tb1911

Yes! I’ve used my “1.0” in many BUG matches including the S&W BUG nationals that started it all. You are good to go. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is a new twist: I shot the WST loads on an indoor flashlight stage and after a couple of double taps, i couldn't see a damn thing. Next match, there were two similar flashlight stages and I shot one with Tightgroup and all was fine. I could see as I always did. I shot the other with WST and again, i couldn't see anything after a couple rounds. Smoke obscured the targets. Anyone else ever experience this with WST??? Back to Tightgroup for me!

Titegroup used to be my go-to power for .45 but about 6 months ago, I started using WST (230 plated with about 4.6 grains.) For me, it seemed a bit cleaner. Well, I just shot a my first flashlight stage with WST, and it seems way smokier then I remember Titegroup being. I had to slow my cadence to see what was going on, and the smoke definitely hindered me. I don't recall that ever being the case with TG. In my experience, TG is definitely "dirtier" in the gun then WST, but it seems WST is smokier in low-light/no-light. Since I don't have any TG loads left, I can't compare side-by-side to verify. Anyone have thoughts/experience with this? Thanks!

The rounds that was malfunctioning were 1 ounce loads. I don't have the box handy, but it was definitely not 1 1/8 ounce. That worked fine. Great info here. Thank again to all...

Just a few hundred rounds so far. I suspected that things may loosen up with a higher round count. Good to know. As I shoot more, I will post an update on this thread. Do you guys generally run the lightest loads you can find? I can recall a couple of matches I shot where the lightest stuff wouldn't knock some steel down which led me to believe I should run heavier stuff. What's the conventional wisdom here?

I've seen that video. It is awesome. He is having WAY too much fun!

AustinT, Thanks for your direct and complete answer. That's what I was looking for. This is exactly why I love this forum. I knew I would learn something. As noted, probably unrealistic to expect to every need to crank off splits like that in a match setting, but I still wanted to know if I was dealing with a potential problem. I will be using a heavier load in matches as I have seen steel fail to fall to many times to use the lightest stuff out there - that's just me. So, no need (yet) to lighten the bolt. When I get a new gun like this (a new platform), I like to really work it to see its characteristics and limits. I am least familiar with shotguns built for 3-gun, so this was very useful and educational. Thanks again and everyone else too for chiming in!

Implications that I made a bad purchase decision aside, I'll give Remington a call and see what they have to say. Since the VersaMax is supposed to handle everything from light target to 3 1/2" magnums with equal reliability, I think it is worth at least a discussion with them. I was just curious if others were able to repeat what I am able to do.

I recently purchased a Versa Max Tactical and I've been putting it through its paces. I've been running a variety different loads through it in all kinds of positions and conditions to get to know it and to see how reliable it really is. So far, I am extremely impressed. It handles pretty much everything I put through it and is very comfortable to shoot. Besides all kinds of shot loads, full power slugs are grouping nicely at 50 yards - maybe an inch and a half above point of aim. I haven't tried reduced power yet. I expect they will hit lower. As far as shotguns go, this one is proving to be the most reliable I have ever used. I also like that you can ghost load it bringing capacity up to 10 rounds. There is one way I can make it malfunction and I am asking you guys if this is "normal". I haven't had a chance to call Remington yet, but here you go: I load the gun up and shoot as fast as I can work the trigger until empty. I can't think of a real scenario where I would do this, but it is a nice "Bill Drill" type thing. With very light target loads, I can pretty consistently (every 3rd round or so) "beat the bolt" - drop the hammer before the bolt is locked closed. The result is hammer down on a loaded chamber and a dead trigger until you rack it, ejecting the shell and loading another. Inspection of the ejected shell shows no dent at all in the primer. With very light loads, the action cycle is pretty slow. When I use hotter ammo, I haven't been able to reproduce it. When inspecting the gun, closing the bolt slowly by hand, and pulling the trigger at different points you can indeed drop the hammer long before the bolt is closed. The hammer hits the bottom of the bolt, not even contacting the firing pin and it follows the bolt as it closes. This confirmed the mechanical possibility that I was indeed dropping the hammer before the bolt closed. So is this a "defect"? I don't have another gun to inspect the same way so I am not sure. I suspect this is normal and that I am simply faster on the trigger then the gun's cycle. I also suspect, as the gun gets more use and it loosens up, it may speed up and I may loose my ability to beat the bolt. Again, with hotter ammo, no problem... Any thoughts on this?

So I did a little more experimenting based off what I have read here. Now it was FREEZING cold and I am sure if I were indoors I might feel differently, but here is what I perceived: Using 200 grain bullet and WST, Titegroup and Clays, virtually no difference in recoil - same as my results with 230 grain bullets. We loaded up some Power Pistol and if I really paid attention, for me, it did have more recoil. It wasn't dramatic, but it was enough for me to be able to tell I was shooting it as compared to the other three where the only way I could tell was not by recoil, but by the other characteristics. Here's where things got interesting for me. I was lucky enough to load up some 200 grain loads using Titegroup and had some 230 grain also loaded with Titegroup and both had the same power factor - about 171, so the only variable was the bullet weight. The 230 grain loads were clearly softer and easier to bring back on target. The 200 grain loads felt like they recoiled harder. This may partly just be my perception - the 200 grain rounds were much shaper and snappier but whatever, I clearly liked shooting the 230 loads better. Again, this was contrary to what I thought I would like, but I was able to shoot the 230s faster and more accurately. When I came in to this, I fully believed powder would make a significant difference and I was at a disadvantage by not playing around to find the best, softest load. I am a "B" shooter and maybe if I were a Master it would be significant, but for ME, using WST, Titegroup or Clays are all the same. I think I prefer WST because it is cooler and cleaner then Titegroup and more forgiving (pressure wise) then Clays, not because of anything else. A slower powder like Power Pistol does recoil a bit more, but I wouldn't feel like it really hurt me in a match. I did learn that I like 230 grain loads over 200 grain loads for major. So basically, everything I expected was exactly wrong. I expected to like lighter bullets more and I totally expected slow powders to al least feel softer. I was totally wrong on both accounts. Thanks for all your knowledge and help guys! This was really informative!

Superdude, This is awesome info and I thank you for sharing. Evidence is showing everything is contrary to what I assumed. I understand the weight of the powder plays in the the equation, but we are talking a couple of grains and it really should be an almost unmeasurable difference, but it apparently does make a measurable difference. So, shooting the heaviest bullet with the fastest powder yields the least recoil power factor being equal. That's surprising. I guess as noted, it comes down to perception and what the individual likes. I would love to repeat the experiment with a slow power added to the mix like Unique and see what I think. I am going to do some similar testing with 200 grainers Monday although I am not sure I have all loads being equal. I will be shooting some 230 vs. 200 to compare too. I will report back my perceptions. With the faster power though, the acceleration happens over a shorter period of time, (snappier) and even if a slower powder has more real recoil, it may feel better because of the slower burn and more push. This is speculation on my part and we are talking milliseconds which may not even be perceptible. Right now, I am leaning towards WST once I use up my Titegroup. FWIW, I shot the .40 for years and have that dialed in nicely for me. I've only been shooting the .45 again this year. I live in Connecticut and since we are limited to 10 rounds now (don't get me started) I decided to go back to the .45 for carry (M&P) and for me, it is important to train with what I shoot, so I am shooting the M&P Limited 10 major for now. I am toying with the idea of using a minor load for production - I did load up some minor stuff that a swear was the softest shooting minor I ever shot, but one thing at a time.

I've been using titegroup exclusively since I had a lot of it. Many say it is snappy as compared to, say, Clays and I kinda felt I was at a disadvantage when shooting against supposedly softer shooting loads. I decided to do an experiment. This was with an M&P .45 and a 1911 using 230 grain plated bullets. Using a chrono, I loaded up three different loads, all major and all almost identical power factors. I used Clays, Titegroup and WST, marking the cases so I could tell which was which after shooting. I would randomly select one of each, and load them up in a mag. So, every 3 round would have me shooting one of each without me knowing which was which. I did doubles too to further test, but you get the idea. My job was to see if I could tell which was truly softer. I fully expected to find the recoil of the titegroup to be sharper then either the WST or Clays but the result really surprised me. I found virtually no difference in the recoil characteristics of any of them. I could not tell by the recoil impulse which was which. I had a friend help and we were pretty much in the same place. My splits were almost identical when I shot doubles, and I really saw no advantage to one over the other. To be honest, I could tell when I paid attention, but not because of the recoil impulse, but becuase of the muzzle flash characteristics and sound. I had some 200 grain loads too, and they did feel softer, but the power factor was slightly lower, so I am not sure about that one. Now, this is with 230 grain .45 and someone told me that this may be true with the .45, but you will definitely feel a difference with say, a .40, but I wouldn't know why. Has anyone shared this experience, or do you really feel a difference with the powder (in .45) all else being equal? Should I expect the lighter bullet to feel softer given the exact same power factor? And finally, if I did this same test with a lighter bullet, (185 or 200) do you think I would likewise not feel any difference? I would love to hear your thoughts on this... Thanks!

I've been an iron sight shooter all of my life, and I recently mounted an RMR on one of my M&P 40s along with suppressor sights so I can co-witness. This experience is teaching me a lot about about the process I go through when I shoot. What I now realize is that with iron, as I bring the gun to target, I use the slide to align the gun more then I realized. As the gun goes to final shooting position, I am adjusting the slide alignment and then finally picking up the sights as needed for the shot. For close range, this is really fast. Another aspect I notice is it is much easier to transition from target to target because the dot housing doesn't obstruct anything. Now with the dot, aligning the slide no longer works (for me) and there is some obstruction. For close range shots (often the majority) it feels "clunky". I definitely see an advantage for longer shots, but for the < 21 foot shot, I wonder.... I've done some side-by-side comparison with close multiple targets and I am slightly faster with iron. That's me with a lot of iron experience and just a month or so with a dot. I think about this for self defense shooting too, as there is a growing trend to put a dot on carry guns (this COULD become my carry gun if I master it.) So, for a close course of fire with relatively big targets, you guys in the know - is there a speed advantage with a dot given the appropriate training for close shooting? Thanks!

I have an 11-87 Police with an 18" barrel and 6 round tube capacity. It has served me very well so far, but I am beginning to realize it is not the optimal setup for 3-gun. I tried a friend's gun with a longer barrel and fiber optic and I could really feel a difference. I want to keep the gun and simply get a new barrel for it and a longer tube to get up the capacity. So, what 1187 barrel would be optimal for 3-gun? Also, will I have any problem with function, etc. on my police version of the 11-87? Thanks!

No ideas from anyone?

I just installed an easyloader on my 11-87 (Yes it was painful - the pins gave me the most trouble) and I am in the process of tuning it. I didn't file the tab to release within 1/8 inch yet - I am about 1/2 inches to release. I figured I would try it. What is happening is that the bolt locks back after almost ever round fired. The new shell popping out of the magazine isn't releasing the carrier. In looking at what will happen if I file the tab further to get me closer to the 1/8 inch release point looks like it will do more harm then good. It looks like the piece that the shell hits to release would need to travel even further to free requiring even more energy. Before I do anything else, I thought I would ask. Before easyloader, total reliability with everything from light target loads to heavy slugs. Any advice before I proceed? Thanks!

Are there any real advantages of going with a longer barrel for your particular platform, like for example, the M&P Pro 5" over the M&P standard 4" or the G34 over the G17, etc.? On one hand, I could see the longer sight radius being an advantage, but does it matter at the ranges we typically shoot? Also, I find indexing a longer barrel easier, but longer barrel could take longer to get on target and it is more weight up front so transitions might take longer... Have any of you done any side-by-side comparisons doing some standard drills? What's the conventional wisdom? Thanks!