ttolliver

Can anyone who is shooting a 97B or BD share what holsters they're using? Hopefully in the race holster category since this would be an L-10 project. One of the CR Speeds perhaps? I see a thread that says the Tanfoglio large frame matches the 97, but also that there different Tanfoglio frames. So first hand experience would be awesome. Thx!

+1 I don't fault our leadership with moving cautiously. And I can accept that they'll never lay all the cards on the table. That's how smart organizations operate. Lack of formal communication to the full membership, though...not so smart.

Welcome to a fellow Minnesotan!!! Here are a couple links to get you started. The first is to our local section website and will land on the page with a list of all of our local clubs, contacts, maps to ranges, etc. Also check out the calendar of events you'll see linked on the left. The second link is to the new shooter info on the MAPSA website. I'm the MAPSA secretary and my email is on the home page if you'd like to connect up offline to talk though any newer shooter stuff in detail or just BS about the sport and the local shooting scene a bit. To put in another shameless plug for MAPSA, our next match is Saturday, July 12th. And 2 weeks is just about the right amount of time to put out the word to borrow or maybe order any minor bits of equipment you might need for your first match http://www.mnuspsa.org/ http://www.mapsa-uspsa.com/new.html

If you aren't a high volume shooter you might want to consider a Single Stage kit. The various Dillon machines are sweet to be sure, but the ability to load a months worth of ammo in sitting comes at a cost.

I'm using 200s and can tell the difference between those and 180s. It's not an earth shattering difference. If a case of 180s tumbled into my lap I'd shoot them without hesitation. But given the choice I go 200s. Following the adage of using heaviest bullet and fastest powders for lowest felt recoil, I actually tried 220s first. But that's a seriously long bullet and didn't feed well in my M&P. I think those require a 1911-based frame for the longer loading those shooters can get away with.

The RO may give the impression of being a milspec because of their decision to go with a parkerized finish, but as an RO shooter I can attest to their marketing not just being hype. This thing shoots exactly where you point it. When I'm in the zone I put 5 rounds of my standard 230gr LRN competition load into a less than 2 bullet diameter clover leaf. That's offhand at my normal practice distance of 25 feet. All I've done to it is added a Dawson FO front sight, G10 grips, extended mag release, SA magwell, and lightened to a 16lb spring. I haven't had a trigger job on it because I bought it at the beginning of last season and it was in constant use. I do have to admit I continue to kick around the thought of having it hard chromed. But to be fair, that's a solution without a problem. There's nothing wrong with the finish, it just isn't as sexy as my other guns. Anyway, here's a vote to not discount the RO. "The Range Officer® has the same quality forged national match frame and slide as the Trophy Match™ and TRP™ 1911s. It gets the same precision fit as these pistols, too."

I'm shooting CFE Pistol for major PF in a 4.25" M&P 40 with 200gr SNS coated. It's indistinguishable from my pet N320 load for recoil and accuracy. I've posted my load and chrono data here in the 10mm/40 area. There are so few posts on CFE Pistol that a quick search should turn it up pretty easily. I haven't tried it any other calibers yet.

Yeah they aren't cheap, hehehe. Thanks!

My pet load for these little gems is 3.4gr TG under a MG 147s at 1.120". My local shop hasn't had MG for a while, so I snagged some Hornady 147s instead. The Hornady's vary a fair bit in profile from the MGs and it seems to me I've heard that MGs tend to need a bit more powder to make velocity. Has anyone that's shot both of these found they had to vary their loads or COALs from one to maintain accuracy with the other? I'm still going to chrono a set of the Hornady based loads. I'm just curious if I can take the easy way out and take a set loaded to my standard formula or if I should expect to approach it like a new load from scratch. Thanks!

I'm one of those with the opposite problem. In the skill mix my raw gun handling skills are better than my movement and visualization skills. So my classifier scores tend to be better than my field course performance.

I have the AEK aluminum trigger- where did you come by this conclusion on the two trigger springs? I can step in here. I wanted the Aluminum FSS kit that produces a 4.5 (or is it 5.5, I forget) pound pull with the lighter trigger produced by the competition kit. I contacted Apex and asked if there was a way to accomplish both. They said yes and outlined the combination of springs from the original factory, FSS, and competition kits to use to produce that result. So yeah, I can vouch for the factory trigger spring being part of the combination of parts to get the FSS trigger down to the 2.5 lb pull.

I shoot a SA Range Officer, but I was also drooling over a Spartan/Trojan at the time. In the end I just picked up the first I was able to locate. This was during the height of the craziness a year and a half ago. I don't have any experience on the STIs yet, but both STI and SA have such great reputations that I doubt you could go wrong with either. However I can vouch for my SA being an excellent shooter right out of the box. And all of the aftermarket parts I've dropped in have literally dropped in with zero need for tinkering. My only slight disappointment has been the parkerized finish, and you'd be avoiding that with the stainless loaded model.

I too ended up with the 2.5 pound pull as advertised by simply dropping the parts in.

If you have a good 200gr load that's accurate and you're comfortable with, absolutely compete with it to start. Assuming you're a new shooter to USPSA, you have plenty of other things to focus on out of the gate than tinkering with your load for a slight improvement you'll get there. That being said, the general formula for reducing felt recoil is to shoot the heaviest bullet you can with the fastest powder that's safe. So technically getting into a 230 grain bullet will be an incremental improvement. As for 9mm, a lot of shooters (myself included) really like 147gr slugs and Titegroup. For my CZ 3.4gr Titegroup and a Montana Gold 147 CMJ is a sweet combination.

Welcome! Unfortunately we're asked not to post loads in the beginners section. But if you don't mind posting this again in the reloading section we'll be off to the races.

To be fair, I don't shoot 231 regularly and didn't know the $67 number. I assumed it was closer to $100 and in the $125 range with hazmat charges. But that being said, I still wouldn't let a $200 price tag put me on the bench.

I don't know what the going rate is...there has to be some floating around to establish that, hehehe. For me though, if my competition load were based on 231 and I was running low, almost no price is too high to ensure I can keep shooting a pet load for another 2-ish years that 4 lbs would last me. I'd go $200 with a smile of relief on my face. I'd probably go $300...but no smile. Of course my numbers come down quickly if that weren't my competition powder of choice or if I was already sitting on a stockpile and was just looking to pad a little. But I have to believe there's enough desperation out there to bring at least $150 for a 4 lb jug of 231.

Yup, it sure did.

CCI are also my go to primers except where I need the softer Federal for one of my revolvers. But I've loaded a little bit of everything -- all with the RCBS hand priming tool. The only actual primer issue I've ever run into is that Tulas and one other brand I forget at the moment seem to rotate more easily as they feed through the hand priming tool. I'm sure they meet whatever specs exist for primers, but my gut wants to say they are either ever so slightly smaller in diameter or have a slightly more rounded edge to the cup that permits them to rotate. So I learned pretty quickly to glance at the primer as it's rising up the tool body to make sure it's sitting flat before I put the brass into position. Having a primer not quite square will definitely lead to a smashed primer, but there'll be no mistaking the additional effort it takes to mash that bad boy into the pocket. As a newer loader I wonder if what you're running into is actually the crimp on the edge of primer pockets. A couple commercial brands (S&B is the worst) use what we normally call a military style crimp on the edge of the primer pocket. Even when you present the primer square and dead center to the primer pocket those will feel like a small catch that you have to push past. Sometimes pushing past that catch takes a bit more force. And once it lets loose that extra force can end up smashing a softer primer. So there's a chance you're experiencing crimped primer pockets.

I went back with some CFE Pistol loaded to 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 at 1.150" to see if increasing pressure a bit would do anything to the load. 4.8 looks like the winner as it posted numbers and performance nearly identical to my N320 load. I think I'll load up a few hundred for some extended practice/evaluation. M&P Pro Core 40 4.25" (new barrel type) 200gr SNS Coated 1.150 COAL 63 degrees CFE Pistol - 4.8 grains 860 860 848 842 841 865 857 872 843 862 Average 855 SD 10.3 PF of lowest 168 PF of highest 174 PF of average 171

I've been told SNS uses the same coating and I put some SNS load info on this other thread. In fact, I have some additional data to add. http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=190357&page=2 In general I'm finding CFE Pistol loaded very light to be very similar to my N320 load for recoil and accuracy. Although by the chrono numbers CFE Pistol has a higher SD. I suspect the SD would come down with higher velocity, but felt recoil sneaks up to what you would expect from a medium speed powder pretty quickly as well.

Loading 20 each of min through max at .2 grain increments is an excellent approach. For me 10 rounds go through the chrono then I shoot two 5 round groups for a quick accuracy test. I don't normally worry about a full speed function test at that first session, but no harm in it. For me that's a second trip test. Say 4.9 seemed to be the best load the first time out, I'd go back the next time with another batch of a hundred rounds split between 4.8, 4.9, and 5.0 grains for accuracy testing. To be fair, there's often no difference in accuracy between two of those three, but you'll be able to rule out the third. And between the two that seem to have identical performance you can use the one that is closer to where you want to be on power factor. There is one component saving measure you can take. Assuming your loads are competition based, you can often limit the upper end for your loads based on recommendations you find here. Especially with 45acp. It's so easy to make power factor with a 230 grain cast bullet that you don't need to take it to the top end from the loading manuals. I haven't researched HP38, but say 4.9 was the most commonly recommended competition load. I'd go ahead and load to 5.1 in the first test just to cover potential variations in my gun. But I probably wouldn't bother with 5.3.

Welcome to the 40 crowd! The most important thing to know about loading 40S&W for our sport is that if you go for 40 major you'll be loading outside of SAMI specs and manufacturer published loads. There's tons of great info here on doing it and a lot of us do it with confidence, but it's something to give an extra measure of respect. As you read up on it here you'll run across, "...and that's how you get a kaboom too!" Another detail you'll run across is whether you end up loading long or short. 40S&W pistols that evolved from 9mm platforms have a more strict COAL than those that evolved from the 1911 platform. And some who shoot 1911 platforms say they actually have to load long (up to 1.200) for reliability. So that's something to keep in mind about your Brazos. As for powders, a number of us have found CFE Pistol available recently. It's a new powder so we're still learning our competition loads, but early tests are looking good for 40 major. In fact I just posted some of my chrono findings in another thread.

I finally got around to getting some CFE Pistol loads through the chrono. I had some of my current N320 competition rounds along for recoil comparison so I ran a set of those through the chrono again. The test was 20 rounds of CFE Pistol at 5.0, 5.2, 5.4, 5.6, and 5.8. I didn't bother to shoot the last 3. My normal approach is to fire 10 of each group through the chrono and do a quick accuracy test with the other 10 to see if they're worth pursuing. So my accuracy observations here are initial impressions. With the handful of rounds I fired at 5.0 there appeared to be no difference between that and N320 for recoil or accuracy at 25'. I'm tempted to say the 5.2 grouped a hair tighter, but two 5-round groups aren't much of a test. There was a bit more of a recoil difference between 5.0 and 5.2 than I expected. Recoil at 5.2 was still much less than other powders grouped around CFE Pistol on the burn rate charts, but I suspect if we ran CFE Pistol at minimum published loads the recoil would be right there with the others. M&P Pro Core 40 4.25" (new barrel type) 200gr SNS Coated 1.160 COAL 50 degrees CFE Pistol - 5.0 grains 863 836 878 883 843 881 861 872 849 855 Average 883 SD 15.5 PF of lowest 167 PF of highest 177 PF of average 172 CFE Pistol - 5.2 grains 893 899 869 898 879 885 883 881 901 914 Average 890 SD 12.5 PF of lowest 174 PF of highest 183 PF of average 178 VV N320 - 4.1 grains 859 841 859 862 858 851 854 869 847 836 Average 854 SD 9.6 PF of lowest 167 PF of highest 174 PF of average 171

As someone who has stepped into the role of doing scoring through EzWinScore this year, let me assure you transferring paper scores into that particular program is more time consuming than you would ever guess. It really heightened my respect for those club officers that just magically made it all happen for me in all those matches I shot before I had a clue. Luckily one of our local clubs is leading the charge to electronic scoring. I can't speak to Practiscore. And the number of shooters is part of it too. But it's probably pretty safe to assume anyone doing paper scoring is spending up to 3-4 hours after every match.