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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Steve133

  • Rank
    Finally read the FAQs

Profile Information

  • Location
    Houston, TX
  • Real Name
    Eric Prehn

Recent Profile Visitors

378 profile views
  1. I didn't say it was a big deal, and you're absolutely correct that it is not. But $15 is $15, and if someone is scratching their head just trying to identify all the differences between this platform and the Tac Sport (which was the context of that comment), then it still bears pointing out. It is still a difference, however slight. The mags are cheaper, not to mention more common, which means that you stand a much better chance of catching them at a theoretical "street price" instead of full MSRP. Though your observation does add some much-needed mathematical context - thanks for adding that. Cross-compatibility with different platforms is still a thing if 9mm is your jam... which it admittedly probably isn't, since it sounds like most people are looking at this solely as a Limited gun....
  2. It'll definitely be a little different, but how much depends on how your specific rifle shoots your specific ammo under your specific local conditions. By and large, 5.56 and 7.62 actually aren't hugely different in terms of ballistics, but you're still definitely going to want to confirm that against your specific setup. For the sake of reference, it's not a direct apples-to-apples comparison, but just looking at reticle holds in Strelok, if I take the same reticle and zero distance that I use for 77 grain 5.56 and plug in a typical 7.62 loading, my 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 yard holds become 200, 290, 390, 400, and 620 yard holds, so... it'll probably be fairly close. You'll probably be a couple of clicks off from what the BDC dial says (but given differences in ammunition, barrel length, etc., that'd probably still happen with 5.56), and you'll want to verify by how much yourself, but it probably won't be totally and completely off. Probably.
  3. To bring it back to budget: we can quibble about M3000 vs. M3k vs. M3k Freedom Edition, but by and large, in my personal experience, the Stoegers represent a very, very solid price/performance ratio. The 1301 or basically any Benelli model will indeed be better than a Stoeger in terms of fit and finish, but I'd say that none of the M3k models would hold you back - I've been running them for a few years now, and while I'm mediocre at best, they certainly don't seem to slow Pat Kelley and Tim Yackley down any.... Take it with a grain of salt, because I've got a couple of them, and we're always going to want to defend the choices that we make. Not sure if this counts as "justifying the price difference", but I will freely admit that the rough fit and finish on the Stoegers makes them a little finicky at first. There's a little bit of a break-in period, and you might have to do some polishing and filing at a couple of points to get them to run reliably. Nothing huge, it's probably an afternoon's worth of work at the very most, but if it's worth $500 to you to not have to do anything, then yes, you might want to save a while longer for a more expensive model. For what it's worth, I had to do a bit of that with my first shotgun, and it was benign enough that I still bought another M3k a couple of years later. That said... to echo what others have said, you're probably never going to find a shotgun that's perfect for competition use right out of the box, even the models designed and marketed for 3 gun. Mag extensions are almost always going to be required, and basically no one makes an OEM gun with them. The M3k Freedom definitely has an edge over most of the other competition models... but you're probably still going to eventually want to add a +2 (12 rounds has become the de facto standard, since it'll let you load a quad on top of a full tube on the start buzzer). This is where the quibbling starts: if you're going to want to add an extension eventually, and a non-Freedom M3k and a +8 extension is cheaper than an M3k Freedom and a +2, that might be the way to go; or maybe you can accept a slightly less open port and go with an M3000 and a mag extension; etc. Speaking of loading ports, even the models with "competition loading ports" are probably going to need to be opened up a bit more, but that's relatively cheap for most smiths to do, or something that you can do yourself in an afternoon with a set of files (or a couple of hours with a Dremel if you're feeling confident). So, maybe since you're accepting that, you can go with a standard M3000 and just be really careful about the serial number, etc. Anyway, since it's what you asked about by name, the M3k Freedom plus a few hours of loading port work and maybe some judicious action polishing will almost certainly "good enough", though you might still want to pick up some aftermarket parts in the future. Like Tortoise said, they're pretty cheap.
  4. I think the only other thing is the magazine situation - the P-09/P-10 mags that the DWX uses are going to be MUCH cheaper than TS mags. There's also going to be some cross-compatibility with different platforms. If you're going to be mostly shooting Limited, there's not much use case in being able to share .40 mags across platforms, but for 9mm, it could theoretically let you use a common pool of mags for a 3 gun/Limited Minor pistol, Production, and Carry Optics. I don't really think that's significant enough to be a deciding factor, but it's a thing. I kind of agree that the most important impact this thing will have is filling the void that's appeared in the market between production guns and full custom builds, and maybe providing enough competition to start driving prices down.
  5. A little bit of clarification: My understanding is that Stoeger has 3 models of inertia gun that fit the bill of "budget 3 gun shotgun": M3000 - the "standard" model with no competition mods at all M3k - the initial competition model, with an opened loading port and oversized controls, but the stock magazine tube M3k Freedom - all the mods of the M3k, with the addition of the 10-round mag tube. Those are listed in order of increasing cost. I'd agree with the general sentiment that you might not want to bother with the Freedom edition, but unless there have been some changes recently, there's one more critical difference between the "standard" M3000 and the M3k models - the location of the serial number. On the M3000, the serial number is located right next to the loading port, which limits the amount that you can open the port up. It's not the end of the world, but you do need to be really careful if you're doing that work yourself, since you can accidentally commit a felony if you remove too much material. Also, if you think that you might eventually send it in to someone for them to cut up, some custom shops will only work on the M3k models and not the standard M3000, due to the serial number issue. I've found some pretty good sale prices on the non-Freedom M3k now and then, so that might be a good budget option to consider as well.
  6. I've got a reasonably bad astigmatism and a little bit of experience with a few different optic types, so some thoughts: Southpaw is correct. An actual holographic sight uses a laser emitter system to project a virtual image of the reticle that appears to be at a set distance in front of the actual location of the sight; the various and sundry EOTechs and the Vortex UH-1 are the only actual examples of holographic sights currently on the market. Unfortunately, while the newer EOTechs and the UH-1 are probably better in terms of weight and battery life than the older models, they're still not going to be as light or have the long battery life as a traditional red dot. They use a more advanced optical system (fricken' laser beams!), so they're always going to be a little clunkier and draw more power. That said, in my personal experience, not all red dots are created equal, and some of them starburst much worse than others. I've got a Holosun 510 on my PCC, and it's definitely been one of the better ones. But... ... if you've tried a bunch of different red dots, and they all do that, then you might still have some issues with it. Everyone's eyes are a little different. YMMV. I've also noticed I tend to have less distortion with bigger dots (e.g., the 4-6 MOA dots popular on Open pistols). The corresponding loss of precision means that you don't see them in rifle optics very often, but that's something else to consider if you're not anticipating doing a lot of long-range shooting. And as annoying as it can sometimes be to reply with "C" when someone asks if they should use A or B, this probably also bears emphasizing. 1x prismatic optics aren't quite as fast or distortion-free as a red dot or holographic, but the etched reticle does manage to completely side-step any issues with astigmatism. I have first-hand experience with the Spitfire and the Primary Arms Cyclops, and haven't had any issues with either. Both are illuminated - not exactly daylight bright, but enough for low-light use, which I assume is a concern on a home-defense gun.
  7. I personally have dived face-first into a muddy creek bed with one loaded into my rifle, and it still ran for the rest of the weekend. After the mud started to dry and flake off on the inside, it got a little finicky about feeding when I loaded more than 50 rounds or so, but that cleared up when I broke it down and cleaned it. I've also seen people drop loaded D60s in the mud, pick them up, and have them run fine after just shaking them off a little bit. They're pretty reliable overall.
  8. Both are perfectly valid opinions, but I'll throw one out there that's somewhere between the two of them: I wouldn't really see much of a point on a .40 that's only going be used for USPSA Limited, but for a 9 mm that's going to be used in 3 gun, I am violently pro-rail. They're not super-common, but night matches happen often enough that I'm a fan of being able to mount a light. It's kind of pain right now, because I shoot a TSO for everything except those night matches, and I have to switch to something else. Especially since the night-time stuff tends to show up as a side event, I'd have to bring two sets of pistols, mags, holsters, etc. to a match, which is a pain. I'll gladly accept the janky aesthetics on a USPSA gun in exchange for that flexibility. Between that and the cheaper magazines, it doesn't quite bring enough to the table for me to dump my TSO for this, but it is enough that that I'd probably have bought one of these instead if they'd existed a couple of years ago.
  9. Nothing there that makes me want to dump any of my current guns in favor of this one, but it makes me really, really wish that this had been out there a few years ago when I was first getting started. The more I think about it, the more I hone in on the magazines, which I wouldn't originally have expected. Making the assumptions that this will be roughly on-par with a TSO in terms of quality (which I think is a pretty safe one), and that the magazines "based on" the P-09/P-10 pattern mags are in fact interchangeable, then a newer shooter has a clear path to pick up a relatively inexpensive polymer-framed CZ to ease into the game, then gradually upgrade to some high-end options like the CZC A01 and this thing while sharing the same magazines for basically everything.
  10. That works great, thanks again man! Looks like the ~14" that's pretty standard for the Benelli-like guns... Yeah, it's definitely going to be food for thought.
  11. It's not so much that there was anything wrong with the SWFA (I still think that they're underappreciated in general, and I still have that one to use as a spare), just that I made the mistake of looking through a buddy's Razor during a match and realized that it's a little bit better in most regards. The image is a little clearer and brighter, and there's a tad less distortion around the edges of the field of view on 1x. I also realized that the FFP capability - a big part of the reason why I'd gravitated towards the SWFA in the first place - isn't all that significant in 3 gun, and I've gradually come to prefer the less cluttered reticle on the Razor, especially on 1x. Even after I decided on upgrading, it's not like the difference was so extreme that I rushed out and bought a Razor immediately. I set aside my pennies and watched for good sale prices for a year or so before pulling the trigger on it.
  12. I can't answer question 1., since I've looked through a few Vipers, but never spent much time messing with the adjustment turrets. Sorry. But 2 out of 3 isn't that bad, right? 2. No, the adjustment turrets on the Razor 1-6 are pretty easy to move. Clicks are maybe a little bit mushier than a top-of-the-line, high-magnification optic with exposed turrets that are intended to be adjusted regularly, but they're distinct enough that you're not going to turn straight through them or anything. 3. Some people like the Strike Eagle, and I'm not trying to throw them under the bus or anything, but... in my opinion, yeah, it is. I have heard it referred to as the most expensive optic in 3 gun, because it just adds $200-$300 to the cost of the better optic that you'll eventually buy anyway. All of that is driven by the generally low optical quality of the glass. The Razor has some great glass, and the Viper isn't too far behind it... but the Strike Eagle is much worse than either of them. This is just me, but even if the turrets on every single Viper were so stiff that I needed a wrench to turn them, I'd probably still prefer it. Bad turrets are bad when you're zeroing... but bad glass is bad every time you look through it. I currently use a Razor, but started out with an SWFA 1-6x; based on that and some intermittent experience with a buddy's Strike Eagle, I'd say that the glass in your current 1-4x is much better. Even with the higher magnification, I'd call a Strike Eagle a downgrade.
  13. Thanks man, that'd be great! If you could drop a tape measure from the trigger shoe to the center of the butt pad, that should do it. Something like this: And yeah, I'm hearing some pretty good buzz about the 1301 Pro. I'm frankly not at a level where I would benefit from a shotgun upgrade; hopefully, by the time I get there and have some money saved up, the Pro version will have been out for long enough that there'll be some good info on it from folks that have run them in matches....
  14. Thanks for the input. The 1301 was vaguely on my radar for doing some additional research, and that's a good data point. I should probably clarify here that I'm not dead-set on the Breda or anything - I'm doing some long-term research to pull together the pros/cons of the popular options out there, and one of the factors to consider is ergonomics of the factory furniture and availability of aftermarket options. Everything about most of the common shotgun choices is documented pretty well, but for whatever reason, I can't for the life of me find that information about the buttstock for the Breda....
  15. Little bit of a necro-bump, but my Google-fu has failed me, and I figured someone here might know: While I'm in no particular hurry to replace my current shotgun, it is something that I'm probably going to do in the future, and I'm weighing my options so that I can start setting my pennies aside for when I do feel like making an upgrade. The catch is that I'm a short dude with tiny T-Rex arms, and the "compact" 13 1/8" LOP stocks that Benelli and Stoeger make fit me better than the full-size versions, so that's a consideration. What's the LOP on the B12i stock? Are there any replacement options for a compact version with a shorter LOP?
  • Create New...