Gryff

Thanks guys!

Posted this question after searching with Google. Lots of USPSA confirmations on making weight, but can't find details for the IDPA limit.

IDPA CO division lists a 45oz. max weight for gun plus empty mag. The Q5 SF spec lists weight as 41.5 ozs. empty. Is there an RDS that will make weight on this gun for that division?

My MPX runs like a charm when I feed it bulk commercial ammo like Winchester White Box or Blazer Brass. It does not like my soft 147 competition handloads, and in all honesty, I have no need to feed it softer ammo. Because of the current ammo crisis, I'm trying to create a load that attempts to achieve the reliability of this economy ammo for use in my MPX and my wife's Glocks. I intend to also use it when I do some of my firearms instruction with new shooters. I picked up some 115gr. 9mm Bayou Bullets and worked up a load with Titegroup that seems to provide adequate power/pressure for the MPX. The problem is that the first two rounds didn't feed smoothly and had to be mortared out of the chamber. Both came out with a dent in the nose from feeding. I was able run a few mags worth through the gun successfully after that, but I'm worried that the bullet shape/ogive is not optimum for the gun. When I compared the shape of these to WWB and Blazer Brass, I see that the ogive is sharper on the commercial ammo, so the bullet is longer. Per the reloading references, I am supposed to load mine to 1.1 OAL while the commercial stuff measures out at 1.4. I tried seating the Bayous at 1.4 but they failed the plunk test on a Glock 34 (which is another gun these are intended for). At 1.1 they pass the plunk test in the G34. So, my question is whether anyone knows a coated 115gr. bullet that has a sharper ogive than Bayou's, or what is your recipe if you've loaded coated 115s successfully for your MPX.

I was wondering the same thing. Is the Dawson sight noticeably narrower?

I have about 500-600 rounds through it at this point. I'm a long-time striker-fired pistol guy, but not a novice with DA/SA guns. I've shot stock CZs, as well as ones fully worked over by Cajun. So, I'm pretty comfortable with the delta between where it is now versus where it could theoretically be taken. It's a damn good gun, but I see how it could benefit from a few tweaks. Just wanted to find out what people think those minor mods should be.

Recently bought an S2 and I would like to improve the gun (within reason). Not interested in sending it off to CZC or CGW...just want to do what I can with DIY upgrades that require no (or very minute) gunsmithing. Given those constraints, what would experienced users of Shadow 2s suggest I look at with my gun? Input appreciated.

Happy answers. Thank you!

Anybody know if the RRK forces you to use Federal primers in your ammo? Or are the harder primers like CCI still viable?

Ack. Just reading about that now. Not good (although they said the X5 with flat trigger does not appear to have the problem). https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2017/08/07/video-sig-p320-dramatically-fails-drop-test/?utm_source=FbMain

Nope. It's a good trigger. But like any other striker-fired production gun, it isn't a "custom" trigger. A good shooter can make do with it as is. Or it can be modified by a smith or enhancement kit to work better for a shooter's skill set.

I'm not optimistic. I can see Sig saying that the X5 is a special product that is degraded when not purchased as a complete unit. Therefore it will never be available as a conversion kit. I like my P320, but Sig works hard to change my mind about that.

More importantly, will the X5 be available as a kit for existing 320 users? Or when they said that it was a modular system, were they only kidding (kind of like with the .45acp option)?

Sanctioned match officials are not the same as organization officials. This is like a someone okaying a new-to-market mod at a regional match equipment check, but then NROI later announces the mod is not legal. That at being said, I do agree that the sport has a tried-and-true history of inconsistency. IMO, this is one of the problems with it being a privately owned entity. The membership is not entitled to having a say in any of the decision making process.

$120? LOL.