Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Cavediver29

Members
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Real Name
    Robert Finta

Cavediver29's Achievements

Looks for Range

Looks for Range (1/11)

  1. I used to have the arrendondo extensions but they did not work with the original SSS ESP magwell. The arrendondo bottomed out against the mag well before the mag was able to engage the magazine release. I dont know if the new version of the magwell will resolve this issue. Hope this helps.
  2. My m&p pro loves 1.170" oal with the factory barrel. I'm not shooting major loads.
  3. I have never seen one that was loose to that extent. Of the 7 m&p's I've worked on (3 pros) the rear sights have allways been very tight. All have required considerable force to drift the sight.
  4. Msg73: I'm still considering frame or slide mount. I want to find someone with a slide mount of some type to see how it shoot because obviously it is a cheaper approach. I have the esp magwell but still haven't ordered the tf baseplates. I've looked at the slc products and they look promising. You also bring up a valid question, how big of a difference will the average shooter see between the different platforms. Joe4D: I have a feeling that this project may end the same. However, I enjoy this type of project and worst case I end up with a giggle worthy m&p open gun and a 2011 down the road. But who knows, maybe I'll be perfectly happy toying around with the m&p. Kneelingatlas: I know exactly what you mean, I sometimes wounder if I prefer working on the guns or shooting them more. Why not enjoy the challenge of the build and just shoot for fun. Even if you finish last every match I doubt anyone would complain about spending the day st the range. Wes77: I have definitely thought about just running minor in open. My current thought is to initially build for major and worst case have minor as a fall back. Luckily I enjoy playing with loads so even playing around with trial major loads will be enjoyable. Even if this project waste 5 years, I can still switch to a 2011 before I'm 30 and have plenty of years of fun shooting ahead if me. Again, thanks everyone.
  5. I really appreciate all your advice on this subject. Sarge and others did exactly what I was hopeing for. He introduced challenging questions and presented topics that I will need to consider. When I posted this I was not sure if I should even bother with attempting a polymer open project. I was looking to see if there was a irrevocable reason why not to give it a try. All of you provided insight into the expected challenges to be faced and I am of the impression that they are surmountable. I'm really motivated by this project due to the unique considerations related to this build. Also, I intend for this to be a long term project so dont expect rapid progress reports but at the very least I'll present the final product. I intend to do alot more analysis before I begin building anything and in that time I'm going to try to get as much exposure to various open guns as I can. In the long run I'll probably end up with both platforms simply because 2011 based open guns are defiantly hard to beat, in the mean time I think this project will easily keep me challenged for quite some time. Thanks everyone.
  6. In regards to being placed in production that has been the match coordinators call not mine. Its a local fun match so its a mute point. I would enter it as limited anywhere else I shot but at this range they have been grouping me with production for whatever reason. I think its because very few shoot limited there. Last match I shot only had open guys and production guys so it may just be a logistic issue at the small match. You are right though I should be grouped with limited and would prefer that option. In regards to the 2011 the frame weight is a benifit however I've analyzed the m&p slide and there is a good amount of weight that can be removed from it as well without causing structural issues. I am also working on a dynamics model that should allow me to figure out optimal spring rates and slide lightning. The magazine capacity issue I don't agree with entirely being that the limit is 170mm and extensions for 27 rounds exist, I don't see that as a limit. The same can be said for the magazine weight. I'm not sure about the round length issue though. You very well could be on to something there that I never realized. In terms of optics mounts there are more limited options but I'm not affraid of developing my own. There are defiantly less available comps as well, while I could run some cfd analysis on them as well, compensator design would defiantly not be an easy task. As you can see there would definitely be some challenges with such a project but I have yet to find one thats insurmountable. I'm thinking that even if Im not capable of building a national quality gun I may still be able to come up with a surprisingly good polymer attempt. At the very least it would be a unique alternative.
  7. I appreciate the replys, and advice. In the past I have shot two open guns. Admittedly neither were in 9 Major or 38S so there is likely some difference in feel between these and what I would get. Both were sti variants, one in 40 the other in 357sig. The triggers were the only thing that was overly impressive and I know matching that feel will be all but impossible on anything else. The thought I had while shooting these guns is why is the 1911 design considered so superior? Besides the obvious single action trigger benefits I can't figure out any other reason why this platform stands out so much. Obviously there are some differences in slide dynamics being that the 1911 frame is more rigid, slide movement is dampened by two forces instead of one (reset of the hammer and the recoil spring compression), and some differences in the unlocking of the barrel. In addition the all metal construction provides the ability for the slide to be fit with much tighter tolerances then on a polymer frame. That being said, the 1911 has had over 100 years to evolve. Maybe its just an issue of no one figuring out the secrets to the polymer guns in order to make them perform on par with there metal predecessors. I have no doubt that the nerd in me is driving this debate. Maybe I should just get both. Build the 2011 gun to fill that void in the collection and to feed the open gun desire. Then pick up another M&P to be a new pet project and let the nerd run free.
  8. So here's the deal, I've been shooting IDPA ESP and USPSA steel challenge for a little over 2 years. Recently I began shooting in some local production decisions even though due to stippling my M&P should fall into limited. Its a local match so its not a big deal either way. The problem with this is that it has instilled a massive desire to get into shooting open. Here is the conundrum, I'm torn between 4 different approaches at reaching my open gun dreams. 1) 2011 Platform of some fashion yet to be determined (probably sti). 2) CZ Build. 3) M&P 9pro build from new gun 4) M&P 9pro build using bare slide and my ESP lower. Local shop has a slide in stock so acquisition will not be a problem. My main concerns are related to long term enjoyment and challenge. Regardless of the approach I choose I intend on doing all of the work myself. The main reason I want to get into open is to build my own gun. I have lots of machining and engineering experience and have no doubts that in the long run I will be able to build a quality gun. I am aware that this approach will likely lead to increased cost and lots of headaches however it is the approach that I would like to take. However, once I have finished construction I do not want to be out performed simply due to limitations of the chosen platform. My question is will the M&P platform leave me hanging at local matches or is it capable of being competitive? Part of the reason I'm leaning this route is because there are very few open m&p's whereas everyone has an open 2011/1911 or CZ. Secound, if I choose the M&P should I with from a new stock gun or just a bare slide. As I said either are readily available. The new gun obviously provides a clean slate, however the slide up approach saves a few hundred bucks but will limit the design of the final open gun since the lower will still need to be ESP compliant. Any advice or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advanced.
×
×
  • Create New...