Spiff

Pretty much sounds like everyone is getting better mileage from their batteries than I am with the ones in my Silencio muffs. What I get is a buzzing noise in the left ear after about 3 hours of use. Replacing the batteries seems to fix it so I figured it was the mics way if telling me they were not getting enough juice. I know the Silencio's are not the most expensive electronic ear protection out there but they seem to work fine ('cept for the buzzing in my left ear after awhile). Though I really have no comparisons to base that judgment on. Thanks all.

What kind of battery life is everyone getting? Thanks.

Now that interests me, I do have mixed brass generally, so if that effected your OAL it could seemeingly effect mine. Why would different cases have that effect, it seems to me logically that if the shape of the bullet is consistent, and the seating die is stationary, the base hloding the bullet will rise to the same point, the bullet should be seated the same no matter what case is used. Could someone correct my logic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm interested in this to. I've heard people say that before and I also do not think it's logical. Why would using mixed brass cause variances in OAL? So what if one manufacturer has thicker/thinner sides or a thicker/thinner web or base? All that’s going to happen is that the bullet will be inserted shallower or deeper to get a particular OAL (in the case of variances in web design). Shallower or deeper in relation to the case capacity. Now, variances in bullet seating depth might cause variances in velocities, standard deviations, etc. Which might cause larger or smaller groups. But the OAL is going to be a product of how far the seating die is adjusted and how accurate the press is (for any number of reasons, for instance, my 650 has noticeable play in the toolhead when it’s inserted into the frame). I do not see how OAL is going to be affected by mixed brass.

Thanks for the link DogmaDog, I'll down load it and take a look when I get home. I'm not sure how much I would have really used the calculator, but then again that really wasn't the point of my "rant". Thanks again, and thanks again also to EricW for trying to help. I'll probably end up sending it to him to get his volume mod installed.

Called PACT, apparently they had to make a chip change on the IC board (original chip was no longer available), it was supposed to be 100% compatible but in reality it was not. So the ballistics calculator is not working, and will not work. This feature is still advertised on their web site as well as the manual. Not to mention the “Traj” key on the unit’s keypad that you use to start the calculator is still there. They will apparently be coming out with a MKV next year, but as of yet there is no upgrade path planned for those of us with “broken” MKIV’s. When I first got the PACT I called about the printer they mentioned in the manual. It was mentioned that you could use one, but they never told you what make, model, etc., to buy. After calling I was told the printer in question is an HP 82240B. It's commonly used with higher end HP calculators. Problem is that HP quit producing it two years ago. PACT has not bothered to update their software to take advantage of other printers because they said there wasn't much demand for it. Not only that but after we talked about where to get one (Ebay came up), I was told that there was the possibility that the IR port might not work, they don't test it when it leaves the factory (due to no demand for the printer) . Yet in the book it says you really ought to get the printer if you’re going to use the ballistics calculator much. And printing is mentioned in every section of the manual. Not to mention the "Print" key on the keypad. So there you have it. To be honest I’m not quite sure what to think about all this. First and foremost they need to update their advertising and manuals. They are talking about features that either do not work at all, or you might not be able to take advantage of. The timer works great and I was assured that the chrono still works (haven’t had a chance to use it yet), I suppose those two features together are worth the $200 price tag. And so far their tech support is top notch, I’ve called four times and every time I’ve gotten someone on the line within 3 rings, who knows what’s going on. Still, I don't know if I’d ever buy another PACT product, or recommend one.

Thanks EricW, I was afraid of that. I'll call PACT tomorrow. I almost went with the CED 8000 because of reading about glitches like this.

I have a new PACT MKIV. Used the timer and par functions, they are pretty straight forward. The ballistics calculator though has me a bit confused. The book says to input FPS, ballistic coefficient, sight height, sea level and temp and max and specific range distances. Then it's supposed to kick out zeroing information for a given range, etc. All mine does is sit there with "Computing....." on the display. I've let it sit for 30 minutes without it producing any data. Am I missing something stupid here? I followed the sample trajectory printout numbers in the book, step by step. I'm not sending the output to a printer, just trying to display it on screen. Any and all input will be appreciated, well, almost any input. Thanks.

Thanks Sixgun, I went ahead and got one off of ebay, good price and it's supposed to be new. If nothing else it will give me something to practice with until I decide on what I should realy get. BTW, rechecked the rules, there is nothing about this under Production rules. US Production rules state the "front of holsters for autos may be cut no lower than 1/4-inch below the ejection port". IDPA says the holster cannot be cut more than 1 3/4 inch below the breech. Anyway, not trying to sound nit-picky, I haven't actually shot competition yet, and I'm just trying to get my ducks in a row. Thanks again.

The pictures I've seen seem to show, the ejection port open more than might be allowed. I believe only 1/4 inch of the ejection port can be showing.(?) Thanks.

Thanks for posting. If you can't shoot a caliber-converted pistol in either IDPA or USPSA then I won't do the conversion. So I'll either buy the used 35 and shoot .40 or look around for a 34 (which was the pistol I was really looking for). Problem is that I'm a little wary of the .40 caliber Glocks because I've been reading of the catastrophic failures (KB's?) associated with them. And reloaded ammo is one of the areas I've read to stay away from if you’re going to use them (the "official" Glock position?). If I were just content to buy boxed ammo I probably would not be too concerned, but I like to reload. I sometimes think I shoot only so I can reload!! Not to hijack my own thread but itento, you sound like you reload, I take it you've had no troubles in this area?

Thanks for the post Lawman, I was beginning to think everyone thought my post was a lame one!! I was getting ready to defend myself by saying: "But I did use the search!!". Anyway, I can't say that this makes me feel good about the conversion. I was eyeballing a used Glock 35 at a local pawnshop. Figured I could convert it to 9mm to take advantage of the fact that I have lots of 9mm reloading gear/supplies and no .40 caliber. Besides, I want to use 9mm for production as a freind and I are thinking about entering some local competitions. Thanks again.

There was a passing remark on a prior thread that the 9mm conversion kit for the Glock 35 was not very reliable. Does anyone have any information on this? If anyone is using this conversion, I'd like very much to here their experiences. Thanks. Edited for spelling.