BSeevers

Jerry B used to carry 3 pairs. Change away

I used around 6-8 cans of One Shot last year. Loaded around 90K rds last year. I spray it liberally because I have tendonitus issues. Shooting, dryfire or reloading??? No I didn't shoot 90 I load for 3 people.

Whats the end state gain in that? I have limited exposure but at my club USPSA/IDPA/Steel Challenge are all there is. I think it would close without those. Are there clubs that want to focus on cowboy action and hunting rifle sighting in? What else makes money?Well I have seen many clubs close down or ban competition. Quite a few of club leaders are weak minded, old men with emotional issues (low self esteem, control issues or just plain dumba----s) Most clubs don't need the money that bad since they have already bought the land cheap decades ago. What this usually is about is insecurity, power and good old fashioned meanness. Heck just like all politicians they aren't spending their money and its not like they need to generate a profit. Your local club is usually made up of a majority members who shoot 3 boxes of ammo a year not competition people. I'm just trying to help the guy because in a couple years he may be on the outside of the candy store looking in.

You are being run out. I have seen this technique used many times. Its just step one. Run for the board, get a shooter to run too and take over. If not quit shooting there. You probably will be forced to in the future anyway.

Reloading for me is a necessary evil that I put right up there with cleaning my bathroom or mowing the lawn. I don't think I could trust most to load my match ammo but I am willing to try. I load for 3 but feel the same way when it was one

The fastest women runners are way faster than me, you or Max. They just don't shoot. Sure the ultimate records are male and will continue because its plain running and men are stronger, in running. But can you run a 10 sec hundred? Quite a few women can. You don't need a record holders speed in this sport but you do need athletic ability to win. I believe that woman don't progress to high levels because they choose not to. A better way to phrase this is they choose not to do the work. Most woman are involved in USPSA because of a spouse(Husband, BF, Dad Etc) and that doesn't generate enough internal motivation, in general, to be a GM, much less a National Champion. As the sport grows look out. That 23 year old former college athlete, who makes good money or gets sponsored that wants it, will make everyone look slow and win. If she doesn't already shoot then she has to pay her dues in time, money and effort. I would wonder what would happen if the sport had more popular appeal and some of those 16 yr old phenoms in the X games started shooting at 12 too. What keeps them out is it takes years(I think the magic number is 8-10 yrs) to become a national champion contender, male or female. Oh and as you know just being in this sport 10 yrs doesn't mean a thing. It's ten years of hard work and experience. I see a lot of male/female kids start in this with their dad, become a flash, but quit. You can say life, job, money, kids,...... They choose to not become a national champion contender. PS Catching a GM pasting is kinda like a unicorn sighting isn't it?

Depends of your definition of safe. Will they go bad? Probably not since if they stay dry, everythings fine. Did you just make a bomb? Yep. I have heard about but not witnessed a person carrying a pail of primers "disappearing". Might be a old wives tale but.. Not if you have witnessed a 650 primer tube going off you can appreciate what 100 primers going off is like when they are touching each other. The plastic packaging is to contain an explosion and separate the primers as well as keep em dry.

Depends on skill level.. A person who has never really shot a gun? Has to be Revolver. DA trigger, Reloading til the cows come home, Iron sights, Funky grips. I would be surprised if they didn't have half of their stages zeroed. A guy who shot Revos casually for ten years would do better of course. Open can be a fun crutch for a new guy cause he brings his Glock 17, can't hit hard targets so then proceeds to be dead last in every match, so the "positive" reenforcement of "hits on targets" makes him Love Open. Here is the problem, sure Open is easier but it's easier for everybody so as you progress if you have flaws in your technique, it reveals itself real quick and easy. So you don't win once you are in say B class, in general Now I love to start a student on Open because I can reveal their weakness easily, its easier to work on it and grow them faster since sight is in one plane. I don't think any division is that much more "tough" Its Sight alignment, Trigger, repeat in any division.

It depends but it bothers me to even use a phone to record someone. Takes some of my focus off of shooting. Worried about remembering to record, getting the phone back to them, etc...

I sold my last one because I wanted a slide racker(it was cut in back so we couldn't dovetail) and a regular no hybrid barrel, I was gonna just put a (blank no hybrid barrel in) but this didn't help with a slide racker. It was on its 3rd barrel/comp and had around 135,000 rds and I would shoot it all year, right now. Parts wear out but they can be replaced. I can't tell you how many extractors, ejectors and the like that I replaced Since I had just put the barrel/comp in, the guy that bought it got a great deal.

A match barrel is made of better material and better tolerances that can give you more accuracy. Do you need one? No. Many Nationals and other matches have been won with stock barrels. Is it better? Of course. How can too much accuracy be bad? Now shooting a 2.2 inch group instead of a 3 you need to understand just how much "better" a match barrel is. For most regular shooters no. This is assuming you have a decent, accurate gun already. Do I go for every advantage, of course within reason and yes I use them. Will a match barrel advance you? Probably not

Don't sell the capacity short. We also get to reload where we want. Watch Limited shooters counting their rds reloading at 20 etc.... I have basically 2 kinds of stages. If its over say 18-25 rds and dont care how many rds it is cause I have 6+ extra in the bigstick OR I generally start with bigstick and reload where I want not when my standard mag requires me to or when I miss a Steel and mess up my 20 rd count. This happens a lot in Limited because of arrays and misses. Of course it doesn't always follow this "format" but I hope you see my point. I agree that in general Limited reloads at same place but we get a little advantage

That's not the case, it was purely a hypothetical. I understand gear is important which is why I'm asking the question. Obviously a trigger can be lightened by X pounds, a comp can reduce muzzle jump by a %, a huge magazine can cut the need to reload in half, so if a red dot is so incredible - can you quantify it? Can it allow you to shoot some % faster or more % accurate than irons? Again, the only pistol that I have any significant experience is an almost stock Glock but if I had a race gun with a huge magazine, magwell, light trigger, oversized controls, specialized holster, compensator, but didn't have an optic... that would all theoretically be significant upgrades. So I am curious about the capability of a RDS on a pistol and what it brings to the table. If your Open gun still had everything it currently has except the optic was traded for notch and post sights, how much slower would it be? On an average stage I shoot Limited around 2 seconds slower. I know this because we have clubs that let you reshoot the same stages for fun. If it's 20 head shots or small poppers at 20 yards of course the difference is much larger. I think some might think 2 sec is nothing but as you get fast and accurate everything counts so you can't afford to be behind your competition. I would shoot Open without a RDS Last, I mean I would give up Trigger, Comp, 30 rds, magwell, extended mag release before RDS, Oh wait those 6 are really all that's on a Open gun that counts with the first 4, 99% of the pie Forgot trigger since a Limited gun can have the same trigger. Of course not a Glock but have you tried a CZ or XD tricked out? Oh I have to add for a new shooter the difference might be HUGH Since Open is yea easier a new shooter might run a stage in say 35 seconds no Mikes, 20 points down while in Limited he would run it say 42 seconds with 3 Mikes 30 down

Yes you never know, Buyer beware but I only would buy stuff made by someone who knows what he is doing. Buying a Production M&P is a usually a lot easier than a 9mm major Open gun. Anything can be fixed but a $100 parts on a Glock is easier to stomach than a $1000 and 3 month wait on a Open gun after you just paid 3K for it Ask away but I believe that reading through posts can advance you a class. You do sometimes need a filter because its free advice so you get your moneys worth sometimes and we are all equal on here, but not on the range if that made sense That said you don't have to be able to do a 4 sec El Prez to coach someone how to do one. Keep that attitude, it's a champion's one

I can't believe I'm answering this Hypothetical? Let's use good old fashioned facts Its an incredible advantage. How many shot the Open Nationals without a dot? Excluding those that broke I gonna go out on a limb and say none. If there was one that did you realize that they finally took away rotary dialing and VHS tapes so there is always a hold out for the good old days, but we evolved into red dots because they are way more faster and accurate I think people see a Limited GM take HOA at a club and think the gun is a non factor. Skill is in there too. That same GM is not gonna bring a .40 STIn in Open to an Area/State. Well unless he is not there to win which to me seems kinda silly to me

Hahaha I probably would, the closest thing to a custom gun I have ever shot is a Kimber Custom II... My goal that I made right after shooting my first match and seeing a couple of M's shoot was to be able to shoot like that. I told myself I would be a Master Limited shooter. I didn't have any kind of time frame along with that though, I just know that is my eventual goal. A closer range goal would probably be a solid to upper B by next year? I had considered doing that, I am a mountain biker and there are lots of people that just HAVE TO have next year's frame or fork or whatever, and they sell their one season old gear at crazy low prices. Where would be a good place to look? On this forum, gunbroker, after matches...? I hadn't really thought about that before, thank you. When I do my dry fire drills (I use the Predator Tactical online stuff for draws and reloads) I can consistently get my reloads in a par time of about .9 of a second but when I am in matches I am way slower. Is there anything that you guys do to bring up the stress level of your dry fire? Or is the real skill to bring down your stress level during match fire? I don't know how to fancy answer each question Kimber? That ain't custom Sorry Kimber-ites B A or GM Don't limit yourself but don't forget it takes a certain amount of time, money and effort for each, No time frame? That is not a goal then. This forum has great deals and is by far the best place. Don't buy another guys mistake. Stress? I could go on for 1000 words but you should strive for no stress. Relax Dry fire is practice, you need live fire too

Now do you have a goal of performance? Say A class by Nov 2014? By the way thats lofty, but very very achievable for a guy 2 matches in. You need a gun that works every time, great sights and trigger. THEN practice. Spend money on ammo not guns. You might see the local big dog shooting a STI $3500 gun and think thats why he wins. Uh no. Take up golf instead of USPSA tomorrow and buy the latest $3500 set of clubs. You know Phil Mickelson will still trouce you and he would do it with a set of rental clubs too. But, He would have trouble with clubs with loose heads, see above comment about gun must work. Now I don't think I would shoot a Ruger for very long, nobody that is good shoots one and that is enough evidence for me. Its not innovative to shoot one. I think if you felt a pistol smithed trigger on a XD or CZ you might freak out. They come close to my 1911 that is 1/7/8 lb with almost no travel. I would consider buying used since there are so many people eager to buy their way to a win with the latest gun purchase I would recommend that a new shooter with limited coordination shoot Limited in 9mm because of so many issues going on and I know that adding reloading with every movement is difficult for said un skilled shooter. For a guy middle of the pack in first month?? reload buddy since you are gonna need the practice or you are gonna get trounced since you will more than likely class higher

VV was purchased by Lapua. That could be very good since they are a much larger ammo, not just a chemical company. What happens in the interem is the question. They are not a stupid company and purchased them to make money. Now if they were just buying the formulas and want to make VV in their plants I think there would be a transistion period.I am sticking with VV for a while but yea I am concerned I guess I should add I don't like most powders in the same burn range. Their impulse seems to be a bit more snappy or just different which is enough for me and they are all more dirty. I think the real issue is that all powder seems to be difficult to obtain and that is getting to be a pain.

I think if you practiced shooting as fast as you reply you might become a fast shooter Did you read what you wrote? You are making my point. Its not a static "one time" action. The gun movement .002 before sight returns, torque, recoil, My vision inputs, etc all combine BEFORE the .15 to allow me to shoot fast. And back to the orig argument Call the Shot

Because it's simply wrong. Period. You are trying to tell a bunch shooters, who happen to be at the upper end of the spectrum, that have skills you don't have, how they are wrong. This is funny. You are what? Are you even a competitor? Maybe an enthusiast? You are talking to some shooters that have, quite literally, written on the subject. And on another note: a woman named Tanya Streeter just shattered the free dive records of both men and women. New record is 525ft. I mention this because physiologically, we weren't even capable of 100 feet just a few short years ago. Wow! @Whoops couldn't have put this any more simply. If you accept the claim that people can't perceive and react to a stimulus faster than about .15 seconds then faster splits are, by deduction, being shot before the second sight picture is perceived. This has led to plenty of interesting and useful points of discussion: E.g., what stimulus or perception are top practitioners referencing to decide to break the second shot if not the sight picture? There have been plenty of good answers. My takeaway is that they can perceive something wrong with the first shot, make the decision to shoot again, and depend on muscle memory to do so accurately. They do perceive the second sight picture, so they can call their second shot, but only after they have sent the command to break the second shot. So we're not disputing what you achieve -- accurate splits below the reaction threshold, and calling each shot -- nor are we disputing that you perceived a second sight picture. We're merely clarifying that it's physiologically impossible for the perception of the latter to have preceded the former, which fact has illuminated this deeper discussion. Now, if you reject that physiological constraint, and if you could find a way to demonstrate that it can be meaningfully exceeded, then there are many academics who would love to hear from you. That would be a guaranteed publication. (As for this free dive analogy: was there at some point a scientific consensus that humans were physiologically incapable of exceeding a certain depth? If so what was the basis and constraint specifically cited? The reaction stimulus is based on nerve impulse speed, which is based on well understood chemistry and physics. A claim that some humans have faster nerve chemistry would be as groundbreaking as a discovery that some humans can see infrared radiation or smell carbon monoxide. It would require fundamentally different physiology than exists in any known human being.) I never try to be an expert in some things but but in fast shooting, I am Mama's wrong again. The answer has been given by many of the "real' fast shooters early in the thread but I'll try again. Your application of Reaction Time is incorrect. It assumes a fixed event. We See the Entire Time, at a higher level that must be trained in. Since you all like science I hope I don't have to explain how fast light travels. If you bring up the time it takes light to convert on the back of the eye and travel to the brain cells then give a response etc.........See Above We See the Entire Time I didn't shoot those 100,000's and 100,000's of rounds to keep Federal in bizness If you don't accept that it takes time for the brain to process what we're seeing the entire time, you need to go back to school. I'll try one more time. That process time is there gee no kidding. You assume, incorrectly, that people that shoot fast respond to one input to shoot fast. Your famous .15. It is a constant process and a whole bunch of inputs. Do you know that people drive 200 mph, hit 101 mph fastballs, dodge a fist coming at their face, fly in combat, etc. Do you really think they go through a input, respond in .15 sec, get result?

Because it's simply wrong. Period. You are trying to tell a bunch shooters, who happen to be at the upper end of the spectrum, that have skills you don't have, how they are wrong. This is funny. You are what? Are you even a competitor? Maybe an enthusiast? You are talking to some shooters that have, quite literally, written on the subject. And on another note: a woman named Tanya Streeter just shattered the free dive records of both men and women. New record is 525ft. I mention this because physiologically, we weren't even capable of 100 feet just a few short years ago. Wow! @Whoops couldn't have put this any more simply. If you accept the claim that people can't perceive and react to a stimulus faster than about .15 seconds then faster splits are, by deduction, being shot before the second sight picture is perceived. This has led to plenty of interesting and useful points of discussion: E.g., what stimulus or perception are top practitioners referencing to decide to break the second shot if not the sight picture? There have been plenty of good answers. My takeaway is that they can perceive something wrong with the first shot, make the decision to shoot again, and depend on muscle memory to do so accurately. They do perceive the second sight picture, so they can call their second shot, but only after they have sent the command to break the second shot. So we're not disputing what you achieve -- accurate splits below the reaction threshold, and calling each shot -- nor are we disputing that you perceived a second sight picture. We're merely clarifying that it's physiologically impossible for the perception of the latter to have preceded the former, which fact has illuminated this deeper discussion. Now, if you reject that physiological constraint, and if you could find a way to demonstrate that it can be meaningfully exceeded, then there are many academics who would love to hear from you. That would be a guaranteed publication. (As for this free dive analogy: was there at some point a scientific consensus that humans were physiologically incapable of exceeding a certain depth? If so what was the basis and constraint specifically cited? The reaction stimulus is based on nerve impulse speed, which is based on well understood chemistry and physics. A claim that some humans have faster nerve chemistry would be as groundbreaking as a discovery that some humans can see infrared radiation or smell carbon monoxide. It would require fundamentally different physiology than exists in any known human being.) I never try to be an expert in some things but but in fast shooting, I am Mama's wrong again. The answer has been given by many of the "real' fast shooters early in the thread but I'll try again. Your application of Reaction Time is incorrect. It assumes a fixed event. We See the Entire Time, at a higher level that must be trained in. Since you all like science I hope I don't have to explain how fast light travels. If you bring up the time it takes light to convert on the back of the eye and travel to the brain cells then give a response etc.........See Above We See the Entire Time I didn't shoot those 100,000's and 100,000's of rounds to keep Federal in bizness If you don't accept that it takes time for the brain to process what we're seeing the entire time, you need to go back to school. I'll try one more time. That process time is there gee no kidding. You assume, incorrectly, that people that shoot fast respond to one input to shoot fast. Your famous .15. It is a constant process and a whole bunch of inputs. Do you know that people drive 200 mph, hit 101 mph fastballs, etc. Do you really think they go through a input, respond in .15 sec, get result?

I find first its better to do some physical exercises. Like moving your eye back and forth while driving from a taillight to a rock the road and back. Dryfire works too. Many other variations including I think Brian had a break through Stopping fan blades. Now what people are saying in this thread is to perform at a high level you must shoot in the now, subconcious, no mind etc. We are wanting to get there asap, its the goal but unless you already are there, you must walk before running. One of my early big break throughs was being asked Do you see the fire around the front sight? Of course I didn't. I knew I needed to see more. Do you?

I use both. The spot is for training to allow us to make sure we are aiming correctly. Seeing what we need to see and verify that our sight pic is one that allows the best shot and highest score i would never use it exclusivly in dry or live fire.

Because it's simply wrong. Period. You are trying to tell a bunch shooters, who happen to be at the upper end of the spectrum, that have skills you don't have, how they are wrong. This is funny. You are what? Are you even a competitor? Maybe an enthusiast? You are talking to some shooters that have, quite literally, written on the subject. And on another note: a woman named Tanya Streeter just shattered the free dive records of both men and women. New record is 525ft. I mention this because physiologically, we weren't even capable of 100 feet just a few short years ago. Wow! @Whoops couldn't have put this any more simply. If you accept the claim that people can't perceive and react to a stimulus faster than about .15 seconds then faster splits are, by deduction, being shot before the second sight picture is perceived. This has led to plenty of interesting and useful points of discussion: E.g., what stimulus or perception are top practitioners referencing to decide to break the second shot if not the sight picture? There have been plenty of good answers. My takeaway is that they can perceive something wrong with the first shot, make the decision to shoot again, and depend on muscle memory to do so accurately. They do perceive the second sight picture, so they can call their second shot, but only after they have sent the command to break the second shot. So we're not disputing what you achieve -- accurate splits below the reaction threshold, and calling each shot -- nor are we disputing that you perceived a second sight picture. We're merely clarifying that it's physiologically impossible for the perception of the latter to have preceded the former, which fact has illuminated this deeper discussion. Now, if you reject that physiological constraint, and if you could find a way to demonstrate that it can be meaningfully exceeded, then there are many academics who would love to hear from you. That would be a guaranteed publication. (As for this free dive analogy: was there at some point a scientific consensus that humans were physiologically incapable of exceeding a certain depth? If so what was the basis and constraint specifically cited? The reaction stimulus is based on nerve impulse speed, which is based on well understood chemistry and physics. A claim that some humans have faster nerve chemistry would be as groundbreaking as a discovery that some humans can see infrared radiation or smell carbon monoxide. It would require fundamentally different physiology than exists in any known human being.) I never try to be an expert in some things but but in fast shooting, I am Mama's wrong again. The answer has been given by many of the "real' fast shooters early in the thread but I'll try again. Your application of Reaction Time is incorrect. It assumes a fixed event. We See the Entire Time, at a higher level that must be trained in. Since you all like science I hope I don't have to explain how fast light travels. If you bring up the time it takes light to convert on the back of the eye and travel to the brain cells then give a response etc.........See Above We See the Entire Time I didn't shoot those 100,000's and 100,000's of rounds to keep Federal in bizness

Being somewhat new to race guns curious why you would want to break it in in the "white" before choosing a finish. Wouldn't the slide to frame fit change (tighten) after finishing then requiring another "break in" period? This is true. You are shooting it to make sure it works. Its "harder" to work on hard chrome haha Even the best smith can have a gremlin gun that requires a trip back. That said many many smiths ship guns hard chromed that work great. I'll bet they test em in the white first though, then hard chrome