Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

PEC-Memphis

Classified
  • Posts

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PEC-Memphis

  1. I'm an IDPA expert (under both old and new classifier times). Mine is about 1.67s without a vest. (1.19/0.19/0.29) 7 yd Bill Drill, 5 to body 1 to head, @ 2.85s
  2. Thanks for the replies, I'm using the VZ slim grip panels.
  3. Title pretty much says it all. In reading the rules, as best as I can tell, if the magwell and inserted magazine fits in the box a larger magwell is legal for SS and L-10 - yes? If so, is are folks competitive with no, or small (i.e.. standard thickness grip) size magwells? Or is it a "must have"? I'm transitioning from a Glock 34 to an STI Trojan (.40 S&W), and reloads seem like they should be timed with a sun-dial compared to the 34. I have the STI metal MSH and small integral magwell. How much does the larger magwell help?
  4. I think that the oversize (larger diameter or "paddle") magazine catch/release are a "no-go" for IDPA. Extended magazine catch/release as long as it doesn't extend 0.2" is Ok (IIRC). I did install a #4 wolff spring (the lightest) and it has helped some. I use the support hand slide stop release. After some practice, I'm getting faster. Then I go back to the 17/34 and it feels so much faster. From some of the comments (apples vs. oranges - revolver vs. semi auto) the Glock is always going to be faster than a SS 1911 for someone proficient with both. It makes me wonder where the ESP 1911 is going to be an advantage - if any?
  5. And it is a double stack with a large magwell. Yes it is smooth and fast though. I've done speed loads with a G34 while advancing and have a shot on target about the time the magazine hit the ground - not every time but some of the time. A SLR with a SS and no/small magwell is different.
  6. I'm trying to transition from a G17/34 to a STI Trojan for IDPA/USPSA after shooting the Glocks for 6+ years. Even with small hands, where I have to "flip" the gun "sideways" to hit the magazine catch, my SLRs are +/- 1s with a G17 or G34. I allow my thumb to rest on the slide stop and the action of the magazine seating pushes the gun "Up" while the thumb stays in the same poision, dropping the slide. I've been practicing SLRs with the SS 1911. I drop the slide with the support hand thumb as the gun is moving to the target, which causes a sight lift as I'm acquiring the sight picture. (For the 17/34, since the slide was dropped well before the sight acquistion, there isn't the sight lift from dropping the slide later). My good SLRs on the 1911 still aren't close to as fast as an "average" G17/34 reload, and the bad ones feel like they should be timed with a sundial. The 17/34 seems to lend itself (ergonimocally) to fast SLRs (and reloads in general, at least for right handers) - the large, loose, plastic slick, magazine well is a lot easier to "hit" than a narrow 1911 single stack, and the position of the slide stop allows the "non-reloading" hand to drop the slide. unlike the 1911. So here the question, can I reasonably expect SLRs to be as fast with a single-stack 1911 as with a G17/34? Particularlly for people who have transitioned from the Glock to the 1911, how much repition did it take to become proficient with SLRs on the 1911 and did you ever get as fast compared to a Glock?
  7. Wilson has one on sale for $42. I ordered it yesterday. Thanks for the replies.
  8. Does anyone have a suggestion for a IDPA, or L10/SS, holster that is easy on the finish of a blued gun. Maybe a kydex with a protective lining, or other holster material is a reasonable alternative to hard chrome finishing? I just acquired a blue STI with about 99% finish, and would like to keep finish wear to a minimum.
  9. Thanks. I noticed that as well. If I didn't get any recommendations from someone who had already developed a minor load, that was my plan.
  10. I'm looking for a .40 minor load with 180 FMJ (precision delta) and Solo 1000. I'll probably go to Titegroup, but I can't get any Titegroup right not and I've got 8# of Solo 1000. I've found several major loads, but don't see any minor. This will be in a STI Trojan, and would like OAL to be 1.18"-1.2" Thanks
  11. Does anyone use a GoPro for IDPA/USPSA POV video? If you do, how do you mount/wear it? The PiviotHead glasses seem to be much better for shooting sports, but the GoPro is probably better for everything else like water/snow skiing, scuba diving, motor sports, etc. Better video and audio. Don't wanna buy two.
  12. In Mr. Enos' book, he describes Type II focus as where the eyes are focused on the target with the sights clear in the peripheral vision, looking "through" the sights. Of course the effective distance for this type of focus will vary with the shooter skill level and practice with the technique; but I'm wondering what the maximum effective distance for this technique might be for a high level shooter for USPSA "A" or IDPA "-0" body zone. Any thoughts?
  13. From one of Mr. Vogel's videos, I purchased one of the CoC grip trainers. A challenge to say the least. While reading Bob's response, I noticed he is classified as "looks for range" - I'd say he's already found it.
  14. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but.... 1. An "add-on" is not the same as "adding". You can "add" a smoother trigger by removing material. Kinda the same thing here. 2. The rules don't address "permanent" modifications.
  15. For those unfamiliar with the "Sevigney Speedway" by Southpaw Customs, here is the modification. The volume between the rear wall of the magazine well and the backstrap is filled with (what appears to be) marine epoxy; then the rear wall of the magazine well is (internally) rounded to provide a larger opening for magazine reloads. Since the IDPA rules for SSP specifically allow: 7. Plastic plugs may be used to fill the opening behind the magazine well. and 5. Reliability work may be done to enhance feeding and ejection. (In this case enhanced feeding/ejection of the magazine) It doesn't seem to be in the excluded modifications: A. Compensators of any type including hybrid or ported barrels. B. Add-on weights for a competitive advantage (this includes, but is not limited to, weighted magazines, tungsten guide rods,brass magazine wells, weighted grips). C. Heavy and/or cone style barrels without a barrel bushing. D. Sights of non-standard configuration (i.e. Ghost rings, Bo-Mar rib, etc.). E. Disconnection or disabling of any safety device on any gun. F. Lights mounted on guns. 1. Externally visible modifications other than grips or sights. (Since the modification is internal to the frame) 2. Robar style grip reduction. 3. Add-on magazine well opening. (Other than the allowed plastic grip plug, material is removed, not added) 4. Guide rods made of a material different from the factory part it replaces. 5. Seattle Slug Grip Plug and similar weighted products. 6. A barrel of another caliber that is not offered in the original factory model. 7. Slide lightening (see “slide, lightening” in glossary for further information). 8. Checkering and stippling. And the modification does not detract from, and only enhances, use as a everyday carry firearm...... Would this modification be legal for SSP, and if not, why?
  16. You can also run the OEM guide rod captured with an ISMI spring.
  17. The rule for SSP in permitted modifications specifically allow a non-OEM barrel of "factory configuration and original caliber". For ESP - permitted modifications allow non-OEM barrel of "factory configuration". It has been widely accepted that this allows non-original caliber barrels in ESP. Say a 9mm conversion barrel in a pistol originally .40; since it specifically excludes the "original caliber" language.
  18. In a sanctioned match, our MD/AC has generally mandated that the same SO's work all shooters for a given stage. This is to provide consistency in the application of the rules for each shooter. No one is perfect, but it seems to work better than not having the same SOs for all shooters for a given stage.
  19. I disagree with your request to move all striker fired pistols to ESP. The vast majority of guns in SSP nowadays are striker fired, you'd end up having SSP participation just above revolver instead of at the top of the chart as is now. So, please tell why is the M&P NOT in the same division as the XD/XDM. The reasoning that the Glock is somehow double action is laughable. If you slip the striker without pulling the trigger, it will go bang and anyone can test this, the whole "you cock it when you pull the trigger" is a ridiculous statement IF you know how they work and the energy that is stored in the striker when it is loaded. There is nothing double action about a Glock or M&P. ESP should be based on enhancements (if it exists at all) and not action type, since IDPA doesn't have the technical ability to class guns that work the same together (M&P, Glock, XD/XDM.) Well not according to Glock. According to the manufacturer, there is not enough stored energy in the stock "pre-compressed" FP spring to activate the primer. How do you suggest that "any one" test this? I suppose you could remove the slide from the frame, insert a primed case in the chamber, then figure out position of the FP in the "starting" position (got a good way ? - use an armorer's plate and the depth probe on a caliper to measure the relative FP position?) , pull the FP back to this position and release it. Sounds like a YouTube project for you.... When you get it done, send us all the link. As far as trigger weight and DA vs. SA - there are some revolvers out there with slick sub-5# pulls (I've got one) that fire reliably. Are you going to argue that my DA-Only revolver isn't DA? IDPA doesn't have to have the technical ability to "class guns", as long as there is an ATF classification. With that being said, the classification rules seem to work pretty well most of the time - with the XD being a possible exception.
  20. I would have to agree. A couple of the SOs in our last (Tri-State) commented that they may not SO next year because they tend to not shoot as well (tired, etc.) and they don't get the "have fun at a match" experience. Most of the time the SOs shoot the match either before/after/in-the-middle-of other match related work. Also, we have one group of SOs shoot the match and get the "kinks" worked out of the stages. The SO group may get more than one version of a walk through, and get to define what might be a procedural on a stage. This is a definite dis-advantage. When the non-SOs shoot the match, they have usually have the benefit of a being briefed about what might be a procedural for a particular CoF - something that the SOs didn't get. The SOs I have worked with want to earn their score "fair and square". What pride is there in cheating to win a piece of wood?
  21. Here's an idea: make non-threat hits 'double reverse points' based. A hit in the down zero = 5 seconds, a hit in the down one = 3 seconds, and a hit in the down three = one second. (winging a good guy shouldn't be as bad drilling him COM) Make those cumulative if you like.... I've thought about that, good logic to it. But we would make scoring as complicated as USPSA.
  22. sorry, man, I hope I don't/didn't come off sounding too cranky. These were not MY suggestions, they were some suggestions from shooters in my area, so no offense taken. I agree with most of your comments. Rulebook: I think the rulebook needs a rewrite. The organization is, ...mmmm... not so good. And while acrobat reader has a search feature, that doesn't do much good for the hard copy at the range (not everybody has an iPad). And some rules need to be re-written to better convey intent. CDP: I don't see a problem in allowing other calibers in CDP if they make =>165k pf. Non-threat Ratios: As far as NT ratios, adding realism would mean that there would only be one to three threat targets for 90% of the CoFs, with NTs being 0 to 100 for 90% of the CoFs. I guess concessions have to be made to make it a sport (game). Round Dumping: Some have suggested to design the CoF to force more RWR/TRs to reduce round dumping. RWR/TRs are supposed to be "lull-in-the-action" reloads, there is never a "lull-in-the-action" when the timer is running. Besides, it is difficult enough to be creative enough to design a good, interesting, and enjoyable CoF without having to make most reloads RWR/TRs. Fault Lines: I don't disagree with fault lines if they are implemented for purpose of safety.
×
×
  • Create New...