Gallow

Your groups at 8 yards are pretty large; you are clearly making one or more of the mistakes that many here have mentioned. To see if you're flinching, shoot in fairly low light and watch for your muzzle flash. If you can see that, you're not flinching. I still don't see any reason not to adjust your sights so those groups are centered on the target. Then as you tighten your groups, you can adjust your sights as necessary. The key is to shrink your groups--you can't shoot consistantly small groups while milking the grip or yanking the trigger or flinching or otherwise failing to control the trigger. Just because somebody else can shoot your gun to point of sight alignment doesn't necessarily mean that's the first thing you should work on, IMHO. However, you are apparently making correctable mistakes, and if you prefer to leave the sights where they are as you correct the mistakes, that'll work too. At my CPL class last week, there was a young woman who was given a rented Glock to shoot. She had never fired a gun, didn't know how to put the cartridges in the magazine, didn't know which way to put the mag in the gun, didn't know to rack the slide. The targets were 8" x 8" pieces of paper at 7 yards. I didn't expect her to hit the paper. Her first shot hit dead center, and she shot fourteen more into a group of about 1-1/2". She just didn't know any better.

How excellent are these groups? I realize I'm in a minority here, but if your groups really are excellent ( 1-2" at 25 yards), or even very good (2-1/2 to 3" at 25 yards) just adjust your sights. In working on tightening your groups still further over time, it may turn out that you're committing one or more of the various faults that others here have mentioned, and as you correct them, your groups may migrate high and right, at which time just adjust your sights again. I'm not as experienced as most other frequent posters on the forum, but I can shoot. Question for the other shooters: is this just plain bad advice?

Most folks on this forum are serious, serious shooters. If you aspire to be a master or GM, you should probably stick to one gun. When I was shooting a lot, many years ago, I shot several guns--1911 open sights, 1911 dot sights, pin gun, stock gun (for 2nd Chance), space gun (also for 2nd Chance), revolver (for pins), 9mm (for 9-pin). It's true I never quite got my "A" IPSC classification, and I choked at every 2nd Chance, but I wasn't that super serious, I had a lot of fun, and I got to buy plenty of guns and I learned to use them competantly, if not masterly. And I did improve, up to the time I quit. There are plenty of excellent long-time shooters who haven't made Master, though I assume they could if they devoted themselves to it. And there are plenty of serious dillitantes in IPSC, who just want to go out and shoot stages well and learn to operate different guns. I was never going to make Master, and I liked the challenge of attacking a stage with a new gun. Of course, I was single and had money to burn, too. Just an example from a non-serious, serious shooter.

Just a postscript: Before Pat Sweeney reminds me, a judge can do anything he or she wants. Or as Pat said to our club when the neighbors were trying to shut us down, and hearings were being held-- "One thing you never say to a judge: 'You can't do that.'"

I hate to disagree with everybody and I may be wrong, but when I was getting lots of tickets in my 20s in Michigan, a mistake on a ticket got you off, period. You are up before a judge on a citation, and if the citation's wrong--like citing a trailer registration--it would have been dismissed. When you plead not guilty, you're saying you're not guilty of the citation, not that you're not guilty of anything. In those days, anyway, the policeman couldn't say "oh, gee, I wrote it wrong, but the defendent is still guilty of something else." Maybe things have changed. I'm surprised at the number of responses here advising you to 'fess up and "do the right thing." Certainly if you were driving dangerously, quit doing it. I read an interview with TGO in some magazine years ago, and the interviewer, in the car with Rob, commented on his very very fast driving. Rob said, (I'm quoting from memory, please correct me if I'm wrong) "Yeah, I drive fast. I think all IPSC shooters drive fast....I accept a certain amount of risk.." Then he took his bike out to test it at 120mph or so. Of course, TGO isn't going to get stopped around Phoenix, since he's a LEO instructor, etc. But I find it strange that everyone is so sanctimonious about those of us who are stopped. There are sections of highway here around Detroit and Ann Arbor where if you aren't exceeding the speed limit by at least 15-20 mph, you're impeding traffic. But a cop still will pop out and cite someone if he or she is inclined. It's true that paying up and forgetting it may be the smartest thing to do, but unless you were driving dangerously, I think morality doesn't have much to do with it.

Not so strange. USPSA people have been hot-rodding their guns for over twenty years. With the old pf of 175, the Supers were super-sensitive to bullet setback, as were the .40s later. I wasn't shooting when the pf went down to 165, but I assume that had something to do with it. Meanwhile, LEOs were using factory ammo and stock guns. If that combination now leads to exploding guns, maybe huge labels warning to rotate (or measure!) your ammo should be posted around the station, or on the ammo, or on the gun. Of course, with every conceivable (and many inconceivable) dangers now meriting a warning label, probably no one would take another one seriously.

If your groups are good you just need to adjust your sights. I don't think anyone whacks the trigger consistantly enough to get good groups. The first thing Plaxco used to do in his classes was have the students shoot for group on an IPSC target and then have everybody adjust their sights to center the group.

Thanks. Yes, I'm referring to .45, and that's what I thought I understood. It does seem as though loads in at least some of the powder books are more conservative than they were thirteen years ago, when I was reloading. In any case, with PF down to 165, Second Chance dead, and my chrono operating, I won't be getting into pressure trouble.

The current American Rifleman says the price of lead has increased from something like $500 a ton to $3500 a ton in the last five years. (Figures appoximate--I don't have the issue in front of me.) I wish I'd put $100,000 into lead futures back in '02, instead of taking a flyer on Karl's Krazy Koldfusion Kompany.

I'm not Chuck but.... I've got and used that cleaner. I think it's cheaper than the industrial models because it doesn't come with a heating element. The fluid does get warm if you run it for a few minutes. It doesn't take out the lead or copper but it does a pretty good job on powder residue and grease. I strip the gun, run it for a few minutes in the cleaner, rinse the degreaser off, blow it dry then soak it in diesel fuel. It leaves an oily film that helps with rust. I haven't had to get lead out of my comp since I made the switch to JHP's. It sure left a lot of lead in the comp using lead bullets What cleaning fluid do you put in your Harbor Freight cleaning gizmo? It says not to use anything flammable. Would Brownell's D'SOLVE be good? I don't think it would attack lead, but would it be compatable with the ultrasonic unit? Or just soap and water?

Some years ago I read that “pressure signs,” which are used in working up loads, are nearly worthless as a diagnostic in handgun loads. The gist of it was that loads would almost always far exceed safe levels in handgun cartridges long before the classic pressure signs appeared. Is this true?

Thanks, guys. I'll give them a try. Just to be clear, I wouldn't dream of using powder that didn't come straight from a labeled can.

I've got a couple thousand .45 cartridges that are suspect for one reason or another--the result of over-enthusiastic use of my 1050, fifteen years ago. I've been pulling the bullets in order to reclaim the brass, but now that I've seen bullet prices (!) I'm wondering if I can re-load the bullets. They're all LSWC of various weights. I'm using an inertial bullet puller, tedious though it is. Most of the pulled bullets look OK. Would the taper crimp deform the bullet? Now I'm wishing I'd separated suspect loads by powder instead of just dumping them all into a five-gallon pail. Then I could re-use the powder, which ain't cheap either nowadays. Probably a bad idea to use a mixture of Bullseye, 231, AA7 and Unique.

Years ago I tried to assemble a super-soft-shooting load using 155 LSWCs. I tried Bullseye and W231, and no matter what I did, they wouldn't shoot worth a damn. They were properly crimped, too. W231 did fine with 185 LSWC (for steel), 200 LSWC (IPSC), and 230 LSWC (pins); I'd just chrono to get whatever power factor I wanted. Accuracy was good whatever I did. I've never tried these weird new-fangled powders you guys talk about. I always though Bullseye was supposed to be clean-burning, though I seldom used it except for 38 sp LWC.

I've read a number of posts about cheap Midway bags and the hi-quality Shooter's Choice bags, plus a few others. What ever happened to the Waller's Range Bag? I used one hard from 1990-1998 and it was still going strong. I left it out in the barn in the winter of '98-99, and assorted varmints ate enough of it that I can's use it, but I wonder why no one mentions it in range bag discussions. Did they change quality? Fail to support shooting sports? I have to get a replacement, or can I use one of those brown tool bags that have several compartments, and wrench loops that work fine for mags? I read that a ziplock bag is questionable as a range bag, on the grounds that it isn't a shooting bag. Neither is the tool bag. Is this a problem? If I sew my club patch, USPSA patch, and my Second Chance patches to it, would it be a presumptive range bag? (several questions there--sorry)

Soccer doesn't kill people. Soccer people kill people. Jeeez. I thought it was pit bulls killed people. (Ooops. Thread drift.... Nevermind.)

Got mine on the 29th, and actually read it today.

Is that a wolf? It looks like a hyena. Either way, it looks like it wouldn't be good eating. I'd say the guy is thinking "you stay away from my kill." The dead antelope is behind him, out of the picture. If there's no competition for a kill, why would either party be looking to engage? There could be very good reasons, but I can't infer them from the pic. I think a skilled man with a club is a match for a wolf/hyena, but either party would be likely to sustain injuries, and it doesn't look as though there's a hospital or a vet handy.

Is that a wolf? It looks like a hyena. Either way, it looks like it wouldn't be good eating. I'd say the guy is thinking "you stay away from my kill." The dead antelope is behind him, out of the picture. If there's no competition for a kill, why would either party be looking to engage? There could be very good reasons, but I can't infer them from the pic. I think a skilled man with a club is a match for a wolf/hyena, but either party would be likely to sustain injuries, and it doesn't look as though there's a hospital or a vet handy.

Welcome. I've got a Springfield .45 with about 40,000 rounds through it, and it still runs perfectly.

This could be a big problem at USPSA matches. "Unload and show clear!" OK, and then you have to dig out a snap cap and fiddle it into the chamber before you can aim in front of you and pull the trigger. I've never used snap caps in handguns, except for 22s.

So, maybe I'd be better off using my stock .45, and shooting in single stack. That's why I was wondering if the comp was effective at 165pf. Of course then I have to get a new holster, God knows why. To be required to use a concealment holster while bristling with 5 or 6 mags for those 32-round courses seems a little tilted.

I'm planning to start shooting again, but my guns are pretty obsolete. Back in '91 I had a .45 pin gun built for Second Chance, and later had a new barrel and Middlebrooks comp installed. It's single stack, of course. The comp worked well on the 200-210 pf loads I used for pins, and seemed to be an advantage with the 175 (loaded to 180) pf loads for IPSC. Now that the pf is 165, is that comp going to do anything at all? You might ask, why not try it and see, but I've only got several thousand rounds of 180 pf loads left from the mid-90s (and a bunch of 200 pf loads) and I don't have a reloading machine set up yet.

One reason to LOOK that no one has mentioned: lots of us shoot a number of different guns. For example, if you go from an open gun with an enormous mag well to a single stack, and you’re accustomed to not looking, you’re likely to screw up the single stack reload. What you can get away with varies from gun to gun.