Snoopy47

I don't know your country or means to get another firearm. So where I'm going with my comment is, do you need such dramatic work to actually be done to maintain the competitiveness of the gun, when that work itself is hard to find someone who can do it, and will be doing it for the first time, may or may not know how the gun should function when finished, and replacing the gun could end up being very difficult. I'm Californian so those thoughts fill my mind every single time I'm in search of a gun smith. Most these folks here have access to smiths if they needed the work, and most of them here would probably just put the gun up for sale if they felt it wasn't up to their expectations and then buy another one. I understand the consumer need/desire to "hot rod" out our personal possessions. When we are limited to fewer guns the ones we have tend to get too much attention (i.e. what can I modify/improve next?). Many here are spoiled (even a Californian) and don't have guns that we are limited to that we end up shooting the life span out of the ones we own.

I have been successful (as far as one defines success) in making a G34 Open Gun work with reliable function (being defined as a Steel Challenge and USPSA matches without malfunction). Framed mounted Carver, with C-More slide ride Carver compensator 7 port (2 each side 3 along the top) which is a medium compensator. KKM barrel: which is probably a big contributor of my success. Other little parts here and there that are not OEM, but that's the heart of the build, KKM, Carver Comp, Carver mount, Cmore optic, I use a 13lb recoil spring and have no problem. I suspect, using an OEM trigger with OEM trigger return spring could contribute to having return to battery problems causing the need for a heavier spring to push the slide back into battery. 11lb spring did cause return to battery problems. I use a Timney trigger and negate some inner workings of the Glock OEM trigger design. ************* My sub Major and Major loads work fine. I use N350 and 3N38. I use 124FMJ and load to 1.16 OAL in OEM magazines. Again.......... I'm using a KKM barrel and I didn't even bother trying with anything else.

Do they disclose what barrel length they are using when getting the velocity they claim? What barrel length are you running?

So while I have a major and minor load for my Open gun, all my minor load is taking the edge off the major power factor. It's still a pretty hefty load as far as 9mm goes and that's to make the compensated gun function. If you are worried about steel falling you're talking revolver puff load realm here. Any semi auto load that functions the gun is going to knock down steel.

I went with a side mount. So I didn't change the relative location of the dot. If you move the mount forward it's going to be leveraged more during recoil. Think the worst place you could put your dot would in the on very front of the slide. The best location I think would be right where the wrist breaks. You want the Dot at the middle of the seesaw. Moving it forward isn't the ideal place for it. Now, you can tune around the gun with your load. I tried that a first and it worked, but it went away from a load that I preferred to have. So I was able to simply move the dot to the side, removed any overhanging obstruction from the ejection port, and go back to my preferred load.

It's kind of a weird evolution based on trying to circumvent the capacity limitations of the original presumption that Major PF could only be done by 45ACP. Someone got the bright idea of pushing 38/9mm super fast to meet the requirements of 45ACP power and ever since then 45ACP became uncompetitive with its capacity limitations. Totally agree............. USPSA/IPSC need to ask themselves "what are we trying to do here with Open". Does power factor need to be what it is, because originally it was intended to protect the caliber of 45ACP which it doesn't. Now that the sport and equipment has evolved and 45ACP has essentially been left behind do they want to encourage 45ACP, and define it by caliber and bullet weight? Do they want to make Open less of restrictive ballistic risk (a PF in line with typical cheap ammo) and see what can really be produced in the realm of fast flat shooting without all the ammo risk that goes into it. I mean not even all +P defense ammo makes major, and some that does wont always do it in all guns.

I bought a Maserati but it wasn't working out for my young kids' car seats, and going to scout camping trips in the hills on unpaved roads. So I had the interior redone to accommodate the space the kid seats take up, and had truck wheels and tires retrofitted to be more useful on trail roads. The transmission needed regearing too to accommodate the road conditions and tire/wheels as well. Wife still gets on me that I could have bought a used SUV for under $10K and still have the Maserati for fun.

But that's the game. I took me a little while to figure it out being hung up on Alphas. It depends on the total shot count, but generally it looks like for a slow "A" to beat a fast "C" the "A" shot has to be taken 1/3 second faster (maybe more) which is a lot over the course of fire. So in my experience it's not worth trying to make up a C. Now, yes, making up a M better be done if it's notice. Even a "D" can be picked up, but it's done so at a risk. So yea, if one notices a D, and can make an A quickly enough it's worth it, and there's usually the time for it, but if a C or D is the shot that was used to make it up, well then the score was just made worse.

I don't know how well of a shooter you are, but generally, what I find, that shooting problems are with shooting low as a result of flinching at the shot. As shooters get better they shot low less. A dramatic improvement in the trigger could also help you become a better shot, ergo, you are shooting better since you are not shooting as low as you have been. Just a thought.

I agree as well. I'm using a GLOCK with N350, and my ideal load is around 145-150PF. So it's probably the compensator port and gas combination driving most of that.

I think the most impressive observation is the compensator didn't go flying off. I'd expect periodic checking of tightness on the comp, but if it stays on for 300 rounds without torqueing down again that's a huge win. The semantics of the comp performance coupled with the slide and barrel and specific load configuration are generally semantics and all on the end user to flush out.

Lots of good loads to try. I do have quit a bit of powders and projectiles to choose from. I've mixed and matched just about everything. I'm finding how I hold the gun really drives how the load feels in my hand. As well, just testing a load at a range lane doesn't do it justice to actually running the load in an open stage. I don't know why, but it just doesn't seem it was what I tested (even when I'm using loads from the same batch). I suspect it's the static range lane with the cinder block lane walls and my from the bench death grip verses out in the open on a stage surrounded by nothing and a grip from the draw.

I was thinking about that. I'm very cheap on my brass. So I thought it might be the rim wear from too many uses. I would typically blame it on light charge throws, but I designed this load at 5.2gn N350 and then bumped it up to 5.4gn when I load with a progressive hopper to ensure it stays above 5.2 if it throws light. There's also a possibility I'm limp wristing it. My grip while in competition mode from the draw is far from my testing grip at the range just picking it up off the range table.

I nearly had a flawless run without malfunctions, but into the first two stages I had FTE's. On the first stage I was able to throw out the worst run, but the second stage it happened twice in two different runs and cost me a respectable score. All in all I had better ammo, and switched out the remainder of the match. I still had enough stages to push the worst one out of my classifier rating. So it didn't actually impact my overall Classification. I was disappointed not to get "B". I did have one stage at 63%, and was hopeful, but the remainder of them were 58-59, and one 63 wasn't going to shoulder the rest. Plus it was the first match of this kind for the gun, and my presentation on the first shot needs a lot a work and slow repetitions of what is "right". [img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51325117883_3ebf1ef585_c.jpg[/img] I think those three mishaps were just not QC'd rounds. After those screwed me on two stages I tapped into my box I was saving for a bigger match (I'll just have to make more). I had originally started with 1.16 OAL pushing the limits of the magazine size, and also used cheap S&B primers. I also didn't case gauge check the finished product. I also didn't individually weigh each charge (I just let the progressive hopper do it's thing). Since I'm not really using this gun in USPSA I've backed off on the load and my pet load is 155PF. I've also figured I can probably bring in the OAL a little down to 1.14 as well since I'm not pushing Major. Then, with the few Federal Primers I have, and then case gauge checking every single round I've not had problems with any of those productions. I'm most encourage because I "CAN" shot at the MASTER level. I have individual runs that do it. Just not 4 of them back to back at a single stage, and then not across all stages. Little by little I guess.

Well, I thought it was a pre war unpopular pistol caliber that found a place, but apparently it wasn't. It was part of the design to build a support carbine rifle type in WW2 that was flushed out in the process. I guess my confusion is around there doesn't seem to be a "regular" rifle in 30 caliber "carbine" cartridge. So I presumed it started out as an odd ball pistol caliber. Because there ARE rifle caliber carbines in 223 and 308, but those are stepped cases. Those started as traditional rifle lengths, and a 30 carbine projectile looks much like a pistol projectile with a straight walled case. So I thought, it literally was a pistol caliber (it can be, but didn't start that way). Unlike many "Carbines" that were originally rifles and cut down, or a previous rifle action used to make a carbine the M1 Carbine was designed from the beginning to be a carbine. It didn't use a previous popular caliber either. I guess the factory ammo power factor is pretty stout, but I'm sure my 30 carbine loads are lighter than my Open Gun major loads. But I suppose the point is I probably can't find factory 9mm that will exceed factory 30 carbine power factor. Certainly not out of a pistol. I guess the impressive thing is how long the cartridge has survived. It's not common by any measure, but it's not impossible rare to get either, or load for. Anyway............... learned a little bit today.