cledford

I forgot to mention - there is no ammo involved. This is with an empty chamber. Calvin

I have a gunsmith fit Barsto barrel in my G22-40. (This was a full fit, not drop-in or semi) The barrel was fit by Barsto. It does not go fully into battery when the slide is cycled by hand. It does when the slide is dropped via the slide release or when the slide is actuated by shooting. I'm just leery of it in light of the potential KB issue - alhtough there might not even be a problem. The barrel *is* fully locking up into the slide - it is just that the slide is not fully forward on the frame. It is far enough forward that the trigger can depressed. Attached are 2 pics - I'm not sure if they show the issue well - but, pic 1 is normal. In it, the frame actually sits about 1/16 of an inch behind the rear of the slide - this is with the Barsto barrel all the way into battery, or with the stock barrel. In the 2nd pic, the rear of the slide over hangs the rear of the frame by about a 1/16th of an inch. This totals 1/8 or more total difference between the two. When you push on the back of the slide with your thumb in "out of battery" situation, you can feel the top-end slide a bit further on the frame and you hear an audible click when it stops. Again, this does seem to be an issue when shooting (I carefully fire one shot at a time and check for battery)- but I'm leery to shoot it fast. Due to expense associated with the cost of shipping, etc I would prefer to NOT send this back unless I can't figure it out. My question is, for those with fit barrels - did you see something similar? Is this part of break in? For those who've fit barrels - what does this indicate to you? Does it seem to be something requiring a bit more tweaking/fitting? What area specifically? For those who's advice is "why not send it back?" Again, the barrel was fit by Barsto. I'm not attempting to trash Barsto - they make great barrels. I do have issues with how much they charge to fit a barrel and personally feel that as a customer I wasn't treated well by them for that expense. Their position was "send it back on your dime and we'll fix it." For over $500 (barrel, shipping and fitting fee) it should have been right before it left. To me, it seems they are either trying to actively discourage people sending them guns for fitting, or are gouging on the fee which is is very high compared to everyone else's prices I've come across. The barrel (in this case) is no where more accurate (at any range) than the stock and sometimes a bit less. This also should have been caught before it left. Shipping costs $100 for the round trip and I'm just not all that confident in footing that cost to give them a 2nd chance. Thanks! -Calvin

OK, I’m at wits end – either I can’t shoot Glocks, or the Glocks can’t shoot. I’ve owned a 21, 35, 24, 22, 27 and 17L. Out of all of them, the only one I’d say I had adequate groups with were the 21 and the 22(?!) The rest, including the long slides were/are pitiful when I’m involved. I’ve been a bullseye shooter (several custom 1911s) IDPA (Beretta 92), police officer (38/357 revolvers & Beretta) and have dabbled in bowling pin and action shooting with the M21 and various 1911s. Based on my skills with guns other than Glocks I would rate myself as a very good shot. This is a not a “bash Glocks” thread – I’m truly trying to figure this out. As I mentioned the only one I’ve owned that had close to one hole accuracy up 15yards and shot around 2-3 inches at 25 was the 22! I found this very surprising given the assumed accuracy of the “target” Glocks. The 35 & 24 were just plain horrible, even at 7 yards it was difficult to put 5 rounds touching – while any of the other guns I’ve owned, well I’d be embarrassed if I couldn’t put all shots through a single hole at 7 yards. This just doesn’t make sense to me. Today was the latest twist. I took my new 17L out to the range, along with my carry Sig P250 compact, to burn up some premium federal 9mm ammo. This was the first outing for the Glock since purchase. The groups at 7 again (I guess my starting off point) were lousy – it was very difficult to put all shots close to touching. At 15 yards, the group opened up to about 4x6!!! This is after a week of dry firing the glock. I then break out the Sig p250 (double action only, which anyone would expect to be harder to shoot) and one hole (repeated 4 times of 5 shots at 4 1” pasters) at 7 yards and then about a 3 inch group at 15. I had purchased the 17L as I guess I’ve always wanted a tack driving Glock. I’d guessed that my issues with the 35 & 24 were actually related to their barrel length – in that the extra velocity might be messing with accuracy – I came to this conclusion based on the outstanding accuracy I’d experienced with the 22. So, I sold them and bought the 17L as the 9mm is actually a very inherently accurate round – more so than even the benchmark 45acp. I figured if I were to find a truly accurate Glock, the longest barrel and the fundamentally most accurate cartridge would have to be it. I was pretty disappointed today. Anyhow, I’ve seen this over and over. I can shoot my 1911s, my berettas, sigs and revolvers (even under timed conditions) – but not Glocks. I’ve now simply got to find out why. I cannot figure how I can take a defensive pistol (Sig p250) with half the length of barrel and a DAO trigger and shoot twice as good groups (using same ammo) as the target pistol. I can shoot single action pistols just fine and am just about as good with the DAO kind. Having said that, could it be something weird between me and the striker system of the Glock? I would say that when dry firing the Glock that, unless I am very careful I will often notice a lateral movement (to the right and back to the left) of the front sight if I do not pull the trigger perfectly. I seldom if ever notice this with any other handgun. Could it be something like the trigger in conjunction with the grip angle or size? I’m not sure, but would really like to figure this out. Thanks for any input and sorry if I seem to be picking on Glocks or immodest about my opinion of my shooting skills, I just really want to figure this out. I’m ready to go out and dump a ton of cash into a Fulcrum trigger with all of the goodies, but am concerned that ~$300 later, I still might not be seeing what I like, if the issue isn't the trigger pull, but more related to some wierd dynamic with the striker system. It may seem silly and a lot of people have said, “why keep messing with them if they aren’t for you?” I guess it is the challenge, figuring out the unknown and the fact that I *really* like the guns – just can’t see to shoot them half as good as any other pistol I’ve ever picked up… -Calvin

Now that weather is warming and I've increased spring weight buffers lasting much longer - problem solved in my book. Thumbs up to CCF. -Calvin

Now that weather is warming and I've increased spring weight buffers lasting much longer - problem solved in my book. Thumbs up to CCF. -Calvin

Now that weather is warming and I've increased spring weight buffers lasting much longer - problem solved in my book. Thumbs up to CCF. -Calvin

Now that weather is warming and I've increased spring weight buffers lasting much longer - problem solved in my book. Thumbs up to CCF. -Calvin

I've been saying this all along and expect that CCF won't be with us much longer if they don't wake up. They are hanging on, waiting for that "one big one" (contract) to come along - while mean while they are pissing away a whole market that is delivering themselve to their door step. Let's look at the facts: 1. The BIGGEST reason Glock has made it to the top of the heap in LE is due to cost per unit. Bean counters love 'em and add that they are darn fine service weapons COMBINED with low cost per copy and they trump a sig, beretta, HK, etc. Bean counters are NOT going to go for first buying guns that sell on the LE market for somewhat less then another brand and THEN upgrade it for $300+ bucks (making it MORE expensive then Sig, Beretta, HK, etc) just to make a gun heavier, less reliable and supported by a rinky-dink company (read shallow pockets if anything ever goes wrong...) *IF* they ever start working (see #2) special units *might* want them, but again, at the near the LE cost for a Kimber, SA, etc - why? 2. They are completely unreliable and have been so for more then a year with the most common LE round - .40s&w. There are design flaws (shoke stroking, buffer) and things they did not take into consideration. No department is going to take the AK-47 of the handgun world (meaning the utter reliablity of Glock) and reduce it to what ever the life span of a small piece of plastic buffer might be. 3. The best fix CCF has been able to offer in a years time of dealing with the .40 issue is to tell people to send their $320 frame out to *a* gunsmith (as in excatly one currently working on the problem) to have the short stroke issue "fixed" - which does not even "fix" the issue of requiring the buffer (which any firearms instructor will tell you is failure waiting to happen), it just ensures it does not get beat up as quickly... all for around $200 more. Their second bit of advice is to blame Glock for using too weak a recoil spring and advising customers to upgrade the spring weight (on their own dime) although Glock has a *team* of engineers who figure things out and CCF is 2 guys, only one with an engineering back ground. They are essentally using their customers for R&D time and $$$ without telling them and yet they expect a big LE contract is going to wash upon them at any time? Yeah, right. -Calvin

Anyone know if there is any real difference between the EGW and the Lee U? I called EGW and they stated that they do NOTHING to the dies, but Lee does manufacure them to "their custom measurements." -Calvin

If CCF can get the bugs worked out, and offer the stainless frames IDPA ready for a G17 slide, I'd consider one for carry. I'm not sure what the future bodes for you. I went back tonight and read all the posts in the initial 11 page CCF thread here and put together a little timeline. The more I look into this the madder I get. It appears that the owner of the company seems to know better than everyone else what they want and moves at a glacier pace in making changes whatever the case. Let's see - a frame that from outset won't make weight in IDPA. A frame in which they decided to change the locking block from Glock OEM dimensions to their own, precluding the use of aftermarket barrels other than their own - without gunsmith fitting. And we buy Glock why? Personally, I do so I don't have to have everything fit by a gunsmith... This major design change was made by two guys, only one an engineer, while Glock has a TEAM of engineers who set the timing and dimensions in the first place... The change alters the timing for the whole gun. They put a picitinny rail on a gun that has never had one (before the 21SF) so 99% of the accessories out there - DON'T FIT. So the rail, which contributes to the overweight issue also serves no valid function either. Other examples include the fact that realize that they have a problem with short-stroking and buffers (over a year and a half after the frames debuted and 6 months after being released for sale to general public) and owner states publically (here on this board in a post) that last Oct that he would have newly designed, more dependable buffs available “soon.” This was almost 6 months ago. I spoke to him last week, no mention of new buffs at all. He did mention their new guide rod assembly (which looks to be very nice) that will be available “soon” that does nothing more for the problem then come apart easier then the stock – so that you can more readily add washers from Home Depot. (and how many police agencies are going to buy gun parts at Home Depot?) I was told regarding my issue (failure of buffer in less than 100 rounds) to buy a 20lb ISMI spring and ship the gun off to Glock Jockey to fix the stroke issue. When directly asked if they would be fixing it at the factory I was told "no, we are set up for one off work." When I directly asked about the frame cut, was told "if we decide to do it and that is not a given, it would not happen for at least 6 months." That last bit tops all. The rest of it I can chalk up to someone who thinks he knows better than his customers, but not instituting a fix for a *known* issue that has been out in the public realm for more than 6 months as soon as possible into production? That is pretty lame. If they aren't willing to make that change, then how likely are they to redesign a whole mold for a cast frame so users can really use the “race” frame in competition? I'm piecing together slowly but surely a picture of some guys who have a great idea, have produced a very nice frame, but failed to understand their market and the impact of design changes they made. Now that problems are cropping up they don't want to be responsible for them and instead want to have the customer fix the issues on their own time and expense. This is because their true intent is to somehow make it big by marketing these to the law enforcement market. They are so focused on this they are missing the people who really want the darn things. I still think the frames are very cool and have HUGE potential. However, after reading through the old thread tonight, seeing that the frames actually debuted back in 06 and that the owner of the company has known (publically) about the stroke issue for at least 6 months and they are still not prepared to do anything about nor willing to even mention it to purchasers *ahead of time" or in the manual or on the website is very deceptive. I don’t think it was an accident anymore that no one mentioned to me when my credit card number was taken that the far and away most commonly found .40 factory ammo was having issues. I shouldn’t have read the thread as now I’m angry about the issue. Before I thought this was something fairly recent – now I see that it’s been out there for a while and frankly should have never occurred in the first place if they had tested the thing correctly. Who *doesn’t* test a product with the most commonly commercially available ammo? -Calvin

Bummer, that puts me in the same boat and I'm one of the wierd people who get hung up on such details... I figured as much when looking at it last night, which is why I made the post. Looks like I'll be selling it (it's the last straw, it is a "C" model and I've already had it with the soot all over the factory front...) and buying a 35. -Calvin

Wow, thanks VERY much for taking the time to take the photo - that was very cool of you. Take care, Calvin

I've got a G24 with the open top slide. Was thinking of upgrading the front sight to a fiber-optic model. I was looking at the 24 tonight and thought most fiber fronts appear on the "longish" side - will the Dawson or other recommended fiber fronts over hang the the slide lightening cut-out? I'm assuming the 35 is the same, but the cut my be further back. Also, FWIW, my 24 is Gen2 (old parkerized finish) and even says 40S&W on slide and barrel! I just point it out in case they make have moved the slot from one gen to another. Thanks, -Calvin

I've got a ton of once fired .40S&W brass that has come out of Glocks with OEM barrels, some from XDs. Basically, I pick up all of my brass when shooting at the local indoor and the other shooters (most of whom are shooting .40 Glocks or XDs) don't mind if I pick theirs up either. Since the range doesn't allow ammo other than what is purchased through them I know it is all once fired stuff - and the great part is that it is all mostly one head-stamp. (They carry federal for the most part but every once in a while sell WWB) So, I'm about ready to start reloading for .40 - but have heard for years about loose Glock chambers, budged (Guppy) brass and KBs. Add onto this I called LWD yesterday about a cut rifled barrel and was told I would likely have reliability issues in his (LWD and KKM) barrels with reloaded brass out of Glock OEM barrels - stating that the LWD & KKM barrels have "match" chambers and that since dies don't actually full-length resize (taking the chamfer for the die mouth and the top of the shell holder into consideration) some cases would end up not chambering. Any advice on this issue? I currently would be reshooting the loads in a OEM Gen3 G22 barrel. I’m also considering picking up a LWD or KKM cut rifled barrel if I decide to shoot lead. I've heard of some companies producing extra long dies, but JR said even then there might possibly be a problem. It seems a huge waste to toss the brass but also don't need KBs or unreliable guns. Thanks for any input. -Calvin

I’m starting to dabble into building an open gun and need some feedback on the best comp to go with. I may be trying to do too much, but would like the option of switching back and forth between 9mm major and 40S&W (if possible) on my Glock 22. I’ve decided on the G22 as after having owned a G35, G24 I shoot the 22 much better for some reason. At this point I'm investing the money to obtain an education and to play but intend this to be a serious process to build the best system for when I get serious. First, will I even be able to make major out of a G22 length barrel for either caliber, with a comp? Next question, if I end up only being able to go one route or the other – which is the better at working a comp (9mm or the 40)? I realize that with the 9mm I can stuff more rounds in the mag – so would think that it would be preferred if only picking one – but which is actually going to work better as open cartridge? Next question – I really like what I see with KKM as far as the profile of their comp. For me, performance is important, but I’d like the gun to look decent as well. The KKM comp looks MUCH nicer IMHO then the LWD. In this area however, KKM only has 3 port comps for 9mm diameter bullets, vs. their 4 port 40 comps. Would it be a detriment to the effectiveness of the 9mm to only have 3 ports? Would it be better to go with the 40 4 port comp and run it on a KKM 9mm to 40 conversion barrel? Any feedback on the LWD comps? They appear to be more complex then KKM (so I'm assumign possibly mor eeffective), but also are made from aluminum and are ugly as sin… Any feedback on the SJC comp/mount combo? It looks like a real slick piece of hardware – but how effective is it going to be compared to a dedicated (barrel mounted) comp? Am I going to lose performance over however much either of the cartridges would work a dedicated comp? How much? I really like what I see with their product and they have an awesome rep – but want to do due diligence because, at $400, it is a very expensive accessory. Finally, what is the worth in going with a G35/24 length setup with ports in the barrel AND a comp? Is it worth considering for the extra expense? (LWD suggested it) How much more (if any) does it make achieving major? Any other advice going down this path would be appreciated. Thanks, -Calvin