lcarr

Quote: from KyleL on 5:26 pm on Jan. 2, 2003 There is a picture of one on my Web site mounted on his tube, but the new one will work on any picatinny rail. ... On the surefire note, great lights but you don't have to put the rifle light on the rifle. A regular 6P without the shock absorber on the inside holds up fine on the light recoil M4. This will also save you, Oh 500 dollars, Just happens to be the same amount as that pistol you have been wanting. What's the website? About the Sure-Fire light, the last class I took with Louis Awerbuck, I was using a borrowed rifle with a 6P in a ring mounted on the rail fore end. Without the shock isolating bezel, I broke the bulb in short order, from firing, not rough handling. Of course, one can get the shock isolating bezel separately and construct something that is a lot cheaper than the foregrip unit, but I don't think the user interface is as good for manipulating the light, e.g., turning it to "constant on" easily, and one won't get the navigation lights, which are a neat toy. Lincoln (Edited by lcarr at 6:13 pm on Jan. 2, 2003)

Quote: from KyleL on 11:43 am on Jan. 1, 2003 The only reason I like a forward pistol grip is it makes it easier to control my light. You were right I don't use one for 3 gun. With Jeff Cramblits new light mount my pistol grip may go away completely. I'm in the same boat. My 3 Gun upper doesn't have a foregrip and I shoot it with the off-hand well forward. I got a Sure-Fire foregrip for my "tactical" upper, though, because it seemed like the best light available and it seemed comfortable when using a short-barreled upper for room clearing, etc. As Kelly observed, the short-barreled AR uppers make it hard to get a "normal" hand forward grip. It is debatable, though, how necessary a short barrel is for room clearing, etc. Do you have any links for this new light mount? Lincoln

Quote: from George D on 4:13 pm on Oct. 21, 2002 What's the definiton of quartering? I quarter with my both my shoulders and my feet. Some of the good shooters in our club have their feet square with the target but quarter their upper body by pushing their gun arm forward as far as possible. Seems to work for them. I guess I do both. :^) If I am shooting a left hand only string, I quarter the entire body, including the feet. When shooting, quartering the feet seems faster because I feel like my whole body is handling the recoil, like shooting a shotgun or a machine gun from a good stance. However, when attempting the drill I described above, for the most part I've been leaving my feet in my freestyle position and just moving the upper body. Like freestyle, I guess there's a "preferred" position for the feet, but that position isn't essential. Lincoln

Quote: from TDean on 8:42 am on Oct. 19, 2002 Allright! -5.0gr of powder to make major (too much?) -Stronger case allows countless reloads in stock barrel, unlike 40S&W (while some are buying another 1000 40sw cases, I'm reloading the same 10mm brass) My past IPSC load was 4.2gr of Clays with 220gr bullets. I'm now running 4.5gr of WST with 200gr bullets. I forget what my 170gr and 180gr loads were, but, as TDean points out, it was about the same amount of powder, give or take, as a .40. The larger case capacity just doesn't make that much difference. Also, TDean is right on the brass. The worst of my practice brass, if I recall correctly, has been loaded 43 times. Lincoln

Quote: from TDean on 8:42 am on Oct. 19, 2002 Allright! -5.0gr of powder to make major (too much?) -Stronger case allows countless reloads in stock barrel, unlike 40S&W (while some are buying another 1000 40sw cases, I'm reloading the same 10mm brass) My past IPSC load was 4.2gr of Clays with 220gr bullets. I'm now running 4.5gr of WST with 200gr bullets. I forget what my 170gr and 180gr loads were, but, as TDean points out, it was about the same amount of powder, give or take, as a .40. The larger case capacity just doesn't make that much difference. Also, TDean is right on the brass. The worst of my practice brass, if I recall correctly, has been loaded 43 times. Lincoln

Quote: from Phil Dunlop on 1:41 pm on Oct. 18, 2002 I'd work on being familiar with both techniques. Target arrays and or the requirement to change your footwork from your freestyle stance have more to do with what technique is best than what appears faster in training drills. It's interesting that you say this because it is a particular training drill that caused me to re-examine the issue. Back in, I think, June I did some experimenting and decided to stick with "quartering." This week, I set up a drill with 3 2.5" dots at 7 yds. From surrdender, draw and freestyle engage 2 + 2 + 2, reload, right hand only 2 + 2 + 2, reload, left hand only 2 + 2 + 2. I thought that, with twisting my body to get the appropriate shoulder out front, I was using a lot more motion than was necessary. So, I decided to re-evaluate the "squared" approach, which would allow me to keep my upper body in the same position for all three types of shooting. At this point, I still think the "quartering" approach feels better, but can see how the "squared" approach might be better on a course of fire like this. The question was whether I should devote the time to master it, to which I assume you would say, "Yes." Lincoln

I just reread all the old topics I could find on weak hand shooting but couldn't find what I was looking for. I've been experimenting for a while with different weak hand techniques. I've always been more comfortable with the "quarter the body and keep the arm fairly straight" method. If I recall correctly, this is what Brian shows in his book. However, Plaxco, Burkett, and a master class friend of mine who serves as my mentor for these types of things all use the "square to the target and fire from your normal stance, just without the strong hand" method. I have tried to give this technique a fair shake. I practice a lot indoors with the "Dot Drill" (2.5" dots at 7yds--if the shot doesn't touch the dot, the string doesn't count), so I do a pretty good amount of weak hand shooting, normally using the quartering method. On the clock, after some practice, the two methods are pretty close. The "squared" method feels MUCH less controlled. It seems like I have a much harder time connecting with the target (a 2.5" dot at 7yds) than with the "quartering" method, but, when I do, the times are comparable. At this point, I think that the problem is that the muscles used for the "squared" technique just aren't as developed as the "quartering" techique. The question is: is it worth it to switch? Is the "squared" method a measurable improvement in competition? Also, are there any subtleties to the "squared" position that I am missing? For example, it felt a little more comfortable and stable to lower my left elbow from where it would be in my freestyle position. Am I on the right track? As an aside, does anybody shoot left-eyed when shooting left handed? For me, when quartering, it feels very natural to do this. I am right eyed, but the dominance does not appear to be very strong. As another aside, strong hand shooting between the "squared" and "quartered" methods does seem to show a big time difference. I am about 0.5sec faster, on average, on the dot drill using the "quartering" method. This may be, though, because that is what I have practiced. Lincoln

_Legends of the Fall_. In how many other movies does the protagonist get revenge for his brother by taking a few scalps? :^) I am a little shocked that no one has said _The Empire Strikes Back_. Lincoln

Quote: from kurtm on 12:57 pm on Oct. 13, 2002 ICARR: The only Sterling mag I had was EXACTLY the same way. it was god awful tight in all my ARs. with some judicious tapping we got it to work great in my brothers Colt, and mine as well but I had traded it to him. I run thermolds and havent had any problems in any of my rifles, and my brother swears by his Sterling ONCE fit. Good luck. KURT Thanks for the information. About the Thermolds, I have plenty of 20 and 30 round mags--I just wanted a reliable 40 rounder for 3 Gun. Lincoln

I just bought a Sterling 40 round magazine. It appears new in an opened package. Also, it appears to be steel with the hole for the AR magzine catch already in place. However, it will not insert into the magazine well of my AR. I have never had this problem with any of several other magazines, so I don't think that my mag well is particularly tight. Doing some measurements of various dimensions of the magazines, I believe I found the problem. Both a GI 20 rounder and a teflon-coated 30 rounder I have are 2.524" front to back. The Sterling mag is 2.550". Does anyone know what the spec for the front to back measurement of an AR magazine is? Is the Sterling wildly out of spec? If so, is it fixable? Does anyone tune AR mags? Or is it my magwell? Lincoln

Quote: from kellyn on 10:34 pm on Oct. 10, 2002 I have not seen too many shooters fall back on the traditional highpower-esque offhand stance for an IPSC as it's slow to get into. However, watching footage from old STC matches, most of the shooters did rely on a more traditional stance.... It's just slow and most offhand shots in IPSC are relatively easy compared to other sports. Please let me clarify: when I was talking about a more traditional stance, I didn't mean the full blown leaning back, left hand in a special place, elbow on hip highpower stance. I just meant facing roughly 90deg to the target with the left elbow more or less directly under the forearm, e.g., like one might see in a Gunsite 270 rifle class. Lincoln

I've been messing around with standing positions for 3 Gun rifle. For the last year or two, I've been using the same position that that the big dogs use, i.e., keeping the off hand well forward on the handguard, with the hand looking roughly the same way it looks when shooting pistol, and squaring to the target. Of course, this works great for closer targets where one wants to shoot quickly and have a wide arc of movement. However, I was wondering whether anyone changes position to engage targets that are further out. I seem to recall a friend of mine, who is Master class and who does well in 3 Gun, saying that as the targets get further out he might use a more classical rifle stance. At our last "run and gun" rifle match, I was getting tired. Engaging targets at 50-70yds with my normal stance seemed a little unstable. I ended up switching to a more traditional, stable standing and hit. I'm just wondering if this is something successful 3 Gunners do normally. Lincoln

Quote: from kellyn on 7:10 pm on Sep. 17, 2002 You need to be able to shoot accurately from each position: standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone and then figure out how long it takes YOU to get IN and OUT of each position. Kelly, what does your sitting look like? I know that the sitting taught, e.g., at Gunsite, with which I'm familiar, is a lot different than what the good highpower shooters are using. I'm curious to know what sort of sitting you use for 3 Gun. I have the same question about your kneeling. Do you ever use squatting in 3 Gun? Thanks, Lincoln

Quote: from Duane Thomas on 2:03 pm on July 29, 2002 Still, I'm having some people seriously recommend Winchester Super Target to me as a .45 powder since they say it's much softer shooting than Titegroup. Any thoughts on that? Any experiences with WST's consistency over different temperature ranges, etc.? My current IPSC 10mm load is a 200gr plated bullet with WST. The load isn't as soft as my 220gr loads with Clays or N320, but it's pretty damned soft. I also had a WST load with a 170gr LSWC, which of course was much snappier. I have found WST to be somewhat inversely pressure sensitive. That is, as temperature increses, the loads seem to become softer. It seems to be a pretty small variation, though. I had someone suggest to me recently that some of the temperature sensitivity that I have seen with WST and Clays may be due to the large amount of air in my loads--I'm loading out to 1.260" in 10mm. Lincoln

Quote: from Steve Anderson on 8:52 am on May 27, 2002 I switched to mpro 7 two years ago and it's the best I've ever tried. I agree with Steve that M Pro-7 is the best _cleaner_ I've used, and I've used many different cleaners. If I were just shooting, say, a Glock, I might use it all the time. However, in some ways M Pro-7 is _too_ good. The manufacturer tells you to keep it away from oil-based wood finishes. I've also found that it will "clean" off some paints, like the white outline of an S&W rear sight. It leaves the firearm completely bare, so be careful to reapply a good protectant. The main reason, though, that I now use Eezox instead of M Pro-7 is that M Pro-7 eats Loctite. For example, it would eat the Loctite that holds my SVI removable breechface in place. Eezox is a milder cleaner, but it seems to leave Loctite just fine and as an added benefit provides a decent lubricant. It is probably the best protectant on the market. I use Slide Glide on metal-to-metal contact areas that I can reach easily. Lincoln

Quote: from Patrick Sweeney on 6:44 am on May 16, 2002 I went with Mod due to pin shooting. If I shot cyl or I.C., an occasional pellet would stray into the next pin and tip it as I was trying to get on it. Also, the tighter pattern took pins off faster, a definite advantage when trying to be first to the trophy trough. What do you think the "optimal" pattern is for 3-Gun? For example, the #8 shot practice load I've always used in classes only prints about 8.5" at 10yds, measuring extreme flyer to extreme flyer the way one would when patterning defensive buckshot. Is that too tight? Also, what shot size do you prefer? The local shotgun side matches around here use a lot of clay pigeons, so I thought putting more pellets in the air with a smaller shot size might be desirable. Thanks, Lincoln

Quote: from kellyn on 6:48 pm on May 10, 2002 If you have a redi-mag that is the quickest reload. Is a Redi-Mag any better than just having two mags hooked together, e.g., with a Mag-Cinch? Lincoln

Quote: from kellyn on 9:46 pm on July 24, 2001 4) The fastest loads come from the side saddle or arm-band b/c the shell is closest to the loading gate. Is the consensus that the buttstock carriers just suck? I've never tried one, but I haven't seen them mentioned in the thread. Lincoln

Quote: from benos on 12:32 pm on Dec. 10, 2001 It's not necessary, or maybe not even possible, to follow the site "all the way." Thanks! That has been my experience, and I thought that I wan't doing it well enough. When I'm "on" doing my Bill Drills, I see the front sight bobbing up and down, though I don't think I'm following it all the way up. Again, thanks for going into more detail. When I read about all of these people tracking their sights through recoil, I had assumed that they were following them all the way up and all the way down. I thought that I was doing something not quite right. Now I see that my subjective experience is just as you describe. Lincoln

Quote: from benos on 3:06 pm on Dec. 8, 2001 Icarr, "However, if I see the sparks and see the sight lift, is this bad?" No, this is not bad. If you see that, your eyes were open at the critical moment. What I was getting at, and now see that I wasn't clear, is that, when I'm firing one shot, I see the sparks and the sight lift, but it is very difficult or impossible for me to see the sight all the way until it comes back down. My brain knows that I'm only firing this one shot and I can't seem to follow the sight all the way back to the notch, even though I follow through well enough to get the bullet out of the end of the barrel. Lincoln P.S. That's a lower case "L," for Lincoln. My name is Lincoln Carr, hence "lcarr," like "benos," all lower case user name. :^)

Quote: from benos on 12:05 pm on Dec. 7, 2001 astig, Of course a blasting open gun can encourage blinking, but you must learn to overcome it, no matter what. This must be your first priority. Almost every shooter I've worked with, except MOST GMs, blink when the gun fires. Brian, I seem to experience the same thing as the original poster. If I fire two quick shots, it seems like I blink after the second shot. However, if I fire a single shot, slowfire, I WILL blink after the shot. I see the sparks coming out the end of the gun and I see the front sight rise, but, subconsciously, I know that I'm only firing this one shot and I blink. However, if I see the sparks and see the sight lift, is this bad? Is this the blinking you're talking about, or are you only talking about blinking that interferes with following through until the bullet is out of the barrel? Lincoln P.S. What's the best way to try to force the eye to stay open? Try to open it very wide and "muscle" it open? Just try to relax and not blink? Or what? (Edited by lcarr at 10:35 pm on Dec. 7, 2001)

Quote: from Patrick Sweeney on 7:20 am on Oct. 2, 2001 I've always shot a double bead setup, even when using a shotgun in Open. I used ghost rings and scopes only at Second Chance on the BCBC, slugs to 90 yards on falling plates. Do you find, say, ghost rings to be a _hinderance_ when using shot? That is, do you think that ghost rings or rifle sights actually slow you down with shot? What about a dot on an open shotgun? Lincoln

Quote: from Lee Watne on 10:36 am on Sep. 3, 2001 Be careful about drilling holes or "ports" in the 21 inch Special Purpose 11/87 barrels. They don't have the gas regulating system of the longer barrels. You will have low gas pressure and the gun may be unreliable. You can open the gas orifices and get reliable functioning but at the cost of slamming the action due to the resulting higher cycling velocities which will result in parts breakage eventually. It was no accident that Remington made these barrels no shorter than 21 inches. I have one of the Remington 18" 11-87 Police barrels. They make factory 14" barrels as well. As you note, all barrels below, I think, 26" are NOT pressure compensated and one either needs to use reasonably heavy loads or get the gas ports enlarged. Lincoln

Quote: from Chriss Grube on 4:33 pm on Aug. 10, 2001 Kevin, They have little fin type grooves on the side that spin them to stabilize. Inside 75 yds. The are pretty accurate. They are just the run of the mill Fed. or Remington slugs. The "rifling" on Foster slugs is really to allow it to squeeze through the tighter chokes. A Foster slug is stable in flight not because it spins, but because it has more weight forward than back, like a badminton birdie. It is solid on the top and hollowed out on the bottom. A smoothbore shotgun with Foster slugs that it likes should do about 6" at 100yds. The phrase "it likes" is important: every individual shotgun barrel is unique, and different barrels like different ammunition. Some ammunition may tend to shoot better on average with many different barrels, but there is no way around experimenting with your particular barrel. This observation is usually made regarding shot, but also applies to slugs. Lincoln (Edited by lcarr at 9:13 pm on Aug. 10, 2001)

Quote: from kellyn on 8:34 pm on July 26, 2001 - When shooting offhand, hold the rifle near the far end of the handguard and point w/ the weak hand index finger (this almost cams your wrist as in the world-famous reverse weaver stance!). Don't hold the rifle near the receiver - as many seem to do. It slows your transition times when your weak arm is all scrunched up (scrunched is a legal term). Is there a technical reason to point the index finger? I've been trying to take your advice, but find it a little more comfortable to hold my off-hand basically the way I would hold it when shooting a pistol the way Brian shows in his book. Is the reason for pointing the index finger just to ensure that the offhand is higher on the foreend? Lincoln