Duane Thomas
-
Posts
11,766 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Duane Thomas
-
-
After reassessing everything / everyone’s input, it has to be the 13-lb recoil spring being too weak for the 130 PF loads I made.
I assume you meant your recoil spring was too strong, not too weak, yes?
-
Jet, obviously your load is too light for your recoil spring. You have two choices: either drop spring weight or bump the load. In your place I'd bump the load but that's just me.
-
If you do go to a lighter recoil spring, be careful that the striker spring is also lightened. Since the two work in opposition to each other, a stock striker spring may overcome the light recoil spring and bring the slide out of battery as the trigger is pulled.
No offense, but this is one of those things that a lot of people "know" to be true that ain't necessarily. I've run a stock firing pin spring with an ISMI 13-pound recoil spring in the past, and am currently doing so right now, as a matter of fact, with no problems.
-
We're already light.
-
Obviously the guns got all confused and didn't know which way to swim.
-
John Belushi: Samurai IDPAman.
-
Basically you place the target as much closer as it is smaller than a real target. For instance if it's a 1/2 size target and you want to simulate a full-size target at 30 feet, you place it two times closer, or half the distance: in this case, 15 feet. If it's a 1/3 target, you place it three times closer: 10 feet. If it's a 1/6 target, you place it six times closer: 5 feet. You get the idea.
-
Merged threads on IDPA mini-targets, and pinned to the top of the forum for easy assess to future users.
-
Apparently some people have had problems, on guns with the standard serrations which go from the top of the slide all the way down to the bottom, with the bottom part of the serrations abrading their shooting hand thumb with a high thumbs grip. I am not one of those people. However the idea behind the fish gill serrations was to get around that possibility. With the fish gills you don't have to worry (if you did worry) about the standard serrations abrading the thumb because now they're not a series of longitudinal cuts into the metal (in effect, if not actuality, a series of raised and lowered "teeth"), they're a series of semicircular lozenges that are actually inset (for all practical) purposes) into the metal and don't come down to the bottom of the slide.
Personally I think the fish gills look goofy as hell and have no use for them. Then again, if I was one of that small number of people getting their thumbs chewed up by the standard serrations I'm sure I'd like the fish gills one hell of a lot more than I do.
-
I didn't know they sold small bags of pork rinds.
Only for those sad individuals who don't have the level of manliness - or Southerness, which is of course a synonym - to handle the large bags.
-
The added mass of the G34 versus G17 slide is a whopping 0.88 ounce so I rather doubt that's it. I would say that what's happened is that, by the time the Gen-4 G34 came around, Glock had time to get the 9mm recoil spring assembly sorted out, after a series of trial and error misstarts with the G17.
-
No, I get what you're saying. You're saying that in your experience and opinion it's harder to shoot a 1911 .45 in CDP than a Glock 9mm in SSP, thus the times to make rank on the classifier should be tighter for SSP than CDP, when the opposite is actually the way it is.
It may all go back to, when those original "Master" testers were shooting the classifier, a lot of them were hardcore 1911 guys who were very grooved-in on firing a 1911 .45, but a DA/SA or DAO auto on the other hand....not so much.
-
Try measuring the feed lips on all your mags and see if the feed lips on the offending mag are considerably larger. If so, tweak the mag until it matches all the others, that should solve your problem. Alternately send it back to Dawson and let them do it for you; I'm sure they'd be happy to rectify things for you.
-
The Gen-4 is a mixed bag, as far as I'm concerned. There are four areas in which the gun is different from Gen-3: grip, magazine release button, trigger components, and recoil spring assembly. These are just my opinions, for what use you might be able to get from them:
(1) Grip. I like it. The Gen-4 texturing is immensely more secure in my hands than Gen-3, even when the latter has grip tape appplied. Also the "naked" Gen-4 grip, i.e. no extra backstrap laid over it, is considerably smaller than the Gen-3 grip. I don't have particularly large hands and the Gen-4 fits me much better.
(2) Magazine release button. I also like it. The much larger button allows me to execute much more positive mag changes with much less shifting of the gun in my hand. It's better in this regard than even a Gen-3 extended button, in my experience.
(3) Trigger components. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, as far as I'm concerned. After testing my Gen-4 G17 article sample gun I pulled out the Gen-4 trigger bar (retained the trigger module housing, natch, gotta have that since a Gen-3 won't fit into the Gen-4 frame) and replaced the trigger bar with Gen-3 but that was only because I had that part on hand already polished. Also dumped the factory 5.5 pound connector for a pre-polished 4.5, of course.
(4) Recoil spring assembly. I don't particularly care for the Gen-4 recoil spring assembly, at least in 9mm. It makes a lot of sense in .40 S&W in a Glock, and I could certainly see its sense in .357 SIG, and even .45 ACP or .45 Glock. But in 9mm? It's not needed. Also it doesn't allow changing the recoil spring weight to my preferred poundage to tune the recoil characteristics to my preference. Fortunately we have the Jager guide rod system (and ISMI 13-pound recoil springs) to deal with that problem.
For myself, I've made the switch to Gen-4 G17 in my carry gun, and I compete with my carry piece. If I was contemplating purchase of a G34 for competition I would go Gen-4 for the smaller grip and better mag release button. But that's just me. And the gun would have to have a Jager guide rod.
-
If I could find a factory gun that was that tightly fitted I would thank my lucky stars. And start buying lottery tickets before the mojo wears off.
-
Interesting fact (I think), the first tool room prototype of what would eventually become the M1900 was originally put together by Browning in 1895. Though we think of the 1911 because of the designation as an early 20th Century design, it actually had its roots in the late 19th Century.
-
According to Bill Wilson, when I interviewed him for an article shortly after IDPA was formed, the way they came up with the Master level times in the different divisions was to have a bunch of people they considered handgun Masters fire the classifier with various guns and then averaged their performances.
-
Our host Brian Enos has said that in his experience, which is immense (my comment there at the last, not his) when you take into account cartridge type (.40 or .45) and magazine configuration (single or double stack), from easiest to make the gun work 100 percent of the time at the top down to hardest at the bottom, it goes like this:
.45 Single Stack
.40 Double Stack
.40 Single Stack
.45 Double Stack
I know a couple of people who have gone the .40 S&W route for USPSA Single Stack. They both had to go through a long (I mean years long) process of sorting out the gun before it would work. Admittedly when they were done they both had very nice guns that worked well. Also admittedly they both started out with factory guns versus having their guns built from the ground up.
If you're not willing, or able, to have your gun built from the get-go by a top 'smith who knows how to make a .40 single stack run, you are probably going to find a .45 considerably less problematic.
-
But of course, if the 1911 was meant to be anything besides 45acp that's how JMB would have made them!
Actually, John Moses Browning originally chambered the design that would in time evolve into the 1911 in .38 ACP (dimensionally identical to .38 Super, which is simply a higher pressure .38 ACP). The design was only rechambered to .45 ACP at the Army's insistence, it was not at Browning's preference. So if you want to make the "this gun should be chambered only in what John Browning intended" argument, then all our single stack 1911s should be chambered in .38 ACP - or maybe .38 Super if you want to go for the readily available modern version instead of the original obsolete cartridge.
-
A heat gun (what they use to soften and mold kydex at the holster companies themselves) costs around $24 at your local hardware store.Much less expensive than buying a new holster, and, if you get into kydex holsters much at all, you'll find yourself using it again and again over the years. It's a good thing to have.
-
Ah. It will be interesting to see them meet again.
-
I ran a .245" on both my G17 and G34, and both hit POI/POA at 50 feet from the bench. But that's just me.
-
Damn, I'm good.
And modest.
-
Because rubber recol spring buffers are EEVILLLL.
Help! Brass from Minor handloads not extracting from Glock 35 .40
in Glock
Posted
No problemo, bay-bee.