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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About bgary

  • Birthday 01/24/1911

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Everett, WA (US)
  • Interests
    USPSA/IPSC, 3-gun, etc
  • Real Name
    Bruce Gary

Recent Profile Visitors

2,061 profile views

bgary's Achievements

Looks for Target

Looks for Target (4/11)

  1. I usually run 12-round strings and count them all (including the cold-bore shot, which usually ends up the low velocity of the string) Spreads are... pretty good. Across 12 rounds with the 124gr CMJs, extreme spread was 38fps, SD = 9 Same load but using 124JHPs, extreme spread was 28fps, SD = 7. Which is nice, but I'll have to do some testing to see if there are any issues feeding the JHPs. Edited to add, just out of curiosity I used to run 15-round strings, and toss the extreme-low and the two extreme-high velocities.... thinking that would give me a better idea of the real-world average. Turns out that the resulting averages and SDs for the remaining 12 rounds were almost identical to the results if I just shot 12 rounds and counted them all. (#NotAStatisticianAndICanProveIt)
  2. Standard JP 16" (14.5" + pinned muzzle device) ....although I'm currently giving a long look at that Taccom ULW.
  3. OK, I loaded some stuff yesterday and took it to the range today. I "think" I have a new load (*) With 4.2gr of N320 under a 124g CMJ, I got an average of 1053 fps, for an average PF of 130.6 (PF for slowest round was 130.2) I also tested some loads with 4.3gr and 4.4gr of N320. Didn't like the feel, they were VERY dirty (a little more crimp might help that), and on the 4.4gr set, got slightly flattened primers. All for about 30fps, which doesn't seem worth it. So... I think I'm settled on 4.2gr. I like the feel, plenty accurate, pretty low spread across a 12-round sample.... the only thing that gives me pause is that there isn't a lot of fudge room in the PF. (*) So.... today's question is... how close is too close? Is 130.6 enough buffer over the shoot-for-no-score line, or should I work up something that runs a little faster? My Open 9-Major load usually runs about 169-170, which gives me about the same buffer... except if something weird happens and I drop 3% at the chrono, I'm still in the game, just shooting minor. If I drop 3% with this load, I'm flirting with a big fat zero.... Thoughts?
  4. Cool! Thank you....
  5. Hmmmm... N320 and 231 are practically right next to each other on the burn-rate chart on my wall. Unless I'm mis-reading it.... To the rest of your comments, yeah, totally agree, with the addition that I want them to feed, and go bang when I pull the trigger. Both of which have been problems lately. I use a JP SCS buffer, and can tweak the weights to give the recoil-feel and dot movement. B
  6. Maybe . If I could get the 130gr Fed Syntech bullets, I'd use them. But they're unobtanium... and I'm sitting on a garage full of Montana Gold 124JHPs and 124 CMJs, so it seems silly to go out and try to find different bullets, especially in the middle of a components crisis. I did try some 147s and really didn't like the "ker.....chunk.... feel of the action.
  7. How do I get my "MoM badge back? I edited my signature to update the email address, and it wouldn't let me save the change with the picture included. I think it was October 2006, but not positive.... Thanks! Bruce
  8. So... I'm finally breaking up with the factory ammo I've been shooting for the last couple of years. It's not me, it's you. Couple of years ago I worked up some test loads. 124gr MG jacketed round-nose over 4.2gr of N320 with a winchester SPP. Ran fine. Problem is, I have my PCC dialed in for the current load, which runs at about a 145 power-factor, and really like the way the gun feels right now,. I just don't love the ammo anymore. Irreconcilable differences. Test load ran about a 132pf. Which presents a dilemma. Should I bump my load up to (maybe) 4.4gr of N320? That should, in theory, end up around 140pf Or should I start over from scratch, build a load that runs, and then do all the things (reconfigure my buffer, etc) to get the feel I want. I looked through all the PCC / N320 / 125gr loads in the threads here, and most of them seem to cluster between 3.8gr and 4.2gr. Didn't see any above 4.2gr, so I'm wondering if that would push the gun (bolt, buffer) more than is good. Other options might be to switch to TiteGroup, but I have a bunch of N320 and like it for other 9mm loads, so I'd love to make it work here. Open to input... Bruce
  9. Generally true. It varies from place to place, but in general a Section is formed when there are a number of clubs within a geographic locale that want to work together (coordinating calendars, bringing in RO seminars, pooling activity for Nationals slots, etc). Each Section is required to have section bylaws that specify how the Section Coordinator is elected, and how slots will be distributed. I have 12 Sections in Area-1, and I think all 12 of them elect the Section Coordinator at the club level - each club-representative has one vote in the process.
  10. Yes, and yes! Note, too, that clubs have some options. For a Tier-1 match, The only requirement is that at least two official stages be included - the club could include smaller versions of OL or SO among the other stages they put into the match.
  11. Generally, yes. Think of it as a loose heirarchy: clubs represent the interests/concerns/needs of their shooters, Section Coordinators represent the interest of their clubs, Area Directors represent the interests of the Sections. Except that (while I adhere to that) I try to respond to questions I get from members and clubs, too. My current thoughts are ... I'm not opposed, but not convinced the need outweighs the complexity. Right now, the Area Directors pay attention to (and are working to grow) both Steel Challenge and USPSA matches. It doesn't feel to me like that is broken. I'd also note that each AD has a budget for traveling to visit Sections in the Area, and also incurs travel costs for in-person Board meetings. If we doubled the number of ADs, we'd double those costs. Not necessarily a reason not to do it, but something to consider.
  12. Yeah. We picked dates that didn't have a conflict with any major USPSA matches, or with any Tier-2 or Tier-3 SC matches (well, at least not within 1000 miles. I think there was a Tier-3 in Florida that same weekend...). We were told there was a conflict with a scholastic SC match, but never saw it on the SCSA calendar, so not sure if we missed something. We "thought" it was a sweet-spot on the calendar, as well as being a central spot (less than 12 hours of driving from pretty much anywhere in Area-1 except Alaska), and SLC has a ton of stuff to do in the Area. At present, we're planning to give SLC another shot at it in the summer of 2023. Consider this the beginning of the promotion!!! As far as getting the word out, fair point. We promoted it on Facebook and Practiscore, but clearly that wasn't enough to get the word to the right eyeballs. Open to ideas about what we can do better. Bruce
  • Create New...