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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jerryz

  • Rank
    Finally read the FAQs

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Real Name
    Jerry Zubay

Recent Profile Visitors

720 profile views
  1. It depends on if the wall was inside or outside the fault lines.
  2. This is so clear, I'm not sure why the controversy. The rule has an "OR" in it. That means if any phrase is true, then, the rule applies. If his feet (or his elbow or his butt or any part of his anatomy) were touching out of bounds, then, the first part of the rule: "A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground or platform surface outside a shooting area,..." applies. It does not say "completely out" it says "touching." This has nothing to do with "gaining an advantage" (although it may be) or "re establishing back in bounds." It is simply "any part of the body touching outside the shooting area." It also does not matter where his knees are, or his head, or his nose. His feet were touching out of bounds. Guilty as charged. The last phrase of the rule says "...will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence" 6 shots = 6 occurrences = 6 procedurals Sarge is right. Yes locals are more for fun than profit, but, that's where we train to do it correctly.
  3. Well, Joe4d, first, let me thank you for editing your original post. I started this thread to warn other members of a potential problem. I freely admitted the fact that I made a mistake. But, maybe my pics were actually misleading as I never mentioned that these were pics of the inside of the jig when it is open. Below is a picture of the assembled product, ready to drill the holes. My error was putting the frame in the jig wrong. I just stuck the frame in and closed the jig. YES, I DID NOT LOOK CLOSELY, because I assumed it could only go in one way -- the correct way. And that is exactly the message I was hoping to pass on to others to save them $99. I'll also repeat the fact that other jigs of theirs are designed to prevent this problem, so, I have to conclude that this is a problem bigger than me or they would not have fixed it in other designs. In any case, the moral of the of the story is: double check how the frame is placed before you close the jig, because the frame can be put in right or wrong and once the jig is closed and completely assembled, -- as the picture below shows, -- there is no good way to notice that the frame is in wrong.
  4. It’s a whole new kit at the ridiculously low price of $90 plus $9 shipping instead of the $135 Brownells charges for a new one. And, I’ll say that’s probably ok for most build errors. But I’m holding firm that since their poorly designed jig played a huge roll in this problem, I think they could have done a lot better for me. Since I learned my lesson on the jig I didn’t need a new one of them, and I didn’t burn up the drill bits on two holes in plastic, so I didn’t need new drill bits either. I don’t know how much it costs to produce a frame but I’d guess $99 pretty well covers it. So, yeah, they could have sent a new frame for free.
  5. Yeah. That’s the point I tried to make when I called them. I even sent emails and the pics. But they stood firm that their policy does not cover mis drilled holes — that’s on me. I emphasized that they were mis drilled because their jig allowed it. Then they said that if the tabs were still in place (on the top of the frame) then the frame could not be put in wrong and their directions say to drill the holes first. But there are no directions, or pics as also suggested above, other than to go to their website, which I did on my first build. But this time I thought I had it figured out — cut off tabs and drill a couple holes. Easy. I don’t remember the online tutorial demanding that the holes be drilled first “or else.” And, if the jig was properly designed — as are their other ones — that shouldn’t matter. Again, I know I screwed it up and I’ll man up and take some blame. I just wish they would do the same.
  6. I just learned a $100 lesson trying to build a Polymer80 "glock." Their shtick is that they sell you everything you need to be successful, which, is mostly true. The real value is the jig that holds the frame so all your work on it can be done exactly and correctly. BUT, what I found out the hard way, is that some of their jigs will allow the frame to be held incorrectly. Yeah, makes not sense to me either. If you luck out and get the jig that allows for both right and wrong assembly, and you get it in wrong, like I did, then the holes you drill will be in the wrong place and your build is shot. Yes, I should have noticed. Yes, it's my fault. Yes, I "assumed" that the purpose of the jig was to prevent this so I did not pay as close attention as I should have. But, the people at Polymer80 just said that I drilled the holes wrong, and, that's just too bad for me. They did sell me a "second chance" kit, that they advertise as "only" $90 plus $9 shipping. Yeah, that was a red hot deal. At the least, I really just wish that they could have admitted that this jig has a defect. I know little about manufacturing -- if I was a machinist I wouldn't be buying their product in the first place -- but it's obvious to me that they have other jigs that won't allow that problem, probably because they realized this style has a defect. I wish they could have at least admitted that. Anyway, see the pics for details (if I can successfully upload them).
  7. Update: I tried the ammo on a Glock17 with a Tactical Solutions .22lr conversion, and, my Mack Bros Tango suppressor. As Agent 214 correctly noted, all ammo was subsonic. The Norma and Federal both cycled the slide, while the others usually did not. So, in a pistol, you might as well save the money on the exotic ammo since the standard velocity (aka cheap) stuff is both subsonic and will cycle. I did not have all the brands of ammo to try. G17 w/Tac Sol .22 conversion & Tango Shot 1 Shot 2 Shot 3 Avg SD Gemtech Norma Tac22 892 888 897 892 4 Aquila Target Eley Subsonic 832 856 881 857 34 RWS Target Aquila Super Extra CCI Quiet 639 656 624 640 16 Federal 1046 1059 1077 1060 15
  8. You're right on barrel length and velocity. That's why the Mist is more likely to be sub than my full length .22, although I did get the standard velocity Federals to crack. The actual solid part of the barrel is only 9" but the whole thing is 16". Now you got me thinking I need to chrono that same bunch of ammo in a pistol and record the results. Not sure I understand the question about the Mist barrel. I will post a pic of mine. I got it a summer 2016. The outside tube is solid, no ports. Also, I learned a good lesson taking this apart for the photo: CLEAN THEM OFTEN and lube them before use. OMG, outside tube was almost welded on. I thought I lubed it like my other cans, but, I guess not. I use liberal amounts of Permatex Ceramic Extreme Brake Parts Lube (it's a high temp lube). The solid part of the baffle stack was stuck to the outside tube. I can even see lead stuck to the inside of the tube. FYI, a 12ga bronze brush works perfectly to clean the tube. And then I put Permatex Aluminum Anti Seize lube on the threaded parts. Messy as hell, but, I have easily unscrewed my other cans with no problem.
  9. When you look at a .22 bullet, you'd figure "how much crack could this little thing have?" but it's pretty amazing. One day I heard my neighbor shooting what sounded like a 22. He lives 1/2 mile away. I called him and asked what he was shooting and he said he just got a new can for his 10/22 and was super disappointed because it was so loud. We experimented with different ammo and discovered that it was the SS crack that I could hear in my yard. Now, I'm not saying it was loud enough to wake the baby from a nap, but, I could hear and recognize gunshots 1/2 mile away. But with the subsonic ammo, all you could hear was the bolt, even when standing next to the gun. Here is some info I gathered just tinkering around. I have two Ruger 10/22's - one with a Mist barrel from Gemtech and one with a regular barrel and a Tango suppressor. You can see that the Mist barrel is much slower, but then it's almost difficult to get it to shoot super sonic. Also below is a temp chart. Of course, this is just me plinking around and not some kind of nationally recognized scientific study. Temp: 75 degrees Mist Barrel 10/22 16" BBL Tango Shot 1 Shot 2 Shot 3 Avg SD Shot 1 Shot 2 Shot 3 Avg SD Avg Dif Gemtech 1000 969 968 979 18 1038 1006 1032 1025 17 46 Norma Tac22 970 986 975 977 8 1047 1043 1057 1049 7 72 Aquila Target 983 995 987 988 6 1097? 1075 1082 1085 11 97 Eley Subsonic 897 876 883 885 10 980 989 953 974 18 89 RWS Target 910 918 959 929 26 1001 1003 1043 1016 23 87 Aquila Super Extra 1023 1034 1031 1029 5 1101xx 1103xx 1077? 1098 14 69 CCI Quiet 621 658 630 636 19 682 695 707 698 12 62 Federal 1151xx 1147xx 1159xx 1152 6 1198xx 1203xx 1229xx 1210 16 58 xx = supersonic crack ? = seemed very loud but maybe not supersonic Temperature F Speed of sound FPS 0 1050 10 1062 20 1073 30 1084 40 1095 50 1106 60 1117 70 1127 80 1138 90 1149 100 1159 https://www.weather.gov/epz/wxcalc_speedofsound
  10. I stumbled on some info that I thought would be helpful, that I wanted to pass on. I did not see similar info posted anywhere on Brian Enos forums. I wasn't sure exactly what forum to post this, since it covers bolts and ammo, and suppressors, but ... I have a couple of Ruger 10/22's, both suppressed. I have been playing around with a bunch of different subsonic ammo. The cheapest and easiest to get (at least for me) is CCI Quiet. It is "as seem in the movies" quiet. But, it won't cycle the bolt. Then I found that Volquarten makes a FireFly bolt that is designed to work with the CCI Quiet ammo. Today, it runs about $200. It works like a champ -- as good as advertised. Volquartsen rep emailed me that they do not recommend standard velocity with their bolt. After I bought a pair of FireFlys, I stumbled on Norma Tac-22 ammo. It is also subsonic, and it will cycle the bolt of the standard 10/22. The Norma runs about 1100fps while the CCI is only 700fps. The Norma is more flat shooting. Currently, Midway sells both. Norma $50/500 and CCI $35/500 I also tried both on a Glock 17 fitted with a Tactical Solutions TSG-22, .22lr conversion. Again, the CCI would not cycle it while the Norma worked fine. Sorry for a sort of rambling post, but, here's the bottom line: If you want to shoot suppressed .22lr: - CCI Quiets are the quietest and cheapest but won't cycle. - Volquartsen Firefly works great with the CCI quiet, but, not recommended with standard velocity and it's $200 - Norma Tac-22 is subsonic, shoots a bit better, just a bit louder than CCI, and is $15/500 more money, but, it will cycle the bolt on 10/22 and Tac Sol .22 Glock conversions. So, that's what I learned with about $600 and a bit of screwing around.
  11. I took the competition handgun. I've taken plenty of gun training courses, but, I've not seen one specific to competition. I'll probably go again next spring.
  12. They sorta sound like the same thing only different, with either one working ok for limited. Thanks for the voice of experience. I can now continue my quest for a limited gun knowing more than I used to. Thsnks.
  13. From a practical perspective, what is the difference between STI DVC 3-gun and DVC Limited? The only difference I can see from their website is the Limited is available in .40, but, I want to shoot 9mm; Limited is offered in chrome, which I don't care; and Limited does not have a pic rail, which I don't care. I currently shoot single stack but I want to move to limited. Is the STI 3-gun legal for USPSA limited? Are there any major benefits to one or the other for limited? Thanks
  14. Paydirt! No one on this list had them but Hoosier gunworks recommended www.outbackgunparts.com and they have one. Thanks for steering me in the right direction. Jerry
  • Create New...