wtturn

It is highly nuanced and it's hard to describe in first person to the extent that the listener can interpret exactly what tactile sensation is being felt. I've listened to all those interviews multiple times myself and also have listened to your summary once. From their firsthand descriptions, I think Yong and Grauffel are more alike and I think Hwansik and Ron Avery are more alike, with overlap throughout. I think Yong and Grauffel are actually applying weaver-like push-pull forces front-to-back. I think Hwansik and Avery are applying clamping force front-to-back but not exclusive of lateral force. Hwansik actually describes applying lateral force, but specifically mentions that it must be balanced (or neutral) to avoid imparting a lateral bias in the sights or arc of recoil. I'll go out on a limb and say that at least in the latter group, what is happening is not so much a push-pull but an emphasis on getting clamping force front-to-back. In practical terms it means getting a typical C-clamp grip with the strong hand, but also getting the weak hand "behind the gun" on the backstrap so you can clamp with it as well. And then making sure any inward pressure or torque is balanced. The counterpoint is someone like Robert Vogel, who strongly advocates and emphasizes inward torque as a technique to control the gun. In the end, I think this falls under "more than one way to skin a cat". I personally blend the styles to make my grip. I build a C-clamp grip with the strong hand, and then get as high as possible on the gun with the weak hand, wedging the meaty part of my thumb into the remaining space on the backstrap, up near the beavertail. I don't focus on pressure in any particular direction; in fact I conceptualize it as getting crushing pressure applied in the whole 360 degree circumference of the grip and getting as much of my hands on as much gripping area as possible. The result is the strong hand providing most of the clamping force and the weak hand applying a significant amount of inward and downward force to control recoil. It's not really neutral at all, more opposable, just from different vectors than front-to-back.

Holy s#!t Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

This is why Virginia count is idiotic Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

GM is the most stratified classification in the sport. You have guys who win nationals/worlds all the way down to GMs who can't win their local club match. "GM" without context only means you achieved a certain mathematical result surpassing an arguably arbitrary standard. Classification is the game within the game, but I think a lot of people make it out to be the primary pursuit to their own detriment. People who grandbag and engage in unsporting (and unethical) behavior to inflate their classification are missing the point, or don't care to see the point. I'll continue to laugh and point at the GMs who show up and get wrecked by A/B/C shooters.

I posted before I read your later responses. Sorry, carry on!

Are you being serious right now?

What kind of holster is going to fit this, with that taper hugging the trigger guard?

yes. 100% this

I bought an 8# and a 9# Wolff recoil spring to test in my S2. I didn't even bother trying the 8 after I tested the 9 and it felt like the slide stayed pinned at the rear for decades in recoil. Seriously, it felt like ages that the front sight was just floating out in the universe with no plans to return home. This was with 125gr loads at 132PF. I went back to the 11#.

I may be qualified to answer this one. I too have large hands and fat fingers, started on G34 with large backstraps. Shot a Shadow 2 the latter half of this season and struggled to find the real estate on the grip for my support hand. The only grips that I found to work adequately on the Shadow 2 were custom-order "fat" bogies from Lok Grips that make the grip 1.35" across. I borrowed my friend's Stock 2 to compare. In the hand, it feels much nicer. The grip feels a bit bigger. I was surprised to find when I stuck calipers to each frame that the numbers were near identical across dimensions. So there is some slight, almost imperceptible difference in the frame geometry, particularly in the way the beavertail and "scoop" underneath is shaped that accounts for the difference in feel. The Shadow 2 scoop is more aggressive and cut more in toward the trigger. The trigger reach is farther on the Shadow 2, but not excessive if you have long fingers. I actually put on a 97B trigger that extended the reach and had no problems in DA. I will say that the difference in quality, fit, and finish on the CZ vs Tanfo is readily apparent. I could never go to a Tanfo after having had the Shadow 2, and I'm not a gun snob in the least. It's just a better-made gun in every regard. The Stock 2 I borrowed was fully worked over by Patriot with BOLO and all the cool-guy trigger parts and it was utter garbage compared to my Shadow 2 with just a 11.5# hammer spring. All that said, I draw and index and transition the Glock much better, so I'm going back to Glock. The heavy steel DA/SA guns are not the panacea I was promised. If you want to make the steel DA gun thing work, I strongly advise you to get the extra fat LOK grips and disregard the Tanfo.

Personally I feel like 52 oz on a production gun is nuts Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Do yourself a favor and come check out some of the USPSA action in the area. Atlanta is a practical shooting hotspot. River bend gun club in Dawsonville holds matches on the fourth Saturday each month and is the best match of the bunch. Consider this your personal invitation! Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

What region of Georgia? Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

You've got it all figured out. Good luck.

You have a right to your own opinion. You don't have the right to regurgitate bad advice which has the potential to damage other people.

Guess why you're B class and not M/GM? Because you're slow. Speed doesn't come without a conscious effort to improve speed. You can go out and drill alphas all day but if you don't test the boundaries and push yourself and make mistakes, you can't grow. YOU HAVE TO GO FAST ON PURPOSE TO BE FAST. Maybe you shouldn't dispense advice until you have the depth of experience that lends it credibility.

Wrong.

"friend"

Good point, Ron Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

The combination of running dry so many times and the fact that you had forgotten targets/ FTE penalties is a sign that your stage planning and visualization process needs to be improved. Shooting a hi-cap division you should never run dry on the clock. It just can't happen. Take more time and dedicate more mental reps to your visualization, or begin to visualize your stage plans if you currently do not. Your draw is glacial. You should be working on that in dry fire. You want to inspect your shots, this is particularly evident when leaving a position. You don't have time for that. Develop the ability to call your shots and then be gone to the next task/position. You also take a lot of make-up shots. Shot calling helps with that too. Your movement is not terrible relative to your class but you can move with more urgency between positions. When you're not shooting, be moving at your personal max effort. You could save 2-3 seconds a stage by improving your positioning. Meaning you set up in such a way that you don't have to shift your feet to take all the targets you intend to take from a particular position. You want to shoot-shift-shoot-shift-shoot. Every time you pick your feet up unneccessarily it's at least a second. Again, this can be rectified in walk-through. Pick markers on the ground or fault line to determine where you need to set your feet in order to see all the targets you intend to engage. The side benefit is that you're going to be more stable and make the shots easier too if you don't have to pick up your feet. Congrats on the class win. If you adopt a dedicated dry fire training program you will not be D (or even C) for very long.

This has been the MO of the current DNROI for a long while now. Remember Hammergate?

You're missing his point entirely. Not to mention a fast draw is typically a good analogue for how proficient you are in your gunhandling tasks as a whole.

A sample size of one classifier doesn't mean much. But with that said, it would not surprise me if we found that pattern/disparity if we ran the data for all classifiers across all divisions. The simplest explanation is that the iron sight divisions account for the most classifier entries. The more entries, the more bites at the apple to set ultra-high HFs, and the higher density of super high HFs at the extreme end of the curve. The stated methodology of HQ was to take away outliers and anomalies and use an average of the next highest X number of classifier HFs to set new HHF. So this comes as no surprise, and an illustration of reason why they should have had a computer do this instead of a human being. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

*like Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Hopkins is the boss. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk