jcshelto

Everything finally arrived! The Dawson Super Heavy magwell, which fits very well and makes the gun, unloaded, feel almost loaded. Shooting this thing with a Glock 24C is going to be a breeze. I also added a Lone Wolf Glock 17L thread barrel to my Glock 34. I thought it made the most since in case I do decide to ever run an open gun. Also, it will make a fabulous suppressor host, since I load my own ammo. You can make some virtually silent loads with a 6 inch barrel. I think it looks awesome, too. And finally. I have named all three guns Odette (24), Katie (35), and Angela (34). I am making them custom bags (as seen behind the guns). I am just waiting for their name tapes to come. Each bag has a range log in it, its own basic multitool, a dowel and a barrel snake. It can hold the pistol and 6 mags. Anyone else name their guns? photo 1 by MAJU Photography, on Flickr

This is what I ordered: http://www.dawsonprecision.com/ProductDetail.jsp?LISTID=64B0001-1140131611

The thing is -- this can't be a dedicated suppressor gun. It has to remain my production gun, which is going to be very difficult. I am gonna have to strip some parts off and transform it from a super 'tacticool' gun to a production competition gun. I even ordered a flash hider until I get the suppressor.

Osprey 9mm. It should clear the .245 Warren sight just enough to be usaboe.

I have decided to stay the course -- Lonewolf says the barrels are .70 different. Besides, I still want a 17L. Pics and range reports with be forthcomigng.

I didn't think about the length and barrel lockup

I'll take a pic when it arrives and see if I need to trturned it.

I wanted to turn my Glock 34 into a suppressor host and several factors led my to a threaded 17L barrel from Lone Wolf (The 34 Threaded was sold out), longer is generally better with suppress and then the small, but present ballistic advantage. My biggest concern was how it would look. How would a Lone Wolf Threaded 17L barrel look in a 34? I figured it would protrude 1.24 inches. And I collected as many pics as I could and measured their protrusion. What do y'all think? Maybe some one actually has a specific image of a threaded 17L barrel ij a 34. I am imagining it will look the most like the last pic in this thread. I know there is a lot of frivolity in this thread, but I am on staff duty (You military guys will understand) What do you thihk? Threaded 17L Barrel in a 34? I am excited, but there is some trepidation. Slide1 by MAJU Photography, on Flickr Slide2 by MAJU Photography, on Flickr Slide3 by MAJU Photography, on Flickr Slide4 by MAJU Photography, on Flickr Slide5 by MAJU Photography, on Flickr Slide6 by MAJU Photography, on Flickr Slide7 by MAJU Photography, on Flickr

It's for uspsa open. I know. I was thinking about getting one of Dawsons for the backstrap but i noticed how light it is. I figured if i was going to get one i might as well try a. little bit of weight. I was looking at the frame, i don't think it would be too hard to modifty the back strap to fit with Zev's magwell. I have one of the Dawson for the Gen4 with the medium backstrap. It is definitely like, but I can handle and manipulate it very, very quickly. I would say that my ability to handle the gun quckly mitigates the time it takes for follow-up shots. There is something to be said for a light gun, but there is also something to be said for a heavy one; I guess that is why I have both.

8 ounces is WILDLY heavy. I would strongly recommend something more moderate. My Dawson ICE Gen 4 Magwell is like 2.something ounces. It is very light, too light, but it makes the gun fast to manuever. I just ordered Dawson's Super Heavy Magwell, which is 6.7 ounces I believe. That will balance the gun and help with recoil and splits, I think, but will make tracking and precise movememts more difficult. This is all my very limited experience. I would probably go between 3-7 ounces. And add a tungsten guide rod if I needed some supplementation.

No, you're totally right. I had surgery and can't shoot for 2 more months, so I am just stir crazy. It looks like everyone runs the 4.0, and you're right, it is easy enough to switch or even TRB or there is an issue. Thanks!

I have scored every thread and searched every forum, and have not found this specific question. Reliability is the most important thing to me; it stresses me out to have a gun in the house that A) has light primer strikers or has failures to reset. With that in mind, I build and run all my guns with reliability in mind. In my Glock 24, 34 and 35 I either run Jager or Zev lightened, extended strikers. Currently I am running the 4.5 striker spring. Is this overkill? Is the #4 more than enough with CCI and WIN primers? Will there be failures to reset? Just wanted the consensus, because man, those triggers feel good with the #4 springs.

Is there a big enough difference? That is what I asked myself for days, before ordering the Vanek trigger and Jager Striker. My 35 with the Vanek trigger (Classic, ordered Striker later) is amazing. It rivals my semi-custom 1911. It was worth the 200+ dollars for that trigger. On my 34, non-blue label, I just added a Zev striker and #4.5 spring and polished it up. I wanted to keep the potential for the 34 to be used defensively, if needed. Its a good Glock trigger, but it is a world away from my Vanek, literally. Bottom line, the expensive triggers are worth it. Coming from the 1911 world, they are relatively cheap and very easy to install. I recommend Vanek.

But you were probably a warrant officer. There's nothing a warrant can't do--except come to formations. Even as a child, you had no issues with this? Even currently, I see two sight pictures sometimes, I just know which to shoot. Some shooters close one eye, some shooters put tape over one of their glass lenses. I refuse to shoot anything but both eyes open; it is just how I have been trained, and I feel it gives me an edge.

I did exactly what you did, a blue label 35. Hours of fine stoning and polishing, different connectors and springs; nothing got the result I wanted. I finally caved and ordered a Vanek Custom trigger and Jager striker. Trigger is absolutely insane now, in the #2 range, perfect balance of crispness with just enough travel. OTOH, I recently traded for a non blue label 34. I just did a polish job and threw in a Zev Striker with 4.5 pound spring and it is VERY nice. So maybe just get a jager striker and maybe a Vanek connector.

I run Jager and Zev extended strikers with a 4.5LB Striker spring instead of 4LB as most do, and my strikes are pretty deep--no penetrated primers yet, but it really gives me confidence. Given performance so far, I would not feel nervous using my limited gun for home or self defense, the way it is setup. Heavy is good, unless primers are penetrated; that can clog the firing pin channel, causing, failures to ignite.

Bladetech DOH here, too.

Even as a child, you had no issues with this? Even currently, I see two sight pictures sometimes, I just know which to shoot. Some shooters close one eye, some shooters put tape over one of their glass lenses. I refuse to shoot anything but both eyes open; it is just how I have been trained, and I feel it gives me an edge.

I need to go back to my eye doctor or find one off-post. He looked at me like I was crazy. When I told him that I see my Aimpoint and EOTech reticles fuzzy and "exploded", he asked my qual scores and when I said "expert," he said, "well, then, I guess its not a problem." If they treat officers this bad, I can't imagine how they treat the Soldiers. I am having surgery tomorrow that will prevent shooting for a couple of months, but I am going to try the Sevigny Competition Sights with fiber optic front .245 front for my Glock 34 and 35. I will at least be able to try to offhand shooting with them. All this and I am still under 30. Oh well, my vision is still better than 20/20, it is just unique in that I am slightly farsighted and cross dominate. I wore an eye patch solid during my free time for the better part of a year to train my right eye--it worked, too--I can shoot with both eyes open; in fact, I have to. I always see two targets, I just know which one to shoot.

I hadn't even thought of that, nor did I know such a thing existed. Would I talk to an eye doctor about this or is this a shooting sport product? I dont wear glasses, but when I went to go see an optomitrist in our Military Treatment Facility (MTF), it was some Major who looked I was speaking in Greek when I started talking about the front sight--I guess the medical community is pretty detached from it, A lot of y'alls comments have helped and A) Made me more comfortable about trying a FO sight and Made me eager to try some one elses. Do most people do their own sight installation? It seems if you go from pair to pair, installation would get overwhelmingly expensive.

BLUF: I want to buy Warren Tactical and Sevigny competition sights for my production and limited guns, but am afraid of being able to keep front sight focus. I think my farsightedness and cross dominance make it harder to maintain front sight focus on smaller dots/reticles. For a long time, I was shooting mostly 1911s, and I felt my shooting was deteriorating; I just had a very hard time seeing and keeping focus on the front sight post. They all had night sights, btw. I went to the doctor, he said I am a little farsighted. I am also cross dominant, but overcame that over a decade ago. He gave me glasses, but they don't seem to help; he said they were the lightest prescription he has ever written. Fast forward, I got back into shooting more seriously, bought a Sig first. The front sight post was huge and the focus was constant; I could hollow out the A zone at 25 meters all day; It was covered completely by the front site, but I could still do it. I loved that giant dot. Now I shoot almost exclusively Glock. I compete with Glocks. I love everything about them and have owned at least one for almost 14 years. The sights aren't as good as the Sigs; I can't keep that razor sharp focus on the front sight, but I can see it and keep enough focus on it to make ragged holes out to about 15-20M (That may be pushing it) With that said, I am afraid to switch sights. I am afraid of moving to a competition sight with a razor thin front sight post (I know I can select width--that is hyperbole). I am afraid of a fiber optic front sight (Never shot one). I am afraid of moving away from a large white dot. I won't even TOUCH night sights anymore. Bottom line: is it really easier to see/shoot with, say the Warren Tactical and Sevigny competition sights?

Hello, I am Julian. I am Active Army at Fort Stewart, and just recently started competitive shooting. I love it. I am very new. This forum is a wealth of info, and am excited to be apart of it. My current setup is Glock 35 for limited Glock 22 for production, with a 35 as a backup gun (I love .40 minor loads--its like cheating) I am about to make a post about sights, as that is the next big thing on the agenda. I like to help people, so I hope I can bring something to the table that facilitates that.