phoenixsomd
-
Posts
293 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by phoenixsomd
-
-
Running the same 135g bullet requires 3.3g of e3 in my SP-01 to make a 130PFThose seem way slow. My production load with a 125 is 3.8 for ~1060fps
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
-
I run 135g xTreme RN with 2.7g of e3 with avg of 965 FPS - 130PFDespite 6 straight days of 105 degree or hotter temps, I needed to chrono some loads for my new JP GMR-15, 16" barrel. Today was only 103, plus I had a little shade to work with. All the info is the average of three 10 round strings.
124 RMR bullets
3.3 grains E3
H 995
L 912
Avg 956
ES 84
SD 23
PF 118 Too slow, no recoil.
124 RMR bullets
3.5 grains E3
H 1035
L 985
Avg 1011
ES 54
SD 15
PF 125 Still slow, no recoil, slight improvement.
124 RMR bullets
3.7 grains E3
H 1068
L 993
Avg 1040
ES 35
SD 21
PF 129 better, flat shooting, but need some more juice.
I had a leftover White box of WInchester 124 grain round nose.
H 1289
L 1218
Avg 1265
ES 71
SD 24
PF 157 too much, sight was bouncing around, definitely not a round or PF I'd go with.
I think I'l go up to 3.8-3.9 grains and see where that puts me. PF of 135-140 seems like it'd be the sweet spot. The JP functioned flawlessly, trigger was great. Perfect weight and length for me.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
-
-
I've been using a UTG Alpha Battle Carrier Sling Pack - 34". I can put the PCC inside with my magazine bag (6 mags loaded) and belt with pouches. Outside pockets fit tools, parts, small ammo box (225 rnds). I also have a scabbard to take the rifle to the line. I roll it in a cart along with h2o and such.I resurrected an old AR-15 soft case to use for my new PCC rifle... It's good for carrying an AR rifle to the range and back, but not so good for bagging and unbagging a rifle at each stage... The rifle gets caught in the soft padding and is cumbersom to take out and put away after shooting a stage.
Any of you all have an AR-9 range case that you like for competitions?
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
-
I've found a scabbard to work. Easy in and easy out.I resurrected an old AR-15 soft case to use for my new PCC rifle... It's good for carrying an AR rifle to the range and back, but not so good for bagging and unbagging a rifle at each stage... The rifle gets caught in the soft padding and is cumbersom to take out and put away after shooting a stage.
Any of you all have an AR-9 range case that you like for competitions?
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
-
Ben Stoeger's books are good for PCC as well. His latest one is an improvement of the last few and one I would recommend.
There are multiple sets of drills to focus on fundamentals through small stage movement. The PAR times he has are goals for Production. Practicing with PCC you will be establishing lower times for the same drills. You can experiment with starting positions you might encounter during a match as well. I have found that the fundamental drills allow you to focus on transitions which for me is an area of improvement.
-
Well statedSince USPSA has opened the box of tinkering with classifier HHF's (a system that, at least for established divisions, was reasonably effective at dividing the shooting population into roughly appropriate boxes), I'd like to suggest that we re-think the way classifications are calculated.
First, we need to agree on what the purpose of a classifier system is. I would posit the purposes are as follows:- To test, under uniform conditions, core shooting skills (as distinct from stage planning or movement skills);
- To sort competitors into groups of similar shooting skill (i.e., to function as a handicap system); and
- To allow shooters to gauge their overall progress and standing within the population in terms of skill.
If those are the goals, then a system based on percentiles, rather than percentages, seems more appropriate. (If you do not know the difference between percentile and percentage, the rest of this post won't make any sense.) It would also be easier to administer (automatic, really), remove subjectivity, make it possible to include new classifiers easily, make it easy (automatic) to develop appropriate classifications for any new or changed divisions, make it possible for every classifier shot to have an equal likelihood of being used in the system (avoiding the do-no-work classifiers that currently tend only generate "Below" scores in the system), avoid the problem of artificially low/easy HHF's on a few classifiers resulting in easy grandbagging, and help to more meaningfully separate the truly world-class shooters from the "mere" local GM's.
How would it work? As now, shooters would shoot classifiers as stages in matches. There would be no change to how the classifiers are scored or how they play into the match. No changes at the match/MD/local level would be required. The only difference is what happens when the scores are plugged into "the system" on Tuesday night (or whenever it rolls). When a shooter's score is uploaded, it will be compared to all the uploaded scores on record of all other shooters in the division. Instead of a percentage being calculated against a particular HHF (however that is chosen/calculated at present), the percentile of the score is used. I.e., if 50% of the scores are above a particular shooter's HF on a classifier, and 50% are below, then that is a 50% for classification purposes... regardless of what percentage it is of the highest HF on record or other arbitrary HHF. One's classification would simply be an averaging of some selection of these percentile scores (we could keep the 6-of-8-minus-exclusions methods if desired).
Why would it be better? For a whole bunch of reasons. Because the percentiles would reflect the actual performance of shooters, there would be no risk of a poorly-chosen HHF. Because it would update continuously, it would prevent HHF's from being outdated - if the population got better, then the percentile rank of a given HF would move down, and vice versa. It would automatically and swiftly set the proper levels for new divisions, or divisions after gear/rule changes. It would allow competitors to accurately know how they rank against the population of USPSA shooters, not just an imaginary HHF shooter.
At a deeper level, it would do a better job of capturing the real differences in performance among shooters at all skill levels. Let's make up a pair of hypothetical stages. One is similar to El Prez, but shot at 10 yards with relatively close spacing between the targets, all of which are open. The other has exactly the same targets and the same distances and spacing, but has no shoots in between the targets eliminating the sides of the D-zones. For a high-level shooter on a good day (maybe what HHF is supposed to capture?), the times and hits on those two stages will be very similar... they'll be able to rip all A's quickly... they wouldn't be likely to hit a D, so having no-shoots covering some D-zone makes no difference to their score. On the other hand, for a lower-skilled shooter, they may have to slow down by a measurable amount in order to be assured of staying penalty free. Or they will have a much higher chance of getting one or more penalties. A HHF selected to reflect what is appropriate for a strong shooter will either mean lots of "below" coded scores for less-skilled shooters on the harder stage or lots of outlier/grandbagging scores on the easier stage. Alternatively, a HHF selected to reflect this change in difficulty/set appropriately for lower-skilled shooters (which would require a lower HHF on the harder stage) would result in high-skill shooters smashing the HHF and posting scores well over 100%. Similar dynamics manifest with lots of the long-distance "standards" type classifiers, where lower-skilled shooters simply cannot make the shots reliably enough to get scores that even count in the current system.
It would also reflect the full range of approaches to a classifier stage. Both the "match mode" runs and the "hero or zero" (regardless of how they turn out) runs would factor into the score distributions.
This system would also do a much better job of measuring the differences between highly-skilled shooters. As skill level/performance level increases, real gains in skill/performance come in smaller and smaller increments. Each successive tenth of time shaved off a draw or reload is harder than the previous one. At the upper reaches of the sport, a repeatable 3% difference in HF on a set of classifiers may represent a far larger gap in skill - a gap that then shows up as bigger differences in overall match performance.
There are other reasons this would be a superior system, but these seem like more than enough to me. As long as USPSA is tinkering, let's go to a rational system. People and organizations whose livelihoods depend on predicting outcomes based on tests almost universally use percentiles, rather than percentages, for their systems. It's simply a better approach.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
-
For me there is a clear advantage running a green dot over the red. I shoot pistol and pcc with both eyes open and a target focus. Green easily appears in my overall picture better than red. I know part of it has to do where green light is positioned in the visible spectrum.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk -
Site is offline at this point...
-
I target a 130K PF. You also need to look at the SD of the load to ensure you don't have a significant portion of your distribution falling under minor PF.Curious what PF you aim to make for USPSA minor. Apologies if this has been answered but I wasn’t able to find a lot.
I did some chrono testing with my CED Pro Digital chrono and found the following based on 10 shot groups from my match gun:
PF 131.2 ES 21 SD 7
PF 134.5 ES 34 SD 11
PF 138.6 ES 16 SD 4
138 seems way too high so the debate is 131 vs 134. My loads were using VV N320 which is allegedly pretty temperature stable.
In general, what PF are you comfortable with?
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
-
You can download the classifier stages and WSBs from the USPSA website if you wishAlso note that most classifiers have the "buttstock on the belt" for the start position.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
-
I run a 11# in my TS with either 180g or 200g Bayou's at Major PF. I perceive that the sights get back on target quicker than with a higher # spring. I felt as though the higher # springs forced the nose of the slide to dip before resettling as well.
-
My general observations on this topic is that over the course of PCC being a division in USPSA:
1. The rules have evolved about handling (case, no-case, slung, cart...)
2. The rules have evolved about written stage briefs (starting positions...)
3. That the attitude of Match Directors, RM's, CRO's, RO's and shooters on the division and the folks who participate has ranged from embracing to being dismissive
Given the above it is not surprising that we are struggling still with the rules-of-engagement for the division. I expect stability will arrive in the not too distant future and many of these differences in perception and interpretation will subside.
-
I bought my Walker Silencer ear buds for under $150 on sale. I've been happy with them.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk -
Certain combinations of bolt, buffer and spring with a given load can cause what you are seeing. If the rearward movement of the bolt is not far enough extraction isn't complete before the bolt starts moving forward. You'll need to find your right combination for balancing smooth feeding while minimizing dot movement.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk -
I believe the advise in the comments above is on the mark. If you were having troubles with feeding or ejection then I believe you might look at experimenting with spring-buffer combinations. A lot of fire control setup for AR's (223/5.56) may not be dimensionally compatible with a AR-9 bolt so, you search till you find the one that other's recommend for your combination of components and give it a try!
-
Checked them. They're back ordered currently.I recently moved and haven't been able to start reloading again yet, so I've been on the hunt for some ammo for my PCC that would be a reasonable power factor without breaking the bank. I've used Peak Performance 124gr in my pistols and it makes PF in everything from my G19 to 6" STI and shoots great, but was about 150PF out of my 16" PSA PCC. After meeting Garrison England at the Missouri 3 Gun Championship, I was checking out the website of one of his sponsors, Highland Lakes Ammunition, and came across a product that they call -P3g Ammo. It's a 115gr projectile that's loaded very lightly for use in 3 gun since there's no power factor requirements. I got in touch with Garrison and another shooter who has shot it in his PCC and they said that it worked great and made PF in a 14.5" JP, so I decided to give it a shot.
I ordered 2000rds of it and received it less than a week after placing my order. I was able to get out to the range earlier this week, got some chronograph results, and ran about 500rds through my PCC in practice with zero issues. As you can see in the screenshots of my chrono numbers, I averaged 131.6PF with surprisingly low maximum spread and standard deviation. I didn't take a screen shot of it, but just for fun I ran some through my 6" STI and it averaged 1010fps or 116.2PF. I'm going to be running this ammo in my next three majors and will report back after running a bunch more rounds through my gun. I have no affiliation with HLAmmo, just wanted to help out some other PCC shooters that can't or don't reload.
Highland Lake 9mm 115grain -P3G Ammo
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
-
I have short fingers so it fits great compared to the Chechmate version I had previously
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk -
A picture of the TS with the Nitro Fin. I've shot several matches with it. I eliminated the ability to lock the slide back
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk -
On 3/28/2018 at 12:11 PM, davsco said:
for the walkers and peltors above, 1) how long do the batteries work before needing recharging (do they last a full match), and 2) how well do they work in 3 gun (ie ar15 and ar10 rifle noise)?
The Walkers use hearing aid batteries and yes they will last an entire 1-day match
-
Walker Silencer ear plugs have work like ed well for me. I've seen them for as low as $140 routinely. Comfortable, all-day wear.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk -
Same one I useHere is what I use. Can't go wrong for only $20. Very easy to carry, case and uncase.
Rifle Scabbard on Amazon
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
-
I use a wagon for all my matches so, a scabbard works well for me. I have another large case for transport but it's way too big for match use.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk -
Good advise to buy agew of each brand to try to see what works in a particular PCC. I would add the Magpul magazines to the list to try, especially for classifiers.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Angstadt Arms bolt carrier.
in Pistol Caliber Carbine
Posted
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk