jkrispies

I have the exact same issue, and it's a big one. My solution is to fight the battles I can win and not worry about the rest. (Stoicism, by the way, but I digress...) My working solution is to wake up 30-45 minutes before the rest of my family every morning (yes, that means work days also) and dryfire. I have to do it in the garage because, depending on the time of year, it's usually too dark to go outside. If you don't have a garage, set up in the biggest room in your house, which I've done as well, but being left to yourself in the garage is way more effective. Get the brightest "daylight bright" lights possible for the ceiling-- when my current batch dies I'm switching to LED's. I'd also STRONGLY recommend having a way to secure your competition gun in the garage which not only cuts down on setup time but keeps your wife from killing you when you wake her up every morning pulling the gun out of the bedroom gun safe at zero dark hundred. And, of course, there needs to be some sort of a working dryfire setup permanently good-to-go in the garage or you'll lose half your 30 minute session to setup and tear down. On the non-shooting prep side, I find it best to have my lunch, etc., for the day already made and packed up before I go to bed, and then I take my morning shower first in order to help wake myself up (zombie dry fire is ineffective, BTW) before getting straight into my work clothes. This way I can jump directly into the car for work/kids-to-school delivery when I'm done. The downside to all of this is that I need to make sure I get to bed early enough that I'm not missing too much sleep the next morning, and this sometimes means getting cranky with the family to "remind" them that I have a hobby which keeps me sane, and it's best for everybody involved to keep me sane. Getting back to the "only fight the battles you can win" part, the end result is that I oftentimes only live fire at the matches themselves, but I have so much trigger time from INTELLIGENT and SPECIFIC dry fire that I do pretty well for myself anyway.

I’m willing to experiment with anything but if I see a problem like this at the start I’d address it ASAP. The fact that this can be used to haul in a tuna on the line is a deal breaking problem. I get that this may still be nothing more than a working prototype/proof of concept but the finished product needs a shroud because that may affect the gas dynamics (certainly weight) and therefore test results. Plus, those little holes at the start are going to clog up fast enough that it will need a good cleaning session after every shooting session or those front hooks will be the only working part. I hope he’s built in a way to clean those passageways...

Might be a good internal design if it had some sort of shroud to mitigate the issues mentioned above?

Well, this is VERY interesting! So I went to the Primary Arms website to check out the Primary Arms reflex sight thanks to sfinney's suggestion. As it turns out, Primary Arms sells the FC1, and it lists it only as a prism sight. But what is far more interesting is the image through the viewer that Primary Arms provides. Comparing the photo from Primary Arms to the one provided on the DI Optical sight, the DI Optical photo has clearly been PhotoShop'ed to show a less obstructed field of view than the real field of view seen in the Primary Arms photo. It's clear to me that this isn't a company I will be doing business with!

Agreed. USPSA advertising reaches USPSA members only. PractiScore reaches USPSA (including shooters who are non-members) and every other type of shooting game plus outlaw matches.

I haven't seen the PA prisms, but I'll glance at them later. I actually just stumbled across these sights by accident while purchasing something else on Amazon, and I was impressed by how little visual obstruction there was around the frame, especially for it being a "hardened" optic. From what I'm seeing and my very little experience with DI Optical so far, I will speculate that their engineers have built a really nice optic that's going fail because the company is unknown and it's being marketed by folks who don't know anything about the product itself or their target audience. For instance, in addition to my questions already stated, it has a built-in mount, but there's no mention of it being absolute or co-witness height... and I bet if I asked they wouldn't write back probably because they wouldn't have the slightest idea what I was asking. I feel bad for the guys who obviously worked hard to develop this sight if the venture goes down in flames because of lazy marketing. We'll see, but at a $500ish price point, I'm definitely not going to be the guy to experiment with it.

That makes really good sense if IPSC major is the goal: more weight on the front for stable double taps, a lighter bullet would keep the recoil down, and the long barrel gives it more time to gain speed, plus a comp. I bet they are soft as butter to shoot! For me, though, not my goal. I'm basically just thinking of a fun gun that I could start building now with my collection of spare parts and then keep an eye out in the classifieds and sales for awhile, maybe trade some of my spare parts for other guys' spare parts over time, etc. One of the main reasons I'm thinking of short barrel and long linear comp is that I can more or less duplicate my Steel Challenge PCCO gun in terms of balance and ergonomics, which I built using a TACCOM ULW barrel. This would be awesome because I really like the feel and swing of my ULW, and I'm getting pretty damn good with it. I love my PCCO but it bums me out that I can't shoot it much farther than 75-100 yards. Lastly (and this wouldn't matter to those who live in the free states) I live in Kalifornia and my PCCO is one of those rare guns where I was able to build it Kali legal by coincidence rather than necessity, and I could do the same thing with this gun. In a lot of ways, this would be kind of a win-win-win-win for me in that it would be a great gun, be standardized to another gun that I'm already rocking, I could build at least half of it now with spare parts I already own, and it would be Kali legal. Damn, I think I just convinced myself to do it, LOL!!!! Haha, so yeah, the OP just went off topic as well. Back to the subsonic loads-- what kind of range are you guys getting? Part of my mind says that it's basically a glorified PCC when you go subsonic, but with the heavier bullet and vastly improved ballistic coefficient, maybe I'm way off base?

If anyone is interested, I wrote to DI Optical so that they could clarify how their sights are constructed. Specifically, I asked: "I'm confused by the advertising. Everywhere (except your actual website)... this is a "Prismatic Reflex" sight. To my knowledge, "prismatic" and "reflex" are mutually exclusive terms with regards to dot construction. Which is it? Or is it both, and I need some education on the matter?" After four days without an answer, I asked them the same question again, and they replied relatively quickly (and, curiously, to my initial email but not my second😞 "We do not see any difference of meaning between Prismatic sight and Prismatic reflex sight. All optics reflex its LED to lens and visible to your eyes." Does this sound right? It's my understanding that "prismatic sights" (e.g., the Leupold Prismatic, Vortex Spitfire, and Burris AR-1X) use a combination of lenses (ie, prisms) with etched reticles to display a very clear but fixed reticle, whereas "reflex sights" project a reflection (ie., reflex) onto a single, coated lens to display a non-fixed reticle. In other words, the Prism and Reflex sights are two very different types of sights. Am I wrong with my definition--ill-informed due to years marketing speak that's made me falsely believe that these terms are mutually exclusive--and DI Optical just educated me? If this customer service rep is correct then I have to be impressed with the company for doing something new, or at least educating me on the matter. But if the reply is just plain wrong, then I'm taking this as fair warning to stay far, far away from DI Optical products, and I don't mind spreading that word to others. Input? J PS: I sent a reply to their above response asking if their reticle is fixed or floating. Business hours have closed, and I've received no reply from them as of yet.

What kind of max range are you getting with sub sonics?

Exactly the answer I was looking for. 👍

Apologies if this topic is beat to death but my search function doesn’t seem to work as well as usual lately. Just kicking around the idea of basically building a 300blk SBR but pinning a linear comp on it to keep it legal at 16” overall and to build it with a 12” handguard. I’m thinking linear comp also to keep the weight down. Let’s say that maximum range will be 300ish yards if shooting for distance and with the appropriate ammo, but with most shots being in the or 0-150 yard range with subsonic ammo and a red dot. Given those ranges, what would the ideal barrel length be?

I agree 100% with this. What baffles me is that most of the aftermarket improvements I’ve made to my 550 and 650, mainly adding additional bearings here and there, are not cost prohibitive but are virtually essential for proper functioning, at least in my opinion. Hopefully the competition will help in this regard.

I had some old loaded ones that I tried when I was experimenting with PCC loads after I built mt first one, and they worked better than any of the other loads I’d tried up to that point, including 125, 130, and 147 grainers in various forms. Unfortunately I made the 121’s so long ago I don’t remember what the load data was, but I’m certain that I used Titegroup in it for powder. I liked it well enough that I then experimented with 115gr JHP, and I now load 115 grain Zero jacketed hollow points, which perform similarly but are more cost effective if my memory is correct.

Actually, it IS for the everyday loader— as in: a home-based commercial loader who loads everyday. Good for Mark 7, you can’t fault them for a smart business move, but unfortunate for Dillon who puts prizes on our tables.

👍