ken_mays

Just a word of caution on the PSA guns. The earlier ones had a run of short chambers. That could be fixed by reaming (I ended up reaming about 5 or 6 guns personally) and I think they have fixed that in current production, but just something you might keep an eye open for if you buy a used one. I also think the AR9 formula hasn't been universally figured out yet. A lot of the guys I shoot with were breaking triggers in competition and having to tweak things like buffer springs and weights to get them running reliably. Not saying everyone will have this problem with every gun, but it's probably good to recognize there's the possibility that you might be buying a minor project.

I loved my M&Ps; I love my M&P 2.0s, and now I'm waiting for something like the Compact to come out with an optic mount, though I would be happy enough with the service model like the one shown above.

When is Ruger going to standardize on a thumb safety design? Seems like every pistol with a safety has a different design and manual of arms. This one looks a lot more usable than past designs, though that slim extended lever looks prone to snap off.

I also have a Venom on my Canik like the one above. As far as zero, it's been good. I did go through a couple batteries in about a month at first. Not sure if it was turning off like it was supposed to, but I'm on the 3rd battery and it's been OK so far. As a pistol optic I'm not a huge fan of it. The window is rather squashed down and I like to have a little more field of view than it offers. Now that they have things like the shake-awake solar Holosun, I wouldn't buy another Venom unless it was dirt cheap, and then use it only on a competition pistol, or a rifle. If you intend to use it for self-defense on a pistol, you definitely want something always-on like the RMR or at least shake-awake like other models offer.

This was just one of those guns I used to see from time to time in shops and was never really all that interested in... until I realized I hadn't seen any in years and I was getting more curious about them. It's also a difficult gun to find on Gunbroker because nobody really knows what to call it :)

I ran across one of these on Gunbroker recently and got it today. Quick blurb from Wikipedia: I'd never seen the BDAO model in person. Browning gave them a confusing name, BDA, which was already applied to the Beretta-made .380s. The included "manual", about 4 stapled and Xeroxed pages, calls it BDA9. If I'm reading the date code correctly, this one was built in 1996. I gave $550 for it, which is more than I would have paid in the past, but seeing as these things are only getting more scarce, I felt comfortable with the price. I'm keeping my eyes open for a DA/SA one as well. The case contains 1x10rd magazine, 2x14 rd magazines, a cleaning kit, nondescript gun lock, "manual", and a lanyard ring. In BDAO config, the safety lever is completely omitted. The trigger is about 10-12 pounds and after about 1/2" of takeup, the real pull travels about .650" until it breaks. Reset is a bit longer, maybe .700". The trigger pull is the same at all stages of operation. It'll never be my favorite trigger, but due to the bobbed hammer and lack of a safety lever, I find it notably more ergonomic and usable than the standard BHP. Sights are the standard Browning white blocks. The frontstrap features serrations and the grip is a one-piece affair very similar to the one used on the BDM, secured with one screw on the backstrap. Being Browning/FN, of course standard BHP mags don't work, nor does any other mag they ever made. It looks like BDM mags will insert but not lock, despite having a similar semicircular cutout as the BDM mags. The underside of the "beavertail" has an import mark from Ohio Ordnance Works. Not sure when these were imported, but judging by the holster wear, this one may have been issued to someone at some point. How does it shoot? Quite accurately if the user does his part. This is the first mag of 10 rounds at 10 yards, 115gr reloads. I put another 14 rounds right on top of that group with the second mag but neglected to get a photo.

I’ve never been tempted to pay a premium for one, especially since the prices have climbed so high. I don’t own guns I won’t shoot, for collection reasons or whatever, so I never saw much point in getting one to just sit in a box. I’ll be following the new Python with interest and will probably pick one up. I also hope the design changes don’t change matters for the worse. I’ve recently picked up a couple of Trooper MkIIIs, so my Colt wheelgun needs are pretty much filled for the moment.

They don’t have to be. I think alloy framed 5” models are the best possible setup for a carry 1911. The full length slide is generally more reliable than 4” guns, which are more sensitive to spring wear and it actually carries better for me. Then the STI Staccato C is lighter yet, but expensive. Speaking of expensive, 2011s make a lot of sense too but they are rather chunky. In 9mm, a 4” 2011 is a great setup because the 9 avoids the disadvantages of the short slide in .45. Of course, one might have a problem with the thought of a $2500 gun sitting in an evidence room for years, possibly bloody and rusting. I’ve decided that the advantages of the platform outweigh the monetary risk, especially when you factor in the difficult shot the gentleman in Texas had to make a few days ago.

I have a 41 and a MKII. The trigger on the Mk4 isn’t nearly as good as the MKII. The Ruger will need a trigger upgrade. Also, the reliability may not be as good as the 41. I know a lot of guys who shoot Steel Challenge with their Rutgers and they’re always tweaking or replacing something to get them more reliable. Not to say the Smith is perfect but at the end of the day, you’ll have pride of ownership and higher resale value.

My thought on the return to battery issue is that the magazine spring is worn enough that the cartridge is getting out early and not slipping under the extractor; and the recoil spring may be worn enough that it may be contributing. I'd get a set of replacement mag and recoil springs and start from there; also make sure your mags are clean and dry at the same time you replace the mag springs.

My last three were a full-sized Beretta 92, a Browning High Power Competition, and a CZ-75 Phantom SP-01. I rarely buy compacts because all they're good for is carrying and I already have plenty for that role.

As a "not a Glock fan" who has owned a lot of them over the years, I'll say the G45 is the first 9mm Glock I feel like I can live with. The full, flat frontstrap is something that I have wanted over the years. They have either put an uncomfortable, sharp scallop on the bottom, or finger grooves that don't fit.

I have owned a couple other Vertecs in the past and actually prefer them over the standard arched frame. I thought the beavertail here might be more of an issue than it turned out to be; if you have large, beefy hands and like to ride the safety, you may have a problem with it. I think the trigger is ideal the way it's currently set up. I'm not very finicky about pre- and post-travel so I don't foresee ever twiddling those screws. I haven't used the Langdon trigger bar; I imagine they changed the contact point against the hammer so as to provide more leverage, or something. Generally I add "D" springs to my Berettas and that gets them into the acceptable range for me.

I picked up a 9CT not long ago. I'm not really fond of the PTR hand guard and will probably replace it with something like the classic MP5 wide foreend, though I'd like some sort of handstop. Nothing wrong with the PTR handguard, other than it's ugly. I don't plan on tacking on a lot of accessories since it's only ever going to be a range gun for me, but I will probably put a RDS on it, most likely a Holosun.

I visited the range and put about 250 rounds through the 92X Performance. The trigger measures about 6.5# in DA and 3.3 # in SA. Weight of the gun without a magazine is 2 lbs, 13 oz. The reliability was perfect with both included magazines. I was shooting reloads, 115gr Brazos coated LRN atop 4.6gr Titegroup. Accuracy of this load in this gun was mediocre, about 2" at 15 yards. I didn't have any other ammo with me to test with. I don't know if they had any special accuracy requirements for this gun; I did detect slight movement of the muzzle when the barrel is in battery, so that's not great. Shooting impressions: Sights provided a good picture. I'm going to nitpick the front fiber sight a bit and say that the fiber was placed higher than I like. I'm used to Dawsons, which are easier to align vertically. I found myself looking for the top of the black front sight to get alignment for precise shots, only to find glowing dot there. So I'll probably replace that. The rear sight was easy to adjust, I had to dial it a few clicks up and over to get my hits where I wanted. I disliked the "gas pedal" style takedown lever. It's only large enough to get maybe half the tip of my thumb onto it, and the edges and corner are far too sharp for comfort. I'm going to look into swapping it out for a standard 92 part. I shot most of the time with my thumb underneath it. I also wasn't fond of the slide stop's angled tab. Its proximity to the safety lever and its downward rake of the tab meant it was more difficult to find and hit than it should have been. I'm not really sure why they didn't use a standard 92 part; maybe they were worried that people who ride the safety would accidentally hold it down with the tip of their thumb. The thumb safety was OK: it had a good tension on and off, and the extended "shelf" was easily reached by the thumb, although I would have preferred it to extend further back. Beretta says they will offer 3 different sizes of safety lever, but I haven't been able to find out what they look like yet. The safety did make slide manipulation a bit more of a challenge than I'm used to on 92s. Between the location of the serrations (low on the slide) and the prominent safety levers, it makes grabbing the "sweet spot" more of a challenge -- if you grab too low, your fingers will be blocked by the safety. I'm glad they included forward serrations, they're probably going to see a lot of use on this gun. The frame serrations were a bit of a help, but not what I'd call sharp enough to be really useful, and the slick nickel/tin finish wasn't helpful here. I would skateboard tape over the frontstrap if I were going to do much competing with it... not that such a heavy gun is all that hard to hang onto in 9mm, but I like my grip to be locked in. The built-in mag funnel was well done. No lanyard loop, and it looks like you can get to the mainspring housing pin without taking the grips off. I thought the beavertail might prove to be a problem due to its sharp corners, but that was pretty much a non-issue.

This is an example of the issue that the dimpled magazine follower was created to fix. Mec Gar makes a good magazine in general, but they aren't what I'd pick for 1911s. The Wilson mags have that plastic follower with no dimple, and the mag comes out of the box with the springs a bit on the soft side. A moderate amount of use will weaken the springs to the point that odd things may start happening if a 1911 isn't set up quite right. I also suspect that your recoil spring might be a little on the light side for the loads you're using, which can cause inertia feeds with the right (wrong) magazine design. In your earlier posts, you said it happened with the Gold Dots; did it happen with the 400 rounds of ball ammo?

I've handled them and wouldn't mind getting one, but they're going to have to come down a bit more, say to $400. The gun feels pretty cheap compared to most other striker designs and the flimsy frame rails don't inspire a whole lot of confidence, but as they say, the proof is in the shooting.

The last round out-of-battery issue is commonly caused by inertia feed, where the last round squirts out of the magazine on recoil, before the slide has a chance to push it out of the mag. So the slide follows the round into battery but is stopped by the extractor as it hits the case rim and fails to snap over. Then you rack the slide but the round stays in the chamber because the extractor isn't hooked on the case rim. Inertia feeds are a sign your mag springs are weakening. Wilson mag springs wear out pretty fast in my experience. As a troubleshooting method, I would suggest using new 7 round mags to see if the problem follows. You say the issue doesn't happen with the ACT mag, which is a good indicator that inertia feed is what you're experiencing. If you want to replace the Wilson mag springs, I have had good luck with the ISMI replacement spring, part number SSCS2. Of course you could call Wilson and see if they will send you new springs but I generally prefer to just buy a new spring that doesn't have the same issue. https://www.brownells.com/magazines/handgun-magazines/magazine-parts/magazine-springs/1911-premium-magazine-springs-prod7541.aspx

Yes, I have several, a couple M9s and a couple L9s. They are interesting for sure. What I like is that they use the same Glock grip angle but they also angled the trigger guard to be perpendicular to the grip angle. This means your trigger finger can ride more naturally. I always hated the Glocks because my trigger finger would always drag the frame and the bottom of the trigger guard due to my grip. The Steyr design completely fixes that. Shot-to-shot recovery time equals that of the Glock, in my experience. I'm not really fond of the pyramid-style sights but it's something you get used to, if you shoot it exclusively for about a month. The triggers tend to be pretty good, but the reset is difficult to feel, if that's something you care about (personally it doesn't make a lot of difference to me). Accuracy is good, better than most comparable similar service pistols that I own. Reliability is 100% with hot ammo; with lighter loads (example: minor power factor 9mm), I get the occasional stovepipe. I think it would break in and become a little more forgiving once the springs take more of a set. What I don't like: the slide is awfully wide, makes IWB carry a challenge. I also don't like the magwell, which is not beveled or funneled in any way, making reloads more cumbersome than necessary. They have the M9A2 out now, but I've held off buying one because they are so ugly

It sounds to me that the barrel has a very short throat and the projectile of choice is wedging into the rifling, keeping the slide out of battery just enough that the disconnector is keeping the sear disengaged (to prevent out of battery firing). If it were mine, I would run in a chamber reamer to make sure there was adequate freebore in the throat.

I have a full-sized PX4 9mm which is decent enough. I converted the safety lever to a decocker-only setup. The rotating barrel does mitigate recoil noticeably, and you can install a lighter hammer spring to make the DA pull easier. I'm with some of you guys, though, I always thought the subcompact version was way too bulky for what it was. A Beretta compact I do like very much (for some inexplicable reason) is the 96 Compact. I bought a 92 Compact later to keep it company but somehow still prefer the .40. I guess it's because it's scaled down just enough from the full-sized model to make it very handy, yet controllable.

Brownell's is the only place I know still offering a C&R discount... but discounted Brownell's prices = regular retail prices everywhere else. I have a C&R still but I probably wouldn't miss it if I let it lapse. I don't have much interest in C&Rs anymore and (aside from mail order), I've only ever had one regular FFL know what a C&R FFL was and sell to me.

No, I haven't handled the M or MRD, just the original 509. Encouraging to see that they are addressing even minor complaints about the frames, although there really isn't much to complain about, it's one of the more ergonomic ones out there. I still think the sear is flimsy compared to other designs and I think the Apex one would be a worthwhile upgrade (again, haven't seen the M or MRD). I am actually a fan of the factory trigger design though I know many people seem to prefer the straight Apex unit. However, even after shooting several thousand rounds though mine and doing some polishing, it still registers 6 pounds on the trigger scale. It's not as squeaky and gritty on take up as a couple of the FNSs I've owned, but I wouldn't call it smooth as an M&P or Glock either. I tend to reload every caliber I shoot, except for shotguns and .22. When I could load 9mm lead for $.06 a round it made more sense than it does now, but I still do so because I like a consistent load that I know makes minor power factor for competition. I also like to load fairly long (though nothing approaching SAAMI OAL limits) because long rounds run better in 1911s and I prefer to have one load that runs reliably in anything. Only Glocks and the 509 ever had a throat short enough to be a problem, but since there seem to be some subtle differences with the later 509 variants, maybe that was addressed as well.

The only thing I'll send out for is plating or PVD / IonBond. Usually I don't even bother, I'll do Cerakote or hot blue.

I've handled one and got a chance to look at it with the slide off. The internals didn't inspire a lot of confidence. The rails were relatively flimsy sheet metal that were floating and not firmly molded into the frame, and some of the fire control assembly parts appeared fragile and not up to much use and abuse. There was nothing off-putting about handling and dry-firing. It is pretty acceptable all the way around. Trigger was around 5 pounds. About the only exceptional feature here is the optic mounting system, at this price point. I'm not saying I won't buy one, but I want to wait until some longer-term reviews start to trickle in, and I will wait until I can pick one up more cheaply than I've seen it so far ($470).