Conqueror

Looks kinda like mine!

I'm assuming that this thread is at least partially in response to mine. I hope you didn't take away that I was despairing because perfect forearm alignment is not possible when you add the human factor. I am well-aware that human dynamics rarely allow for the perfect form that is taught. Allow me to also seemingly digress for a moment: I have taught martial arts for many years, and have been training for ~16 years. When I teach someone to throw a punch, I talk about the importance of having the two striking knuckles aligned with the forearm, the elbow pointed slightly downward, the forearm tight to the body as the fist moves forward, etc. As the student progresses, he gradually realizes that perfect form is not always possible in every situation - nor is it even desireable in some situations. This is natural, and an important epiphany. I believe firearms instruction is of similar progression. One teaches new shooters that it is important to have perfect form - gun aligned to forearm, shoulders square to target, weight slightly forward, etc. As the shooter progresses, he realizes that perfect form is either impossible or undesireable in certain situations. Again, this is natural and important to the development of shooting skill. My thread was an attempt to "quantify" or "demonstrate", in a visual way, one manner in which we can become aware that perfect form is not possible. However, your responses in that thread essentially boil down to "you're wrong, figure out how on your own." Yet here, in this thread, you seem to be completely affirming my point - perfect form is not possible because the biomechanics of the Human Machine do not always allow it. The apparent dichotomy in your attitude frustrates me.

And I don't agree with him, so apparently I'm failing to see what he is trying to teach me. Continuing to say "look in another plane" is no longer helpful, but irksome. I think I've said that plainly at least twice now. Todd Jarrett makes it clear that he's talking about alignment in the plane I originally illustrated. Many other videos I've seen offer similar advice. They discuss forearm alignment in the horizontal plane - the one I drew. Watch the youtube video and tell me the alignment he describes at the 50-second mark is possible in an isoceles stance.

Once again, a smug response. Let's call my image the XY plane. Apparently you would rather me analyze the YZ plane (ie, look at the shooter from the side) or the XZ plane (ie, look at the shooter from the front/back). I am not stupid and I know full well what you mean when you say "imagine it from another plane." However, that's no answer. It says nothing of what, exactly, you dislike about my analysis. All it says is "I think you're wrong, you should look at it in another way." Well, duh - that sentence is a truism and applies to every situation in which one person believes another to be incorrect. Since I'm not clairvoyant, even if I pick the proper cartesian plane, your answers have given no hint to where the error might or might not be, or what you find incorrect about it. I might look at it in all three planes and come to the same conclusion - and in fact, I do, since the barrel axis will always be above the forearms in the side view, and between the forearms in the frontal view. At the 50-second mark, Todd's famous YouTube video makes it abundently clear that he is talking about forarm alignment in the horizontal plane - ie, the one I originally chose.

Thanks for the 100% unhelpful post. Care to explain your position?

D'oh! That was easy. The setscrew in my lock ring had come loose, allowing the whole seating die to migrate downward and start crimping the cases. I have about 10 rounds with the mild bulge, do y'all think they will be safe to shoot? I don't care if they are inconsistent, I just don't want to KB my rifle.

Hi all, I'm not new to reloading, having done pistol for some time, but I am new to rifle reloading. I'm trying to cook up something for my AR with 75gr A-Max bullets over 23gr of Varget. I have my seating die (RCBS) set for 2.4" with no crimp. After resizing, the cases are normal. But after seating the bullet, they come out with a bulge in the shoulder area. I'm guessing the seating process is crushing the case mouth down toward the case head, causing the walls to bulge. But how do I get rid of the problem? And am I even right about the source? Here's a (VERY LARGE) picture of what I'm talking about. The bulge is subtle but can be felt with the fingers. Thanks for the help!

Thanks for the replies. I don't agree that "moving the gun to the dominant eye" solves this question. The dominant eye is, what, 1 inch off centerline? That won't be enough to align the gun to the forearm. I thought of that while I was making the diagram but I decided to leave the gun centered for ease of illustration. If your body is square to the target, the only way your forearm can also be square to the target is if you point it straight ahead from the shoulder joint - at which point the gun will be 6-8" lateral to your dominant line of eyesight, and the weak hand won't even reach the gun. I really posted this to suggest that gun-forearm alignment is not as crucial a component of isoceles shooting as some instructors suggest. Having the gun balanced between two angled arms can be quite stable - think of the trusses in a house. The recoil will come straight back toward the torso, but will be split in half and transmitted at an angle down both arms, which will absorb the force by compressing in the "vertical" plane (in the image above) and extending laterally. Another good analogy is the leaf spring in a car's suspension - the load is centered, but the two sides of the leaf spring are nearly perpendicular to the loading force. This arrangement works just fine.

We often talk about the alignment of a pistol with the forearm when discussing shooting technique. In that famous YouTube video, Todd Jarrett mentions that the gun must be aligned with the forearm and the elbow to transmit recoil forces directly to the axial skeleton. This is echoed in many other shooting publications, videos, etc. I posit to you that it is not possible to do this in a Modern Isoceles stance. To hold the gun centered, or close to centered, on your torso, your arms must meet in the middle of your body. They must obviously originate at your shoulders and meet in the midline - if not, visit your local orthopedist. To point the gun straight ahead, it therefore cannot be aligned with either of your forearms. Aligning it with your dominant forearm would cause a significant lateral deviation in your point of aim, toward the non-dominant side (our "dummy" above is left-handed). Aligning the pistol with your arm is more suited to the Weaver stance, in which the blading of the body will compensate for the lateral deviation. I welcome everyone's comments, but it appears inescapable to me that teaching alignment of the front sight with the elbow, in conjunction with teaching an isoceles stance, is folly.

Took new pics of some of the toys:

Nice pics, but you wouldn't find me ahead of someone's firing line like that.

This is a little off topic, but what's the minimum barrel length for 3-gun? I would have expected some SBRs if they are allowed. (As you can tell I've never done 3-gun or even been to a 3-gun match).

1.155 is pretty short for .45acp. I currently load 230gr Hornadys over 5gr of Win231 at 1.210 and it's a very mild load, the cases don't go far (which suits me just fine for collection purposes). I know I'll always get a bit of blowback when shooting wet, but the less, the better. I'm still finding the "happy medium" as far as how many CCs of water my YHM can likes without much blowback. This isn't for competition so specific PFs don't concern me, but I do want to at least be fairly close to factory loads because this is my HD gun. Don't want to practice with wussy loads and then not shoot well when there's a lot at risk.

That's why I write "Winchester 231" whenever I post my load data, etc. for others. It is hard to tell the difference between W and VV sometimes.