ny32182

Thanks.. I was able to fire two magazines last night with the safety lever installed in place of the decocker. That isn't a lot of rounds obviously, but ergonomically I think it will be much better for me. I wasn't thinking about any kind of discomfort while shooting, the sights tracked straight down, and I didn't flip the safety on... definitely will be rolling with this setup moving forward. Bladetech holster is on order... Next up is to lighten the recoil spring... what are people running for recoil springs... 11lb, something like that?

Yeah, really I wish I could shoot a 2011 sometimes. Or at least have the option. But anyhow... can we definitely confirm that ISMI Glock/M&P flat wire recoil springs work in the P09? I've already got a pile of those, probably nothing lighter than 13lb at the moment though.

I'm a lefty btw.

It is my strong hand that has the biggest problem with safeties... here is a Stock 2.

That is what I do with my unicorns (the stock2 safety works for me) but I can't shoot a 19/2011 at all because the safety is completely under my grip. I just swapped from the decocker to the safety and it feels promising... bottom of the lever is not nearly as thick as the decocker (shouldn't dig into me nearly as much) and the tension is enough to where I doubt I will flip it on incidentally.

I have big hands, but also my grip is higher than pretty much anyone's..... for any pistol with a manual safety, the question isn't whether I will have a problem, but rather, how bad will it be, and do they make a lever flat enough that I won't constantly flip it on unintentionally.

Thanks I will check that out for sure. Compared to the unicorn directly out of the box, this gun has a better trigger, but I would not want to compete with either one stock. Really the P 09 is not bad though... breaks clean, smooth takeup, just heavy all the way around. Thanks, I noticed that as well.... however even from fully hammer down, I don't think the stroke is any longer than my unicorns, so if it can be lightened up I think I'd be fine with it. What sights do you have on your gun there? I fired one mag through it today (wish I had time for more) but as I guessed, the decocker lever is digging into my strong hand on recoil. The safety lever looks to be much lower profile, so I'll probably drop that in and see if it fits better (I expect it to). Also the sights are diving bad on the return, but I assume that is a function of the heavy stock recoil spring. For 19 rounds it cycled fine with my 135pf loads.

Interested in potentially setting it up for gun games. What do you think I need to know? I'll probably come of with a bunch of random questions. First, is there any reason to install the decocker vs. safety, or vice versa, from a trigger pull standpoint? (does one yield a nicer trigger pull)? I understand that Glock/M&P recoil springs work... what about guide rods? Does anyone make a heavier non-captured rod? I understand CGW is the hotness for turnkey competition packages right now? Thanks. I shoot Tanfoglios in Production right now, so am not wholly new to the general CZ type design.

I'm using K10 mags in my .40 gun with Stoeger basepads. It might be a different basepad, but I initially had the same issue with the plastic retainer plate not lining up with the hole in the aluminum basepad, on the K10 mags (K40's work fine out of the box). After trying a few things, I found that I had to cut off the little plastic tab on the front of the plastic retainer plate in the K10 mags. For some reason this piece is different in the K10 mags, even though they are all large frame. Cut that little tab off, slide the baseplate on, and give the front of the baseplate a smack in order to push the plastic piece forward, and I bet it will snap into place in the hole in the baseplate.

Ok, I haven't been to this thread in a while, but now that I have some real time with 10mm mags I came back for an update. Cliffs: I think Cha-lee and bessy are correct... I now believe the extractor is the ultimate issue. Long version: I've been changing one variable at a time in hopes of narrowing it down. I'm not sure if it is break in wear or feed lips, but I do think the 10mm mags are just a little bit better. I shot the gun in a club USPSA match for the first time Saturday, with the 10mm mags, and had no malfunctions... gun started clean. "I've finally got it licked" I thought. Negative... Sunday, right at the 200 round mark since cleaning, the malfs started. With the 10mm mags though, they are a little different: The slide stops with the cartridge PERFECTLY inline with the chamber. There is no way in hades that there is any bad contact between anything other than the case and the extractor at the angle of the jams I was seeing this past Sunday. It is still very highly related to how clean the gun is... when it is very clean it runs fine; right around 200 rounds, boom, it becomes very unreliable. I feel like it is going to be a crap shoot but I'll start messing with the extractor next. I'll probably just start with the one the gunsmith sent with all the surfaces polished and go from there. I'll just be winging this part of it, basically.

I'm no open expert by any means, but I don't think you want to get a Stock 2 if your goal is to one day shoot open. It has a double action trigger and a 4.5" barrel, neither of which are going to be desirable in open I don't think. Plus stock 2's are called "unicorns" for a reason; your buddy will not simply be able to order one most likely. The Limited is much more available, and probably much more suitable for what it sounds like you might want to do with it. You could buy it in .40 now, shoot it in Limited division, and then when you want to go to Open, I assume you could have a new top end built in your choice of .355 caliber. And the frame is pre-drilled for a scope mount. If you drill a stock 2 frame I believe that takes it out of Production permanently, and that will kill its value since it is predominantly a production gun anyway. "Limited" in .40: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=420349784

1500 rounds through it now. I usually pull it all the way back and let it rip. Hanging up on the extractor/casehead not getting out of the magazine fast enough/nose too high compared to the casehead is the problem. Need to figure out how to address that root cause and I'll be golden.

Thanks dhf. Well I might be getting more and more stumped. I shot 170 rounds of mostly my SHORTEST ammo yesterday (1.125", loaded too many at first and just needed to burn them). Zero malfunctions while actually shooting, using mostly the .40 magazines. Granted the gun started clean, but I was expecting a minimum of one malfunction and likely more based on past experience. I did have a couple of the jams during "load and make ready", cycling a round in by hand. I had the 10mm magazine mixed in, and zero malfunctions of any kind with it. I think my next step might be to get the gun dirty, keep it dirty for a while, load some rounds beyond the 1.145 max that will fit the .40 mag, shoot them in the 10mm magazine, and see what happens? Maybe my extractor is getting some more natural wear on it.

dhf, would you mind sharing details of your load and other setup in my ".40 load lengths" thread?

My stock 2 is 9mm and Lim pro is .40 minor, so not STRAIGHT apples to apples, but both stay very flat and cycle quickly compared to the plastic I used to shoot. Probably the stock 2 is just a hair better the way I have them set up now; could be the caliber, or the weight, or the fact that I've shot 10x more rounds through it than the Lim Pro.

I have both, and all else being equal I think you'd have to be EG to notice any kind of difference in performance. They "feel" very slightly different in that, as mentioned, the entire weight difference is right at the muzzle.

Also, my 10mm magazine got here yesterday. Probably not news for most, but, the external dimensions are the same, just without the spacer in the back, and it seats and ejects in the frame just fine; my Stegger basepads fit, It also locks the slide open, and cycles .40 rounds by hand just fine. I see some potentially encouraging signs: 1) Obvious... I can load as long as I want. 2) The feed lips are SIGNIFICANTLY shorter. The round will pop out of the magazine a lot sooner in the travel. Hand cycling will only tell you so much obviously, but this "might" be a solution that addresses observation #3 in the prior post, and might potentially allow feeding of shorter loaded rounds. 3) without the spacer in the back it looks like the round is going to be moving for a longer period of time, and maybe then have more momentum by the time it hits the feed ramp. Maybe. The slide will be catching it sooner in its travel, therefore won't have as much momentum when it picks up the round, so this item might be a wash...

I imagine all the ideas that might be able to be put forth online probably have been done already, but I'll keep updating this thread with my trials and progress, and hopefully eventually I'll come to a solution and this can benefit someone else. I was attempting some detailed observations while slowly hand cycling rounds through both guns yesterday (other gun being my 9mm Stock 2). I found that extractor tension between the 9 and 40 seems to be exactly the same (observed while pushing rounds under the extractor by hand with the slide off the gun). I still have the original stock, unmodified extractor in the .40. Three things I notice about the 9mm, which feeds perfectly: 1) The cartridge is moving a longer distance out of the magazine before any contact on the feed ramp, so this might mean it has a bit more speed by the time the rim is going under the extractor. A 10mm magazine might help with this... with no spacer in the back I should be able to seat the rounds further back in the magazine. 2) The 9mm seems more inline with the chamber already, it is not elevated as much by the feed ramp on the way into the chamber as the .40. Nothing I can think to do about this. 3) The magazine does not seem to release the round as fast in the .40. By that I mean there is a point in time where the round snaps up the breachface under the extractor when the magazine lets it all the way out. This seems to happen later with the .40, and if it happened earlier the nose would not be so far elevated compared to the casehead and it might feed up the breachface better. I'd rather not "tune the magazines" if I can avoid it.... and if it doesn't work I've probably ruined a $30 magazine.

Picture of malf.... I'm checking out the extractor now. Taking the slide off and sliding a loaded round under the extractor by hand, it does hold the loaded round against the breach face by itself, no problem. It does not slide freely under the extractor, it has to be pushed. The case is pushed into the opposite side of the slide by the extractor. I'm thinking of trying a heavier recoil spring as well (currently 9lb) to see if it would "push" through this malf a little more often?

Maybe if I'm thinking about the dimensions correctly, the issue would be less if the body of the case was every so slightly smaller. Maybe worth trying the U die.

Now a total of 1020 rounds through the gun.

Nealio, one of these? http://www.midwayusa.com/product/687452/lee-u-carbide-small-base-sizing-die-40-s-and-w I shot 150 rounds of 1.145" ammo through the gun today (gun started perfectly clean) and had one FTFeed part way through (just like all the others). It does not seem to matter where in the magazine the round is. Seems to happen a lot less when the gun is perfectly clean. I don't think I put enough rounds through today to see if the longer rounds help when the gun is a little dirty. Cha lee, thanks for the post...I was originally thinking extractor, but came off of that a little bit after some of the other threads, but now it seems like you are saying the extractor might be a factor after all. My gunsmith sent an extractor with all the surfaces polished. I don't know that any of the angles have been changed. Do you think this is likely to help? I have not installed it yet. Extractor spring is stock. All I have to do to get a jammed round to feed is jiggle the slide just enough to let the case head come just a little further up the breech face under the extractor, then it goes the rest of the way into battery. Recoil spring is currently a 9lb. Just smacking the back of the slide does not seem to do it, the slide has to be pushed ever so slightly back to loosen up the rim/extractor interface to get it to feed. Potential options as I see them moving forward, taking into account all the feedback: 1) Get a 10mm magazine and see if loading longer OAL helps 2) Change the extractor for one with polished surfaces 3) U die? 4) Some sort of irreversible work to open up the feed ramp area?

Hornady New Dimensions.

Thanks guys. Mags are brand new and the springs feel good. I believe my crimp measurement is .421 or .422. But, I don't see how that could be the issue as the case mouth is not touching anything when the jam occurs. I've loaded some rounds out longer, both bullets to 1.145 OAL and will test asap. They fit the mags, and hand cycling them in a safe direction, they do feel overall like they are loading smoother. Before, I could feel a "hitch" part way through the chambering sequence on every one that is not there at all with my 9mm. One thing I've noticed hand cycling with a clean gun and the longer rounds, I get the jam now consistently only on the last round of the mag. This makes sense, since there is no bullet under the last one pushing the casehead further up. I did not do this exact test with the shorter rounds, but I guess I could since I still have a couple hundred of them left. I also just got a couple new extractors I can try; one totally stock, and one hand polished on all surfaces.

Looking at some older threads it looks like the max length the Mecgars will allow is 1.145"?