theblacknight
-
Posts
149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by theblacknight
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You can afford a unicorn but can't do PIP video?
-
Does someone need a hug?
Thanks for playing better luck next time!
-
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.
-
If comparing factory guns
More velocity
Reduced error in sights
Lighter trigger
Extended mag release
Extended slide lock lever
Being that everyone modifies their guns
More velocity
Reduced error in sights
For those that don't believe in reduced error in sights
More velocty
We're all on the same page, can someone please say something horrible to get this thread locked?
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.
-
If it made no difference I would think top guys like bob vogel would use the g17 or the 22. He uses the 6" barrel glock (g24) in limited and the 5" for IDPA and production (g34).
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.
-
- S&W and FNS both sell 'production-legal' guns that are capable of mounting a red-dot scopes, either they think that a market exists for such guns or they think that there is a potential market.
- If a market exists or has the potential to exist then USPSA can contribute to both by providing a division where such guns can be competitive.
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
-
That drill is one for learning how much sight and trigger refinement you need for certain distance(apparent size) targets.
-
You math is simply contextual.
But don't pretend the advantage of longer sight radius is not real.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
-
A Glock 17 has a sight radius of 6.49 inches
A Glock 34 has a sight radius of 7.55 inches
If you're shooting perfect sight pictures then sight radius doesn't matter, the mechanical accuracy potential of the gun will decide your group size
However unless you are shooting from a ransom rest, then you're not shooting perfect sight pictures, certainly none of us in the action sports are taking the time to get truly perfect sight pictures
If there is any error in your sight picture when the shot breaks then that error is repeated every time the bullet travels the length of your sight radius
When you're shooting IMPERFECT sight pictures, which we always are, the gun with the longer sight radius will reduce your error
Its not a benefit that you can actively use, but its passively there all the time quietly helping
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.
there are probably too many confounding variables to make this kind of direct comparison which is why I think the concept is probably a better argument
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.
-
A longer sight radius provides greater accuracy due to less margin of visual error.
Extreme example: Say the front sight and the rear sight are only 2" apart. When you ared aiming that setup, the sights will look aligned (and perfectly still) even if they are off by a couple thousands of an inch. Now take a handgun with a 10" sight radius. Those sights will never look still. And even if it looked like the sights were misaligned by .001" when the shot broke, that will still be 5 times more accurate that the 2" sight radius, that looked perfectly aligned even though they were off by a few thousands.
be
Posted by Brian enos on the above thread....
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.
-
Who cares. When it is actually available for sale it might be post-worthy but this company is so full of crap I have lost all interest. When you say available in 30 days and 2 years go by you loose all credibility in my book.
I bought a LaserLyte and that is working well for me.
-
The only tangible benefit of the 34 is velocity, and if you are smart and are gonna keep the internals mostly stock, it already has the right connector in it.
Between the 2 guns, the preference for extra sight radius isn't based on actual results, but more that people know in theory more radius is better, so you must be getting something from the longer slide.
Why do you say the preference for the extra sight radius isn't based on actual results?
Because no one is able to produce such results yet. It's very easy to demonstrate why a longer barrel is a tangible benefit for velocity and PF. You can see it on the clock. I'm simply waiting for someone to show us that a pistol sight being 1" further from the eye and 1" further from the rear sight actually translates to concrete results. Until then, it's as cringe worthy as "knock down power".
-
Sometimes I just shoot until it runs out on purpose. Not during a normal field course. It usually happens on big steel arrays on stages that shouldn't be legal in USPSA. I am comfortable enough with slide lock reloads that I don't think it slows me down significantly.
Truth. Unless your positions you've chosen are only 1-2 seconds of movement away from the last, a slide lock reload isn't adding anymore time, because you are moving.
-
Ok, i will bite just to stir the pot, but I do it in fun...
How is it faster to insert a mag, then hit the mag release, then wait for the slide to go into battery.
..As opposed to..
Insert the mag with authority, and let the slide come forward automatically?
Because reloading is a finesse thing. Doing the slam load,inertia bump, etc etc load is quantifiably slower and less efficient because of the force used. Using the "preload" method appears to be the exact same thing to those who don't know, but what more people then just myself have found is preloading is more reliable and more efficient.
I shoot Glocks. I can reach the slide release and don't find it to be slippery. Strong thumb>weak thumb>rack for me. If you have smaller hands, that flow chart will be different.
different guns and different people get different answers.
-
I can't wait to shoot with all the people who wish to put a red dot on their glock, but still can't stipple outside the lines.
Best Idea Ever
I just google image searched "red dot glock" and the 1st 10 guns wouldn't be PO legal.
-
Because we already have too many divisions. I would resist the creation of *any* new division until we clean up what we have. Maybe we just need to stop offering every division at every match. Shoot the popular ones, but if less than 5 people show up for your division, then you get scored in limited or open. I dunno.
I must have missed it somewhere in this long topic. Why does having 6 or 7 divisions in a match pose any problem? I might agree if we had to score by hand, but every club has at least EZWinScore to handle that drudgery. And the rulebook already provides for not recognizing various divisions based on turnout.
You missed the point. It's about Further dividing up the talent pool with more divisions.
-
"legal" ? You mean legal. USPSA is a freestyle sport based on POWER among the other 2. If someone thinks minor scoring and capacity suits their abilities, they should have the choice of that risk/reward.
-
.
We ruined Revolver by allowing 8-Shot Minor, nearly every gun that anyone had is now useless, thank you.
What gun and shooter won the last revo nationals?
-
I'm a production shooter. I shoot no other division. The division has enough problems as it is because everyone seems to have their own idea of what they think production should be even tho they might not even shoot production.
I have no problem with this new idea.
However, it shouldn't be a subset of production nor share it's name,because that's dishonest as to why these type of guns are being built in the 1st place. It should be a subset of Open. Open Carry division.
Why Open Carry? People arnt just slapping a optic on their otherwise production legal carry gun and carrying it.
They always have back up irons, not production legal. They often times have NON Production legal things like full stipple jobs, total grip recontouring, mag rip slot cuts, full slide serrations over the whole dam slide, weapon lights/lazers, threaded barrels, mag button relief cuts, duty style mag wells like the Rogers grip adapter and Sentinel magwell, etc etc etc.
If open carry was innacted, ALL of those things should be legal in the division. If anything, the back up irons should be required if a dot is attached. Open Carry Division should allow AIWB placement of holsters unlike production division. Scoring should be Open division style. If you should a .357 Sig gun and you make major, you are major. You $ertainly paid for it
.Who hear really wants to have a 2nd production division and keep all the other rules?
If we are going to do this division,do it for the right reasons.
I really like where the philosophy of this post went.
-Must be slide mounted optic.
-Do whatever you want to the inside of the gun.
-Modify the outside however you want.
-No comps or magwells.
-10 round mags
-Production style holster rules.
I think one of the keys to the success of this format would be allowing people to show up with guns they have; and it's likely these guns (sans red dots) wouldn't otherwise be production legal.
No, mag wells would be legal, as would full loaded mags and limited style holster rules. Amoung the people who carry these type of guns, AIWB is popular.
By allowing all those modifications you are essentially recreating Modified division which became the most expensive division in IPSC. By limiting the customization it reduces the cost. Production is popular and one of the main reasons is that you can be competitive with an out of the box gun, all we are doing is adding a red dot.
If you want your proposal then submit it to USPSA, the current proposal is Prod/Optics not Modified or Open/Carry.
The current proposal has no basis in anything and is a logical failure. There is nothing "out of the box" about a RMR'ed Glock. Get over yourself.
You arnt reducing any cost. No one is requiring anyone to do anything to their guns. You are seriously trying to say that a 300-500 red dot plus the mill job is a ok "out of the box" mod, yet the tools to do a grip reduction and texture is "expensive like modified". How much is a soldiering iron and some sand paper?The sentinel magwell pictured above is 60$. The dot is the most expensive and non-productionesce part of the picture.
If the point of this division is to give the shooters that use and carry these type of guns a division, we shouldnt make the division outlaw their guns right out of the gate.
If the point of this division is to give people with failing eyes a option, its called OPEN DIVISION. Man up and shoot.
-
Leave it be.
And production optics is ridiculous IMO.
Can I get an AMEN?
I'm with you. Production is fine how it is. It's funny how Limited and Open shooters even have a opinion about production. Leave it be. You can already change a lot as it is.
-
I'm a production shooter. I shoot no other division. The division has enough problems as it is because everyone seems to have their own idea of what they think production should be even tho they might not even shoot production.
I have no problem with this new idea.
However, it shouldn't be a subset of production nor share it's name,because that's dishonest as to why these type of guns are being built in the 1st place. It should be a subset of Open. Open Carry division.
Why Open Carry? People arnt just slapping a optic on their otherwise production legal carry gun and carrying it.
They always have back up irons, not production legal. They often times have NON Production legal things like full stipple jobs, total grip recontouring, mag rip slot cuts, full slide serrations over the whole dam slide, weapon lights/lazers, threaded barrels, mag button relief cuts, duty style mag wells like the Rogers grip adapter and Sentinel magwell, etc etc etc.
If open carry was innacted, ALL of those things should be legal in the division. If anything, the back up irons should be required if a dot is attached. Open Carry Division should allow AIWB placement of holsters unlike production division. Scoring should be Open division style. If you should a .357 Sig gun and you make major, you are major. You $ertainly paid for it
.Who hear really wants to have a 2nd production division and keep all the other rules?
If we are going to do this division,do it for the right reasons.
.
Do uprange starts really add anything to a stage?
in USPSA/IPSC Shooting
Posted
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.