AzYooper

I used to have a vertical Cmore mount, but I feel I do much better with my 90 degree mount. I never had a problem with indexing the dot on either mount, but even the small amount of parallax of the upright mount has caused me problems. On one stage I was leaning around a wall and my pistol was at a bit of an angle (like a clockwise rotation). I was trying to get a tight A zone hit between a barrel and a no-shoot. After the first two shots hit the barrel I very slowly and carefully pulled the trigger a couple more times with the same result. A check later found that my scope was sighted in properly. I had a very bad elapsed time on that stage and I have not had that kind of a problem with the 90 degree mounts. I know that some shooters compensate for the closer targets, but I don't want to think about dot compensation and I also feel that I have more confidence in my shots when I know that the bullet is going exactly where the dot is.

Have a good time at the match. At the larger matches I always tell myself to get through the first stage or two without pushing too hard to be fast. A screw-up at the beginning of a match always throw me off. I have never gone through a divorce, but from what my friends say you are on your way to a better life and its only the short transition that is a hassle. Joe

I called my friend and it seems AutoComp is his second choice. He uses 5.2gr HS-6 with a 125gr hard cast bullet. This gives him about 1025 fps and about 3gr of lead in the barrel for 100 rounds.

I have a friend that casts his own bullets and shoots them in his 9mm open gun. He only uses the lead when loading for steel matches. Even at slower speeds he needed to find just the right combination to keep the lead in his comp at an acceptable level. He uses 147 gr .356 lead bullets and just a couple of powders. AutoComp is one of those powders and I don't remember the other powder right now or the amount of powder. I was with him when he tried about 10-12 different powders and loads and he only had a couple that had soft shooting and minimal leading. I use VV320, but 320 and some of the others that were tried left too much lead in the comp. Maybe they were too hot and melted some of the lead.

I understand your point about the "flicking that safety on and off". The person who issued the DQ felt that holstering was complete as the gun was in the holster. Besides any specific rules on safety it seems that the acceptable level of needed safety depends on RO opinion. I would think that flicking a safety on and off in the holster is less dangerous than sweeping yourself on the draw, but the latter is OK (by rule).

I also feel a bit uneasy about taking a safety off too soon on a draw or even in the holster, but unless the gun was released (hand off) in the holster in an unsafe condition I would say no DQ. If it is not "hands off" when is the gun officially holstered, muzzle breaking the plane of the top of the holster? trigger covered? some angle of the draw or holstering? When the gun bottoms out in the holster (what if is seems like it is all the way in, but needs a final push down click? The rule stated many times in this thread mentions "Holstering" and it sounds like an act to me, but is that what it should be? For instance: I'm told to LAMR by the RO draw my pistol insert a magazine in and chamber a round start to lower my pistol while I apply the thumb safety insert the pistol into the holster remove my hand from the grip I use this process every time and I see others use the exact same process. I consider the forth step in my list as the act of holstering and during the start of that step my safety was not applied. The safety is only applied after the act has been initiated. During my holstering process my gun is I never pointing within 10 feet of my position before the safety is applied because I feel it is safer that way and less chance of a DQ, but is that required? I also would certainly have a talk with the shooter if that shooters draw involved flipping off the safety before removing the gun from the holster, but that is a small slice of time with some of the faster draws.

I have no doubt that your load change did change you POI and that your sight did not move. On some load changes my POI changes and some others it does not. On Stage 1 (The stage with the lattice walls) I was running the board and thought that you only took one shot at the second square plate, but the wall was obscuring my view. When I watched you video we could definitely see that you only took one shot. Joe D.

I should mention that I voted for "no button" because I am a lefty and any button will cause my mags to drop at random times.

Randy, I have some VV350 you can try. I tried it in my 38sc and did not like it as much as the 3N38. Joe

That was a good score at Rio. If you can be consistent you won't be in D or even in C. Although not always, Russel M beats me often and I am usually where you placed. Glad I could help. I don't want to beat you because your sight is off, I want to beat you on your best day, if I can. Last year I was classified B and had been for some time. I would beat B class shooters quite often and they would say I was sandbagging. The problem was that I was not so good at strong/weak hand shooting. I would also not always have my dot on target before pulling the trigger and just use makeup shots. This made me bad at Virginia count also. Then came along a string of classifiers that had movement, no SH/WH and Comstock. I am not winning my class anymore. Like the other knowledgeable, experienced shooters here have said, don't worry about your classifier or score until the match is over, just shoot.

I also track my progress using statistics from the SC match. This type of match is perfect for that. If I want to try different techniques for drawing or stance a full eight stage match will give me an idea of how that idea works. I do not practice each stage 10k times so my hits are not automatic for me. I have to aim. I am to the level now that misses are a big deal and too many can really cost me a match win. This necessity for not missing has translated to better times/scores in USPSA and other steel matches because I am not making up low scores or misses.

I have small hands and only the bottom of my palm would touch my Dawson magwell and I was doing OK with it. Recently A good friend of mine with large hands got a new Cameron open gun similar to mine. His has the new magwell you speak of. He wanted to get my opinion on about 5-6 loads for his gun and to also see how fast I could run some Steel Challenge stages. Every draw seemed like his grip was 2" longer than mine and I felt like each draw had better a better grip. Shortly after that experience I shot a match with the guys from Cameron in Prescott and I had them bring me one to the match. I have used it ever since, even with small hands.

I've been using one of those climber chalk balls for a few years and I am happy with that. They work very well and are only about $3 at REI.

I was leaning about 80% towards 2 mike on this post, but now that Mark has pointed out some tears I would probably see this one as a good hit. I do know tears do not count and an overlay on an arc determines the score and I would definitely put an overlay on that. A question we seem to have is did the bullet go through the target. As an RO I would not think that the tears happened on their own and unless I some other evidence (funny gun sound, bullet on the ground under the target) I would not think that the bullet hit the target, but was not able to go through. I think that a bit more information would have been available if a picture was available with an overlay on the suspected mark.

I agree with you that the front layer of the target was not penetrated and that may just be the answer. I am thinking, about 80% that they are both mikes, I just don't have that 100% feeling. Can a bullet move a target (bend, compress) and that bullets path not count. When I place an overlay on a full diameter bullet hole I can see where the target surface was bent or compressed around the holes circumference because the hole is not as large as the overlay circle, but I still count the full diameter of the bullet. The definition of "hole" states "through", but does "through" mean hole? The reverse is not always true, maybe it is in this case.

I'm still not positive on what I would call, but I am having trouble believing that "completely pass through" means front to back when the words "front to back" are not there. If a bullet hits the front of a target and exits through the edge did it not "pass through"? Now the word "completely" was not used, but is that word suppose to mean front to back or are we just assuming it does? In our original example #1 it seems that the target might have moved to the side rather than rip. This moving of cardboard is seen around most holes in cardboard and is measured by the overlays.

It took me more than the first look to not see a hole. The 2-dimensional picture had me fooled for quite a while and I kept wondering how everyone was making the "no-hole" call. Because rule 9.5.9 does not say "No hole, no score" and does not mention the word "hole" at all.

Not in my book... 9.5.9 Hits upon scoring or no-shoot paper targets, must completely pass through the target to be considered a valid hit and count for score or penalty. But what is pass through? Is the target the entire piece of cardboard, or is it just the front portion of paper? If you used a target that was a piece of paper stapled to the sticks it would have passed through. The paper construction behind the face is just to stiffen the entire assembly therefor making it suitable to attach to what ever you are using to hold the target in a variety of conditions. I see the point even though most of our targets are standard width it can mess with the path once it goes out the back. I am concerned with a bullet clearly passing through the front at an angle, but not clearly passing within the border perf on the back. How would an RO know if the perf in back has been crossed? I never consider cutting the paper, I only rely on the overlays for close calls. I have had many shooters argue that radial tears are ok because they cut the paper, but I do not call those cuts as in. No, not all edge hits, only the ones that don't actually cut the paper. I don't see any evidence that the bullet went through in either picture, therefore, they score as mikes. Most edge hits do show evidence that the bullet punched a hole in the target, because there is a piece missing. Not so in these two pictures. Troy I see your point on not cutting the paper, but don't we score from the bullet diameter not the grease marks or apparent hole size? We put an overlay on the hole and score from the bullet diameter because, as mentioned earlier, a small amount of the paper is pushed out of way, but falls back into the hole a bit. Even though I would not see a cut hole the size of the bullet I must score by size of the bullet. In both examples, there is no hole to put an overlay on. No hole, no penetration, no hit. I'd call them 2 Mikes I was taught that if there is a mark on a target that can be considered an acr in my option that I should overlay that. A 45 wadcutter that hits the border and can be seen to touch the line will not make a full hole either, but be obviously a good hit.

That is a good question. An overlay really is not going to help at such an angle. Early in my RO experience I made a "C" call at a level 1 match once that was similar to this, just not as extreme, and it was overturned by the RM (given the A). The bullet did pass through, the arc would have to be outside the grease ring in the A, so I suppose it must be an A.

The purpose of my my overlays is to measure dents. These dents did not just appear, they were made by bullets and it is the result of the bullet hitting paper that we score. A dent that does not go through does not count. The question is "What is passing through?"

No, not all edge hits, only the ones that don't actually cut the paper. I don't see any evidence that the bullet went through in either picture, therefore, they score as mikes. Most edge hits do show evidence that the bullet punched a hole in the target, because there is a piece missing. Not so in these two pictures. Troy I see your point on not cutting the paper, but don't we score from the bullet diameter not the grease marks or apparent hole size? We put an overlay on the hole and score from the bullet diameter because, as mentioned earlier, a small amount of the paper is pushed out of way, but falls back into the hole a bit. Even though I would not see a cut hole the size of the bullet I must score by size of the bullet.

I would throw an overlay on the first. Grease rings show me that a bullet hit the target first instead of a barrel or other hard cover. I don't use them for checking "inside the perf." There is a reason we are given the overlays and told to center them as best we can to find the real arc. I would call the first as a hit. Quote: 9.5.9 Hits upon scoring or no-shoot paper targets, must completely pass through the target to be considered a valid hit and count for score or penalty The second would be how the rule is interpreted. The target was on a drop turner, it was at an angle to the shooter and this angle cannot be calculated during scoring. I can accept the argument that the bullet went through the front of the target and passed out the target through the side edge. This side edge I am referring to would be the 1/8? inch edge of the cardboard if the cardboard was cut right at the perf. Now a question I would have is, "did it not pass through the target?" It did not pass through the front and back, that is for sure, but the rule does not say "front and back." Since I don't know a rule that defines "through" as specifically front to back (9.5.8 does specify a "from the back" direction) I would call it a hit. Imagine if this exact angle (or even more of an angle) hit was a little farther in and the exit was closer to the perf. Do you pull the target to overlay the exit hole, because if a back-of-target exit is required you would have to check the back of the target? I would think it is difficult to overlay an exit hole with the torn paper. edited to fix sp

I has been a while since the first post so you may have made some speed improvements, but it was not terribly slow for me. I usually surf with Chrome also, but I try to test with them all when at work. We know that Chrome is fast, but when you are a developer you have to make it work in them all. Two weeks ago I was fixing a website for IE6 compatibility (what I wouldn't do to find the nail that finally seals that coffin ). Here are some screen shots of the time for that site. First for IE9, then for FF3.6 IE9 FF3.6 I see quite a few images loading that would add up to a chunk of time and the CSS does not seem to be as small as it probably should be. Getting the best speed and asset loading efficiency is not my specialty, but I have worked in that area before.

I had two taken out in my mid-twenties. After a local shot the dentist grabbed a tool that looked like a Phillips screwdriver and said he was going to see how tight they were. He did a few pushes and twisted his wrist and my tooth was in his hand. I was really surprised how big the tooth was. He pulled both teeth in about same time it takes my to write this post. The post event was similar to the other posts - a little blood, drugs, couch floating like its on a calm sea, sleep.

About Cha-Lee's example #1 - I know the limited number of commands that are suppose to be given and that other unnecessary talking should be avoided, but if the first command is not "Make Ready" I don't think that a pistol should be drawn. Maybe this is a hard lesson as others have talked about for example #2. Maybe its my mind set when I am the shooter because I don't do any gun handling until I hear that command. If I hear some other command I will ask "is that Make Ready?" I have been at the line facing downrange and heard "go ahead" before, and wonder if the RO is sending someone down range to tape or is actually talking to me.