Quote from: mcseal2 on June 18 2019 03:48:57 PM MDT
My G20 is off at the gunsmith's now with some of the HC ammo.  I'll see what he figures out.  The other 10mm I traded for, a Sig Tacops 1911 is feeding everything fine so far.  Maybe it was just me.  The HC ammo in the G20 didn't seem to kick noticeably more than the 180gr at 1250fps JHP ammo I shot through it, and I never had a failure to feed in around 400 rounds of that through the G20.  Would bad shooting form cause jams with one and not the other?

Short answer is yes. The Sig is an all steel 1911. Steel frame 1911's are not prone to wrist technique issues. Glocks (my favorite pistols) can be prone to this due to their lightweight polymer frames. This has been my experience with them.Full power 10mm requires a tight wrist lock.

Absolutely, my wife had issues with the G20, but none whatsoever with my RIA FS / HC 10mm

I guess if it shoots fine for him I'll know what the problem is.  Thanks everyone.

Hey mcseal2, I'll be curious to see what you come up with.  I now have the XDM 10MM in both 4.5 and 5.25.  I cannot get either one of those to jam in several trips to the range, not a single time.  Underwood 220 and 200 gr and my reloads all of which jam my G20 gen 4s consistently (both of them).  3 weeks ago I sold my 2nd gen 4 and picked up a G20 SF (which as far as I can tell is still mostly the Gen 3 version with just the gen 4 grip, no back straps).  I have only had that to the range once, but guess what, not a single jam, same ammo, Underwood (2 mags of 200gr) and my peppier reloads (6 mags) and stock mag springs, all mags fully loaded with 15 rounds.  Neither of the gen 4's would ever make it through those 8 mags (with me as the shooter...).  I didn't want to give up on the G20 just because there are so many options there for upgrades (barrels, sights, etc. both of which I already have), vs what's available for the XDM.  If my experience holds up on the SF, I will be swapping out the sights from my 1st Gen 4 and then selling it.  Luv the XDM's too, but the available options just are not there yet as far as I can find.  There are other threads on this sight where the Gen 4 was a problem.  Maybe the Gen 4's just take more experience to shoot (i'm going to choose to tell myself that's not it, and that there may be a flaw there) , but if the SF works with my level of skill, that's going to be my backpacking carry.

My gunsmith is bringing it back this weekend.  He moved to Texas this year and hasn't been back home since I sent the gun with him.

He says it fed fine with limited amount of hardcast he took with him after some work.  It was a mix of Buffalo Bore and Underwood.  He didn't find any more locally to try.

He first polished the feed ramp and that did not work.  Then he polished the trigger bar and other internals.  He said it works now, also the trigger pull dropped from 8.5lbs to 5.5lbs.  I have 90 rounds of hardcast in 200-230gr weights from Underwood and Double Tap waiting for it to arrive.  I will post again once I get it shot and hopefully find a load that will work for me.

Thanks everyone for the input. 

Good luck! My Gen 4 feeds the 230 grain Doubletap Hardcast without issue. You shouldn't have a problem.

My gen-4 Glock 20 wouldn't function with hot loads (especially 220 Underwood's) without changing out the recoil spring. Forget if I went with a #20 or #22 spring from Lone Wolf, but it solved the feeding issues with the 220 Underwood's, and it feeds everything else just fine, too.

I put in a #24 spring, and while it might have been ok with 220 Underwood's, it wouldn't function with any other ammo reliably so I took it out.

In talking to Underwood they report that the 220 load is the most problematic for people, while the 200 grain hard cast seem to function reliably for most people without any weapon modification.

It makes sense that Glock under-sprung the 10mm, since the vast majority of ammo you can buy for it is little more than .40+p and they might not function in a gun sprung for the full power stuff.

On a side note, the magazine springs in my 10mm are nothing close to the power of the springs in my .40 magazines. I don't recall changing out the springs in the .40 magazines, but maybe I did. I bet the 10mm springs (new) are half the power of the .40 springs. Odd.

I tried a 22 and 24lb recoil spring, tried +10% Wolf mag springs, tried putting 2 factory mag springs in one mag.  I tried every possible combo of those things.  Nothing worked for me, hopefully it was just a burr somewhere in the gun that is now fixed. 

And remember to keep a tight wrist. With the light weight of Glock pistols and heavy ten ammo, if you relax you can cause malfunctions.

I know because it has happened to me. Tighten up the wrist and the malfunctions stop.

Not saying this is necessarily the cause with you, but just something to keep in the back of your mind.

Quote from: Muskrat on July 26 2019 09:51:39 AM MDT
My gen-4 Glock 20 wouldn't function with hot loads (especially 220 Underwood's) without changing out the recoil spring. Forget if I went with a #20 or #22 spring from Lone Wolf, but it solved the feeding issues with the 220 Underwood's, and it feeds everything else just fine, too.

I put in a #24 spring, and while it might have been ok with 220 Underwood's, it wouldn't function with any other ammo reliably so I took it out.

In talking to Underwood they report that the 220 load is the most problematic for people, while the 200 grain hard cast seem to function reliably for most people without any weapon modification.

It makes sense that Glock under-sprung the 10mm, since the vast majority of ammo you can buy for it is little more than .40+p and they might not function in a gun sprung for the full power stuff.

On a side note, the magazine springs in my 10mm are nothing close to the power of the springs in my .40 magazines. I don't recall changing out the springs in the .40 magazines, but maybe I did. I bet the 10mm springs (new) are half the power of the .40 springs. Odd.

Per Underwood's comments above, that's exactly what I found.  The 220 Underwood is a truncated cone bullet.  I have found it less reliable feeding (in any weight) than my 200 gr WFN Montana's and Beartooth's.  As such I'm surprised Underwood sells a heavy truncated cone bullet.  But we do know that if it runs in your gun it is really powerful. 

Problem is I don't know anybody selling really full power 200 gr WFN ammo.  Double Tap is good ammo but is not full power.  Yes... I like it that way but it's still not full power. 

Quote from: Spudmeister on July 27 2019 08:03:34 AM MDT

Quote from: Muskrat on July 26 2019 09:51:39 AM MDT
My gen-4 Glock 20 wouldn't function with hot loads (especially 220 Underwood's) without changing out the recoil spring. Forget if I went with a #20 or #22 spring from Lone Wolf, but it solved the feeding issues with the 220 Underwood's, and it feeds everything else just fine, too.

I put in a #24 spring, and while it might have been ok with 220 Underwood's, it wouldn't function with any other ammo reliably so I took it out.

In talking to Underwood they report that the 220 load is the most problematic for people, while the 200 grain hard cast seem to function reliably for most people without any weapon modification.

It makes sense that Glock under-sprung the 10mm, since the vast majority of ammo you can buy for it is little more than .40+p and they might not function in a gun sprung for the full power stuff.

On a side note, the magazine springs in my 10mm are nothing close to the power of the springs in my .40 magazines. I don't recall changing out the springs in the .40 magazines, but maybe I did. I bet the 10mm springs (new) are half the power of the .40 springs. Odd.

Per Underwood's comments above, that's exactly what I found.  The 220 Underwood is a truncated cone bullet.  I have found it less reliable feeding (in any weight) than my 200 gr WFN Montana's and Beartooth's.  As such I'm surprised Underwood sells a heavy truncated cone bullet.  But we do know that if it runs in your gun it is really powerful. 

Problem is I don't know anybody selling really full power 200 gr WFN ammo.  Double Tap is good ammo but is not full power.  Yes... I like it that way but it's still not full power.

Interesting. Most people seem to report just the opposite...that the larger meplat on the DT's and similar rounds is a significant inhibitor to reliable feeding. I cannot see any reason that a truncated cone would be more likely to jam than a wadcutter.

My impression is that the weight and velocity of the 220 grain Underwood is the issue, not the shape.

As for reliability in a Glock 20, I now remember that in addition to changing recoil springs I also changed out my extractor, and I put in a KKM barrel, though the barrel wasn't because of any reliability issues.

Quote from: Muskrat on July 27 2019 09:28:38 AM MDT

Quote from: Spudmeister on July 27 2019 08:03:34 AM MDT

Quote from: Muskrat on July 26 2019 09:51:39 AM MDT
My gen-4 Glock 20 wouldn't function with hot loads (especially 220 Underwood's) without changing out the recoil spring. Forget if I went with a #20 or #22 spring from Lone Wolf, but it solved the feeding issues with the 220 Underwood's, and it feeds everything else just fine, too.

I put in a #24 spring, and while it might have been ok with 220 Underwood's, it wouldn't function with any other ammo reliably so I took it out.

In talking to Underwood they report that the 220 load is the most problematic for people, while the 200 grain hard cast seem to function reliably for most people without any weapon modification.

It makes sense that Glock under-sprung the 10mm, since the vast majority of ammo you can buy for it is little more than .40+p and they might not function in a gun sprung for the full power stuff.

On a side note, the magazine springs in my 10mm are nothing close to the power of the springs in my .40 magazines. I don't recall changing out the springs in the .40 magazines, but maybe I did. I bet the 10mm springs (new) are half the power of the .40 springs. Odd.

Per Underwood's comments above, that's exactly what I found.  The 220 Underwood is a truncated cone bullet.  I have found it less reliable feeding (in any weight) than my 200 gr WFN Montana's and Beartooth's.  As such I'm surprised Underwood sells a heavy truncated cone bullet.  But we do know that if it runs in your gun it is really powerful. 

Problem is I don't know anybody selling really full power 200 gr WFN ammo.  Double Tap is good ammo but is not full power.  Yes... I like it that way but it's still not full power.

Interesting. Most people seem to report just the opposite...that the larger meplat on the DT's and similar rounds is a significant inhibitor to reliable feeding. I cannot see any reason that a truncated cone would be more likely to jam than a wadcutter.

My impression is that the weight and velocity of the 220 grain Underwood is the issue, not the shape.

As for reliability in a Glock 20, I now remember that in addition to changing recoil springs I also changed out my extractor, and I put in a KKM barrel, though the barrel wasn't because of any reliability issues.

Muskrat....  I totally agree with  you on the logic of it all.  Just thought it was interesting my personal experience matched what Underwood said.  The WFN design has worked extremely well (after getting LOA's set) in my G29's, 20's and 40.  I never actually ran the Underwood 220 gr but shot of a lot of the truncated cone design in lighter weight bullet reloads.  I've loaded the WFN load from mild to wild without issue.

And like you, I never saw a reduction in reliability going from the OEM barrel to a KKM or Storm Lake.

The gunsmith's stoning of the internals seems to have worked.  Between us we have put 46 rounds of Hardcast 220 and 200grain Underwood and Double Tap ammo through the gun without a malfunction.  I have more ammo coming in Tuesday to continue to test.  I think I'll probably end up running Underwood 200gr Hardcast.  It shot perfect horizontally and about 2.5" high with the way the new tritium/fiber optic sights are set.   My practice ammo (Fiocchi 180gr JHP) shoots the same, so it's a good combo for me.  The same can be said both of these ammo choices in my 1911 10mm.  The Double Tap 200gr shot a couple inches to the right the way the sights are set.

Quote from: mcseal2 on August 03 2019 01:04:21 PM MDT
The gunsmith's stoning of the internals seems to have worked.  Between us we have put 46 rounds of Hardcast 220 and 200grain Underwood and Double Tap ammo through the gun without a malfunction.  I have more ammo coming in Tuesday to continue to test.  I think I'll probably end up running Underwood 200gr Hardcast.  It shot perfect horizontally and about 2.5" high with the way the new tritium/fiber optic sights are set.   My practice ammo (Fiocchi 180gr JHP) shoots the same, so it's a good combo for me.  The same can be said both of these ammo choices in my 1911 10mm.  The Double Tap 200gr shot a couple inches to the right the way the sights are set.

Just read through all of this, wow, what a journey. I will be doing the .25¢ trigger job asap to my G29 when I pick it up hopefully tomorrow. I have all kinds of springs and a steel guide rod on order from Wolff, already have a Storm Lake barrel. The Zev Pro trigger is way backordered, will take until at least mid March to fill.

Basically I am building out a solid woods gun for my numerous solo jaunts in the high country of Colorado where I live. My woods loads as they would be thus far are UW 140gr X Penetrators, UW 220gr HC and G9 145gr Woodsman. I think for now i will just load up the copper monolithic until I can get sound results from the 220gr HC.

If you are still around please let me know how this is all going.

Cheers,

"Gauc"