bountyhunter

YEOWWWW! Talk about damning with feigned praise. That's like saying the new Toyotas are better, but they're no Yugo.

When I developed severe tinnitus, I did a ton of research into the area of hearing loss and treatments. Specifically, the research by Dr. Jastreboff is the newest and most informative. Hearing loss can result from a number of causes, most of which are mechanical: 1) Shattering the internal bones or eardrum. 2) Bending or breaking of the scillia (hairs) that conduct vibration. 3) Nerve damage I am not sure how any medication could affect the mechanical damage components, but the brain itself has some surprising abilities in the area of hearing. Not long back, it was believed that once the brain was "wired" at an early age, it did not have the ability to re-wire itself. In fact, it does. The brain takes the signals coming from the auditory nerve (which comes after all the mechanical transducers in the ear have vibrated) and processes those signals. It turns out the brain has a "frequency equalizer" which can amplify or attenuate specific frequency ranges. If you are exposed to a specific loud noise over time, the brain will put a "notch" in the hearing there at that frequency and you will not hear that frequency as well. With tinnitus (a high frequency ringing) it seems that it may be the brain's response to the loss of sound input... either gradually with age or due to a traumatic loss. As we get older and the inner ear connections stiffen, they can not vibrate as fast and the high frequency hearin is lost with age. A 20 year old can probably hear above 20 kHz, a 40 year old is lucky to hear 10 kHz. As that is lost, the brain keeps "boosting" the gain on that frequency band. It appears tinnitus is just the baseline noise in the hearing system amplified all the way up.... same as when you turn on your stereo with no input and crank the volume up.... you just hear a hum or a hiss. When "normal" people were put in soundproof rooms and told to describe what they hear, it was exactly like what tinnitus sufferers hear.. except we hear it WAY louder and we hear it all the time. In short, I would NEVER shoot without muffs at a minimum and plugs+ muffs is what I use 100% of the time. BTW: those electronic muffs that have internal speakers are a sure ticket to the "HUHHH?" club. They only give about 22 - 25 dB of attenuation and muzzle blasts from handguns range from about 145 to 165 dBA. That means those muffs will let about 140 dBA hit your ear if you are in an indoor range when a magnum is fired. Say BYE-BYE to your hearing....

Everybody faces the same challenge in every sport on earth from golf to archery. We all feel the pressure and we all choke to some degree or another.. at times badly. Maintaining concentration under pressure is what it's all about. I've been getting psyched out trying to shoot a perfect score in our speed shooting league... still haven't done it but I only had a single shot out of the 10 rings last time (out of 48 fired) so I'm close. And the one that missed was a dead pull yank, no excuses. It's dumb because no money is involved and no prizes are awarded... it's just the fact that you know you CAN do it and if you DON'T do it.... it means you choked. That is probably the greatest source of pressure. I found I score better if I shoot some no-brainer bullseye shooting first to get "in the shooting space" then do the fast stuff. Funny how much better you shoot with pressure off. In the Grandmaster division of our PPC league a guy had beat me every week and it was final night for 50% total score. I am good at math and knew I'd have to shoot almost a perfect score to win, so I mentally just "checked out". With iron sights, I didn't think it was even possible to get first place. I just fired like it was practice, not using anywhere near the alotted times... So, that night he shot one point under his cumulative average (about 592/600) and I shot 7 over mine (597) and edged him by about a 1/2 point overall. Everybody's a star with the pressure off. Only a few are stars when it's on.

Take the mag release out of the frame and see if the mags slide in and out freely. FWIW: one of the mag releases I got for my Trojan won't drop the mags free somtimes because it depresses too far in and acts like a mag brake (releases the shell cut but drags aganst the other side of the shell). I had to build up the lip of the release button to stop it from going too far in.

I would: 1) Take the extractor out and see if the tip (hook) is still nice and square or if it's getting rounded off. If the latter, chuck it. 2) Check the throat diameter and give it a light polish if necessary. Allow me a stupid question: Are you shooting lacquer coated ammo? If so, give yourself a spanking and dump it. Also, steel case (even uncoated) ammo can also cause this kind of tight extraction problem.

I used to drink with him in a bar here in kali. He would go on about his career in the Mossad and the secret killing techniques they learned that could shatter vertebrae and instantly paralyze. Then you'd see him driving his cab the next day.

A few years back, they had a race set up on a Texas speedway and had sold all the tickets (don't know which one). It was a high bank super speedway. Problem was, the turn radius was too tight and the drivers were pulling >6g in the corners. The first two drivers tried a couple of laps at speed and then drove zig zag back into the pits. One stumbled from his car and staggered like a drunken fool... the other just sat there unable to move with his eyes spinning in opposite directions. The drivers refused to race there, and several million $$$ in set up costs were forfeit and lawsuits were filed. Somebody should have taken physics in high school.

Just curious: legal to bevel the mag well opening? I did it on my 92 because I would occasionally manage to hang a mag lip on the edge of the frame opening. Really helped cure that.

We thought you did.

In comparing the "heavier vs lighter" bullet impact point, you have two factors. 1) Acceleration of the bullet 2) recoil Take a 130-gr .38sp and a 157 gr .38sp loaded so that they both make 1000 f/s velocity. That means the 157 has to be loaded up with more powder to get that same velocity. More powder + heavier slug = more recoil. Therefore, the gun's muzzle rotates upward faster at the instant of firing from recoil. Secondly, the more masive bullet accelerates slower and gets out of the barrel later in the upward arc of the muzzle. Faster muzzle rise + longer time in barrel = leaving the muzzle at a higher point = hitting the target higher (with a heavier slug).

It's supposed to be the vertical height of the blade (from the flat metal surface it is attached to).

The larger grip is better for control, especially if you have long fingers. I put the "wide body adapter" on the grips of my single stacks to increase their grip radius.

Some new extractors I've seen had a straight cut groove in the tip with no radiusing at the bottom. They won't work at all without some "fitting" (filing). Most new guns come with too little extractor tension which I suspect is due to the fact that the extractors "set in" and lose some tension after the initial bend. Some new extractors MUST be tensioned twice to get it right after the steel sets from the first bend, some don't. Best to set the tension, shoot 100 rounds and check it again. FWIW: I have read that many times the Wilson Bulletproof extractors drop in and work. YMMV. They may need to be tensioned for your particular gun.

I'd be ptetty surprised if the standard factory recoil spring was not about 12#. That's what everybody else puts on their 9mm 1911's.

Minnesota: Getting the lightest DA pull is a matter of "tuning down" the mainspring and rebound spring as far as your ammo will allow. I have an older model 686-3 with the Wolff reduced power mainspring which I could easily get a 5.5# DA pull that fired the reloads I was shooting with 100% ignition (you must have soft primers). The newer guns with the frame-mounte firing pin can not be made quite as light and still get reliable ignition. I use the C+S extended firing pins in all mine and I am not convinced that they help a whole lot. My comp gun SW66 was set up with a DA pull of about 6.5 - 6.8# but recently got some light strikes with some ammo with stiff primers. Had to crank it up to 7.5# to make sure they would light off in DA. If you are not using the Wolff ribbed mainspring, consider it. In my experience, the ribbed design allows a DA pull about 1 pound lower than the standard leaf spring for the same "striking force". I assume it is due to the way the rib affects the spring rate(?). Anyway, when I use the Wolff springs I get lower DA pulls that fire reliably. Another thing to consider is that the DA spring force dictates how low the rebound spring can go. The RB spring returns the trigger, and it must also push the hammer back from the forward "fire" position to the rest postion. Since it is pushing it against the hammer (main) spring, a lighter mainspring allows going to a lighter RB spring if you choose to do it.

Take your natural grip and then see where the trigger finger comfortably intersects the trigger. I have tried every method possible. I have found that it screws up the accuracy if you have to contort the trigger finger to force a specific part of the finger to engage the trigger. FWIW, most of th time the trigger for me is just outside the first joint. Shooting wheelguns DA, I sometimes rotate my hand slightly to get the joint centered on the trigger for better leverage which gives better trigger control on a heavy trigger. FWIW: I never saw an improvement screwing around with trigger finger position. I saw a HUGE improvement when I stopped worrying about where that finger was and just focused 100% on a smooth pull.

Jack Weigand describes the proper way to set the tension on a sear spring in his article on trigger jobs: http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/General/D...?f=bt002005.pdf Basically, he recommends setting the left leaf (that presses on the sear) to the same net tension as the center leaf (which presses on the trigger/disconnector). If you have a good trigger pull gauge, you can meausure the forces at the trigger from each leaf. If this is a stock 1911, a target of about 5# would be sensible for trigger pull. That means about two pounds pressure EACH on the two sear spring leafs mentioned above.

No, it doesn't surprise me but it is not on point of the thread. A newbie asked a specific question: "One thing I noticed is that I'm pretty close to being dead-on on the target I pick out, e.g. the light-switch on the other side of the room, with both eyes open (I've never shot with both eyes open, so we'll see if I can keep them open when firing). I check my sight picture by not moving my point of aim or my head (or just slightly moving my head) closing my left eye and sighting down the firearm. Am I on the right track?" And my answer was, that in my "not so valued opinion", he was on the right track and using a technique which has a lot of advantages over the one-eyed squint method mantrad to all new shooters by instructors. In fact, it seemed that he had simply discovered the same thing I did. Nowhere did I say that two-eye target focus was the ONLY way to shoot, just that I dasgaree with those who claim that the one-eyed squint at the front sight is the only way to shoot. I also state that IMO, a newbie should master two-eyed target focus first because I am of the opinion that the #1 importance of mastering firearms skills is to be able to defend one's self and family. I am of the opinion that indirect sighting with eyes on target is the most feasible way to deal with this, and (I have read) that LE's are taught to keep eyes on target so some instructors must be of similar mindset. Obviously in competitive shooting, focus is a constantly moving point of attention. My answer to the newbie was just this: Yes, you are on the right track. Yes, other people do the same thing. Yes, there are dvantages to mastering that skill first. I neglected to answer his other question: "When shooting with both eyes open do you acquire a second nature of subconsciously only using "information" from your dominant eye, or is it more of a conscious effort?" No conscious effort required. Your brain easily processes the "transparent" image of the gun you see through the dominat eye on line with the target, while the target is fully seen through the non-dom eye.

Well, we already knew that "IPSC will get your killed," so it doesn't matter on the eye thing since we're all dead men and women anyway. It's just a matter of time! I wasn't aware IPSC had a gunfight in the course of fire. maybe that's only when you get to grandmaster class.

Are you absolutely sure you wanted to say that? Like, 100% sure, and you didn't make a mistake or forget to post a smiley or something? Well, I didn't say you would 100% surely die with one eye closed, but you 100% surely will be at one hell of a disadvantage if your left eye is closed and your only open eye is focused on the front sight compared to seeing the whole picture. Bottom line is this: on my defense weapons, the front sight (or dot) is bright orange. The rears are white. With both my eyes locked square on target, when I raise the gun it comes straight up into line of sight of the dominant eye. I see right "through" the gun sights because it is a ghost image online with the target (try it with both eyes on target and see what I mean). I still align the sights. When the orange fuzzy dot is between the white fuzzy dots, the POI will be within 2" of where I am looking at any range out to 15 yards. Good enough for me. BTW, I didn't originate this. Some who trian LE's and defensive shooters say the same thing. I remember the data was that in a life-death scenario, the "threat" was an overwhelming attention lock so the person would want to focus on that, but then need to sweep back to find the gun... in other words, a case of momentary brain lock ensues. Basically, it presents a situation that is never trained for and introduces a lag time. IMO, in a gunfight, you want to see everything, not just your front sight... and you want the automatic actions to maximize your advantage. YMMV. I may be in a minority on that, maybe not. I am absolutely convinced that new shooters can easily be taught indirect sighting through the dominat eye with both eyes on target focus. It isn't any harder than the one-eye squint, if you practice it. I use the one-eye squint in bullseye with iron sights. I use two eyes target focus for open guns and defensive shooting. I stay practiced on both, but always feel like I'm missing something with one eye closed.

The recommended stuff is the liquid cleaner that is sold for camera lenses. The guy who sold me my OKO says he uses it on a Q-tip. He said Windex is abrasive, but I don't know how it could be (?) FWIW: I am in the electronics biz, and LED's usually are encased in some kind of epoxy type of resin that might cloud over with time. If you have one that is too low to use anyway, you could try polishing the light emitting surface with some VERY fine platic polish (maybe even toothpast) to see if it brightens up. The electronic junction inside the LED where the light is emitted should not degrade even over many thousands of hours, it is the surrounding material that is changing in transparency.

In my not so valued opinion, I believe all new shooters should be taught as their fundamental sighting method to keep both eyes open and locked on the target and the gun is sighted through the fuzzy sight picture of the dominant eye (this is sometimes referred to as "indirect sighting"). You still see the sights, they are fuzzy. As you said, you can close the left eye and focus back in on the sights to verify sight alignment, then release focus back to the target with both eyes open. Once that is mastered, then the standard "one eyed" sight focus methods can be learned. The reason I prefer this sequence of learning is that in combat you will always revert to tour baseline training. If that is one-eye closed, look at the front sight, you will probably die in a gun fight. Try it yourself. Set up some objects outdoors as if they were threat targets and raise your gun. Close the left eye and look at the front sight and see how much of the world you can still see. then open both eyes and look out and see what you were missing. FWIW, aligning a gun through "unfocused" (fuzzy) sights can be done very accurately because the light bars on either side of the front blade are still visible and the tops of the blade/sights are still easily discerned. Very little sighting accuracy is lost in exchange for huge increase in the visual field. As for target shooting, try everything and use whatever method gives you the best scores.

"they take different magazines and are not interchangable? Different mag catch cutout? If so, anyone know how different? Can one be modified to fit the other?" I'm sure they can, since the aftermarket mags come with cuts that fit both. It's just a matter of knowing where the cut should be from looking at the factory mags. "Anyone know what is different between Beretta and Taurus 92 models (92FS and PT92 respectively) " It used to be that the Taurus had the safety down on the frame to block the sear while the Ber had the safety/decocker on the slide. Maybe taurus changed that? Don't know, I like the Ber safety better. FWIW: I think the Ber is worth the extra money. I've got a lot of rounds through mine and it is holding up well. The trigger on the Ber is easy to slick up with a little polishing, not sure if the taurus is the same.

If it's hitting low, it means the barrel is high with respect to the slide (duh). You can lower the barrel with a shorter link but that does require refitting the lower lugs. If you get those all fitted, you might not have enough insertion depth of the upper lugs into the slide cuts (or maybe there is enough headroom there, has to be measured). I'm betting a good smith will be able to measure the top insertion depth and tell you if the barrel can be fitted in. I vaguely remember Kuhnhausen said you have to have at least 70% insertion at lock up or you can wear/shear the lugs. FWIW: you may already know this, but an optimally fitted barrel does not "ride the link", the lower feet rest just snug on the stop pin ( so you wouldn't see oblong wear on the link hole). You should see fine polishing on the curves of the lower edges of the barrel feet and on the slide stop pin. Needless to say, production 1911's are never fitted this tightly so most do ride the link to some degree or another.