GJM

From the Leupold website, the DP Pro battery lasts 190 hours on high intensity: https://www.leupold.com/hunting-shooting/scopes/deltapoint-reflex-sights/deltapoint-pro/

I have a pair of DP Pro red dots I am running on a pair of Glock 19 MOS pistols in CO. The DP Pro has held zero over the month plus and 4,000 plus rounds I have through them. One big issue that is surfaced is battery life. I am getting about a week a battery in each Pro. Leupold told me six days is about right for frequent use. I am now replacing the battery before each match. By comparison, the battery is one of my RMR red dots has lasted multiple years. Rob Leatham told me his original DP (not Pro) battery has lasted multiple years.

Alma, thanks for the fast reply. My reload is a 124 in lower 48, but I am up in Alaska, shooting what I have available, which is mostly 115 ball. Sounds like a .190 front would be ideal, and a .25 width difference sounds right. Do you have any problem with the .190x.125 being ramped instead of patridge? Up here, it would be easier for me to change a rear instead of a front, as I can use my MGW tool. Is the 320 rear appreciably better on a 320, than the P series Dawson rear? Thank you.

1) I just got a 320 in "Carry" configuration back from Robert Burke. He installed the 320 specific Dawson fiber optic sights, and did his competition trigger job. It took him just over a week. This is my second Carry, and the other has his carry, as opposed to competition trigger job, and Trijicon HD sights. I continue to feel that I shoot the Carry better than the full size, that has FO sights and a Burke competition trigger. 2) The Dawson sights are shooting about two inches low at 25 with 147 ammo, and lower yet with 115 grain ammo. Studying the Dawson specs, the 320 sights have a .205 front and .200 rear sight notch. That compares with "regular" Dawson Sig P series sights that pair a .205 front with a .225 rear. Another consideration, is the 320 front is .100 wide and the rear is .135 wide. That is more space than I am used to, with a .10 difference on my Taran FO Glock sights and a .20 difference on others. Here is my question, should I try to get a shorter front sight and stick with the 320 specific rear, or get a .115 or .125 width/.225 tall P series rear, which should solve POI and give me a tighter picture to help with longer range accuracy?

If you compare with similar guns the P320 actually has a very light slide. Looking internally it's easy to see that a lot of weight has been removed already. I am in the camp that wouldn't mind seeing the slide with a slightly heavier weight to see how that changes the performance. Sent from my iPad Interesting on the slide weight. I continue to shoot the Compact slide better across a wide range of drills. Right now, my preferred combo is the full size lower and Compact slide.

I hope they remove mass from the slide of the FS, and any longer models. What is up with followers in the 9 FS magazines -- I have one mag with a black follower that doesn't lock back reliably in dry fire, and my other 9 FS mags have gray followers. (My compact 9 mags have black followers and compact .357/.40 mags have gray followers.)

Thanks for your helpful post. I have been traveling, and haven't been able to experiment further with springs, grip tape or the trigger. Do you or others know whether the 320 FS and/or C will work in a 250 6378 ALS holster?

I am inserting essentially what I posted on another forum, regarding my experience with shoot ability between the 9 FS and the Compact. Cliff notes version is the Compact shot significantly better for me, despite the 9 FS have a Robert Burke competition trigger job, Dawson FO sights, and a 1911 guide rod with a 14 pound recoil spring. I spoke to Robert Burke this morning, and he reports similar experience withe the FS and Compact. Interested in whether this tracks what the other 320 shooters are experiencing, or if there is something I am missing relative to recoil spring weight or otherwise. (I am a USPSA A Production and Limited shooter). I went out and had my first intensive range session with a Sig 320 FS 9, just back from a Robert Burke competition trigger job. It also has Dawson FO sights, a 1911 guide rod, and reduced recoil spring. I had a shooting bag along, with plenty of goodies for reference -- a Glock 17 with HD sights, a 17 with an RMR, my main Production CZ Shadow, a 320 Compact 9 (HD sights and Burke carry trigger) and Compact .357 Sig (HD sights, otherwise stock). For the last 7 months, I have almost exclusively shot the CZ and a Glock. I shot 100 rounds of Garcia dot drills to warm up and get used to the 320 FS 9. At one point, I shot a few runs with my G17 and my CZ. Both seemed to be shooting flatter than the 320. I next set up a drill consisting of a 8 inch steel at 10 yards, decent transition over to a IPSC cardboard, wider transition to an 8 inch steel at 15 yards. The drill was open carry draw and hit the 10 yard steel, two to the head of the cardboard, finish on the steel at 15 yards. My par settled into 3.0 second with the 320. I grabbed the Glock, and runs were similar 3.0 to maybe 2.8. With the CZ, I got into the 2.40 something range. I grabbed the 320 Compact, and used my JM AIWB holster, drawing from under a t shirt. Runs were in the 2.75 range, from concealment, which was substantially better than the full size. Grabbed the .357 Sig, and runs were in the 2.95 range, again slightly better than the FS 9. I was convinced there was some new gun thing going on, despite all the 320's essentially being new guns. I repeated drills, mixing things up, and the time delta favoring the Compact stayed constant. I then shot dots, and the Compact tracked more like my CZ than the FS 320. Then, I did a drill, drawing to just the two steel, and needed 2.0 to do it with the FS, and 1.75 from concealment with the 9 Compact. (With the Glock 1.8-2.0 open carry and 2.2 with the RMR). Final exercise was some 7 yard Bill drills with the Compact, and I went 2.03, 2.13, 2.07 clean from concealment with the 9 Compact. Two things I need to explore -- the Compacts had some grip tape on, and the FS did not, and I might try even lighter recoil springs in the FS. However, considering the FS is bigger, slide and grip, and had the far best trigger, I doubt this is going to swing results materially. Right now, my summary is that the FS 9 320 is not going to be that gun that "shoots like the CZ, but I can treat like a Glock." However, I do think that while the 320 FS probably isn't what I hoped, the 320 Compact is the closest thing to a Glock 19 killer I have shot.

Not to derail this thread, but if your Glock 23 holsters also work with your Glock 20, you need new holsters for both your Glock 20 and 23.

I highly recommend a P01 based custom pistol from CZ Custom. They carry about like a Sig 239 but shoot like a 9/10 scale custom SP01 Shadow!

Is this comment comparing the Benelli to the Remington, Beretta or both? Can you elaborate.

I have also noticed this. Should I care enough to do something about it?

In my experience, there is enough variation in individual pistols, you will just have to see what they do on your pistol. For example, I typically run a .235 front sight on most Glock 17 pistols, and my wife uses a .215. However, on my wife's G34, Trijicon HD sights shoot unacceptably high for her at 50 yards. Despite my typically needing a taller front sight than her, I have a 34 with a perfect POI at 50 with the same model HD sights.

Looks like Beretta is reintroducing the TX-4 Storm, under the name "1301 Tactical:" http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2013/10/29/beretta-1301-tactical-shotgun/

My Beretta TX Storm started doing the same thing. I called Beretta and they said it either was gunked up with shipping lube, and needed to be cleaned out, or broken. Cleaning didn't help mine, so now it is in for repair.