PGB Award PF940C "Cobalt Celtic" Build Diary

USApat said:
tartan-celtic-pgb-p80-2-jpg.9957


The tartan red looks simply bad ass. šŸ˜(y)

You have four days to have this gun completed in time to take to your local saloon for a St Patty's day celebration firing it off toward the ceiling western style.
Click to expand...
One thing I will say if you decide to pursue this is to look at the pixel density and resolution settings of the original tartan red sample you used online. It will be defined in the photoshop file typically under the "image" dropdown. Then open your gun photo image and check it there too.

The pixel density and the corresponding resolutions must match or be very close to get a proper idea how the gun will look if/when you decide to do this.

Some graphics programs ignore the differences when pasting and just do it and scale the pasted image to fill the mask layer.
Otherwise, your end result could look quite different than your photoshop rendering. To me, that tartan looks quite enlarged and is probably a lower pixel density and/or resolution than the gun image you pasted it on. So the plaid effect for the final product is probably going to be much smaller and more condensed and subsequently not so in your face large like it is in the photoshop image sample you've done. If the plaid image is too low a resolution, then it may look fuzzy when you paste into the mask layer and match the resolution to your gun image.

There are several different settings that relate to both pixel density and resolution in photoshop. I seem to recall in Photoshopl it may be LPI. Photoshop was traditionally used in pre-press production so they used LPI or Lines Per Inch when they first developed the program. Its what printer use when printing a physical brochure you hold in your hands. Then stuff shifted to web, which uses pixel densities and "screen resolution" rather than pre-press LPI as a basis for how dense or clear the image is. Pixel density, LPI and resolution are a little bit complex to wrap your head around, but all of them drastically effect graphics clarity and sizing both on printed material and everything from computer monitors to retina style displays on an Iphone which show crystal clear images.

But, you can get it close by matching the resolutions and settings. There are several settings to master when doing this stuff and there are tutorials and help links online if you want to waste time seeing how it all works.
 
Last edited:
USApat said:
One thing I will say if you decide to pursue this is to look at the pixel density and resolution settings of the original tartan red sample you used online. It will be defined in the photoshop file typically under the "image" dropdown. Then open your gun photo image and check it there too.

The pixel density and the corresponding resolutions must match or be very close to get a proper idea how the gun will look if/when you decide to do this.

Some graphics programs ignore the differences when pasting and just do it and scale the pasted image to fill the mask layer.
Otherwise, your end result could look quite different than your photoshop rendering. To me, that tartan looks quite enlarged and is probably a lower pixel density and/or resolution than the gun image you pasted it on. So the plaid effect for the final product is probably going to be much smaller and more condensed and subsequently not so in your face large like it is in the photoshop image sample you've done. If the plaid image is too low a resolution, then it may look fuzzy when you paste into the mask layer and match the resolution to your gun image.

Here is an example of the pane you want to go through below. There are several different settings that relate to both pixel density and resolution in photoshop. I seem to recall in Photoshopl it may be LPI. Photoshop was traditionally used in pre-press production so they used LPI or Lines Per Inch when they first developed the program. Its what printer use when printing a physical brochure you hold in your hands. Then stuff shifted to web, which uses pixel densities and "screen resolution" rather than pre-press LPI as a basis for how dense or clear the image is. Pixel density, LPI and resolution are a little bit complex to wrap your head around, but all of them drastically effect graphics clarity and sizing both on printed material and everything from computer monitors to retina style displays on an Iphone which show crystal clear images.

But, you can get it close by matching the resolutions and settings that I've pointed out in the attached sample graphic. There are several settings to master when doing this stuff and there are tutorials and help links online if you want to waste time seeing how it all works.

View attachment 9989
Click to expand...
Oh, I am a rank amateur when it comes to photoshop skills. That was just a quickie just to demonstrate the IDEA of a tartan grip area. The image used was much bigger, so the proportions of the tartan pattern are too big in this image, and I didn't take the time to resize it. It was just a quickie mock-up. Quickies... I like quickies.
 
Racer88 said:
Oh, I am a rank amateur when it comes to photoshop skills. That was just a quickie just to demonstrate the IDEA of a tartan grip area. The image used was much bigger, so the proportions of the tartan pattern are too big in this image, and I didn't take the time to resize it. It was just a quickie mock-up. Quickies... I like quickies.
Click to expand...
No worries man. I wasn't being critical. Photoshop is a PITA to learn fully. It's a powerful program. I was just laying out some information that is useful for manipulation of files and resolution in general if you decide to explore it in the future. It is a PITA to learn and has changed a lot in the smartphone era where pixel density greatly affects how shit looks on a smart phone. That's why I know about it.

I use old school versions of Creative Suite that I own rather than the membership subscription version. It has a much easier program to use with Fireworks. That's what I use for almost all image manipulations. Adobe bought the company that produced that software years back and then tabled the software and buried it. It was on the road to put Photoshop out of business, so they snapped it up and destroyed it by throwing it in the Adobe dumpster outside their headquarters. That's how Silicon valley works.
 
I'm waiting for Cross Armory to get their purple and chrome sites back in stock. I' thinking the Chrome ones might look good on the "Cobalt Celtic" if they ever come in...

crossarmory.com

Glock Pistol Sights | P80 Sights | Glow in the Dark | Cross Armory

The best sights for Glock. Glow-in-the-dark sights for Glock and P80 pistols. Stainless Steel sights with locking screw, only from Cross Armory.
crossarmory.com crossarmory.com
 
Michele said:
Would like to see that HAD ramp vs one of your OEM or great shooters side by side
Click to expand...
OK... I compare the HAD to Glock and a Florida Man Supply / 80P Builder / Zaffiri barrels. All G19 size barrels.

They're all a bit dirty. I wiped them with a cloth for the pics.

Barrel-feed-ramps-1.jpg


Barrel-feed-ramps-2.jpg


Barrel-feed-ramps-3.jpg


Whattaya think @Michele @GSW10?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I think I'll just check / polish the feed ramp, breach-face, extractor. And then run some more ammo through it.
 
Racer88 said:
I think I'll just check / polish the feed ramp, breach-face, extractor. And then run some more ammo through it.
Click to expand...
With all your reliable toys and so many extras frames and backup tools, you should accept that you've been HAD, and just mail that piece of freedom to me.
 
USApat said:
With all your reliable toys and so many extras frames and backup tools, you should accept that you've been HAD, and just mail that piece of freedom to me.
Click to expand...
Season 9 Hbo GIF by Curb Your Enthusiasm
 
Racer your build is inspiring. Iā€™ve a PF45 lower in the cobalt colorā€¦all but the RSA channel is cleared (all OEM trigger goodies already fitted), and was thinking what would go best without a matching Cerakote slideā€¦was leaning towards bare brushed stainless. Your build is giving me confidence that combo works. Looks GOOD!

Might be awhile before I can get to finishing that critter. But I can dream! Way to go!!
 
Last edited:
Racer88 said:
OK... I compare the HAD to Glock and a Florida Man Supply / 80P Builder / Zaffiri barrels. All G19 size barrels.

They're all a bit dirty. I wiped them with a cloth for the pics.

View attachment 9995

View attachment 9997

View attachment 9998

Whattaya think @Michele @GSW10?
Click to expand...
Wow, MUCH nicer than what I got... (And for the record, that poor feed-ramp did nothing to dissuade me from liking H.A.D. -they are still a core go-to for me!(y)) I do think the transition itself looks a bit sharp though. I would suggest a decent polishing (and you know what I mean by that -leave the carbide cutting-mills and 30-grit abrasive bits out of it!:p) of the chamber, and perhaps knock the edge down a little ("green" polishers should do well enough if you have them) -just enough to round it out and soften it, but make sure no significant chamber-support is lost either. Your OEM Glock chamber should serve as a safety-guide.

But a really good question I thought too late to ask on the earlier post is, did you try swapping-out the barrel for a known-good part? You have two right there...;) Or try this barrel in another pistol?
 
GSW10 said:
but make sure no significant chamber-support is lost either. Your OEM Glock chamber should serve as a safety-guide.
Click to expand...
Any chance you could point out what area you mean when you say "significant chamber support"? Perhaps with some fine point arrows on a photo illustrating what you mean by that term. Thx in advance if you can!
 
USApat said:
Any chance you could point out what area you mean when you say "significant chamber support"? Perhaps with some fine point arrows on a photo illustrating what you mean by that term. Thx in advance if you can!
Click to expand...
1678864376556.png

"Chamber support" could more accurately be called "Cartridge support". Notice that the feed-ramp actually cuts INTO the chamber on Glocks. The rear of the casing sits flush with the rear sides of the barrel's chamber*, so you can clearly see here that the bottom edge of the cartridge has no chamber wall supporting it. When the primer ignites the powder, 30,000+ psi of explosive pressure is pushing out on every part of the cartridge's casing, trying to rupture it and escape, just as evenly as it is pushing the back-side of the actual bullet projectile. Glocks are NOTORIOUSLY under-supported. They work fine for factory-loaded ammo (except for the occasional defective 'hot-load'), but hand-loaders have had problems with them for years... Trying to get every last FPS from some particular-grain bullet for the extra bragging-points has detonated more than one Glock over the years.

Look at Racer88's photo carefully, and notice how smooth and curved the transition is from Feed-ramp to chamber on the OEM Glock barrel, but notice also how far in that scalloped radius cuts into the area that SHOULD be supporting the casing from expanding and rupturing. This is of course totally normal, even my S&W 10mm has a nice cut-away from the bottom of the chamber like this -and that thing was made when the original Norma nuclear-loads were still lurking out there. ;) Loosing SOME chamber-support in exchange for better feeding is one of the balancing-acts the engineers have to play with. Glocks are VERY reliable, for a reason, but also with a compromise.

Edit: Smile! You've got a Glock!
1678866734223.png

(The "Glock Smile"...)
(Perhaps one that the man Kenny himself may appreciate! ;)):LOL::ROFLMAO:šŸ˜‚


*Edit #2: Okay, actually the rear of the cartridge extends out to the rear of the barrel's "hood", but that area is very thick and isn't expected to be 'supported'. So, to be precise, "the 'thin-walled powder-holding section' of the cartridge extends to ~the rear sides of the barrel's chamber..."
1678867570997.png

And of course the cases can also be aluminum, steel, or other materials too... Not trying to over-specify every detail to the point where the meaning of the information is lost...:p
 

Attachments

  • 1678867551770.png
    1678867551770.png
    300.4 KB · Views: 86
Last edited:
GSW10 said:
View attachment 10011
"Chamber support" could more accurately be called "Cartridge support". Notice that the feed-ramp actually cuts INTO the chamber on Glocks. The rear of the casing sits flush with the rear sides of the barrel's chamber, so you can clearly see here that the bottom edge of the cartridge has no chamber wall supporting it. When the primer ignites the powder, 30,000+ psi of explosive pressure is pushing out on every part of the cartridge's casing, trying to rupture it and escape, just as evenly as it is pushing the back-side of the actual bullet projectile. Glocks are NOTORIOUSLY under-supported. They work fine for factory-loaded ammo (except for the occasional defective 'hot-load'), but hand-loaders have had problems with them for years... Trying to get every last FPS from some particular-grain bullet for the extra bragging-points has detonated more than one Glock over the years.

Look at Racer88's photo carefully, and notice how smooth and curved the transition is from Feed-ramp to chamber on the OEM Glock barrel, but notice also how far in that scalloped radius cuts into the area that SHOULD be supporting the casing from expanding and rupturing. This is of course totally normal, even my S&W 10mm has a nice cut-away from the bottom of the chamber like this -and that thing was made when the original Norma nuclear-loads were still lurking out there. ;) Loosing SOME chamber-support in exchange for better feeding is one of the balancing-acts the engineers have to play with. Glocks are VERY reliable, for a reason, but also with a compromise.
Click to expand...

I get it 100% now.
"Cartridge support" is definitely easier to visualize.
'tis the backfire of firearms in the wrong direction. Or a failed diode dumping current the wrong direction.
I'm a car guy if you can't tell :).

So, how do you figure out how much is too much of a ramp. It would seem like you need decent experience on a lot of levels with a lot of different rounds and cartridge loads to make some assumptions about how much is too much. Getting the port work wrong on an engine just screws up the engine and not your face. šŸ§Ø ļøā€šŸ”„

Thx for drawing that up!
 

Share this page

Back
Top