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

beltjones

Classifieds
  • Posts

    1,277
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by beltjones

  1. Please state your answer in the form of a question. Also, your thread title gives very little information to prospective readers.
  2. The trigger on Eric's gun is exceptional, not anything you are expecting it to be. Some have trouble lifting 5 lbs on da pull. They are very heavy and on many stages gun started empty so no DA shot was ever fired. IPSC rules (Not USPSA) are weighted to favor the da/sa guns and the Tanfoglio's being shot have a distinct advantage. Being competitive with other than a da/sa platform seems unlikely to me. This issue is cokming home to USPSA also amd needs to be addressed. The results confirm this. 9 is not more accurate than .40, but easier to shoot due to less recoil. I was just being sarcastic smartass This should end well.
  3. I have probably a dozen or more SVI tubes, and some fit in a PT grip and some don't. It's not the mag catch that is the issue (for me), it's the variability in dimensions of the SVI tubes themselves.
  4. I honestly can't believe people are debating the importance (or even existence) of natural ability.
  5. Can someone get this message to Eric as soon as possible please?
  6. The gun was working fine before the World Shoot, Jessie told me the sear spring was the cause of the problem as the trigger was not resetting. Weird. That's a 2 minute fix in the safe area. I'm surprised that affected more than one stage.
  7. Shooting 250K a year isn't that crazy of a number when you consider that his full time job is to shoot and compete in matches. If you have someone else paying for and loading all of the ammo for you and all you have to do is go to the range and shoot it, consuming massive amounts of ammo becomes a lot easier. The thing I find amazing is how Eric can shoot THAT MUCH and still not get burned out on doing it day after day, year after year. That to me is the more important fact to take notice of. He is the best in the world because he maintains a high level of dedication to do whatever it takes to be the best in the world. Weekend warriors don't stand a chance against that level of commitment. I asked him about that, too, and his answer was that he just loves shooting. My hunch is that it's not a competitive drive that keeps him at the top, because frankly if it were he would burn out or get bored because no one can challenge him.
  8. Eric hasn't shot 250K rounds in a year until maybe this year. In the past it has been between 100K and 150K. He told me this at SHOT Show this year. Why did he say he was going to shoot 250K rounds in that video above? I have a funny story about that. Brandon DuBois and I were at SHOT, and we ran across a booth with Kim Rhode, the Olympic Shotgun 5 time medal winner. We spoke to her a bit and got to play with her 3 gold medals. It was cool. We started talking to her about training, and she said she shoots about 300K rounds per year in training. That's a 12 gauge shotgun, folks! Anyway, we were in shock that someone could shoot that much, but we had an interview with Eric and JJ at the armscor booth we had to get to, so we bid her a polite farewell. We arrived at the booth and did the interviews, and afterward we were just chatting with Eric and JJ, who are both really nice guys. Still in awe of Kim's training regimen, I told them about her 300k rounds/year training schedule. They were as amazed as we were. JJ made a comment about his hands possibly not holding up if he shot that much, and Eric started to ponder it. He said he thought it could be done. Later in the show they shot the video above, where Eric made the declaration about the 250K rounds. I don't know if he actually shot that many rounds, but I maintain that he got the idea to up his training volume from Kim Rhode via Brandon and me. Also a funny story: At Nationals in 2012 I was sitting at awards with Eric, JJ, Ben, Hoppy, Mink, Adam Tyc, and a few others. I asked Adam about how many rounds he shot back when he was competing, and he said about 150K per year. When my face dropped he reassured me that one could still get an ok result with as few as 50K rounds per year. Heh, just 50K rounds...
  9. I'd like to thank USPSA and IPSC for all of the coverage they have of this match. All the live streams and social media videos put forth by the governing bodies are amazing. Or, wait. No, there's just one non-official volunteer doing it all. Hmmm. Well, he gets all the thanks then. Thanks Paul!
  10. KC is a Glock shooter. He shoots a Glock in Open normally. Is this a recent pic? World shoot maybe? Perhaps he is no longer a Glock team member.World shoot, started today, I'd say pretty recent Zhunter, he is the captain of the Glock shooting team. He has a Limcat (he posts pictures of it on his instagram from time to time) but he shoots Glock 34's completely Zev'd out for Open. They are as much of a full custom race gun as that Limcat by the time he is shooting them. The ONLY part of them that is made by Glock is the frame. ::ETA:: This is a picture of his gun, without the optic on it. 893089_10154028565830471_2994197155435007713_o.jpg That's a Glock 34? Wow. I think I'll stop reading your comments about KCs Open Glocks.
  11. What do you mean by "recoil energy?" ft lbs of torque? Joules? What does 4.49 refer to exactly?
  12. This may sound rhetorical or perhaps sarcastic, but I mean it as an honest question: Is the BOD under some kind of hypnotic spell where an employee can use organization funds as a "payroll advance" and not get at least severely reprimanded? I honestly can't think of a single company I've ever worked for, from non-profits to mom-and-pop outfits to Fortune 100 companies, where that wouldn't get someone fired. Do we really need an employee policy for everything, including the obviously un-ethical? There are rare instances where a personal charge gets put on a corporate card, and most companies have policies that deal with that. For example, if your spouse comes along on a business trip, you pay for the hotel room with the corporate card and then reimburse the company for the difference between a single-occupancy and a double occupancy room. But taking cash out as a payroll advance? There shouldn't need to be a policy in place that deals with such a practice, because it's obviously un-ethical.
  13. I agree with Ben's post. It was a very well-executed match with a great variety of stages. If I have one very minor contention, it's that the movers were too easy, or that they didn't need to be activated at all in order to be shot efficiently. I thought that was a bit strange. Otherwise this was the best match I've been to in terms of execution and organization. I'm saddened that nats won't be at the same range again next year.
  14. This. Add Mink and Manny to the list of people to train with, BTW. I will say that if it were possible to know exactly what gun to use for a given division - the one you will stick with for a long, long time - it would be better to switch sooner than later.
  15. Paul thank you so much for all you do!
  16. If you are shooting slow, controlled shots, whether you ride the reset or release the trigger, take up the slack, then press doesn't really matter. They both work, it's just a matter of practice and preference. I prefer the latter, btw. When you're going fast like we so-often do in USPSA, you just can't reliably ride the reset. It induces tension, which is a speed killer. You will also be more prone to trigger freeze. Learn to relax your trigger finger, let the return spring push the trigger forward, and press the trigger to the rear without disrupting the sights. That's how you shoot accurately at speed.
  17. In USPSA? I don't think it really works that way in our sport vis a vis sponsorships and sponsor expectations.
  18. There are certain issues that legally need to be privileged, such as employment issues. I am not saying that members should not be made aware of this particular issue, I am just curious how he got his hands on the letter before the BOD (or atleast at the same time) and who authorized him receiving and posting it. If we want transparency we could start with that information. I think this is indicative of some of the major problems, personal agendas and not following procedures to correct issues. I keep hearing that we need business people running things, how this was aired is certainly not business like or professional. I think you are figuratively shooting the messenger. If this is a "cow in the ditch" problem, you're neither trying to get the cow out of the ditch, nor making sure the cow can't get back into the ditch, nor figuring out how it got into the ditch in the first place. Instead you're asking how the neighbors found out the cow was in the ditch.
  19. You are missing a lot. For starters, you are begging the question in a significant way, and I say that as the originator of the "race to X class" threads.
  20. Nowhere in that letter of few facts did it say they have no receipts for $144K. Matter of fact, it is obvious that is not the case. People did read the few notes in the letter, right? And if the CC cost is in the bill, that changes nothing, because it isn't as if they'd give a discount for writing a check. This doesn't change the fact that an explanation of charges shouldn't be required. However, making up random nonsense and using it in accusations (which a number of people are doing in this thread) really doesn't help, because it doesn't locate and solve the actual problem. Uh, did you read it? The second paragraph calls them "missing receipts." How is it obvious that there are receipts if they are referred to as "missing?" Or are you saying, it's like I don't have a child, so no one would ever say I have a missing child. Is that what you mean?
  21. I've been on Nationals Arbitration Committees. The intent of the rules comes up if there's not a cut-and-dried rule covering it. This case seems to me like one requiring interpretation and/or not specifically covered. I think you would find that the directions to the Arb committee have changed since then. Please post the instructions then so I can be outraged.
  22. This is the exact rule that covers max traps. It says they are scored the same way as other moving targets. Thus, max traps can be disappearing, but other types of disappearing targets are not included in the rule. I think that's the justification they are using for saying the steel in this stage isn't disappearing. I'm basing my judgement that they are disappearing on this thing called reality, which is to say, the stage description says they are disappearing, and the depiction shows hard cover that is placed in such a way as to completely conceal the targets at the end of its movement. Re the bolded type, while max-traps are specifically included, I don't think that prevents the use of other types of targets that hadn't been thought of and weren't specifically included. No one of any authority in this situation has stated the steel is not disappearing, at least to my knowledge. I will be surprised if the steel is scored as non-disappearing, and I think a total poo-storm will ensue if that is the case. Oh I'm with you 100% on this. That's why I considered the steel in this stage to be disappearing from the start (that and the stage description). I will be surprised by two things, and I'm sure you will agree with both. 1) that the steel will be scored as non-disappearing; and 2) that the stage won't be changed before the match.
  23. Bro, actually read the rules sometime. 9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates the target movement. This includes no-shoot targets that must be activated when in front of scoring targets to expose them, penalties are based on number of shots required for the scoring target(s) behind the no-shoot. How does that apply to what I am saying? I didn't say anything about not activating the mover. This is the exact rule that covers max traps. It says they are scored the same way as other moving targets. Thus, max traps can be disappearing, but other types of disappearing targets are not included in the rule. I think that's the justification they are using for saying the steel in this stage isn't disappearing. I'm basing my judgement that they are disappearing on this thing called reality, which is to say, the stage description says they are disappearing, and the depiction shows hard cover that is placed in such a way as to completely conceal the targets at the end of its movement. Firstly.....I agree with you that stage 22 should be deemed disappearing (as we are seeing it now), never said other wise. Secondly, you are using a rule that is assessing a penalty when moving target, no-shoot, or other is not activated. That is not the same as the scoring of a target when it was activated. 9.9.2 covers the scoring of disappearing targets. 9.9.3 includes max traps as moving targets. Thus, max traps are scored as disappearing targets if they do in fact disappear.
  24. It's amazing that the actual rule has been posted many times throughout this thread and very few people have taken the time to read it. There isn't some "interpretation" in the rule that is used for max traps that could also apply to stage 22. There is strict, specific verbiage that addresses max traps and makes them allowable as disappearing targets. What is that rule? I was responding to the idea that there is an interpretation of a rule that makes max traps legal, instead of actual text in the rule that says they are legal targets.
×
×
  • Create New...