jkrispies

I have a rifle length SOCOM on my PCC that I love. It’s heavy, but I think in several good ways.

I think that before a shooter decides on a stock he should first consider how he wants the gun to balance (relative to how it is currently balanced) and proceed forward from there. If you like the current balance, choose a similarly weighted stock, if you want it more nose heavy you could go as light as a Smoke (already mentioned) or something like a Minimalist, or if you want it lighter feeling on the nose consider something heavier like an Ace/Doublestar SOCOM. It sounds like you’re looking for lighter; I have a Minimalist on my A5 tubed rimfire and adjusted the cheekweld with some 1/4” thick self-adhesive neoprene off Amazon or eBay... can’t remember which but it worked perfectly. You probably won’t need to adjust your riser though since mine is on a 10/22 chassis but that’s a solution if you need it. So good choice!

Will follow this for some suggestions. I'm such a non-expert, I consider whiskey to be bourbon. Apologies. Jameson is my usual whiskey, but I have dabbled in a few blends though nothing so amazing that I'd recommend one over another. As a matter of fact... now you have me thinking about it... some Irish Whiskey and an episode of Punisher might be just the thing...

Ouch!

Hmmm. Looks very cool but I’d like to hear more about features (auto activation or brightness control maybe?) battery life, etc.

It’s not poetry exactly, but when times are rough I often find myself turning to this excerpt from Teddy Roosevelt, which I keep on a small paper on my office wall: “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

it’s extremely possible, especially when pointing out a problem can be synonymous with talking yourself out of a job.

This is my point when I say “a bunch of coffee” before the match is bad. Now, if you get the shakes after only 24 hours of no coffee.... then.... maybe that’s a different discussion thread, lol.

This is the only response I’ve read but I like it. The speed difference between my 650 and 550 is due to the auto brass loader not the auto indexing. I’ve never had a safety concern with the manual index. If you’re only ever going to load something simple like plain jane 9mm and never change it, I suppose the SDB will be fine but I chose the 550 for versatility and have never looked back.

FWIW, regarding the RMR not being a true 1x, after reading this thread I took my primary RM07 into my backyard this morning where I have 25 yards to play with and looked really hard through it. There's maybe a 1.1x or so magnification, and I think it's showing up more around the very edges of the glass than in the center. I think that in reality this may be the case with most dots if you really look that analytically. I see the same thing in my RTS2 but to a lesser extent... again I bet because the glass itself is thinner on that particular dot which also helps to make the glass clearer. I would venture to guess that the only way you're going to get an absolutely perfect 1x view through an optic is with a prism/variable scope that can be focused with an adjustable eyepiece, which is a function that these micros obviously lack. Having acknowledged the above, if doing a proper target focus, the magnification I'm seeing in the RMR is pretty unnoticeable, and I wouldn't have picked up on it if not for the comments in this thread making me curious enough to look for it specifically. Again, a caveat is that I'm using my RMR on a rifle mounted mere inches from my eye-- not sure what the verdict would be at arm's length as others mentioned above.

Don't drink a bunch of coffee on the way to the match, at least if you're shooting pistol. It doesn't seem to make much of a difference to me when I'm shooting rifle (might even help, LOL) but accurately aiming a pistol with even a tiny bit of the caffeine shakes has been my downfall several times. It took a couple bad matches with caffeine followed by good matches without caffeine followed by bad matches with caffeine for me to put two and two together to figure out, "Oh, yeah, there is a correlation..."

+1. I won't claim to be a precision rifle expert, but the only difference with me vs. the statement above is I'll use a yard-long bubble level and level it horizontally for the horizontal cross hair line and put it as far out as is reasonable, which doesn't have to be horribly far out. 25 yards has worked for me, but it may depend on how strong your scope is-- I tend to use relatively low power scopes, 16x and less. Either method should work.

Yeah, if you’re at 138pf after lightening the load, I think that helped. I’m currently at 132 out of a 5.5” TACCOM ULW but will likely be around 138 when I switch to my longer barrel. Will be interesting to play with the loads.

I received my Titan Rocket Magwell and installed it this morning. The Magwell works great and has immediately lowered my unloaded table start time by .20 if not more. Reloads off the belt are way faster too.

Meh. Maybe it's helping a little, but the issue still exists.

I've actually compared the two side-by-side, and I prefer the Blitzkrieg... if you make the effort to customize the springs, test it with and without the optional weight, etc. Basically, I think the TACCOM is perfect for somebody who wants to buy a relatively inexpensive buffer that has a tuned feel without having to do the actual tuning. TACCOM advertises their buffer as "self-tuning" and I think it does that... which also means that it's perhaps a bit resistant to the user fine tuning it other than trying it with and without the short stroke kit. So, yes, in my experience you can go farther with the Blitzkrieg, but you have to work for it. It all depends on the amount of effort you want to put into the system.

When I build a gun I follow the part-a-month payment plan. Yes, it may take a year or more to finish the project, but when I'm finished, I have the gun I want, not almost the gun I wanted. Quality is worth the investment, both in terms of money and time.

Just finished episode 3. It’s picking up.

I've found that when a filmmaker "does guns correctly" I tend to really like the film. I think it's a sign of the filmmaker not only giving a damn about research and quality, but it's probably also a sign that the filmmaker has the same interests (and maybe moral code?) as me. I started making a list of filmmakers, series, etc., where I think they took the time and effort to do guns right-- maybe even if they aren't exactly gun people, I can appreciate the honest effort. Unfortunately, the list is short. It's Hollywood. Anybody care to add to it? Here's the start of my list, not particularly well organized: Film maker Michael Mann (Heat, Collateral, etc.) Film maker Keanu Reeves (we all know about his firearms training) Film maker Steven Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List) Film, John Wick Film, Zero Dark Hundred Film, Den of Thieves Film, Blackhawk Down TV Series, The Punisher TV Series, Jack Ryan (sort of) TV Series Westworld (sort of) If anybody adds The Walking Dead to this thread, I'm going to puke.

I just started Punisher Season 1 based on this thread. Really liking it so far.

+1 for the BCM but if you want absolute vertical then look at the Modular Driven Technologies (MDT) grip. It’s designed for thier bolt action chassis but fits an AR.

I'm looking at ambi lowers... but I'm a lefty. From my vantage point, the issue is more along the lines of cost/value than necessity since I'm already set up. If I were purchasing new, knowing what I know now, I'd pay extra to get a good ambi from the start, but ambis weren't really available when I got into PCC. I currently own a "normal" NFA lower that I'm not in love with but don't hate enough to go through the trouble and expense to change out for an ambi. Bear in mind that I'm a Kalifornian so I need to go through more hassle and expense to change out my lower than other folks in free states, so maybe my opinion is irrelevant. Just some info for your research...

FWIW, I've looked through reflex sights that were legitimately distorted due to bad glass, and I wouldn't put the RMR in that category. I've never looked through an RMR that was distorted when held correctly. From what I can tell, the glass on the RMR is extra thick for strength, so it will appear to be distorted if not held correctly, meaning that you're looking through it at an angle; you would see the same distortion if looking through a window at an extreme angle, or looking at a flat fish tank from an angle rather than straight on. When I look through an RMR straight (as in, the dot is centered in the window), I don't think it's distorted at all, and I can also say that I don't personally see any magnification... though I keep the sight mounted close to my eye which may make a difference in this regard. Of course, this is also to say that a reflex sight with less thick glass (such as the RTS2) will be less forgiving of a poor presentation... at the greater risk of damage in the event of impact. It's all a balance of trade-offs, and the end user needs to decide where they want to fall on that sliding scale. This is why I choose the RMR for one shooting purpose, and the RTS2 for a different shooting purpose.