Dowter

Clairton in Western Pennsylvania is going to have a league this year and the match director asked me to look for trophies. I'm having a hard time finding trophies for IPSC. Any recommendations?

The stupid thing is - it doesn't have to be this program vs. this other program at a club. We were always very supportive of the other programs at the club (except that the other programs were extremely unsafe but we tried to keep the look of horror on our faces down to a minimum )

1. Yeah, the Iron Giant was anti-gun pablum though entertaining for a cartoon. That was the hook to get me to look into this thread. <slight drift> 2. Cool, someone else likes Kurosawa. Yojimbo had a very minor anti-gun thematic element, but it was more of an anti-west(firearms) vs eastern swords theme since this movie sure as heck wasn't anti-weapons. IFC plays sumarai films every saturday. Check out if you can Samurai Rebellion and Sword of Doom with Mifune. I'm assuming that you have seen Kurosawa's Sanjuro , Hidden Fortress and the Seven Samurai (which is sooooooooooo much better that the Magnificant Seven)

My home club(logans ferry) that I worked at for the last year has booted us out. Apparently our once a month matches and financial independence from club resources was "taking over the club". (Needless to say, there is more to this story but I'm trying to make a dignified exit and the easiest way not to get into an argument is to not start one.) For all the members of this board who have shot at (what was once) our club, thank you for your patronage. Houston has plans. I'm sure that we will be doing something else in some capacity somewhere else.

Oh, and feel free to recommend any hearing protection products that you like.

My beagle finally got around to destroying my muffs so I'm looking for new hearing protection. I would like to switch to the inside the ear plugs with the microphones but I heard that there is a bone right behind the ear that is used for hearing that is not protected by the plugs but is protected by the muffs. Basically - in terms of long term hearing protection - what are the pros and cons of plugs vs muffs?

Thanks, That's a good one. The numbers between the KKM barrel and the stock glock barrel were what I was looking for. With group diameters of 3.1 and 2.7 at 25 yards, I'm looking at point of aim radiuses of 1.55 and 1.35. So at 50 yards, the KKM barrel will get me a whopping .40 inches closer to where the the sights were lined up on. To me this is negligible accuracy for IPSC.

I'm thinking about getting a glock for Limited Division competition and am considering getting a caspian slide and a match grade barrel. Has anybody every compared the results of factory glock parts vs. aftermarket parts. I would like to get some quantified number as to how much accurate one is over the other. An inch at 50 yards might be a lot for bullseye, but won't really do anything for me in IPSC.

LOL. I posted a WTB in the classifieds about 10 minutes ago. Wanting one and finding one for a decent price might be two different things. I was just at the gun show at the Monoreville Expo Mart today and couldn't find one. They had a nice selection of full auto weapons but no G24.

Ok. I got a reply from Amidon. ------------------------- Hi, Sorry for the delay in getting back with you, have been tied up with the Match Directors workshop this past weekend. What you are asking would not be allowed under external modifications, it would make it a prototype, and these are specifically not allowed. DVC, John Amidon --------------------------------- Issue resolved.

Sure, but certain results on a different platform would seem to give some inductive evidence that they may occur on another platform being as how they both are more similiar than dissimiliar.

Ok, the first numbers that I gave for the glocks were guestimates. There are the accurate ones from off of the glock website. 5.3 Inch 6 Inch --------- ------- A=22 A=22 B=29.56 B=30.07 C=1800 C=1800 D=.01 D=.01 5.3 Inch - 3.19 Inch 6.0 Inch - 2.99 Inch 6.69% better

Is it just a matter of balance then? Because issues of frame speed have been worked out already with 1911 6inch gun users by skeletonizing the frame.

OK, I got it now. Even if you have the same sight picture, the longer sight radius will give you a more accurate shot. I wrote a formula for it awhile ago and just remembered working on this problem before. I think that I might have posted this before but here it is in case I didn't. a= distance from eye to rear sight b= distance from eye to front sight c= eye to point of impact d= arbitrary amount of misalignment of the sights. ( (D/A)*B ) (------------) * C ( B-A ) (This formula is a pain in the butt to get to look right.) It can also be written as D/A*B/(B-A)*C For example the classic 5 inch vs 6 inch 1911 argument (remember that barrel length is not the sight radius!) 5 Inch 6 Inch -------- -------- A=22 A=22 B=28.75 B=29.75 C=300 C=300 D=.01 D=.01 5 inch = .5808 6 inch = .5234 So at 25 feet - the difference will be .06 inches with a .01 inch misalignment. One could say that the 6inch gun is 11.53% more accurate. (6Inch Miss/5Inch Miss - 1 =percentage) or that the bullet will be 11.53% closer to the intended target with the same misalignment. Let's try the 5.3 inch glock vs. the 6 inch glock at 50 yards 5.3 Inch 6 Inch --------- ------- A=22 A=22 B=29.05 B=29.75 C=1800 C=1800 D=.01 D=.01 5.3 Inch Glock = 3.37 6.0 Inch Glock = 3.14 The difference is 7.32% more accuracy A few caveats. The variable A is going to be different for everyone depending on how far you hold the gun away from your eye. Playing with the numbers brought me to the conclusion that the shorter your arms, the more crucial sight alignment is. The variable B is based on the part of the front sight that you line up. If you have a 1/2 inch fiber front sight base this number on the end of the front sight that you actually see. The variable D represents the ammount of misaligment that the front sight is in the rear sight - for example if you marked off .01 inch on your rear sight and aligned the front sight with it. It doesn't matter what the misalignment is for the formula(it's arbitrary) just as long as you use the same misalignment number for both calculations.

So that I basically understand what you're saying - Essentially are you both paraphrasing what I originally said? "Is it a matter of the front sight being (visually) smaller (from being further away) thereby being a more precise intrument for being lined up on a target and in the rear sight."(and being smaller makes the rear sight more precise too) and that Caspian is saying that it is a trade off. Precision for accuracy and vice-versa. A longer sight radius gets accuracy for a tradeoff in speed.

What's makes a longer sight radius more accurate and can that phenomenon be replicated with a shorter sight radius. I don't doubt for a second that longer sight radiuses are more accurate. I just want to know what makes them more accurate. Is it a matter of the front sight being smaller (from being further away) thereby being a more precise intrument for being lined up on a target and in the rear sight. If the above is true then couldn't the farther away front sight be simulated by just making the front sight smaller on a shorter radius. Could it be since the longer sight radius has the front sight closer to the target (and that the target and the front sight are closer together) - the target would be more in focus(or less fuzzy) by focusing on the front sight.

LOL. I figured someone would have come up with this idea first.

parson Yeah, I thought about that too. With the success of DR optics sights, maybe the sight moving for that .06 of a second isn't that big of a deal. But remember, I'm planning on having the mounted iron sights be almost exactly where they would be if they were on the slide, not high in the air like most Open optic sights. I agree that there is an advantage to having sights as close to the bore as possible, my only real question is whether keeping the sights fixed are an advantage.

That's what I figured but hasn't every new idea regardless of whether it was good or bad have that same obstacle.

OK, I see now. I actually bothered to get my rule book out. But basically, if I get a mount that is already being produced (in sufficient quantities) and put it on my gun it should be alright? BTW - I emailed Amidon. He is usually very good in getting back quickly.

If you don't mind losing 1 point for every C and D zone hit.

If I put it on a Glock, I think that I should get the benefit of the doubt. There's lots more easier ways to make a gun heavy than to start with a glock. Also, I'm not thinking about a one piece rear/front sight job. Both the front and rear sights will have seperate mounts.

Flex Is that the goofy and poorly defined "prototype" rule. I'll never understand the weird enforcement of that.

That's a good price but even with that price that means that I would have to get a complete lower for about $230 to beat a G24 for $580. Thanks, but I'll probably just try to get a G24 than try to put one together.

"You may have to convince somebody it's a mount, not an external weight." That's the one thing that I thought might be a problem. But if made it out of light weight aluminum and not something like tungsten, I don't see what the problem would be. I think that Amidon(or USPSA in general) has flip-flopped a little over the issue of tungsten mag wells so I'm not sure how this would fall. "Good idea? Well, they are going to be higher, which leads to trajectory issues. More importantly, it might not point as naturally." What I was planning wasn't going to put them much (if at all) higher. The mount would safely clear the slide but not by much. "There are iron sight ribs out there... mostly seen on revolvers (PPC?). And bullseye autos?" Do you have a link so that I can get a better idea about this. Obviously wheel guns don't have to worry about sights moving around.