00bullitt

I've been trying to tell John its probably not a good idea to pee on his brass

I pulled one of the bullets from the ammo Singlestack gave me to use for test firing and the at least half of the 8.2 grains of powder was stuck inside the case and kinda clumped up. I used my pick to get it out and then noticed the greenish white looking corrosion line around the inside of the brass. From the base of the bullet down. I'm thinking that some sort of chemical reaction took place inside the case in the 2 years you had this ammo stored. The corrosion is in the area where the splits originate. I can actually physically feel the difference in the brass when scratching the inside of the case with a pick tool. The area that contacts the bullet is not as soft feeling as the area lower in the case. Its noticably softer and more maleable in the corroded section of the brass. Somehow the brass has weakened. I don't believe this to be an issue of too hot of a charge or high pressure as it just didn't feel like it and there are no other visible signs.

Knowin him......probably

I'm not certain on the load because its not mine. The gun belongs to Singlestack. It was having some feed and reliability issues after the new topend was installed that I ironed out for him and this came up in the process. He was not certain if it was 8.2 or not......he was gonna pull a bullet to verify. But would I not see other pressure signs in the undamaged brass if it were hot. The primers are not even flowing.

The brass is 38 Supercomp by Starline. The load is 8.2grains of N350 loaded to 1.235 under a Zero 125 grain 9mm(.355) bullet. Brass is splitting from the base of the bullet forward to the case mouth. It varies on each piece. Some just have small burned split areas that burn through as it is starting to split where the base of the bullet would be. Some would split all the way up. And some pieces had two splits. But 26 pieces out of 100 were split like this. This was fired in a new top end on a Hardy commander shorty. Barrel is a Clark 38 super. At first I believed it to be a chamber issue so I took it to my smith and he blue printed the chamber with negative plugs and checked with go/no go gauges. Chamber was perfectly in spec. Today went out and fired this ammo in a buddies Bedell gun and another friends Colt 38 super 1911. Brass was splitting in both other guns. Other SC ammo ran fine in this gun today without any issues so it was definitely narrowed down to the ammo and more specifically the brass. No other pressure signs are visible in the undamaged brass. What do y'all think? Sorry my pics aren't Cheely quality.....best I could get out of my 5mp Kodak

The illumintated dot is what makes it good. The actual crosshair itself sucks but I make the choice based on the dot. The dot is very visible in daylight as long as its not green. red would be ideal but is not available in the German #4. I prefer a dot and a stadia tree like the TA11 ACOG but that technology is not a possibility according to Trijicon. The reticle would be much nicer with thinner crosshairs but it is what it is and I prefer the German#4 and dot over the triangle. Its all in how you use it and what you make work for you.

I'll have to disagree.....the German #4 with 1moa dot works better for me than the triangle in 3 gun. Its not ideal but I prefer it over the triangle. And I dial my dope on targets over 300 yards in the middle of a stage. If I go into a long range stage with targets over 300....I remove the turret cap so that I can dial up if need be. I have had no issues with the turrets on the TR24. The marks could be more visible but its not hard to improvise and make a tape that wraps around it with your dope marked on it.

I do believe that the 1moa size of the green dot has alot to do with it washing out. The amber gathers much more light for its size. A red dot would be ideal but its not offered that way unless you get the triangle.

There's a direct contradiction --- clearly there are dimensional changes. Stippling, lack of a cutout, new serrations -- which alone would probably be enough to disqualify an aftermarket slide. (Yeah, the rules allow them, but everyone out there making them wants to improve on the glock design by adding forward cocking serrations, resulting in the slides having a different profile/contour/whatever from factory original and making them not legal for production....) Well....I guess I don't see them as dimensional changes then. I see them as allowed under current rules. Dimensional....to me.... means size. And as stated....the Gen 1 frames did not have the cutout. The serrations have not been disallowed in the past interpretations. For example.....Lone wolf and Caspian both make slides with front cocking serrations. They also have rear cocking serrations that are different from factry but Amidon only said that front cocking serrations are not allowed because that does not follow the original contour. Apparently he is not concerned with the design of the serrations as long as it has them in the appropriate places as the original and not in additional places. Mine neither.....but I do like having a factory gun that is textured more aggressively that allows me to use the same gun legally in Production and IDPA SSP division instead of having to compete in ESP since I stippled my Production gun. I prefer more aggressive stippling as opposed to other methods and like the idea of the factory doing it for me. I disagree......it has not changed any more than the changes to the first 3 generations of guns(regardless if they predate the division or not). The first 3 generations should be denoted as such on the approved list if they are allowed to help curtail this sort of confusion among most members. that would be more of a defining line in this interpretation. I have sent 3 emails to Amidon. One just the other day. Still waiting on a response. Another email to Charles Bond linking him to this post to hopefully get the ball rolling. And I think I'll call Dave today and see what he can do. I was trying to not ask for his involvement,but I'm gonna give it a shot.

I have used the TR24 on a friends rifle so sorry I do not have pics. I currently have the Z6i on my guns. If I were not running the Z6i I would run the TR24 with Amber dot and German reticle. The green dot washes out too much in sunlight. He originally got the green and we found it to be useless. The dial is large and easy to see and use and is very repeatable back to zero. The knob is a huge improvement over the TR21 knob. I use my Z6i the same way. I have a 200 yard zero. Hold over for 300 and dial anything above that. It is the best way I have found to shoot long range. The Nightforce turrets are no better for dialing in my opinion than the TR24. And you lose daytime illumination. Nice glass but still not the perfect 3 gun scope. I wish the turrets on my Z6i were like the ones on the TR24. Oh....and most everyone has them in stock now. If not there are local shops around here that have them.

Compared to most here, I'm a complete novice. But isn't the idea here that a design change in a gun that could impact on the rules (such as a change in the frame) must be looked at by some official to say whether it's a significant change or not? Assuming that significant change may not already be allowed in the current set of rules? There are no dimensional changes. Just stippling and new serrations on the slide.

Glock has already surpassed the production numbers of the RTF's. I've tried to get folks at Glock to submit the certification to NROI. They just don't seem interested to comply. I live in GA and shoot with plenty of folks who work there and ask them every time I see them to try and expedite the matter. Glock seems to believe there is no need to submit certification as well. I've been hoping to see Sevigny at a local match to enlist his help but he has not been around as of late like he used to. And as for the Gen 1........if I recall.....it did not have the half moon cutout on the front of the grip either. The difference between S&W and Glock is that Smith denoted different model variations on the gun making it necessary for S&W to get approval. This is not the case here. Not to mention the 9L and Pro were longer barrel and slides than originals M&Ps. Like I had said in my previous post.....if I were questioned on my gun at a match and someone asked me about my grip and I said I stippled it or Glock stippled it.......is that breaking the rules since it is allowed? If someone said something about the slide and I said I changed it.....is that breaking the rules now that slides that maintain original contours are allowed? Everything in the rules says that what is done to the new version RTF Glocks is legal. The logic is there to support the gun being legal under the current rules and list. My argument is that I don't see why it has to be approved. But I totally understand that what NROI says is the written word and without it......the burden is on us.

I don't understand. What does them predated have to do with anything? They still had to be approved and they are not denoted as such on the list. If they were denoted as each generation being legal that would make more sense to me that now the RTF has to be approved. AAMOF? My acronym fu is weak.

Well.....like previously stated.......the SF is stamped on the frame and there is a difference in the grip diameter. No where on the RTF does it say RTF. It is only visibly different than the others. But the Gen 1,2,and 3 are also visibly different from each other in the grip area and texture and the presence of light attachment rails. Did Glock have to satisfy production quotas for each generational change to be approved? I would think that if they did or if it mattered they would denote such on the approved Production gun list. The RTF is nothing more than a generational change and Glock is exploiting the RTF to test the waters as the 3rd Gen version is still available in all models. The grip size did not change and neither did any other part that differentiates it from previous models except a different grip texture and some different looking cocking serrations. And with the 2008 rule change brought stippling to be a legal modification. The RTF is nothing more than a factory stippled gun. Its still a 17 or a 22 on the slide and everywhere else. What if I show up and someone says is that an RTF frame and I say no.....I stippled it......that would be ok right? And the cocking serrations should not matter since slides are allowed to be replaced so long as they follow the original contour. I'm just having a hard time understanding why its not currently legal.

There have been some very valid points brought up about the legality of the RTF frame being used in Production. I have compiled them all and again sent John another email asking him to explain the logic and reasoning behind the RTF not yet being legal under the current rules. I will post the response here when I receive it.

I had a friend who had a 1/24 scale turbine powered Apache. He mounted a Tokyo Marui AEG airsoft for the cannon and could aim with a laser and camera mounted to the front as well as take aerial video with it. Top Speed was about 120 mph. It was pretty sick. He crashed it taking video over Lake Guntersville and has yet to rebuild it. It was valued at $23k. He used to have some video of it on YouTube but I can no longer find it.

I shoot my USPSA production Glock in ESP because it has a stippled grip and I prefer to shoot the same gun. I would prefer shoot it in SSP but stippling is not allowed. The guns in ESP are not faster than SSP....maybe some of the guys driving them are but the guns are not. I can hang my Production rig with the best of the best and so can many on this site. My glock runs a 13# ISMI spring on a Jager guide rod. Polished factory trigger with an overtravel set screw and a good set of adjustable sights. My reloads are sub one second and my splits range in the .14-.18 range and I get my alphas and 0 down hits at full speed. I don't think I can speed my gun up any more than that. But I'm big on confidence. If modifying your gun the way you want boosts your confidence,go for the mods you suggest. Its all about what you as a shooter are confident you can accomplish with your gear. We are not all going to agree with you. Just remember.....you can make the fastest gun in competition.....but if you can't drive it to its full ability.....its kinda worthless. You also might want to ease up coming on here with less than 10 posts and jumping down peoples throats that have been on here assisting and sharing advice for quite longer than you've been shooting because you don't like the answers/advice they gave to your questions. Just a mere observation.

Does Leitner Wise make the bolts for JP? I thought Leitner Wise changed to LWRC.....Land Warfare Resource Corp? Are they the ones making the bolts or is it Leitner Wise Defense.......a different company?

I had the same issue. Sent it back and got one with the same problem.........I got rid of it and just stuck with colt MPI bolts until I tried the JP. The JP is a sweet piece and it works. I had these problems almost two years ago. Seems like LWRC would have fixed the problem by now.

The AR15 JP kit may or may not set off 308 primers. They make a specific 308 trigger kit with a slightly heavier hammer and heavier hammer spring. I would advise to use the 308 kit unless you are never going to feed it military surplus or Wolf ammo. Then it works alright but you have to use the factory hammer spring. Trigger pull is never going to be as good as on an AR15 in 223 due to having to use the heavier hammer spring. The light hammer spring will work.....but its not reliable.

I had two Nighthawks back in the day when they first started up and got on their own after they left Wilson. I ordered two Predators. One was a bobtailed commander and the other a governemnt model. Both had Ti frames and the bull barrels with cone type muzzle bushing milled on the end of the barrel. Both guns were absolutley gorgeous. But neither one of them made it past 300 rounds until they started having feed issues. I tried every kind of mag and started troubleshooting. The problem was that the nose of the bullet would hit the feed ramp as it transitioned into the barrel and stick. The Ti did not like carbon and built up a rock hard sandpaper type coating stopping bullets in their tracks. They both went back to Nighthawk and came back about 3 weeks later. feed ramps were repolished on both and looked beautiful. Again........about 300 rounds and they started to choke again from the same thing. So......called Craig and back they went. Three weeks later again and they cam back with a grey epoxy type coating on the feed ramp area. So....off to the range and it ran the whole seesion without issue. About 400 rounds. I thought the problem was solved. I shot an IDPA match with the Govt model and it ran fine. Shot the commander later that day and no problems. Shoit them both later the following week and both ran about 200 rounds fine. The following weekend was another IDPA match. Got through the first two stages and then the same problem reappeared. So I got the Predator II(commander) and shot the next two stages. It ran fine. Last stage and it had the same problem. So....Monday morning,back on the phone with Craig and back they went. Two weeks later and Craig called and said it was issues with the Ti frames. I think he used the term carborizing. So he offered to rebuild the guns with Les Baer Aluminum frames. Well....I didn't really want Aluminum frames so I asked him about using ramped barrels but he said that would take a while because they did not have ramped barrels for the Predator guns with the milled bushings on the end. said it would take about 6 months to get them. Told me he could put regular bull barrels in them. Well.....I ordered the Predators for the cool looking barrels with the heavyweight bushings on the end of the barrel. So I asked Craig if the Nighthawk warranty was transferrable to other owners. He said yes. I told him they were going up for sale. So I had him recoat the feed ramps with that Epoxy stuff and got them back and sold them. Craig told me he would take care of me if I wanted to by another and that I would be moved up to the front of the line. I considered that but ended up buying some other high end custom guns. Of which I was never really happy with. But all in all......their guns are gorgeous and their customer service was first rate. But I'm pretty sure they no longer off the Ti frame option. I spent right at $6000 for those two guns. Never got 1000 rounds through them. I know of several other guys that have bought guns from them and have not had any problems.

I started shooting Production about two years ago with an M&P. I put right at 7k rounds through it and then all of the sudden started having FTE's at least once in every magazine. I tried to remedy the situation but decided to sell it and fall back on my tried and true G34. I've shot the 34 ever since and whole heartedly trust it. Its got 133k rounds through it and its on its 3rd barrel. It got me my GM card. I will always like the Glock for its reliability. But I never shot a gun as good as I did the M&P. It points better,fits me better,was plenty accurate and reloaded much faster than the Glock. I have been real close to jumping back into an M&P Pro now that they are legal. Now that KenD at Speed Shooter Specialties is having parts made for them.....I'm a bit more reluctant to give it another shot. I also always recommend the M&P to new shooters for matches as well as self defense. I've been a fan since they came out.

Yep...the boys at Cool Springs put on a great and challenging match.One of the most challenging in terms of stage design I've been trying to make it back for about a year now.

Nice glass.......in line with the Leupold VXII 1-4 and Weaver 1-3. Wouldn't be my choice but it would work. I started with a Leupold 1-4.

NOPE