DeerfieldCurly Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I recently picked up a used open gun with a CMore Serendipity. Since the gun has barrel porting it seems to be sound wisdom to add a blast deflector to the Cmore. After a little Googling I have have two different "mount on the Cmore" deflectors; one from Shooters Connection (around $40) and a Kidd deflector ($50). Has anyone got any comments, good or bad on one delector vs. the other. Are there any others I might be missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxbat Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Both work fine, so it is a matter of taste. If you are going to be shooting a lot, and the holes are aggressive, go with the first one, it is wider, and cheaper to replace - you will go through more than one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriojas Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 The one from shootersconnection is a good blast shield. Like foxbat said they are wider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 The extra width doesn't make any tangible difference, though. The crap that could hit your scope is effectively coming straight up out of your ports, so it's only the part of the shield over the ports that means anything. You can read my take on the Kidd shield here: http://re-gun.com/2011/07/blast-shields/ - includes some pictures at about the 11K round mark (realize that it's an offset mount, so the blast marks are off center on the shield). As you can see, it's more than adequate to block the lens from the ports, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoahK Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Just out of curiosity, whats the lifespan of these blast shields generally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxbat Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Depends on the gun and holes geometry. In my case, on a shorty, after about 5000 rounds it looks pretty ugly. Still working, but ugly. So I made a titanium one, but that one is also showing some wear. Not as much as aluminum, but more than I was expecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Just out of curiosity, whats the lifespan of these blast shields generally? Depends on the gun config and how much abuse they take - they do get to lookin' ugly after a while, but you can clean up any sharp edges with a file or dremel, etc. I've got 15K on the one in my pictures, and it's probably got at least another 30K in it's serviceable lifetime on that gun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aircooled6racer Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Hello: I would shoot it a little bit to make sure you actually need it? If you are getting lots of crap on the lens then you will. I have seen guys install grip tape on the shield to protect it and some also use thick clear film that they use on headlights for cars/motorcycles. Thanks, Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxbat Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I have seen guys install grip tape on the shield to protect it A well-burnt blast shield is like battle scars - one should proudly display it, not cover! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoops! Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Allow me to go off topic and introduce a hypothetical I've always thought about . . . there is enough pressure on the blast shield to wear down on its metal construction. Thereby, there is enough pressure to increase muzzle rise. Thereby, C-more blast shields decrease the performance of a platform. What do you all think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Allow me to go off topic and introduce a hypothetical I've always thought about . . . there is enough pressure on the blast shield to wear down on its metal construction. Thereby, there is enough pressure to increase muzzle rise. Thereby, C-more blast shields decrease the performance of a platform. What do you all think? Haven't seen it on my gun... In theory, yes, but the gas and ejecta that actually come toward the lens and strike the deflector are only a small fraction of the total gas volume exiting the ports, and what strikes the deflector is already at much lower pressure/velocity than when it exited the ports. Physics tells us that there has to be some effect, but what effect there is seems to be extremely small - so small as to be unnoticeable to the shooter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammar Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Allow me to go off topic and introduce a hypothetical I've always thought about . . . there is enough pressure on the blast shield to wear down on its metal construction. Thereby, there is enough pressure to increase muzzle rise. Thereby, C-more blast shields decrease the performance of a platform. What do you all think? Not sure about that, but I did have enough pressure on my kid shield that it would cause my zero to drift on my c-more. Took it off and haven't had to re-zero since. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.L. Hardy Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Ok, I will bite on this. Anybody that has known me for a while know my feelings on blast shields and other $69 gadgets that get sold to shooters who just have to get the latest trinket to stick on thinking the trinket will be the holy grail that improves their performance. If you take a soft cloth (t-shirts make good lens cloth) and wipe your lens off between stages, your lenses will stay clean, although I have seen some chips or marks from possibly jacket material that hits the lens. The Main things that I have problems with on the shields is that placing an object over the port transfers that very strong psi gas pressure directly to the c-more legs or mount. On the serendipity models the mounting screws work loose and the legs start developing cracks that originate from the holes molded into the legs and radiate towards the front mounting screws. I have also had the c-mores flex in such a way as to rub on the top of the slide. This shows up as a rub mark on the bluing or hard chrome on top of the slide and you can usually see the rub mark on the bottom of the c-more if you take it off and look. This will also cause the gun to have malfunctions when the slide is slowed down. They also crack frequently at the rear mounting screw holes. Shifting of the zero indicates that something is moving around. I have had to cut the legs off numerous serendipity models and put them on metal mounts after they have had blast shields on them. When you use a blast shield on a slide ride c-more and use a one sided mount, the mounting screws frequently work loose, even when you use red locktite. I have also had to replace a few of the one sided aluminum mounts after they developed cracks where the flat top (where the cmore mounts) meets the side at the front of the mount. I have seen this on several different brands of these mounts. The only one that I,so far, have not seen crack is the mounts from Brazos. If you look at the mount, it has a nice radius underneath the shelf where it meets the side instead of a sharp corner. They are the only one sided mount that I have used for a long time, but someone else may be making theirs with the radius now. The original Alchin blast shield mounts frequently showed up with the cracks I am talking about. Don't get me wrong, open guns are open guns and this pretty much allows us to put what we want on them as long as we don't exceed the max mag length and I think this is good. Some parts on them are consumable and need maintenance or replacing from time to time, c-mores and mounts shouldn't be in this category though. I just think that most shooters could benefit more from proper instruction on technique, dry fire practice, live fire practice and shooting matches than from purchasing every $69 gadget that comes along. I keep referring to $69 because for a long time every one of these widgets was priced at $69. There are several items that have come from the process of shooters experimenting with their open guns that are almost essential and definitely provide competitive or functional advantages like slide rackers and thumb safety shields. Dot sights,comps and ports were all a part of this process and we wouldn't consider a gun to be open class without them. Most of the true performance innovations do not cause failure of other parts or systems on the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Well, the only reason to need a blast shield is to protect the scope lens from damage from ports that are close enough to the lens to do so - situations where without the shield, the top of the lens ring gets chewed up, and the lens potentially gets cracked or blown out. A blast shield is just that - it shields from blast, not from the lens getting dirty. With a load that generates enough gas, the gas will bloom over the shield and still fog up the lens. True, the shield may also prevent lubricant and such from splattering upward onto the lens, but that's a secondary benefit... I've never had a scope mount crack, or scope mount screws work loose. In a Serendipity mount, with the scope mounted as low as possible, the scope is going to bang the slide. There's slow motion video out there demonstrating it - without a blast shield on the scope. So, the blast shield isn't responsible (or solely responsible) for that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.L. Hardy Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Dave, you are surely a lucky guy. I have seen and repaired too many to count. Especially back in the day when the rage was to put hybrid ports almost back to underneath the C-more. That is not as common these days but I still find many with the two back screws loose, even with red loctite being used. If a C-more flexes and touches the top of the slide it is mounted too low and the slide probably should be flat-topped to correct this issue. Of course your results might vary. 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