munitor

Put a new set of Hornady TiN dies to work the other day loading 40 S&W for IPSC. Lo and behold, all rounds failed the bullet setback test. All rounds were loaded to SAAMI spec (0.420 crimp at the mouth, 1.135 OAL) like I always do, and I used R-P brass and bullets from a lot that I know are ok because they worked fine when I did a batch of 500 through my Dillon SDB. I tighted the crimp, but nothing I did would keep the bullet in place when pushed on. I measured the case diameter just under the base of the bullet and found that the loads out of the SDB measured 0.418, while those from the Hornady dies were measuring 0.421. Intrigued (and scared), I ordered an RCBS, Dillon and Lee sizing die to see if they were the same. Dillon came in at 0.418, RCBS and Lee at 0.419. All these passed the bullet setback test. I called Hornady to find out about this 40 die and the first thing they asked was if I was using RP brass. When I said yes, they said they had recently opened up their sizer because people using Federal and Winchester brass were complaining that it was working the brass too much. Not long after that, complaints started coming in about RP brass. I asked if they had tightened the spec on the sizer back down and they said no. Folks, this is a dangerous situation. I recommend you not use Hornady 40 dies with RP brass unless you have checked it for bullet setback resistance. In fact I always test all 40 S&W rounds, and this is a good example why.

InTheBlack, you're starting to give me ideas between this stuff and the sight thread. The only Clarks I know of are the famous bunch in Princeton, Louisiana. They built they're reputation on fantastic bullseye 1911s, and if anyone gets into gun fit, its the bullseye (and Olympic) crowd. So this has me wondering if your idea for a dummy gun with adjustable grip, sights and trigger, along with a good formula for fitting for concealed carry, IDPA, IPSC, Olympic, and bullseye wouldn't be a useful tool. Plug in some hand and vision measurements and read out a list of suggested configurations to try. Select the right grip, tweak the adjusting screws for the trigger and grip angle, slip in the sights, and viola, a gun that fits. Then the dealer sells the real one that most closely matches the winning configuration. Hell, I'll settle for knowing the magic formulas so I can either tweak my Glock or know that I eventually have to go to something else.

Phil, you are right in that a front sight that fills more of the rear notch allows less deviation than one with more white space, but I think what the Russians (and the human factors engineer I talked to) were saying is that the eye can't confirm how much deviation there is unless it can see white space on both sides of the blade, and that in the Russian's experience you need a .85 to .67 setup to do that quickly enough to win a gold medal in Olympic rapid fire. All the configurations we have been discussing fit that range so I view them as simply within the spectrum of individual preference or physical difference. When I use my new sight setup I can almost always see some white space unless my index is way off. I am learning to see what I need to see with the new sight setup, and its a little different than what I used to use. But for me its easier to use and faster than the old one. I just know that for an A at 12 yds I need a bit of white all around. I am finding that easier to achieve than if the front sight has pinched out the light on one side, which it often did with the old setup (and my aging eyes).

Phil, you're right - I got a bit confused (not an unusual condition for me!). You described your previous sight setup as .090/.112, which is a calculated 0.80 and approximately a visual 0.46 (or 2.2:1 if we use the apparent rear to front ratio like the Russians do). That gives you a bit more than half a front blade's width on each side. If I understand you right, you also said this setup gave you an A out to 12 yds (laterally). You also said you are now using Brian's setup, which is 0.115/0.135, or 0.85 calculated, 0.49 visually (2.04:1 Russian ratio). All this seems straightforward. Then you said "I think it becomes progressively harder to judge the adequacy of a sight picture at high speed as that ratio declines." That's where you lost me. Did you mean it was harder with your old sight picture than your new one, or vice versa? I agree with you that it really helps to know just how far off you are when the blade is at the edge of the notch, and at what distances that is acceptable.

I've searched the literature on this a bit and also asked a human factors engineer about it. According to the human factors engineer, for fast alignment, you need to see enough light at each side that the bit of wobble you have doesn't pinch out the light significantly. He was unsure about the vertical, but thought patridge was probably best. His comment on the dot front was wondering how the dot would be indexed against the rear sight unless it had dots, too, and in the same apparent position. I told him on precision shots one would use the top of the front sight and he said he thought the dot would make people shoot high if they were in a hurry (is this true?). The Russian shooting coach BE mentions, A. A. Yer'yev, also reported that the most winning rear sight in the various Olympic pistol shooting events, by 2 to 1, had a U shaped notch, not a square bottomed notch (that makes the "half ghost ring" over 40 years old). The Russians found that a front sight that was the same or slightly wider than the apparent width of the bullseye gives the best accuracy with the least eye fatigue, but because Olympic pistol targets have a wide bullseye, they found that rule impractical to implement for pistols. Instead, they settled on a front sight, 0.125-0.145 wide, which their experience has shown to give maximum accuracy and minimum eye fatigue. A quick calc shows an 6" plate at 50 yds would be about the visible width of a 0.093 front sight (with sight 28" from eye). An 8" plate at 50 yds would equal a 0.124 front sight at 28". I run a 0.145 rear notch and recently narrowed my front sight from 0.125 to 0.097, which I have found much easier to see with my aging eyes. From the looks of it I am running at the 1:3 end of the scale rather than the 1:2. Given all this, maybe I should have opened up the rear notch, instead. Might be worth a try, but I am probably already in the ballpark.

Good posts. Glad to hear I'm not the only one messing about with this. Duane, thanks for the guidance. As an ex-bullseye shooter, I've always built my grip from the rear, but I think I have not been optimizing it for a freestyle grip, probably by having the backstrap of the gun too far palmward in the strong hand. I do strive for the gap free, high grip. I recently added skate board tape to see if it would help keep my grip consistent (or at least feel better). I did re-read the section on grip in PSBF (am actually re-reading the whole book, which seems much more relevant now than it did several years ago when I began shooting IPSC), and looked at the photos there. BE's text was much more descriptive of his grip than anything else I've seen. Indeed, Brian noted that the strong hand position wasn't with the pad at the base of the thumb hooked around the backstrap, but more open to allow the support hand to butt up to it. BTW, BE's knuckles pretty much match up with the way Avery's and Burkett's do. All this messing about with my grip is making me wonder: 1. Is gun fit essential to shooting a handgun well? 2. Is there a good understanding of how to fit a handgun, similar to the way people understand how to fit a shotgun? 3. Does part of a good fit mean the knuckles line up as I have observed? 4. What are the other parts of a good fit?

I don't want to get in a war so I am posting this here instead of up in Handgun Techniques. Plus I shoot a 35 so figured this was a better place to ask, anyway! I was reviewing the Avery tapes and noticed that when he grips the gun his strong hand #2 knuckles line up in a line just a bit off center of the gun grip, then the support hand #2 knuckles fall right on top of the strong hand #2 knuckles. I then looked at Matt Burkett's book and noticed that his hands do the same thing, even though he was shooting a large frame STI. I looked at my own hands in the mirror and my #2 knuckles are lined up quite a bit to the right of the center of the handgun grip, but that my support hand #2 knuckles do fall in line down the center of the handgun grip. I wonder if I could improve my grip by following Avery and Burkett's examples, but it feels funny to me, like I have less control of the gun because my strong hand has less contact with the backstrap. I haven't tried it on the range, just dry firing. Maybe its my bullseye upbringing. Anyway, its making me consider a grip reduction, but that seems bizarre given I have pretty big hands. Anyone else looked at their grip on a glock vs. 1911?

I don't want to get in a war so I am posting this here instead of up in Handgun Techniques. Plus I shoot a 35 so figured this was a better place to ask, anyway! I was reviewing the Avery tapes and noticed that when he grips the gun his strong hand #2 knuckles line up in a line just a bit off center of the gun grip, then the support hand #2 knuckles fall right on top of the strong hand #2 knuckles. I then looked at Matt Burkett's book and noticed that his hands do the same thing, even though he was shooting a large frame STI. I looked at my own hands in the mirror and my #2 knuckles are lined up quite a bit to the right of the center of the handgun grip, but that my support hand #2 knuckles do fall in line down the center of the handgun grip. I wonder if I could improve my grip by following Avery and Burkett's examples, but it feels funny to me, like I have less control of the gun because my strong hand has less contact with the backstrap. I haven't tried it on the range, just dry firing. Maybe its my bullseye upbringing. Anyway, its making me consider a grip reduction, but that seems bizarre given I have pretty big hands. Anyone else looked at their grip on a glock vs. 1911?