Bear1142

I hate when I don't perform my walkthrough the with the same intensity each and every time. Sometimes I see what appears to be a relatively straight forward stage and I let my mental acuity slip. End result, at the Ga. State Match I shot the same target twice when I could see it from two different positions. Nothing like four "A's" on the same target. Oh yeah, of course I also got to add about a second to my overall time for the extra transition and shots. In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "Dooahh" Erik

Ghost, it has every adjustable feature you need in a package 1/2 the size of a CR Speed. Erik

Bountyhunter, Not that this will make you feel any better, but in VA. all monies collected from enforcement efforts go into a State Literary fund to help fund childrens reading programs. Nothing else. Its in the Va. code. The State Police or any other govt. agency don't see one dime. For us, a good day at work keeps ebonics out of our school systems for another day. Erik

Brian, Don't worry man, I wasn't offended. "Tax Collector" doesn't even make the top 10 of things I've been called. I never took the speed enforcement job as seriously as some other guys did. I stopped the people that needed to be stopped. Mostly the over 80 crowd in the 55 zones. People would always ask me at what speed did I start stopping people. I would always say the same thing. There are too many people driving 80,90, or 100 mph for me to fool with someone doing 70 in a 55. Not that I can't or won't, but I have a limited amount of time and far too many people who think their time is more important than everybody else's. David, In Va., reckless driving is usually either 20 mph over the posted speed limit or in excess of 80. RD is a class 1 misdemeanor, although its not a criminal offense. It's punishable by a maximum fine of $2,500 and/or 1 YEAR in jail. Personally, I'm okay with the stiff penalties, but I always thought 80 was a little low for a threshold. Most of the traffic penalty standards were put into place during the 1930's, when 80 mph really was driving recklessly in those cars. In todays cars, I've driven some cars over 120 that are so smooth you'd think your going 55. But what politician is going to offer up a law to loosen that RD standards? Never happen, political suicide. Erik

Ya know the funny thing about a speed trap? If you don't speed, it's not a trap. To all you radar detector jockeys, save your money, it won't save you. The only time a RD will save you is if the cops light up the guy in front of you. If there's nobody in front of you, you're dead meat. Radar waves travel at the speed of light (186,000 miles per SECOND). Todays Radar guns are instant. Your speed is on the Radar set before the sound from your buzzer can reach your ears. RD's used to work on the older radars because they would leak some waves and a good RD could pick up the leaks. Today's radar's don't leak. In my former job, I worked the one state in the country were RD's were illegal. I would rountinely take the RD back to the cruiser, plug it in, put the RD right in front of the Radar antenna. Everytime is was silent until I released the hold button. Abandon all hope. As far as "tax collector" references goes. It never bothers you to see the "tax collector" show up when some idiot plows into the back of your car at 10 mph and you need a police accident report so you can sue the idiot for permanent whiplash and live on easy street for the rest of your life. Funny, you never hear anybody complain about that. It's all part of the job, you gotta take the good with the bad. Erik (Former tax collector)

Garrett, I played with the 300 whisper quite extensively last year. I was able to make major (340 PF) with ONE load, and that was by the skin of my teeth. Now that the PF is 320, making major should be no problem. The real problem is the cartridge. This round was designed for 200 yards. Proper loading will let us push it to 300, but thats about all. Even then, you'll have quite a rainbow trajectory. My recommendation is to go with the 6.8 SPC. Complete uppers and ammo are already available and if the AWB goes away, mags will be readily available. It should have not trouble making major and a good supply of components (read brass) will be easy to find. If you decide to stick with the 300 whisper, drop the 220gr. bullets and go with the 168's. They are cheaper, more accurate, and have a flatter trajectory. Good luck. Erik

Travis, You are correct that torque is a result of the rifling, but recoil and stance do play a part in the whole process. Changing your stance will not stop the torque from developing, but it helps to manage or eliminate it's effects. Erik

Kurt, As much as it pains me, Yes, I do consider you the 2nd best. Erik

Bill, How do you account for disappearing targets with the time based system? Lynn, I know is shouldn't be a problem, but it would have to be corrected and redistributed to all the clubs. As I stated before, this seemed to be the easiest and quickest fix with the smallest amount of change. I realize fixing the scoring system is always an option, I was just taking the path of least resistance. Erik

With all the discussions concerning the new multi-gun rules and the recent 3 gun nationals, I thought it prudent to offer up for discussion a revision to the 3 gun scoring system. While I spoke up about this new scoring system at the group discussion after the match, I can not take credit for it's design. If the originator wants to jump in and fess up, that's his decision. After some lengthy discussion, the EASIEST way to fix the current scoring problem is this: Score all rifles as major (.223, 7.62x39, .308, etc..) Keep the major/minor power factors. All minor scoring rifles require two rounds per target. All major scoring rifles require ONE round per target that scores twice the value. 1 A= 2 A's on scorecard, 1C= 2 C's on scorecard, etc.. BUT, you also get double the penalties. 1 miss= 2 misses, 1 no-shoot= 2 no shoots, etc.. This system fixes the problem of shooting major pistol with minor rifle on a stage, no more A zone only targets. It requires no changes in the scoring program or scoring sheets. It brings .308 & major rifle back into a serious competitive status compared to the .223. It supports the current 308 trend in the industry (Armalite, Bushmaster, DSARMs, Springfield, etc..) and industry support is always a good thing, and it's the easiest and quickest way to integrate the change without a major overhaul or adopting a time based scoring system. While I think its an excellent idea, there are some potential issues. The biggest concern I have it the new 6.8 SPC round. If the AWB goes away, then 28 round magazines will be readily available. You'll have a 28 round rifle that scores major with the recoil of about a 243. Add a good compesator and it will be even softer and flatter. The round will obsolete the .223 & .308 in competition and while I'm all for new designs and technology, I don't want to see everything made obsolete by one cartridge. Likewise I don't want the new 6.8 eliminated because it holds less rounds and recoils harder than the .223 for minor rifle. I don't have an answer for this one yet. The other issue are the middle grounds rounds that also make major, like the 260 remington. Several competitors have used a 260 to shoot major rifle. I think the answer is to move the major rifle power factor up from 320 to 350. The 308s will easily make the PF, but the middle range calibers will really have to step up to make the PF. No more cheatin' 120gr. 260 loads for major. I realize there are other scoring system around and some have real merit. This is simply an attempt to correct the problem with the least amount of disruption or change. I think the other scoring systems should be seriously considered, but I also think this is the quickest and simplest all around fix, for right now. Comments? Erik

JJ, Changing you stance will stop the rifle from drifting to the right. Erik

To all, Here are some general observations on the match. The were originally included in the 3 gun Nationals equipment thread, but I was asked to move them here. Sorry they don't follow along with the current discussion. Observations General- I like the multigun format, but not 14/16 stages worth. Kinda like sugar, a little is nice, a lot is better, too much makes you sick. I would have liked to see about 6 stages with maybe one or two using all three guns. The multi-gun format has definitely changed the essence of USPSA matches. I found myself not trying to save fractions of time on stages that would be lost because somebody unloaded their gun faster than me. Efficiency in transferring guns became the biggest time saver, not shooting ability. The scoring system needs a major overhaul. Most of the hit factors on the stages were very low making it more advantageous to skip long range difficult shots and save the time rather than run the course as designed. Better stage design will only solve part of the problem. I was extremely disappointed with the attitude of the stage designers, or whomever had final say on the stage design. I have never shot a match with more chickensh@t stuff in my life. While I won't drag out every instance, here are two prominent ones. Putting two targets on a spring loaded slide with a no-shoot between them which disappears behind a wall at the end of its run, okay, not bad. The exposure window for the runner was about 8 feet. okay, challenging, but still not bad. Putting a 55 gallon drum in the middle of the window and calling it a multiple exposure target that incurs misses when it disappears behind the wall, Bullsh@t. Each window on either side of the barrel was about 3 feet. So you basically got a 3 ft. engagement window for a two target SPRING loaded slider with a no-shoot in the middle. GENERALLY, most GM's and M's could handle it, everybody else got hosed. Look at all the penalties on that stage. The second was the prone, weak handed rifle on 4 8" plates from 240 to 280 yards. This alone was a bit over the top, but then you had to cram into a corner window port that was about 6" wide by 10" high, bullsh@t. Several people couldn't even fit into the corner to get a shot, myself included. I know of one person who is blind in his left eye and had to take the 20% penalty because he couldn't use his right eye to shoot. This stage wasn't about shooting, it was about who was the better contortionist. What's the purpose of designing a stage that requires physical positions that many people couldn't get into to begin with. Weak handed prone was enough, the port was simple piling on. Just about every stage reeked of this attitude. It was disappointing to see. The attitude of the designers and match director seemed to be, "How can I hammer the shooter and show him real men shoot tactical matches and not USPSA 3-gun". All in all, I enjoyed the match but it was far tougher than it needed to be. All it did was hammer the shooters (not to mention the RO's) and cause a lot of people to reconsider coming to Reno in the future. Please don't take this criticism the wrong way. Monte, his staff, and all the RO's worked harder than anybody should have to at a match. I am very thankful our sport has such dedicated people. Thank you for your time and effort. I only have issue with how the match was designed and it's administration. Erik

Kelly, No problem. If I could have gotten the barrel contour and setup I wanted in a 16" without paying $500+ dollars for it, I would use the 16". Sorry we didn't get to talk longer, maybe next time. I'd like to hear some more about the DS Arms AR's. Your wife was very charming, I enjoyed our brief talk. David, No, the conditions didn't play a factor. I was able to minimize the effects with some judicious cleaning and bagging. I'm having a problem similar to Benny Hill's. As the bolt closes on a live round, somehow the back of the shell gets in front of the extractor and partially out of the ejection port. I don't have to cycle out the round, usually all I have to do is push it back into the port and the bolt will close on it. I've gotten pretty fast at it, but I just can't have a competition gun that won't run 100%. Erik

I'm glad Kelly started this. I was disappointed an equipment survey was not solicited at the match. Next year we'll have to make sure one is prepared. Here is my setup; Pistol- A very old & tired, 40 cal., SV that just keeps running (5 years), but Rusty Kidd is building the new one as we speak. Shotgun- Benelli M1 Super 90 (pre-ban) with a 21" vent rib barrel with red fiber optic sight. I am one of the few who use a pistol grip stock on my shotgun, but then again, so does Taran. A small, but distinguished group. I run a 3 gun gear side saddle and use Briley choke tubes. I used Winchester Super Sport handicap loads with # 8's, 1 1/8 oz., @ 1,300 fps. My standard choke is IC, but I did run a modified on one stage and probably should have on another (it probably would have saved me 10-15 seconds and provided the 4 match points I needed to beat Kelly). I, like Kelly had two shotgun jams. Both jams were of the same style and have been plaguing this shotgun and me for the last 2 years. For next year I'll probably sit the Benelli on the bench and give the Browning a try. Rifle- Bushmaster upper receiver with a JP 18" ultra-light SS barrel, 1/9 twist. JP adjustable gas block (although its not used and I'll probably switch it out), TTI Intl. Eliminator compensator (Similar to a Bushmaster Y-comp., but slightly better), JP Free float tube, Bushmaster lower receiver, Weaver 1-3x20 variable scope with an Armalite quick detach, one piece scope mount. I also use two "non-standard" items, a older style A1 buttstock and I do use the forward vertical pistol grip attached to the Free float tube. I used Federal red box 55 gr. ammo, but did have some Black Hills 69 Sierra Match Kings available if the wind got bad, but in the end I chose not to use them at stayed with the 55's for the entire match. Observations General- Moved to the post-mortem thread at the request of the moderator. Specific- I'm going to have to set up a multi-gun specific gear setup. I found myself having two different belt setups with spare mag pouches for my rifle and pistol along extra shotgun ammo holders. On just about every stage I had a re-adjust my belt setup. No consistency. On a couple of stages I remember hunting for things on my belt, not good. The rifle scope setup worked great for the close stuff, but I would have liked to have a bit more power on the upper end. I think a 1-5 power scope with a true one power reticle would be ideal. Although I will by testing out the Trijicon scope in the off season. I stayed with the 55 gr. rifle ammo, despite the windy conditions after I noticed the 55's and 69's drifted virtually the same distance out to 300 yards with a cross wind. I didn't want to make click adjustment during the match if I didn't absolutely have too. The dust got into everything. After the first day, I pulled everything apart and was amazed at how dusty/dirty everything got. After that, all 3 firearms became vampires. When the weren't being used they all got bagged. This included my ammo, I found myself wiping off my shotgun shells before each stage to clean the dust off them. The dust also irritated my eyes. Next year I will bring a set of ski or motocross goggles and wear them to keep the dust out of my eyes. When I'm on deck, I'll swith to my shooting glasses. The toughest part of the match for me was all the extra mental preparation prior to the stage. Having to work in unloading/loading/transferring guns really increased my prep time and clouded my stage prep. It proved very tough to stay focused on the stage. In the end it worked out, but it was very challenging. I'm going to have to work on multi-gun transfers in my practice routines. Big time saver if you can do it fast. All in all, I enjoyed the match but it was far tougher than it needed to be. All it did was hammer the shooters (not to mention the RO's) and cause a lot of people to reconsider coming to Reno in the future. Please don't take this criticism the wrong way. Monte, his staff, and all the RO's worked harder than anybody should have to at a match. I am very thankful our sport has such dedicated people. Thank you for your time and effort. I only have issue with how the match was designed and it's administration. Erik

I think you need to keep all of them. While limited may have the smallest representation, I still think whoever wins limited 3-gun is the best all-around shooter. No fancy scopes or electronic dots on the rifle. No shotgun speed loaders, no porting in the barrels. Just iron sights and plenty of practice. Congratulations Benny. Erik

Flex, I totally agree. It's the poor application of our given speed that gets us into trouble. I'm playing with relaxing my "no more/no less" time frames. I find that building in some extra "float" time is helping to keep me more relaxed and not so anxious to constantly hit that perfect needle point of time on every engagement. A "+/-" window of tolorance is helping to keep my conscious mind out of the decision process. Although its tough to allow "flub" time when your striving to be a perfectionist. BE, Thanks for the comments. I've experienced that state of awareness a few times, but the "on demand" still eludes me. Too much stimulus combined with too many senses. Erik

Rich, I'll be around, I'm helping out with the RO duties. See you there. Erik

Rich, Glad to hear your making the trip. Ga. State is at my home club. Guess I'll see you sooner than I thought. Have a safe trip. Erik

Flex, Sorry for jumping in so late, but I was prepping for the 3-Gun Nationals and didn't have much time last week. I want to go back to a statement in your original post "Raw speed...today...is a constant." I feel your reflections on speed are only a part of the equation. I use the term "Terminal Velocity (TV)" instead of raw speed, but I guess it really doesn't matter. Where I find your reflections incomplete are in the "Applicability" of your TV. In your example of vision and Steve's example of the racing cars, both are accurate examples for your point, but they leave out the "Applicabililty" of a shooters TV. I like to think of it like this (for you NASCAR fans), the TV of a stock-car may be 220 mph. In terms of TV or raw speed, the tops this car can physically or mechanically give you is 220 mph. If you put this car on the salt flats and let it run wide open, you get 220 mph. But if you run this car down a two lane interstate, there will be some places you can get 220, but there will be other places where you can only go 120 or slower, BUT the TV of the car is still 220. The APPLICATION of the speed is what changes, not the TV. Where a shooter gets into a problem is not trying to go faster than that individual's TV can allow-(as you correctly stated, you cannot exceed your TV on any given day), the problem as I see it is attempting to apply too much speed to a given situation (course of fire). They try to drive that car around a curve at a speed they cannot handle. End result is they crash. The application of speed is what makes this sport so challenging. How many times have you walked off a stage and said one of two things, either "I shot that one a little conservatively, I think I could have gone a little faster or If I had slowed down a little bit, I probably wouldn't have had that miss". Interestingly both of these results still involve the whole process of seeing the front sight and calling your shot. The difference between the two is the state of mind of the shooter at the time of each individual shot. Many times you have said (I think), See only what you need to make the shot, no more, no less. What is the practical difference between "no more, no less"? Is it one second?, 1/2 sec.?, 1/4 sec., one tenth? Can we as human beings consistantly recognize AND reproduce a no more, no less sight picture? I thinks its the perfection we strive to achieve (myself included). The ultimate state where there is no wasted movement, thought, perception, and action. A stimulus occurs and we react without conscious thought or action, but invariably, the inability of the human body to maintain timex-like precision to stimulus results in taking 1/4 sec. too long on a target. Our conscious brain recognizes we took too long for that individual shot and trys to correct that oversight, continually struggling to maintain the No more, No less concept. The next shot might be perfect or a 1/4 sec. too fast. Whatever it is, our conscious has turned off the auto-pilot (subconscious) and is attempting to make extremely finite adjustments it has no hope of being able to consistently reproduce. These adjustments on the micro scale (individual shots and sight pictures) and the macro scale (sections of a stage or the course of fire as a whole) is where the application of your TV occurs. As long as we have the ability to manipulate our speed in relation to a given stimulus, we will always have to deal with "going too fast". I don't see speed as a constant. Unless we apply 100% of our TV to EVERY stimulus, speed cannot be a constant. Striving to make the application of speed a constant is an intersting concept. Maybe for another time, after I think about that one for a while. Sorry for all the capitol lettering, I can't find my italics key. Erik

Sterling, Weight is part of my concerns. Several of the designs I'm playing with would benefit from being put on a diet. Until I actually make the comp. out of both steel and titanium and test them out, I won't know how much of a difference it will make. There are several other factors I'm considering, but it would take too long to write everything up. Call me and we'll talk about it. Erik

I've had a couple of new rifle compensator designs floating around in my head and I'm about ready to have one made. I'm thinking of having a prototype made of Titanium. If the Titanium is heat treated after the final machining to 40-42 Rockwell, will it hold up to the higher pressures of a rifle cartridge? How well will the ports hold up to blast erosion? Any thoughts would be appreciated. TIA, Erik

Sorry I was out of the loop for the start of this thread, but I'll jump in. I am in the (apparently) small minority of shooters who favor the shorter setup. I did use the dissipator in limited for a couple of years, but have switched to a slightly different setup (another story). Considering the majority of the rifle stages were nothing more than misguided pistol stages, I found the shorter lighter setups to be more advantageous. I won't go into the whole short vs. long cycle debate AGAIN. Do a search and you'll find several threads about it. I am curious about Tim3gun's statement that forward pistol grips increase recoil. Tim, could you go into a little more depth regarding this position? As with just about everything, I seem to have the misguided opinion that the forward pistol grips help to reduce recoil. Thanks, Erik

Oddjob, I would use some discretion with the Norince 223. Certain lots of powder have a tendency to detonate rather than burn. That may be the "pop" you are hearing. I would advise against using it for match ammo. Several other brands will be safer and give you just as much practical accuracy. Erik

Carlos, See, this is what happens when you send a lawyer to do a JBT's job. You should have put on your black ninja outfit to preserve your OP-SEC. Then you'd have your plausible deniability intact when the photos were published. Call me next time you have a Black-Op mission. Erik (not my real name)

Results?