tunabreath

This has been my experience as well. I was extremely disappointed in the poor sound amplification and quality of the sordins, especially given their cost. I wear surefire EP3s under, so I can still hear quite well between the EP3s and the sordin sound amplification, but still have that extra protection in case I accidentally lift the muff with my stock or something. That said, with the gel inserts, the sordins are absolutely the most comfortable to wear for long periods. Combined with their short overall ear cup size and low profile, they seal better and keep out of the way better than anything else I've used, and are my preferred ear pro in conjunction with the EP3s.

I shoot a Versamax as well, and the one additional modification I'd recommend in addition to the above is to reduce and bevel off the back of the plastic fore end ahead of the loading port. The 90 degree corner sitting a good quarter inch off the receiver likes to catch and disrupt the 3rd/4th shell on a quad load as you press the 1st/2nd shell in. Other than that, very reliable, soft shooting, and with a massive 3.5" shell loading port that's really easy to hamfistedly slap shells into.

Any update on this? This reticle looks to have finally covered the only issue I had with the VX-6 - a JM-1 style BDC reticle with daylight bright illumination, with nearly the same field of view and a fraction of the weight of the Razor HD 2. Barring the illuminated center dot being huge, that is. I've only looked through the older firedot 4 VX-6, and if I recall correctly, the dot was the same diameter as the thickness of the fine center bars, probably about 1 MOA. It was definitely larger/thicker than a standard duplex.

This is the truth. Put a spirit level on the scope and make sure the reticle is plumb to it. http://www.scout.com/military/snipers-hide/story/1540059-canted-rifle-level-scope Of course, they also make rifle stocks which are designed to have a canted cheek/buttpad, while keeping the receiver and scope level together to achieve a similar effect.

Not speaking from personal experience, but the in vogue tactical solution right now seems to be SOE Gear shotshell 'cards' and similar removable velcro side saddle systems, along with their carriers (6 shells on a card occupy a similar shape and volume to an AR15 magazine). The problem with those, while they're slightly faster than loading from fixed loop style pouches, and offer more shells at the ready more quickly than a fixed side saddle, is that they're still extremely slow. They are only loading a single shell at a time with hand movement between the gun and the caddy or side saddle each time, slower by far than even the old style of 3-gun weak hand load 4 (but with less chance of a bumble). The proliferation of load 2 and load 4 has completely changed the game and the tactical world has yet to catch on. Loading twins is an order of magnitude faster than loading singles, significantly faster and easier than weak hand load 4, and with less chance of bumbling than weak hand load 4 as well. Loading twins takes about the same level of dexterity (maybe less because of the way your hand funnels the shells) as loading single shells from a side saddle or loop pouch, but you get the ammunition in the gun twice as fast with half the hand movement. Take a look at the two caddies I mentioned. I personally use an EZ8 as my back up shell carrier, or for carrying slugs for changeover. I use Taccom 8's on my chest as my primary caddies. While the Taccoms and similar clip style caddies are great, durable, fast and easy for quad loads, etc, they are very bulky for the number of shells they carry, and very vulnerable to having shells knocked out of them going prone, bumping into things, even slung long guns. In contrast, the EZ8 is quite compact (it doesn't space the shells out between eachother or the backer to give clearance to the hand, they are nearly flush inside the caddy with only the retainer spring plate lifting them away from the back a bit), durable, and most importantly, VERY secure. The shells are enclosed on all sides and nearly impossible to bump out unintentionally. And while they aren't as fast to grab a quad from as the Taccoms, at least they give you the option while remaining secure. For the record, I only pull twins from my EZ8 and quads from my Taccoms. Twins come out of the EZ8 very easily with zero practice, but quads are tougher to manage when you can't get your hand around all 4 shells before extracting them from the carrier like you can on clip style caddies like the Taccom.

If cost isn't a limiter but you're looking for a caddy that is 'practical/tactical' in that it can take a few bumps and not spill your shells anywhere, yet still be loaded quickly (weak hand 4, twins, quads), look at square stacked caddies like the Gunner Solutions EZ8 or Carbon Arms FSL8. They hold the shells a lot more securely than commonly seen clip style twins and quads caddies while still allowing twins and quads to be pulled out of them (not as quickly, of course).

How is the illumination and dot size on the SM2 reticle? I imagine their '2 MOA' description is the 1x size and red dot like, but I'm not sure what that would look like at 6x and on smaller targets.

If you can give me precise dimensions, I can put a fitted one up on Shapeways. I have a bunch of them made up already for other scopes, they work great. Plastic though, but it seems to hold up just fine. https://www.shapeways.com/shops/tunabreath?section=Scope+Accessories&s=0 Sorry if I'm breaking any advertising rules or anything here.

Working on this one, slowly. Anyways, I think I've got this resolved for my own purposes. The tie down I made works great, haven't had a bind since. If I were to get into USPSA, I'd probably get a locking holster with zero draw resistance instead (and I'd have to ditch the light, so I'd need a new holster anyways). @Steve, I'm afraid getting pregnant isn't an option for me as a guy

I think a tie-down might be the way to go for me as a guaranteed fix. Technique clean up is also going to have to happen - I had the rake angle of the holster rather poorly adjusted before, and it was contributing a lot to locking the pistol in the holster and dragging everything up with it and the resulting inconsistency. I've changed pants too and it seems to have helped a lot. Even when the belt goes up above my hip bone, more friction from different materials and the lower cut seem to keep the holster in place well enough that I can at least get the pistol out even with a bad draw, whereas before, it was stuck in the holster completely. I'm curious why a tie-down is prohibited... It seems like in the context of the rule as written, it's prohibiting a shoulder holster with the tie down going from shoulder to belt, rather than a belt holster tied to the leg? I guess it's a catchall to prohibit shoulder and drop leg/thigh holsters, not necessarily intended at limiting hip/belt holsters.

Haha, to be honest, I am seriously considering this now...

Oh, I'm only shooting outlaw 3-gun at the moment, so I guess rules considerations hadn't really occurred to me. I didn't realize that most (sic) of you would be wearing your belts at the waist. That seems uncomfortably high to me, but I guess that explains the DOH and equivalent stuff. I will experiment a bit with this, but I'm imagining that I'll have the same problem at waist level since I don't have enough meat on me - the narrowest point of my waist is pretty high and I've already jammed myself in the ribcage a couple of times with the teklok holding my holster on botched draws. Does having the original belt loops on your pants at or below the top of your hip bones constitute 'waist level' as written there? How much would the increased lever/moment arm from the belt of a DOH or similar possibly compromise my already lacking level of rigidity? This seems like it would probably help a lot. It may end up having a final position with the pistol muzzling my leg when holstered though, I'll play around with it. It seemed more logical with my build. The narrowest point of my waist is about 1.5" above my belly button. A corollary to this, since I'm shooting 3-gun and (again, skinny people problems) don't have much real estate available on my small belt circumference, I also wear a chest rig. Having my belt above my hip bones starts to cause interference with the taller mag pouches and the bottom of my chest rig (shotshell carriers generally).

So I'm 5'8", 115lbs soaking wet, and can't seem to keep my belt and holster positioned rigidly enough to get a good consistent draw. The belt and holster are rigid together, and the belt is locked into my pants well, but when I pull up on the pistol to draw it out of the holster, it'll take the holster, belt, and my pants up with it, tipping over enough that it often locks up my draw against my body (belt rises, muzzle tips outward). I'm using a CR belt and a custom kydex holster that's pretty similar to a Blade Tech competition holster, but accommodates a weaponlight. The holster is passive retention only and has been adjusted to be extremely loose, almost too loose. The problem is that when the holster tips outward enough with my belt and pants, the draw direction is locked against my upper body. No matter how tight I sinch the belt down around my hips, every once and a while, either during the draw or vigorous movement, the pistol side of the belt can work its way above my hip bone and all rigidity is more or less lost as it falls into the slope towards my waist. Part of the problem might be my regular shooting pants are soft-shell-like technical material that's pretty slick. I've been playing around the house with my belt in skinny jeans, which definitely seems to hold the belt/holster in place, but it also holds the rest of my legs in place... Possible accuracy benefit there ala shooting jacket skeletal support, but it sure makes it difficult to run around Anyone have any advice? Do I just need pants with a lower cut belt line?

If I could add to this, how does the P-09 compare to the older non-interchangable backstraps and newer interchangable backstraps P-07s?

That is a good point. This whole technical process is accomplished naturally and without active effort, in a fraction of a second. We're kind of ignoring the forest for the trees here.