Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

G-ManBart

Classifieds
  • Content Count

    9,798
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About G-ManBart

  • Rank
    Maku Bozo
  • Birthday January 7

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    bartgolfs

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Detroit, MI
  • Real Name
    Chris Bartolo

Recent Profile Visitors

6,218 profile views
  1. Trace and I spoke about this load before he tried it, and it's largely what I load for major matches. For practice I substitute various less expensive bullets, but is otherwise the same. I have tried it in many, many guns and not run into a problem with the bullets hitting the rifling, and I've never had random hot rounds with it. I've got hundreds of rounds of it over the chronograph to support that as well, so I'm thinking it's a random oddball case. I found one of these in a batch of brass and noticed something was wrong. I look at the powder as I set the bullet down on the case and the level was too high, so I stopped and investigated...oddball stepped brass case that I'm sure would have caused a jump in pressure, velocity, noise and recoil. I believe Trace said the brass was once-fired, but mixed, so anything could have snuck in there. I've also seen some really odd cases used for simunition rounds as well...another possibility.
  2. Derek Perrault What's the word? When can we see it in US dealers' hands?I need this gun! Like · Reply · March 6 at 12:43pm CZ-USA Derek- Frankly, we have no idea. When production starts up we're set to get the first run of them to do testing with, but we don't want to speculate as to when we'd actually start shipping them. Thanks! Like · Reply · March 6 at 3:00pm
  3. The other issue that has been almost completely overlooked is one of perception. Not long ago a local club in the area lost their access to a really nice range because the old guard didn't like people drawing loaded guns, moving and shooting, or rapid fire. They felt it wasn't safe, and that it didn't present the image their club wants to project to the world. They had enough revenue from regular members so they didn't care about money made from USPSA matches and they kicked the club out just because. Just wait until some of the old guard at other clubs see people running around with an "assault rifle" and wait until those clubs lose their access....unintended consequences. You don't grow a sport by making changes that divide or alienate the current members unless there is some overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. The last time I saw something this divisive in USPSA it spawned IDPA. If people are so hot and bothered to shoot rifles, they should go to rifle matches that exist for just that purpose.
  4. No you can't run a PCC with zero changes. the proposed appendix proves that as well as having to modify positions that PCC shooters shoot from in some stages. Saying zero changes is just wrong If PCC was so popular at SHOT then it shouldn't be to hard to create stand alone matches. I mean if there is so much industry support why not. Why not? I know several matches can and have run PCC with zero changes to the match. Yes PCC has different start positions but it has zero effect, well maybe 10 extra seconds reading the WSB. Creating standalone matches is completely different. I'm assuming you've never done it yourself. I set up matches all the time. You're not the only one who has set up and ran matches in this discussion. Personally I like to draw more shooters not turn them away. But you're okay with alienating some current members? That WILL happen, whether you like it or not. One moderator on this forum has told me that if PCC actually becomes official, he may switch to another shooting sport. Yeah, now you guys will say "if that's his attitude, let him go" or something similar. The FIRST step in growing a sport is the maintain the current members. You may lose a few but your likely to gain far more. Honestly those saying they will leave makes no sense to me since it does not detract from their division or shooting. Its like they are mad that someone else is having fun. This is what most people call "a complete guess" because there is NO way you can know any of it. The concept that PCC won't change things, even somewhat, is beyond ridiculous. Unintended consequences happen almost any time you change a sport, or pretty much anything else. Suggesting that all of the clubs, and all of the stage designers currently active will handle this ideally, and not mess with their stages, or change the way they plan/build stages is silly....that's not going to happen. Then we'll wind up with people making concessions to PCC at some matches, and not at others.....not what the sport needs. There is zero proof that adding PCC will grow the sport, so that argument is out. That leaves it at "it sounds like fun, and we hope it won't mess things up, so let's try it" as the rationale supporting it.
  5. This kind of condescending attitude does not make anyone more likely to support you. Just because overall results are not important to you doesn't make the fact that they are important to some less valuable.This is really tiring. For the umpteenth time, having concerns about this change does not mean that I 1) don't like fun 2) am some sniveling jerk inflating my ego by looking at overall results 3) am some backwards Luddite that is against change or 4) any other condescending or insulting descriptor that you can arrange to serve your purpose. There are legitimate concerns that legitimately need to be addressed before making what is, in truth, a major change to what has always been a pistol match. Moreover, this is not a either / or decision. In fact, there are many ways to introduce PCC into USPSA. Shoe horning it into a pistol match is but one of them. Adding it as a new discipline is another. I've laid out how to have your cake and eat it too by running this new discipline separately but concurrently with an existing handgun match - a solution that has many benefits over and above the reduction in controversy. Not condescending at all. "HOA" is an imaginary win and we need to stop posting it. Your place in your division is the only thing that is real. Everything else is outside the rules. To make this change easier we need to clarify the rules and stop catering to those who like to see an imaginary placing in an imaginary division. I think HOA is important. We have folks that are the only person shooting in their division It gives them something to look at. I know when we stopped posting the HOA results I received a bunch of requests to get it back up on the webpage. I like to track HOA as well...especially when I'm shooting anything other than Open.
  6. No you can't run a PCC with zero changes. the proposed appendix proves that as well as having to modify positions that PCC shooters shoot from in some stages. Saying zero changes is just wrong If PCC was so popular at SHOT then it shouldn't be to hard to create stand alone matches. I mean if there is so much industry support why not. Why not? I know several matches can and have run PCC with zero changes to the match. Yes PCC has different start positions but it has zero effect, well maybe 10 extra seconds reading the WSB. Creating standalone matches is completely different. I'm assuming you've never done it yourself. I set up matches all the time. You're not the only one who has set up and ran matches in this discussion. Personally I like to draw more shooters not turn them away. But you're okay with alienating some current members? That WILL happen, whether you like it or not. One moderator on this forum has told me that if PCC actually becomes official, he may switch to another shooting sport. Yeah, now you guys will say "if that's his attitude, let him go" or something similar. The FIRST step in growing a sport is the maintain the current members.
  7. Make your own...much cheaper, and you can get it to fit your hand like a glove. It's not hard at all...easy to follow tutorial I did a few years ago here: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=67691
  8. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...not. Alienate core USPSA shooters who want to shoot a pistol match without rifles by telling them not to go? These are pistol matches that fall under the pistol rules. Rifles already have their own set of rules and matches.
  9. You may want to explore the quote function if you want to respond to someone. I'm waiting for someone to try making sense of adding a rifle division the the PISTOL rules....not seeing anybody coming close to it. The best people have come up with so far is "it won't hurt anything" or something along those lines. There are already matches dedicated to 3-gun, multi-gun etc...and that's where rifles belong. Why someone feels the need to mess with pistol matches is beyond me. For all the folks who say it won't change anything, that's simply not the case, and it's easy to prove. Now for any stage with a turning start we're going to say "oops, you have to add a table to your stage design for the PCC shooters...sorry, it's how it has to be. Too bad you can't have the stage set up the way you wanted it, there's got to be a table taking up space where you might have wanted something else." Mini-Mart? Let's just change that classifier because it won't work for PCC. Melody Line? Hmmm...guess we'll have to add a table for that as well. Gun in box stages (yes, I've seen those recently)...nope, unless you build an extra box for PCC. Beware the law of unintended consequences. The chance that stage designs won't get altered at least a little bit is virtually nonexistent. Stage designers will see how PCC shooters game their stages, and they will respond and before you know it we could wind up with either the stupidest rifle stages or the stupidest pistol stages at the same match. If I was running a club I know I would already be expecting that the PCC shooters are going to start complaining that clubs haven't made racks for their guns, so add that to the to-do list, along with the associated time/cost involved...every bay now needs a carbine rack, and probably an extra safe area/table to accommodate them.
  10. So are they going to change the Handgun rules to "Handgun PCC Rules" or what? This reminds me of what happened to NASCAR....constant changes, declining participation, and loss of fan base because they strayed from their core. If you want to shoot rifles, go to a rifle match. I like rifles, and like shooting them, but not at a pistol match.
  11. All of my 1911/2011s have 19lb mainsprings and there's no problem getting a trigger pull down to 2-2.25lbs. Open guns I always start out with a 9lb recoil spring, and usually stay there for Major. If you want to run Minor you'd probably have to drop to 7 or 8lb (some folks like 8lb springs for Major as well). For SS and Limited guns shooting .40 Major, 12-12.5lbs is a good starting point for the recoil spring. For .45 I bump that up to a 14lb spring assuming normal Major handloads in the 170-180PF range.
  12. Why would you buy plated or coated for more than you can get Montana Gold jacketed? By the case MG 124CMJ or JHP are $96/K and 115gr CMJ and JHPs are only $91/K. So Apples to Apples... 180 GR .40 Cal - MG are 350 for a case of 2500 - assuming there's free shipping that's 14 cents each. Quite a bit more than Xtreme or Blue. I never said anything about .40, just 9mm. Still, since plated suck, and I've seen far too many problems with them, I'd happily pay a more for a quality jacketed bullet. The coated bullets are a reasonable alternative, and I'm experimenting with them in 9 Minor now, but they clearly aren't as accurate or consistent as quality jacketed bullets. I'd be okay using them for practice, or local matches, but that's it. So what are the prices for 9mm from all the places I listed? I'd guess the delta in price is still the same. I'm sorry but I don't think just painting a whole class of bullet with the term "suck" proves your point. I trust in God, all others bring data. I'm not going to get into a back and forth argument about this because it's pointless. I've posted a lot of data here over the years, and helped a lot of folks, so if you think I'm making things up, that's fine. In my opinion plated bullets suck. They cost nearly as much as jacketed in many sizes/weights, and don't come anywhere near the performance. The best I've seen anybody get is what I would call "somewhat acceptable" results as far as accuracy. On the flip side, I've seen "professionally" loaded ammo using plated bullets tumble, not hold a 6" group at 15 yards, and do all sorts of other bad stuff. After years of watching millions of rounds go downrange, I've seen very few good results with plated, and lots of poor results with plated. Regardless, this thread wasn't about the quality of plated, it was about coated bullets. The OP was asking about 9mm bullet prices, so I limited my comments to that size. You didn't originally state the prices you quoted were for .40, and everything prior to that was about 9mm. Regardless, coated bullets can be purchased for less than plated without really looking hard. In some cases you can also buy good jacketed bullets for less than the cost of plated bullets, and that's what I pointed out....pretty simple.
  13. And small eggs are less than large eggs. .40 180 grain - same bullet I have listed for the others: http://www.acmebullet.com/bullets-reloading-brass/40-10MM-Lead-Hard-Cast-Bullets/40-10MM-180FP-NLG-Coated 2k case @ $185+$12 shipping = $197 -> 9.85 cents each Less than Xtreme but more than Blue.... I just ordered some 147FPs from these folks. The 180gr bullet is $175/2K shipped, and they offer 10% off for military and law enforcement. http://hsbullets.com/products/40s-and-w-401-180gr-2000-count-40180
  14. Saying a CZ is slower on close, fast targets is completely ridiculous assuming even a moderate level of shooter skill. In fact, other than the first shot, the extremely light, crisp, and short reset of the CZ trigger should be an advantage. I have six Glocks in the safe, so I'm not anti-Glock. I would expect it to take at least a couple of thousand rounds to be able to make any honest determination about whether a gun change was better or worse. If someone stops after 120 rounds it means they don't really want to know which is better for them. The thing I really don't understand is this: If you already made the decision, why bother starting the thread at all? It might as well have been in the "what I hate" section, since that's how you titled it.
  15. Why would you buy plated or coated for more than you can get Montana Gold jacketed? By the case MG 124CMJ or JHP are $96/K and 115gr CMJ and JHPs are only $91/K. So Apples to Apples... 180 GR .40 Cal - MG are 350 for a case of 2500 - assuming there's free shipping that's 14 cents each. Quite a bit more than Xtreme or Blue. I never said anything about .40, just 9mm. Still, since plated suck, and I've seen far too many problems with them, I'd happily pay a more for a quality jacketed bullet. The coated bullets are a reasonable alternative, and I'm experimenting with them in 9 Minor now, but they clearly aren't as accurate or consistent as quality jacketed bullets. I'd be okay using them for practice, or local matches, but that's it.
×
×
  • Create New...