d_striker
-
Posts
1,777 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by d_striker
-
-
A buddy and I have almost identical Akai's in 9 major. The only difference is his has the tungsten sleeve. I've tested them side by side with the same ammo.
Does the sleeve make a difference? Absolutely.
Is it worth $1000? That's entirely up to the individual. If you got the money to spend, why not get it? If you are tight on money, maybe skip it.
-
That disco rail looks pretty rough.
-
Shoot a couple of rounds in a mag that's mostly loaded. Then remove magazine and look at how far forward the top round in the magazine is. If the top round is pretty far forward, this could be your problem. At least it has been for me in pretty much every Open gun I've ever shot. Once that top round gets dragged forward by the bottom of the breach face or rough/sharp edges on the disconnector rail, the round is far more likely to nose dive as it's not being correctly supported by the magazine feed lips. This is completely irrespective of whether your mag lips are correctly spaced or not.
Break the sharp edge at the bottom of the breach face with a needle file and slight bevel on it.
Then take the needle file to the disconnector rail surface. Keep file as flat as possible so it just hits high spots and any rough portions. Then sand with increasingly finer grades of sandpaper and then polish.
-
13 hours ago, gnoyesiv said:
I was at a match recently that had a lady shooting at wide open targets and not leaving grease rings. I don't know what ammo she was shooting, but again, no grease rings. if that is the standard test we must go by then she wouldn't have hit any target at the match.
Agreed. Also, some pasters are so glossy that bullets don't leave a grease mark on them.
-
8 hours ago, perttime said:
Any simple conclusions, there?
(I'm not an USPSA member)
The most relevant point to me was regarding the part of 9.5.5 that mentions a "grease mark or crown." The article states that the "e.g." in this rule makes "grease marks or crowns" EXAMPLES of evidence of a hit and that they are not a REQUIREMENT to be scored a hit.
And even then, rule 9.5.5 is only relevant for enlarged or irregular holes in paper. How many times have you heard an RO say that there has to be a grease mark on a perfect bullet hole in paper?
-
There’s a good article in the most recent USPSA magazine on this very subject.
ETA- page 64 in Sept/Oct 2019 issue
-
1 minute ago, motosapiens said:
we could call it 'timmay!'
-
6 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:
yes yes yes
or the guy with the milled slide plastic fantastic tacticool whatever thats stippled everywhere
Good point. This sounds like a better idea the more one thinks about it.
We would just need to rename the division but that's not a big deal. It would be much better than changing an existing division that would piss off a lot of people and also better than introducing a new division.
-
2 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:
Agree that is kinda why I asked the question.
I lobbied to not have the optic requirement, I understand why they put it in when it was a provisional division, so they could gather some meaningful data on participation with optics on that type of gun rather than Production shooters just messing around, that said I still think the Optic requirement is unnecessary and in this case causes issues with lots of other rules
They should just remove the requirement. Then all of the Production shooters that want more than 10 rounds could just load up their guns with 140mm mags and run irons if they chose to, and we could rid the internet of Production-15 threads.
-
The steel on stage 9 was ridiculous. We rolled up on that stage and the squad ahead of us was still waiting on the squad ahead of them. There was some sort of popper drama at least every 3 shooters.
What made the situation the most frustrating was that it was painfully obvious that the steel was not calibrated properly and the RO's insisted that the steel was fine. One shooter on the squad ahead of us even asked the RM for a calibration prior to his run and the RM stated that it was not allowed. He said something along the lines that a calibration could only be performed if a shooter shot at it and left it standing and then requested a calibration.
Nobody was willing to risk FTE's and M's on the swingers so it was just a continued crap sandwich that everyone was eating.
Eventually, the RM calibrated the left popper before our squad was up. This was interesting because I don't believe the calibration occurred at the request of a shooter that left it standing and requested a calibration as the RM had outlined. I could be wrong on this as I was in a heat/humidity induced stupor, but I don't think a shooter left it standing and requested calibration. Maybe Rowdy can remember better than me.
It was extremely embarrassing to see this type of issue at a National level match.
-
5 hours ago, rowdyb said:
so stage 13 at ipsc nats this weekend better not switch to your normal hand for the reload and then switch it back again.
Rule states there is an exception for reloading or correcting a malfunction.
-
IPSC Rulebook
10.2.8 If a course of fire (or part thereof) stipulates shooting strong or weak hand only, a competitor will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence of touching the handgun (or scooping it from a table etc.) with the other hand after the Start Signal (or from the point where single hand shooting has been stipulated). Exceptions are releasing an external safety (without scooping), reloading or correcting a malfunction. However, the procedural penalty will be applied on a "per shot fired" basis when a competitor uses the other hand or arm to:
10.2.8.1 support the handgun or the stipulated wrist, hand or arm while firing shots; 10.2.8.2 increase stability on the ground, a barricade or another prop while firing shots.
10.2.8.2 increase stability on the ground, a barricade or another prop while firing shots
If gun starts loaded on table and the entire stage is to be shot WHO, is it allowable to use strong hand to adjust grip after picking it up in the weak hand?
-
It's stuff like this that has made me stay away from the Area 3 championship. Looks like they finally noticed attendance dropping and they toned it down a bit. This will be the first year going back to that match after three years staying away.
-
Rule 10.4.2 states, "A shot which strikes the ground within 10 feet of the competitor, except when shooting at a cardboard target closer than 10 feet to the competitor."
Let's say a competitor is intending to shoot a target (either drawing to or transitioning to) within 10 feet and he AD's into the ground.
Do you feel that the "exception" language of 10.4.2 is exempting shots with the qualifier that they actually hit the target?
Or do you think that as long as the shooter's intent was to engage said close target, they can AD into the ground and it's not a DQ?
-
On 6/11/2019 at 7:58 AM, zzt said:
My point was if you are going to buy a Caspian slide, buy it from Caspian. If it is not correct you have recourse. I've had to send things back twice. If you bought it from Brownell's you do have recourse, and you may well have to use it. I certainly have. From others, you are stuck. I found that out the hard way. So now I won't buy any frame or slide from anyone unless I can get a full refund or exchange if the part turns out to dimensionally wrong or roughly machined.
Makes sense
-
On 6/7/2019 at 5:07 PM, zzt said:
I'll also say that the very worst thing you could do is buy STI or Caspian from Brownells of other similar suppliers. Manufactures only sell them the dregs. They keep everything good for themselves.
BTW, if you lighten it properly it will never crack.
Interesting comment about Caspian. I’ve got a Caspian slide on a 9major gun with around 80k rounds on it. No cracks.
Of course it’ll prob crack next week now that I said that.
-
23 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:
just make a slide stop that is a combination thumb rest/ magwell
genius!
-
Is this available on iTunes podcasts? It's not showing up on my phone but am not familiar with the patreon podcast platform.
-
12 hours ago, HCH said:
And is a target actually “available” if it is behind the 180? I’m pretty sure breaking the 180 is a DQ, whether you’re engaging a target or not. The 2.1.4 wording seems like a solution in search of a problem, IMO.
What if it's a target against the side berm that's available and safe from one spot but can be engaged beyond the 180 if you take a couple more steps downrange?
Or a target that can be engaged from right side of a 24" port but not the left side?
-
20 hours ago, Fo0 said:
what is the difference with this and Sig Romeo3 XL?
This is the first I've heard of the XL. Looks like it's 1x35. Can only find one picture and it's from the side.
-
7 hours ago, shred said:
I asked Ray about it during CRO class at Nationals a few years ago.
He said something to the effect of they do what they could to make targets that could only be shot from within the 180, but there are always limits on what you can do with what you have.
I don't really care if some target is visible if you swing over past 200' or so, but to have a target visible at 185' and an RO that's hot to call it is a recipe for problems.
Most of the time I see it at local matches its because nobody has thought about it and doesn't take that much effort to fix. Some stages it's a lot more difficult.
It really should come down to this. I don’t know why some people make this harder than it should be.
Multiple targets that are placed out in the open along a side berm are going to be shot on the move while advancing downrange. Scenarios such as, “you can shoot this target here but not if your foot is beyond this point,” or “you can shoot this target through the left side of the port but if you’re on the right side, it’s a dq,” are ridiculous and are what this rule is intended to prevent.
People should know better on targets that you have to break 200+ to engage.
-
6 hours ago, redpillregret said:
I know nothing about them offering an R3Max with any specific cut. But their new pistols will be DPP cut, including updated to existing X-Series guns.
https://www.osagecountyguns.com/blog/news/sig-sauer/sigs-2019-firearm-releases-detailed/
It seems odd Sig would offer three different cuts on their optics and two variations on pistols. But it’s Sig, they do Sig stuff.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkNevermind. I think we're talking about two different things. You're talking about the slide cuts on the Sig pistols, right?
I was referring to the mounting pattern of the R3Max optic.
-
On 4/30/2019 at 3:44 PM, redpillregret said:
New Sigs are supposed to come with a DPP cut. The old Sigs will require an adapter plate.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkEverything I've heard said that the new Sig Romeo3Max is going to be the same mounting pattern as old Romeo3 which is the RTS2 pattern.
I haven't heard anything about a DPP cut on the R3Max.
-
Is the R3Max really retailing for $719??? Someone posted a screen shot of an Instagram post from Max in the SRO thread.
Edit-Looking through Max's IG feed, I don't see any reference to $719.
Akai Open - Stroked and Tungsten vs non
in Open Pistols
Posted
Vertical dot travel distance.