FightFireJay

- I think when he says soft, he means in a relative way. Not all stainless is the same. In fact, the stainless that would be used in a press to shape the trigger bars, would be a relatively soft variant. And stainless steel does indeed have issues with galling when rubbing against more stainless. This is something that was an issue with firearms up until a few decades ago, allowing for all stainless revolvers and 1911s, etc. But just how big of an issue is this? Hard to say. I'd be curious to get feed back from folks with 5k+ rounds in a Glock after they have polished the internals. - Regarding the striker spring weight, several companies offer a 6 lb striker for carry/duty use, to ensure never having issues with light primer strikes on hard primers. It may not seem like a lot, but a half pound increase is about 9% stronger. The 10mm and .45 ACP Glocks legitimately have a heavier striker, so with the standard 5.5 lb spring, they would be moving slower than a 9mm or .40 S&W striker. Again, just how big of an issue is this? My father has a Glock 29 and a Glock 20. Neither is new, and I think the Glock 20 is a late Gen 2, but they are also not high round count guns (by the standard of this forum anyway). He has never mentioned any light primer strikes to me. But that is only a single piece of hearsay anecdotal "evidence", lol.

Thank you, again. I have been leaning toward the Evo due to your info. I am starting to wonder if the two trigger connectors would operate different depending on the trigger bar. Since (it appears) that Gen 4 trigger bars have a different angle/curvature where they contact the connector, I wonder if the modified geometry of the Evo was built for it? Anyway... new info from Ghost. I had an email conversation with Oliver Codorniu at Ghost. He recommends the Pro 3.3 (what he has in HIS Glock 40) but that they are very close. He also recommends a 6lb striker spring (due to heavier striker weight) for reliability, and a Gen 3 Trigger bar (part #004417) due to the Gen4 steeper geometry. He also recommends AGAINST polishing stock Glock parts...

Taxil343, Thanks for the input. If they are that close, I may have to flip a coin. If anything else comes up later, let us know. (one is quicker to install, one makes the trigger sit further forward, one of them makes your butt look bigger, ANYTHING)

Lube is especially important when things are "breaking in" as there will be tiny metal debris. If a firearm is dry, it can cause galling, especially on stainless steel. Once the metal parts are burnished, a much lighter amount of lube is necessary. Personal preference, when I'm shooting a new gun I like to keep it a bit wetter in the wear points for the first couple "boxes" of ammo. After that, I just do the standard light lube and don't worry about it. But this is like barrel break in procedures, if you ask 3 different people, you'll get 4 different opinions!

Great info, guys. Taxil343, looking forward to hearing your direct comparison between the 2 connectors. I am also thinking that a "rolling break" as you put it, would work well in a hunting handgun where accuracy is most important. Is the Ghost Edge roughly comparable to a Pro 3.3, but without the over travel stop?

I'm setting up a Glock 40 M.O.S. for hunting. Probably either the Vortex Venom or a Burris FF III with 3 MOA dot (because I can get a smokin bargain on both) for the optic. But the trigger is the real question. I figure I'll do springs and a $.25 trigger job, but the connector itself is the quandary. I certainly would love to know what the difference in feel is between the Ghost Pro 3.3 and the Ghost Evo Elite. If you've shot both, hook me up! (also, any advice on who's inexpensive +2 mag extensions to use and should I consider +10% springs?) Thanks in advance, Jay

Obviously being a ball powder, it can't exactly duplicate SR4756, a flake powder. But in many calibers and loads, comparing Hodgdon.com load data, it comes very close. It does appear to be a denser powder, so it should fill less of your case, so no compressed charges and less spilled powder. In 38 Super, it seems to act more like CFE Pistol, in .40 S&W it seems to act more like WSF. In 9m, it's performance by weight is nearly equal to SR4756, but with a higher max charge. Anyway, it's an interesting powder for a purely gun geeky perspective, but Chris Hodgdon does state that it's a pseudo replacement for SR4756... (Also in the video Christ talks about the changes in production to Clays/Universal/International, and which powders the IMR Enduron series is meant to clone...)

I'm pretty sure that your RMR plated are actually produced by X-treme Bullets, so that's as close as you will get to apples to apples on load data I think (comparing to those loading 124 gr X-Treme). My closest load is... - 130 gr Berry's plated - 3.7 gr Titegroup @ 1.150" - 1060 fps (138 pf) - M&P 40 Pro 5" with KKM 9mm conversion barrel

Hodgdon just released the data on their newest powder, "Winchester 572". Velocities for many loads using .355 bullets are very high, including .380 ACP, 9mmx19, and .357 Sig. In fact, Hodgdon lists Winchester 572 in 9mm as being the... - 2nd fastest in 115gr (just behind HS-6, 140 PF) - Fastest 124gr Berry's bullet (150 PF) - 2nd fastest in 125 gr HAP (just behind CFE Pistol) - Fastest 130 gr Berry's bullet (147 PF) So it looks like 572 may be a valid option for reaching major PF with relatively safe pressures. However, most of the loads show a smaller charge compared to HS-6, so it likely has less gas volume to operate the comps. Thoughts? http://www.wwpowder.com/shotgun.html (in stock at MidsSouthShootersSupply)

IMO, Robar is pretty good NP3 producer, an industry standard. There warranty covers corrosion and peeling of the coating. But, no, they cannot warranty for wear. It would be like asking for tires to be replaced on warranty because of typical tread wear. ALL coatings will wear. But the coatings are harder than the steel underneath it and will wear slower. Robar got started because an instructor at Gunsite in Arizona tried multiple companies and couldn't get cosmetic grade quality NP3 coatings (always had to send some parts back for refinishing). So he did a ton of research and got into the coatings industry. This is literally a gun company started by a gun guy for other gun guys/gals. How good are they? Their sister company coats aerospace parts. Their coatings are for people who love their guns AND want to shoot them a lot for a very long time to come.

I used to shoot a bunch of Bear Creek and my 180 gr were all around 182 gr if I remember. They all shot great and had pretty consistent bullet weights. To put this in perspective, 183 grains is just 1.67% increase over advertised weight! You got an extra 3 grains for free! (as opposed to the owners or BMW R1200GS motorcycles, they only got 1170 cc displacement, a 2.5% ripoff!)

Nope. It has to be an "OFM" part, original firearms manufacturer. Not made by Smith, won't be legal. Please read the link provided above. The rule allows for mag releases from other guns by the same manufacturer to be substituted under certain conditions. The extended factor glock mag release from a G34 being installed in a G17 is one example. So unless the mag release from an M&P 45 will fit in the 9mm/40S&W, I think we are "S.O.L.".

I get some of these carbon flakes as well. Mostly I just see them on my forearms. I used to do more shooting with long sleeves (probably why I haven't noticed it more in the past) but have been shooting with short sleeves more recently and see them. I'm not terribly concerned. No pressure signs, still get my velocity, and it's not as bad as some powders I have loaded. tl;dr version... yep, no biggie, keep shooting it.

A recessed breach face that the barrel hood didn't touch? That is unique. Nearly all modern semi autos have a flat breach face that contacts (or very nearly contacts) the hood. I will have to look more closely at all the pistols at work now!

I don't know what this means yet, but it may be my new favorite adjective! I don't suppose I could get you to rephrase that? It just means that it's louder in a bassy sort of way. Less crack and more thump. I noticed that rounds loaded with BE-86 sounded way tougher than the chrono said they were. Got it, thanks! It's funny how some powder "bark" more or less.

What did you end up with? Loads with Titegroup and Longshot both leaded the barrel. But I found Unique got me squarely to major power factor, didn't lead the barrel more than a trace after a couple hundred rounds, and at .40 Smith pressures is just as clean burning as Titegroup. I also found a load with Trailboss that JUST makes minor pf and still cycles the action, no leading.

OAL depends on the bullet, not the gun.You'll need to figure it out for each different bullet. So I mentioned I had purchased the 200gr weight in the RN configuration. I understand the bullet would have some limits but I would think the chamber would come first?? Thanks Bullets can vary slightly in shape from one manufacturer to another. I have three different manufacture 180 RNFP's and all three will load to a different max OAL in the same chamber. That difference may or may not be significant, as sometimes the magazine is the limiting factor. I've seen some pretty significant differences in different manufacturers 230 RN in .45. The first thing I do when I try a new manufacturers bullet is to take measurements to determine the max OAL, and I do it for each of my pistols. I keep a list of the bullets I have and the max OAL for each one. in each of my pistols. 1. Measure from the breech face to the muzzle end of the barrel with the pistol in battery. 2, Then remove the barrel and drop a bullet in the chamber. 3. Measure from the tip of the bullet to the muzzle end of the barrel and subtract that measurement from the measurement in step 1. That will be your absolute max OAL to where the bullet is touching something. I usually subtract about another .010"-.015" as a starting point, if it fits in the magazine. Would it not be easier to measure from the rear of the hood on the barrel to the rear of the bullet, then add the length of the bullet? If there is a concern that the lockup does not allow the hood to touch the breach face, then a feeler gauge could be used between breach and hood.

I have been considering the boxes from FS Reloading for that simple solution. They come with a foam liner in the lid to prevent wobble in looser cartridges. That will probably be the closest I can get.

Maybe, maybe not. The magazine in an M&P is much shorter than a 2011 mag. Also, chamber length will vary. Mine is pretty long (M&P Pro 40 5" from about 3 years ago?) and I have never hit the rifling on anything that fit in a magazine. Also, not all round profile bullets are the same. 9mm especially shows a big difference between round nose bullets, some pointier than others. To actually answer your question... I have loaded both truncated cone and round nose bullets up to 1.160" in my gun. I've loaded Titegroup, WST, Unique, Universal, Longshot, and even Trailboss. They all go bang and work the action, some just go bang a little faster!

I don't know what this means yet, but it may be my new favorite adjective! I don't suppose I could get you to rephrase that?

I was just loading some 9mm so I checked the Dillon plastic ammo boxes I was using. The compartments are .400" x .400", so the cartridges actually rattle around a bit, but not as bad as .40 in the .45 boxes. Shucks, I will keep looking. Thanks for measuring.

TDA, Just how loose are they? About .424" loose? haha, if it were only that easy.

Okay, perhaps a different route will work... Are there any 38 Spl ammo boxes that will hold the cartridges with the rim side down? Or do they all require the nose to be down? .38 Spl max rim diameter... .440" .40 S&W max rim diameter... .424"

When I had my G23 I used to run Bear Creek poly/moly bullets. I had to try 3 different types of powder before I found a load that didn't lead, but I shot quite a few through that gun.

My OCD haha. I feel like by now, someone like Dillon would have made a .40/10mm specific plastic ammo box. Or a company that's tied in with USPA where .40 is quite popular.