Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

theblacknight

Classified
  • Posts

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Wilmington, N.C.

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    espmiideluxe@yahoo.com

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

theblacknight's Achievements

Looks for Range

Looks for Range (1/11)

  1. If the stage didn't get DQ'ed and the shooters did, that's not a match problem. I recently took a class with someone who teaches his techniques thru the prism of spending $$$$$ to attended major IPSC matches. Part of this was the understanding that it's your job to stay well inside of the RO's perceptions of the rulebook. A "DQ trap" is a collection of shooters who have collectively assumed that they've been victimized in some way. There is no such thing.
  2. If a stage compels a shooter into a DQ, that stage is probably 99% illegal. If the stage is legal, it's not a DQ trap, the *shooter(s) is/are DQ prone. Major matches are where things like proper application of the rulebook to gun handling, equipment etc catches up with people who are used to lax local matches where the shooting challenges are more pedestrian, or are more about carnival entertainment then testing skills in practical shooting.
  3. Not DQing is a skill. People who are less skilled at this have a term for their lack of skill called "DQ traps". A shooting problem may happen in any direction in relation to the shooter. It seems as though IPSC tends to have a more varied shooting challenge then USPSA, start positions included.
  4. At a lot of local matches division scores are usually pointless to look at unless you've got 100+ shooters and a deep talent pool. A wide spread in performance between divisions may indicate stage planning was more varied and less shoot by the numbers/follow the leader, which are stages I usually enjoy.
  5. Thanks for playing better luck next time!
  6. KKM WILL make you a oversized hood, but based on the fit of their "drop in" barrels, most people don't usually spend the entra time to fit one.
  7. It's not a question of belief. You're just a sore loser. Velocity is a actual benefit because it can be readily demonstrated . "Sight error" isn't.
  8. Really dude? I'm talking about tangible benefits here. A longer barrel objectively get's you more velocity. Soo using a G34 means your loads to gain a certain PF will be less.
  9. The fundamental problem with this is something I already pointed out. These type of guns have existed for a good number of years now(try more then 15). Long before Smith and FN made their factory versions .The people that have been building these guns for years ARE NOT simply taking a "production gun" and milling a dot on it and having a other wise production legal gun. These guns are what proved the concept that made your 2 examples above. So what you've done is created a division for a certain concept of gun, but completely disregarded why those guns exist is the 1st place, and ignored the state that these already-out-there guns are in as far as modifications, segregating a majority of those who already own a "pro-op" gun. Good job bro
  10. That drill is one for learning how much sight and trigger refinement you need for certain distance(apparent size) targets.
  11. You math is simply contextual. No one has said that but you. What I've been saying the whole time, and what you fail to understand, is that regardless of what everyone knows about the general principle of sight radius, in the case of the G34 and the G17, a enhanced applied accuracy is not a tangible benefit. If you had such in your corner, you could actually show us all. I'm actually waiting for such as it would be cool. If a shooter blames his G17 for a D hit and says" If I only had a g34!" what he should really be saying is" maybe I should learn what kind of sight picture I need with my gun and my sights". I know, why blame your skills when you can blame the gun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOJyVpvEJww&list=UUpvB2hC2A7prWhLlz6Tfafw
  12. Part of being a good shooter in this game is learning how much refinement in your sights and trigger to get the hits you need for your apparent target size with your gun and sights. And thats exactly why the G34's possible accuracy bump as the shooter's eye is concerned is simply a concept and not tangible,which is what I've been saying the whole time.
  13. Understanding the theory behind the thinking isn't the issue here,because we all already understand that. Using a extreme example dosent represent this actual issue. We are discussing a tangible performance difference between a G17 and G34. That means being able to readily see a performance increase of the firearm itself.. That certainly happens at the chrono, because we can prove that. I'm saying the G34 is no more accurate then the 17 and I would love to see proof other wise. Don't explain a academic concept, provide proof.
×
×
  • Create New...