Ron Avery

You are killing me..that is not me 2nd from the right..... Ron A

Do NOT use N310 for .40 Major. It is too fast and is not safe. I have a lot of experience with it in the past and gave it up for N320.

Gun Mods and LE The only time I will call myself an expert on firearms is when I have to testify as an expert witness and consultant. Here are some thoughts for discussion and future reference. I have been "in the business" of LE, both as an officer and a trainer for 29 years now and counting. I have been a professional consultant for over 25 of those years. It is not true that a firearm has to "stay stock" to be allowable in a law enforcement setting. Law enforcement has painted themselves into a corner on this one and failed to study the history behind this. In the late 70's and early 80's, it was quite common for LE types to do their own mods and trigger jobs on their firearms without departmental approval. Trigger shoes, 2 lb. triggers, oversize grips and a host of other items tended to show up on ranges and on duty without too much regulation. This led to some problems and a knee jerk reaction from some administrative types to not allow anything to be done on a firearm for duty use. It has never been the case that a firearm must remain in "stock" condition from a legal standpoint. This ia a misinterpretation of fact. Firearms mods are allowable if: 1. They are written into LE Policy for that Department. 2. They don't create an "unsafe condition" i.e. too light of a trigger etc. Generally, somewhere around 4 lbs. is about as light as you would want to go although I know more than a few LE types etc. that use the 3.5 lb. Glock connector in their department firearm with the approval of the agency. Just because Glock calls it a "competition connector" doesn't mean you automatically have to exclude it. 3. They don't cause the weapon to malfunction or become inoperable due to parts failure. Sights, grips, barrels, triggers (as long as they don't exceed the width of the trigger guard), internals etc. don't matter. Putting grip tape on doesn't matter, putting a new finish on your gun doesn't matter as long as it doesn't cause it to malfunction. Drawing attention to your weapon by changing the color of the grip may be something to reconsider in my opinion. Don't open a door for someone to look at your weapon more closely by changing the look too radically. I have successfully argued for many policy and decision makers in law enforcement etc. that better sights, a slightly lightened trigger pull and selected modifications that don't alter factory specs. appreciably contribute to a safer gun and officer combination due to the enhanced shootability of the piece and the lesser likelihood of missing or having poor hits. For every advocate, there is always the devil's advocate that explain thst some defense attorney somewhere will argue about the "enhanced killing potential". Has it happened? Yes. Does it need to become the "letter of the law? now? NO! Can it be easily refuted with proper testimony and scientific study? Absolutely! I have done many hundreds of consultations for Law Enforcement, Military and Civilians on the type of modifications that should or should not be on guns for gunfighting. Not mentioned in most of these posts are the hundreds of successful defenses of equipment, in court, from bogus claims by defense attorneys or prosecutors. The key is preparation. Having an expert do the consultation rather than trying to do it all yourself or looking it up on the internet means a lot more in a court of law and is something to consider when you are crafting firearms policy for your department. Same thing with professional instruction vs. internet chat room discussion for training in the use of deadly force. In line with the "enhanced killing machine" handgun theory; one could also advocate that participation in IPSC matches where we shoot humanoid targets in aggressive fashion instead of retreating from them shows a propensity for aggressive behavior. It is, of course, nonsense but one should start considering the defense for this absurd claim if you are worried about the "enhanced killing machine" theory. We are in the process of doing phase 2 and 3 of the Hit Probability Study in conjunction with the Force Science Research Center and Dr. Bill Lewinski. Here we will study officer and others performance in gunfight situations and how we can increase hit probability for officers and others in gunfights. (I will not divulge further information on this at this time due to testing parameters etc. ) As a side note: When we were introducing 1911's into our department, after extensive testing and actual evaluation of various shooters, we found that not everyone could get the grip safety depressed, at speed, all the time. After the testing was done, and with the consultation and approval of the administration, I crafted, as part of policy, that pinning the grip safety was an acceptable modification if it was found that the officer wanted to carry the piece and couldn't depress it all the time. It was justified as an "officer safety" issue. It is carried that way to this day, at the discretion of the firearms trainer and officer involved, should it need to be done. Many will argue that they cannot justify this and will claim that it will hang you in court. My answer is "no, it will not". Proper research and evaluation, proper policy writing and proper, aggressive backing of this policy in court and elsewhere will win the day. The courts will look at your policies, not just factory specs. There will always be experts on both sides of this equation. I have successfully countered many "experts" in my field, in consultations with prosecutors or other attorneys, by using science, experience and research to lend credibility to opinions rendered. Factory specs should be respected but they are not absolute nor should they be the ultimate arbitrator of what can or can't be done. A classic case is recontouring the grip of the XD or Glock to fit the hand better. Glock voids the warranty while Springfield does the mod in the custom shop. Go figure. I would recontour a grip professionally in a heartbeat and write it into policy. Courts and policies for the Western United States (except for the few liberal bastions) are generally far more lenient than Eastern US. Some things are based more on emotion than on fact. I.E. the cocked and locked of the 1911 appears dangerous to those with little experience. Yet they carry the M-4 carbine, with thumb safety and cocked hammer, without evening thinking about it because it is concealed. I have always found that a good PR campaign to the general public instead of running away from a perceived negative went a long ways to allaying fears on these issues. So it is with most things I suspect. Bottom line: Death is forever...Don't let "Paralysis by Analysis" stop you from doing what you can to increase your confidence and skill. Just make sure you have your ducks in a row as to proper testing, evaluation and proper policy. Document these in writing with sign off and approval from administration. Then write your policy. Then we can fight it out in court if need be. It is a very intense, emotionally charged situation when you are getting ready to shoot someone and they are putting you in fear of your life. At that time a bazooka feels "about right" :-) Better sights and a decent trigger go a long ways towards giving you the confidence you will need to handle that situation without panic and may well stop the fight before it happens due the the confidence that is conveyed to the bad guy. I know this because there are more than several people that are still alive because they gave up when they saw me on the other side of my sights and "knew they were going to die" if they didn't quit. After action questioning of the subjects later confirmed this so it is not just my opinion. Lack of proper testing and evaluation, coupled with lack of proper written documentation and policy will lead to problems. If it can be justified and then written into policy, it can be done. We have done it successfully with hundreds of agencies across the country and continue to this day. Ron

Stage analysis requires one to examine both the physical attributes of the stage and their own abilities and skills. I will give all of you a tip that is worth its weight in gold when examining a stage that involves movement. In your head, picture a 5 gallon bucket of water that you are holding in your hands and you then pour down a hill side. As it flows, it will pool and puddle, weave around irregularities and eventually make it to the bottom of the hill. Each place where it pools before it flows again is time ticking against you prior to FSF (final shot fired). This is you, not ready to fire or staying with your feet planted too long in one spot when you could have been moving. Each weave is you not moving in a good line and taking unnecessary steps. These are skills that everyone needs to examine very closely to determine what will work for them at their skill level. Think about doing things sooner..not faster. Get on target sooner by being smoother, shoot while keeping your body in motion, even if that motion is very subtle, leave as early as you can without compromising accuracy. Keep the water flowing. While you are at the start position. Mentally, take that water and pour it out and see how it flows in your head. What would be the best flow pattern that would keep you moving swiftly, surely without damming up the water at any one spot. No, don't bring your personal bucket to the range...people will start to talk...:-) Ron Avery

I have opted for the 1050 for my reloading of the .223. With the case feeder setup, swaging system in place, I can get through a lot of cases fast. I used to use the Dillon case trimmer and the Gracie trimmers. I now use a Giraud Case Trimmer for all my brass. (www.giraudtool.com). It trims, chamfers and deburrs in one smooth operation. Very easy to set up. I can change the angle for the chamfer to accommodate VLD bullets with Moly Coating so it doesn't scrape the Moly off. (long range, precision riflecraft stuff we do. ) What I love about it is that it is very quiet, very precise and very easy to clean and maintain. No more noisy vacuum cleaner hookup. They do cost more but, in my opinion, it is worth the price in the time it saves me and the convenience of the system.

Here is a link to a mag well by my friend and custom gunsmith, Stan Chen. I think it looks pretty cool. What do you guys think? http://www.louderthanwords.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5150 Ron Avery

Ken, It is similar in that you perceive the dot as you swing from target to target with both eyes open when using the Trijicon ACOG. The scene then magnifies as the scope stops on the new target. For more info on BAC, visit Trijicon. They are the ones that did the research. Respectfully, Ron Avery

A little bit of history for perspective. The Armson OEG, (stands for occluded eye gunsight) was a standard sight used for many years in the tactical communities as an alternative to the iron sight on battle weapons. It functioned the same way as taping your sight window in that your non-dominant eye picked up the target and the master eye was occluded and could only see the dot. It did not require batteries which made it rugged and very reliable. You rarely see it these days as it has given way to other models of red dot sights. You can do the same thing with the Aimpoint, C-More, Trijicon or Leupold CQT scopes and get the same effect. Not a new concept. Credit goes to Armson for designing the concept about 20 years ago. In the 3 gun events you can practice other drills that key off of this principle for really fast multiple target engagements.

In 2001 and 2002, while preparing for the US team in the upcoming World Shoot in South Africa, I had Beven prepare all my magazines. This included the little 16 shooters that we had to use for the box rule as well as the 20 rounders for US competition. I shot them extensively, thru dust, heat, cold, sand, mud and grit from the pistol itself. I shot them when one could feel the intense pressure of competition; when the little problems would manifest themselves and become big, both in your mind and in the competition. Beven didn't just tune my magazines, he gave me peace of mind and confidence in my equipment. I not only knew they would work, I had FAITH that they would not fail me when I needed them to work. You can try to do it yourself of course, save a few bucks here and there. Then the day will come when it is going to really count if your equipment is up to spec. Therein lies the difference between professional tuning and putting some parts in. For me, it was worth the peace of mind to have a professional do the highest quality job with my goals in mind. Thank You Beven. Ron Avery

Mark, I will be setting up a dealer's forum on Brian's site and we can discuss it more at length there along with other topics. The focal continuum is a fascinating area of study of human performance that is truly a topic of in-depth discussion. Respectfully, Ron Avery

I'm sure that some people who are a lot more knowledgable than I am will pipe in here, but I wanted to respond because this has been a hot topic of conversation between a master class friend of mine and myself. My friend is a very accurate shooter and does well at more accuracy-based disciiplines, not only IPSC. He has become convinced that, for quick reasonably close shots, focusing on the target and keeping the sights in the peripheral vision is the way to go. This is his big revalation (for himself) over, say, the last month, and he has had a small leap in performance. However, I think I know what he is talking about and, talking to him somewhat in depth, think he is expressing himself poorly. (Note that I am not nearly as good as he is, so take my perspective with a grain of salt.) It seems that there are probably two things going on with him. First, he is trying out the "new thing." As we all know from Brian's book and personal experience, one tends to do better when one tries out a "new thing" simply because it forces one to refocus on what one is doing. Second, in my experience, for pinpoint shooting and really calling one's shots well, one has to _pay attention_ to the target. Note that I did NOT say _focus_ on the target. I find that I do my best shooting when my sight is in good focus--I can hardly NOT focus on the front sight--but I keep my _attention_ on the target and the sight _picture_, not merely the sight alignment. My friend and I both have had the experience of having the perfect sight _alignment_ and letting shots go into the "brown," as opposed to, say, "two inches to the right of the 'A' in the 'A' zone." To really call one's shots well, one has to pay enough attention to the taret to note the exact relationship of the target with the sights. It isn't enough to have the sights in perfect focus and let the shot go somewhere in the blurry mass of the target. Flexmoney: OK, here is my 'ghost puppie' response. Brian, check me. We'll see if I have been paying attention. First DT, This may be overly simply, but the match that you shot well in...you were seeing what YOU needed to see. You were relaxed and not trying (See the post elsewhere about the butterfly.) And, like Icarr said, you were doing something new. I think Brian has said that when your attention is on the 'new thing' your other aspects of your shooting system take care of themselves...like auto-pilot. About the next week, when you fell to pot...did you get to the range a practice your new ultimate technique? Or...did you show up an expect to repeat your prior performance? Out of all that I think the "seeing what you needed to see" part is the most important The next thing that pops into my head, especially after reading Icarr's post about his buddy, is the index and also the five types of shooting that Brian talks about in the book. I think that Icarr's buddy might be shooting from a good index. I'd post about the different "Types" of shooting, but I think I would have to look it up in the book. And it's late, I'm tired, and I think I am just rambling on anyway. benos: I wouldn't disagree with anything in Flex's post. Usually these things can be traced to trying to do something vs actually doing it. Over the years Duane, I've had a few million similar experiences to the one you described. Sometimes it's really tricky to know what you actually doing, the mind is a tricky bastard. For me, I've found that I shoot my best if I am seeing the sites in detail, and I REMEMBER, based on my intent to shoot the center of the target, where this detailed site image was on the target. Especially on a plate type setup. If the target layout requires more "acquiring" then I need to see, in detail, where the sites are going BEFORE THE SITES GET THERE. I don't know.... See if you get anything from this. Erik Warren: Rewind back to October 1998. I'm a struggling C class shooter taking a class from Michael Voigt. He talks about target focus (for close easy shots) and sight focus (for long hard shots) and in-between focus. He explains that for some shots you need to make, your focus won't be on the front sight or target, but you will be focused somewhere between them. I don't get it. I refuse to accept that human eyes can focus on nothing. I figure this Voigt guy is a crock. I move on and later take a second course from him, but he doesn't go into the focus thing. Fast forward to early 2000. I'm an A class shooter on the fast track to my M card. Sometimes, I have these smoking runs that just blow my mind... I am shooting almost as fast as I can pull the trigger, even at 10-15 yards, yet I'm getting mostly A hits. How? I realize I'm trading sight picture for speed; the front sight is no longer in perfect focus. Yet, I'm not focusing on the targets. But I'm not focusing between the targets and the gun, either. I'm in this strange netherworld of non-focus, with nothing in particular the object of my attention. Sure, the front sight is there and it's moving up and down and I'm noticing it's level and centered within the rear and I'm letting it settle back to my aiming point. But, it's nowhere near the quality sight picture I use to shoot As at 40 yards, nor is it the point-shoot sight picture I use to hose As at 4 yards. Fast forward to the present. Been there, done that, got the Master card. I now realize Voigt wasn't full of it a couple years ago when I was his pupil. He was just trying to communicate this state of visual awareness, which I myself now find difficult to communicate. So if we agree that you've visited this special place of visual awareness, the problem now is you can't return to it at will. I think by consciously trying to go there, you are preventing yourself from going there. Maybe, don't actively try to go to that state, but instead just avoid the extremes, target focus and sight focus. Even this effort may be too much and prevent you from achieving the desired state of visual awareness. I don't know, maybe I sound like a crock now. But hey, it works for me. If all else fails, use the Force, Luke! Duane Thomas: Thanks for all the input, guys. You've given me a lot to think about. Flex, you're absolutely right, I didn't practice at all in the intervening week, just went to the match and figured I'd be able to replicate my previous performance. Guess I need to get to the range and practice, huh? Flexmoney: DT, It takes a thief to catch a thief. I am often guilty of the same. I have been getting way to much shooting done in my head and not nearly enough at the range. Gonzo: Greetings, I have come to the firm conclusion that by focusing only on the sights, and making sure I clearly see them both, that I will be accurate in my shot placement. It may sound strange, but my times drop dramatically, and my accuracy increases substantially, by not focussing on the target. Anyone else feel the same? Patrick Sweeney: Let’s muddy the waters by talking of vision, and not sight. I have terrible uncorrected vision (20/425 left, 20/475 right, and two different axes of astigmatisim) which has made shooting a puzzle. My optometrist can correct me to 20/15 in both eyes, but the lenses are so thick head position becomes critical. For shooting, I tried a new combination: He ground the master (right) lens to focus on the front sight distance, while the left is focused at infinity. I have the luxury of seeing both the sights AND the target in perfect focus. The first time I tried it, it was spooky. The first big match I shot with them was Second Chance, and I shot my best time ever in the Main Event. So, for me "Seeing what I need to see" is a matter of target acquisition and sight alingment. Its all in focus. My optometrist said that not everyone can handle the differing focal distances, and he's had some who've tried it get nauseus before they leave his office. benos: That's some crazy stuff, Pat. I think I would be puking for sure. But, I'd definitely give it a whirl... be Detlef: Pat, you might also want to consider a trip to Europe, where optics technology is far ahead of what's available in the US. For your vision (I have 475 both eyes) you can get Zeiss lenses there that are so thin that you'd not even want their top refractive index material because it wouldn't give you the protection you should have for shooting. benos Wow! I dig my 10X40 Zeiss bonocs. (Sorry, I don't know what that has to do with anything.) Where to focus is a constant source of learning and enlightenment as we try to focus speed and precision. Brian Enos talks about 5 levels of focus in his excellent book. I have done experiments over the years with different types of focus and what I came to learn was that there is an infinite number of focal points that one can go to between the target and the front sight. I call this the "focal continuum" To say that we only focus on the target or on the front sight is a misnomer. The reality is that, when we are shooting well, we see the relationship between target and sight well enough to make certain of the hits. Where the visual focus needs to be depends on four things: Target size Range to target Visual ability of the shooter Kinesthetic ability of the shooter Target size and range: Big targets up to 10 yards can be shot using a soft focus. Put in a head shot and the vision must move back towards the front sight to ensure correct alignment. This takes care of items one and two. Visual ability and training: Younger eyes can accomodate a wider depth of field than older eyes. You will be able to see the sights and the target with reasonable clarity of each as you play with the peripheral vision field and acceptable sight picture. Older shooters will have to trade off with a compromise. I use different types of lenses to give me a picture that is acceptable for most shooting that I will be doing. Remember, under stress, attention shifts and the brain may not be registering the same picture that the lens is producing when you are relaxed and things are going well. Specific conditioning is needed here to ensure quality control of the imagery. When in doubt, go with front sight focus to save your day. Sometimes it only feels slow when you focus on the front sight. The reality is that it can happen extremely fast if you train it correctly. Kinesthetic ability: Here I am speaking of the ability to hold the sight alignment without specifically looking at it. This is how you must do it if you do not look at a hard front sight focus. Training here is what allows you to shoot using soft focus at extended distances. I did some demonstrations of this at 50 yards on one of the tapes just to illustrate it. I am not saying I would do it at that distance in a national or world match with winning on the line. Again, stress and its effects can change coordination and make the easy, difficult. In the best of all worlds, kinesthetic works with visual to allow superior performance than either alone. A final thought: It is not what you see that is important so much as what registers on your brain at the moment the shot is fired. The eyes are the lens but the brain is the film. Respectfully, Ron Avery