MetropolisLake

I thought I was over this but Saturday night there was a night match where we had to shoot a plate rack at a decent distance, in the dark with a flashlight. It was hard enough due to them being painted black and only a small 2" white square in the middle with some thin crosshairs painted on, plus I didn't have a weapon light and was holding a flashlight in my weak hand and could not see anything but a weak silhouette of the sights. I missed a couple of times but then it occurred to me that the entire squad is watching me make a fool of myself. Suddenly got very jittery, and could not hit that thing to save my life, was kind of shaking. I bet I shot 8 times at the same plate. Ended up having to use a 2x4 wall as a brace to steady the gun.

I have a box of nitros at home, I'll run through those tonight. Shot a few 3" turkey loads last weekend and it did ok but it wasn't high volume at all. Bryan Ray said if I can induce a jam to look at the carrier due to it possibly being bent: "Sure sounds like a weak recoil spring if it’s just failing to feed, or maybe a bent carrier. There’s a tab on the side of the carrier that keeps the shell lined up with the chamber. When it hangs up on feed cycle, before touching the bolt take a look at it and see if the shell crimp is getting hung up on the extractor." I'll try to check that out and take a picture if there's anything worth looking at. If I come by it would have to be on a weekend or early evening.

I went through this same mess and caught some flack over it. I ended up getting both a worked over G35 as well as a base model STI Eagle. That was nearly 2 years ago so I have kind of seen some pros and cons. 1. The Glock magazines are very reliable, cheap, and easy to find. They can also suck badly because of the extensions. Supposedly the older gen 3's are fine but something changed on gen 4 glock mags. Taran himself had to work with mine and I still have problems with one, it will not load more than 17 rounds. You get to that point and you can feel the springs torquing against something on the inside. 2011 mags are much nicer and straightforward, but can be finnicky such as tuning the feed lips. Maybe a toss up here. 2. It's hard if not impossible to DQ yourself with a glock on 3-gun when throwing it in the bucket. However, every person I know who shoots a 2011 has been DQ'ed because of this at some point. advantage: glock. 3. If you fix up a glock, it will not retain it's value whatsoever. It's pretty disheartening. You can spend twice what it's worth but when you go to sell it, it's worth about what a factory one costs. 2011's retain their value better, especially if you don't dink with custom stuff much. advantage: 2011 4. 2011's just feel and look sexy. Even base model ones feel like the slide is on roller bearings. Big difference. I think pride of ownership is much higher with one. advantage: 2011 5. Glocks can feel sexy enough but it's just not the same. It's also weird because once you get used to it, every other Glock in the world will feel like the absolute turd that they are, while a base model 2011 still feels awesome. advantage: 2011 6. Unless you do get the DVC, 2011's will need a trigger job. Glocks do too but after my Glock's trigger job, I am much more accurate with it than with my Eagle. If I had to hit a 4" plate at 25 yards, I'd pick the Glock every time. Glocks are way plenty accurate enough for 3-gun. If you can't hit what you're aiming at, it ain't the gun's fault. 7. Even local gunsmiths can work on a glock. However, some of those same guys may have never even heard of a 2011 before. I've met them, no way am I leaving one with them. advantage: glock 8. Field stripping a Glock is stupid easy comparatively.

I have a Benelli Super Black Eagle II which I got used but it was in excellent condition, obviously not abused like many I have seen. I had it worked over with a race package and just about every option possible. Problem is, it has never worked right. It shoots, the next shell gets flicked back, the loading ramp starts to come up, but then when the bolt gets about 1/3 of the way forward, it just stops. I have to give it an extra bump by grabbing the bolt handle, pulling it back, and let it go, in order for that round to make it in the chamber. Obviously this is super annoying in matches. $2,500+ shotgun and I have to borrow somebody else's M2 because otherwise I have to manually charge the thing after every shot. I don't know that it is one type of ammo in particular because this has happened with literally every shot on Federal slugs, Rio bird shot, and Remington Gun Club bird shot. And, due to having borrowed another one, I don't know that it is the shooter, because the other guy's M2 cycled just fine with gun club ammo, although after the last shot one did get caught in the feeding tube, which isn't what I'm experiencing but still kinda makes you wonder. Everything on it feels super smooth otherwise. I previously sent it back in and supposedly there was a burr on it that got fixed that was keeping the lifter from coming up properly and had to be manually moved, this was the explanation: "I've got the bugs worked out of your gun. The lifter sticking/bolt locking back was caused by a part on the trigger group having a sharp edge that can wedge against the bolt (I have seen this before on Super Black Eagle). That was an easy fix. If you want to reliable shoot 1200 fps loads I can change the recoil spring to reduced power spring. With the factory spring the Super Black Eagle needs a 1250 fps or hotter load to generate enough recoil to cycle well. I have temporarily put a reduced power spring in the gun and shot some 1200 fps Remington Gun Club and STS shells, all cycled well. The down side to changing the spring is increased recoil when shooting 3” or 3.5” shells. Your shoulder will know the difference. Let me know if you want to go with the reduced power spring." I'm pretty sure this reduced power spring was left in but Remington Gun Club still stops it after every shot. I'm not sure it's the same issue though, previously I had to often manually move the lifter. I'll obviously be switching to something like the Remington Nitro's and see if that is more reliable, but what trips me out is that it's actually cycling ok, like I said earlier the next shell gets ejected out of the tube magazine, it's lifted up, but it's like the bolt does not have enough power behind it to push it forward. So, Is the higher power spring plus a higher power load like the Nitro's the only way a super black eagle is going to function right? I was trying to avoid the nearly 50% higher ammo cost plus extra recoil more than anything. Gun Club is $6.48. Nitros are $8.99 plus kicks harder.

Same thing with the round ones. Seems like every time I look at the side of mine there is a big fat fingerprint on it.

If you can afford it just get a Marauder. Best of both worlds. Biggest thing the Edge gets you is the extra weight up front, which is great for .40, not needed much with 9mm. But, if you're getting an Edge for 3-gun, I don't know why you wouldn't just get a Tactical, basically is an Edge in black with a rail which could help with night matches. I have an Eagle, it works fine. However, I wish mine had a light rail up front and was matte black. The polished blued finish on Eagles is VERY touchy, I find myself rubbing the thing down constantly. That's the one thing I do not like. A matte finish and a half rail would be awesome, which is exactly what the Marauder gets you. If you're going to mistreat the thing and get your grubby greasy hands all over it constantly, I don't know why anybody would voluntarily get a polished blued finish, my cerakoted Glock works much better in this regard. .

My opinion doesn't count due to lower skill level but personally at least nowadays I'll pick pistol over shotgun every time. The small amount of extra time I take to aim or fire off a couple of reshoots simply doesn't add up to the several seconds I'd have to take to reload a shotgun, assuming that is a risk. Plus, it's just plain fun, I get tons more satisfaction hitting small steel at distance with a pistol. It's the one time I actually get to aim hard and worry about trigger control which sometimes seems like it is a rare thing. There's not much challenge there when choosing a shotgun on optional targets, at typical distances if you take your time anybody can hit them. Can't really say the same thing about 4" steel at 15-25 yards with a pistol, some dudes will sit there and hit nothing but air over and over even when aiming hard and taking forever. I was one of them, which is partially why I enjoy being able to actually hit the things now.

I've been using these since I posted this but recently ran into the same problem I had before. If they are in the air conditioning and I put them in they work great. If they get hot at all, or if I have to talk to someone so I take them out and try to put them back in or whatever, they expand too quickly and are not firm or small enough to go into my ear. It just really doesn't take much and they are useless. I've been trying to put them in after they've been sitting in the AC then leaving them in the whole time, its the only way they will work. My silicone Hear Pros should be here before too long plus I have some good muffs now.

That's a lot of numbers. My somewhat newbie opinion doesn't count, but as a .40 shooter even in 3-gun, I wouldn't mind a USPSA style of scoring that gave higher scores to larger calibers, but even that is somewhat of a time consuming chore comparatively when you have to score and record every target. As a family man who works two jobs, I just want to shoot and get the hell back home. It takes enough time already to get everybody through a stage, we've even had local club matches that got cut off where we had to skip I think 2 out of 6 stages due to time constraints. Why make this even worse by introducing more complex scoring? Seems like it would do more harm than good.

Just got back from the ear doctor, right ear is perfect but long guns and probably car stereos in my previous life are taking a toll on my left, have a maybe 10db dip around 4-6kHz which is tell tale of damage due to overexposure. Of course it didn't help that there was a hum from the air conditioner on my left side either that I could hear right through the sound booth and felt that it drowned some sounds out. Still within the normal range, but I need to be more careful. So regardless, nothing but doubling up for me from now on. Impressions are shipping out to Hear Pro in mañana. Just need to make it another month or so.

I'm guessing they're all the same, but I am looking for some good foam earplugs while my custom silicone ones are being made. I would like to find some that don't bend or expand rapidly when they get hot and/or wet, that drowns out rifle blasts as much as possible. Does such a thing exist? I have tried multiple pairs and they work great in the AC but when it gets hot, humid, and sweaty, they poof up too fast and go limp, and I can't insert them as much as I need to. Any advice? I have some Pro Ears muffs on the way and got fitted for Hear Pro customs a week ago.

I toyed with various cleats and finally found some that I like, which are Nike baseball cleats. The problem with cleats in general is that some of the soles of football and soccer cleats are very hard plastic meant solely for use on the grass, but anywhere else they are slick as snot. The baseball cleats have a softer rubber that was made for gripping the diamond in baseball, but this means they also grip things like big rocks and wet lumber very well even if you never see any mud. I used them this past weekend for some trail stages, one was running down a sketchy rocky dirt bike trail with a shotgun. I had to switch over to my cleats from my Merrell hiking shoes to feel like I was getting the traction that I wanted. They're not the best in terms of arch support though, not really that great to stand around in all day due to this but I have zero issues with traction. These in particular run very narrow though, if anybody tries them you have to get the wide for them to fit like most other normal shoes. Best of all, they're only $35. http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/product/index.jsp?productId=13320956&cp=4406646.4413887.4414014.24586626.11242173.11248969

Has anybody actually been blinded by this? Is it a regular thing? I mean is it actually a reasonable fear to worry that you'll lose an eye? I'm aware of shrapnel cutting people but are there actually instances where ricocheting shrapnel off a target literally busted through a cheaper set of glasses and blinded someone?

http://www.elvex.com/Facts-What-changes-in-ANSI-Z87.1-2010.htm Interesting. Apparently for glasses to be ANSI compliant you only have to survive a single 1/4" steel ball traveling 150 fps. That doesn't seem very impressive considering that ESS can be directly blasted with a shotgun and will survive. That's literally almost identical to getting hit in the face with an airsoft pellet, it's the same caliber and speed, although steel would be a little harder.

Yeah but clear safety glasses can cost $3. A pair of Louis Vuitton glasses can be over $700. I'd probably go with the $3 jobbers. Reason I asked is that I swapped my Oakley flak jackets with more ballistic oriented prism lenses for some Oakley Valve's with plain but ANSI rated lenses. Was curious as to whether that was sufficient for shooting 3-gun in but I couldn't find any kind of minimum standard, there doesn't seem to be anything. I'm not even real sure what the risks are. I know once in a blue moon you'll get shrapnel from pistol shots at steel coming back at you but I don't know how hard they hit you and what it takes to stop it from poking you in the eye.

Everybody knows you need good eye protection, but at meets I've seen aviators that look rather brittle, sportier glasses like Oakley and Tifosi that I know are shatterproof but not really ballistic rated, prescription glasses, ANSI rated safety glasses like you'd find on a shop floor, ESS crossbows that are rated for a direct shotgun blast, etc., etc., etc. Are there not any standards to this stuff? Seems like everybody is on a different page. Also curious as to if 3-gun has additional risks to your eyes vs. pistol only, such as pellets or rifle shells, or if everything ought to be the same as USPSA or whatever.

Gander Mountain had the entire setup, not just the lenses. As a follow up, I'm disappointed to say that it does seem to be the lenses that are causing the eye strain, just not sure why. My eyes are more comfortable with no sunglasses as opposed to wearing these for any decent amount of time. They seem to be ok for short term use but not extended. My Tifosi's of a similar tint does not do this. My ESS Crossbow's that are a little darker than the Tifosi's do this to some extent. I don't know what is different about them. My eyes are a little sensitive due to LASIK complications, not sure if a normal person could tell the difference or not.

Got a pair of Oakley Flak Jackets with the low light Prizm lens about a week ago. Just a short review. First of all, I don't agree with some guys who say the low light version is all you need. During the middle of the day, if it is clear, the brightness is fairly unbearable to me. I have to wear a hat with them and even then it is very bright. I am going to have to get the darker version. It strained my eyes with long term use quite honestly, but I'm not sure if it is the color spectrum blocking stuff or the brightness. Personally I think Oakley is marketing them wrong. They act like targets will almost glow. Well... kind of, sort of, not really. There seems to be two things that it does. Any kind of grayish blue tint gets turned into kind of a slight purplish lavendar color, so yeah I guess on raw steel targets it does do this to an extent. It also changes the color of true blue as well, so sometimes the sky or even my Cosmos Blue Jeep looks amazingly cool. Sometimes things get turned into a color that you are not used to seeing and that does catch your attention a bit, but I didn't notice anything blending into the background and glowing like some of the ads make it sound like. However, with this color blocking and enhancement, when you take them off, for some reason the color yellow really stands out. Everything that is yellow caught my eye as seeming super bright. So, it's doing something. What it does the best though, which many of the ads don't tell you, is that somehow they have packed in some extreme contrast, especially with vegetation. If I am looking into some woods or at least across a field with several trees and whatnot at multiple distances, with the naked eye or normal glasses it often appears to be a big nasty conglomerate of vegetation that blends together and it is hard to tell one from another without studying it. With the Prizm lenses, wow, looking into the woods is more like viewing one of those 3-D pop-up books that kids use, you can really tell things apart and judge distances better. Because of this I don't know why they aren't marketing them to hunters. Seems to me that it would be really nice for that. Multiple layers of trees look amazing through these lenses, I just don't know why. The edges are REALLY defined. Anyway, just my two cents... or $165 as the case may be.

Lots of parents do this across all activities. T-ball, piano lessons, swimming, whatever. I don't see the point in it, it only causes the kid to hate the activity that the parent wants them to love and causes way too much stress at an age that should be stress free. Music lessons is one thing, but you put that kind of stress on a kid that has a deadly weapon, and it wouldn't be something that I would be cool with. I'm perfectly fine with younger kids shooting in general with direct supervision but not with a parent pushing them into action sports. Personally I think they should start with stuff like trap to get used to range commands, basic safety issues, performance anxiety, etc.

It was the Accurate Armory guys who caught my eye. I'm not sure exactly what they are but Pike runs one, I think I've seen Pike's son running one, either Steve or Keith had one on too. Not sure what exactly it is but it's lower than usual and has a thigh strap. It looks both goofy and comfortable at the same time.

I was under the impression that thigh rigs are a big no-no unless you wanted to be labeled a mall ninja, Tactical Timmy, (sub)Urban Operator, etc. However, at the last meet I went to there were multiple top notch guys shamelessly running the things. Seems like the extra room on your belt, being able to relax your arms without your magwell poking out into your arm like a WRS holster does, and having a more natural position for drawing would all be big positives but I don't want to stick out like a newbie idiot any more than I already do. I need a holster for my 2011 for 3-gun so I'm kinda curious about them.

Another way of thinking about it is that a decent 1-4 or 1-6 scope can do everything that a red dot can, so if the rules for your class allow it, why wouldn't you run a variable scope so you can have the red dot functionality but still be able to better see the long distance targets? Of course some guys like the challenge of an unmagnified optic or iron sights, but personally I like magnified scopes because I'm a wuss I guess.

Read Ecclesiastes. All of it. 10 times.

So basically I've never had anybody give me any instruction and feedback on stance, grip, shouldering, things like that. I've just kind of been shooting crap uptil I halfway figure it out only to learn that I still suck. Is there a competition based class anywhere around Kentucky I might consider? I know there's a few NRA instructors that are used to slow firing a revolver, and there's always the CCDW, refused to be a victim, NRA basic marksmanship, but that's not really what I'm looking for. Need a kick start on how to run guns more aggressively and not so sloppily, not how to hit stuff, although that wouldn't really hurt. Recoil management interests me the most. A couple hours one on one with somebody would be pretty nice.

I'm running a 16" now so I know how that feels. I had a JP 18" with the 15" handguard and the heat sink, felt like I was handling a weighted softball bat. I don't know how an 18" lightweight setup feels like though. I did used to have a 14.5" with a plastic handguard that was light. Only thing I didn't like about it in terms of handling was that on unsupported longer distance targets it didn't feel as stable, kind of like in the same way that longer shotguns swing better than 18" ones at the skeet club.