tbarker13
-
Posts
599 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by tbarker13
-
-
I've always disliked that "Indian/Arrow" analogy.
Pick two Indians with the same skill set. Give one of them a set of crappy arrows, and he won't do as well as the other guy.
It's the Indian and the arrow.
Of course, dropping $2k-3k on a new gun won't make you jump from C class to A class. It's not that simple
But there are decided advantages to be had in upgrading guns. For many shooters, a heavier gun is going to be a bonus. With some guns (1911s for example), you might pay more for increased reliability - which can translate to better match scores.
That said, for some people - a Glock might be all they need. Bob Vogel has certainly done well with the platform.
And there are a lot of bad shooters running around with expensive rigs. Beating them with a Glock doesn't mean expensive guns have no value.
-
Had horrible luck with my 3 DPPs. Between the 3 units, they went back to the factory at least 5 times in the six months I was using them. Twice, Leupold had two of my optics in the shop at the same time.
Got back into CO with SROs. So far, I've had no issues with them. But I need to run another 10k or so rounds through the gun before I'm convinced the SRO is better. But this is just one shooter's experience. I know people who swear by the reliability of DPPs.
-
Biggest downside of the plate system is that you are mounting the optic on aluminum instead of steel.
And that really only comes into play - in my personal idiot experience - if you overtighten the screws into the aluminum plate. You run the risk of stripping out the screw holes.
Had an optic fly off my gun during a stage run after doing this.
Clearly it's manageable - with lots of people putting thousands of rounds through their guns with plate systems. If I had the option though, I'd rather mount the optic directly onto the slide and avoid the potential problem.
-
2 hours ago, BASE772 said:
My Gen 4 34 done the same thing unless I ran at least 140PF. The Gen 5 ejector did help some.
Now I use a Gen 5 17 MOS at 133 PF and have no brass hitting my DPP.Interesting David. I really don't want to increase the PF on this thing. Really like the way it's running right now. May just have to put up with a little cosmetic damage to the optic.
-
Interesting thread - given that my Gen 4 MOS has very quickly beat up my SRO. I've put less than 1,000 rounds through it, but already the leading edges of the SRO are showing a lot of finish erosion. Guess I can give the apex extractor a try.
-
Tried using rear fibers in my earlier USPSA days. But as several others have mentioned, those rear fibers can be distracting. Now, I just use plain black rear sights. Much better for me.
-
On 10/6/2019 at 9:55 PM, cindynles said:
This is the exact issue I was running into. 5 or more rounds in the Tripp mags and they would not drop free due to the top round sliding forward. I switched to Brownells (same as Dawson, but black) and I don't have the issue of dropping free with rounds in the mag now.
Interesting. Didn't realized the Dawson's and Brownells were the same.
-
1 hour ago, xjwalt666 said:
Thanks for your input. I guess I'm going to do some more research before I buy. Just want to do it right the first time rather than spend more money than I want to on mags.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Try buying one of each that you are considering and test them.
-
For me, it has always been Dawson. I find them easier to seat than the Tripps or Wilson when loaded to 10.
And, at least in my experiences, the Tripps do not fall free during reloads unless they are essentially empty. It's easy to see why if you look at the way the mags are cut at the top - the Tripp has a deeper cut than the Dawsons, allowing the second bullet down to be pushed forward just enough to make the mag hang up - and not drop free.
Not a big deal if you are going to use it for IDPA, where most of your reloads would be at slide lock. For USPSA, I found the Tripps to be unusable.
-
7 minutes ago, tdp88 said:
What am I supposed to do when a cool new dot comes out?
That's an excuse to buy another slide - or gun.
-
2 hours ago, B_RAD said:
Is that an advantage? I doubt it.
At some point, being closer to the slide is an advantage. I don't know what that point is. On my G19, with co-witnessed sights, I think it makes a difference.
-
12 hours ago, Yondering said:
What about it? That’s not the only reason (or even the most important) to do a milled slide but it is one advantage.
Exactly. Might not be a huge difference. But there is a difference.
-
1 hour ago, Yondering said:
No, they are steel, but they aren't very thick so there's not a lot of thread engagement. The threaded holes in a milled slide are deeper, and when done right the optic is secured by the milled pocket and the screws only keep it from coming out vertically, rather than taking up the shear loads.
Whether the MOS system is "good enough" is debatable and probably depends on the application, but I think there's no question that a milled slide is more secure, when it's done right. I base that on my career in durability testing as well as being a machinist, and putting my own milled/RMR Glocks through a lot of abuse in the dojo, training classes, and practice.
I don't doubt it, based on my own experience of overtightening screws in an aluminum plate on my CZ. Wasn't paying close enough attention and managed to strip the screw holes. Found out the hard way when the optic flew off the gun during a stage run.
-
Started shooting a Glock 19 with an SRO this past week. Put about 700 rounds through it between a practice session and a USPSA match - shooting it just for fun and practice with a potential carry gun.
Love the combo. I can't say, however, that it was all the different from the DPP I used to use on my Shadows. Just got tired of sending the DPPs back to the factory for repairs. Whether or not this SRO proves to be more reliable remains to be seen. But based on the video referenced above, I'm not planning on dropping the gun from shoulder height onto pavement.
And it makes me think it might not be my choice if I were actually going use it as a carry gun.
-
Are the MOS plates aluminum? That could make a difference.
-
Going to put another vote for a milled slide. I've done both with my CZs. Prefer the milled option.
Working on a Glock 17 project now. Going to go milled.
-
On 8/21/2019 at 9:17 PM, cds43016 said:
I got a PM-9. Thank you all for your input and recommendation.
I don’t have that many rounds through it, but so far it appears to be very accurate with a great trigger and treats the brass kindly – no bulges. This appears to be the gun I was looking for.
This is my first 1911 with a full-length guide rod. It took forever to figure how to take the gun apart. The instructions that came with the gun were generic and useless. You must remove the spring from the guide rod before the guide rod can be removed. This is difficult since the spring is tight on the guide rod. It takes some effort to get it off and I’m afraid of damaging the spring. What weight is the spring in the event I damage it? Is this normal to be so hard to take apart and be so tight? Am I missing something? It’s also a joy to put the spring back on the guide rod in reassembly. Also, I think the recoil spring plug was made by Gillette. On my match 1911s the barrel bushing was always the worst part, but otherwise easy to field strip and reassemble with a standard-length guide rod. I’m not sure I understand the benefits of the full-length guide rod since my match 1911s were tack drivers without one.
The only other issue I have is that the gun shoots to the left. Others have shot the gun and it shoots to the left for them as well, even with the rear sight adjusted as far as it can go. I will have to figure out how to drift the rear sight over a bit. Any suggestions?
Otherwise a great gun. Thank you again for your help.
You might consider contacting DW's customer service about the gun - if it's shooting so far to the left that you can't adjust the sights enough to compensate. That shouldn't be happening. It's been a few years since I had any dealings with them, but they were easy to work with - and really seemed eager to stand behind the quality of their guns.
-
Well, just cleared the up mystery. Just talked to Cajun. Apparently, the serrations on the Bull Shadow cut deeply enough into the slide that there's not enough room to do a direct mount - even with smaller screws.
So, if you want to direct mount, it sounds like the Shadow II is the way to go. Sort of makes me wish I'd gone that route - as I'd rather avoid the aluminum mounting plate. But too late now.
-
Weird. I asked them about it and they said they don't do that. Said the slide is too narrow. They have my slide right now.
That's a little confusing.
-
Working on a similar build - with the SRO optic. One downside of that optic is that you can't fit it directly to the slide - which I had hoped to do.
Cajun says the screw pattern on the SRO is too wide to work on the slide. So it has to use an aluminum mounting plate.
-
Window on that sure looks nice.
-
On 8/6/2019 at 1:37 PM, AzDanMan said:
I just received my optic plate from CZC yesterday. What do I torque the screws to?
Definitely be careful. Overtightened the screws on one of my aluminum optic plates. It was fun getting hit in the face by the detached optic during a stage run.
Since then, I've been tightening it down until it's firm - followed by a slight nudge. Not very scientific.
Someone else posted this link that could be helpful.
https://www.engineersedge.com/torque_table_sae.htm
-
Never shot an M&P. But I did spend some time with Glock 17. I can't imagine going back to a polymer framed gun after shooting a Shadow or Shadow 2.
I just find the recoil management to be so much easier with the steel-framed guns.
-
12 hours ago, Stafford said:
One of the RO’s at my range runs a Marksmanship match that is essentially GSSF Indoor rules except you can shoot any pistol. You have 15 seconds to put 10 rounds on target at 5, 7, 10, 15 and 25 yards. Like GSSF, a perfect score is 500.
He told me that one of the guys who shot the match shot a 385 with his Walther and five minutes later shot a 480 with his Shadow 2. That’s a pretty big jump. Essentially, a very low score with his Walther and a competitive score with the CZ.
What about the pistol could make that much of a difference?
Which Walther? My first thought would be the trigger. Once you get past the first double action pull on the CZ, it's smooth sailing. Beyond that, the weight of an all-steel CZ could make an impact - if we are comparing it to a polymer-framed Walther.
anybody back to Glock after CZ / Tanfo ?
in Glock
Posted
After several years with CZs, I find myself moving back to Glock for CO. I wouldn't argue that it's a better platform. But I'm enjoying it.