Whoops!
-
Posts
724 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Whoops!
-
-
None of us are, lol.
-
I use the Safariland 013 and like it very much. I also shoot 3 gun and the 013 works great while competing in 3 gun where confidence in pistol retention is critical.
I was given one of these but I can't get it to work with a side mounted optic?
You have to file/dremel/wheel the left part of the top of the holster in order to gain clearance for the scope mount. After that is done, the holster retains it fine.
A vote here for the Safariland, it oozes quality and is adjustable for a perfectly secure and wobble-free yet easily drawed fit with a muzzle protector.
I don't like the holsters without a muzzle protector, for those stages where you have to sit down. I don't like the holsters without a leg prop to keep the holster up and more secured. I don't like the holsters without adjustable tension. The only thing I wish the Safariland would add is a locking lever instead of the sliding button it has.
-
I guess my question would be, why do we need depth perception? We're not shooting handguns at targets far enough for bullet drop to make a difference.
-
Perhaps some of you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. In .15 second or faster splits, you are not seeing the sights before you break the follow-up shot.
That is meaningless to me. You are stuck thinking along a timeline. I am talking about seeing in a continuous manner.
Actually, your definition of seeing is what is different from myne. In my opinion, you don't see something until the picture is cognitively created from what your eyes interpreted. The picture of the sights after the first shot is not in your head for at least that long of a period of time.
Although as some have stated, our subconscious continues to process imagery at a time frame of less than .15 seconds, our conscious does not. As opposed to the theory here that people are shooting based off subconscious thought, I say it could only seem like they are because one can not accurately judge there own physiological delay. Even then, we could have a discussion on what exactly is subconscious thought. The way my theory plays into this, anyone who makes shots anywhere near this quickly must be shooting on their subconscious. However, even when relying solely on subconscious, it's going to take your brain more than .15 seconds to respond to an image with motor action. This is partially evidenced by the test below.
This is why I stand that with splits less than .15 seconds, we don't actually call the shot until after the shot has broken and we certainly don't see the sights in order to make the shot. We are pressing the trigger based on timing and rhythm. We are pressing the trigger based on the first shot. We don't know where it hit until, at least, .04 seconds after a .12 second split. Now, do this, count to .04 or even .08 seconds in your head. I don't think any of us can. We can't interpret that small of a time frame so it may seem like we're doing it at the same time that it happens.
http://www.mathsisfun.com/games/reaction-time.html
So, technically what I'm saying is this . . . Anytime anyone has a split faster than .15 seconds, he or she is point shooting. You may see where your sights were after the shot broke, but when you made that shot, you did not see the sights.
-
Everything we see is after it has already happened, our brains don't process anything instantly. In normal conversation about almost anything we can discuss seeing in a present tense. But, when we start talking about splits this fast, we can't.
-
... you were posting .12 to .11 second splits. I'm going to say it's physically impossible for you to really see and use your sights effectively for the second shot at that speed.
By not studying science, you are limiting your own development. Good luck.
I might suggest checking your premise. It seems you hold a belief, lets call that a hypothesis, that contradicts observed empirical evidence from others. For your hypothesis to be true, the actual observations of others needs to be faulty. They would have to be wrong in their reporting of actual observed experience. Possible. But, is it likely?
Lets examine your hypothesis. One basis, it seems, would be your earlier posting about reaction time:
Here's one glaring human factor that many ignore in this sport. The best human reaction time is around .15 seconds. The top competitors are not above this human factor.
I agree, but you are applying the [probable] facts incorrectly, IMO. And, it is a common way of looking at things. I think we tend to look at things...especially if we are analytical in nature...as a linear progression. We probably do this even more when we are trying to learn/understand something. In other words, we want to organize the information...in chunks that we understand and relate to. We want....A...then B....then C...etc.
We look to understand things as a series of events. We tend to want to "see" things as a snapshot in time. Then, we'd do something based off that information. And, that is wrong.
The reason that is wrong is because it is too slow. We would be resetting our decision making after each "snapshot" that we deemed significant. (see OODA loop)
You actually speak to your current mindset on that when you say:
Very few top competitors are posting .15 second splits and calling their second shot in time for it to be worth going back and picking up. By the time their brain has processed the shot well enough to know where it hit, they are .15 to .3 seconds past the shot. This means they are well into their next target.You see, that assumes very linear thinking. That assumes things happening in series.
To transition back to the other target would take another fraction of a second. Then they must rethink the process they had planned for the rest of the stage....and again.
And then this speaks to a very set and rigid structure:
A process they had ingrained into their head...However, the reality is that things are multi-dimensional...lots of things are going on at once. The skill set needed is to be able to observe constantly, not just in series and resets. The honing of that skill set it to make responses to those constant observations into automatic actions. (for the OODA loop thinkers, you would take out the middle O and D...leaving just Observe and Action...with the action being automatic.)
How does this factor in?
I covered some of this in another thread a few years back. I had noticed, on a few occasions, that I had fired (needed and observed) makeup shots on steel with 0.17 splits. That short amount of time negates any after-the-shot reaction..because my reaction time just isn't fast enough to do that. And, I had not pre-planned to fire 2 shots on the steel for any reason. So, how do I account for being able to fire a needed makeup shot at a pace much faster than my reaction time?
I was able to do so because I was constantly observing and was able to pick up cues as the shot was being formulated/made. I was observing constantly, and did not have to wait until after the shot to know it was off. (maybe I saw my sights dip because of poor trigger pressure, maybe I saw the gun was moving long or short of the steel and/or not stopping on target)
Perhaps some of you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. In .15 second or faster splits, you are not seeing the sights before you break the follow-up shot. In reading what was said here, by Cha and Flex, I believe that is clearly evident. Thus, you are not seeing the sights for every shot, you are seeing the sight after you have already broken the shot. You can call the shot after it has broken, but you did not see the sight prior to it being broken. This is human factors. It's a linear school of thought because it has already been studied and verified by scientific method. This is a critical aspect of understanding for laying down very fast, but effective splits. It's also the reason so many make up shots at that speed end up with a third shot, instead of a corrected second shot.
It is extremely safe and scientifically verified to say that if you corrected for your second shot before making it, you were already on the pathway to a .16 or greater second split. That make-up time probably ended up in a .25 second or greater split for that shot.
So let me see if I can state it more plainly, when you are breaking the second shot at that speed, it is physically impossible for you to have already seen your sights. As a result, you are making that second shot based upon input from your first shot. You are making that shot based only upon input from that first shot. When your brain finally catches up and realizes what it just did, you may indeed make a third shot based only upon input from that second shot. Luckily, thanks to ingrained muscle memory and skill already acquired, that third shot will likely hit the mark. You'll know it after it happens. After you've broken the shot and when your brain has finally had the time to call the shot
-
Any great shooters ever make GM not seeing the front sight?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no. If they made GM without seeing the front sight, they were not great shooters and did it on hoser stages.
Yes I am left eye dominate and right handed. I have been shooting steel challenge for a few years and just started shooting USPSA. Why is it so important to see the front sight clear. Will it limit my progress? I see it clearl if I close one eye. Locally I win all of the steel challenges shooting against A, M. USPSA I have been finishing top 10 shooting limited minor. Should I start closing one eye?
Use tape or chapstick over one side of your shooting glasses. It should cover the front sight for that one eye when the other eye is closed, but leave your peripheral open. This will allow you to keep both eyes open, but see your sight as if you're looking at it with one eye closed. This method can be used very effectively and without apparent handicap.
-
The speed of a second shot split has nothing to do with wether or not you see the sights. I don't know the individual that you are referring to, but the eye will certainly pick up an object much faster than .11 of a second.
We've already established this in the thread; however, Cha-Lee is now saying see your sights every time. I'm saying, he's not really seeing his sights every time. The Human eye will pick up an object faster than .11 of a second. I'm not arguing that. It will not, however pick up a tiny object going through it's recoil cycle which may take that same amount of time to settle down. Now, I'm not talking about slide movement which has been established at .04 seconds or less, I'm talking about muzzle movement, which in a major load will typically take at least that long to start coming back into the realm of stationary. Let's be realistic, his sights still moving when he breaks the second shot. The question then is, it still moving faster than his eyes can interpret and how long does it take his eyes and brain to interpret?
So, in summation and what I'm currently saying - on the close shots, I don't think he's using his sights for the follow-up shot.
Well, I'm saying CHA-LEE does SEE his sights on every shot. I'm a level below Charlie, but can honestly say on the absolute best stage runs I have, no matter target distance, I SEE the sights (dot).
How could you EVER know what someone else does or does not see, you can't. To say what you said is kind of an insult to the person. Furthermore, you are limiting your own development. Good luck.
We're all humans, once a certain speed is ascertained, it is possible to say that a human can not do it. As I said, and Cha-Lee confirmed, he calls his shots every time, I firmly believe that. As I also said and he confirmed, he does not always see the front sight for every follow-up shot, but he is at a point where it does not produce a big hindrance to him.
By not studying science, you are limiting your own development. Good luck.
-
The speed of a second shot split has nothing to do with wether or not you see the sights. I don't know the individual that you are referring to, but the eye will certainly pick up an object much faster than .11 of a second.
We've already established this in the thread; however, Cha-Lee is now saying see your sights every time. I'm saying, he's not really seeing his sights every time. The Human eye will pick up an object faster than .11 of a second. I'm not arguing that. It will not, however pick up a tiny object going through it's recoil cycle which may take that same amount of time to settle down. Now, I'm not talking about slide movement which has been established at .04 seconds or less, I'm talking about muzzle movement, which in a major load will typically take at least that long to start coming back into the realm of stationary. Let's be realistic, his sights still moving when he breaks the second shot. The question then is, it still moving faster than his eyes can interpret and how long does it take his eyes and brain to interpret?
So, in summation and what I'm currently saying - on the close shots, I don't think he's using his sights for the follow-up shot.
-
I don't think you see your sights for every shot Cha. I was just watching your area 2 vids and on a few of the close targets you were posting .12 to .11 second splits. I'm going to say it's physically impossible for you to really see and use your sights effectively for the second shot at that speed.
Let's say, extremely soft focus where the sight kind of combines with the slide and the whole thing becomes a grey blur as it moves. Or, do you still hold the stance that you can positively identify your front sight on that second shot? That being said, I do believe you were able to call your shot to within c-zone accuracy on those same splits, thanks to your bear-like grip and ingrained motor memory. That also being said, I think if you had closed your eyes for the second shot you would have been able to call it to within c-zone accuracy.
-
Reason being not it's viability, but that you can't use a slow enough powder for optimum reduction of muzzle flip. There are no N105 9mm major loads for example because you simply can't cram enough in to make major. If you shoot an N105 38 supercomp next to an HS6 9 major, there is a substantial difference in recoil assuming the setup is similar. The N105 will recoil faster and with slightly less flip.
Quite frankly, I wish there were a 9x28 open gun caliber so that I could have the same magazine capacity and use something like N135 for my major loads. Huge fireball, loudest gun ever, very minimal muzzle flip. There's a website out there that has measured quite well the effects of a slower powder in an open gun, the chart is very linear, the slower the powder, the less muzzle flip, no exception. Also, there's no such thing as too much compensation, there is no negative muzzle flip in open handguns. There is poor grip that causes the gun to recoil down past the point of aim, not negative muzzle flip
That all being said, right now I use Atlanta Arms and Ammo 38 supercomp because I don't feel like reloading. They use the equivalent of 7625 for their powder and it has a very noticeable amount more muzzle flip to me, but oh well, it can't hurt to practice building my grip.
-
I would be interested in some pre-made translucent lens covers if you start making them specifically for C-mores. The hard plaque stuff is where the nose grease comes in, just rub it around with your finger and it should then be relatively easy to clean the lens.
-
Every open gun I've had has had a side mount at one time or another, except for the one with the micro dot. Every gun I've had has had substantial porting. The lens always gets dirty, I always shoot with two eyes open and can see the dot fine regardless. There is no pre fix and I don't recommend a blast shield. Not only will the ports chew them up quickly, they add muzzle flip to the gun in my opinion (many people will debate this, but I'm quite certain). All side mounts vary with regard to where the lens ends up, obviously check to make sure the lens is not litterally covering a port vertically and you should be fine.
If you're a man (female grease is less effective), you can use the grease off of your nose to quickly and easily clean the hard stuff off your lens, then finish up with the alcohol wipe. This last sentence is not a joke. I don't feel like explaining it, just try it and see.
-
I have the LNL AP. Everyone else I know uses the Dillons. Myne breaks more often. I've had to jury rig so many parts on the Hornady it can hardly be called a Hornady anymore. The spent primer tube broke off. The primer feed broke three times and in two different ways. One of the quick release bushings is completely stuck and the item screwed into it always unscrews before it does no matter how I try to brace it. When it gets even slightly dirty it no longer indexes correctly (I don't know how the DiIllons are on this issue). There was something else I can't remember, but I'd have to get it out of its hole to see.
Hornady customer service is excellent, but the lower price doesn't buy as much quality (who would have guessed ?
) and it gets old waiting for replacement parts or talking to someone about the parts you need. -
Does anybody know if it's more than an extra long guiderod and reverse plug on either the Dawson or Akai models?
-
JMB designed a spring steel extractor which as of now is only available from C&S for .45. Maybe if i had the luxury of spring steel it would work better. As of now, the stock Para extractor broke its hook after about 3k rounds. As do many other similar extractors. Even SVI extractors are notorious for breaking after several thousand rounds.
On top of that, none of the "bulletproof" or "hardcore" extractors are specifically designed for .40, they jump the gap from .45 to 9 and expect you to tune specifically for .40. In that regard and in my experience, the appropriate tuning window for proper, 100% operation is very small.
Someone please design a better extractor for these things.
-
Hi all, the CZ USA webstore has the bushings in both carbon and stainless steel on sale for only 5 bucks. I picked one up for my Para P16-40. It fits substantially tighter than the stock bushing. I had to work hard to twist it into place on the factory barrel and slide. That being said, no fitting was required. POI did not change by any noticeable amount at 25 yards. Unfortunately, I have not done any formal accuracy testing, but the tighter fit is enough to convince me it's better. Highly recommended.
While at it, I purchased a few other parts for the Para as well. The Ed Brown hardcore firing pin stop is nice. The fit in most areas is not quite as tight as I'd hoped, but it does require fitment to work on one of the surfaces. The bottom left side when viewed from the back had to be filed down for ejector clearance. That being said, now that I have a nice tight fit in that area the slide is not able to move as far from left to right, so there was an added benefit of tightening my slide to frame fitment by a small amount. This is a big plus for my OCD at only 20 bucks and some elbow grease.
The Wilson Combat bullet proof firing pin is a nice, heavy firing pin that is longer than stock, but not quite as long as the extended competition firing pins. I would say it cuts the difference evenly between the two. Now, it is easy to see the end by looking at the breachface, but it does not go all the way to the front of the breach face. It seems to help with hard primers and light mainsprings. One thing that definitely helped with hard primers was removing the series 80 firing pin stop, believe it or not.
The Ed Brown .40/10mm extractor must be set for tension, as must most other 1911 extractors, unfortunately, besides that it seems to work as ok as any other. I'm not a fan of the 1911 extractor design. Aftec is much better, but still leaves something to be desired in my opinion. Someone please design a better extractor for these things. Perhaps if I had the luxury of spring steel for .40 and 9mm I might see it differently, but as of now the extractor is definitely the weakest point in the design.
-
I wish club level stages were always harder than area matches, I'd go more often. I think no matter how easy or hard a stage is, a new shooter will sometimes get discouraged because the GM always shoots it in a third or less of their required time. It doesn't matter if you put a 6 inch steel at 50 yards, a lot of GMs out there are going to put it down in less than a second while new shooters are missing it consistently at 10 yards.
Now -- we do need to make a differentiation between hard to shoot, and hard to shoot safely. Those are two different things, and the latter has caused me to lose a few shooters. Designing a stage where a new shooter has to run backwards, reload while running towards the direction of their weak hand, transition around objects, etc could cause a newbie to get DQ'd for breaking the 180. If you have a stage that incorporates these things, it's always good to pull the new shooters aside and let them know what to be careful of.
I agree with this.
-
People bother my wife-to-be all the time when I shoot with her (depends on how much makeup she puts on). I can't say I mind too much. One out of every 20 times they will mention something that would help and I didn't notice. Ok, maybe one out of every 30. Here's the thing, they're gonna bother her when you're not around, so isn't it a good thing to see how she reacts when you are around? I like to see how she handles the situation, it lets me know if she's a keeper.
Here's what I'm saying, listen to them, and decide if it's right for you or not.
If I see a shooter struggling at a club match, regardless of gender, I'll ask, "Would you like some tips?" Then I'll usually start with, don't worry about it, we all sucked at some point and proceed to point out where they're doing something grossly wrong, such as using a full blown weaver stance at every shooting position, or keeping their finger on the trigger while moving. Here's another thing, in general, women are worse at speed shooting then men.
This is part of human interaction. It's part of societal responsibility. It's part of living appropriately. If you completely ignore other people or tell them to flip off when they try to offer advice, all you're doing is hurting everyone. For example, if someone told me no one can handle a .357 lightweight revolver, I would say, "Actually, I can handle one quite well, it's all about practicing appropriately with it. It does take a lot more practice than a Glock though." If someone told my girlfriend the weaver is better I would say, "Actually, if you're moving and engaging targets while moving, it's much quicker to have a shooting stance that isn't so forcefully structured."
This applies to other aspects of life as well, I'm sure most of us have seen someone struggling at something, did you offer advice or let them struggle and potentially fail? There was a time before the big city mentality that many of you are exhibiting. A time when we actually relied on one another on an individual basis. The big city mentality is a great example of why society is failing in . . . big cities. I know it's part of the reason I don't want to live where I live now. When people only care about themselves, people fail . . . usually in an extremely obvious manner.
-
My mistake, it doesn't really matter, I was just ranting. It's the principle. Don't get me wrong, I like Mazda 6's, especially the new redesign.
-
Whoops! is not only correct but his name fits this thread perfectly!
Hell, I'm probably one of the few people here who has used this powder and bullet combination intentionally . . . with Federal small pistol primers. I don't recommend that either. I also don't recommend 10.4 grains of HS6 behind a 115 grain bullet. In fact, I don't recommend anyone reload anything, there are plenty of reliable factories that produce safe and consistent ammunition.
*This post strictly intended to relieve me of all liability from posting anywhere in this thread. Thanks.*
-
So your saying that if you have a PF of 175 and drill a 1/8 hole in your barrel your PF will still be 175?
I'm saying that your barrel and loads probably aren't consistent enough to show any average difference from the one 1/8th inch hole. Most of my loads change PF by 2 to 5 every single shot. One of my fast loads even changes by 10 PF every shot. The law of averages comes into play and if you're firing say, 5 to 10 shots through each platform and averaging them together, you'll likely see zero difference. Hence the reason so many people who responded to you thought that popple holes change PF by so many different amounts. I don't think anyone knows how much it really changes PF excluding the variables of powder, barrel length and construction method along with material, elevation, temperature, etc. All of them play so much more of a factor than 1 popple hole ever will.
Now then, if you have equivalent platforms, and by equivalent I mean machined the exact same way with identical pieces of equipment on identical barrels (a physical impossibility) on the exact same day with one having a properly EDM'd popple hole toward the end of the barrel and the other not and you shoot a thousand rounds through each of them on the same day, at the same time, you may be able to tell almost exactly how much of a difference one popple hole makes. I'm betting 1 PF or less is barking up the right tree with a moderately slow pistol powder in a 38s/9mm platform.
In other words, I wouldn't worry about it.
There is one thing that's important here though, make sure the popple hole is done right and leaves no added imperfection in the barrel. I believe Kneelingatlas is referencing a Tanfoglio Gold Custom with his 12 hole barrel. I had one of those and was not convinced that those barrel holes were done right by the factory. They were not only likely larger than necessary, the metal surrounding them was of iffy quality.
-
They should not have "removed a lot of metal from the chamber." They should have given you a new barrel with a properly cut chamber.
This thread is starting to piss me off.
STI is not equivalent to a Mazda 6. STI is equivalent to an Audi. SVI is equivalent to a Bentley. Why is STI ok with this man having a $2200 lemon? Everyone who looks at the first pic of the barrel knows it's screwed up. You don't loosen the chamber further to fix it.
-
Opinions are fine, I like facts better. The old wives tale about tumbler explosions needs to be put to rest. Can't happen, won't happen. Tumbling loaded rounds does not effect powder or primers. You could tumble ammo loaded with Federal primers along with some carbide tipped punches and they will NEVER go off.
I do not recommend this.
) and it gets old waiting for replacement parts or talking to someone about the parts you need.
Do master competitors point-shoot?
in Handgun Techniques
Posted · Edited by Whoops!
I agree with this, as with most other things Ben says.
In all seriousness though, some of you still don't understand what I'm saying. You are processing your sight picture post-shot when you make less than .15 second splits and relying on timing for the initiation of the second shot. You still see your sights, you are just unable to comprehend the sight picture before the second shot breaks. That's why you are unable to make mechanical correction to sight alignment prior to breaking that second shot. A couple of you seem unable to grasp this fact and instead rely on an alternate explanation, unable to grasp the fact that information from our eyes actually takes time to transmit through the brain. However, many of your arguments actually support this scientifically authenticated fact, you just don't understand it. So far, none of the theories or studies presented so far negate this fact, and I welcome anyone who can quote a newly published article from any reputable scientific journal which does.
You still see the sights for calling the shot. However, by the time your brain has processed that sights for that shot, the shot has already happened. You know where you hit, but you did not use your sights to initiate that second shot, you only used them for follow-up. The only secret state of zen is excellent timing through a substantial amount of practice, as with a musical instrument. Also as with a musical instrument, you, along with Van Halen, are looking at the instrument to confirm you did it right, even though you probably don't need to.
This thread is a good example of why so few people make it through med school. Don't get me wrong, I didn't go to med school. Lol.