Brooke

When I started reloading I did not know what the limits on OAL were. Obviously I knew the 9mm Luger spec is 1.169 inches maximum, but in order to know what was in actual use I measured several brands of common, commercial range ammo. All were in the tolerance range of 1.150 OAL. I have never used a KKM or other aftermarket barrel in my Glocks, but I find it hard to believe that anyone manufactures a barrel that will not accept common commercial ammo or fails to accept the specified Luger spec length at 1.169. How many warning statements would that require? I'm not saying it is not true...I just wonder how anyone could pull that off without a book of warnings. Being an engineer I fail to see how someone could make a barrel and advertise it as for use with 9mm Luger ammunition and not accommodate the industry standard length spec. I started reloading using the OAL stated in the reloading manuals for my powder and bullet and in most cases those are pretty short versus 1.150 or especially 1.169. Lately I have changed to using 1.125 as a standard OAL being sure to avoid any compressed loads with my choice of materials (none have approached that to date). However, in some load data (see Hornady for example), the OAL's for some powders are listed as 1.169. Are you saying those will not load in a KKM or any other aftermarket barrel? I see no such warning statement in the data book and I sure would expect to see something in writing. I'm not being informative, just inquisitive. Could someone who knows the actual facts enlighten me please.

The gun will move 180 degrees and exactly the same distance regardless of which way you turn. If you pick up the targets better over your left shoulder it should not cost time turning counterclockwise (for a right hander). You do risk drawing before crossing the 180 safety plane and you risk getting falsely DQed by someone who thinks you violated the plane..

Never used an SDB so I can't comment. I do have a 550 and love it now that I have it correctly operating (or should I say I have myself assembling it correctly). My wife and I shoot approximately 750, give or take a few, 9mm per week. I'm already thinking on a 650 with a Double Alpha bullet feeder. I like the idea above of routing the spent primers through a tube instead of the little cup which some of them miss. I think I have a simpler design for it. If it works I'll put it up here.

OK this OP was about decapper pins on a Dillon 1050. It provided good information. Thanks. I chimed in with a complaint about primer feeder reliability on my 550. That was inappropriate because the OP was about another subject. It was also wrong because I discovered my problem and fixed it. It was my fault because I had the slide plate under the feed slide out of position slightly. I would argue that the design is weak because it allows that situation, but nevertheless the problem was me. It is fixed. Thank y'all. I'm now in full production.

What brand of resizing die is that? So far my Dillon 550B hasn't done this, but I seem to remember that you might be running a Dillon. I hope not. I already have enough problems with the primer feed being unreliable. Sometimes it won't return fully to the load position. Sometimes when I load primers into the tube they bind up and I have to take the entire system apart to free it up. I don't need anything else to watch for. So far I'm not impressed.

Help me out please. All (or at least most) reloading manuals give the COAL used for the test data. On reloading, should I use the manual COAL or a number more like the commercially available ammo. Example for my Glock 17 most commercial RN ammo measures 1.15x OAL with x being 0-7 based on my measurements. These cartridges feed perfectly for me. So when I see a COAL like 1.135 in the manual for Speer 124 gr. RN bullets should use this number or will it be too short for reliable feeding? Should I ignore the test data COAL's (as long as they are shorter than 1.15x) and use the 1.15x instead? Thanks

Even 98 of 100 ain't great. Hell of a problem if you plan to defend yourself with that kind of reliability. Why not get some other brand of primer and try that. If the gun shoots commercial ammo correctly then you should be able to make it work with your ammo. If you are getting 98/100 or even 99.9 of 100 with commercial ammo, then you best look at whatever changes you made to the gun because you screwed up. I have run about 20,000 rounds of cheap, target ammo through my stock Glock 17 and never had a failure to fire. I would be very disappointed if it happened.

New one

"...had to pull it with my strong hand...". Makes no sense. You obviously switched hands with the gun...why exactly? "..installed a factory extended mag release.." Not sure why you did that but it sounds like you might have done it incorrectly. Since you are 2000 miles from Glock, find yourself a Glock certified armorer (the gunsmith in many shops will be a Glock armorer) and get him to look at it. An armorer can order any necessary parts from Glock. The mag retention/release system is simple mechanically, but not intuitive to reassemble. Since you had it apart I'm betting you did something wrong. There is nothing in the mechanism that restricts free fall of the magazine assuming it is assembled correctly and you have the proper mag. It is possible for an extremely dirty mag cavity to fail to easily release the mag just due to friction and stickiness, so it's worth wiping out the cavity and cleaning the mag exterior, but that's a long shot. I'm not trying to be insulting, please do not take it as such, but dropping a mag is a pretty simple thing. If it required pulling it out you have something wrong and if you changed hands you need to work on gun handling skills. Changing hands takes a lot of time, exposes you to dropping the gun or violating the safety plane, and just makes no sense. I've reworded this a couple of times to avoid sounding like a smartass and it still is not right. Sorry I sound like a lecturer, I'm not. Just trying to convey some info.

I am not trying to start an argument or ignore the experience of someone else. That said when this subject comes up, which is often, it brings out some comments that I personally find questionable. That led me astray (I think) for a while. There is no doubt that guns have some variation. They surely are not perfect. There is no doubt that ammunition causes some variation and that's why the leading competitors load their own. But let's face it, most of us are not leading competitors and probably not good enough to even figure out the gun to gun variation that exists. So do sight makers make suggestions for the proper rear/front combinations for a given gun...I think so. Dawson for instance suggests the 0.230 tall front for the 0.250 tall rear on Glock 34. I'm not a betting man, but I suspect that combo will work 99% of the time on G34 better than most shooters can shoot. What I do see are posts about the accuracy/inaccuracy of Dawson front sight heights on G34 or 35 with no mention of the rears being used. They are not independent. No mention of front sight height is useful unless the rear is specified. I just purchased a Dawson .250 rear and .230 front for my G34. I'll let you know what happens, but I bet the sights are better than I am.

Russel92, based on your input above, I went to the Dawson site and verified that the 0.230 front is their recommendation for the 0.250 rear. I successfully ordered both sights with rear notch and front width I wanted. I just placed a note on the order explaining my intended use on a G34 and asking that they let me know of updated recommendations, if any, they might have. Thanks for your information. Maybe I can now move forward when the sights arrive......Thanks

thanks. Good answer. I appreciate the facts. I'm going to call them to get an answer to my e-mail and I expect it will be as you stated. I, too, want the POI at the top of the front sight. Thanks

OK maybe you all can help me out here because I'm wrestling with the constant issue that I see here about Dawson front sight height on G34 and G35. Just for info, I e-mailed Dawson a week ago on the same subject because of the internet confusion I see on this issue. I have not received a reply to a very carefully crafted e-mail asking their recommendation for the proper FO front sight height to use with the Dawson HD rear on a G34. That disappoints me. I'm being a little wordy here because I want to be sure that I don't stir up more questions. Let's assume that all Glocks are delivered with the standard plastic Glock sights. They may not be great but they do shoot pretty well without a huge variation from gun to gun, ammo to ammo, and user to user. Is that true? I think if it were not true that Glock would have all kinds of issues with customer complaints. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but bear with me a little bit. I can (and have) go out and buy multiple vendors replacement sights and they work fairly well. My G17 has had factory, XS, TruGlo FO, and the current Trijicon night sights and while I like some better than others they all worked pretty well without all this controversy. So now I'm getting a G34 and want some Dawson sights and I find all this confusing information. From what I read here some people shoot low and others high with the same darn sights. Then I decide to go the source (Dawson) and get their take on it and can't even get a dam response. This cannot be that complex. It is simple geometry and I don't think Glocks vary much from gun to gun so it should not be trial and error. I wonder why some sight manufacturer can't simply publish a table of (at least) starting points for using their sights on each gun. If you think I'm saying all this confusion does not make common sense, you are entirely correct. It has to be simpler than it is coming out.

Classic trigger spring problem...a single shot Glock. Either the trigger spring is missing, broken, disconnected, or installed backwards. Make sure you know what spring the trigger spring is before going forward to fix or get someone who knows what they are doing to look at it.

If I were you I would stick with Glock on this. Let them know what your issue is and see what they are willing to do about it. I think it is only reasonable to assume that Glock knows more about their guns than some third party person and that they have a much bigger interest in your overall satisfaction that a third party seller who claims to have a fix. I attended an armorers school in Smyrna recently and I am sold on Glock's interest in customer satisfaction. That's how they got to the present position of popularity. Give them a chance to work on your issue. I don't think you will be disappointed.

Hello there Lexington....me too...I think I know who you are from the user name. Just one of those grains of sands that popped into my mind. I agree with you 100%. I got an RM02 Trijicon (6.5 MOA). It is machined into a Glock slide and includes suppressor sights. Another place to get that done is L&M Precision Gunworks in Prescott. Mine actually came from One Source Tactical in Prescott and I'm betting it was made by the guy at L&M while he worked there. Machining the optic into place allows it to be low enough to use suppressor iron sights also. The dot can be slow to reacquire without the iron sights for guidance on these slide mounted optics. I believe the setup I have with a machined slide and suppressor sights is the way to go for rapid target and dot reacquisition. So anyway, I agree with EKUJustice. Get it done right and you will not regret it later. By the way this optic is great. I love the ability to fire without lining up a bunch of things and actually hit the intended target...which seems more difficult for me than it should be.

Thanks for the reply. I'll call them. It still seems like they would supply that on the website. In spite of the differences from case to case it seems there would be a nominal starting point. There probably is.. Thanks for the reply

OK I'm struggling with this question about the Competition HD rear sight. What height front sight do they recommend on a 34? While I understand that guns are not identical and ammunition is a factor, isn't there at least a starting point recommended by Dawson for a nominal 34 using the rear sight mentioned above? The web site just confuses me. They offer a multitude of options, but I can't find the first recommendation. They are supposedly the sight experts but they seem to throw out a grabbag of choices with no guidance. Am I off base here? How about someone who is pleased telling us exactly what combination they are pleased with?