enoon

Velocity drop with increased powder charge happens relatively frequently at a certain point -- for a limited charge weight range. The "straight line" fit to data points of a graph of velocity vs charge weight will often mask it, as will working up a load in anything but small steps. Two appoaches are common. One is to use the power charge weight because... Because what? The only really known advantage is lower cost of powder. But the difference in charge weights is so small that it makes almost no difference in finances. The other is to check accuracy at the desired velocity with both charge weights. Sometimes (I've been able to see it only in rifles) the one charge weight gives consistently better accuracy. As for pressure, I have never come across solid data. Certainly have not seen data that measures both peak and "average" pressures (from the area under the time/pressure curve). Aside from limited personal experience, there were some articles discussing this years ago -- with no definitive answer as to why or how. Vaguely recall it mentioned in a reloading manual several decades ago. I have chosen to either use or reject the lower charge weight load because of personal prejudice. Had another thought. In an open gun, the loads may vary in how they work the comp. Has anyone noted a difference?

Monovision is not for everyone. According to my eye guy, some people seem unable to satisfactorily process the info the brain gets when the info differs between the eyes. The brain must constantly make adjustments. Think about driving a car. Normal vision basically means adjusting the lenses's focal points when moving attention from down the road to the dash board. With monovision, it means changing the dominant data processed from the input from one eye to the input from the other eye. My guy allows me to try monovision contact systems and bifocal lenses with a "free" set for a week or so before a follow-up exam to make sure there are not physical problems. You will only know after trying. I've worn them for most activities for about 20 years, but he says that length of time is unusual. As I age, deterioration continues. I assume eye glasses can be made to order also. It's not a cure-all. Just a possibility. If you decide to try it, remember you can get the near vision correction set for different distances. Reading a menu without locking the elbows out can require a different correction than reading a computer screen. Just had a thought that I will offer without analysis. Large diameter (so you can't easily look over them) reading glasses might simulate monovision if you take out the lens for your non-shooting eye. Covering the non-shooting eye is not the same. FO in "real" world? They break with time and use (shooting) and the occassional "oops". When in a good holster, they are pretty well protected. Mine have shown a flaw or fracture before they actually flew apart (intentionally kept shooting them that way to "see what happens"). Simple to replace.

I am near sighted (6) -- but have had some recent satisfaction wearing bi-focal contact lenses (6/2). Not for everyone and now that I think of it, I'm not even sure that they are available for far sighted people. Basic problem is that distance from the eye is the biggest factor when it comes to focusing (given the limitations of our eyes). The shape or color of what we are trying to see is relatively minor. Other ideas: 1. A presciption correction between reading glasses and distance vision. 2. Electonic dot sights, if... 3. Different sight system that uses the outline of the sights for a sight picture rather than interior lines. 4. Mono-vision (one eye corrected for distance and the other for near vision). I have not found the proverbial silver bullet. Hope your search is more successful. I'll add that Brian Enos' treatment of accepting what you see has helped me accept what I can and cannot see. I recommend his book.

Depends on your eyes. The difference between the width of the front blade and the rear notch obviously defines how much light (or how big the gap) is between the post and the notch. Another factor is how far from your eye the gun is held. Oversimplified, if your vision does not allow a truly crisp front sight, then the fuzz-ball you see needs to have a larger gap to the edges of the fuzzy rear notch in order to keep the fuzz-ball front and rear sights from overlapping. Often shooters will experience an increase in speed (recognition) with a larger gap. Too narrow a front sight can result in other difficulties. Play with sights on other people's guns if possible, while recognizing that you are subject to finding "improvement" due to change rather than better sight arrangements. An alternative is to file down the width of your existing sight. Measure the width and take a set amount off one side and then the same amount off the other side, to not change the point of impact. Keep a slight taper toward the front to keep the sight picture crisp. File a little, shoot a little. Tape/protect the slide when filing. Keep records of dimensions/trials. When you've gone too far, replace the sight with the width/type you found best, unless you file more carefully than I do. There are also alternatives to notch and post sights on the market. Some work quite well for me. Some are awful. Think before spending money chasing the wind. Test drive if possible. Young eyes are generally much more flexible and forgiving than old eyes. The brain processing the input also needs to be flexible.

Your preparation and confidence will do more than my wishes for good luck. Good Luck! And thank you for letting me laugh at myself. My initial reaction was a vision of thousands of provincials (noun) arriving at the castle for a celebration...

Been having similar thoughts. Only thing I could speculate is that the safety was hitting the "ledge" just above the legs of the sear as the safety goes into place to block sear movement. Thought about dirt or a foreign body getting in the way, but probably not -- since it was so repeatable Thanks for posting the outcome. An interesting post and good reminder that just when you think you finally understand things...

Is it a 1911? Series 80 parts installed or removed or not applicable? Edit -- Sorry, didn't read the topic to the end, i.e. "STI based".

Will a stronger return spring alleviate the issue? Maybe. But I would dare to suggest that it would mask it as much as alleviate it. Probably better in the long run to train yourself to release the trigger rather than have the trigger push your finger forward. You will become faster and smoother, too.

Yeah. First snow (and new snow) can be beautiful. Looking forward to it (several months away). Until then, I guess I should split some firewood.

Stage description says three targets: 2x each two-hands, reload, 2x each strong hand, reload, 2x each weak hand -- for example. Stacking would be 6x on target one two-hands, reload, 6x on target two strong hand, reload, 6x on target three weak hand. Thus avoiding transitions on the target array but still six holes in each target. Gets a little harder to call if the three targets are at fifty yards... Edited to note that the rule cited refers to strings and my comment was all in one string. That post is better info.

You pretty much hit it. Hard to make exact comparisons from those days, but having seen BE, TGO, and Shaw, Cal and Bob were not in their class. Good shooters. You noticed their performances -- and not because you felt you should be seeking safety in another bay... I would guess that they did not have the time to do everything. They obviously spent a lot of time and effort on one series of movements (quick draw). Doubt they were willing (able?) to go to those lengths in a second arena (IPSC) at the same time. Heck, maybe they just enjoyed quick draw more than IPSC. But I stray. Thanks for bringing back memories.

I've seen a couple guys hit in the .6's fairly consistently on the draw on big close targets like the 18x24 gong at 7 yards on Smoke & Hope and Ted Bonnet was consistently quick out of that beater Hellweg but the quickest guy I ever saw in person was old Cal Erlich with the Cowboy Fast Draw action. Not an IPSC draw, but he's hitting plates and balloons with wax bullets and draws down in the .208 range from almost-but-not-quite-touching the gun. Not only that but he could call his draws to within a few thousandths of a second "this here technique is good down to about a quarter second... <bang> .248 <bang> .249" I always heard Ernie Hill was the guy to beat there, but never saw him shoot. Ernie was the one to beat at one time. On his timing equipment (not officially calibrated that day), I saw him under .20 for lightbulb starts and balloon finishes. But my memory gets confounded with exaggerations, so I'll leave it there. Another shooter (when they got to shooting for fun) was under .50 a number of times to a large plate at about ten yards from a "not-competition" holster -- with a regular .45 LC SAA, 7 1/2" barrel, and factory ammo. Can't remember his name. If I remember right, a switch on the plate stopped the time. Darn fast on mutiple targets, too. Cal and Munden were pretty respectable IPSC shooters (about the time of pin guns).

"Remember, this was a hot gun with a round in the chamber, and a magazine in the mag well. It rotated twice, so the muzzle was pointing up range twice... " Contact HQ. Documentation is needed. Without knowing the details... I would think about banning the shooter by way of the hosting club rules. Clubs should have a mechanism by which they eject members or guests for reckless or destructive or... behavior. Sounds like you may not have been a member of the hosting club, so this may not apply. I would also contact his local club. For information as to whether this is repeated behavior. Maybe for documention. Maybe for peer pressure to be applied. Maybe to satisfy my curiosity. I'm finding it difficult to not rant.

Shocked and deeply saddened at the news. Always enjoyed being in her presence. Gracious, gentle, and positive. Richard -- there is probably nothing I can say or do to ease your loss. Please accept my condolences. I hope she did not suffer. And I hope you think it OK that I donate to a hospice in her memory -- to help those who will suffer. Cheryl -- thank you for what you are doing. I doubt I'll be able to get to Gallup tomorrow. Terrible loss. Ulrich

Congratulations on the good shooting and condolences on the target selection. A search in the forum might flesh this out -- but from somewhere in my past, there was a theory that people subconsciously/unconsciously focus on something, like hands on a target or a gun on the photo targets and shoot that hand/gun. Kind of a tunnel vision thing. Similar to seeing a pothole while driving and driving into it rather than steering around it. Or running off the road and hitting the only tree in the entire meadow. Happens. But can be minimized. Keep enjoying the the game.