Springfield Range Officer 9mm

First topic message reminder :

Last Winter's project gun. Started with a new 9mm SA RO from my LGS. Tightened the slide/rail fit using method 2A in the Kuhnhausen manual. Fitted a Fusion 1:10 match barrel, and an 0.001" over/under size EGW angle-bore bushing. Other EGW parts: ball-end disconnector, 0.200" slide stop (I kept the factory link...I could probably go one size shorter though), and enhanced sear spring (set-up for 4#). C and S parts: ultra-match hammer, super-lite sear, oversize hammer and sear pins, and 1-piece guide rod. Wolff recoil (8-9#) and 15# mainsprings. Rail (fits over the stock sights) and trigger shoe by Froneck. "Antiqued" rail finish by me. Tripp (Dawson) 9mm magazine. Smooth grips (from Amazon) that I then finished, then added the grip tape for my sweaty hands. It shoots pretty well, posted a target pic using the rail/dot in the Ammunition discussion under Ransom vs. Linear Slide testing. I load 147 JHP gr bullets (Zero, Magnus, and XTP) and ~3.0 to 3.2 gr. of fast powder for a ~875 fps subsonic soft shooting round. Only thing left is some trigger work. The C and S trigger is not bad, but I'd prefer a little less roll. About $650 in new parts (excluding the Holosun) plus the pistol. Roughly 20 hrs spent doing the handiwork. Interesting: fitting a barrel/bushing removing (polishing) small amounts of material as the barrel goes from being "sprung" to a precise non-binding fit. It felt like I was removing a tenth or two at a time (disassemble, polish, reassemble, check, repeat...). I was fun to do this. 1911's are much more interesting than AR service rifles.

Based on my limited experience, it seems like the adjustments on most sights is a compromise - change windage or elevation, and both might be changed.  Aimpoint H-2 seems to be the best at isolating one movement from the other - change only windage, and elevation remains unchanged.  Aimpoint H-2 also gets a better sight picture.  

I figure you get what you pay for.  Then too, the H-2 and the other sights seem to have different goals.  For action shooting, the other sights seem to work great, but for precision shooting, the Aimpoint works the best for me.

Vortex Venom seems unique - it is tiny, light, and I've never had a complaint.
My Ultradot L/T doesn't seem to be in the same class, but costs less.

The Aimpoint also shows a "full size" view, while the Ultradot tube sights show a reduced size image.  I've never tried the more expensive reflex sights, other than for the Vortex Venom - which satisfied me completely in every way.  

If it wasn't so heavy, I'd use the Aimpoint 9000, but my body complained every time I tried it.  :-(

As mentioned, the Kuhnhausen manual helped with understanding the methods for tightening slide/frame fit and other parts functions. I focused more on obtaining good lockup and lug fit rather than try to achieve an ultra-tight slide/frame fit. I've also been reading quite a bit here over the last couple of years. Many great suggestions and insights from our expert contributing gunsmiths and others. Parts selection was based mainly on what others have mentioned here. There are also videos on barrel fitting (Fusion and others). I don't have sophisticated machine tools, so I did most everything by hand (Sharpies are your friend). I was not up against a time deadline, so never in a hurry. Next up is a project for a friend and new shooter. He bought a new Tisas .45 1911 (imported by SDS from Turkey). Comes with a stainless barrel, beavertail grip safety, two magazines, and skeletonized target trigger...for $415 shipped and transferred! So I'm really curious how this gun presents itself as delivered. That will determine what I do with it. I'm also "installing" (aka, modifying the receiver for) a Nelson .22 conversion unit. He's going with optics rather than iron sights (most likely reflex), and really liked of being able to shoot two calibers with the same trigger. I just debugged a Nelson unit for a SA RO, so I've learned something about them.

tovaert wrote: So I'm really curious how this gun presents itself as delivered.

Interestingly, a friend just bought one and asked me to look it over and shoot it for him to see what I thought.

He's not a Bullseye shooter and just wanted something to plink with, so not having an adjustable rear sight isn't really an issue. This was the $600.00 model.

I had  five stray rounds left over from something else that I had loaded with 4.2 WST and 200 Brazos LSWC and sent them down range at 25 yards rested.

 

I'm pretty sure that the outlier was me.

I was also surprised that the sights were pretty much dead on, as I was using a sub six hold.

DA/SA wrote:........I was also surprised that the sights were pretty much dead on, as I was using a sub six hold.

I was confused by what you wrote, until I realized you meant the sights were pretty much dead-on for center-hold.

It seems to me like an overwhelming majority shooters in this forum prefer the sub-6-o'clock hold to have better contrast between the sights and the target.  I fought that for years, but gradually accepted sub-6 as the better choice.  

Between your ability, and the gun, I'd say you did great.  I might get a group like that, but only if I use a rest.  Maybe before I die, I'll eventually catch up.   :-)

With the exception of the SA-35, and the lack of expertise in their gun assemblers, Springfield seems like pretty good choice for new guns.  They also have a good staff of tech support people.

Very nice; thanks for posting!