Heath

The term "lithium" describes a lot of different battery chemistries. For primary non-rechargeable cells, there's lithium sulfur dioxide (LiSO2), lithium manganese dioxide (LiMn02), and polycarbonmonofluoride (Li/CFn) and some others that are less common. I believe that most CR123s are LiMnO2 or Li-CFn which doesn't suffer from the same explosion hazards as Li-Ion or Li-Poly rechargeble batteries which do require a protection circuit. For Lithium rechargeables, excess charge or discharge currents will cause the pack to heat up a great deal and explode or set things on fire. This comes as a result of the fact that they have very low internal resistance. I once accidentally welded the battery tabs of an almost completely discharged Li-Poly battery to a piece of stainless, which illustrates the huge amount of current that they can source at relatively low voltages (3V when discharged). Lithium rechargeables do require protection circuits which are quite cheap and available in monolithic packages. Generally, a very small PCB and a few passive components are required along with a single IC. The circuit limits the charge and discharge currents and also provides a battery cutoff at 3V. Discharging a Lithium rechargeable below that level will damage the battery. Protection circuits can be manufactured very cheaply in high volumes and are widely available. Any reputable manufacturer, even asian ones would most likely rather include a protection circuit than face the liability that comes with not including one. I've seen a fair number of the Chinese manufactured knock-offs rechargeables for digital cameras and whatnot and they've all included protection circuitry. I suppose my point is that CR123 type batteries don't require protection circuitry and are unlikely to pose a hazard even at very high discharge rates. I'd also like to add that SureFire lights aren't inherently better than any other source of light. They are simply well-built. If one wants or needs the quality and durability of a SureFire, then by all means, have one. However, if one simply needs a source of light at a given brightness that uses a certain battery technology, there are cheaper alternatives for pretty much every class of light that they make.

I hate that dealerships and car salesmen aren't really interested in allowing a person to buy a particular product but rather they feel that it's their job to CONvince a person to buy anything. They are not salesmen, they are manipulators and I hate to be manipulated. If one wants to buy a new car, I feel that the best method would be to use the various online services like Edmunds and cars.com to get an idea on the value of the specific model and specific options desired. One can even request a quote through those services. Alternatively, one can also fax an RFQ to the fleet sales manager at a number of dealerships. As I understand it, the fleet sales manager often also assumes the role of Internet sales manager, since it is essentially the same process. From all that I've read, it seems reasonable to expect to pay 5% over the actual dealer cost. Note that "dealer cost" isn't the same as "invoice price". I also hate that the last time I purchased a new car, I thought it would be wise to pre-arrange financing. I discovered that the financial institution charges the dealer a referral fee for "pre-approved" customers which the dealer in turn directly adds to the price of the car. This is on top of any finance charges that the institution charges me for the loan.

I love my G35, good luck with yours. If you can't find one locally for around $600, you should be able to get one from topglock and get it transferred for about that price. That's what I did. A NIB G22? One can only imagine. What's the vacuum chamber and pressure chamber for?

Yes, though the ceramic stone will remove metal pretty quickly, which isn't necessarilly desired. However, if you're considering stoning trigger parts, the amount of metal to be removed should be obvious. Otherwise, be prepared to replace some parts as you learn. Not a big deal really as most parts are cheap. Just be prepared for doubles or full-auto when testing. I stoned everything in mine using a soft, then hard Arkansas stone. Afterwards, I polished everything with the dremel using a felt bob and white rouge. The results are quite acceptable.

I failed to qualify my statement. In my experience, it seems that most people find the 34/35 easier to control, though there seems to be a significant number of shooters that prefer the 17/22 and find it easier to shoot. From a rational perspective it would seem obvious that the longer barrel and slide has less of a recoil impulse. However, without an empirical measurement it would be difficult to qualify how significant the difference would be. In the absence of that, it really just depends on feel. That still doesn't address the fact that there are other handling characteristics aside from recoil that may impact a person's preference. After shooting the 35 for a while, I find that the 22 just seems to be too "flippy" for my taste. It also seems to point better for me.

I shoot a G35 and have shot a G22. As I see it, there are only two relevant differences. The G35 is much more controllable than the G22, so it's more suited to competition. The G22 is much cheaper than the G35. I'm not the kind of guy that gives a damn whether I buy used or not. If it's not used when I get it, it's certainly going to be after a couple of months. With that in mind, G35s are hard to find used and are still pretty expensive when they can be found. One can get a LEO trade-in on a G22 for way less than $400.

My point earlier was that all of the drills that I've ever purchased from Home Depot have been complete and utter crap compared to the lowest-end tooling from a real metalworking supply shop. I once had to drill something like 240 3/16" holes in a relatively thin piece of stainless. This was on a weekend, so I went to HD, spent some time looking at their entire selection and picked up a couple of the most expensive TiN coated, cobalt steel drills that I could find. They lasted for about 10 holes. The following week I drove over to Rutland Tool and picked up a handful of imported HSS drill bits. The first one I tried lasted for the entire duration, though it was spent by the time I was finished. I've had a number similar experiences that correlate with this one. If you get tooling from HD, it may work once, but definitely not more than that. I prefer the idea of getting a heavier return spring. That's what I did. I speculate that the angle of the force of the spring in the stock holes is necessary for consistent and reliable operation.

Kevin, you aren't pompous at all. In fact, you're quite the opposite. I generally chafe a bit when people give advice as though it's the final word on a subject. I find that it's much more palatable coming from someone that qualifies it by saying something like, "This is what works for me..." You're also a damned nice guy and I appreciate all the help you've given me at the range. Economy of motion is obviously essential to a fast reload, which was basically the source of my question. My rationale was that I didn't see the greater economy in leaving the gun up high versus bringing it down and meeting the magazine with it. What I failed to account for is the inertia of the gun. If the gun had no mass, then I suspect that it might be faster to meet the magazine with it. In reality, that's not the case. There's no head-beating here. I've just started this game and I'm simply trying to develop the component skills necessary to be competitive. I got to the point where I needed to develop a training regimen for reloading and I wanted to make sure that I was doing it right. I'm not really dealing with an injury so much as just experiencing simple muscle soreness that caused a certain movement to be slightly uncomfortable, which in turn caused me to subconsciously avoid it. This just highlights the fact that I'm not stretching enough after rock climbing which can be quite taxing on certain muscle groups. A beneficial aspect to climbing is that I've developed good hand strength which aids in recoil control. When I first started practicing reloads, I did it with empty magazines. I was able to float the magazine home pretty quickly. When I tried this in live-fire I discovered that I wasn't using enough force to seat the magazine, which caused me to have to smack it a second time. Doing this probably cost me another second on the reload. The best way that I know to overcome that is to practice with magazines full of dummy rounds. So far, any time I've shot to slide-lock during a stage the release has been triggered when I slammed the fresh magazine in. Granted, I've only done this a few times, but I consider it to be a bonus in USPSA. If I've shot to slide-lock, I've already lost a great deal of time, if slamming the mag in doesn't release the slide then it would only take just a little longer to flip the release and reacquire my grip.

There are two types of drills that are commonly used for making holes in hardened steel. One would use either cobalt steel or carbide. Coatings simply increase the life of the drill. I buy all of my drills from Rutland Tool which is a machining supply house with good prices. They have both premium American-made tooling as well as cheaper imported stuff. I have found that even the cheaper imported HSS drills are still way better than anything that I've ever purchased from a hardware store like Home Depot including cobalt drills with fancy coatings. I've got a DeWalt drill index that I carry around with my cordless drill that had a bunch of coated drills that were simply crap. I replaced them all with cheap HSS drills for about $5 and I've yet to wear one out. http://www.shoprutlandtool.com If you go there, you'll probably want to get a cobalt steel, TiN coated drill bit in your size of choice which will probably run a couple of dollars. You could also use carbide, but a good drill press is required. If there's any sort of runout in the chuck then it will shatter a carbide drill.

Inova T3 is a nice alternative to a surefire. It has an 85 Lumen 3W Luxeon emitter and takes two CR123 lithium batteries. It's made of aluminum, is HA-III anodized and costs about $50.

I'm sure the Vanek trigger is great, but at $235 with shipping I'm not sure it's essential to be competitive with a Glock 35 in Limited. Polishing and a new set of springs with yield a decent 2.5-3Lb trigger. It might be wiser to spend that money on a decent belt, holster, and mag pouches.

I've spent a lot of time practicing this the past couple of days and it's harder than it seems. If I don't focus on getting the gun up and seeing into the chute I tend to get lax and start reloading by feel at about shoulder level. Then I start missing with the magazine and it all just goes to hell from there. Watching that Travis Tomasie video has helped a great deal, though.

I just did about a thousand. I was just trying to get the technique down, so I wasn't using a par timer. I read this in an earlier thread and have put it into practice, though not consistently. It has helped, but I think it will be more useful in live-fire when transitioning off of targets. Right now, I'm mostly just focused on getting the mag in the gun. I've also read a great deal about "seeing" the mag into the well. I've added a white stripe to the inside of the magwell to give something to focus on during the reload. After practicing this for a couple hours, I think I now understand why the actual movement of reloading up high is faster. It is apparent, that the less the gun moves, the faster the reload is going to be. I assume that this is the result of inertia from the mass of the gun. When pulling the gun down low with the strong hand I can't develop the same hand speed as I can with the weak hand going for the magazine. My initial hesitation to employ this technique comes as a result of the fact that reloading in front of my face puts a couple of muscles into tension that are constantly sore from rock climbing twice a week. A little stretching fixed that right up. I still need to practice this a lot more before it becomes automatic. The Tomasie video really helped with the specific details of the technique. Tomorrow, I'll try to post a video and see if I can get a critique.

It doesn't take any longer to load from the hip than from the buckle. While the length of time it takes may not be significant enough to affect the overall reload time, I think that it is very likely that it does take some additional time. What Shred said is very acurate, getting back on target is much easier with the gun high. That seems like a perfectly reasonable conclusion, but it's not a problem for me yet. Right now, I'm struggling to shoot as fast as I can see, but I doubt that will continue to be the case. Once I have the basic skills down I'll probably reach a plateau where it will become more important to see faster. Thus the nature of my question. I need to ingrain a technique without the benefit of experience to know which technique is best. You can get the gun in the mag before the ejected mag hits your belt with some practice, it's getting the gun on target that is simpler if the gun is high. Less movement = lots of good stuff. The mroe movement you add to the reload the easier it is to screw something up. Watch TT Very little movement = very freaking fast, and he can load as fast from the hip also. I agree that economy of motion is crucial, that's an excellent point. My major concern is the speed at which one can get the mag to the gun. Based on your comments and videos that I've seen, it seems like that becomes a non-issue with practice. The getting the mag to the gun quicker theory doesn't hold much water with me, because you can have the mag to the mag well before the old mag falls out with some practice from the hip. As I stated, it's a deduction, not a theory. I made the deduction based on my reasoning which I suspected was flawed. Now I'm trying to find out why it's flawed. If you asked me to posit a theory then I would contend that reloading to the high position is faster because it seems to be the more widely accepted technique among the most skilled shooters, but I couldn't explain why. Some people load good low, but it is much more complicated, especially since you can't see the mag well. Seeing is fast and consistant. The obvious conclusion at this point is that I should probably choose to ingrain the technique that is more widely accepted, but that still doesn't satisfy my curiosity. If reloading high is the faster technique, I'd still like to understand precisely why. From what I gather, the component movements of the reload aren't necessarilly any faster, but the high reload is more reliable and target acquisition following the reload is faster.

The grain structure of steel is entirely dependent on the heat treatment and tempering process and can't be seen with the naked eye. Any time one can see "grain" in a steel part, that's likely the results of voids in the cast or molded part.

I've already seen the video and while it's apparent that Tomasie is extraordinarily fast, it isn't apparent to me how reloading up high is faster and much more efficient. Of note is the fact that he is reloading from a mag pouch near his belt buckle. Since I'm reloading from a mag pouch behind the hip bone it takes a bit longer to get the mag up and I deduce that if I bring the gun down to meet the mag, I can get it into the gun sooner. I have no doubt that my deduction is probably wrong given that people will generally choose to use what works, and this question would have been resolved empirically with the use of a timer. I just want to know why it's probably wrong.

I've only been interested in shooting competitively and training for almost two months now, so this question may be more appropriate for the beginners forum. I have been practicing a great deal and feel that I've been making some pretty good progress. Working with a timer in live-fire, my draws are around 1-1.1s and splits and transitions are around .22s. Unfortunately, my reloads are lagging behind at about 1.7-1.8s if I don't botch them. I'm shooting a G35 with the intent to shoot production, so I'm not using a magwell. I intend to start practicing reloads very seriously and I'm concerned about ingraining bad technique. Since I haven't been doing this very long, I haven't acquired any training references like Brian's book or Matt's videos. Mostly, I've been using information found on the Internet and in these forums. I've searched for the answer to my question and read every topic on reloading that I can find, but there's a dearth of information on reloading technique. Currently, I reload with the gun down around my solar plexus and I've been told that I need to get the gun up higher. After doing a lot of reading on the subject I have found that to be the common wisdom. What I don't fully realize is how that would be faster and I haven't been able to find any support for the assertion that it is. I understand that it keeps the eyes up near the target, but I've got pretty good visual acuity, so I don't think that would really buy me much time. I can also see how it might be quicker to simply push the gun straight back out, but I also don't see how that would save much time versus pushing the gun up and out from a lower position. I started reloading in a lower position because it seemed reasonable to me that it would be faster to bring the gun down to meet the magazine as it is coming out of the pouch. There is another issue that is a physiological one. For some reason I have a limited range of motion in my shoulder such that reloading to a higher position is slightly uncomfortable, not painful at all, but the muscles aren't as relaxed as I would like. I am certain that I could overcome that with some flexibility training. My question is essentially this: How is reloading to a higher position faster than reloading from a lower position and would it be worthwhile to ingrain that technique? Any advice is appreciated.

I'm in the process of building a trailer myself. I've over-engineered it because I wanted to avoid a bunch of complicated math, but it still only weighs 1500# with the running gear.

I want whatever high-speed video gear they're using to slow that down.

I use 3M Outdoor Tread. I found it at a Home Depot. It can be located along with all the other types of tape in the paint section. I know that it comes in grey, but you'll have to check to see if your local HD carries that color.

The acquisition of skill to accomplish a given task is a well researched phenomena in the area of cognitive science. Shooting a stage well is a very complex task that can be trained for in several different ways to develop skills in all the necessary components. I don't think that visualization alone will help one acquire much skill, but it can supplement other training with some benefit. A trigger job might help to some degree, it depends on the stock trigger. Some are initially very good, and some are gritty and stack badly. A friend just bought a G23 which has an excellent stock trigger that breaks very nicely. I wasn't so fortunate when I bought my G35. If the trigger isn't very smooth, it can be distracting and annoying. If that's the case, a quick polish should fix things right up. That said, the only thing that will fix the low-and-to-the-left syndrome is a great deal of dryfire practice. I had the same problem with my G35, so much so that I suspected that my sights were broken. Some slow-fire from a rest proved that it was just poor trigger control.

Kevin, I appreciate your response, that and an earlier thread that you posted to, where a couple of folks indicated their direct experience with this phenemona helped me come to the conclusion that the risk of occurence isn't insignificant. Although I can't find any kind of reference to this happening in a Glock, it seems likely enough to occur that I will change my procedure. In the world of firearms, there are a lot of people that hold opinions about things very strongly. Generally speaking, these folks will be more than willing to share their opinions and expect others to accept those opinions as fact. Unfortunately, I'm too skeptical to accept an unsubstantiated opinion as true or likely, particularly from those that I don't know well. With this in mind, an opinion flatly stated isn't very helpful for most people. For example, Flexmoney's statement that it "happens often enough" wouldn't be very helpful at all if I hadn't already read these forums a great deal and developed a certain amount of respect for his opinion. The RO this weekend was eager to offer a great deal of unsolicited advice in such an ardent way that I became disinclined to accept it. During the UASC he yelled at me a bit, which startled me and caused me to believe that I had broken the 180 or done something equally bad. His disproportionate response caused me to be even more skeptical, thus the need for research on the topic.

I got chastised by an RO at Richmond yesterday for cupping my hand over the ejector port and racking the round out into my hand. I've never heard of an actual incident of an ejector detonation. What is the likelihood that it could occur?

There are really only a few options here: The first option is to treat the trigger like it's some mysterious voodoo and hope it gets better with time. It may or may not, but you won't be able to predict the outcome, because it is mysterious voodoo and cannot be understood. The second option would be to take the trigger apart and study it, try to understand how it differs from stock and what a Vanek trigger job actually comprises. Once you understand it, polish it and try not to mess it up in the process. The last option is to take a more cavalier approach and polish the damn thing, after all, it's only a couple hundred bucks. Good luck with your trigger.

I've re-shaped the nose on my trigger bar a bit. I've got about a thousand rounds through it so far. I'll let you guys know when it goes full auto. The trigger pull is a bit longer as a result and the effort is reduced. I reset the trigger, but I still prefer the 3Lb connector with a longer reset and reduced effort over the 5Lb connector and increased effort.