Corey Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Some of the other threads got me thinking about this concept. If having a racker on an open gun is looked at as such an advantage, why dont more (if any) people use them on Limited guns? As far as I know (which ain't much )it'd be legal to do so. Seems like it could give you a bit of an advantage against the majority of other shooters not using them. Again, I'm just throwing ideas into cyber space here. What say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) Some of the other threads got me thinking about this concept. If having a racker on an open gun is looked at as such an advantage, why dont more (if any) people use them on Limited guns? As far as I know (which ain't much )it'd be legal to do so. Seems like it could give you a bit of an advantage against the majority of other shooters not using them. Again, I'm just throwing ideas into cyber space here. What say you? No need, there is no scope in the way... You can rack from the front serrations and have a lot less distance to your hand back to the gun. (It's faster without one) Also, this is an external mod... JT Edited November 2, 2010 by JThompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted November 2, 2010 Author Share Posted November 2, 2010 that was one question, is it even feasible within the scope of the rules? again, im just brainstorming on a tuesday afternoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 The way the "prohibited modifications" clause should be parsed is: "External modifications or features to control or reduce recoil, such as weights or devices (such as but not limited to thumb rests or components which could be used as such)." (How it reads: "External modifications or features such as weights or devices to control or reduce recoil (such as but not limited to thumb rests or components which could be used as such).") Further, there's the special condition: "Any complete handgun or components with a minimum production of 500 units by a factory and available to the general public." There're definitely 500+ Sidewinders out there. Not prohibited, IMO. That being said, I can't see how one wouldn't mess with your sight picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny hill Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Have built 2 for johnny corbet in amarillo,tx w/ slide racker a few yrs ago & he uses it to prop it up on starts & of course racking in empty gun starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) Have built 2 for johnny corbet in amarillo,tx w/ slide racker a few yrs ago & he uses it to prop it up on starts & of course racking in empty gun starts. Interesting Benny... They way the rule IS written, I would say it's not legal. JT Edited November 2, 2010 by JThompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianATL Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 I would use one if I shot limited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 They way the rule IS written, I would say it's not legal. Why? "External" modifies the phrase "modifications or features . . . to control or reduce recoil". External modifications aren't prohibited, else we wouldn't be able to lighten our slide with anything other than ports and wouldn't be able to modify frames, either. This is supported by the fact that we can use things like tungsten guide rods, RecoilMasters, etc., since they're internal modifications that control or reduce recoil. The way you're reading it is putting the emphasis on "external", just like the way some folks reading the Second Amendment put the emphasis on the "Militia" clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny hill Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 USPSA told johnny it is legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaGunner Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Have built 2 for johnny corbet in amarillo,tx w/ slide racker a few yrs ago & he uses it to prop it up on starts & of course racking in empty gun starts. Did you just cut a dovetail in front of the rear sight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooterj Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Have built 2 for johnny corbet in amarillo,tx w/ slide racker a few yrs ago & he uses it to prop it up on starts & of course racking in empty gun starts. Did you just cut a dovetail in front of the rear sight? I saw one done this way a few years ago. Can't recall if it was Johnny or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-ManBart Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 I'm almost certain that GentlemanJim ran one for a short while (he doesn't normally shoot Limited, but got set up for the Pro-Am as I recall). R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruStreet Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 (edited) I shoot limited with a racker, I injured my hand as a youth & have limited use of my left hand. USPSA JA oked the use, & at my recent RO course the question was asked and george again said it was legal. Manny Edited November 3, 2010 by TruStreet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Have built 2 for johnny corbet in amarillo,tx w/ slide racker a few yrs ago & he uses it to prop it up on starts & of course racking in empty gun starts. Interesting Benny... They way the rule IS written, I would say it's not legal. JT I know of a forum member who put a racker on his limited blaster after sustaining a hand injury when a round detonated. He decided he wanted his racking hand on the side opposite the ejection port..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlmiller1 Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 I've been running one on my limited Glock for several years, through at least 3 nationals. No problems at all. I do get asked at least once per nationals "is that thing legal?". Gotta say yes, there is no rule against it as far as anyone has ever found. For me, I don't normally grab it to rack the slide but more or less, it is a fail safe if I go to grab the slide & slip, my hand hits the racker & there we go, instead of having to regrip. Of course it makes a really nice kickstand as well. Before I got it, I had two matches where the mag release was pressed releasing the mag on a loaded table start. One was a real bummer as all your mags were downrange other than the one you started with. Really dusty range & I had to grab the mag out of the sand & shove it back in the gun. Haven't had that type thing happen again since the racker was installed. MLM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike cyrwus Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 look out parts vendors; the run on rackers is about to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astephenson Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 It's the whole "gotta have a dovetail machined into the slide" thing that's gonna stop most folks from getting one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaGunner Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Here we go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny7 Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Maybe someone should come up with a rear sight with one attached to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerome Poiret Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Like this one ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Ok... If that comes with the racker on the other side I would seriously consider putting one on my gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaGunner Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Like this one ? That's cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rr4406pak Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Isn't there one made for a Glock that replaces the rear faceplate? Thought I saw one of those recently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mscott Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Isn't there one made for a Glock that replaces the rear faceplate? Thought I saw one of those recently... http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1208937 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlmiller1 Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Here is the one I've got on my guns. Has some advantages over the one posted above but also costs more so it is nice to have options, I suppose. You can remove or replace it in 30 seconds or less with almost any tool you can strip your glock with. http://www.makosecurity.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=FCH&Category_Code=_GlockS MLM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now