Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Friction

Classified
  • Posts

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Friction

  1. Just to follow up. I just shot a match with the MecGar mag kits from the BSPS. (TTI Extensions, GramSpring and follower) and they were flawless with 23rnds of Zero147 JHP loaded to an OAL of 1.125. Thats about .040 longer than I would typically load my CZ ammo but I had a bunch leftover from a different batch of ammo so I gave it a shot and it worked fine. None of the mags required any tuning/tweaking.
  2. Has anyone had Primary Machine cut the slide without re-finishing the slide? What did that cost? Has anyone used Lone Wolf?
  3. Are optics cuts possible on an original SP-01 slide? Has anyone done the same math with them? I'm using a dovetail to FFIII adapter on it now but I would rather have it cut in. Thanks
  4. Some good points addressed in the link to the other threads posted by MoRivera. The key one that stood out for me is the process for clearing it on anything but an empty mag. Since the ejector is part of the magazine, if you dump the mag before you pull the round out of the chamber you wind up having to manually remove the round from the bolt face. The only way to ULSC with a partially loaded mag is to lock the bolt back and then drop the mag. That's pretty much the opposite of any habitual technique. I could see that being a problem for people.
  5. Your 2nd issue is a huge point. I hadn't considered that since all the test footage always has the mags run dry.
  6. Anyone have any experience using Mean Arms 5.56 to 9mm mag conversion kits? I’m not looking at them for competition use, but I like the idea ditching an adapter block to more easily share SBR lowers. I’m just curious if they actually work reliably. TIA https://www.meanarms.com/products/detail/endomag-9mm
  7. All the good points about N320 have been made already so I wont repeat them. The only thing to considered is that while clean, it is also a very fast powder which makes it fairly innefective at providing enough gas pressure to a comp for any drastic effects. I use it with 147s and an 8” barrel and my brake is mainly used as a “loudener” so the timer doesn’t miss anything.
  8. No kidding, the 17 round mags probably wouldn't make the gauge if I wrote my name on the bottom with a fat sharpie.. I went with the Mecgar kits from the BSPS and am very happy with them so far.
  9. Have you seen any differences in loading difficulty/reliability based on the brass being used? Are you using typical range pickup resized in a press or something fancy like matched head stamps or roll sized brass? Thanks
  10. The Henning kit is $84, the TTI kit is $68. Both have the Grams spring and follower. The descriptions on the site are confusing but my understanding is that they both result in 23 round in the mag, 22 reloadable.
  11. Thanks for the info, I just tried to source those parts and with the CZC extension and the Gram Spring/follower I wind up at almost $60 per set after shipping. The Mec-Gar kit with those things and a 17rnd mag is $67 at the BSPS. As much as I don't want to get more mags, at an extra $7 it seems to make sense.
  12. A bunch of the extensions I can find online (TTI, Henning) reference only being usable with Mec-Gar mags or the Gen-2 (Shadow 2) mags. I have way to many original CZ mags as it stands to justify buying the Mec-Gar mags unless that is my only option. Any suggestions?
  13. Forgot to mention, the see through cover that comes with a FFIII is also a nice addition if you are using it on a non reciprocating mount. If you ever have to shoot in the rain or a real low angle sunlight condition you can keep the cover on while shooting. It would probably fly off on the first round if you kept it on and fired an open gun, but even then, the site would be dry until that point.
  14. Keep in mind that while the window is small, the frame around it is also very thin compared to other systems. The frame an an EOTECH or HoloSun are easily three times as thick and that blind spot can be more annoying then a small window that blends in and is relatively unnoticeable at speed. I've used a FFIII on 9mm CZ, 9mm Glock and 2 AR-9s for the last 2 years with no problems. Prior to using them I broke an Insight MRDS which cost more than 3 times what the FFIII. So everyone has seen something break that shouldn't have. Even iron sights break off at random times.
  15. Steve, Did you manually place them in the appropriate class for final scores or do they just go through the match as unclass?
  16. PB, You are correct in what you said but missing the actual issue. The classifier lookup will show an "X" next to the divisions but the classification for that shooter in Practiscore, which is not part of the USPSA, and the USPSA match scores themselves will show up as "U"
  17. I've been to a LII match in area 8 and now area 6 that both have had high level competitors scored despite having expired USPSA memberships. In both cases the individuas show up as "U". Why does the USPSA scoring system not cross check that information when the final scores are uploaded? It hasnt affect me competively or personally but it makes me wonder why I'm paying membership dues.
  18. The match scores currently include people that have expired USPSA memberships. In one case its been expired for over a year. Checking on "Unclass" shooters is probably a good idea.
  19. For further clarification (Assume this is a cash prize match) Scores come out on Sunday and everyone is there to see them so they agree with their respective position/score and all go home: Grand Master Flash, a Prod GM takes 4th in the match and 4th GM so he doesn't get any cash Charlie Alpha wins PROD-A and and $150 Delta Alpha takes second in PROD -A and $100 Mike Alpha takes third in PROD-A and $50 Then the scores are changed on Tuesday because of some errors discovered after the 1 hour window and due to a clerical error or other honest mistake Grand Master Flash somehow becomes a Production-A shooter. So now the stack looks like this: Grand Master Flash, (now a production A) wins Production-A and and $150 Charlie Alpha takes second in PROD-A and $100 Delta Alpha takes third in PROD-A and $50 Mike Alpha is now 4th and gets nothing All of these guys left the range on Sunday thinking everything was legit. So who's responsibility is it to identify the mistake(s)? Does the responsibility rest with the shooter who is unaware any change was even made? What is the current standard procedure (formal or commonly accepted practice) for notifying competitors of score changes and establishing new time frames for corrections? Is the email downstream from the USPSA mail bot with the final results considered the actual final cross check of the scores?
  20. (I removed the specific reference to what match I was talking about so the topic does't become a debate on if I am trying to shit on the Match Director, which I was not. However, the issue of posting scores and then later changing them is a valid issue that I believe is outside of the current USPSA guidelines and worth discussing.) I’m not a rule monger or looking to arbitrarily start a conflict but there seems to be a flaw in a level II match scoring procedure. I’m also not out to go after anyone so I’m not posting screen caps of emails since most include personal email addresses and phone numbers that I would rather not take the time to redact. That being said, everything I wrote below is in fact a quote from those exchanges. Just to note, the match itself was well setup with challenging stages and a friendly staff. The stage design was interesting and created several unique challenges that made the event fun. The opening brief including a fairly aggressive brief about it being a Level 2 match and thereby it would be RO’ed accordingly and that no warnings were going to be given for fingers on triggers, 180s and the like. It seemed very professional run from my vantage but I only shot on Friday. The problem at hand: The match ended on Sunday, scores were posted and the 1 hour required by the rules elapsed. On Monday, an email came out from the match staff which included the following sentence: “I understand there are some corrections to scores that need to be made…” When I inquired about changes and if the scores were complete as they stood on Sunday I got the following answer on Monday afternoon from the match staff: “The scores were posted at the completion of shooting yesterday, the one hour period started [then] and is past. There will be corrections made to Division and PF as the scores are finalized before being sent to USPSA for Official posting” This seemed to be contradictory to my understanding of the USPSA rules, specifically section 9.8.2 - 9.8.4, so then I asked for clarification if the scores posted at 14:07 on Sunday the 17th were were “final” or not. The answer I received: “The answer is no. Those are not the final scores. Stats is working to [get] them corrected. Since this is a volunteer job it may take a few days to get it corrected. The “Final” version will be uploaded to USPSA. Tuesday, a new version of the scores posted to practicscore with several errors. I only had visibility on my division (Production) so I don't know if the errors are perpetuated throughout the divisions. That’s just what I can see but either the process or the rules governing it seems broken to me.​ -This is my main point, do the rules, as they are written, properly address the limitations of digital match scoring and its associated nuances? -If scores are changed after the end of the match, what is the process for notifying competitors that they need to RE-CHECK/VALIDATE the scores and what are the time constraints for that? If the second change to scores introduces a new error that affects someone that walked away from the match thinking everything was good to go how does that person find out there is a new problem? Nothing in the USPSA rule book that I can find addresses any review period other than the original 1 hour unless the procedure is posted before hand by the MD (9.8.4) so how is this issue being handled elsewhere and what is the USPSA stance on it? Election year might be a good time to work some kinks out of the rule book. Perhaps I’m missing something
  21. Thanks Rob, you are correct on the need for the LPA cut. As mentioned, I have a shop locally that can do that part.
  22. I remember seeing something about this a long time ago but I cannot find the thread. Current setup: CZ SP-01 Shadow Target with factory FO front and BO MAR adjustable rear CZ SP-01 CZC Accu Shadow with HAJO rear and CZ Custom front FO sight. I would like to change the setup on both guns to have a Dawson FO front and CZ Adjustable BO MAR style rear sites. I like the current setup on the Shadow Target with regards to sight height, I just like the Dawson front better. The intent is to have a training gun and comp gun with the same sight setup. The rear sight part is easy and I have a local shop for the LPA cut but the front is more complicated and I'd like to get it right the first time if possible. What I need to do: Accu Shadow: remove my existing HAJO rear and CZ Custom front site and replace both Shadow Target: Just replace front sight These are the parts I want to use: Dawson Front site: https://www.dawsonprecision.com/ProductDetail.jsp?LISTID=80001716-1388518374 CZ adjustable BO MAR style rear: http://czcustom.com/trtchampionlpacutts.aspx So what I'm looking for: 1) What height Dawson sight do I need to replicate the CZ factory FO sight off the Shadow Target. Dawson measures their sights differently than CZ so its not just a math the specs kind of deal. 2) Since the Target has a front sight roll pin and the Accu does not, can the same model sight be adapted to both guns. What parts/tools do I need to fit a sight to the Accu shadow? Thanks
  23. With regards to the guide rod fit, is there a reason why you're not just letting the spring cap go out of the front side of the slide after the busing has been rotated? If the spring cap is pushed in at all the guide rod gets stick on it but if its pushed forward an 1/8" or removed alt other it doesn't get in the way. Mine was tight and took some pressure the first few times but now it comes out when I need it to so the guide rod is easy to remove/install? Am I wrong for breaking it down that way?
×
×
  • Create New...