tbarker13

Heard back from Scott today. He's sending me a replacement set of grips. Pretty awesome customer service. So I'll be sticking with those for now.

Thanks.

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

Went ahead and contacted him, just to see. I don't expect him to. Maybe I just overtightened them.

Anyone know if that techwell grip will work with a Dawson Ice magwell? Or do you have to use the techwell magwell?

Thanks. Will check these out.

Looking for recommendations on thick 1911 grips. Something with a lot of texture. I've been using the 2011-style grips by Perman, but I can't seem to run them without cracking them. My current 1911 came with a set that was cracked. I replace them - and now that set is cracked. Maybe I'm just tightening them down too much. However, I really like the way they fill up my hand. Maybe someone else has come across another option for shooters who don't like thin grips?

With my PM9, I've only tried Dawsons and Tripps. For my particular gun, I found the Dawsons to be slightly easier to seat. It's just something you have to work on during dry fire (with dummy rounds of course). I just made the switch to SS last month and decided to shoot the Indiana 400 with 9mm. I must have done 45-50 reloads during the match without a single problem. But then at a club match last weekend, I failed to seat the mag twice out of maybe 10 reloads for the day.

While I love my Dan Wesson PM9 for SS minor - I would go for an STI Eagle if I were planning to shoot IDPA ESP. For the simple fact that reloads will be easier. You'll have a bigger hole to aim for - and the mags will seat easier. Outside of that, there's really no difference. ( I have a set of Perman grips on my PM9, so the gun feels like a 2011 in my hand.)

Yup. I run into the same thing with my Dawsons. They load easily. And have performed flawlessly. But removing the first 2-3 bullets from a full mag by hand is not much fun.

Great match. Sure hope to shoot it again next year.

Here's the problem: I'm loading 9mm. The cases aren't reliably aligning with the sizing die in the first position. Basically, they aren't always going all the way into the shell plate. (See photos attached). I can't see an obvious adjustment to fix this. Am I missing something? I've loaded 20-30k rounds through this. The problem just started a month or so ago, and seems to be getting worse. The first photo shows the gap. The second photo is the piece of brass after I've nudged it the rest of the way into the shell plate.

Got the gun back from Dan Wesson today. They reamed the barrel chamber and re-cut the feed ramp. Just need to get it back out to the range to see if the issues are resolved. At the very least, I'm quite happy with how fast they took care of this - at no cost to me.

Using a bunch of different types of brass. A total of 5 different bullets - three different SnS versions, a Berrys and an Extreme. I talked to Dan Wesson today. They said the barrel may need to be worked on since i'm using reloads. They are having me send it in. With the rounds that do feed, it's a beautiful gun, so far. Very accurate.

At first, I thought that maybe the rounds were too long - and they were engaging the rifling too soon. But when I started doing the plunk test on a bunch of ammo, i see that the OAL has nothing to do with it. It's like the failed rounds are just too wide to fit all the way into the chamber. They get stuck as much as 1/8th of an inch out of battery.

Recently picked up a new Dan Wesson PM9. I'm having some issues with running my reloads - as in my ammo just doesn't seem to work. Basically, about 30 percent of the rounds that pass a chamber check (both EGW and the Hundo case gauge) won't pass the plunk test in the barrel. These rounds function fine in my CZ shadow, Glock 17, Glock 43 and Sphinx SDP. I've tried it with three different bullets - SNS 147 flat, Berrys 147 RN, and Xtreme 147 RN. And I've tried varying the OAL from 1.13 to 1.15. Makes no difference. I've ordered an undersizing die from EGW, hoping that will solve the problem. I'd really rather not have to use the barrel as the case gauge for thousands of rounds of ammo. Wondering if anyone else has run into this. Is it simply a matter of the PM9 being more picky about what it will eat?

Don't mind serrations on a competition gun. But I hate the look. Much prefer the cleaner look of a 1911 without them.

Love hearing this. I get frustrated at matches when I run across an RO who gets cagey when asked to clarify the 180 on a particular target from a particular position. Happened most recently at a small major. Squad was trying to get a better handle on the 180 for a target at the start of the stage. It took way too much effort on our end to get more than: "Just don't break the 180 and you'll be fine." Makes me really appreciate the ROs who are confident enough to help a squad understand what is and isn't a safe shooting position. When asked about the 180 on a target, I will always say if it is down range of the position asked about. I Will Not say "your fine shooting it from there" or "you won't be breaking the 180 there". I've seen the argument erupt after a run when the competitor gets DQed and says you said it was ok from here! When in actuality the shooter over swung the target and broke the 180.Targets are either up or down range from any location, and that is not the same as where you point your gun. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk This is certainly true. But, there are times when target placement (particularly on stages not lined up with the back of the berm) makes it more challenging to know where that critical 180 line is located. I'm sure we've all witnessed enough debates and disagreements over 180 lines during walkthroughs to know that the answer to the question is not always easy to determine. But in the end, the only opinions that matter are those of the ROs watching the shooter. And so I appreciate the ROs that do everything they can to help shooters safely navigate these tricky stages. Personally, I rarely push the 180, believing strongly in the idea that its better to avoid getting into a position where the RO thinks you've broken the line.

Love hearing this. I get frustrated at matches when I run across an RO who gets cagey when asked to clarify the 180 on a particular target from a particular position. Happened most recently at a small major. Squad was trying to get a better handle on the 180 for a target at the start of the stage. It took way too much effort on our end to get more than: "Just don't break the 180 and you'll be fine." Makes me really appreciate the ROs who are confident enough to help a squad understand what is and isn't a safe shooting position.

Got to play, briefly, with a set of the Lok grips at BITB, while shooting with Jeff. Thought they felt great. I've always been a little frustrated by a selection of grips that just seem so thin. Can't wait to spend a little more time with my own set of these.

Shot it the past couple of years. After looking over these stages, I'm glad I decided to skip this year. Far better stages this weekend at Battle in the Bluegrass. Pretty disappointing to see stages like this for a national match.

My Stock IIs have been very reliable. But if you take the game seriously, I don't see how you can not have a backup gun. Preferably your own. But if you know you are shooting a match with a friend who runs the same gun (and it runs you ammo) that would do in a pinch. There aren't very many repairs I'd want to make on a Stock II during a match. Too many small parts to lose at a safe table.

I have to run around 1.09 with SNS 147 FPs to get reliable feeding on mine Stock IIs.

I still like the Henning Hunter checkered grips.