Fusion Project - Radiusing the slide stop

Blend undercut trigger guard.

Fit trigger to frame.

Fit hammer, sear, disconnecter.

Trigger job.

Fit and blend grip safety.

Fit firing pin stop.

Fit extractor.

Fit thumb safety.

Fit slide stop.

Radius slide stop.

Do a general de-burring and pre-finish clean up.

Refinish.

Decide on grips.

Install sights.

Test fire.

Adjust ejector.

Lock-tite the grip bushings, trigger overtravel screw, and rear sight set screw.

I did a few things today.  I fit the hammer, sear, and disconnector, and shortened and radiused the slide stop pin.  

The hammer, sear, and disco just dropped in without any need for fitting, so no pics of that.  I still need to do a trigger job, but that's going to wait until the gun comes back from ionbonding.  

Here we are before fitting anything.

Here you can see just how much it pokes out beyond the relieved pin hole.  

I marked the whole thing up with a sharpie so I would know how much to take off.

Then I used a dremel wheel that has a concave surface to grind down the pin.  I didn't want it to be perfectly flat against the frame, because I like to have a little nub there to rest my trigger finger on.  Having a tactile response to let you know your finger isn't on the trigger is always a good idea.  

Glock 26 vs. Ruger SP101

Sight Radius

This one isn't even close.  G26 by a mile.  With such small guns, 1.5 inches of extra sight radius makes a HUGE difference in accuracy.

Size

This category is really a draw.  They're both about the same size, and despite their different shapes, I can't see how one is noticeably easier to carry.  I've carried both in numerous ways, and they're about the same.

Barrel length

For some reason, semi auto barrels are measured differently from revolver barrels.  With a semi, you measure from the back of the chamber all the way to the muzzle.  With a revolver, you only measure from the forcing cone to the end of the barrel.  If we're doing an apples to apples comparison of these two barrels, you can see that they're pretty much the same length.  Or at least the bullet travels through the same length of rifling for each gun.

Capacity

The Glock with the factory magazines holds 10 rounds, and with a +2 baseplate (cheap and easily installed) the round count goes up to 12.  The Ruger holds only 5 rounds.  The issue of capacity gets even more lopsided when you consider that the Glock can accept a 17 round magazine (or even a 33 round magazine, though that's not really practical for concealed carry).  Essentially, the Glock is a very fast reload away from being topped up with 17 rounds, and the Ruger is a slower reload away from having an additional five rounds.   

Some debate the importance or wisdom of doing tactical reloads (where you reload the gun before it runs empty, and hopefully retain the original magazine with whatever rounds are still in it).  However, with an auto tactical reloads are at least feasible.  With a revolver tactical reloads, while possible, are probably ill advised.  

Training

Training considerations come down to how much you can afford to train, how painstaking it is to maintain your weapon after training, and how enjoyable it is to train.

Cleaning

A lot of people don't even clean their Glocks.  While this is the worst idea of all time (I clean every gun after every range visit), a lot of those people still go years without a malfunction.  If/when one does get around to cleaning his Glock, it's pretty easy, and even the dirtiest Glocks take less than 20 minutes to clean.  Even if you need to replace some springs, you're still not looking at more than 30 minutes worth of work to make the thing like new.

Revolvers, on the other hand, take considerably longer.  Cleaning each one of those chambers is like cleaning a completely different barrel.  If you're the type of person who dreads cleaning his gun, then the prospect of scrubbing out 5 chambers and a barrel will probably influence how often you train with this gun.  And training with a double action revolver trigger and a tiny sight radius takes considerable time.  The net effect is that, unless you really enjoy gun cleaning, you're not going to have the training time, and you're not going to be as prepared as you would be with something low maintenance like a Glock.  

Comfort

Simply put, shooting full power .357 magnum loads out of this thing is not comfortable.  Even if you're a reasonably experienced shooter, it's pretty easy to develop a flinch when firing this little Ruger hand cannon.  A lot of people realize just how difficult it is to be accurate with a snub nose revolver firing full power cartridges, so they practice with .38 special target ammo, and carry .38 special +P.  I think this is a pretty good solution, with one concern.  Is .38 special +P really any better than 9mm +P?  Does it make sense to carry only five rounds in the gun if they're not big, powerful rounds?

The G26 isn't as easy to shoot as a full size pistol, and there is no way it is as comfortable to shoot as the SP101 shooting .38 special.  A lot of people complain about their pinky finger hanging off the frame, and that the bump on the back of the grip is uncomfortable in the palm of their hand.  Both of these complaints are very valid.  However, shooting defensive loads out the G26 is far and away more comfortable (and more accurate) than shooting .357 Magnum out of the SP101.  

Ammo $

Defensive ammunition for both guns runs about the same - currently about $1 per round.  However, for training ammunition, the 9mm has a huge advantage over the .38 special.  Boxes of 50 9mm target rounds tend to run from $10 to $15.  .38 special rounds run about $20 in the places I shop.  Because I can afford to buy more ammunition, I can train more with the Glock, and that should be a key consideration for anyone.  

Dynamic shooting results

Ten rounds of defensive ammo from the Glock at 7 yards fired as fast as I could get the sights back on target.  I think those would qualify as A zone hits.

Same thing with the SP101.  This was five rounds of ..357 magnum.  Definitely not all A zone hits, though they do hit pretty hard.  The recoil on this puppy is fierce!

Round 2 with the Glock.  I skipped round 2 with the SP101 because the recoil started to bother my wrist, and I still wanted to shoot the Les Baer a bit.

For the next drill, I started with two targets spaced on different stands about 4 feet apart.  I started with my left forearm touching the target on the right, with the gun at low ready.  On the buzzer I backed up as fast as I could, while putting one round on the first target, then two on the second, then in this instance I put two more on the first target and two more on the second.  After 7 rounds I still had 3 left in the magazine!  If I had loaded 10+1 it would have been 4.  The first target is above, the second target is below.

Here I tried a version of the same thing with the SP101.  

One round on the first target, then two on the second, then one on the first.  Usually the drill would end here, but I put on more on the second target just for fun.  

Conclusion

I think both of these pistols have their place in a good carry set-up.  But, except for the incredible stopping power of one .357 magnum round, and the limited advantages offered by a revolver over a semi, the Glock 26 is without a doubt the better defensive pistol for most carry needs.  Will you be undergunned by carrying the Ruger SP101?  Not if five rounds is all it takes to stop the fight, but if it takes more than that you better be awesome at reloading a revolver, or have a backup gun somewhere near by.

Fusion Project - Fitting the Slide Stop

Current progress:

Blend undercut trigger guard.

Fit trigger to frame.

Fit hammer, sear, disconnecter.

Trigger job.

Fit and blend grip safety.

Fit firing pin stop.

Fit extractor.

Fit thumb safety.

Fit slide stop.

Radius slide stop.

Do a general de-burring and pre-finish clean up.

Refinish.

Decide on grips.

Install sights.

Test fire.

Adjust ejector.

Lock-tite the grip bushings, trigger overtravel screw, and rear sight set screw.

Today we're going to fit the slide stop.  This is one of the easier steps, and after the painstaking process of fitting the sights yesterday, I needed an easy one to cross off the list.  

If you've ever had a 1911 that sometimes had the slide lock back with rounds still in the magazine, this could be an easy fix.  

This is definitely a bigger problem the larger the diameter of the bullet used in the gun.  9mm/.38 Super will rarely have this problem, and you see it quite a bit in poorly fitted 1911's in .45ACP.  

Here's what we're looking for:  With the slide taken off the frame, put the slide stop back in.  Then take a magazine with a round inserted as far forward as possible.  Slide the magazine in and out of the frame, and observe from the top (like in the picture below) whether or not the round is bumping into the slide stop.  If it is, you need to remove a small amount of metal from the slide stop where the round is bumping it.  Be careful not to remove too much metal, otherwise there won't be enough there to engage the magazine follower, and your slide won't lock back on an empty magazine.  

Here you can see where I filed a little bit.  File and test, file and test.  There is no need to ever use a dremel tool when fitting this part.  In fact, I didn't have to remove much more than what is shown below.

Glock Connector Test

After feedback from Len Baxley that he didn't like the Ghost Rocket connector in my Glock, I decided to do some experimenting to find a reduced weight connector that would work for me.  So I opened up the old checkbook, pulled out the trigger gauge, and did some experimenting and testing.

This is the Ghost Rocket, Scherer, and Lone Wolf.  The Glock OEM's look basically identical to the Scherer.

First, what I like in a Glock trigger.

I like a distinct two stage feel.

I like the first stage to be light (this is mostly influenced by the trigger spring).

I like the second stage to feel distinctly different from the first stage, with a very crisp break to the trigger.  Sponginess is bad.

The connectors tested were as follows:

• Glock OEM 5.5 lb connector (the one that came with my G17).
• Glock OEM 3.5 lb connector
• Scherer 3.5 lb connector
• Lone Wolf 3.5 lb connector
• Ghost Rocket connector

Let's talk about pull weights.  I used a Lyman trigger pull gauge, and pulled from the very bottom of the trigger (which results in the greatest leverage and thus the lowest weights, but I needed consistent results).  I basically pulled a bunch of times, recorded the results, and ran the numbers.

The results:

Glock 5.5:  Average weight: 4.33 Standard Deviation: 0.06
Glock 3.5:  Average weight:  3.25  Standard Deviation:  0.08
Scherer 3.5:  Average weight:  3.23  Standard Deviation:  0.12
Lone Wolf 3.5:  Average weight:  3.13  Standard Deviation:  0.08
Ghost Rocket:  Average weight:  4.63  Standard Deviation:  0.22


As you can see, the Glock 3.5, Scherer, and Lone Wolf are all incredibly similar.  They even feel similar.  I think, based on my very subjective tests, the Lone Wolf feels the spongiest, and the Glock OEM is the most crisp.  However, they're all so similar it could just be in my mind.

The Ghost Rocket is the big disappointment, especially considering it's also the most expensive.  I will say that the overtravel stop works as advertised.  However, the data doesn't lie, and this connector just doesn't as well as even the OEM 5.5 lb trigger.

Conclusion:  After all is said and done, it's the Glock 3.5 lb connector that is sitting in my Glock 17.

Back on track with the Fusion Project - Fitting the sights

Current progress:

Blend undercut trigger guard.

Fit trigger to frame.

Fit hammer, sear, disconnecter.

Trigger job.

Fit and blend grip safety.

Fit firing pin stop.

Fit extractor.

Fit thumb safety.

Fit slide stop.

Do a general de-burring and pre-finish clean up.

Refinish.

Decide on grips.

Install sights.

Test fire.

Adjust ejector.

Lock-tite the grip bushings, trigger overtravel screw, and rear sight set screw.

So I got the slide back from Bob Serva and Co. after realizing that a 9mm slide had been installed in place of a the .40 I had requested.  I may have just kept it 9mm, except that a .40S&W barrel had been fitted to it.  So back the whole thing went.

In the meantime, Bob asked me if it would be ok if they installed a stainless steel slide instead of a carbon one.  "No problem," I said.  The thing arrived, having been re-bead blasted, and the new slide to frame fit is even better than it was before.  I'm pretty happy with it.  

Except there is one thing they forgot.  Can you spot it?  They forgot to make the press check cuts.  Arg.  Oh well, those can be done when I send it back for ion bonding.  Still, I wish they hand noticed this detail before shipping to me, because although the quality of product I've received from them has been good, I have pretty much zero confidence in their attention to detail.  

The build goes on.  I decided to tackle installing the sights today.  I have a fiber optic front sight from Fusion, and a 10-8 rear sight.  

The sight cuts on the slide seem to be a bit on the small side, but I guess that means I can get a pretty darn tight fit, which is good.  I can typically get at least one side started a bit, but with the sight cuts on the Fusion it was very obvious that the parts would need extensive filing to even begin to fit.  I mostly followed the instructions in this video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1YxRoi_9Lc

I finally got the rear sight to slide into the dovetail by about a millimeter.  This took about 45 minutes of filing and test fitting.

Almost there...

And close enough.  I can get the sights to slide in about halfway to 2/3 of the way using just finger pressure, and I can use a hammer and punch to drift them in the rest of the way after refinishing.  By the way, this was an intense pain in the ass!  The whole process took about 3 hours, and the edges on the sights get really, really sharp from all the filing.  I ended up cutting my finger on the rear sight, if you can believe it.  

Glock 17 vs. CZ 75B at the range

This weekend I was able to finally get down to a local range that doesn't have rules about 1 shot per second, drawing from a holster, movement, barricades, etc.  The idea is that at this place I won't be simply punching holes through paper while standing in the middle of a bunch of people who may or may not have ever had a gun safety lesson.  Basically at this range I'll have an entire outdoor bay to myself in which I can practice more dynamic IPSC/IDPA style shooting.  Quick note:  If you like to shoot, you owe it to yourself to get into some pistol competition.  Whether it's IPSC, IDPA, Cowboy Action shooting, whatever, just do it.  The only downside is that you'll find simple target shooting a little pedantic, but the benefits are huge.  You'll see which techniques seem to work and which ones don't.  You'll get to test your gear and see other people test theirs.  You might meet a few people.  Mostly you'll see just what is possible for a person to accomplish with a pistol.  It's pretty incredible, and gives you something to strive for in your practice and training.

Anyway, onto the content.

So the purpose of my visit to the range this weekend was to shoot back to back the Glock 17 and the CZ75B.  I wanted to get a feel for which one would be better suited to competitive use, which I shot better at different distances and different speeds, etc.

First, the general comparison of size, etc, and then onto the range impressions.

As you can see these pistols are very similar in overall size, with the Glock being slightly, slightly smaller.  They both have 17 round magazines.  The Glock sight radius is only 3/16" longer with the sights i have installed, but with stock sights it's a good half inch longer.

Here you can see the difference in barrel length.

They're both equally easy to field strip, though the Glock is about 100 times easier to detail strip.  The CZ just has seemingly endless numbers of tiny little springs that can be very difficult to work with.

Ok, on to the range report. 

For me, the Glock was the winner.  But it was so close that I can see why the CZ is becoming so popular, and I think ultimately I'd be happy to own either of these (if I couldn't have both!).

Sight radius.  As you can see in the picture above, the Glock has a longer sight radius despite the slightly shorter barrel.  And as I mentioned before, if you keep the sights on both stock, the difference is even more pronounced.  As always, longer is better.  Slight edge to the Glock.

Trigger feel.  I was shooting the CZ with a competition hammer and single action trigger that is adjustable for take up and over travel.  The Glock has a stock trigger, but with a Ghost Recon 3.5 lb connector, with overtravel stop.  This connector both reduces trigger pull weight, but also has a tab that one files down in order to reduce over travel.  Both features work as advertised.  However, after getting some feedback from the range master, I took it out.  Ultimately, the point at which the trigger breaks is really spongey.  The trigger feels like it's rolling over something, then comes to rest against the overtravel stop, then a tiny amount of pressure causes it to break.  Sometimes.  Sometimes it feels like it breaks as soon as it rolls over the "bump." If you've shot certain Glock triggers you know what I mean.  It's just not consistent, which is a shame.  So I went back to a Scherer 3.5 lb. connector that is more consistent, and feels almost exactly like the connector on the popular Glock 34.

The CZ trigger is consistent, but the pull distance is just so long.  It does have a sort of "two stage" feel which I like.  It's nice to be able to stage the trigger, and then be able to feel that last little bit of resistance that means the shot is about to break.  I think ultimately this trigger is pretty good.  After shooting it against the Glock, and having meaningful data on split times (see below), I think the two are equally good.  However, the edge still goes to Glock because the Glock cost $30 in aftermarket parts, and the CZ cost over $100.

Accuracy. I think it's pretty much a wash.  If you can't hit what you're aiming at with either of these, it's you, not the gun.

Muzzle flip.  This is so subjective.  If people disagree, I think it's completely fair.  However, for me the Glock, despite its lighter weight, has less muzzle flip.  That's just how it feels when I shoot it.  The sights are easier to track, and the gun feels like I get it on target faster.  The numbers don't quite conclusively support this (see below), but that's how it (subjectively) feels.

Time to first shot.  The Glock had a significant advantage here.  The CZ has a thumb safety that has to be deactivated in order to get the shot off, and that slows it down a bit.  I've never had a problem deactivating a 1911 style safety, but the CZ safety takes a little more effort because of it's position and rounded shape.  My average time to first shot with the Glock was 1.41 seconds, and with the CZ it was 1.81 seconds.  That's almost a half second slower, which for competitive shooting could be pretty significant.

Here you can see how the thumb safety is kind of rounded over.  I don't know why they would design it this way.  A flat thumb pad is easier to deactive, and gives you a place to rest your thumb while gripping the pistol.

Splits between shots.  This category was pretty even.  My Glock splits between shots averaged around .38 seconds, and my CZ splits averaged around .44 seconds.  I'm not fast enough with either yet to really call this one.  A better shooter would definitely have a better opinion.

Reloading.  This one is pretty much a wash as well.  The Glock is definitely easier to power stroke after reloading because it has bigger and better slide serrations.  The serrations on the CZ are small and not sharp, and there is always the chance you'll grab part of the greasy rail and your hand will slip off.  On the other hand, even with the extended Glock slide stop installed, it's easier to actuate the CZ's larger slide stop.  Each pistol has minor advantages in this category, but to be honest I've never had any trouble either actuating the Glock slide stop or powerstroking the CZ.

Here you can see the Glock's small controls (and this is the extended slide stop!).  Though small, I find them very easy to use, even at speed.

The CZ slide serrations (with potentially greasy rail).

The Glock slide serrations.

Finally, an interesting thing happened while I was shooting.  The owner of the range happened by on his golf cart, and watched me practicing Mozambique drills.  He then rolled up and asked if I wanted a tip.  "Sure," I said.  He watched me shoot a few more, and started asking about how I pull the trigger, what my order of operations is for breaking a shot, and whether I had ever taken any training.

I answered the last question first, and admitted that my only training in dynamic pistol shooting is from competing in IDPA and from reading stuff on the internet.  I said for breaking a shot, I take the slack out of the trigger as I align the sights, then press to the rear as the sights line up.  After the shot breaks I only let the trigger reset as far as it needs to in order to break the next shot (called riding the reset), then break the shot as soon as my sights are realigned.

His suggestion was to let the trigger all the way out between shots, then as you're aligning the sights take the slack up, then get the final alignment, take one more step, and then break the shot.  That one more step was to purposefully relax the strong hand immediately before breaking the shot.  The reasoning for his changes were the following:  By letting the trigger all the way out, we eliminate the chance of short stroking the trigger. By relaxing our hand immediately before breaking the shot, we get rid of those pesky left and low left pushes.  He claimed that these steps can be done just as fast as riding the reset.  Hopefully that's true.

He then said, "Try it."  I thought, "why not," and started the process of taking out the slack and beginning to align my sights on the center of a paper plate I was using as a target.  He said, "I want you to shoot the staple that's holding up the target."  This was at about 8 to 10 yards.  I thought, "Oh crap."  I was taking a while to line up the sights, and just before I took the first shot he chided me for being slow.  I hit about an inch high.  Trying to be quicker, I took up the slack, aligned the sights, relaxed my strong hand, and broke the shot.  I'll be damned if I didn't hit that staple!  Because I never remember to bring my camera to the range, I made sure to bring the target home.

So who was this mystery instructor?  It turns out he's Len Baxley, a two time IDPA National Champion and one time winner of the IDPA International Championship.  I'm now trying to get into one of his rare civilian classes, as it seems he spends most of his class time instructing military and law enforcement.  For that class, I'll be bringing the Glock 17.

More in depth on Kimber vs. Les Baer

In a previous installment I discussed some aspects of two 1911 pistols, the Kimber Custom II and the Les Baer Thunder Ranch Special. 

 

Having spent more time with the Les Baer, and having shot them side-by-side at the range, I feel like I'm in a better position to give an in-depth comparison, in case anyone is considering: a) whether to buy an entry-level 1911 and build it up; or b) whether to just save the money to purchase a true "custom" pistol. 

First, a note on the word, "custom."  Anyone with a brain would take issue with Kimber's use of the word "custom" in the name of this product.  The Custom II is in no way a custom pistol.  Kimber calling it the "Custom II" would be like Honda naming their new Civic model the "Aston Martin V12."  Still, if that's how they want to brand their product, then so be it.  The Les Baer, on the other hand is often referred to as a "semi-custom" pistol.  I have to kind of take issue with that.  Anyone can place an order with Les Baer for basically any configuration they want.  The turn around time for such an order is currently around 18 weeks, from what I've heard.  If someone placed an order for an unsual configuration, built specifically to their requriements, I don't think any of us would take issue with calling that pistol a "custom."  However, if I don't want an unusual configuration, and a dealer has a Les Baer in stock that has everything I desire, how is that different than ordering something bespoke?  I mean, the only difference is the wait time.  The pistols are made by the same smiths, using the same equipment, and using the same techniques.  I'd say they're both custom, and therefore Les Baer is a true custom pistol.  Feel free to disagree if you wish. 

First, let's compare cost.  A new Les Baer TRS runs about $1850.  A new Kimber Custom II runs about $700.  In my opinion, to make the Kimber really usable a few things need to be upgraded.  I have upgraded mine with the following, prices included:

Trijicon night sights:  $115

EGW FPS:   $15

Wilson Combat extractor:  $30

Ed Brown MSH with magwell:  $78

STI sear, disconnector, hammer:  $75

VZ double diamond G10 grips:  $65

Ed Brown slide stop:  $38

Ed Brown thumb safety: $34

3 Wilson Combat 47D magazines:  $100

If you install all of that stuff yourself, you can save some dough.  If not, I think you could expect to pay around $200 for a gunsmith to install it for you.  This brings the grand total to somewhere in the range of $1,250 to $1,450.  For that you get a pretty good pistol.  It's not a great pistol - the barrel fitting and slide to frame fit will both be as good or as bad as they were when they left the factory, but it's pretty good.  Actually, that's a lot to spend for something that's only "pretty good."  Man, now that I add it all up, I'm depressed.  I could have had a Springfield TRP Operator for that much.  Instead I have a Kimber with a cast frame and a somewhat sloppy fit that I can't sell.  It's a fine shooter, but it's not worth what a TRP would be worth.

Anyway, I think it ends up being something of a false economy to build one of these things up.  Sure, you can save a few bucks here and there, and at least you don't take the financial hit all at once, but in the end you don't have the warranty and service that you get from a true custom builder.  You don't have a craftsman who took pride in your pistol.  The main benefit of building it ups yourself is that you will learn a lot, and if that's your true goal then maybe it's worth it. 

So, onto a side-by-side range report of these two.  I'm going to separate this into three parts:  Reliability, Accuracy, and Shootability.

First, the reliability report:  I shot 250 rounds through the TRS this trip, and 50 rounds through the Kimber.  The purpose of this trip was to complete the "breaking in" phase for my TRS (which is not meant to make the pistol reliable, but just to smooth the internal contact surfaces), and to get a sense of how this thing shoots vs the Kimber using a variety of ammo.  The TRS ran like a sewing machine through 5 different brands of ammo:  Winchester White Box, Federal, Seillor & Bellot, Remington UMC, and MFS (some Eastern Euro ammo I found at Cabelas).  The Kimber, on the other hand, had one FTF issue with the Federal, the Seillor & Bellot, and the MFS.  In the Kimber's defense, I think I have the extractor tensioned a little too high, which results in the FTF issues.  The reason for the high tension is that previously the Kimber just sort of "farted" out the shell casings, and I was trying to improve ejection.  Ejection is better now, but I may have gone a hair too far in the other direction.  The Les Baer ejects very positively, even with very light extractor tension. 

This is the Les Baer's ejector.

And the Kimber's.

I realize there is a fair amount of alchemy to shaping an ejector, but ultimately the Kimber's ejector doesn't work very well.  You can see that it's more of a nub, and the ejector on the Baer is more extended.  The implication is that if I don't have the extractor tensioned pretty tight, the ejector doesn't fling the cases out reliably, and if the extractor is too tight, the rounds don't feed reliably.  It's more of a balancing act than I think is appropriate, and I wish the folks at Kimber had paid better attention to this part.

At this point the TRS just seems to be inherently more reliable.  The Kimber had teething issues at first (they pretty much all do), then ran fine for about 3000 rounds, then developed ejection problems (que new extractor), and now has minor feeding issues.  I think the Kimber will run fine if I can just find the right balance for it, but that's a bit of a tightrope walk.  The Les Baer, on the other hand, came right out of the box extremely reliable, and ran perfectly through 500 rounds without being cleaned.  I did have a problem with one magazine (a Wilson 47D with a weak spring), but that was replaced and the problem didn't resurface.  Now, does this mean the TRS will always be perfectly reliable?  No, but if I had to choose one to take into a gun fight...

Ok, on to shootability.  The key differences are the trigger pull (this was with the stock Kimber parts), the weight, the grips, and the sights. 

First, the trigger pull.  I wrote before that the Baer breaks right at 4 lbs, and breaks crisply and cleanly with no creep.  It's wonderful.  The Kimber creeps a bit, and breaks somewhere a little north of 5 lbs, but it isn't always consistent.  Major edge to the craftsmanship of the Baer here. 

The Kimber is the heavier of the two pistols, given the mag well and full length guide rod.  The debate rages on about FLGR vs the GI guide rod, but I will say that the FLGR does aid at least a little bit in dampening muzzle flip.  I've even previously shot the Kimber back to back with the stock FLGR, and then replaced with an Ed Brown GI guide rod, and the difference was small but very noticable.  It has been said before that there is good weight, and there is bad weight.  For a night stand gun, this is good weight.  Even better weight would be a bull barrel and a full picatinny rail dust cover with tac light.  But if you ever plan to carry the thing, lighter is better.  Anyway, the Baer does exhibit slightly more muzzle flip than the Kimber, but not so much that it makes much of a difference.  **A note on the Ed Brown mainspring housing with magwell:  Don't buy this part.  Get a Smith & Alexander one-piece MSH with magwell.  Even with loctite, the Ed Brown magwell comes loose during long range sessions, and you either need a set of allen wrenches to tighten it back up, or you have to just let it flop around until it loosens up enough that you can unscrew the thing with your fingers. 

 The grips make a big difference.  The stock thin cocobolo grip on the Baer are very functional in that they're low profile for carry purposes, and they allow you to get a tremendous purchase on the gun when firing single handed.  However, when using a modern thumbs-forward, two-handed grip, they don't allow for a whole lot of grip support from the weak hand.  The G10 VZ grips on the Kimber really make a big difference.  Support hand gripping is awesome, which allows for better recoil management and more accurate shooting at speed. 

The front strap checkering on the Baer is really nice - it allows for a great grip without being uncomfortable over long range sessions.  On the Kimber I threw a piece of 3M skateboard tape onto the frontstrap.  It works, but it's not pretty, it will need to be replaced eventually, and it can be a little scratchy over long range sessions. 

Finally, accuracy.

Accuracy is such a subjective thing.  Without putting each pistol in a Ransom Rest, it's hard to give a verdict on which one is more accurate.  I can attest to which pistol I shot better at different distances, and that's about it.  Others might have different results.  At 15 yards the Les Baer was easily the more accurate pistol for me.  I was taking my time between shots, and the taller sights and better trigger resulted in much more accurate hits. 

At 7 yards, I was surprised to find that I shot the Kimber better.  With both pistols I was shooting much more rapidly and using a less precise sight picture.  The G10 grips on the Kimber meant that my support hand had a much better purchase on the gun, and the FLGR and steel magwell meant that the Kimber exhibited slightly less muzzle flip.  In 8 shots, rapid fire at 7 yards, I shot a silver-dollar sized hole through the center of my target (sorry, forgot the camera - you'll have to take my word for it).  With the Les Baer, the group was about an inch and a half left of center, and about twice as big.  Because the Les Baer has thin, smooth wood grips I have to grip harder with my right hand in order to stabilize the pistol, and when I do this I tend to push my shots a bit to the left.  My hits were adequate for combat accuracy with both pistols, but they were better with the Kimber during rapid fire due to the grips. 

This result gave me a lot to consider.  Should I put better grips on the Les Baer, or keep the thin ones for a lower profile if I choose to carry it?  Is the decrease in muzzle flip worth putting a FLGR on the TRS?  The big reason not to do it is that one needs a bushing wrench to field strip a pistol with a FLGR, but I already need a bushing wrench with the Les Baer because it's so damn tight.  The question is really, do you go one step further to make a combat pistol a little more effective, or do you keep it simple as long as it works?  I have no idea.  Thoughts, anyone?

The next step is to shoot both back to back in more of a "tactical" scenario on a more dynamic range, and see which pistol scores the best hits in the least time.  I have plans to do more of this testing when I get a membership to a more lenient range here in the near future.  Stay tuned.

Anyway, I hope this was helpful for anyone who might be interested in one of these pistols.  If there is anything you would like me to cover please let me know.

Update on the Fusion Project

I've been communicating with Bob Serva, the head of Fusion Firearms. 

Serious question:  How often is it the president of a company that is also the lead customer service representative? 

At the risk of sounding like I'm giving too much of a glowing review of Fusion (and thus sounding like an internet "fanboy" to whom the company can do no wrong), I will say that these guys stay incredibly close to their customers.  I work in an industry where I see constantly senior management that is completely disconnected from their customers - in both small businesses and major multinationals. 

So less than 24 hours after I discovered the problem I have a UPS overnight shipping label sent by Bob, with the promise that they will fit a new slide to my frame.  I'm not sure what the total turn-around time will be, but I'll ask Bob and keep you posted. 

To keep things balanced, here are some basic concerns going forward:  I'm concerned that it's not a good idea to fit multiple slides to a frame - that it may require taking shortcuts with the fitting that will leave me with a fit that isn't as good as what I had before.  I have similar concerns about the barrel and bushing being re-fit to the slide.  If anyone has any experience with this stuff please let me know.

New parts for the Kimber

I finally got the stuff together to replace the fire control group in the Kimber.  I figured it would be a good idea to get all the parts from the same manufacturer to have the best chance of them working together without a lot of extra fitting on my end.  I chose STI, as they seem to make quality parts at pretty reasonable prices.  Plus the hammer I got looks pretty cool.  I had my Ed Brown sear jig out, but it turned out I didn't have to use it.  The STI parts mated together extremely well, even though they weren't sold as a pre-fit kit.  I did use my digital calipers and a feeler gauge to verify that the parts were dimensionally correct, and also checked the parts against the specs in the Kuhnhousen volume 1.  Everything looked good.

I was concerned that I would have to replace the thumb safety, but after switching out the hammer, sear, and disconnector I saw that the existing safety only needed to be filed a bit to fit with the new parts.  Sweet.  

The key to fitting a thumb safety is to go slow and test fit often.  Work with the gun put together, but without the grip safety so you can see what's happening when you test fit.  And don't get in a rush - a few strokes of the file and test fit, a few strokes and test fit.  If you lose patience and try to skip a few test fittings it's almost guaranteed you'll remove too much metal and have to buy a new part.  It's also helpful to have a properly fitted thumb safety nearby for comparison.  Of course every safety will fit differently, but you can compare the safety you're fitting with the other to see if you're filing the correct area with the proper angle, etc.  

Using the frame for a jig to check sear/hammer engagement isn't perfect, but you can kind of manipulate it to show you what you need to see.  These are the old Kimber parts.  Note the MIM marks on the hammer.  

These are the STI parts.  The new trigger pull is a consistent 4.75 lbs.  It's a little high, but I think it will come down a bit over time.  It's also a big improvement over the previous weight, plus it now breaks with zero creep, which is what I was most concerned about.  I need to test fire to make sure the new disconnector is working properly, but overall I'm happy with the way it turned out.  These parts are "in the white" so I need to get some cold blue or something to with which to finish them.  In the meantime I'm sure they'll be ok in the case with a coat of oil.

Firing Pin Stop Fitting

Current progress:

Blend undercut trigger guard.

Fit trigger to frame.

Fit hammer, sear, disconnecter.

Trigger job.

Fit and blend grip safety.

Fit firing pin stop.

Fit extractor.

Fit thumb safety.

Fit slide stop.

Do a general de-burring and pre-finish clean up.

Refinish.

Decide on grips.

Install sights.

Test fire.

Adjust ejector.

Lock-tite the grip bushings, trigger overtravel screw, and rear sight set screw.

I spent the morning installing the firing pin stop.  It's critical to get a good fit with this part, because if it's too loose it could fall out, or it could cause the firing pin to get stuck, or it could allow the extractor to "clock," resulting in poor or erratic ejection.  

Here's how it looked when I got started:

I used a hone from an old Lansky knife sharpening kit in order to fit the firing pin stop.  This allowed me to remove very little metal between test fittings while keeping the edges very smooth and polished.  Basically you test fit, stone a few times, mark the part with black magic marker, test fit again, see where the marker has rubbed off, and stone some more.  Repeat for as long as it takes to get the part to be able to mate with the slide.  Then test how the FPS fits with the extractor, insert the extractor into the slide, and see if the whole thing fits together.  If not, determine where it's sticking and address those areas.  

Finally the whole thing is together.  Notice I did not insert the firing pin.  I don't really need it yet, and the snugness of the firing pin stop in the frame is enough to keep it all together without the firing pin holding it in place.  I'll add the firing pin when I start to do some function checks with snap caps, but that's a ways away.  For now, I'll leave the firing pin out for general safety reasons while I continue to fit everything together.

With the extractor and FPS installed, I can see if the pistol will cycle snap caps and even live rounds!  (remember, no firing pin yet, so we can safely cycle live rounds without any chance of a negligent discharge).  

First I wanted to adjust the extractor tension before I tried to feed a snap cap from a magazine.  I pulled out my trusty brass Weigand extractor tension guage, and wouldn't you know, it wouldn't even go under the extractor.  I figured the tension must be way, way too high to begin with.  So I pulled out my flashlight in order to get a better view of what's going on, and...

Disaster.

This is the best picture I could get of the problem.  The breachface is too narrow to accept a .40 caliber shell.  Shit.  This must be a 9mm or .38 Super slide they sent me.  I emailed Bob at Fusion, but haven't heard back yet.  

I'm concerned because there is a good chance I'll have to start completely over with this project.  Hopefully they can simply re-mill the breech face, but we'll see.  I'm a little perturbed they spent so much time mating the .40 barrel to the bushing, and both of those to the slide, and all of that to the frame, and never noticed that the breach face was wrong.  

I'll update when I get Bob's response.  In the meantime, it's possible to keep working on frame components, but if the frame is replaced then that's not a good idea, because all of those components will need to be replaced as well.