Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

mrd

Classifieds
  • Posts

    240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mrd

  1. Thanks, good input. I think in the end I might end up trying both setups and see what I like the best. But as someone pointed out, I might be overthinking this. I have a good setup and it would probably be to leave it as is and just shoot. But it's also fun to try out different setups! Sorry if this is nitpicking, my understanding of the terms is that eye box refers to the space where you can position your eye and still see the whole picture in the scope - a generous eye box makes head placement less critical, good when leaning and shooting different position, weak shoulder etc. As I understand eye relief it refers to the mean distance from eye to ocular on the scope while being able to see the entire image. Thus eye relief has more to do with how to mount your scope at the proper distance from the shooter whereas eye box is more about how forgiving the scope is to head placement. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  2. I also think you mean eye box, not eye relief, but you are answering a question that I did not ask. know this, that's why I presently run the Swaro Z8i 1-8x24 BRT on my rifle. It seems to be among the best for the single optic setup and I'm very happy with it. But I'm always looking for ways to improve my setup. Perhaps you can read my posts again and see if you have any input on what I actually ask?
  3. Now it's probably been about 20K rounds since I took the diamond file to the hammer hooks and the sear. The hammer still runs very well but I changed the sear last year, the trigger pull got too light with the old one.
  4. Thanks for your feedback. I'm already shooting in Open division so that's not an issue. I think you misinterpret my reasons for asking - I'm not trying to solve a problem, I know I dont NEED more than 8x power. I'm just thinking about what is the most optimal setup. I'm thinking that with a dual setup, 1x with red dot is always at hand with a tilt of the rifle, should be faster than backing off the power with the lever. Or in reverse, tilt from red dot to the pre-set magnification on the scope suitable for the long range targets on the stage. So less need to run the power lever during stage. Also, I would like to have higher magnification at hand, just a general personal preference and it would be nice for the recreational long range precision shooting I sometimes do. But maybe no-one is doing this and for good reason? Still I see shooters running off-set red dots with their scopes. What are their reasons for this? Why not take the concept one step further and run a higher magnification scope with the red dot?
  5. I presently use a 1-8x variable magnification scope as the single optic on my gaming rifle and the matches I shoot have targets up to 350 yards away. I feel higher magnification really helps in longer range shooting. I've seen many sport shooters using red dots in 45 degree offset mounts together with a scope. Now I'm thinking about trying out a lightweight higher magnification scope like 4-12x for medium-long range and an offset red dot for closer targets. Weight would be about the same for both setups, whereas I would get higher magnification in the scope for longer range targets and retain fast target aquisition in close range with the red dot. I almost always use 1x, 4x or 8x on my present scope, never anything in between. So a dual optic setup would give me more magnification options without really giving much up, i hope. Haven't really seen much on the subject so I'm looking for your experiences here. What are the pros and cons? Is the double optic setup slower than the single scope one? What would be preferable for matches with targets at 350 yards? Is it a disadvantage to tilt the rifle for aiming with the offset red dot?
  6. No problem with the quality of the scopes as long as they are rated for recoil. It is preferred to have a true 1x magnification optic for fast engagement of close-up targets. That is why many use scopes that have true 1x at the low end. An alternative is to use a red dot in a 45 degree offset mount with your 2-7x or 3-9x etc.
  7. Yeah, they went with thinner kydex per shooters' request to improve on the first PDR PRO. The thinner kydex is supposedly easier to mold to a better fit to the gun. My PDR PRO-II should arrive any day now, I'll let you know what I think.
  8. Well, both sure seems good and the price is the same too. Either holster would probably be an upgrade for me. I went ahead and ordered the PDR PRO-II holster. I've seen some negative reviews about Bladetech, though not the Stinger specifically, and that was what pushed me over.
  9. Thanks for the replies! Since I'm only hearing good things about the DAA PDR PRO holster, I'm thinking the PRO-II will be even better. Would be interesting to hear about the Ghost Stinger as well! The RHT products seems really nice, but I want to order from Europe for simplicity. Thank you anyway!
  10. I'm looking for a new holster for my Stock 2 AU (4,75" barrel) to be used in IPSC Production. I don't want an open holster. I would like "low ride" and a lot of adjustability. I like the muzzle forward position and slightly outwards cant. I'm looking mainy at the Ghost Stinger and the DAA PDR PRO-II as they seem to tick all the boxes. I'm a little weary about the ball joint on the PDR PRO-II, but it seems to be improved from the first version. http://www.ipscstore.eu/en/amadinighostholsters/407-ghost-stinger-holster-for-glock-cz-sti-tanfoglio-1911.html http://www.doublealpha.biz/pdr-pro-ii Any input? Has anyone used both and can make a comparison? Any other suggestions is also welcome, however I live in Europe so due to shipping restrictions I can't get the local US stuff. Fire away!
  11. IMHO, since IPSC Classic is a division in pistol shooting competition, the rules should focus on those aspects of the gun that makes a significant advantage in competition. Only permitting single stack magazines limits the round count and reloadability of the pistols. Mandatory stirrup cuts and restricting the dustcover length does not, IMHO. I think it is great that there exists a division where shooters with smaller hands can compete on even terms with single stack pistols that they can properly handle. I think it's unneccessarily limiting that the division is restricted to only 1911's of a certain look. As stated, I'd rather they renamed the division to "IPSC Single Stack" and focused the restrictions to such that permitted single stack pistols to compete on reasonably even terms.
  12. Full length dustcovers is currently not permitted in IPSC Classic, due to the max length of 75 mm (3"). I've heard there are discussions to remove this restriction, as well as the mandatory stirrup cuts, from the division rules. Does anyone have any insight about the current status of these discussions? Does it seem likely that guns like the STI Rangemaster will be legal for Classic in any forseeable future? I'm more and more tempted by the 1911 platform, grip size and trigger feel would be a big step up for me and my diminutive hands. Currently shooting a small frame Tanfoglio. I prefer heavy guns and the STI Rangemaster would be my first choice, but it would be a bummer to be limited to Standard division. Considering a lot of shooters actually prefer lighter guns because of faster transitions etc, and others like me prefer heavier guns, I'm not personally convinced that either route offers any significant advantage. I believe it has more to do with personal preference and shooting style. If it was up to me I would drop the "Classic" division name and just focus on a Single Stack 1911 IPSC divison.
  13. You have to plunk test in your specific gun/barrel as the freebore vary between barrels.
  14. Just had a double feed on my Lim Pro in a match last night. It was RP brass. So looks like it's not related to brass. Should I replace the extractor and spring? What kind of "reshaping" is needed on the extractor? About double feeds, see this thread: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=233415
  15. Where to chamfer? Just at the breech face or the sides along the whole length of the center rib?
  16. I use the IMI Defense Z1340 holster for Shadow SP-01 with my Stock 2. It did NOT fit originally, it seems the Stock 2 frame and slide is wider by about 1 mm so I had to file/sand the inside of the holster to make it fit. It was a chore, so I can't really recommend it. I just did it because I already had the holster. Also, this holster will slow you down on the draw. The retention is great and works well, but will add time to your draw.
  17. I've messed with the hammer hooks, though this was on the Titan hammer. I wanted the sear engagement to push the hammer slightly backwards to increase SA pull weight while keeping the Xtreme light hammer spring for smooth DA pull. I ordered an edged diamond file from ebay and made the angles on both hammer and sear sharper. Nothing I'd recommend unless you have a spare hammer and sear available in case you mess up. My biggest concern is that it won't hold up over time since the hardening of the metal might only be on the surface and I might have filed that away. Still going strong though, about 2000 rounds later and some dry fire.
  18. The grip thickness is more about what grip panels are on the gun, I don't think there is any significant difference between the thickness of the Tanfo vs CZ frames. The original Tanfo DA trigger has shorter DA reach than the stock CZ Shadow trigger. I used to have a CZ Shadow and now I shoot a Stock 2 AU small frame. The biggest difference is the checkering, I think the Tanfo beavertail is slightly more undercut too. The rest of the ergonomics are mostly depending on what grip panels you use. The CZ had a slightly crisper break and cleaner pull of the trigger, but Tanfo triggers can be made as light.
  19. From my experience I'd say you could/should definitely back off at least 0.1 grains when shortening the OAL that much. Maybe 0.2-0.3 grains depending on the powder. Both to keep PF and recoil the same, but more importantly to keep pressure down.
  20. Would be interesting to hear how you perceive the felt recoil and muzzle flip compared to the Shadow. Especially if you can make a direct side-by-side comparison with the same load in both guns. :-)
  21. I really think you should not use other peoples OAL's. You need to measure your own. If your barrel is different, and it probably is, then you risk getting the bullet against the rifling with pressure issues as a consequence. With fast powder and heavy bullets you reach high pressures real fast, many loads are on the limit. Getting a bullet smack on the rifling can mean bye-bye fingers and bye-bye gun. Make a couple of dummy rounds (you can pull and reuse the bullets later) in different OAL's until you find the one that plunks upon insertion and (important) also turns freely. A soft lead or plated round can plunk when it's against the rifling, but still won't turn. Then you make them 0.015 shorter to account for variances in case lengths and bullet seating.
  22. Fiocchis have been 100% in my gun with Xtreme Light hammer spring AND Light FP spring. Have not tried a lot of primers, but I got some light strikes with S&B primers so those are harder than Fiocchi. I don't think the primers are the problem, but that the OP is using the stock FP spring together with a light hammer spring.
  23. There's a thread about the 929 on a Swedish forum that I frequent. Posters there claim that the chambers are actually 9x21 mm, not 9x19 as in the Luger caliber. According to that thread, it is bit of a PITA to get good accuracy in the 929 using certain brands of 9mm luger brass. Also, the chamber throats are supposedly .358 while the barrel is .355, making smaller diameter bullets travel virtually unsupported until they hit the barrel cone - hopefully straight on, if not accuracy will suffer... Might be worth to check out if you're hunting that last accuracy. Hopefully, the 929 in the US is 9x19 for real.
  24. Yep, it has bull barrel. Weighs 1270 grams / 2.8 lbs with empty mag.
×
×
  • Create New...