TRG65

I'm currently trying to put together my law school mock trial. The defense has an individual who identifies a revolver as a .38 just by seeing it in a person's pocket. Does anyone have pictures of identical looking revolvers in various calibers? For instance a 32, 38, 44 in same or extremely similar guns. preferably short barrels. Thanks Seth Ritzman seth_ritzman@hotmail.com

Pro-Diamond currently, but.... My Christmas list is already made out though. Nightforce's new 1-4.

not exactly double thickness of sandpaper, I don't think you need that. single thickness of sandpaper, but single thickness on opposing sides of the mag at the same time. How I do it depends on the tightness of the frame. usually I start with mag w/ one side sandpaper, 3 sides normal, work that until it goes in the whole way and comes back out easily, you will be able to tell the difference. Then have front and back both with sandpaper at the same time the left and right will be plain. 1 piece of sand paper on front 1 piece on back, that is where the double thickness comes from. Work this to the same point as before. Then repeat on the sides. Use sand paper on one side, 'til done, then on left and right at the same time You could do on all four sides after this, but you wouldn't get any more clearance. If you put sand paper on opposing sides at first, it can sometimes be too tight and you won't be able to work it back and forth. That is why I do one side, then 2nd step is sandpaper on opposing sides. The sandpaper box said drywall sandpaper, it was just what we had laying around. I would go with a reasonable coarse grit just for speed. Like I said in an earlier post, you can polish out the sanding marks after you have the clearance you are after. I have never gotten it to the point where the mag w/ sandpaper attached would drop free, you will still have to pull them out. I would compare the force, at my "done" point to pulling out a fully loaded NFML mag. When I get done with the whole procedure, my mags will drop in with the gun almost sideways. I only need a little cant for the mag to drop out. Also, the tightest frame (at the start) I have worked with was a Gen 1 frame from the late 80's. I have done that frame and two Gen 3 frames.

If you think the mag catch is not clearing the magazine, then no sanding will not help, an extended mag catch or trimming the mag catch would be a better solution. As for the new frames being different, I just got a new Green 17 GXXXX series. I did the sand paper treatment and it doesn't matter on the mags I have, which ever mag I use will drop. I have some LEO mags that I bought just after the ban, they drop just as well at the post sunset non marked mags the 17 came with, or the clinton mags I've had for years. I do use an extended release, so I am sure I get the catch out of the way. After you remove your current mag catch, if one type of your mags has a greater width, use that mag as the one to tape the sandpaper to. That way your mag well will be opened up based on the dimensions of the thick mags. If you want to go an extra step after you have finished sanding the mag well, polish the rough spots out with a dremel and some cleaning/polishing compound. Other than that just be sure you are getting the mag catch out of the way, you might want to consider getting an extended version if you don't have one already. If you are really brave, and you don't think the mag catch is clearing, a dremel could sovle the problem. You would need to be very careful not to take too much off with the dremel, or you will be dropping mags without touching the mag catch . By the way the mags that won't drop are still FML and not the really old NFML? Seth

use sandpaper

Here is the permanent fix I use. 1. Remove the mag catch. 2. Use double stick tape and tape a piece of sandpaper to a mag. 3. Work this in and out of the mag until it can seat and come out with just a little resistance. 4. Then use a mag w/ two pieces taped on, one taped each front and back. 5. Then do the sides. By the time you are done, you won't have another problem with mags sticking. Last time I did a new Glock it took me about an hour and a half

The program I think is absolutely great is QuickLoad. Neco imports it from Germany and markets it in the US. There is an update about every year. Seth

Scott, your 2774 figure agrees with Quickload for 23.6 grs of TAC, in a 20" barrel (2751 using 2.260 OAL. In order to get 2900 you need to used (according to the calculation Quickload does) a barrel of 26 inches. That could be why I never got TAC to shoot real well, I was testing at around 25 grains and never got down that low.

I'm trying to come up with a load for my .308 to use at 1000 or maybe a little past, and closer. I've read that the 168's don't do so well out to 1000 in the 308 because they don't retain enough velocity. How fast do I need to push it? I've see that the bullet needs to be going close to 2700 to be effective that far. What powders and weights? I'm looking at RL-15 and VV540. I've heard varget might be in this list, but I've never had real good luck with it. I love VV140 I just don't think I can get to the 2700 mark with it. I use Lapua brass and Fed 210Ms. I'm starting to think about shooting the ITRC and another similar (but not as large)match local to me and need to get my equipment up to the requirements. I realize this is not a normal topic in this forum, but I figured I would try to tap the knowledge of the ITRC competitors. I have been looking around at other forums as well. Thanks Seth

I used 310 and a zero 147. I got low 130's pf from my 34 with a bar-sto at 3.1 grs I was using a magnum primer also. My primers were always a little flattened, which is a sign there is too much pressure. After I finished up the batch of 310 I was using I went to 320, which feels almost identical and is a lot safer. I never get the pressure signs that I did when I shot 310. I never had any pressure problems w/ 310 just pressure signs. I never shot the 310 load in a stock barrel, supposedly the bar-sto has more case support. Usually I used my 9mm 1911 which has a lot more support. With 3.3 grs of 320, I don't get pressure signs. I consider it 99% as good of a feel, honestly I can't tell a difference when I'm shooting for speed. 320 I feel safe loading my wife's ammo; 310 I never loaded in her ammo.

I use FSPM in all my important match loads. I prefer the hotter spark, and in my guns have never noticed a difference in accuracy. On my 9mm loads I go about .1 gr less than an equivalent FSP load. Or I use the same load between FSPM and WSR. I'm using VV320

Please correct me if I'm wrong but after modifying the couple Glocks I have; here is my take. Taking metal off the curve at the back of the trigger bar removes metal which allows the trigger bar to sit higher, increasing the amount of contact with the striker. This from my experience seems to be good thing. Now, on the other hand, like caspian28r said playing with the trigger return spring area can have dire consequences. I have reduced the amount of bend from the 90 degree shown in the picture to something between that and stock. 90 was too far and would not allow the trigger to return forward to the point where the trigger shoe safety would engage. I bent it back to about 1/2 way in between and now the trigger shoe safety will engage. Each and every higher hole you drill in the trigger bar increases dramatically the chances for a malfunction. I paid money for a glock trigger job, once several years ago, and was rather upset with the result. That started my quest for how to do them myself. Before that I had just changed out parts. I think its great that so many people are pleased with the Vanek triggers. I've seen posts at 1 1/4 up to 1 3/4. I don't know what the cost is but I would guess 175 or 200? I would rather spend that (175 at the upper end) or less depending on how extravagant I would want to go, and be able to say it's a Ritzman trigger, rather than a Vanek trigger. I would end up with about the same pull weight by the time I was done. I'm in the process of acquing a another 17. The only thing I'm leary about doing is the final fitting on the Bar-sto. That gun will be pretty well tricked out, at least all the mods I want, and it will be entirely my creation. I want the satisfaction of not only doing well, but doing well with a gun I built. The camera is one of the new Cannon EOS 20Ds, it is a digital SLR. That was our five year aniversary present to ourselves. We are extemely pleased with the quality of pictures it takes.

Both triggers yeild light trigger pulls, and have sufficient (not proper/designed amount) engagement between the trigger bar and the striker for gun the trigger bar is in. Since I took the picture I have bent the tab back to a mid point, but for a different reason than mentioned. I bent it back to allow for the trigger shoe safety to engage. The top of bar is still flat on the part that contacts the striker tab, must just be the angle it sits in the picture. Glock triggers can be made very unique. I can not switch these parts between their respective guns, or I get into the problems Joe metioned. Failure to catch the striker tab, resulting in malfunctions. In fact, the orientation of the trigger return spring, is critical, a verticle orientation exerts a lower amount of tension than a side ways orientation (lower in this case is better). Drilling new spring holes lowers the amount of contact with the striker tab. The less contact, the more chance of malfunction, but the lighter the trigger pull. I have been using the bottom bar for over two years and as long as I orient the trigger spring correctly I have a reliable light triggered gun. Essentially in comparing to a 1911, if you lower the contact too much it is like having a sear round off. Thus far in my tinkering, I have found that generally if you rack the slide very hard while holding back the trigger, you can tell if the trigger is going to reset properly or slip. If it slips, undo something you have done you are not holding a safe gun. Obviously, these change are designed to produce very light trigger. Very light triggers are not for everyone, hence why most gunsmiths won't do them except for individuals they know. Undertake home gunsmithing at your own risk, you will ruin parts, you will have to buy new parts. And if you don't replace the part you will have an unsafe gun. Most of the other changes I have done to the trigger groups in these two guns are pictured in the Dale Rhea article which is linked somewhere around here.

It would be easy to just send off the gun for a trigger job, but I don't think it is necessary. In the picture below notice 2 things. On the top bar the nose of the trigger bar is "sharper" the bottom is stock, I have "smoothed" the top. I have also beveled the inside so less metal contacts with the top of connecter and hence less friction. The second thing to notice is the angle of the tabs which attach to the trigger return spring. The bottom is again stock, but the top has been heated and bent out. This radically changes the amount of forward travel on the trigger. At the position shown in the picture the trigger shoe safety will not engage....but it makes for a nice short trigger pull. This is the hole system I have in drilled in the bottom trigger bar above. This is the hole system I drilled in the top above trigger bar. It is also important to polish. This discoloration usually has occured by the time I finish my polishing routine. I don't have a trigger pull gauge here to measure the weight of either trigger. The bottom bar in the first picture had about a 1 5/8# pull when I had a friend measure it. I have replaced a bunch of springs in that gun as well as drilling and polishing the trigger. The top bar is very similar in weight, but with only clipping coils from the striker spring. I'm also using a stock return spring, as compared to the xtra pwr for the 1 5/8 measured gun. This bar yeilds a smoother pull, w/o as crisp a break I hope this helps all the DIY'ers. I truly don't believe you need to have someone else do your glock triggers. All the parts can be bought rather cheaply or come with the gun to get a pretty dang good trigger.

I will take some pictures tomorrow and post them of my drilled trigger bars, and my components. (No class tomorrow afternoon) My G-34 is at about 1 5/8 -1 3/4# depending how much I lube it. And I did a trigger over the weekend I went a little too far on, so I will post pictures of both and compare. Seth

I'm still going to shoot Hancock, good people and good trigger time, so hopefully we will see each other there. Also you are welcome to come over here to our club in Morgantown. We ain't gonna be real strict, and we usually have some decent stages. I will probably try to make it over to Rayners once during the summer, but that is an awful long drive from Morgantown. I will be doing most of my USPSA shooting at Scottsdale/East Huntington. I don't know if you come east that far. If I can get classified in time I think I will try to shoot the area match they are hosting and if they still have spots by that time. If the Buckeye Blast allows UN classifications, I might try to make it over for that, but that would depend on scheduling.

Gentleman I will do my best. Due to the rule changes in IDPA and a recent relocation, I'm putting a priority on shooting USPSA this year. I'm only using aftermarket parts I've got "laying around" as replacements, ie $0 outlay. Other than that I'm trimming/modifying stock and if I go to far replacing with stock. I haven't decided about the barrel yet. I am not a big fan of the stock and would like to put a bar-sto or kkm, but buying a new barrel and having it fit would go against the "theme" of this gun. This will be in contrast to my good 34, which was a pricey proposition.

sorry Joe, The question was how, you and others have posted that it can be done. The 34 I mentioned in my first post has a trigger that I did, and yeilds 1 5/8# on an RCBS gauge. So I can and have gotten an excellent trigger, but with almost entirely aftermarket parts and springs. I would like to get that or better with stock parts, and stock springs in a G-17 I'm trying to "build" for the least amount of money possible. The gun only cost me 225 to start.

But guys, tinkering with a glock is the only way to add interesting events to your shooting. Otherwise, they just run and run, perfectly. Yes I've managed to get glocks to triple and quad. Yes, I've had to replace parts, but it is pursuit of perfection, not to just be happy with what you know will work.

I've done quite a bit of tinkering to the 34 I primarily shoot. I'm however reluctant to modify the angle that the trigger bar contacts with the connector. I've heard it can change the weight and crispness. I'm reluctant because I've not seen any pictures or directions. Can anyone point me to a good book, video, dvd, website, or just post pictures with an explantion that would cover this modification. On the board we've covered in detail how to drill the trigger bar to change the amount of contact with the striker, but changing the angle on "connector area" has only been hinted with no real good explanations. Thanks Seth

I have both. I have drop-in in one 34 and a fitted in the other. The drop in did require minor fitting, which Bar-Sto says may be the case. That was 5 years ago, they might not need it now....dunno. Both are incredibly accurate, and both give an increase in velocity over the stock barrel. They both lock the gun up very tight, but function perfectly. I would not use a glock for a serious match that doesn't have a bar-sto. Seth

Although not the neatest and hopefully soon not even my reloading room (the house is for sale, so the presses will be relocated). The 1050 center is set up for 9mm, the 650 right is for .223, and the Green stuff on the left is for all other rifle rounds, .308, 30-06, and 35 Remington

I'm with Flex, you really don't need to change. That said, I ran stock until last spring. I had done some dabbling earlier with lighter springs, but wasn't willing to give them enough time for me to get accustomed to them. If you like the way your Glock feels now don't mess with the springs. I wanted to quicken my 34, so I first went to a clipped coil 13#. I believe that did flatten the gun and quicken things for me. I became more consistent, some was gun tweeking some was practice I'm sure. Lately, I have been experimenting with a THE extended tungsten GR (I'm planning on starting to shoot more USPSA this spring), and another clipped 13# ISMI. I get excellent results in handling and felt recoil with this combination. However, either of these combinations will chew up the shock buff I'm using. Also, I use the shock buff to increase the amount of tension the spring is exerting on the slide. Both set-ups are actually cut down too much. I'm using very ragged edge set-ups and neither can be used with stock striker springs, or stock barrels. I run a fitted barsto which is harder to unlock, and a reduced power striker spring so the gun doesn't unlock when the trigger is initially pulled. But there is a difference in feel compared to the stock recoil spring, the gun seems to be much less flippy. Be prepared to waste some springs figuring out what you like and how far you can go. Also, when I have shot my G-17s in matches, I liked the feel. That is more what I was attempting to acheive when I was trying to quicken my 34.

I ordered a new rifle from a company that will remain nameless in respect to the posted rules. The company stated a delivery time at the time of order of 6-8 weeks. They have since changed their website to advertise 8-10 weeks. I placed the order in mid October, now 12 weeks ago. When my friend/FFL called them today, the company said it would be another 3-4 weeks. Does truth in advertising exist?

Duane, A few years ago, I was toying with the idea of shooting CDP where my classification is SS. I was told by the MD for a major state shoot that if I tried to shoot that he would be sure to adjust my classification. At that point, I was EX in ESP (very close to MA) and MA in SSP, the only reason I was even thinking about going the CDP route was to probably sandbag a win. I've had another MD threaten as well, but since I don't shoot CDP anymore the point is moot. Anyway, if MD's don't have the power they certainly think they do.