bountyhunter

May want to try the pure artificial tears without preservatives (which can be irritating). The pure tears come in small vials that you open and use. One kind I use is Alcon: Tears natural Free

And a good thought at that. .40 ammo is a lot cheaper than .45, you can get 12-round high cap mags legally for a single stack .40 (by buying CMC ten round .45 mags). And .40's are just fun to shoot.

I have one of those. The bore line (which is what the laser shows) will generally be below the sight line on most guns that are "sighted in" due to the recoil effect, ie the muzzle rises at discharge so the bullet leaves the barrel slightly up the muzzle's arc. Ergo, the "bullet exit" muzzle position of a firing gun is always higher than a gun dry firing with a laser.... so the laser will make it look like the bore is aimed too low. FWIW: lasers just get you in the ballpark, they can't accurately sight in a handgun. I checked all of my guns with the laser. The autos generally sight in with the bore line within an inch or so below the sight line at 25 yards, but revolvers ALWAYS sight in with the bore line at least 3" below the sight line. This is because an auto's moving slide acts as a recoil absorber, but a revolver has no such effect. More muzzle rise on the revo means it sights in with the muzzle's resting position lower relative to the sight line.

Moving up to slightly heavier grain ammo will also make the gun's POI move up. Make sure you are not sighting in the gun on some goofball ammo that isn't representative of typical specs.

Me too. That is exactly what I had to get a handle on to get my speed shooting scores up to where they should be: isolate 100% on the trigger pull and freeze all the other muscles in the hands and wrists, leaving only the trigger finger alive. hard to do when you are rushed, but essential to avoid "flyers". Something I found which is important: when trying to shoot fast, I was incorrectly letting the red dot's position signal when to shoot: ie, when the dot is in position, yank the trigger. But a good trigger pull is not automatic (not for me), it's a separate function that requires focus on and proper execution. My best scores (and tightest groups) were achieved when I put the dot into the area as I "prepped" the trigger (took up the slack), then focused 100% on trigger pull. The dot position was then ignored, and I fired only when I was completely focused on the trigger pull itself. No more flyers.

Your brain processes inputs differently. It sounds like seeing your front sight is an "automatically aware" input that the brain can process along pathways it has learned so well it doesn't require a "stop and look then decide what to do" level of function. All of the target images are new so they require first level awareness, as does your footsteps and reloading manuevers. I think your brain remembers clearly the things that took a lot of processing.

An opthomologist can aim you at any number of eye drops that will stop the inflammation in your eyes that make them red... as opposed to tying to brute force the blood vessels using a constrictor. They have me on Alocril which is pretty decent. There are some stronger ones with steroidal anti inflammatories.

The Bradley, is an APC, and no one should think it's going to have enough armor to stop everything. It replaced the M113 (same company built those), that had aluminum hulls only and no armor (unlike the Bradley). They're meant to stop shrapnel, and small arms. And I think the armor is being improved all the time - I'll never stop a main 120MM Sabot, but hopefully it'l stop more of the smaller crap. The M113 only had a 50 mounted up top, (at least the M113A2's I was in), the only way to shoot was unbutton, and be outside the vehicle, and 7.62's (.308's) would go right through the side if fired at 90 degrees (I don't know where the angle of deflection is). The Bradley was a great improvement given the choice. Can it stop a heat round (or more)? No, but it can stop all (most?) rifle and automatic weapons rounds. And they can fire while buttoned up. The defense dept comes up with the max weight for the vehicles so they can be air transported, etc. My .02, I agree they need more work, but they're better than what we had before. "The Bradley was a great improvement given the choice. " Sorry, but I have to disagree. I know what the original specs for the Bradley were and it could easily have met those if FMC didn't have their head up their rears. I also realize a Bradley is better choice than a half-track with a .50 mounted on top, but the only relevant questions are: 1) Is the Bradley what it should be? 2) is it worth the ridiculous price the Army pays for it? I would humbly submit the answer is a resounding NO to both questions. There is an old saying that an elephant is simply a mouse built up after the military gets done with it's specifications. The Bradley is the best example of that I've seen. The concept lost sight of the core mission of the vehicle (to provide safe troop transport) and mutated into a tank-wannabee with too much crap. As the unit got heavier and heavier, weight had to be removed and gues what weighs the most: the steel armor plating. Bottom line, the Bradley is basically a lightly armored rolling ammo dump with about twelve soldiers inside sitting next to the ammo. One of the most ridiculous "specs" added on was that the Bradley had to "swim"..... ie, drive across a river. That was "solved" by the use of a "swim skirt" which requires three people get out, inflate it, secure it to the Bradley like a giant life preserver, and then it can "swim"... as long as the water isn't choppy, because tht will swamp it. The point I was making is that building a vehicle which can carry twelve soldiers with a high degree of safety and reliability ain't rocket science... and for what the Army pays for the Bradley, they could probably buy a dozen of them from BMW. "The Bradley, is an APC, and no one should think it's going to have enough armor to stop everything. " CORRECTING ONE THING YOU WROTE: the Bradley project started out as an APC (armored personnell carrier) but as the cost got so high it was nearly equal to the Abrahams M1-A1, the Bradley was re-classified as the M-2 tank. Even though it is so lightly armored and undergunned it would not last two seconds in a battle with an actual tank, it still is classified as one to justify it's ridiculous price tag. BTW: the deployment scenario for the Bradley in such a combat environment (where enemy tanks are present) is that it will be escorted by two M1-A1's to keep it from being slaughtered.

I have 9mm Trojan. here are a couple of points: 1) tension is best kept between about 15 and 20 ounces. I'm sure somebody has posted how to measure it. 2) The lower inside edge of the extractor's vertical face that goes over the cartridge rim has to be "radiused" (rounded) to allow the round to feed up and under. The Kuhnhausen 1911 manual shows this, many new extractors do not have this and don't feed worth a crap.

Use a popsicle stick with the end suitably shaped to force the hook over (lay it on the breech face and pry that way). I take an extractor out as follows: 1) Take out the extractor retaining plate and firing pin. 2) I use a small screwdriver to gently pry the slot in the extractor against the slide edge AFTER I put some masking tape on the slide to protect it at the pry point. 3) Applying gentle pressure to the extractor groove to pull it out, I use the popsicle stick end to pry the hook over so the extractor will slide out the tunnel. If you just pry on the extractor without pushing the hook end over, it will tear up the edges of the head as it is pulled out.

And it failed miserably in a combat mission where US sailors died. Back when one of our misile destroyers had two Exocet missiles "accidentally" launched on it during the Iraq-Iran war, both missiles struck the ship. One missile was a dud, and the other went off. The Phalanx system failed to intercept either one even though they were fired some seconds apart. There was a big stink raised about it at the time and some sailors had to be scapegoated to protect the image of that weapons system. A similar ploy was used During desert storm wher the Patriot missiles were creditied with "destroying" something like 98% of the SCUDS they engaged. In fact, no kills were actually verified. Nearly all missed entirely and the few hits that occurred, the patriot simply struck the scud's motor section and the warhead came down intact over the target.

Well, Eric..... it's kind of ironic because some of the people hammered for not "supporting the troops" way back when were the ones trying to force the defense contractors to build better systems or else face the axe. Jimmy carter was one. He tried to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (now called the M-2 tank) because it's cost spiraled out of sight and it failed so many performance tests.... like when the thing got so heavy it would barely run and would sink like a tool box when driven into water. The solution? Lighten it.... by removing most of it's steel armor and replacing it with aluminum (seriously). Those dogs were built right here in town at FMC and they stand as amonument to what happens when nobody polices the contractors. This all happened under Reagan's watch where the message went out that there was an administration in town who would pay anything, accept anything, and just wanted new toys. So, when you see an M1-A1 Abrahams getting taken out by an RPG or a Bradley that does the same... just remember a whole bunch of people signed off on those dogs before they left the kennel. And the Humvee is probably the biggest boondoggle of all: it has no armor and the people who have to drive around in them are lining the insides with sand bags and spare kevlar vests to try to protect their "family jewels". It's a disgrace that defense contractors continue to get away with this garbage by paying off the appropriate palms, but it's been that way for a long time. And whenever anybody tries to hold them accountable, they get raked for "denying our troops the weapons that they need".

I have an OKO which is a C-MORE clone (only one lense) and it is fine... but that design is kind of fragile to getting knocked around and the exposed lense picks up spray and crap a lot coming back from the compensator. The 1" tube dots are nice because they stay clean and are ideal for slow fire shooting like PPC and Bullseye. But the extra clear lenses do cause distorion.

I always wonder why the makers of $150 scopes can't institute a high-tech test step in the manufacturing process like: Have the guy with good eyes hold the scope up and look through it and see if the spot on the wall gets distorted.....

You will sometimes shoot poorly and score poorly. You will sometimes shoot poorly and score well. You will sometimes shoot well and score poorly. You will sometimes shoot well and score well. There is an infinite spectrum of data points between those four corners, you will find all of them.

I'm old, so I am gradually installing red dots on a lot of comp guns. I have an Ultra Dot on a revolver, a Tasco pro Point 2, an OKO.... all perfect. Now to the problem: I keep ordering Red Dots (very fine ones) like Ultra Dot and Milett high end sighters and can not use them because of astigmatism through the sighting device: I use a sighter with both eyes open and focused on target, and then raise the sighter in line with my dom (right) eye and simply superimpose the dot onto the target, still viewing the target with both eyes. The two eye thing gives me a big advantage at the indoor range leagues where the cheap buggers who own them will never repair the 25 yard target lights so the back end of the range is always dark (grumble, grumble). Seeing the target with both eyes allows me to pick up the rings very easily. PROBLEM: in the sighters with astigmatism, when I raise the sighter into the vision path of my right eye, the perseived target image in that eye shifts position giving me double vison. It feels like you have somebody else's glasses on. An interesting thing is you can rotate the tube of the sighter and see the double targets move apart and then converge, but not at an orientation point where it is possible to mount the scope. This is not a blurring of the target image, it is a perceived shifting due to the orientation of the lenses. If you block the left eye and use only the right eye, you don't see this (obviously) because there is no other image for reference. I am coming to the conclusion that even very good sighters are not checked for this astigmatism because I have seen it on many of them. I got two Ultra Dots in a row with it, one bad and the other VERY bad. I have had other people here check and they see the same thing. My corrected vision checks in at 20-15, so I am almost certain it is not an effect of my eyes. Anybody else see this problem? Any place to order sighters where they will check for it so I don't have to keep mailing them back?

I was considering getting some elctronic hearing muffs, but the ones I saw only had an NRR of about 22 - 24 dB, which is less than the 30 dB my Peltor muffs have. Are there any electronic muffs with a good NRR rating? Also, anybody else use internal plugs with electronic muffs? How well does that work? Because of my hearing loss and tinnitus, I normally use 30dB muffs as well as molded rubber inner plugs for a total sound reduction of about 40 - 45 dB overall. I don't want to give up the inner plugs, but wondered if you can still hear voices from the inner speakers with the plugs in place and get the benefit of the electronic muffs.

On most of my guns, the RB slides were not black (they were just stainless steel) The new one I bought this year had a black RB slide. When I polished it, I ignored the black... didn't try to strip it and didn't care if it did. I think most of the black was removed from the two polished faces, but not in the groove on the bottom. I am not sure why that part is black unless they have stopped using stainless for the piece parts? Maybe the new MIM parts are not stainless, I don't know. I know the slide I polished was pretty soft and not surface hardened so don't use anything coarser than about 600# paper and oil to polish with.

I find the Wolff Reduced Power ribbed mainspring drops the pull to about 7# along with a nice polish/grease job and lightened RB spring. The ribbed design mainspring will give about a pound lighter DA pull (with the same striking force) compared to backing off the strain screw on the stock spring.

If you are nearsighted, it's possible to use mono vision such that when your eyes are relaxed, the left eye is adjusted for distance and sees the target clearly. The right eye will se thensights pretty clearly. So, with both eyes open,. you see a pretty clear sight image floating over a clear target image. There is a shift of "brain focus" between the two images. In other words, you pay atention to the sight image to aligne the gun then pay attention to the target image to get the final position before firing. My brain seems to not get confused by two images, but some people don't like it.

You can just bring in a standard business card and hold it at arm's length. When you can read the tiny print, you got it.

It's a small world. I was just at the range working on technique to figure out why I am getting some rapid fire "flyers" to the left (I am right handed). In my case, I had a red dot so I watched close and found it was the trigger pull causing it. I got a huge improvement when I changed my grip such that the index finger of my weak hand was on the front of the trigger guard (this is a Beretta 92). Farther forward, the finger stabilizes the gun better against left/right rotation as compared to the standard grip where it wraps under the trigger guard. That provides good upward support, but not lateral stability. Anyway, I'd be willing to bet your rapid fire wander is a result of some kind of trigger pull disorder such as squeezing the strong hand with the trigger pull or torquing the gun by not pulling straight back on the trigger. I kind of assume my trigger pull won't be perfect when I am shooting fast in a match so I looked for a way to hold the gun straight even if I do yank the trigger.

If you can master the complex skill of bending the fingers on the sear spring you certainly can get below 3#.

I found it best to keep my eyes looking hard at the target, or at the exact spot on the target, all the time. All the time while looking like this, you are aware of the dots movements, peripherally, but you don't ever try to follow it. be Thanks, that's what I do as well.

Or if you shoot Winchester .22 ammo, you keep some rounds in your shirt pocket to replace all the duds that don't fire while the other bullseye shooters point and laugh......