FayettevilleFatKid

The Safariland USPSA Adapter Kit has a belt loop attachment on it but that can be removed and the anger screwed to the belt using the mounting holes in the belt. Is this production legal or does the loop have to be used? I have seen it referenced being done with the 014 holster in limited but nothing about Production. A search and check of the rule book yielded nothing to make me think it was illegal.

Since your rear sight is still all the way down you will have to decide if a 15 yd slightly above center hold zero is acceptable. Assuming your second group was the more representative one. You will be higher still at 20 and even more so at 25. Heavier weight bullets than what you zero'd with should also be higher. So you have to determine what you need. And more importantly than any of that, what 9x45 said about the fundamentals, put up some bulls and worry about size of groups instead of location of them first.

That's a call you have to make. What position is your rear sight in?

I zero standing unsupported as well. The only reason I asked if you were zeroing supported, especially the hard surface, is if it was influencing your POI.

If you are shooting slow fire, correctly aligning sights with each other and the aiming point, manipulating the trigger without disturbing that alignment, and following through on the shot? No. Stance and grip are not that big of a deal for pure precision. For proof of that look at the crypt keepers shooting bullseye. You either have an improper equipment selection, fundamentals, gun/sights manufacture issue. The sights you have are within Dawson's recommendations so it's not improper equipment selection. Assuming your fundamentals are sound you either have a sight (manufacture/installation) or gun issue. Only things it can be. Now if you are firing fast sustained fire that grip is definitely not going to help. The 2 locked thumbs grip in your pictures was recommended for revolvers back in the day but a variation of the Shaw grip like 9x45 suggested will definitely be superior with your 34. One last thing, when you tried to zero did you have the gun rested directly on a hard surface?

Thaunk, if I did derail your thread I apologize. My intent was to help by saying: 1. If your Dawson is bottomed out and that high at 10 yds it is going to take a lot of added height to fix it. Enough so that, 2. if you are grouping well, I would think it is possible your gun is having the same issues as mine. Which in my experience is apparently not unheard of in at least some more recent guns and, 3. you may consider some other issues causing this beyond the sights such as barrel (what barrel is in your gun?), locking block, etc. The .300 is a pretty darn tall sight already and going even taller introduces issues of its own. If you aren't grouping well this stuff may not apply but not knowing you there is no way I would assume or lead off with that. In addition, I should put out the disclaimer that I am NOT saying the guns I spoke of are out of spec for service pistols. I just don't think a gun near the limits of the acceptable specs for a service pistol would satisfy most people on this forum. In fact I don't even know what these specs would even be but when most people shoot Minute of Volkswagen I doubt they are that tight...

I think the windage issue is going to just be on us. We spent years fighting the whole "Glocks hit left for me...no, it's you pushing on the frame or trigger control...can you just move my sights?...no, it's you. I already verified your gun. You are shooting a 12" group 6" left, I ain't moving anything, it's you" battle only to have to move sights on probably 90% of these guns. "No you weren't right about the sights being off before man,you do suck!! I only moved the impact 2" you were hitting 7" left so quit arguing!!" A very few were on an extreme that did require absolutely all the way right but none that were not able to be zeroed. But in my recent experience I absolutely wouldn't doubt or question your adjustment being true at all, even if you had said it was more extreme...

He was as surprised as us. With the 40s we had generally noticed a POA/POI at 25 or maybe 2" high and no need to drift rear sights for people that can shoot. These guns almost all hit left, some significantly. They have been good about working with us to resolve it. But I definitively think there are more than 1 or 2 guns out there that will display this. Which if he is grouping Thaunks may very well be. My theory is a really loose barrel unlocking too soon but that is just my theory. As an aside the guns all ran like sewing machines and the 19s and 26s exhibited none of this. No idea about Zev sights but I know the Dawson adjustables on my 17 are nearly bottomed out with a .300 as well. And on that gun I use a 6 o'clock zero on the B8 so it hits about 3-3 1/2 high at 25. I don't think it will adjust far enough if I wanted to switch to a center hold. Which makes me think their recommendations maybe aren't geared towards my zero distance or something. And the rear adjustables are pretty darn tall to begin with. And I think my gun is a combo of both of those factors.

My agency issued Gen 3 35s/22s, then Gen 4 35s/22s and now Gen 4 34s/17s. In June I coordinated and issued the 9 mil guns. About 500 guns total. All guns had factory installed night sights and across the board they hit high at 25, again, between 2 to 8". NRA B8 bulls and yes I know how cops shoot, this wasn't verified by run of the mill LEOs. There also seemed to be a significant amout of lateral deviation we havent seen before requiring sights to be pushed. Currently with factory support I am experimenting with 17L rear sights due to this issue. Approximately 30 Gen 4 19s and 10 Gen 4 26s we received at the same time with the same sights aren't affected and my personal 34 is a blue label gun purchased from a local dealer 6 months prior.

I know when I did the math on Dawson's Web site to move my gun to a center hold at 25 was going to require moving to like a .350 and that would have still required my rear to be bottomed out. I would think the shorter zero distance would be even worse. Not only the holster issues, but what I don't like regarding the really tall sight is the range of vertical deviation you can have compared to a shorter sight.

I could be wrong without doing the math but I don't think the .300 is going to be enough for 2" to 3" at 10 yards. I am currently dealing with a problematic 34 myself. Dawson adjustable rear bottomed out and the .300 at 25 yards and I am 6.5" high with factory 147s. With 115s I am about 4.5" high. Just dealt with about 30 new 34s also and they ranged from about 2" high at best to 8" high at worst at 25 with factory night sights. I have tried switching out different factory locking blocks with no success. If I put my work 34 barrel in my personal gun it drops the POI about 2". Currently I have a match fit bar sto on order and am hoping that will drop it because I really don't want to go any taller than the .300.

Is the Jager extended SS guide rod USPSA Production legal? Or is it just a matter of making weight?

Just got a Meopta R1 K-Dot. Do you guys just zero on the dot or is there any kind of special zero, i.e. using the top of the vertical line, etc? And no, I'm not stupid just curious...

Not really...maybe use a classifier system like USPSA and average scores annually? The only reason I ask is that I am currently trying to get my departments shooting team started back up and from what I have seen most cops will not pay there own money to shoot. Most consider it akin to paying to work. It seems that departments will only really pay for there cops to compete against other cops, largely for bragging rights and recruitment purposes. If my chief can say "5 of last years Governors 20 were my guys" instead of he is more likely to fund a team.

Is there any chance of applying something along the lines of the Governor's 20 thing to this?