Bear1142

Kurt, Kelly, Jeff, and Benny, I've been gettin' ready for the side shotgun match! There's no reload to save y'all on this one, just a grip-n-rip fest! ABANDON ALL HOPE! Erik

Me too. Mine broke and I need to get it replaced. Erik

Go with the Brazos. Bob is an extremely talented gunsmith who stands behind his work. If it ever needs to be repaired, Bob will take care of you fast. SV will put you in line behind everything else, you might see the pistol several months later. Only one choice in my opinion. Erik

Congratulations to Penn State Football and to Joe Pa on a spectacular season that was only ruined by one second on a clock! Bring on USC! Erik

Religious shooter, Yeah, I seem to go against a lot of tradition in rifle. The scope was a Weaver 1-3x20. Yeah, on that stage the I used another one of my "gimmicks" to brace along the left side of the wall on the first prone port. I kept having some trouble with the VF hitting some rocks and the forward 2x4 fault line, so I took it off. Ouch! But considering my avatar, I guess I deserve it. I'll have to change it. Thank you. Erik

I'm looking for a Sig 226, solid steel, or tungstun guide rods. Any places I can check? Erik

Eric, Thanks, I enjoyed the conversation. Once again, if you need some help getting a foot in the door on the "other" side of the facility, please don't hesitate to reach out for me. I've got some relatives in S. Florida I could visit. I may have to try and get a class scheduled. Erik

Well, sorry I was so slow on this thread. I've been away from the computer all weekend. Vertical foregrips. They kinda remind me of the Glocks, either you love'm or not. I'll humbly offer a few observations about the use of the vertical foregrips for some of you considering or actually trying them out in competition. One of the main reasons I use a Vertical Foregrip (VF) is for consistency in my technique. I'm a huge proponent of keeping your shooting technique (or form), as consistent as possible across all three shooting platforms (pistol, rifle, shotgun.) I'll not go into all the reasons for this, but most of them should be pretty evident. How does this consistency work with a rifle? Think about the modern, two-handed pistol grip. Our support hand rests along the frame of the pistol with our thumb pointed at the target and our wrist locked in line with our forearm. This is a very stable and secure technique for managing pistol recoil. Once again, I'll not go into why this grip is the most dominant technique used, but the quick reason is, it currently works better than any other technique and I don't know of a single top 25 shooter that uses another support hand grip. Applying this technique to the use of a VF, think of the VF attached to the FF tube as nothing more than the support side of your pistol. I position the VF on the rail at the same distance as my pistol would be from my body. One of the most critical flaws I see when people attempt to use the VF is to wrap their thumb around the base on the grip similar to how you would hold a baseball bat. This hold severly reduces the effectiveness of this technique as it has the effect of placing the support hand well below the bore axis of the rifle which reduces your stability. Just like our support hand pistol technique, we want to get as high up on the VF and FF tube as we can to position our support hand level or slightly higher than the bore axis of the rifle. If you take your support hand and roll your thumb forward and lock your wrist, you have your support hand pistol grip. Now take that same grip and grast the VF. My thumb actually rests along the side of the FF tube, my pointer finger rests underneath the FF tube and only my next three fingers are actually using the VF. If you want to get technical about it, I only half-use the VF. the other half uses the FF tube. Using this technique, my support hand absorbs more of the rifles recoil than if I were to just use the FF tube only. This technique stablilizes the rifle incredibly well for distance shots and allows me to really drive the rifle on the up close hose stages. Transitions are very fast and my splits are generally around .15 with pretty tight pairings. I can't stand the switches on the VF, I place them alongside the FF tube where my thumb rests. I totally agree, grabbing the magwell is a panacea. If feels nice but it does nothing for your technique, other than looking cool. I think most "operators" grab the mag well because there is no room on the foregrip for their hand after they get done hanging all of their accessories on the rifle. I'll disagree with the stance portion of this statement. Think about making a 180 degree swing with your pistol. You don't leave the pistol extended the make the turn. You bring the pistol into your body, turn and drive the pistol out to the target. Watch a figure skater doing spins (cause I can't spell perowet), they spin faster when their hands come closer into their bodies. Regarding choked up hand positions, I completely agree. They do have a very high CDI factor! Yes, I can and do take if off occasionally depending on the stage. Although I prefer to use a VF, I'm not locked into the technique all the time. It depends on the stage. I probably take if off about 10% of the time. Religious Shooter, what was the first thing you noticed about the rifle? When I shoot prone, I'll move the VF forward and use it as a stop to lock in the rifle with my support hand. I don't like monopodding off the magazine...bad ju-ju. Why would it work for one, but not another? A high speed split (.11-.15) is nothing more than a two shot burst? I hope this sheds some light on it's use. VF's are a very versatile tool with many other uses not covered here that can dramatically improve you rifle shooting if you use them correctly. Of course, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if nobody else ever used them. I'll need all the help I can get trying to swipe that National Title from KellyN. Erik

$2.05 in Atlanta

Sgt Got any pics of your setup? I'd like to see one. Erik

JLJ, You were allowed to start with the reload round in your hand. I held it in my support hand, just in front of the receiver. After the first round, I slid my support hand back, did the reload and commenced to hammering. The 2.63 wasn't my overall fastest run, just the run that I actually hit everything. I had a 2.21 run, but missed two clays. I think a low 2 is physically doable, I just have to connect on the clays. Erik

This was the Area 6 3-Gun, shotgun side-match. There were five clay pigeons about 8 yards downrange with about a 3 foot spacing between them. You started with 4 rounds in your shotgun, low-ready postition with the muzzle of your shotgun touching a 2x4 about 2 feet high. On the buzzer you had to shoot all five with a reload. The only rule was you had to fire at least one round before you reloaded. You could start with the reload round in your hand. My winning time was a 2.63 with a .60 first shot, about a 1.3 reload and about .15 splits on the other 4 clays. I'm not the fastest guy reloading a shotgun, but I can pull a trigger. Erik

Kelly, I think we (USA) just got bitch-slapped. Kelly, grab Kurt & Benny while I try to find my passport. It's time to smack the Finnish boys so hard we'll knock the white off their snow! Erik

I wanted to take a moment and say thank you to everyone who worked so hard to make the Area 6 3-Gun match a resounding success. It was one of the more technical matches I have participated in all year. The match required several challanging shots and a few VERY contorted shooting positions. Anyone who tried to climb on, hang onto, and shoot a rifle around the weak side of a barricade on half-hard cover and head shot only targets will appreciate the technical aspects of this match. I also wanted to thank all of the people who worked very hard to provide on outstanding prize table. Outside of the Nationals, it was the best prize table I've see in YEARS. I'm sure I'll miss some match sponsers, but off the top of my head thanks to Blackhawk Gear, Sure-Fire, MSTN, SAW Custom, Columbia River Knife & Tool, Rock River Arms, and a host of others. Congratulations to the other winners including our very own Still Praying (Ronnie Shores) in Open Division. Who by the way, worked harder than any other person on the BE forum to promote the match. For all of you who decided not to attend, you should have listened to him, you missed out. Congratulations to Kurt Miller for (once again!) showing all of us that you don't need an optic on your rifle to shoot well, not to mention putting on another (once again!) clinic on how to reload a shotgun. Well done Kurt! I'd like to congratulate Jeff Cramblit for coming out of semi-retirement to make the match a proverbial horse race with a photo finish. It really wouldn't hurt my feelings if he went back into retirement. And finally, I'd like to thank Kurt and Jeff for making the shotgun side match the most entertaining and fun time I had all weekend. Now if I can just get my first shot down to a .40, I might have a chance. Erik

Smoke, Do you have some contact info for Mueller? On paper, it's a very appealing design. I'd like to see one. Are you coming to the Ft. Benning tactical match? Never mind, I saw the link in your last post. Erik

Kelly, That's okay, I kinda like having that scope all to myself. Cactustactical, As Kelly mentioned, it's a Weaver 1-3x20 classic variable. Erik

I hate that I have to follow that tragic news with my selfish hate. I hate the fact I had a (self edit because I hate whining) and only one BE'r saw it. Thanks for the call Phil. Erik

Guy, Since Kelly has already given you a pretty good rundown of your choices in scopes (although he forgot to mention my "sleeper"), I'll just add a few things. You have three basic choices for scopes. 1- Electronic dot style scope (EOTech, Aimpoint, ect..) 2- Fixed power glass scope (ACOG versions) 3- Variable power scope (Endless choices) Considering the wide range of distances encountered during rifles stages, literally muzzle contact distance to 400+ yards, I prefer using scopes that have the ability to adapt to the ranges I'm dealing with. To me, that means a variable scope. Now before George, Zak, and all the other ACOG fans get their panties in a bunch, let me say that ACOG's are excellent scopes and a quick check of the results at major matches will show that ACOG's are well represented in the winners circle. I think once the targets are in excess of 100 yards, the ACOG's really begin to shine and are tough to beat. The calibrated reticules are wonderful inventions and they are very fast at distance. The ACOG's main weakness is the up close (less than 50 yards) distances. Yes, I know about all the voodoo techniques that people use up close and many of them are excellent techniques, but they are nothing more than ways to compensate for the ACOG weakness. They do work, but not as effectively as say a dot scope. I don't think you'll find too many people who will make the statement AND stand behind the assertion that inside 15 yards, their ACOG's are faster than an EOTech or an Aimpoint. The voodoo techniques help the ACOG's keep pace with the dot scopes, but they will never be as fast. While many "true" rifle shooters complain that there are not enough long distance shots in matches (especially this years 3GN), a quick check of real world events show the rifle or carbine is the new across the board weapons platform. It's doing everything from long range precision fire to contact distance CQB, and performing quite well in all aspects. I see close range rifle (read pistol type stages) being encountered more and more in 3-gun matches. Most of the matches I have shot, with a few exceptions, have one long range stage (200+ yds.), one intermediate range stage (50-200 yds.), and 2-3 close range stages (under 50 yds.) Understanding that this is bulk of what we're seeing in 3-Gun, I choose to select my optic based on the types of stages I'm most likely to encounter. If 3-gun had a rule that rifle stages had to be a minimum of 100 yards, I'd be all over an ACOG, but it doesn't. This leaves us with either choice 1 or 3. If you break it down even further, a dot scope is nothing more than an ACOG on the other side of the distance equation. It's great up close, but it's weakness is distance. The nice little 1 moa center dot on the EOTech's make distance shooting easier, but it's not the best option. This leaves the variable scope as our last choice. Things to look for in a variable scope (not withstanding a good quality scope with good clear glass) are a magnification range that covers all range aspects we're likely to encounter. This translates to a 1-4 or 1-5 variable magnification range. While the upper end of the range usefulness tends to max out at 5 (over 5 starts to cause other problems I'm not going to go into), the more important aspect is the low-end magnification. Most scopes offer 1.5 as the low end, with some offering 1.25 and a few offer a true 1 power. I feel that the MOST critical aspect of a variable scope is finding a scope with a true 1 power reticle. Understanding that the majority of the stages and shots with a rifle will be relativley close and realizing that dot type scopes rule on the up close targets, finding a variable scope with true 1 power will maximize our performance. After all, a true 1 power scope is nothing more that and electronic dot scope with a crosshair for a reticle instead of a dot. The 1.25 and 1.5 scopes will work, just not a efficiently as a true 1 power scope. With a 1.25 and a 1.5, you will always have some image distortion immediately outside the reticle. This slows down your target to target transitions, and transitions are where people win or lose, not target split times. I use a true 1 power scope and shoot it with both eyes open (like a dot.) Not having the slight distortion present in the 1.25 and 1.5 power scopes lets me get a clearer look and a faster transition to the next target, and like I said before, transitions are what wins on the up close stages. Sorry this went so long, but I kinda got on a roll. I may have to save this, it might make a good Front Sight article. Hope this helps your venture into the dark world of optics. Erik

Sam, Everybody has some natural talent when it comes to shooting, or any type of competition for that matter. Some have more than others, but we all have some level. At some point in time your going to reach your maximum attainable skill level on just your natural talent. It's at this crucial crossroad that you must make a very important decision. You must either accept the fact that this is as far as your going to go on your natural talent or you must get serious and start to train to be a better shooter. I'm not talking about going to the range and shooting, I'm saying that you need to go to the range with a organized set of practice regimens designed to improve you skill level. Most of the time, these drills are not going to be the fun ones that we all like to do, they will be the boring ones or the tough ones that really show our weaknesses. In the end, they will help you to become a better shooter. Sometimes they are fun and sometimes the are not, but they are always serious. Jerry Miculek doesn't go to the range to have fun, he goes to become a better shooter. He may have fun at what he's doing, but his purpose for being there is to improve his skills. It's always serious and sometimes it's fun. For all this rambling remember this one thing. Anyone can practice what they are good at, champions practice what they are bad at. Hope this helps. Erik

Guys, Thanks for the info. I did intend on using the Badger detachable magazine system. I'll take another look at the AICS but if everything turns out equal, I'm with Smokshwn, I like the ergomonics of the Mcmillans better. I haven't decided on glass yet, but there is a short list. I'm still deciding which style of reticle I want to use. Once I figure that one out, then I'll start looking at the different scope companies. Erik

I went 3/3 on the left and 6/3 on the right. I got a little bit excited (because I was having a good run) and didn't settle down for the last plate as much as I should have. I had to deal with a little crosswind, but not as much as Benny did. I ran handloaded 69gr. Noslers. They seem to shake off the wind pretty good. Erik

Scout454, I'm trying to stay away from the AICS. I've already got a 28" barrel with a pretty stout contour, so everything else is going to be an exercise in reducing weight as much as possible. I do like the AICS system, but it's heavy and I don't think it is my best choice for this particular setup. I'm going to go with the Badger Ordnance mag setup, I was just trying to get a feel for which stock works the best. I'm leaning towards the A3, but I like to fully adjustable components of the A5. Erik

Is it the fact that it took at least 10 of those rounds to drop a hostile, or the fact that you can drop 4 more before changing a mag? I kinda like the fact that if the first 10 don't work, I've got another 40 for ya! Erik

My newest one... Duality- Slipknot Awesome drummer with excessive double bass fills. Erik

I'm slowly starting to put together my MOR setup and I wanted some feedback on which model McMillan stock you guys prefer and why (A1-A5) I'll be using a Remington SA receiver and a 28" barrel (I know, it's pretty long.) I'd like whichever model I use to be compatible with the various detachable magazine setups. So..what say you? Erik