BR

Hey Cy- A couple of years ago I was talking with two of our local production super squad, the man from Cheyenne with an XD and my regular shooting partner B with a G17, both of whom preferred the shorter guns. Both commented that the sights got back on target from recoil quicker with the shorter guns and that the shorter guns were faster on transition targets. They also described that when the slide closed and the front sight returned from recoil they would see some sort of movement -- described it as a wiggle -- of the front sight with the longer versions; said they did not see the wiggle with the shorter versions. It wasn't that the front sight dipped below the rear, but rather the front sight appeared to wiggle as it was settling back into the rear sight notch at the end of the recoil cycle. They each had independently compared the standard length guns with the longer versions [our tax dollars hard at work], and both independently concluded that they preferred the shorter versions. After that conversation I started shooting my G17 instead of G34, and have been primarily shooting it since. When I am looking for it, I think I may be able to see the front sight wiggle those two top shooters described, but in normal practice and match shooting I do not notice it. But, I believe those two guys are capable of seeing/noticing more when shooting than I currently am. Like most other aspects of the equipment we use in our sport, it comes down to personal preference. At this point in my development I prefer the 17 over the 34, feels better to me, which is likely all in my head, though for whatever reason I seem to shoot better points during a match with the 17 so that is what I use for now. There seems to be a trend toward 6" limited guns over the 5", so I do not know why some production shooters prefer the shorter guns, but the preference seems to be limited to plastic guns rather than all-metal. Fact of the matter, though, is that more of our local shooter prefer the shorter polymer guns than the longer ones, in production and L10. Maybe we are all just a little off kilter from the thin air. One other thought on this issue. Those two top local shooters and I are all of fairly short stature [though I carry my weight better ;-)]. Maybe physical stature is a variable that plays into the personal preference equation? Food for thought. Ciao. -brian reynolds

Flex, should shot #6 be 1.73 on run 2? -br

I appreciate everybody's input on this one, which was not purely hypothetical. Last weekend I was the shooter being scored, shooting a 9mm, and one target had two big holes [A/C] from the previous shooter and one 9mm hole [A] clearly from me. RO scored me A/A, counting my 9mm hole and the bigger hole in the A. If he had scored me A/M or A/C, I would have objected, but at the time it seemed to work out in my favor. I've been thinking about it since then, and now believe I should have been required to reshoot that stage. -br

I do not know that a consensus was ever reached, but here is a whole thread on this exact subject: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=77656 Seems to come down to whether 4.6.1 prevails in this situation. Cheers. -br

Hypothetical scenario: The previous competitor used a .45 or .40. The competitor being scored used a 9mm or .38S. One paper target was left untaped from previous competitor, and that target has two bigger holes [.45 or .40] and one smaller hole [9mm or .38] in scoring area. Question: In this scenario, is it ever possible for the RO to determine an accurate score? How could the scorer prove [unless he actually saw a miss, but does that really even matter for scoring under the rules?] that the smaller bullet did not go through one of the bigger holes? Would such scenario invariably result in a reshoot because the RO cannot determine an accurate score? Rule is below for your consideration. Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks. -brian reynolds Rule: 9.1.4 Unrestored Targets – If, following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off the tar- get for the competitor being scored, the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire. For the pur- pose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same.

I like - seems clear enough to me. -br

Glock. Seriously. -br

B Bruce- Point well made - even our discrete discussion has started to get slippery. -br

Here is info. comparing swaging vs. casting lead bullets: 1. Casting is the oldest method, as well as the one that most hobby reloaders use. Casting uses a lead furnace to melt the bullet alloys, mould handles, a mould for each weight, shape, and caliber of bullet, then a sizer and lubricator device to correct the diameter and apply a thick bullet lubricant. 2. Machining from solid materials requires a large investment in precision machine tools but is more precise than casting. It is slow, and subject to tool wear, chatter, and machine variables and is used only by a few custom bullet firms, or sometimes to build a prototype bullet. 3. Swaging uses room-temperature materials that can include solid, jacketed, or lead, plastic and powdered metals. The tools are a high pressure press that can flow the bullet materials without melting them, and diamond-lapped, high precision dies with matching punches that instantly give the materials their final dimensions (shape, caliber and even internal constructions) with no further processing, lubricating, or sizing. Both casting and swaging are simple processes. Swaging is the most precise method of making a bullet. It is extremely fast, easy to learn, and has many additional advantages over casting. This info. came from http://www.corbins.com/intro.htm Big Kahuna -- great info., thanks for the response. -br

Has anyone compared the moly (poly)-coated offerings from these two manufacturers? I am interested to know how the bullets are different, if they are made any differently, and if they perform any differently. Particularly interested in the 147 grain offerings from both. While price is comparable, it appears that the companies use different forming methods (swaged then baked vs. cast), and different coatings (moly vs. poly). How are these different? Which are harder? Which are less smokey? Which are more consistent? I appreciate your input - thanks. -br

When the manufacturer goes out and asks people to post positive comments on a web site, I do not agree that it provides a "balanced perspective." It just provides us with your perspective. Did you ask any of your customers who had issues with your product to post negative comments here? If not, it is hardly balanced. -br

Wrong. The 2004 Rules expressly permitted "trigger work . . . to enhance reliability." There was no limitation as to what that "trigger work" consisted of, and there was no definition of reliability. You have chosen to narrowly interpret this provision to mean "mechanical" reliability, even though the term is not defined in that manner. Reliability means "dependable in achievement, accuracy or honesty . . . yielding the same or compatible results in different statistical trials..." Thus, if my "trigger work" results in a gun that is more reliable for "accuracy" or more reliable for "lack of trigger freeze" or more reliable for "better splits," I have enhanced reliability. You have chosen to limit and to apply the term "reliability" to mean only what you want it to mean. For you to repeatedly argue that there was NO RULE which permitted internal trigger work simply ignores the truth. Not only was there an express Rule permitting internal trigger work, approval of such trigger work is further evidenced by the NROI rulings, by Amidon's emails, and by the commonly-held understanding of the production shooting community. Thus, there is a rule which expressly says that which you say it does not, and there is a plethora of persuasive authority that is consistent with the plain language of the rule permitting internal trigger mods. I've read all of the posts on this topic, and you seem to be the only person who does not agree that internal trigger work to enhance reliability [with that term not limited to your narrow definition] was previously approved in the Rules. Cheers. -br

For your slippery slope argument to have any merit, the BOD would have to assume that NONE of the subject trigger work "enhances reliability." What is the evidence, or even the basis, for that assumption? The rule plainly states that we ARE [were] permitted "trigger work", which on many guns includes a change in connectors, use of new/different parts, move holes, etc... if it "enhances reliability." That is what the rule said. Your interpretation is creative, because there is NO prohibition whatsoever about "change the way your trigger feels, change the arc through which it swings, change the pivot points, change the geometry of the disconnector, etc." as long as the trigger work is internal and is done in order to "enhance reliability." You elected to read those proscriptions into the rule. -br

The discrete issue at hand is "trigger work" -- NOT "anything you want inside the gun" -- which was expressly, explicitly, and in black-and-white permitted by the prior rules. I am very curious about the basis for the slippery slope/anything goes argument. Is that what was happening for the past four years in Production before the BOD eliminated a previously permitted modification? If that was a legitimate concern, why would the BOD choose to allow additional modifications to the gun, including after-market slides, grip melting and plugs? By doing so, the BOD has encouraged "anything goes." Simply incorporate the previously permitted "trigger work" back into the rule. Cheers. -br

I am glad that I shoot a glock in production, because the trigger is one of the three safeties. For several years I have used a Vanek trigger because "trigger work" was expressly permitted under the 2004 production rules, US Appendix D9. Now I use a Vanek modified "safety" [trigger] which is now expressly permitted under the new 2008 rules. Lucky for us glock shooters that we can modify our safeties ;-) Are the new rules really that clear? -br

Hello all- Loading for production for Glocks with stock barrels, I almost exclusively have used n320 for the last several years. I want [need] to find a less expensive and more readily available powder alternative. While I have used various moly-coated bullets, I prefer JHPs or CMJs. My preferred bullet is a Zero 147 jhp. From my forum searches, the comparisons between TG and Solo seem to focus on either heat or amount of smoke. I have not found any posts commenting on the "feel" or burn speed of TG compared to Solo compared to n320. I know about TG's high nitro content, which causes heat and results in smoke with molys or lead. I also know that Solo 1000 seems to works better with molys and lead because it burns cooler and thereby cleaner. Questions: For loading to minor [c. 135 pf] with JHPs what is the best alternative to n320? Which is faster burning, TG or Solo? I've seen several burn speed charts, which provide inconsistent answers to this question. Also, many powder charts indicate that Solo ranks up there with Clays and n310 for burn speed, being faster than either TG or 320? If that is true, should Solo not produce a milder feel than either TG or 320? I look forward to your thoughts on this topic. Then again, with molys costing 1/3 less than JHPs, I might just have to bite the bullet and order more molys . Thank you. -br

It must feel and point just like a glock! Sean -- that Fat-Free is seriously baddazz. Stay safe. Stu -- awesome pics. See you guys soon. -br

Welcome -- plenty of competitors from Denver and the metro-area. I live in the city. Matches every weekend within a 1 and 1/2 hour drive, and two matches most weekends. And, do you like to hike, ski, or fly fish? World class. Also, the best folks I've met anywhere. I'm sure some other locals will chime in with a welcome. Let me know when you are ready to shoot a match, and I will look forward to meeting you in person. Here is the local uspsa web site with match schedule: www.ecouspsa.com Take care. -br

I also use and prefer the CR Speed holders. I found the glock inserts hold the mags too tight. The sti inserts are just right for glock mags - you can adjust the screws for a tighter or looser fit. Cheers. -br

Ditto, except with a G17. Greg Lentz said they were weighing production guns to determine 2 oz. compliance. He said they use the weights listed on the USPSA approved production gun list at the NROI website here http://www.uspsa.org/rules/production_list.php Ciao. -br

Someone did post a good point though. Momentum is conserved and IF all the momentum was directly transfered to the popper that it wouldn't matter whether you used a 124 or 147 gr bullet. However with EITHER a 124 or 147gr bullet ALL the momentum is not transfered since there is always splatter. OK. Now we are getting somewhere. (a) Do we have agreement that "momentum" [mass x speed], as opposed to "energy" [mass x speed squared], is what knocks down steel? ( Do we agree that "power factor" is essentially a measurement of momentum? © If one eliminates the elasticity/inelasticity and/or the sectional density and/or the hang-time/splatter variables, and assumes the exact same bullet construction in a different weight, i.e., zero 147 jhp v. 125 jhp, does the same power factor, of same caliber but regardless of specific bullet weight, have the same affect on a steel popper? I believe that science says "Yes." Also, I do understand the concept of "calling the shot," and personally try every day to better effectuate that concept. But, this question is seeking an objective, scientific answer about a frequently espoused opinion that 147 bullets knock down steel better than 125s or other lighter bullet weights. Based on science, I think I disagree with that opinion. So, assuming the exact same type of bullet, and taking out the elasticity/sd/hang-time variables, and assuming the shot is called and landed in the exact same spot on the metal target, also taking out that variable -- does science not dictate that "power factor," irrespective of bullet weight, is what affects knocking down steel? Cheers. -br

I appreciate those who actually responded to the questions asked, especially those who answered that momentum, rather than energy, is what knocks over steel. For those others who responded about calling my shots, shooting well over power factor, and/or other sundry issues, well thanks for your advice. Anyways, if momentum is what knocks down an object, here a steel popper, then it follows that bullet weigh is irrelevant if the power factor -- the amount of momentum -- is equal. I think the ballistic calculator chizzle cited supports this as fact. Cheers. -br

Hello all -- specifically scientists and/or engineers in the group? In 9mm minor, shooting from the same gun at the exact same power factor -- whether 126, 136, or whatever -- do 147 grain bullets knock down steel, specifically properly calibrated poppers, "better" "faster" or "with more authority" than 124/25 grain bullets? I personally have no empirical or even subjective knowledge of this. I load and shoot 147s, because I have for a long time and they work for me and in my gun. Also, Dave Sevigny uses 147s, and he is my hero. But, I have read comments that 147s take down steel better or with more authority on steel than lighter bullets, and I wonder whether, from a scientific basis, this is true. Question #1: What is it -- whether momentum or energy or something else -- that takes down steel? Question #2: Is "power factor" (essentially mass x speed, right?) equivalent to some scientifically-defined term, such as momentum or energy? Question #3: Depending on the answers to 1 and 2, does and/or can equivalent power factor bullets -- really of any caliber -- have different affects when shooting steel? If so, what? (question 4, I guess). Again, I do not know the answer. As a reverse thought, I can feel the difference between shooting equal power factor 147s compared to 124s. Does this relate to affects on steel? Time for another drink. Cheers. -br

I found this post while searching on another topic, but it is a subject I wanted to raise on this forum -- the use of grip tape. At nationals, both of the top two production shooters -- also the top two glock shooters -- did not use grip tape. From what I was able to see, Sevigny's grip looked to be completely stock-naked, and Vogel's looked like it had just a small piece of tape on bottom of the backstrap, but nothing on the sides or front of the grip. I do not know whether either used pro grip. I have been told that grip friction is important in controlling the gun, and I use full grip tape and grip pretty hard with my weak hand. However, after seeing Sevigny and Vogel, reading Spook's posts, and re-reading the section in BEnos' book, I think I may give the naked gun a try again. What other experiences or thoughts do you have regarding the benefits and/or disadvantages of using grip tape compared to a non-taped grip, glock or otherwise? Thanks. -br

desertdog- fyi, I have a buddy whose locking block cracked and he returned it to CCF in February. Over six months later and they still say they "are working on it." He is now very concerned and disappointed and angry, and is considering having his attorney [me] write CCF demanding that they, at a minimum, return the gun to him even if they do not fix it. I am anticipating some fun times with CCF in the near future! Cheers. -br