Ray R.

I'm new to this game, but I think I agree with Duane on this one. I would also add that if the guy is being bitten by his gun, he would be at a competitive DISADVANTAGE, while I cannot see how wearing the glove gives him a competitive advantage. As in any sport, sometimes the call that is not made is the best call.

Hey MichiganShootist, I like that! Personally, I have always liked revolvers better then autos. But when I decided to try IDPA, I didn't have the necessary equipment to shoot a revolver, so I went with what I had. After years of trying, the infamous 1911 still feels slightly wrong in my hand-- kind of like a lead 2X4. But, as they say, you can get used to anything. I do like the sport coat thing. May try it when the weather cools. Adds a touch of class, don't you know?

Way to go, Pittbug! Maybe we should start a club... I ended up second over all in each match I shot. Both times I got beat by a 1911 in 9mm. The 1911 in 9mm does offer some very real advantages-- most notably the extra two rounds. (Recoil isn't that big of an issue.) Definately have to take care with the rounds available when shooting CDP. Need better stage planning and better shooting.

Thanks, gentlemen. I have found a goal too-- consistantly beat the ESP shooters with my 45.

Shot a couple of IDPA matches (CDP) in the last two months, and like it. I've been away from competitive shooting for a few years, and had to learn a few new things: 1] Drawing from concealment using a suitable holster is definately different from what I was used too. But after a thousand or so draws, its begining to be second nature. Not a problem. 2] The legal reloads don't always make sense, but aren't that big a deal. 3] Lots of shooting on the move which I enjoy. Only thing-- moving toward a target while engaging seems a little strange from a realistic standpoint. Met a lot of really friendly people. The COFs were interesting, and generally well thought out. Nice too, that you don't need a lot of specilized equipment-- a gun, mags, and ammo, and you're good to go. All in all, a very fine experience. I see why people get "hooked" on this.

Aah yeah! Five Stand Sporting is the wildest thing going with a shotgun. Especially level 3. Gotta "think" when you're out there too. Glad you enjoyed it. Wood to wood....

Either the 200 or 230 will work fine so long as they do not have a shoulder or driving band. You do not want anything in the way of the cartridges simply falling freely into the chambers. A smooth rounded (read: roundnose) profile from bullet nose past the beginning of the cartrige case is the way to go. Be sure to taper crimp. Here's some starting points: 230 cast roundnose; 4.3 gr. Bullseye 4.9 gr. WW 231 4.1 gr. Clays 200 cast roundnose; 4.8 gr. Bullseye 4.7 gr. Red Dot 4.2 gr. Clays Hope this helps.

josh has it correct. Earlier I said that it would take the same force to compress both springs the same distance "assuming a constant rate." But in reality the amount of force required to compress each coil changes according to the distance it must be compressed. Therefore, it takes more force to compress a 10" spring one inch then it does to compress a 20" spring one inch. But again, when the spring is in the gun it is already under load, and the longer spring starts out under a greater load then the shorter spring. So it has to take more force to compress the longer spring a given distance. As josh notes: if you cut the spring short enough, no force is required to compress the spring because it isn't being compressed. And that's the limiting case. Try it youself. Take an old recoil spring, put it in the gun sans other parts, and pull the slide back. Then shorten the spring about half the excess distance needed to close the slide, and pull the slide back again. Guess what? The shorter spring requires less force to fully retract the slide. You can do the same experiment by cutting a coil or two off the spring in the mag release. Cut it too short, and it won't hold the mag in the gun under recoil. End result is, if you cut coils from the recoil spring it takes less force to drive the slide fully rearward. And while this can indeed help ejection, it can also batter the hell out of the gun. Better to keep things in proper balance, and if you have ejection problems you may have to tune the ejector instead of the spring.

I read through this discussion twice, and I'm either missing something, or there is something wrong with the logic in all of this. Thought experiment: Take a constant rate 20# coil spring and compress it one inch. The force required to do that we'll call "P." Now cut the spring exactly in half, and compress a short half one inch. The force (assuming a constant rate as the coils compress) should still be "P." Why? Because each coil of the shorter spring has to travel twice as far to compress one inch as the coils in the longer spring. Thus each coil of the shorter spring exerts twice the resistance of each coil in the longer spring. However, since no spring has in reality a constant rate of compression as the coils compress different distances, it is quite likely that the shorter spring will require more force to compress it one inch then the longer spring would. The real problem though, is that compressing either length of spring outside an enclosed area dosen't translate to compressing the springs the same distance in an enclosed length because the longer spring will start out compressed farther in an enclosed area then the shorter spring. And that is why springs get "lighter" (exert less resistance) as they are shortened. It would seem then, that a recoil spring is "correct" if it allows function, and doesn't fully compress so that the coils reach the limit if their travel. But I could be wrong....

mpeltier, The way you describe your daughter choking, its a good thing your subconscience didn't take over! Everybody else's did, and they couldn't act. You however, were aware of everything happening at the time, and as a result were able to diagnose, act, and solve the problem. Your conscience mind did exactly what it was supposed to do-- think, but think fast. It seems the subconscience mind may be incapable of making judgements.

ironman, What caliber? (45, I assume...) Are they swaged or cast? (swaged, I assume....) Where did you get them? What gun-- auto or revolver? What diameter are they? Generally, I think you could treat them as you would any other 200 gr. bullet if using them in a 45, and attempting to make major. Same loads should work, although without testing its hard to say what the actual velocities would be.

You're probably right-- the 3.5 gr. load will won't make major. Such loads are fun to shoot, though. Did you check for leading just ahead of the forcing cone with the 4.5 grain load? If there is some build up there, it could be that the bullets are not grabbing the rifling well, and you may need a harder bullet or a different powder.

As a general rule, cast bullets smaller then .452 do not shoot well in 45acp revolvers. Ideally, the following dimentions give the best results: a] Groove diameter .4505 to .4515. b] Cylinder throat diameter .4525. (All 6 throats the same). c] Bullet diameter .4520 to .4525. d] Cast bullet hard, and with good lube. (i.e. soft and sticky). Many 45acp revolvers have cylinder throats that are too large, measuring up to .456". Those guns require a larger diameter bullet to match the throat diameter. Also, many (especially older) 45acp revolvers have very shallow lands since they were designed to shoot military hardball. Those guns absolutely demand a very hard cast bullet for accuracy. New 625's usually have the barrels right, but can have cylinder throats too tight or larger than they should be. If the throats are too tight, they can be reamed to .4525". But if too large, the only solution is a larger diameter cast bullet sized to fit the larger throats. Jacketed bullets are more forgiving of "out of speck" dimentions, and may actually shoot bullets that are undersize fairly well. But undersize cast bullets will seldom shoot well, and will almost always lead regardless of how hard they are cast.

No problem, No.343. A couple of other things I should have mentioned: In addition to the cylinder throats being too large or small, they can also be of various sizes. Its a possibility, but rare. Alignment is also a possibility. But if the cylinder is locking up properly, that would be an unusual cause of trouble because S & W usually cuts the forcing cone overly large in these revolvers, so it acts like a bushel basket and "catches" the bullets regradless of "perfect" alignment. If the gun is shooting other bullets acceptably, then I'd guess the main problem is this particular bullet you're using. I definately like hard cast bullets in revolvers (and especially in 625s). Hard cast bullets "grip" the rifling better. Many so-called experts insist that soft cast bullets don't lead like hard bullets will, but I haven't found that to be true. A hard cast bullet properly sized and lubed for the particular gun not only leads less, but gives better accuracy.

no.343, A 10 inch group is definately unacceptable. The 4 inch ain't all that good either. The gun should do better then that. However, a hotter load probably won't help. Here's what I'd check: 1) muzzle crown-- see that it isn't dinged, and is smooth. 2) cylinder throats. If they're too large (or too small) they can really affect accuracy. 3) forcing cone. Unlikely problem, but you never know.... If the above checks out OK, then I'd look to the bullets followed by the barrel itself. Although it would be damned rare for a 625 to have a bad barrel. Another thing to remember, is that 45 acp revolvers are definately NOT the accuracy champs of the revolver world. Nice guns (shoot 'em myself, and like them), but because of various things necessary to get an auto cartridge to work in them certain compremises are necessary, like looser chambers and a longer jump for the bullet from the cartridge case to the forcing cone. Still, the gun should at least do around 2.0 to 2.5 inches at 25 yards with a good load. One other thing, these guns usually require a very HARD cast bullet for best results. Hope this helps, Ray

wanted, I never had a 45acp that wouldn't chamber a round if the rounds fit in the magazine. Still, its possible that the barrel is short chambered. However, if the rounds drop in the chamber when you check them with the barrel out of the gun they should work, unless you have a feeding problem. Are you taper crimping? Bkeeler's load data is good for Clays, although you can use data for a 230 gr cast round nose bullets for the 230 grain truncated bullets. Generally speaking, it takes 3.7 to 3.8 grains of Clays to make major with a 230 cast bullet. With WW 231 you might need 4.7 to 4.8 grains. All depends on the particular gun....

Sounds like "grace." But in the end we still make a choice. (Human weakness, free will, and all that kind of stuff we're stuck with). Moral training certainly helps, but perfection is not given us in this world, I'm afraid.

I gotta say Sam, that you appear to be getting a whole lot more out of shooting then most of us! Not sure about this "triad" business, but its certainly miles ahead of the old Cartesian idea of the seperation of mind and body-- an idea that the Dahli Lama bought into as well. (East meets West in a most unusual place....) Hmm? How about: What we CAN do? Even the most difficult situation offers us choices, and the choice we make determines (to a great extent) "who we are." Our feelings about ourselves are irrelevant.

May be wrong, but I think Frank is talking about moral choices here. Not sure how that applies to competitive shooting where there are no moral choices, only hits and misses. Jung can have his "seesaw." I'll enjoy good results, dislike bad results, and try to learn from both. Quite. Any well practiced pianist can race through a piece like oh, Autumn Leaves. But without the proper timing (pauses, length of notes, etc.) it would be meaningless noise. That's why the pianist practices the PIECE, and doesn't just pound away at the various keys to make singular unconnected notes. A very practical question. Suppose you're shooting a plate rack. Shots one and two are fine-- you see the front sight in alignment falling on the plates just right, and the trigger is pressed correctly, and at the right moment. Then on plate no. three you (for whatever reason) lose the front sight. Pause. (You now have a variety of choices-- you can keep right on pulling the trigger praying you'll get lucky, or you can find the front sight, and without lining up the sights snatch at the trigger, or you can use a split second to do it right and get a hit). In other words, during your "pause" you had to make a choice. If you make the proper one you'll have a more hamonious outcome. Hey, even the best, most practiced pianists screw up a piece once in a while. They just cover up the mistake better then an amateur. Someone said on the "Does time slow down" thread that when he's shooting well, its as if he's watching himself shoot. The more I thought about that, the more sense it made. If we're not consciously aware of what we're doing at some level when we're shooting, how would we enjoy it, and why would we do it? In all sports, even the most highly paid athletes have some of the amateur's view of things. As Brooks Robinson (Hall of Fame 3rd baseman) said: The owners think they are getting the best of the players, but what they don't know is that we would have played for nothing. Point is, that once you become a total professional, what you're doing is just another job. Not much fun in that, and then we might need a "pause that refreshes."

Carmony is right. Revolvers need a harder grip. But I find my 625 doesn't bounce the front sight as much as the auto does. Maybe because I grip the revolver so high. I use Pachmayer Grippers and grind off the little hump they have at the very top of the grip. This allowes me to grip the gun higher so recoil is more straight back. With whatever grips you choose, going from a 144 PF to a 170 PF will be noticable-- at first. Shoot enough of the heavier load, and you'll eventually get used to it.

Quite. Almost certainly the best and most usually forgotten insight on this thread. Obvious, but true. However, what has already happened determines what will happen next-- at least that's what modern science is predicated on.

Sam, when you're at work and planning to hit the range as soon as you get off, I'd be willing to bet time does indeed slow down. At least your perception of it does. And its the perception that counts. Only humans have a feeling of passing time really, because they are the only animals that do not live completely in the present, and can anticipate things enjoyable and not so enjoyable. AnkenyYep. And even if you do see it, you have to be aware of it's importance before it registers. If you're only interested in "B," and you don't connect "A" to "B" the "A" will have no meaning for you. Interesting discussion guys.

Duane, I agree with you, and I think we are getting at the same thing. I'm pretty sure that like any other physical task, the ability to "see" varies from person to person. However, it is quite likely that your friend actually "saw" the frame you were talking about, but it just didn't register. It's also possible that all the training in the world would never allow him to "see" (read "register") what you saw. Hell's bells, if training was the whole answer I'd have spent my salad days playing shortstop for the Yankees. There has to be an element of natural ability in this whole thing. And that, coupled with an abiding interest in what we like doing, gives us the chance to develop what talent we have. But getting back to the question of time slowing down, I'd have to say that such a perception does happen, and it is more then just a matter of concentration. I'm thinking that we can somehow "turn this on" occasionally in situations that we've been in before. Just not all the time. The key is to find a way to get into this mode at will.

Eternity? Now THAT is HEAVY!

I don't know that there is a unique ability to "see fast." Given comparable eyesight, two people will see the same thing, but one may interpret what he sees much faster. I used the baseball analogies because I played some form of organized baseball for thirty years-- shortstop until the legs gave out. So that's what I know best. By the time I was 15 or 16, I recognized that I could read the batters swing, and knew if the ball was going to be hit to my right or my left before the batter made contact. Coaches just decided I was quick, but I knew I wasn't any quicker then most other shortstops. I just got a head start to the ball. Other players "saw" the same thing I did, but never learned to "read" it. Everybody pretty much sees the same thing, but not everyone has learned enough about "what" they are seeing. That takes some time, and some real effort. The physical world is pretty predictable. If you see "A" then "B" is on the way. The problem is seeing "A" for what it is, and not just uncritically accepting "B."