Parts, Mods, & Priorities

[ToddG]

I didn't want to drag the current CZ threads down by adding this to them directly, but all the talk about all the different aftermarket parts got me thinking about something that, candidly, I wouldn't have expected around here.

Tom Jones and I could have been producing and selling Gadgets two years ago. We proved the design internally. Since then, it's been under constant testing by a wide range of different people under different circumstances in different guns of different calibers, eras, and conditions. We've done testing related to how enviro factors can impact its safety and reliability; and, we have more of those tests planned. Until we're certain it's reliable enough for a police officer to put on his exposed gun in a sandstorm or a snowstorm, nothing will go out the door.

When you throw a part on a gun, especially something made in tiny quantities by a small shop, you're taking a risk. Even some of the best smiths and engineers in the industry at big companies screw up small parts. We've certainly seen issues with other custom shops whose springs or trigger kits end up having unpredicted failures because they weren't adequately tested. It's simply a fact.

Having an awesome trigger is awesome. I'm all for it. I just wrote recently how I picked my next gun based primarily on how I can get the trigger set up. I get it.

But if you're replacing half the internals in a gun your life might depend on, you owe it to yourself to ask whether that pound of trigger or .03 difference in a split when you're warmed up playing on the range is worth trusting your life to if your fancy sear fails or your aftermarket hypertuned spring breaks.

Someone can put a million rounds through an IPSC gun and call a mod/part "good." There's a reason why IPSC isn't used as a test bed in LE/military reliability and durability evaluations.

Before I was going to put something like that in my gun, I'd want to know:

Is the part insured by an independent company and if so, who? (there's really only one player in the industry for things like action parts insurance)
What kind of endurance and reliability testing was performed during the development of the part?
What conditions were the test guns subjected to during that evaluation?

Like I said, we know even big companies like Glock produce parts that end up being problematic. The amount of money they invest in testing is orders of magnitude more than MyBrandSmithTM will make in a lifetime.

Before you walk around with a gun full of parts that came from an unknown vendor to a "name" smith, think about your priorities.

[GJM]

Given Sig's history with small parts, Glock's problems with extractors, the various M&P problems with strikers, and magazine springs, etc,, your issues with 1911 9mm magazines, and my experience with high end 1911 pistols, I think it is buyer beware with all handguns.

To put a face on it, whether it be Fred M's recent 226 extractor failure, my recent Sig Custom shop action job that wouldn't ignite primers, your Wilson ETM magazines, the two P30's in your Rogers class that choked, my wife's recent Kahr MK9 that wouldn't extract a live cartridge from the chamber, a P99AS I got a month back that won't reliably ignite primers new out of the box, I vet my pistols at least 500 rounds, and expect that mechanical things may well fail, and at the worst time. Seems like an argument for a real BUG, is the message I take away.

You may be relatively sheltered by your minimal experience with 1911 guns. I spent my 20's and 30's shooting modified 1911 pistols, and testing was a major part of verifying what the 'smith did right and wrong. Didn't matter whether that gunsmith was Richard Heinie or the corner 1911 shop, you had to verify all the work.

[Matt O]

Agreed on buyer beware as far as the modern handgun industry goes.

I think it comes down to: if you've done your homework, made an informed choice, and subsequently vetted said pistol(s) through whatever round count or testing mechanism you consider sufficient, then carry on.

[ToddG]

George, you're missing the point. I'm well aware that big companies produce bad guns and have problems. I worked for two of them and lived through a plethora of incidents from minor to catastrophic.

You can't guarantee a gun will go BANG before the trigger pull.

But "anything can fail" is faint justification for using a bunch of aftermarket parts supported by nothing but a smith's name and some IPSC shooting. You don't know who's making it or how much control the "smith" has over things like QC, material, tolerances, etc. You don't know if the "smith" knows metals or just let a shop recommend something that they thought would be fine in "a gun thing."

If the most profitable companies with the best engineers can make mistakes, wouldn't you at least be open to the realization that small shops without engineers (or their own production, QC, etc.) are more likely to have problems?

Cherry picking some extreme examples of problems with major production guns just ignores the reality that there are probably three orders of magnitude more "long extractor" SIGs running out there right now perfectly than there will ever be total guns running one of those tricked out Shadow trigger kits.

[cdunn]

I'm not a fan of replacing parts in a tried and tested gun,Idon't mind springs and such , but I don't know if I'd buy a gun just to replace all of the internals.I feel that most issues I should be able towork through with enough practice.

[GJM]

My carry guns are Glock, HK, Sig, Beretta and, soon I hope, CZ pistols. Since it is the CZ pistols that you seem to be focusing on, my P01 is a stock factory pistol with a CZ Custom shop carry trigger job and night sights. I consider that to be functionally equivalent to a Sig 226 with night sights and a Sig custom shop trigger job.

I recently ordered this pistol from CZ Custom:

CZ 75BD
custom work:
thin, re-profile decocker
mill for Heinie rear sight, tritium front sight (Heinie is a .140 with a .115 front as I recall from the conversation)
carry trigger job
bevel the mag well like a Shadow

I don't consider any of this work to be even close to compromising the defensive ability of the CZ 75BD, and the reason I ordered it was to have a carry gun very close to my Shadow, but with a decocker.

Currently, I estimate my lightly tuned P01 has 7/8 of the capability of the tricked out Mink Shadow, in terms of my performance with it on the timer, and gives me commonality of platform between the the full on Mink Shadow and the P01. I wouldn't carry my Mink Shadow for defense because it doesn't have a firing pin safety, I think the trigger is lighter than necessary, I plan to shoot the crap out of it which inevitably will lead to more parts failures, and it has mods I personally wouldn't select for a defensive gun. When I shot IPSC in the 90's with first a 1911, and later a STI wide body Limited gun, I never carried my "game"guns, but instead carried a lightly tuned 1911.

I haven't followed the specifics that each other poster is doing to their CZ, and whether they plan to carry or game with them. As you may have pointed out, folks gaming with guns often put a higher premium on performance than reliability, since the consequences of a failure in competition are not life threatening. I have long suspected that some of the problems you noted with the CZ's in that class with Rob were observing game guns, with game magazines and reloaded ammo.

Until my P01 gets through 500-1,000 rounds without failure, I won't be carrying it. This is no different than with a Sig, Beretta, Glock or HK. With the modifications I selected to my P01, and after the testing period, I won't lose a minute of sleep carrying it. I do plan to continue my practice of having a full size back-up and spare magazine with me whenever possible -- namely my wife.

My dilemma has always been that I want a gun with a hammer, but I have shot a Glock better than all I tried. The CZ is the first gun with a hammer that I shoot better than a Glock and every other hammer gun I have tried. To the extent getting a CZ that meets my reliability standard for carry takes some time or money, I am willing to do that because the CZ shoots so much better. I am on a few week trip, and I have a Sig 226 and 239 for carry until I finish vetting the P01. I wear the Sig all day, except at the range with the Shadow and P01, buckle the Sig back on to leave. It bugs the crap out of me to put the Sig back on, because I shoot the CZ so decisively better. The performance difference is so great, my wife who has seen everything come and go with me, and has shot a Glock for two decades, is planning a month with a CZ this summer.

[YVK]

Before I was going to put something like that in my gun, I'd want to know:

Is the part insured by an independent company and if so, who? (there's really only one player in the industry for things like action parts insurance)
What kind of endurance and reliability testing was performed during the development of the part?
What conditions were the test guns subjected to during that evaluation?


See, TLG, as a regular consumer without any industry connection, I have no idea about any of that regardless whether I pick a top brand pistol or bubba frankengun creation. I didn't even know there was such insurance. It is assumed that big companies invest in these things, but I don't know to what extent and how they test individual components. Without any transparency from big manufacturers, it is a matter of trust on my part, and, given their recent track record, I explicitly trust only one company. Which is, I am told, is in red ink and has been there for some time.
Because of above, any verifiable high utilization data points, whether your endurance tests or IPSC shooters putting same amounts of ammo through their guns, become as valuable to me as an assumed faith that Gen3 M&P striker was actually tested, unlike Gen1&2.




If the most profitable companies with the best engineers can make mistakes, wouldn't you at least be open to the realization that small shops without engineers (or their own production, QC, etc.) are more likely to have problems?


Very valid concern. There is, as always, a counter example such as almost entire 1911 aftermarket industry where parts from manufacturers of different sizes from Greider to EGW to Wilson have been long recognized as preferred components, but I am not going to take any cheerful self endorsement "our parts are the best" without appropriate level of skepticism.

My personal opinion is that small shops cannot survive kitten-ups like big companies can, and bad products bury them. As such, if the shop has been around some and seems to have a decent volume of customers, I'll extend it a benefit of a doubt, but I'll shoot their product a lot before ordering another Shaggy.

[klewis]

As someone who reads a lot and tries to post little, because I want to learn from more experienced people, I have to jump in on this and ask Todd about something he posted over in the "My new SIG 229R" thread.

In regard to your new SIG, you said, "I am having some work done to the gun which I'll discuss in more detail down the road once it gets finalized. The person doing the work isn't an "open to the public" smith..."

I'm truely not trying to call you out, or anything like that. As YVK said, they appear to be the same thing to all those reading who don't have experience with the industry, except as consumers. How does this differ from the work being done by a company such as CZCustom, for instance, which, as I understand it, has a relationship with CZ-USA? From the outside, they seem to be the same thing.

[ToddG]

klewis -- No problem and if I ever sound like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, you and anyone else is just as welcome to call me on it as any other member, please!

Someone is going to do a little stoning of the existing parts in my SIG. I am hoping to get a hold of one of Bruce Gray's new triggers and that would be a good example of the exact "risk" I'm talking about with a small company making a small run of parts. But Bruce, to me, is a known entity with experience producing very high quality parts for a long time and someone who has been working on guns at a high level longer than I've owned guns. It's a tool steel trigger and not some hyper-tuned part or something made to change how the gun works.

Now the actual SIG SRT, on the other hand, when it was brand new (I had one of the six hand made prototypes in my gun), that was a risk and a prayer. But I knew how it was made, who made it, and that it was essentially the exact same materials/properties as the stock parts.

The only other non-SIG factory parts that will be in my action are Wolff mainsprings which are, I think, proven as good as -- if not better -- than what a lot of gun companies use stock.

[Nephrology]

Vaguely tangential, but what are your thoughts on the LWD - connector for Glock pistols? I know you used yours to the point of failure. Curious about your opinion now.

[klewis]

Ok, that makes sense and I can see the difference. It also tracks with what GJM is saying about the difference between his Mink and potential carry piece.

Follow up question, if you will: Is there any way, other than starting a thread on here :), for us non-industry folk to distinguish between a smith like Bruce Gray's parts and not-such-good-idea parts, other than reputation or experimentation?

I guess it boils down to letting someone else be the beta tester! (This should in no way imply that I won't beta test a Gadget for you, because I totally will, just so you know...)

[Savage Hands]

I feel differently in regards to smaller shops producing aftermarket parts superior to OEM. Unlike most production OEM's who rarely release the types of materials they use or any kind of accuracy guarantee, you can find that in the aftermarket. Want a SS 416R barrel fitted to produce an X" guarantee at 25 yards with good ammo? You can have that fitted and installed. Assembling production guns at high volumes with whatever materials and unknown QC all comes down to "Trust but Verify ” which is the same procedure I'd use with a gun from a Gunsmith or just aftermarket parts slapped in. Small shops may engineer a small part at 5 times the cost of an OEM due to materials chosen and cost to produce in small batches compared to say having the OEM making a MIM version of a once acceptable part and sending it out in millions of guns with unknown amounts of testing ahead of time.

Bah, ignore my ramblings I'm drunk...

[Lomshek]

Before I replace any gun parts they have to meet these requirements.

Is it made by someone with an "industry best" reputation for quality and durability?
I'd have no problem putting a Gieselle trigger in my AR as an example. CS springs from ISMI or Tubb for my AR is another.

Will it improve my ability to make hits without making something dangerous (too light trigger/too little sear engagement for example)?

Will it create function problems?
A match barrel that fails to chamber rounds occasionally is not worth it no matter how accurate it might be.

I'm comfortable with my decision to add an Apex FSS & FRE to my M&P 9 FS with frame safety. Whether I do a barrel is up in the air.

[Chuck Haggard]

This is why my Glocks have Glock parts in them.



I have seen tons of stuff that was billed as, in the words of Mark Fricke, "Better-Smoother-Faster" that turns out to be a huge mistake for long term durability or reliability.

I'll take this a bit further; IMHO when one starts to get away from the original design in the original caliber, such as chopping 1911s below standard size, etc., then the more likely all of this is to go south.

Same-same for souping up ammo.

[Savage Hands]

This is why my Glocks have Glock parts in them.



I have seen tons of stuff that was billed as, in the words of Mark Fricke, "Better-Smoother-Faster" that turns out to be a huge mistake for long term durability or reliability.

I'll take this a bit further; IMHO when one starts to get away from the original design in the original caliber, such as chopping 1911s below standard size, etc., then the more likely all of this is to go south.

Same-same for souping up ammo.

I was the same way about my Glocks until my Gen 4 G19 shooting brass out in all directions like a sprinkler :)

[ToddG]

Vaguely tangential, but what are your thoughts on the LWD - connector for Glock pistols? I know you used yours to the point of failure. Curious about your opinion now.

I think I'd be more likely to go with a Glock part at this point.

[Chuck Haggard]

I was the same way about my Glocks until my Gen 4 G19 shooting brass out in all directions like a sprinkler :)

My G19 did that too, fixed it with Glock parts. ALthough I would go to trying an Apex extractor with a quickness if I had to.

[Slavex]

Well regarding parts I put in my CZ, with the exception of the extractor springs I used to use, which were Wolfe (and I trust that they do know what they are doing) and a CZ Custom front sight (not a part I'm too concerned about as it's a hard part to screw up), all my parts are factory parts, so again, I trust them. I don't run any non CZ parts in my guns now. But part of that is also because of the rules in IPSC, with the exception of of sights, all parts must be OEM. I would happily run Cajun Gun Works bits in my match guns if I was allowed to, as they've been fairly well proven by other competitors.
Now while IPSC/USPSA certainly shouldn't be used as a sounding board for gun parts due to the large number of manufacturers who makes bits and pieces, I see nothing wrong with looking at the odd major manufacturer who is common across the game, and seeing how their stuff lasts. If a lot of people are using X's parts with no reporting of failures, or low reports of such, it would seem reasonable to me to trust those same parts in a gun I might use to defend myself. IPSC shooters certainly put more rounds down range in a wide variety of circumstances than all but the most dedicated of shooters would otherwise, so there should be some data that's valuable to someone.
Again regarding the CZ failures that Todd saw when he was up here, I can only say it was a perfect storm situation of circumstances, me not paying attention to my broken sear, Mass using crap mags that he also didn't pay attention too and so on (I will admit I don't even remember everything anymore). I've not seen such a gathering of failure ever before or since.

I'm not surprised at the amount of talk here regarding swapping of parts though. This is also a place where high volume shooters congregate and like any sport or hobby with serious aficionados customization is going to play a huge part in what people are doing. From sights to holsters to tape or stippling gun owners are seemingly always looking to either add things to the design or improve it for their own satisfaction.

[JV_]

This thread reminds me of the DCAEK kits that came out for the M&P. The supplied trigger springs did not live up to their hype and I broke my share of them, at low round counts.

[TCinVA]

This thread reminds me of the DCAEK kits that came out for the M&P. The supplied trigger springs did not live up to their hype and I broke my share of them, at low round counts.

...whereas my S&W factory Mass. compliant trigger return springs are still going strong even after quite a number of rounds and dryfire.

[Kyle Reese]

This thread reminds me of the DCAEK kits that came out for the M&P. The supplied trigger springs did not live up to their hype and I broke my share of them, at low round counts.

That sounds familiar....

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[GJM]

This thread reminds me of the DCAEK kits that came out for the M&P. The supplied trigger springs did not live up to their hype and I broke my share of them, at low round counts.

JV, as regards the CZ pistols, I see it as notably different.

The DCAEK was marketed as a duty trigger. Early failures of trigger springs were happening on carry pistols. The guys messing with different parts in their CZ pistols are doing it in their USPSA/IPSC guns, and basically having trigger jobs done to CZ stock parts in their carry guns. That seems like the same as having a basic trigger job on a 1911 carry gun, which has been SOP for decades.

The CZ guys are having genuine fun with their pistols, and experiencing great joy shooting them. I almost get the feeling like the guys driving the Honda mini vans are taking the position the BMW M series cars aren't safe racing them at the track on the weekend, and by association driving their 3 series to work!

[JV_]

My game guns are my carry guns.

Other folks may not view things similarly.

[YVK]

Between early mag catches dropping magazines down, early strikers breaking, some guns strongly benefitting from Apex extractors (personal experience), sear flutter thing, and 9mm accuracy issues, I wouldn't use S&W as a frontrunner for a "big guys vs small guys" discussion. Then again, this is tangential to Todd's initial point, so I am only mentioning this as an observation.

[shooter220]

I have a P30S coming just for this reason - I don't plan to replace a bunch of parts even though I "know" the trigger isn't perfect. But, in my handgun history, probably well over 1/2 of the rounds I have fired have been in DA revolvers, a LARGE number through Sigs, a bunch more were in a Beretta 96D Centurion, and a decent handful through my 1911. The action I have been most comfortable with is the TDA Sig, but I wanted something a bit different and I REALLY love the ergonomics on the H&K. I will also confess that the PT.com data (I have created my own spreadsheet to analyze a bunch of the known data out there on different guns) was a decent input into the decision too. It is nice to know at the beginning what parts I should keep in my range bag based on somebody driving a gun harder than I will have the opportunity to do.

While I have had to experiment some with 1911 magazines, I tend to limit my part replacements to things like grips and sights and maintenance issues such as springs and pins.

-shooter

[ToddG]

My game guns are my carry guns.

Other folks may not view things similarly.

My while point.

[YVK]

My game guns are my carry guns.



Same here.


I have a P30S coming just for this reason - I don't plan to replace a bunch of parts even though I "know" the trigger isn't perfect.

Be aware that many of us found trigger return spring's lifespan be 2/3 - 4/5 of what it was originally thought to be.

[Slavex]

They are only my carry guns when I carry them from the house to the car...

[GJM]

My game gun is never my carry gun, and that is intentional. My carry gun is a low round count, vetted reliable pistol with the most conservative mod set possible. My shooter gun, even when nearly identical, is the gun I shoot high round counts on, and experiment with different stuff, that might eventually migrate to my carry gun once proven.

New magazines, sights, connectors, and so forth only get tested on the shooter gun to avoid surprises on my carry gun.

[shooter220]

Be aware that many of us found trigger return spring's lifespan be 2/3 - 4/5 of what it was originally thought to be.

Absolutely, and many thanks. I am going to have several of them in my bag after Todd's test. I don't know how quickly I will get to that failure point based on time and ammo habits, but I am glad to be buying a known quantity of a firearm. This is actually my first NEW gun in a long time.

-shooter

[Savage Hands]

Between early mag catches dropping magazines down, early strikers breaking, some guns strongly benefitting from Apex extractors (personal experience), sear flutter thing, and 9mm accuracy issues, I wouldn't use S&W as a frontrunner for a "big guys vs small guys" discussion. Then again, this is tangential to Todd's initial point, so I am only mentioning this as an observation.


Well said, I'd trust a gun coming straight out of Apex or its sister company Grayguns over one straight from Smith. But that's just me.

[GJM]

Quick note on the "Mink CZ Shadow," since that thread appears to have spawned this one. Per his shop, the Mink tuned CZ 75 SP01 uses all CZ factory parts internally (has a Dawson front sight and VZ grips).

[noguns]

Any opinions on the reliability of glock springs vs Wolff?
Apex extractor WITH accompanying spring vs a glock part that might occasionally fling brass inconsistently?
I'm always tempted to switch all my g19s with an apex extractor even though I never experienced a malfunction except firing without a magazine inserted. I feel I'm better off not fixing something that isn't broken.

Thanks

[JV_]

I feel I'm better off not fixing something that isn't broken.I agree.

[Skullybones]

Can anyone speak to the AQL (Acceptable Quality Limit) used by the big manufacturers? At what ratio are they pulling and inspecting parts?

[hossb7]

Todd, I suppose I agree to a certain extent but I think the discussion is too vague and has the potential for variables. At what point do you draw the line on what aftermarket parts are acceptable and what are not? A complete overhaul by an established gunsmith? The addition of internal or external parts? What about changing grips, or even using non-OEM magazines or springs? How about swapping factory sights for something different?

The way I see it, the realm of subjectivity in each of those examples is vast. Are we talking about only "quality" parts made by "reputable" companies, and how do we define each of those?

Aftermarket realm aside, what about known problems with OEM parts? Take for example Glock between 2010 and 2012, or the M&P barrel/accuracy dilemma.

I think it depends on WHAT a user is doing that should determine if an eyebrow is in need of raising. If someone goes out tomorrow and buys a bone stock Gen 4 Glock 19, polishes the internals and swaps sights, no one bats an eye. If the same dude buys a $2,500 Salient Arms build, sure, ask what he expects to get with the extra coin spent (and how the difference can be determined).

Personally, I waited about a year and ~1,400 rounds before doing anything to my M&P. All that after the white dot on the front sight popped out after the 2nd range trip. I've shot nearly another 600 rounds since adding APEX internals and I can report that I enjoy shooting it more - the trigger has better take up, a crisp break and a positive reset. The sights I swapped are also working well for me. Compare all this to the 12,000+ rounds I've shot through my Sig P226 over the last 7 years, only replacing OEM springs and adding the E2 grip.

Ultimately, people are going to do what they want and at some point sometimes you just need to sit back and close the browser :p

[ToddG]

Sights, unless they fall off, don't impede the reliability of the gun. A different weight slide release made of a different material and different internal and external dimensions could raise all sorts of issues that wouldn't get detected playing games on sunny days with hand loaded ammo.

[hossb7]

Sights, unless they fall off, don't impede the reliability of the gun. A different weight slide release made of a different material and different internal and external dimensions could raise all sorts of issues that wouldn't get detected playing games on sunny days with hand loaded ammo.

Yes, the point about sights was meant to be hyperbole.

So are you talking about duty use in this thread? or CCW? or...? They're very separate animals as you and others have pointed out, but there are plenty of aftermarket parts that are specifically (and distinctly) marketed for "games" and "duty/CCW". Was there an issue with one part being marketed for one realm but used and failing in another?

If you're talking about duty, depending on the agency, whatever does or doesn't go on the gun is going to be heavily regulated by policy and the armorer. If you're talking about CCW, why not address the plethora of other "questionable" parts? Why this topic this time?

I'm following, and agreeing with a lot of what is said in this thread, but I'm still left with saying "so what" in the most humble of ways. I guess I'm just not GETTING the point to the discussion.

[feudist]

Sights, unless they fall off, don't impede the reliability of the gun. A different weight slide release made of a different material and different internal and external dimensions could raise all sorts of issues that wouldn't get detected playing games on sunny days with hand loaded ammo.

This.

We don't carry guns for sunny days, do we?

[GJM]

The slide stop is a great example, and reinforces my point of having a vetted carry gun with limited mods and another shooter gun that absorbs the high round count plus acting as a test bed for new stuff.

After being introduced, the Vickers slide stop was widely (and wildly) praised as near essential on a Glock. I checked the fit notes and it was listed as compatible with the Glock 20. While it sort of worked with lighter 10mm ammo, it prematurely locked back every shot with the full power ammo I used.

On your shooter gun merely interesting, but in your carry gun very different possible outcome.

[Chuck Haggard]

This.

We don't carry guns for sunny days, do we?


We do not.

Which is why I went near jihad on the "you're limp wristing it" crowd. If it only works on a square range, on a sunny day with puffy white clouds floating by on impossibly blue sky, when the birds sing and the trees give beer, then it doesn't work.

[1slow]

Most important thing about a weapon is it MUST work when you need it.
You may be damaged when you need it, weather will suck etc....

[ToddG]

The slide stop is a great example, and reinforces my point of having a vetted carry gun with limited mods and another shooter gun that absorbs the high round count plus acting as a test bed for new stuff.

And my point is that the mere fact that one sample of a part worked in one gun for you under range conditions is not the same as having a proven part in the gun. So if Awesome Extended Slide Stop works in your training gun and you buy a second one for your carry gun you're hardly more certain of its suitability than if you were going in blind.

[GJM]

The point of the test bed range gun is to evaluate new things, without compromising your carry gun. If you don't like the performance associated with the mod, it is a no go. If it doesn't function in your range gun that is also a clue. Only an idiot would then put that new part on their carry gun, without then functionally testing the specific new part on their carry gun.

A month ago, I put a GFA on a Glock, and it caused the trigger to malfunction, because of a change in tension on the rear pin. That same GFA worked fine on an otherwise identical Glock 17. Just a few days ago, a buddy was having problems with magazines not dropping freely on his pistol, and it was due to the fit of a grip screw and that side grip panel.

[PPGMD]

And my point is that the mere fact that one sample of a part worked in one gun for you under range conditions is not the same as having a proven part in the gun. So if Awesome Extended Slide Stop works in your training gun and you buy a second one for your carry gun you're hardly more certain of its suitability than if you were going in blind.

That is why you have three guns.

Two carry guns, and an experimental gun.

You do the initial vetting on the experimental gun.

If it works out you install it in carry gun you aren't currently carrying, shoot it for a period until you've vet it. Start carrying that one. And then do the same with the only one not having the part in it, shoot it until you vet it.

I've done something similar with my competition guns. I have two exactly the same competition guns (M&P 9 Pro 5), and then I have a M&P full size that I just experiment on (like right now it has the Apex FSS kit). I also have two identical M&P 9 full sizes for carry.

But then again, some people say I have more money than sense. I just call it being single.

[ToddG]

I will say that one thing this thread has me rethinking is my normal program of carrying my "test" gun. I think it adds a certain flair to the test but from a practical standpoint I think -- should my new SIG move into live/test mode -- that I'll carry a fairly fresh gun and do all my abuse to the test gun that will essentially live in the range bag.

[Chuck Haggard]

Shooting one drill per session with the carry gun, and all of the rest of the work with the test gun, would seem a prudent balance.

[ToddG]

I generally start with a cold FAST and would do that with the carry gun, which also buries one live JHP down the barrel for what I guess is a weird little function check. Then every month I'd empty the mags completely in live fire. Depending on live fire schedule I'd be looking at probably in the neighborhood of about 1k live per year through carry gun which I think it adequate.

[GJM]

I will say that one thing this thread has me rethinking is my normal program of carrying my "test" gun. I think it adds a certain flair to the test but from a practical standpoint I think -- should my new SIG move into live/test mode -- that I'll carry a fairly fresh gun and do all my abuse to the test gun that will essentially live in the range bag.

I told you that in Utah, three or so years ago! I have this discussion/fight with YVK almost weekly.

[ToddG]

Of course. It's what I did when I worked at Beretta & SIG and had access to unlimited free guns. It's what I did on my own until I started doing the endurance tests and the sponsoring companies liked "I trust it enough to carry it." I never said my approach was smart. :cool:

[john556]

That was something I was always confounded by, given how rigorous* the tests usually are.

However, you would need to make the same external changes to the carry gun as the test gun since certain mods will affect the way the gun carries.

*Clean the next test gun once or twice? Maybe? No? Ok.

[JV_]

That is why you have three guns.IMO - This crosses over the line of reasonable.

[TheTrevor]

IMO - This crosses over the line of reasonable.

Agreed.

[PPGMD]

IMO - This crosses over the line of reasonable.

Like I said more money than sense.

But then again, I like to have pairs of known reliable guns for each purpose (particularly match guns). And I like to experiment so have a single gun where I try new stuff makes sense. Besides I got it used.

[GJM]

Like 20 years ago, Clint Smith and other trainers recommended the three gun approach -- a shooter, a carry and a back-up. If three isn't feasible, I think two is a minimum. Whenever I go to a class or practice session, I carry a different gun there and back than the gun I shoot at the course/session.

I also do the two gun min practice with long guns. I have a "course/practice" 45-70, 14 inch 870 and AR, which are different than my serious ones.

[YVK]

I will say that one thing this thread has me rethinking is my normal program of carrying my "test" gun. I think it adds a certain flair to the test but from a practical standpoint I think -- should my new SIG move into live/test mode -- that I'll carry a fairly fresh gun and do all my abuse to the test gun that will essentially live in the range bag.

Oh.
My.
Mother.
Kitten.
Greek Orthodox.
God.

You don't know what you just did. He isn't exaggerating when he says weekly. Last time yesterday. I got nothing now. No-thing.

[JV_]

I understand the logic behind it, I just don't see my guns having issues where the likelihood of carrying the main shooter is an issue.

I guess my 3rd gun is a spare parts bin.

[ToddG]

Someone else can do the research but I think if you look at the five tests I've done (M&P9, P30, HK45, G17, SACS/Warren 1911) the number of times I've had to grab my spare gun to carry home from the range has been extremely small. Then again, every one of the guns suffered some problem that could, potentially, have happened when I "really needed it" and that would have been embarrassing.

As I said, it was always about weighing the risk in my real life versus the attraction to readers & sponsors that I trusted the gun enough to carry it as-is. It was never intended to be an example of best practice. But given that I started this thread throwing stones at people for making silly risks...

[Mr_White]

I will say that one thing this thread has me rethinking is my normal program of carrying my "test" gun. I think it adds a certain flair to the test but from a practical standpoint I think -- should my new SIG move into live/test mode -- that I'll carry a fairly fresh gun and do all my abuse to the test gun that will essentially live in the range bag.

This is what I do. I figure that something will break on my practice gun sooner or later, so it is dedicated to practice, training, and competition, and I carry an identical (sights aside) broken-in, vetted copy. I still shoot that one occasionally, but really it's very little. I use the same procedure for my holster - one practice, one carry.

[hossb7]

But given that I started this thread throwing stones at people for making silly risks...

This thread did feel like a lengthy reply to an inside discussion.

[JAD]

I will say that one thing this thread has me rethinking is my normal program of carrying my "test" gun. I think it adds a certain flair to the test but from a practical standpoint I think -- should my new SIG move into live/test mode -- that I'll carry a fairly fresh gun and do all my abuse to the test gun that will essentially live in the range bag.

I have often wondered about that.

[john556]

But given that I started this thread throwing stones at people for making silly risks...

Petard incomming.

I can't speak for the sponsors but, for me as a reader, I don't see how the test loses any value if you chose not to carry a gun that is in the process of being thoroughly put through the ringer.

[YVK]

As I said, it was always about weighing the risk in my real life versus...



My position too. For me running two guns would require a built in safe in my car, which is not in cards for a number of reasons. My last three "gun down" instances occurred in 35000 rounds between two guns and involved springs. I am sticking with regular spring replacement.

[GJM]

Guns are cheap .....

(Excepting some 1911's)

[YVK]

Or CZ Custom shop offerings. Or Elite series Berettas. Or Graygun's HKs.

Not a money issue though, a societal responsibility one.

[ToddG]

I never went to the range without a spare.

[PPGMD]

I guess my 3rd gun is a spare parts bin.

I suppose that makes it my 4th, or something like 8th or 9th (I forget exactly how many M&Ps I own).

[PPGMD]

Or CZ Custom shop offerings. Or Elite series Berettas. Or Graygun's HKs.

Not a money issue though, a societal responsibility one.

I remember when CZ Custom guns were cheap.

I bought a CZ Custom SP-01, with Blade-tech holster, and like a dozen magazines it with was $900 including two day shipping (and they don't use USPS).

[Slavex]

Funny about the "sunny day" thing. I'm pretty sure that a serious competitive shooter is going to be just as concerned about their guns working in the rain, sleet and snow, as well as hot dusty days as anyone who carries for protection. While you may scoff at that line of thinking, I don't want a gun that costs me $10,000 in wasted airfare, hotel, match fees, strippers etc because it is not properly vetted to work in all conditions. This idea that all competitive shooters are shooting guns that are prone to malfunctions, or that we don't care about our guns and how they function is totally false. The vast majority of serious competitive shooters (and by this I mean the dedicated guys who shoot tens of thousands of rounds or more, just to try to beat their buddy, and the guys who shoot more than that in an attempt to win big matches) shoot far more and subject their guns to more abuse than pretty much any other shooters out there (this forum being the odd man out in that statement due to the concentration of serious shooters present). You may not put the same level of importance on a match as they/I do, but we/I most certainly do. Does that give us messed up priorities? Maybe, but that's our point of view. Plus there are a lot of us that [i]can't[] carry for self defence, so our only option is sport, and as such it's even more important to us to not look like fools with a gun that doesn't work. Embarrassment might not be as serious as being dead, but to some of us we place the same level of importance on it. I was absolutely mortified when my gun failed with Todd standing there, and that's nothing to the feeling I had when I squibed in Ernest's SIG when he was up here.

[goosehunter]

Other than bashing CZ's, competition shooters and their "sunny day" guns, and ANY aftermarket part other than the Gadget. What exactly is the point of this thread?

[45dotACP]

and that's nothing to the feeling I had when I squibed in Ernest's SIG when he was up here.

Phrasing! Dear God phrasing!

The rest of that stuff was on point however. I'm hesitant to compete with a gun that's going to hang up on me when I'm trying to get to the next classification. Sure, I'm no gunsmith, but tweaking a gun is useful up to a point and you can get away with things that won't necessarily compromise reliability. I think some people have us competitor types mixed up with the guys who run around in open division with reduced power mainsprings, auto forwards and 16oz triggers :cool:

If this thread boils itself down to "IDPA vs. USPSA" I would not be surprised. :D

[YVK]

Other than bashing CZ's, competition shooters and their "sunny day" guns, and ANY aftermarket part other than the Gadget. What exactly is the point of this thread?


Friendly discussion about burden of proof and risk taking when it comes to post - market modifications and general use.

Your troll game has gotten weaker. The USPSA thread was already marginal, but this one effort of yours sucks.

Regards,

YVK, CZ owner and competition shooter.

[joshs]

Rob,

Do you agree that many competitive shooters make compromises in reliability to improve "shootability?" I think the most obvious example is tuning guns to run on as light of a recoil spring as possible. This reduces the closing force, and, as pistols get dirty, tends to result in more stoppages than factory recoil spring weights. Many competitors also give up ignition reliability for reduced trigger pull weight by going to lighter mainsprings/striker springs. Another example (though not applicable to production shooters) is clipping mag springs to increase capacity. Limited and Open shooters are often fanatical about cleaning mags between stages for this reason.

There are plenty of other examples, like giving up ignition reliability for reduced trigger pull weight.

[ToddG]

Funny about the "sunny day" thing. I'm pretty sure that a serious competitive shooter is going to be just as concerned about their guns working in the rain, sleet and snow, as well as hot dusty days as anyone who carries for protection.

Sorry, no. And that's part of my point. The guy who cleans his gun the night before, tunes his mags... not the same as the road cop who's getting gravel driven into his pistol as his bike goes 80mph down the highway. I've been at big matches watching serious competitors completely disassembling their mags between each stage to clean them. Clue. And I couldn't even count the number of big name competitors I've been squadded with who did have stoppages during big matches.

"Sometimes I shoot and it's raining" isn't the same as "my gun may be out in the rain for day after day and need to work without prep or warning." "Sometimes it's dusty on the range" isn't the same as "I just rolled around in a sandbox and my gun still needs to fire on the first shot."

Is my CCW gun likely to get exposed to any of those extremes? Nope. But it's my carry gun, and I am more concerned with its ability to run under adverse conditions than I could ever care about winning a match.





Other than bashing CZ's, competition shooters and their "sunny day" guns, and ANY aftermarket part other than the Gadget. What exactly is the point of this thread?

Dial it down there, stud. No one requires you to participate in a thread if you don't like it.

[rob_s]

My game guns are my carry guns.

Other folks may not view things similarly.

I used to think that mattered.

Then I figured out I was wrong.

[1slow]

Other than bashing CZ's, competition shooters and their "sunny day" guns, and ANY aftermarket part other than the Gadget. What exactly is the point of this thread?
Point is:
Carry proven tested gear, have identical spares of same. I've done this for 20+ years.
Your life your choice.

[JV_]

For me, it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's just a preference.

I know how much time I do or don't have to practice, and it just makes more sense to dedicate what little time I do have, to advancing my skill rather than re-familiarizing. I don't switch between guns well.

[rob_s]

For me, it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's just a preference.

Yet you felt the need to compare your preference to others'. Just like your thought that having three of the same gun was somehow unreasonable.

[rob_s]

Point is:
Carry proven tested gear, have identical spares of same. I've done this for 20+ years.
Your life your choice.

And there's not room in there to have a gun you just shoot for fun and games?

I see an awful lot of people at the track that load a game vehicle onto a trailer and somehow manage to tow it home without running off the road to t-boning a train. I wonder how in earth that's possible?

Good thing Mario Andretti has a chauffeur.

[JV_]

Just like your thought that having three of the same gun was somehow unreasonable.If you'll re-read my posts, I stated that I understood the logic behind it. It's just a decision I've made, I think it crosses over the line of excess - it's a personal line.

[1slow]

And there's not room in there to have a gun you just shoot for fun and games?

I see an awful lot of people at the track that load a game vehicle onto a trailer and somehow manage to tow it home without running off the road to t-boning a train. I wonder how in earth that's possible?

Good thing Mario Andretti has a chauffeur.

I meant exactly what I said, no more no less. It was not an attack on anybody. It is just what I have done and suits me. It may not suit anyone else, that's fine by me.
Nothing was said about not having fun guns/range toys. I have several and shoot them now and then.
I just believe in identical tested spares of carry gear.
YMMV.

[TheTrevor]

And there's not room in there to have a gun you just shoot for fun and games?

I see an awful lot of people at the track that load a game vehicle onto a trailer and somehow manage to tow it home without running off the road to t-boning a train. I wonder how in earth that's possible?

Good thing Mario Andretti has a chauffeur.

As someone recently said elsewhere here on PF, it's the gentlemanly conduct which attracts and retains many of the distinguished folks who post here.

Your contribution and tone fall short of civility, in my opinion, and are detrimental to my enjoyment of this forum.

[ToddG]

Second you said:

Yet you felt the need to compare your preference to others'. Just like your thought that having three of the same gun was somehow unreasonable.

But before that you wrote:

I used to think that mattered.

Then I figured out I was wrong.

So it appears to me that you may be at least vaguely familiar with gun forums and the prevalence of opinion-sharing and opinion-comparing that goes on in them. :cool:

[Matt O]

Sorry, no. And that's part of my point. The guy who cleans his gun the night before, tunes his mags... not the same as the road cop who's getting gravel driven into his pistol as his bike goes 80mph down the highway. I've been at big matches watching serious competitors completely disassembling their mags between each stage to clean them. Clue. And I couldn't even count the number of big name competitors I've been squadded with who did have stoppages during big matches.

"Sometimes I shoot and it's raining" isn't the same as "my gun may be out in the rain for day after day and need to work without prep or warning." "Sometimes it's dusty on the range" isn't the same as "I just rolled around in a sandbox and my gun still needs to fire on the first shot."

Is my CCW gun likely to get exposed to any of those extremes? Nope. But it's my carry gun, and I am more concerned with its ability to run under adverse conditions than I could ever care about winning a match.

There are indeed competitive shooters who run guns that are barely on the ragged edge of operating and therefore need to be tuned and babied - but it would be fallacious to claim that just because a portion of shooters use this type of equipment, that it is the standard or representative of the whole. The multitude of competitive shooters who subject their guns to substantial round counts annually with a modicum of maintenance and a minimum of mechanical issues stand testament to that fact. Guns which range from M&P's to glocks, from sigs to CZ's. And in many ways, these types of individuals subject their guns to environmental conditions that the average CCW'er doesn't. I don't see the average person flocking to the range to shoot outside amidst rain, snow, wind or sand.

Now, is competitive shooting the same as rolling around in the sandbox or riding a bike all day and getting gravel in your gun? No absolutely not, and if that's someone's lifestyle or method of employment, then it should definitely be a factor in what type of pistol they choose. But those type of factors don't apply to the vast majority of ordinary citizens. I'm not sure I completely subscribe to the claim that seems to be being made that shootability must come at the price of reliability, but if my choice is between a marginally shootable pistol that laughs in the face of the elements and can operate while bathed in burning unicorn tears versus a more refined pistol that increases my level of performance without sacrificing reliability in the course of my comparatively mundane CCW/competitive shooting lifestyle, I think I'll go with the latter.

[Chris Rhines]

Like I said, we know even big companies like Glock produce parts that end up being problematic. The amount of money they invest in testing is orders of magnitude more than MyBrandSmithTM will make in a lifetime. Considering the array of engineering and QA problems Glock has been churning out, I have to wonder - exactly how much money is Glock investing in testing? Furthermore, is the testing that they're doing adequate? I'm not picking on Glock here, feel free to insert Smith and Wesson, H&K, STI, or whomever. The same question remains - if their QA is so good, then why does it fail so often?


Before I was going to put something like that in my gun, I'd want to know:
Is the part insured by an independent company and if so, who? (there's really only one player in the industry for things like action parts insurance)
What kind of endurance and reliability testing was performed during the development of the part?
What conditions were the test guns subjected to during that evaluation?

I'd like to know this, too. I've never once heard of a firearms company, of any size, publishing this kind of data.

[Slavex]

Rob,

Do you agree that many competitive shooters make compromises in reliability to improve "shootability?" I think the most obvious example is tuning guns to run on as light of a recoil spring as possible. This reduces the closing force, and, as pistols get dirty, tends to result in more stoppages than factory recoil spring weights. Many competitors also give up ignition reliability for reduced trigger pull weight by going to lighter mainsprings/striker springs. Another example (though not applicable to production shooters) is clipping mag springs to increase capacity. Limited and Open shooters are often fanatical about cleaning mags between stages for this reason.

There are plenty of other examples, like giving up ignition reliability for reduced trigger pull weight.

I agree that many do yes, but not all, and probably not even most. Production Division is the biggest division in IPSC and I believe USPSA, and it's counterpart in IDPA likely as well. The vast majority of shooters in that division are more concerned that their guns work. The level of work they do on them would likely be equal to what the average CCW'er on here does to their own carry gun.


Sorry, no. And that's part of my point. The guy who cleans his gun the night before, tunes his mags... not the same as the road cop who's getting gravel driven into his pistol as his bike goes 80mph down the highway. I've been at big matches watching serious competitors completely disassembling their mags between each stage to clean them. Clue. And I couldn't even count the number of big name competitors I've been squadded with who did have stoppages during big matches.

"Sometimes I shoot and it's raining" isn't the same as "my gun may be out in the rain for day after day and need to work without prep or warning." "Sometimes it's dusty on the range" isn't the same as "I just rolled around in a sandbox and my gun still needs to fire on the first shot."

Is my CCW gun likely to get exposed to any of those extremes? Nope. But it's my carry gun, and I am more concerned with its ability to run under adverse conditions than I could ever care about winning a match.

That's my point, you are more concerned, others aren't. I'm just as concerned about my gun running properly at a match as you are about yours working when you might need to shoot someone. Are my priorities screwed up, possibly, but they are mine to screw up. As for the guys cleaning mags between stages, um yeah, if they hit mud or sand or loose dirt, I clean my mags. Cops I know who have wrestled with someone in the mud have done the same after the dude was cuffed and in the cruiser. I really don't see how that negates my opinion. You and I don't clean our guns very often, I probably do it slightly more than you as I shoot more matches than you, and I do typically inspect my gun before major matches, especially when I travel for one. However I don't always, and my practice gun almost never. I know cops who clean their gun every day, regardless of it having been shot or not. I know others who've never cleaned their guns, and others who only clean after shooting them. Different strokes.
It may seem silly, or dumb, or whatever that some of invest the same level of importance on a match as others would on a life or death situation, but that's competition for you.
Matt O covered the rest of it better than I can do justice to the discussion.

[GJM]

Short of being in multiple lethal confrontations, which has obvious drawbacks, I think attending classes or participating in formal competition is extremely valuable in testing equipment and your ability. The reason is because you get forced to do something by others. The third time I shot my CZ was in a USPSA match, and I quickly figured out that the stock springs in the CZ 18 round magazines don't do well with grit in them (leading me to immediately order Wolff +10 percent springs and favor Mec-Gar magazines). Even though my two previous sessions had been in the desert, I had not dropped my magazines into the sand, instead dropping them on my brass mat as a matter of convenience, and missing the point about the CZ mags in the grit. In classes and matches, holsters break or hang up, cover garments get stuck, ammo incompatibility becomes obvious, and on and on and on.

I am not sure if the competitive shooters were easy targets, or it wasn't thought through, but they have a lot more in common with serious timmies, than they are different. Since your score sucks when you have malfunctions, there is a big disincentive to show up with kit that doesn't work. t would say that a timmy, that takes their carry gear as seriously as their game gear, and that shoots formal competition at a high level, is in the best of all worlds in term of preparation.

I also believe we would do well to be more tolerant of practices different than our own, as regards choice of guns, number of guns owned, mods and other stuff, because all it does is create a lot of butthurt. For many here, this isn't our first rodeo when it comes to guns and training. We all to get to make our own choices, and regardless of our choices, most folks here are ahead of 98 percent of other gun owners in terms of equipment and skill.

PS: on the insurance issue, that is absolutely of no interest to me as a selection criteria. First, if I die because of a faulty product, insurance isn't going to help me at all. Liability lies with the company, and insurance is just a risk management strategy. Most insurers aren't smart enough to figure out what products are worthy of insurance or not.

[goosehunter]

Your troll game has gotten weaker. The USPSA thread was already marginal, but this one effort of yours sucks.

Regards,

YVK, CZ owner and competition shooter.

If you think my observation was trolling, you suck at sniffing out trolls.


Dial it down there, stud

Not the first time I've heard that but you forgot to use the "safe" word. :)


Point is:
Carry proven tested gear, have identical spares of same. I've done this for 20+ years.
Your life your choice.

But is any of it modified with aftermarket parts? How was it tested before you bought it?

[Kyle Reese]

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread...

[Clyde from Carolina]

Todd, re: the shoot the carry gun, I'm with Chuck and George on this.

As you said, your old approach was courageous and honest in the vein of "put your money where your mouth is," but I'd agree Chuck's model is more prudent. Just saying.

[45dotACP]

Agree with FredM

This thread started as a "be careful what you put in your gun" and has since morphed into all forms of butthurt about aftermarket parts with no middle ground and comparing the guy who puts a minus connector in his glock to the guy who runs an open 2011 and needs to tune magazines.

There is a difference. Regardless of what you may say or believe, there is a difference. That is fact. The problem is where do you draw the line? I will also probably never believe that it is "just the sights and nothing else." This isn't Glocktalk :D

[ToddG]

PS: on the insurance issue, that is absolutely of no interest to me as a selection criteria. First, if I die because of a faulty product, insurance isn't going to help me at all. Liability lies with the company, and insurance is just a risk management strategy. Most insurers aren't smart enough to figure out what products are worthy of insurance or not.

If you cannot get company to insure your critical action component, that's a clue.

[Pup town]

Is the part insured by an independent company and if so, who? (there's really only one player in the industry for things like action parts insurance)
What kind of endurance and reliability testing was performed during the development of the part?
What conditions were the test guns subjected to during that evaluation?



So, where does one find out if xyz part is insured by this unnamed independent company? I've never seen any company using this insurance as validation in their marketing.

[GJM]

It might be a clue, but I am not sure as to what.

The two major manufacturers of light, certified bush aircraft do not have liability insurance. Both companies have excellent products and safety records. I fly both aircraft. Insurance costs more than their profits, and they have elected to go bare.

You will need to provide a lot more detail about who has insurance, who does not, what you think insurers are doing to evaluate products, and how that effects me as a consumer, before I accept insurance should have any impact on my buying decisions. I would submit if you buy a firearm based on their liability coverage, that might be a clue you have picked the wrong firearm.

Now, if you tell me there is a major insurer of firearms risk, and their underwriters insure the major firearms manufacturers, but in:

Glock's policy have excluded claims related to reliability and people shooting themselves.

In S&W's policy has excluded claims related to accuracy.

And, in Sig's policy the insurer has excluded all pistols made between 2005 and 2011, I might start to think there is an insurer that actually understands the market.

[Tamara]

Now, is competitive shooting the same as rolling around in the sandbox or riding a bike all day and getting gravel in your gun? No absolutely not, and if that's someone's lifestyle or method of employment, then it should definitely be a factor in what type of pistol they choose. But those type of factors don't apply to the vast majority of ordinary citizens.

I do have to kinda agree with this here. The harshest environment my CCW gun's been exposed to is being shot in a match in the desert. Other than that, riding around Indianapolis under my woobie isn't likely to put any Hostile Environment finishes to the test. :eek:

[Phrog107]

Thus far, since joining here, I have refrained from posting, mainly because I prefer to learn from others. I do have a quick viewpoint regarding having multiple identical firearms.

What I have done is to start out with 2 identical or nearly identical firearms. Both are tested and vetted. One gets put aside as my primary defensive firearm, the other becomes a test bed. But it doesn't stay as a test bed for long. Once whatever part I am evaluating has proven itself on the test bed, which also includes shooting against the primary firearm, the test bed then gets rotated into the primary's place. The once-primary then rotates to test bed status, gets the same upgrade as the other pistol. Eventually, another part, doodad, gadget or gizmo then gets tested on the new test bed. The cycle repeats, so that the primary defensive firearm has the latest upgrade that has been vetted on that specific firearm.

The downside is cost. I am finding that CT grips on M&P's get expensive quite quickly. Other than that, it's working quite well so far.

[YVK]

Without explicit standards it is an exercise in futility, George. SW is fully insurable for accuracy if their standards are measured at 15 yards. As an insurer, I'd love to take their money if I know any claim is a losing proposition for a claimant.

[Lomshek]

What I have done is to start out with 2 identical or nearly identical firearms. Both are tested and vetted. One gets put aside as my primary defensive firearm, the other becomes a test bed. But it doesn't stay as a test bed for long.

Once whatever part I am evaluating has proven itself on the test bed, which also includes shooting against the primary firearm, the test bed then gets rotated into the primary's place. The once-primary then rotates to test bed status, gets the same upgrade as the other pistol.

Eventually, another part, doodad, gadget or gizmo then gets tested on the new test bed. The cycle repeats, so that the primary defensive firearm has the latest upgrade that has been vetted on that specific firearm.


That's a pretty solid method and one I will adopt.

[Tamara]

I do have a quick viewpoint regarding having multiple identical firearms.

What I have done is to start out with 2 identical or nearly identical firearms. Both are tested and vetted. One gets put aside as my primary defensive firearm, the other becomes a test bed.

A friend said he liked 5 as the magic number, because: "One in your holster, one in the safe, one at the local gunsmith getting something done, one back at the manufacturer for an overhaul, and one stored off-site someplace."

This can get 'spensive if your carry gat is a Les Baer TRS...

[GJM]

Thus far, since joining here, I have refrained from posting, mainly because I prefer to learn from others. I do have a quick viewpoint regarding having multiple identical firearms.

What I have done is to start out with 2 identical or nearly identical firearms. Both are tested and vetted. One gets put aside as my primary defensive firearm, the other becomes a test bed. But it doesn't stay as a test bed for long. Once whatever part I am evaluating has proven itself on the test bed, which also includes shooting against the primary firearm, the test bed then gets rotated into the primary's place. The once-primary then rotates to test bed status, gets the same upgrade as the other pistol. Eventually, another part, doodad, gadget or gizmo then gets tested on the new test bed. The cycle repeats, so that the primary defensive firearm has the latest upgrade that has been vetted on that specific firearm.

The downside is cost. I am finding that CT grips on M&P's get expensive quite quickly. Other than that, it's working quite well so far.

Here is why I don't roll that way. I believe total round count is important, as a risk management strategy for your carry gun, to try to reduce the chance of a mechanical breakage. By putting 500-1,000 rounds on a pistol, and then just shooting it sparingly, while putting the bulk of my training rounds on another pistol, I feel like I am less likely to encounter a premature mechanical breakage than by splitting the rounds evenly.

[Phrog107]

A friend said he liked 5 as the magic number, because: "One in your holster, one in the safe, one at the local gunsmith getting something done, one back at the manufacturer for an overhaul, and one stored off-site someplace."

This can get 'spensive if your carry gat is a Les Baer TRS...

I may be in a different tax bracket, because to me five of just about anything is probably out of my price range. :D Two of a kind, with like upgrades is plenty pricey for me at this point. Not to mention the ammo costs associated.

[Slavex]

This is similar to how I run my match guns. I get a new gun each year, it is my practice gun until somewhere around 5000 rounds (less if I like how it feels, more if I don't, very subjective). The old match gun then becomes the backup gun, and the old backup gun becomes the practice gun. Although my current plan is to run my old match gun as my practice and backup gun due to the differences between the Shadows and Shadowmates I'm now running. Once I get a 3rd Shadowmate the original cycle will be reestablished.

[hossb7]

So, where does one find out if xyz part is insured by this unnamed independent company? I've never seen any company using this insurance as validation in their marketing.

Also interested in this answer. I've never heard of any aftermarket company advertising it being insured by an independent company. Where would you even find that info?

How about a specific example of part or company?

[breakingtime91]

I have really enjoyed reading this thread. Only thing I have to add being a college student, I can't afford more than one pistol or the time and money to train with more than one gun. At first I was upset by that but I like the fact the gun I shoot is my home defense gun and the one riding aiwb. Also like how the finish is wearing of, makes me feel like I'm doing something right.

[Phrog107]

Here is why I don't roll that way. I believe total round count is important, as a risk management strategy for your carry gun, to try to reduce the chance of a mechanical breakage. By putting 500-1,000 rounds on a pistol, and then just shooting it sparingly, while putting the bulk of my training rounds on another pistol, I feel like I am less likely to encounter a premature mechanical breakage than by splitting the rounds evenly.

I can appreciate this viewpoint.

Eight or nine years ago, I was just about to load my one and only carry pistol at the time after a bit of dry practice. I was all done, then decided to do one last trigger pull before loading up. Trigger return spring failed.

Two ways to look at it.

What if hadn't done that last trigger pull? I would have been (unknowingly) carrying around a pistol with only 1 good trigger pull left in it.

On the flip side, what if I hadn't been doing so much dry practice on that poor little pistol? Would that spring have broken at all?

It's a catch-22.

The only way to be confident in the mechanical integrity of a firearm is to shoot it. But by shooting it, we are wearing down the components that might eventually fail.

[Chuck Haggard]

Here is why I don't roll that way. I believe total round count is important, as a risk management strategy for your carry gun, to try to reduce the chance of a mechanical breakage. By putting 500-1,000 rounds on a pistol, and then just shooting it sparingly, while putting the bulk of my training rounds on another pistol, I feel like I am less likely to encounter a premature mechanical breakage than by splitting the rounds evenly.


I pretty much do this^ as well.

[farscott]

[snip]

If the most profitable companies with the best engineers can make mistakes, wouldn't you at least be open to the realization that small shops without engineers (or their own production, QC, etc.) are more likely to have problems?
[snip]

As an engineer who has worked for very small (as in one person, me) and several Fortune 50 companies, I would say that larger companies come with distractions and issues that can cause design compromises and smaller companies tend to perform less testing. An example of the former is forced parts commonality and "working the system" so that a good design ends up being compromised (manufacturing wants this change for operator ergonomics) to receive organizational approval and an example of the latter is not performing accelerated life testing due to the expense and time. I have also seen large companies employ engineers who did not understand the systems for which they were designing components. Net result: The likelihood of an issue is not dependent upon company size. Culture is a much bigger deal. I rather have John Harrison build me parts than Kimber as John takes his reputation and his customer's satisfaction with his product personally.

My personal rule is to avoid being a beta tester for something in my holster.

[ToddG]

farscott -- I don't disagree with you one bit. That why, as I said, I'd have such faith in the Gray SIG trigger. But the number of those guys, with that knowledge, experience, dedication, and reputation is far outnumbered by the new smiths or less detail-obsessed guys who are churning out parts based on "go faster!" than really understanding what's needed for something to work reliably and durably under the conditions for which the base gun was (or should have been) built to begin with.

[BLR]

Here is why I don't roll that way. I believe total round count is important, as a risk management strategy for your carry gun, to try to reduce the chance of a mechanical breakage. By putting 500-1,000 rounds on a pistol, and then just shooting it sparingly, while putting the bulk of my training rounds on another pistol, I feel like I am less likely to encounter a premature mechanical breakage than by splitting the rounds evenly.

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Bathtub_zps7a73ac54.png (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Bathtub_zps7a73ac54.png.html)

And your feeling is definitely grounded in reality. But needs data to be valid. Is 1k in the "infant mortality" area or in the "random failure" area? And how do you know? Is it possible to articulate the assumptions made?

And also, a great illustration of why I suggested more methodical tests than a simple xy,000 round endurance test. Those tests might reveal a problem part. But you might have a huge spread in failures such that it is impossible to actually make an educated conclusion based on the test. Testing 100 handguns to xy,000 rounds might not actually develop much in the way of quantifiable information, depending on the premise of the test, the methodology, assumptions, and interpretation of results.

[Slavex]

In regards to the CZs mentioned in this thread, the number of people who manufacture parts for them is extremely small and they are all very well known and respected manufacturers. To the level that CZ apparently uses some of their bits and pieces themselves.
churning out parts for "go faster" is just as reasonable as any other reason for aftermarket parts and probably spurs more development money than most others too. While some people can certainly take "go faster" to extremes and suffer when they do, the same can be said for people wanting the latest and greatest tactical accessory or "improved" bit on their gun. Most guns will run just fine in their factory condition, anything we do to them outside of that falls into the realm "my preferred thing"

[Tamara]

I may be in a different tax bracket, because to me five of just about anything is probably out of my price range. :D

Oh, mine, too!

[TCinVA]

It may seem silly, or dumb, or whatever that some of invest the same level of importance on a match as others would on a life or death situation, but that's competition for you.
Matt O covered the rest of it better than I can do justice to the discussion.

It's not silly. I don't know any top level competitor at anything that doesn't take every last bit of what they're doing seriously. If I've worked hard to get to a match and I'm competing for the end result of that, I'm going to take every possible precaution. I'll clean my mags, check my springs, do every last thing in my power to assure that I don't experience mechanical issues that can stop me from winning. Sort of the same way that a professional race team will test and tweak everything they can so that at least mechanical failure doesn't become the reason why they don't bring home the win. Still, they also pursue an edge whenever possible because in the cost benefit analysis sometimes pursuing the edge gets you closer to the win.

It's a very different arena from combat work. Where in a match you know you're going to be firing X rounds under Y conditions and you have time to prep and go through all the particulars, if you're a SWAT guy and you've just been doing some ropes or PT work in full gear and then you get a callout, you don't have the luxury of time or prep. You're stuck rolling with what you've got. If you fell off a rope into the sand pit you have to roll with it like that because there's not really time to stop everything and clean the gun in preparation for the potentially lethal confrontation you're rolling to.

A scheduled event, in my opinion anyway, is always going to be a very different phenomenon from one that happens by surprise in a severely compressed time frame. I don't doubt for a second that the top level guys in competitive shooting take their equipment seriously. Just ask Bob Vogel to talk about mag springs sometime. Still, the nature of the different environments produces different requirements for the equipment and the person using it.

It goes back to the whole competence vs. excellence thing. Competence over a broad spectrum vs. excellence in a highly specific set of circumstances. The defensive sidearm needs to be competent and reliable in whatever state it's in when you're reaching for it. (You're only reaching for it because you are out of other options) The competition gun may be measurably more accurate, faster cycling, have less recoil/muzzle flip, and may hold more ammo...but in the process is probably more picky about the ammunition you use and the maintenance you must perform on it. Since most people don't shoot major matches by surprise there's time to get all of that in order.

[ToddG]

Great post, Tim!

[GJM]

It goes back to the whole competence vs. excellence thing. Competence over a broad spectrum vs. excellence in a highly specific set of circumstances. The defensive sidearm needs to be competent and reliable in whatever state it's in when you're reaching for it. (You're only reaching for it because you are out of other options) The competition gun may be measurably more accurate, faster cycling, have less recoil/muzzle flip, and may hold more ammo...but in the process is probably more picky about the ammunition you use and the maintenance you must perform on it. Since most people don't shoot major matches by surprise there's time to get all of that in order.

Makes perfect sense. It is the reason, I wear a very vetted gun, with a minimal mod set, to and from the range. As to why I often shoot something different at the range, the answer is because I want the performance advantages you referenced, and because I believe that approach drags my overall performance with game and carry guns higher, faster. Performance and reliability are not mutually exclusive with my approach.

[TCinVA]

I think we could put performance and reliability on a Venn diagram and there would be some stuff that probably fits rather nicely in the overlap between them. Vogel's equipment, for instance, would probably fit mostly inside the overlap, at least for him.

Personally I need tritium sights for low-light, so the FO's he uses would fall outside the overlap for me. They work great under ideal range conditions, for me, but not so much when we get into low-light shooting.

...and that's another bit of this whole puzzle: The Venn diagram has some variability in it for the individual. What works for Bob in low light doesn't work for me because my eyeballs apparently don't work as well as his do.

[Slavex]

pretty sure this argument could go around and around around the same series of arguments with some of never agreeing.

[farscott]

farscott -- I don't disagree with you one bit. That why, as I said, I'd have such faith in the Gray SIG trigger. But the number of those guys, with that knowledge, experience, dedication, and reputation is far outnumbered by the new smiths or less detail-obsessed guys who are churning out parts based on "go faster!" than really understanding what's needed for something to work reliably and durably under the conditions for which the base gun was (or should have been) built to begin with.

That makes sense to me. So the challenge really is identifying the guys and gals who understand the guns and how to make them run. That is not an insignificant challenge with the data issues of the Internet-connected world. One needs personal experience (you with Gray and me with Harrison) to get there.

[jetfire]

It's not silly. I don't know any top level competitor at anything that doesn't take every last bit of what they're doing seriously. If I've worked hard to get to a match and I'm competing for the end result of that, I'm going to take every possible precaution. I'll clean my mags, check my springs, do every last thing in my power to assure that I don't experience mechanical issues that can stop me from winning. Sort of the same way that a professional race team will test and tweak everything they can so that at least mechanical failure doesn't become the reason why they don't bring home the win. Still, they also pursue an edge whenever possible because in the cost benefit analysis sometimes pursuing the edge gets you closer to the win.

It's a very different arena from combat work. Where in a match you know you're going to be firing X rounds under Y conditions and you have time to prep and go through all the particulars, if you're a SWAT guy and you've just been doing some ropes or PT work in full gear and then you get a callout, you don't have the luxury of time or prep. You're stuck rolling with what you've got. If you fell off a rope into the sand pit you have to roll with it like that because there's not really time to stop everything and clean the gun in preparation for the potentially lethal confrontation you're rolling to.

A scheduled event, in my opinion anyway, is always going to be a very different phenomenon from one that happens by surprise in a severely compressed time frame. I don't doubt for a second that the top level guys in competitive shooting take their equipment seriously. Just ask Bob Vogel to talk about mag springs sometime. Still, the nature of the different environments produces different requirements for the equipment and the person using it.

It goes back to the whole competence vs. excellence thing. Competence over a broad spectrum vs. excellence in a highly specific set of circumstances. The defensive sidearm needs to be competent and reliable in whatever state it's in when you're reaching for it. (You're only reaching for it because you are out of other options) The competition gun may be measurably more accurate, faster cycling, have less recoil/muzzle flip, and may hold more ammo...but in the process is probably more picky about the ammunition you use and the maintenance you must perform on it. Since most people don't shoot major matches by surprise there's time to get all of that in order.

Man, if only you had, like, a blog or something where you could have shared that with a broad competition and self-defense audience. ;-)

[shooter220]

Some awesome posts.

So I have been shooting for "awhile". I used to clean my guns religiously after each outing. It was a left over habit from racing radio control cars when I was a kid. Not the radio shack toys - the higher end ones. I kept those cars as clean as a whistle except for race day. In my view, if I had cleaned my gear, I had inspected my gear, and knew if something had gotten loose or broken that I was about to find out about at an inopportune time. Over time, I gradually realized that I did't need as much cleaning, but I still did some level of inspection. I am about the same way with guns. It is also highly dependent on the gun. My 1911 is somewhat finicky - it gets cleaned and lubed more religiously than my Sig. My revolvers get cleaned only because I hate all the crap on the cylinder transferring to my hands during reloads. In terms of parts - like I said earlier, I am a sights/springs/grip kind of guy. I am risk averse when it comes to overhauling internals for the most part.

Not only is the Venn diagram discussed about the individual, it is also not the same for every gun. I have kind of gone to guns I don't HAVE to clean as much. The ones that need more cleaning, tend to spend more time in the safe. The ones that need more tinkering live right next to them.

-shooter

[NickA]

Post Pfestivus bump.
Not one of my threads per Jay's suggestion, but I think it's a good representation of the early PF days.

[Kimura]

Thanks for bumping. I've always enjoyed Todd's writing. I've learned a lot over the years from reading his posts.