DogmaDog

What Duane said is one possibility. I'll illustrate with an example from my last match: Stage was: begin at position 1, draw and engage 2 mini-poppers at about 12 yards while moving to the right to position 2 behind a barrel. Perform a tac reload and engage T-3 and T-4 with 2 rounds each, strong hand only. So as soon as I've knocked down the 2nd popper, and before I've reached cover, I'm reaching for my new magazine, and pulling it out. By the time I get crouched behind cover, I have the mag in position to eject the old one, and do the swap. Here's where I realized that it's hard to stash a magazine in your front pocket while you are kneeling . And that got me flustered enough to engage T-3 with 2 hands on the gun, getting a procedural and wiping out any advantage I gained by getting the reload started early. There, real-world practical application! Semper Fi, DogmaDog

Db4, OK, I get it now. Have to think about where the moment arm is in that setup (the moment arm of a lever doesn't have to be a physical piece of rigid material). I'll just go away and do that for a while... Lata, DogmaDog

Grassy Knoll, "...a guy asked me if the mini poppers were the kids and the regular poppers were the adults" Heheheh. Huh. I dislike the amoeba targets (even though I haven't shot one) precisely because they're so "PC" Although I guess I do draw my own line...at an IDPA match there was a stage where we had to shoot a steel plate to activate two pop-up targets. The steel plate represented a dog owned by disgruntled former employees (the pop-ups). I didn't want to shoot a dog .

Fair enough. At the top levels, accuracy is a must, and the system works. At local club levels, it seems that the high scoring shooters are shooting very fast, but not terribly accurately. So the question now is: "How do you get there from here?" Conventional wisdom says work on accuracy and the speed will come, but observation shows that when the speed is there, accuracy is out the window, probably because these shooters are working on speed, and letting the accuracy go away. But they're winning the local matches. So it starts to look like the scoring system isn't good as a training tool...winning matches at the local level reinforces shooting styles that won't develop into world class performance. Obviously that's going to be true in some trivial sense in any shooting discipline...you need to train outside of matches, and do non-match training exercises in order to win matches, but there ought to be SOME correlation. I guess my point can be summed fairly concisely: I dislike the fact that the shorter path isn't the true path, and that the true path is obscured by huge C rings that are worth 80% and can be shot in 50% of the time. I'm throwing out a lot of opinions, and asserting their correctness, even though I don't necessarily believe strongly that they are correct. That's because I do value your insights and I've been learning from them, and your more likely to argue effectively against an emphatic opinion than against something more wishy-washy. Semper Fi, DogmaDog

I'd like to know if the system has always been flawed. As I mentioned, highpower targets evolved in response to improving technology, and possibly also improving shooters. I assume IPSC has always had the same scoring system, but the technology has advanced much further than in highpower rifle (by my subjective appraisal). Was the IPSC scoring system more equable in it's weighting of DVC back when single stack 1911s were used, and the courses of fire were different (assuming they were different)? It seems technology has given the greatest advances in speed. Pistols have not gotten that much more accurate in the last few decades. All the speed holsters, high cap mags, compensators and dot scopes contribute mostly to speed. So maybe the technological innovation is driving the evolution of shooting styles to emphasize speed over power and accuracy, and in the "scoring environment" of IPSC, this strategy has been successful? On the other hand, maybe the first guy who realized he could just spray lead...it didn't matter how many points you got if it took no time at all to get them...didn't use "speed technology". Maybe the system was broken from the beginning, and it just took one or a few competitors to realize it and take advantage of the "fast break" that the scoring system allows? Was anyone here around when all this stuff was happening who can give an historical perspective on what actually HAS happened? And for fun, which technological innovation do you think contributes the most to decreases in the time it takes to shoot a stage? I have no personal experience with most of the things I mentioned, so won't answer for now. This is a good discussion you've started, Flex. Thanks! Semper Fi, DogmaDog

OK, that clears it up a bit. I'm new enough to IPSC that I haven't joined USPSA, and I haven't thought about classifications. All I do is shoot the matches as well as I can Semper Fi, DogmaDog

Heh, I'm only poking fun around...not even at any particular individual. I also shoot IDPA. It gives me a place where my carry gun will work, and I have fun shooting it. I also shoot my 1911 in Limited 10. To me, trigger time is trigger time, and that's a good time. It just seems that IPSC courses of fire often are really not geared well toward "production" guns, and IDPA course design limits fall a bit better within the constraints of the pistols used. Anyway, have fun shooting! DogmaDog

Gentlemen, I think I'm getting wrapped around the axle with some semantics here. It sounds like people refer to a stage as having a hit factor (this is a 10 hit factor stage). But hit factor is a property of my individual run through the stage, and not of the stage itself, unless there's some secret info out there about how fast one "should" shoot this or that stage. I also don't really know how to put it into practice...do people actually shoot thinking "a C is acceptable"? I try to shoot all As. I suppose I could reasonably know not to even try a pick up if I call a marginal shot on a "high hit factor stage" but I'd have to unlearn a lot, and then learn a lot in order to just start blasting C shots downrange at the rapid rate under any circumstance. Also, my shooting rate is really determined by the difficulty of the immediate shot(s) (distance and size of target)...I think I'd have a hard time factoring in more "global" considerations...e.g. "lots of running on this stage...I better aim more!" Do global considerations change your shooting style, or do you just shoot the way immediate conditions (your relation to the target you are engaging) dictate? Oh, and this from Burkett makes no sense at all to me: "Divide the factor by the time, and that's the factor -- the amount of time earning a point on that stage should take." The algebra just doesn't work out. Anyway, you don't need to explain the math again...I get it. And thanks for your helpful posts (both here and elsewhere) Semper Fi, DogmaDog

Hmmmm... I haven't shot too much IPSC (only a couple matches so far), but I like the scoring system now that I (almost) understand it. The value of a shot is sort of scaled to your skill level, in that the amount you can afford to slow down is dictated by your hit factor. IDPA's system is a helluva lot SIMPLER for a newbie to understand, and that has probably contributed to the growth of that sport as much as anything. I agree, though, that accuracy needs more emphasis in IPSC...in my couple of matches, I've seen too many guys shoot off 20 rounds in 6 seconds and score mostly C hits with Ds and misses in equal proportion to As. Growing up shooting highpower rifle, a MISS is just unconscionable to me! Possibly USPSAs scoring of all Production guns as Minor addresses this? Maybe shooting Minor is what the REAL marksmen ought to be doing? Maybe the targets need to evolve the way highpower rifle targets evolved (HP targets used to have rings for V, 5, 4, and 3, but as rifles became more accurate, and shooters started shooting "cleans", they went to X, 10, 9...5) with essentially the same total scoring area). If the A zone were worth 10 points, then the others could be made proportionately less than they are now (Cs could be 7 (vs. 8), and Ds 2 or 1, say). You could still score less for Minor, AND place more emphasis on accuracy for both Major and Minor. A real crazy idea would be to have an exponential points function. Take the square of your points, and divide it by the time. Hit factors measured this way would decrease very rapidly as total points scored decreased only slightly, but would decrease less rapidly as the number of points got very low, so low scoring (raw points) shooters would clump together, while high scoring shooters would be spread apart. This would suffer some crazy string size effects, though...and good luck teaching it to anybody! Anyway, I agree with Mr. Enos--I like a round bullseye, and with Erik--what's with that tiny little A zone on the head anyway...why is a shot between the eyes really better than a shot in the center of the forehead?? Well, there it is... DogmaDog P.S. Check me out..."Hunter" all right. Gatherer...Hunter...when do I become "Reclining Epifaunal Suspension Feeder"?

My Spyderco Native in stainless steel is a seksy shiv, and I use it to open boxes I receive in the mail. I also have the "Rogue" Swiss Army Knife. Ultra small, has the scissors, blade, nail file/flat screwdriver, and a combo bottle opener and phillips screwdriver. I can open a beer, clip my toenails, and fix my glasses in one sitting with that thing, and it's only 2" long. http://store6.yimg.com/I/executiveengravables_1682_1178199 Yeah! Rock on! DogmaDog

Hey Patrick, Maybe if you got one of those women's "drop and offset" holsters, and then wore a wig to your matches, you'd be OK (make sure it's a "tactical" wig, though) Just kidding. I don't envy you your problem, and unfortunately can't offer any sound advice, and I agree that modifying a holster to fit your body is within the spirit of the rules. Oh, and Talon, re-reading your post, you didn't specifically say YOU were planning on modifying your holster, but I kinda assumed you were, and "talked" kinda gruff at you. Sorry if I overreacted. Semper Fi, DogmaDog

OK, total newb question. I removed the mainspring housing on a 1911 for the first time ever the other night, to replace it with a wilson mag chute. Managed to get all the parts to go back on, and the gun seems to function just fine... but there's this nagging doubt cause that leaf spring has all those processes sticking out, and where should they go?? Does my hammer feel slightly different when I cock it??? That sort of nagging doubt. So the question is, is putting the sear spring back in your gun a no-brainer, or are there some tricky bits that I really need to pay attention to? Are there any good online diagrams of how all those parts are supposed to fit together and interact on a 1911? Thanks, DogmaDog

db4, OK...guess I'm not really clear on what a "torsion bar" is...10' length with a 3' lever??? My mental picture was one where the length = the moment arm. And, yeah...it is fun! I was gonna go look up stuff about atomic bonds in metal, and see how their strength varies with their length, and figure out how coil springs depart from the ideal f=kX based on that. Instead, I'll just say something everyone can understand: I checked out the total compression on the spring in my Kimber by pushing the guide rod forward in the slide with the spring installed. The spring does indeed come very close to maximum compression with a shok buff installed. I fired it this weekend with the buff installed, and it suffered no visible damage, so I don't think the spring IS reaching max compression, but it looks like it could if some variables were changed within "normal" ranges (using a heavier spring, more than one shok buff, a somehow modified guide rod, etc.). Take home message: You SHOULD check to make sure your spring doesn't reach maximum compression in your gun, and you should cut it just enough so that it doesn't (I would guess one or two coils would do it in most cases). Semper Fi, DogmaDog

Heh...the only file I have is on my leatherman. I think I'll get something a bit more delicate before I go to town on the sights. Also, I know nothing about bluing...saw some "instant bluing" products on Brownell's, but I have no idea which would be the best to use. Semper Fi, DogmaDog

Ack Ack Ack! No no no nono! Db4 was correct about the preload stuff, but coil springs don't become stiffer as they get shorter. Torsion bars "get stiffer" when you shorten them becuase the moment arm becomes shorter...you exert the same number of pounds, times a smaller number of feet, and wind up with fewer ft-lbs of torque, so it's harder to bend the bar. A coil spring has a moment arm equal to the diameter of the spring, regardless of how long it is, so cutting coils will have no effect. OK...here goes: a spring exerts a force equal to kX, where k = a spring constant in lbs per inch. My recoil spring sitting on the table is about 8 inches long and compressed 0 inches, and exerts 0 force on anything. When I put it in the assembled gun, it's length is now about 4 inches...X=4", so it exerts a force = 4 k (whatever "k" is) If Mike Auger was correct, and the spring weight = the force exerted by the spring at max compression in the gun, then k for an 18# 1911 spring is about 3 lbs, so the force exerted by the spring when the gun is in battery is 12 lbs. When the slide is cycled, it moves back about 2 inches, compressing the spring that much further, for a total displacement (x) of 6 inches, resulting in a force of 6" times 3 lbs/inch = 18 lbs of force. If you cut coils off the spring, the initial displacement when you put the spring in the gun will be less, and so will the displacement when the gun cycles...the force will drop in a linear fashion as you remove length from the spring. Now, the problem is that the spring coils have thickness, and therefore a maximum possible displacement (you can compress the spring only until neighboring coils are touching). Once the coils touch, the spring acts more like a solid metal cylinder than a spring...the slide is just banging against the frame, and it's doing it prematurely, which means the spring isn't absorbing the slide's momentum anymore, and the gun is taking more of a beating than it absolutely has to. So, if the total thickness of all the coils on your spring is greater than the total length of the spring tunnel in your slide when it is fully to the rear, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM...cut some coils off until they all can fit, with some space between them. If the slide stop doesn't go up into its notch until the slide hits the frame, and your slide can lock, then your spring isn't too long. OK, sorry. I can be a cocky bastard when it comes to physics. I don't mean this as a tirade. Hopefully it makes some sense, and explains why you can't for e.g. use a commander spring in your full size 1911. Semper Fi, DogmaDog

Yeah, this is pretty late, but, Dangit! I've been looking for sights allowing more light through for my Kimber (0.110 front, 0.114 rear) and my Kahr (0.142 front, 0.152 rear). It looks like EVERYBODY knows that there should be more of a difference, yet the sights came that way, and when I call about replacements, Heinie, Bo-mar, Novak, all tell me their replacements have "about the same sight picture as the factory sights". WTF!!! With an M-16, that front sight is floating in an OCEAN of space surrounded by the rear aperture, but eyes can still center it. It's not like it really would be harder to cut a larger notch. Guess I'll have to go get a file. What sort would you recommend (as far a coarseness)? Thanks for letting me vent, DogmaDog

A 1/3 size IPSC target at 10 yards subsumes the same angle (has the same angular size) as a full size target at 30 yards. Points already made are valid: Eye focus must shift more to acquire and hit a 30 yard target. Bullet holes are relatively larger on the small target, so breaking into the next scoring ring is more likely. Also, there is greater bullet dispersion at 30 yards...your group size (generally) opens up at greater than a linear rate, so group size at 30 yards is > 3 times the group size at 10 yards. I've shot in rifle matches where the range lacks a 600 yard line, and uses a 500 yard reduced target. The target is actually smaller than 5/6 of the 600 yard size, to account for wind and other factors that have non-linear effects. Semper Fi, DogmaDog

Heya, Cpty1 said: "Generally, on stages with a higher hit factor, speed is more critical, whereas on a stage with a lower hit factor, points are more critical." What does this mean? Hit factor is a property of an individual shooter's performance, not a property of a course of fire, right? I mean, my hit factor can be 0 to infinity (theoretically) on any one course of fire. Do you mean "stages with more points available" should be shot faster, and "stages with fewer points available" should be shot more accurately? Thanks, DogmaDog

Flex, wherefore your position? Like, the A zone of an IPSC and the -0 zone of an IDPA are about the same size, and different shapes, niether of which does a better job of approximating the fatal zones of a human target. The targets don't seem to make much difference, in my opinion. What is different is the scoring system: IDPA places a premium on accuracy by assessing a .5 sec penalty for each point down. It would always be worth it to spend an extra 1/2 sec to get a -0 hit vs. a -1 hit, no matter your skill level. In IPSC, if your hit factor is 10, then it only makes sense to spend 1/10 sec to improve a -1 hit to -0...your hit factor would have to be 2 (very low) to justify slowing down enough to spend 1/2 sec more on a shot. So I would argue IDPA emphasizes accuracy over speed, relative to IPSCs emphasis on speed over accuracy. Semper Fi, DogmaDog

For a USP to shoot in SSP, you must start with the hammer down. If you want to shoot it in ESP, you can start cocked and locked, but I don't see anything in the rules that says you MUST (but why wouldn't you??). You can also get some more mods done on an ESP...like checkering instead of just using grip tape...woohoo! Semper Fi, DogmaDog

In Marine Corps (and I'm sure many other) requalification shooting, you get a certain amount of time to shoot X shots. If time runs out and you haven't fired all your shots, the leftover bullets are "saved rounds" Saved rounds are bad. The requal course is seriously easy, except for the triggers on those issue Berettas: String 1: 15 shots, single action, in 10 minutes at 25 yards on National Match 25 yard bullseye target String 2: 5 double action shots on a target that is exposed for 2 seconds for each shot, at 7 yards. String 3: 8 rounds. 2 Shots on target during each of 4, three second exposures. 1st shot double action, second shot single action. 7 yards Strings 4 and 5: 6 shots per string. Fire 3 shots, do a slide-lock reload, from a snapped mag pouch, and fire 3 more in 20 seconds from 15 yards. I usually shoot about 380 of 400 points. I should try it with a "good" pistol. Semper Fi, DogmaDog

"Condition codes" are also used in the US Marine Corps, so I suspect they're more widespread than just Col. Cooper's sphere...he prolly got them from the Corps. The only difference is USMC does not recognize "condition 0" For current service weapons, Condition 2 does not apply. Machineguns firing from the open bolt position are in condition 3 with a belt insterted, but the bolt home. They go to condition 1 when you lock the bolt to the rear with a belt in place. Dani: You are describing condition 3. Cond. 2 doesn't apply to a Glock. Anyway, not a bad thing for people to learn. Semper Fi, DogmaDog

Hmmm. IDPA rules don't say anything about max distance from your body to the gun, but the mod you want to do sounds like it would give a competetive advantage, and it would also degrade the concealability of the holster. So I would say no, you can't do it. If you were just gonna sand off some burr that wer sticking into your hip, or change the curvature to fit your waist, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Of course, my opinion carries no official weight. Semper Fi, DogmaDog

Bill has it right. Jeez! That crazy shit with the one guy coming at you with the garden rake, vs. the guy hurling the toaster oven, vs. the guy riding an electric wheelchair with a terrarium full of tarantulas is just way too over complexicated. It's a stage designed by someone who wants to give out procedurals all day. At some point, in a tactical situation, it becomes better to just shoot the first thing it occurs to you to shoot. You'll eliminate all the threats much faster than if you do all the calculus to figure out which is most threatening. Semper Fi, DogmaDog

I was shooting my Marine Corps requalification, and I got a late shot off after the cease-fire whistle blew. The RO, not wanting to have saved rounds, looks annoyed at me, and instructs me to go ahead and fire the round into the target. Of course I put it into the center (just blasting off rounds is sacrilege!). Then I deducted 10 points from my final score, signed the scorecard, and turned it in. Yes, some shooters will profit from ROs mistakes. But shooters who see YOU act with integrity above all else will respect you, and they'll know that when you do win, you will have earned it. Semper Fi, DogmaDog