Thanks for the tip. I have been using a bandage, which does reduce the wear on the thumb, but was looking to eliminate the cause.

Thanks for the info, I have never seen a lever like the Keres, looks like it would be a good solution. I have one on order. Can't find the leverless takedown lever, but I think the Keres will work.

echotango: "Why not file/sand it down or fill the serrations? Have you tried the gg gp? It might hit your thumb differently and fix the issue." jaep1911: "Yup, I bet you won’t have that issue with the gg gp. I don’t. The thumb sits right above the pivot." Thanks for the suggestions, I tried the GG GP, and it is a little better.

Thanks for the update. Picked up some N320 also . Graf's has N320, N340, 3N38, and a couple other Vihtavuori powders available this morning.

Seems like along the frame, below the slide, is the only place to put it. Higher it rides on the slide, lower it gets near the trigger. Is there a better place?

Filing down the serrations would not help, the bottom of the stock lever has a curve which is also part of the problem. The best solution would be having the lever on the right side, but I have never seen one. I will try anything. Will give the GP a try.

With a normal grip, my left thumb is next to the takedown lever. The stock lever chews up the side of the thumb when shooting. I have tried a couple replacement levers, and they provide a better rest for the thumb. However, when shooting, the lever rotates down (clockwise) about 1/2 inch, because the end of the thumb is behind the pivot point. I have looked for a smooth replacement lever but have not found one. Changing the grip to place the thumb far enough forward to be in front of the pivot point is not possible, without making the left hand mostly useless gripping the rest of the firearm. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Precision Delta has 9mm 115gr, 124gr, and 147gr FMJ and JHP available this morning. https://www.precisiondelta.com/products/bullets/9mm/

Placed the order for 2K 124gr JHP Wednesday, came in the mail today. My orders from PD have always been shipped promptly.

Thanks for the notice. Ordered 2K, the 124 JHP have always worked well in my guns. 147 FMJ is also in stock at PD tonight.

Tore a calf muscle a few years ago. Seemed like not much healing the first couple weeks, then it became noticeably stronger every week. Physical therapy 3X a week seemed to help. Not much you can do to speed up the recovery, but be very careful with it, easy to reinjure the muscle before it is fully recovered. Good luck.

Thanks for bring up another sight type, Heinie. Unfortunately, the only sights for the MOS seem to be the large suppressor style, as shown it the picture above.

Thanks for the information, I had not looked at 10-8 before. The website shows one rear sight which might work, but I prefer a square rear notch over a U shaped notch.. I looked at the Sevigny website at: https://sevignyperformance.com/2020/01/defense-tritium-and-target-fiber-optic-sights/ but did not see any regular sights for the MOS, just suppressor height sights. Is there a better website for other Sevigny sights?

Looking for sights for my gen5 Glock 34 MOS. The only ones I can find made for the MOS are Dawson's: https://dawsonprecision.com/dawson-precision-glock-gen5-g34-mos-fixed-non-co-witness-sight-set/ All of the sights I have looked at, Warren, Sevigny, Vogel, etc...seem to be for earlier model glock 34s. Are there any other similar sights made for the gen5 Glock 34 MOS? I am trying to find a black/fiber optic front sight, and a black rear sight, with a wide and deep notch.

IMHO - best comment on this thread. I like shooting both with friends, and also shooting with different shooters. Occasionally I have been stuck on a squad with unfriendly jerks, but fortunately it doesn't happen very often. Doesn't seem to make a difference on how I shoot, but it is much more enjoyable to spend the time with good people, which is the majority of shooters.

Looks like it is being relisted. https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/882783190

Ideally, the score keeper would opposite of the RO, and have a different view of the shooter during the course of fire, but frequently the scorekeeper is scoring targets, and sees even less than the RO. I understand this is done to reduce the amount of time spent on the stage by each squad, and it is allowed by 9.6.2: "The Range Official responsible for a course of fire may stipulate that the scoring process will begin while a competitor is actually completing a course of fire....", however it usually eliminates the score keeper from assisting the RO, as they will be behind the RO.

I appreciate all of the replies. As far as I know, the other shooter was not an RO, I have seen him shoot at other matches, but have never seen him with a timer or tablet.

I was looking in the interference/coaching/DQ sections, but did not find anything which directly applied. 7.1.1 specifically says the RO assigns penalties, which a DQ definitely is. Thanks for the rule reference.

I completely agree with anyone calling stop if they see an unsafe condition. Also agree with the RO having the shooter unload and holster, then seeing what happened.

There was a DQ at a recent level 1 match which I don’t think was handled correctly. The shooter had just shot around the right side of a wall, was moving right to left, and a little forward, and reloading while moving. The RO had been on the shooter’s right rear while he was shooting, and was moving to cross behind the shooter, and be on his left side, as the next position was shooting around the left side of a wall. I was on deck, standing uprange and left of the shooter and RO. When the shooter reloaded, I saw muzzle get close to the 180. I am not sure if it went past or not, but it looked close. STOP! STOP! STOP! – Called out from behind me. The shooter stopped, and the RO had the shooter unload and holster. The other person came forward and told the RO the shooter had broken the 180, and needed to be stopped. The RO said he did not see it, but the other person was insistent “it was bad” and “definitely a DQ”. The shooter was newer, and accepted the DQ. 10.5.2 clearly describes the condition for the DQ, but does not specifically state who can issue the DQ. 10.3.2 just says the RO must record the reason for the DQ. IMHO, if the RO did not see the violation, and there was a question if it occurred or not, there should not have been a DQ, and the shooter should have been given a reshoot. Any opinions on if this was handled correctly are appreciated.

Just joined today. Will probably be reading more than posting for awhile, quite a good bit of information here.