teros135

I'm thinking of covering the motor in tinfoil. Keeps the EMF to minimum and keeps the CIA from stealing the motor's thoughts

You broke it already? Duh! See you figured out that the bolts to mount the Evo press to the autodrive base plate come with the autodrive, not the press. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Sounds like the new classifier, 18-09, from Nats this year. Was it fun to shoot?

Nicely said. Happy new year!

Well, there's a pretty big gap between GM and B/C.

Just to clarify, are y'all talking about inclining it backward, so the bullets nestle more firmly against the collator plate?

Could you tell us how you adjusted the angle to do that? Did you lean it farther back (top/back rim away from you), or more forward, or tilted more to the left or right? TIA...

Troll looking for sales

Whiners? You special?

I've done it both ways, very small radius (1/64", like the old Bullseye folks) and very large, gradual curve (like many builders these days). The small radius hits the hammer very low, close to the fulcrum (pin), which makes the slide work harder to get it started moving, then it finally takes off. It creates a harsher dot movement and more muzzle rise, compared to the softer and gentler hammer movement created by the radiused FPS.

The Akai and Limcat folks may have a different take on this. They, and maybe the engineering folks, may want to chime in.

To increase muzzle rise? Why?

Yeah, the barrel moves about 1/4" (and of course the slide is moving, too, and the guide rod/spring). Then the barrel stops moving backwards and links down. By that point the bullet is already gone. The slide, all 10 oz of it, keeps moving rapidly another 1.65", stops suddenly by the guide rod flange hitting the frame, and suddenly reverses and slams forward again. I'm trying to figure out how the barrel and guide rod assembly have the same effect on recoil that the slide does. Lightening the slide should help that, and of course springing it properly. We know some folks put tungsten sleeves on the barrel to try and delay the first few microseconds of recoil, and maybe that helps. Of course, the sleeve makes the gun a bunch heavier and more balanced toward the muzzle, too. The hybrid island may have a bit of that effect, but probably not as much because it weighs less. Have to ask, if the titanium comp has such as negative effect on recoil, why do so many top-level builders use them? To answer the OP's question from my own perspective, I use titanium comps to keep the gun from being too nose-heavy and to move the balance point back toward the trigger guard (a bit). Some have said the steel comp helps control recoil for pairs at distance (maybe 25 yds or more) but don't have any discernible effect closer in. For me, I can't really tell. I do know the hybrid gun with titanium comp, which is pretty heavy anyway, helps recoil control doing pairs. It's also sprung pretty well and is stroked but has buffs. I think that, overall, it's what works for you is the best setup, and the really trick setups might be noticed mainly by the really practiced (and perhaps gifted) shooters.

B_RAD beat me to it, as I was writing. I'm not an engineer, but it seems that a 10 oz (or so) slide moving ~1.9" and back in less than .10 second in the horizontal plane would have a tad more energy - and effect on recoil - than the back end of a barrel moving horizontally only a tad and vertically about 1/4 inch at the back end as it de-links and re-links. The added barrel mass from the hybrid island is in the front, the part that isn't moving so much. Perhaps someone among us with the requisite skills could provide some data for this.

Don't hybrid barrels decrease reciprocating weight (the slide), by cutting a slot in the slide for the barrel island? This is in addition to any slide cuts, of course.

Good points, although we seem to be talking about two separate issues here. One is start POSITION (e.g., hands at sides, gun holstered or PCC at low ready). The other is start LOCATION (where you're standing when you take the start position). It makes sense that handgun and PCC would have different start positions (within reason), considering their different configurations. The rules already speak to this. OTOH, there's no rule, or tradition, that allows different Divisions to have different start locations in the COF. Everybody shoots the same COF. That seems pretty straightforward.

Aah. Thanks for the clarification

And that's the usual fallback position when you run out of real data.

I've been using canned dusters, like for computers. Works pretty well. The compressor sounds like a good idea.

I run the CMJs, and they're the same quality and accuracy as the JHPs. Both are easy to load.

Has to be a typo. Surely he meant a 62 round match.

And it wouldn't state that, just as it doesn't state it for the handgun divisions. It also doesn't state that there CAN be different start positions for different Divisions. What I can't figure out is why conversations like this even happen .

If PCC is only shooting against PCC and they need to have a totally different starting place (and thus a different shooting challenge than all the pistol divisions), shouldn't they be having their own match?

"Used to be" is history. Knowing history is nice, but reading the book isn't that hard. Trouble is, laziness is easier .

Agree with RadarTech. There's nothing in the book that requires a "grease ring" (actually a smoke ring) for normal hits. That was overinterpretation of the rules and not equitable for the competitor.