mpeltier
-
Posts
2,274 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by mpeltier
-
-
15 hours ago, TonytheTiger said:
Well now I'm kinda curious what your method is.
And Burris has done some stuff with dual focal plane reticles.
Not a fan of Burris. Been thru a few of them.
My method is mostly in the pre stage planning. And range work at home. Which has proven the capabilities and accuracy of my scopes elevation turret. I know it matches my ballistic table in my phone (BulletflightM). Prior to shooting a stage I draw a roadmap of sorts that has the target distances and size noted and using my ballistic calculator find the optimum zero setting for the least amount of variation between closest and farthest targets. My goal is identifying a zero with no more than +8" to -8" bullet drop or rise. Most stages fall into that maximum, but occasionally I find one that is a little more. Thats ok as It just means I hold over or under slightly more. Knowing the target size makes it very easy to guesstimate this as it tells you its size. So if its a 10" plate, and your hold over/under is 10" its very easy to estimate 5" over a 10" plate for a center hit. For me this is much faster than trying to see, and remember witch stadia line is correct and its really doing the same thing , except often times your holding way over the target. or the stadia doesn't match the distance exactly and your guesstimating hold over/under anyway.
So what that looks like for instance. Lets say a stage has distant targets at 160 to 410 yds. checking my table with my standard 200yd zero I have a bullet drop of -25" @410 yds. Too much. So changing my zero in the table (by 25-50yd increments) I find that a 350yd zero has me exactly 8" high at 160 and 8" low at 410. My 200yd zero chart also told me it is 16 clicks to adjust to a 350 yd zero. Now I write on my roadmap each actual hold over/under on each target to see how much at each distance I need to adjust my aim. Also noted is how many clicks to adjust Before I walk up to the line for load and make ready. Most of the time this means on the close target I hold at the bottom and the far I hold at the top, for the rest dead on.
It sounds like a lot of work. It really isn't. Visually and on the clock, for me it has proven much faster than trying to get a bdc reticle to work.
-
3 hours ago, TonytheTiger said:
Definitely check it out before you pass judgement. Its very intuitive, and while I have yet to see a FFP 4x or 6x scope I liked, in 10x it's really the better option. Reason being is that the BDC is typically calibrated for maximum magnification. In a 4x or 6x by the time you need the BDC for holdovers you're usually at max mag. already so it works out. In a 10x scope you may very well decide you'd like to use 5x for an array at 350yds and 8x for the 550yd target. In a SFP scope your BDC is next to worthless in that situation while a FFP's holdovers remain the same regardless of magnification setting.
Thanks for the input. Im one of those anomalies who does not like or use any BDC (even though the EBR9 is really an MRAD for ranging). Out to as far as we go in 3-gun, I prefer a different method that has been faster and more foolproof for me. The FFP reticle I have used, I can not even see anything useful until it gets to about 6X anyway. I won't be spending that kind of money just to prove to myself what I already know. I was just hoping the illuminated dot might have somehow been a separate dot, even though Im not sure a FFP scope could be made that way. This Razor 1-10 does look to me to be about the best designed FFP scope to date, just not for me. I really wish they would make a SFP version with a super simple reticle. I would even opt for a JM-1 reticle.
Thanks for posting that video Josh.
-
I was looking at both and went with the Orange. Should be here any day as it was shipped earlier this week. I paid the extra for the Orange due to the slide to frame fit and the barrel bushing. The accuracy potential to me is more important than any tiny variation in the trigger, which is the easiest part to fix if it is not up to my expectations.
-
On 6/22/2020 at 8:38 PM, AHI said:
I believe the warning is on the tube of lock-tight. Not sure thow.
Not really. Just the warning "Not for use on plastics" implying plastic fasteners. No mention of it reacting with plastics in a negative way. It sounds more like a performance issue of the locktite not locking properly on plastic fasteners. Im not spreading it on the plastic at all anyway, just a tiny bit on the tip of the metal screw head threaded into the metal backer nut. Just like many of us do to our holsters and related gear. Never had any issue with any plastic gear in the past.
-
Thanks guys, that's what I thought. I really wish they would make a second focal plane version. Guess I will just stick to my 1-6 for now.
-
Does the dot get bigger and smaller when magnification changes or does it stay the same size?
-
34 minutes ago, AHI said:
Answer about Lock-tight. It can react with some plastics .
Yup, that's why I mentioned it. Funny thing though that they have been out a while and haven't seen any warning about lock-tite with them by the company. When I contacted them, no mention of it either. If the plastic/weld joint is effected by lock-tite they should inform us.
-
Been playing around with these for a short time now. First trip to the range I broke one, as seems common from a search I did, but no real fix came up. To Ghost's credit they sent me another. It was a place where the mounting/adjustment screw attaches to the hanger. It appears to be made in two pieces and liquid welded at the factory. Its possible lock tite off gases and weekens the joint, as I did use lock tite on the screw. I believe I have come up with a permanent, cheap, easy fix for it.
I went to the hardware store and purchased a M5x16 flathead screw and a thin fender washer for each pouch. I used a counter sink drill to relieve the washer for the screw and replaced the factory attachment screw and rubber grommet with the new screw and washer. It effectively clamps the pouch body to the hanger. Totally relieving the two piece welded part of the pouch of any stress that may break it. It makes the pouch solidly attached so you can't grab the pouch and adjust it as designed, but I thought that was stupid anyway. I was able to affectively fix the broken one this way as well. The little thickness behind the leaf spring is not enough to interfere with the magazine.
-
Put whatever length you want on there. Once its built as a registered SBR it doesn't matter if you change it to a different length. There is no legal requirement to notify them if its changed. Nor is there a law against changing it. Its still an SBR. You certainly can notify them if you wish, same thing if you change calibers. Thats also not required, but if it makes you feel better, write them a letter.
-
I usually go head then witch ever next plate is highest and work my way down that side usually ending up near the bottom on the opposite side. If by chance the head is perfectly centered I work my way clockwise.
Just for fun and the challenge, sometimes I will start with the lowest most plate. The trick there is to be quick to the next plate that's doing the work before it starts spinning too fast. If it does just wait for it to get to its apex and shoot it when it stops. Its good practice for those deviate stage designers who hide the star behind no shoots so you can only see the low hanging fruit.
-
"Failure is not an option".......
I Clean lubricate and maintain my firearms religiously, and feed them high quality ammo. What amazes me is those who will maintain a vehicle with proper scheduled maintenance but let their firearms go to failure before replacing something as simple as an extractor or spring. I can not remember a Non-ammo related failure in a long time. Even when using high quality or carefully inspected re loads, there's an occasional miss hap. Its no where near 1/1,000. My shotgun was always the Achilles heal and it used to drive me crazy. My original shotgun 20+ yrs ago was a Remington 1100, that never malfunctioned on me in the 3 years I rode it hard. But everybody in-the-know told me it would break, so I sold it and tried an FN SLP, Mossberg 930, Benelli M2, and the Stoeger M3000. All of those except the Stoeger gave me at least one problem per match. Sometimes the M2 would go a couple of matches. Now I've come full circle back to Remington with a brand new V3 Competition. So far zero malfunctions in more than 1000 rds........... Fingers crossed!
-
I still keep a pair of the old "Man Mountain" 4 rd holders on my belt. Im still learning the "New" methods with my "Kings" shell holder and quite often my old reliable 4 rounders save the day. Lol
-
I just found out that Joey Logano has been following this thread and has decided to trade in his current car for a 2020 bone stock mustang from his local dealer. He feels he has been thinking about this winning thing all wrong...........
-
On 4/24/2020 at 4:18 PM, recoilchamp said:
This. Why risk the danger and damaging the steel when you might have hundreds of shooters?
Stage design is a big consideration. I have been to a few of the bigger matches and stage design quite often plays in to your skill level, at the local level too. That is, there's almost always options on how to shoot it. You must weigh the risk vs reward. If you are a beginner and mixed loading is not something you have practiced and mastered.........Don't do it........I have yet to see a stage that forced you to shoot with mixed loading.
"A mans gotta know his limitations".
-
maybe.
If you haven't installed a ported gas plug in your Garand, you might consider it. Best $40.00 you can spend on a Garand you want to shoot. Click on the picture in this link to direct you to the product. but read all the data if you haven't already.
http://www.garandgear.com/m1-garand-ammunition
-
CZ TSO 2016
in CZ
So after looking at both of mine (a 9mm and a 40) I received both a week ago and both slides are marked "20". To clarify it seems that the 9mm is now using a MIM extractor and the 40 uses the previous type machined part. First two pictures are the spare that came with my 40 and the last two are the 9mm.
-
CZ TSO 2016
in CZ
9 hours ago, FALAR said:Every broken extractor I've ever seen a picture of was MIM. That's why Colt went away from it pretty quick on their 1911s. Every broken extractor I've ever seen in person was from a MIMber (aka Kimber).
I should have said Non-1911 extractor, as the design of a 1911 extractor acting as a spring is probably the reason its not been workable in the 1911. A 1911 tool steel or spring steel extractor is pretty tough, but not fool proof either by any means. Over the years I have use a variety of handguns in competition, and by far the most problematic extractors have been in 1911's, and not MIM. I'm not going to worry about the extractors in both of my 2020 TSO's, they gave me an extra with each anyway. Lol
-
CZ TSO 2016
in CZ
45 minutes ago, FALAR said:Trigger and rear sight being MIM doesn't really matter but man, I gotta say a MIM extractor has proven to be a bad idea on other guns.
I had no idea CZ went to them on all their guns now but I've never removed one so have never seen the telltale marks. I've not heard of them failing so I guess it is a non-issue.
Non issue. S&w, Glock, Ruger, SIG, and many more use MIM extractors. Not a problem I'm aware of with any of them. Ive owned 7 S&W M&P's with thousands of rounds thru them. Never a problem with any of them extracting. Who are you referring to that it was a "Bad idea"?
-
On 5/16/2020 at 8:20 PM, Austin81 said:
Was looking to spent 1500-2000
In that price range I would suggest the Bergera HMR Pro for a tactical rifle.
or The Christianson mentioned earlier for a hunting rifle.
-
Ghost has a shorter lead time. Nice holsters.
https://www.ghostholsterdirect.com/shop/ghost-holster-stinger-rig-set/
-
CZ TSO 2016
in CZ
3 minutes ago, yigal said:Metal injection molding (MIM)
new extractors
slide stops
new sear cage on all new shadow 2
This does not mean that these less quality guns are only cheaper to manufacture.
If its not lesser quality, how can they be better or not better?
Trigger guard shape is just personal preference.
Sounds like you prefer the older model, but its not necessarily better.
-
Best? It doesn't exist.
All scopes are a compromise in some respect. You need to prioritize what's most important to you and pick one, shoot it till you can't get it wrong and stick with it. Proficiency trumps any feature mentioned on any of the scopes in this thread. 6X, 8X, 10X no difference if you know how to use it. Kahle, Swarovski, Vortex, Leupold, etc etc,,, all clear enough for the task.
The reticle is the single most important feature of my scope choice. Time and experience dictated what reticle works best for me.
-
CZ TSO 2016
in CZ
10 minutes ago, yigal said:on older models shape of the trigger guard works better on competition holsters and more comfortable.
all new cz guns from 2019 in ours club have more mim parts .in older models this parts was made from solid steel.
about performance all TSO is the one of the best handguns that i know.
what parts are MIM? I had not heard this before.
-
CZ TSO 2016
in CZ
On 3/5/2020 at 7:04 AM, yigal said:best model. better than 2020.
Why do you feel its better than a 2020 model?
Vortex 1x10 experiences
in Rifle - Technical
Posted
Im assuming you use a BDC reticle and use the hash marks for distant shots. How do you prove and determine the value for each when the range of the targets don't match the hash marks? What do you do?