Sti Long Wide W/shortned Frame?

[Ross Carter]

Got a customer who has a long, wide, bull barrel, STI 40 I built for him and he has cut the frame back to regular length and claims he can track the sights better. Anyone else running this combination? Heavy slide with a light frame? I know the heavy slide and frame combo is not for everyone but this sounds backwards to me, but as Dennis Miller says, I could be wrong.

[Nate]

Taran Butler has a SV that looks like he has taken about an inch or two off the end of a long wide frame. To what affect I don't know.

[diehli]

Taran also has the slide stirrup cut to match up with the shortened dustcover.

What Ross is saying is that he's got a guy that says he can track the sights better with the slower and more pronounced (I'm assuming this would be the comparative effect of a heavy slide and light frame) recoil of a gun with a Unique slide and standard/wide dustcover as compared to the quicker/less recoil associated with a lighter slide and heavier frame.

[Flexmoney]

Ummm....my Glock comes heavy on top, light on bottom.

[diehli]

Hmmm... odd. So do mine.

Here's the question, though: If we were to stick on a whole bunch of weight on that lightrail, would we be able to track the sights better after a little bit of acclimation? I dunno, maybe, maybe not. Some would say yes.

My position is it's entirely shooter dependent. I was just further explaining what I thought to be Ross' "dilemma."

[Julien Boit]

I heard a guy (I think it was Alex Chang) at the world shoot saying He did the same thing to a Limcat .

Says he found it to be the right combo for him.

[MoNsTeR]

I shot a buddy's gun, 6" bull barrel, full dusctover(!), full profile flat-top slide, Recoilmaster. A picture of that gun should be in the shooters' dictionary under "soft shooting". And the sights? I can't track sights for crap, but with this gun I didn't even need to try. Up, down, easy as pie. The tradeoffs were more pronounced muzzle rise and a feeling of having to fight the gun for speed. But I liked it enough to commit myself to a similar design for my upcoming limited gun.

[dirtypool40]

Well, I may be getting off the thread a little, but here's my two cents...

I used to shoot a long wide frame and slide, bull barrel and nothing Tungsten in the gun. At about 40 ounces I guess it falls in the "middle weight" category. I have been happy with it, and improved from high "B" to middle "M" with it in a shade over four years of off and on shooting.

We were happy together, but it was time to order a new gun, so I gave things a new look.

I watched all the Super Squad guys go through a stage at the FGN's where I could see them at 90 degrees to me and watch the muzzle recover on a string of about six rounds. TJ's gun moved the least, and the long 6" guns (YES even the lightened ones like Chris Tilley) moved the most, and were the slowest.

That and test firing different guns, and yes the need for something different, has me with a new short dustcover gun. Regular / stirrup cut slide, bull barrel and again nothing tungsten in the gun. About 36 ounces.

I like that the weight is back closer to my hand, I feel smoother out of the holster with less of a tendency to steer the front site around like I am bowling or fishing, and it seems more natural on reloads. I am also "crisper" on transitions, and have not lost speed in splits. Plate rack times are the same, with quicker make ups.

Some of this might be the "shiny new toy" syndrome where everything feels rosy, but this is after four years with the older gun that I really did love. At the local match this past weekend I shot a 1.01 draw on a 12y popper, and after the match shot a 2.75 on a plate rack. These times are not "GM smoking", but the draw was "first time in a match" and the gun seemed to just go there, and the plate rack time is only .03 off my best time ever with the gun I had for four years.

I don't know if there are any conlusions to be drawn, but I am stoked about the new blaster......now if it will loosen up enough to run all the time.