/rear offset you need, you can start looking at what various vendors offer. I use Dawsons b/c they offer virtually any combination you might want. And if they don't make it, they'll custom built it quickly and pretty inexpensively. Greatly simplifies the process, IME.

I know it's perhaps not the answer you're looking for, but I'd suggest just shooting it in SSP. You'll have the benefit of actually having other shooters to compete against too! Seriously though, the 3.9" barreled Sigs are plenty capable of competing against full sized guns. Some actually like the recoil characteristics better in the 228/229 and believe they track a bit flatter than their full sized P series brethren. I'd give it a go as is before whittling on levers, etc... to try and make it fit in the smaller box.

I think for the majority of shooters, the low hanging fruit will rarely be the minutiae of stage breakdown and gaming tactics. But rather the actual shooting. And growth/improvement there will carry over from one sport to the other very well. I shoot both disciplines monthly and don't have much issue going back and forth, fwiw. Drop Gabe an email. I'd be willing to bet he'd take the opportunity to do some one-on-one coaching with you as a train up for class in October, or otherwise. t

Gabe White is local to you. He's an excellent diagnostician, has the skill set and resume you're looking for and is a fantastic teacher. He does a good bit of one-on-one teaching and runs an ongoing skills group in your area too. http://www.gabewhitetraining.com

The one that comes in the set is the correct one. The adjustable rear just won't jive with a stock height sight was what I was getting at. In case that's what you were intending. The set = GTG.

I've been experimenting for the last several months with a Dawson adjustable rear on one of my 226s. It sits a bit higher than I'd like, ideally, but it fits in my holsters without issue and hasn't had any other problems. They're pretty robustly build. If you look under the Springfield XD sights, you'll find it there. They have the same dovetail size. Just be aware you'll need a taller than standard front to work adequately. t

Very carefully if you're not using a press. Many a slide has been buggered up by punch and hammer during this process, FWIW. If it's the classic All-round, they're the same as the rest of the P series guns. In from the shooter's left. Meaning the splines will be on the left hand side of the pistol. t

I *think* the kits now come with all three types of FPPP: (1) the inner/outer two piece version, (2) solid taper pin AND (3) a long version spiral pin...the kind you need for a short external extractor. The long external extractor guns require a shorter version of the spiral pin (which wasn't included in the last pre-assembled kit I bought). Unless you need the other maintenance parts, it's cheaper to just buy the roll pins themselves. The link above (from May 7th) is for that part alone. TGS also has the kits you linked and their CS guys will be able to answer your question definitively re the newest parts kit. They know Sigs well, IME.

I suspect it'll be the guy polishing up the draw to the single A zone ahead of time! What, that's about a 4 HF stage give or take, right?