xdf3
-
Posts
222 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by xdf3
-
-
21 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:
what new gun came out that you saw many top shooters swap to and have performance dips that they could not train out?
The only experience I have seeing something like this was a local Master level guy that switched from a GLOCK to a CZ and was never able to shoot to the same level with the CZ.
everyone else I have observed that swapped guns one way or the other has quickly been at the same level, one local master shooting a CZ S2 and dooing well pulled out his old G34 in practice and was equaling his drill scores in just a few minutes practice, he still shot the S2 because he liked it more, but had to admit liked more and scores better are not the same thing.
I won't name it but as a matter of fact, some shooters using a new better gun are doing better, some shooters using a new gun (worse) are doing worse. Maybe a bigfoot won't have any issue swapping from a CZ to a Glock (due to recoil management) but most shooters will find differences. There may be a lot of details which matter. Few drills are not enough to judge. I can see there's a big difference between a SP01 and a Shadow2. It's not a matter of practice.
-
When one gun for production is more accurate, double taps faster and easier, has a better "magwell" and a light/good trigger, swapping from that one to another will make a clear difference. It's easily noticeable in a lot of matches where you see good shooters performing better or worse depending on the gun. For example, a new gun was released and some top shooters were performing a lot worse, no matter the effort they put in, since the differences were too clear.
-
Is there a difference in terms of performance or anything like that between Hi-tek and powder coating?
-
58 minutes ago, GMP said:
What I mean by check when fitting is barrel fit. Basically if the barrel goes in straight and easy the bushing fit will be less than optimum. On my stock S2 I could detect play but did not measure and calc clearance. With the fitted CGW bushing I have to wiggle the barrel to the side at an angle to install it. Next time I break the gun down I'll measure the parts, but there has to be a minimum clearance to allow assembly. I would fit it so its a slight PIA to install but with no force, then it will break in nicely.
Its USPSA legal as far as I know, doesn't change external appearance of the gun. You can see it of course but it looks the same.
"You can see it of course but it looks the same. " -> So it's clear that it's an aftermarket bushing but it's similar, right?
Seems like it might take some work, but that doesn't seem to be hard
-
20 hours ago, GMP said:
Its better quality hardened steel that's tight and will likely need some fitting. Its obvious once you knock the stock one out and compare. Mine shot good stock, great with the bushing. There was a slight noticeable play stock and the barrel dropped in super easy so I did the bushing with other CGW mods. I had to fit mine, could not get the barrel installed in ANY position. Lots of elbow grease with #600 paper and constant checks until the barrel could just be installed, then a final polish. Loosed up a hair more with 1K rounds and settled in to where it wants to be and has stayed the same since. I also use a very thin coat of light moly grease on the barrel end and lugs after a cleaning.
The only thing to check is the bushing itself, right?
Is it IDPA legal since it's not a modification out of the gun? I might consider picking one for my SP01 since I noticed it's not as accurate as my S2
-
Is it the same as the factory bushing? It seems like there's no difference except for tolerances
-
I found an interesting discussion on IPSC global village where Grauffel says he uses target focus with front sight + fiber optic (using the fiber as a dot).
Same does Ben Stoeger at the moment, target focus.2 Champions confirming it is interesting enough
-
What's the best way to have the least reset possible? Is a stock disconnector good enough to start with?
-
13 hours ago, Yondering said:
People have different interpretations of "need" I guess, but I hate to see a new reloader be misled. Your RCBS die set expands and flares the case neck just fine, you don't need any other die. Some people prefer to use something else, but that's preference, not need.
You do need to flare the case mouth, and lead bullets (cast/coated, lubed, swaged, whatever) need a bit more flare than jacketed bullets. You'll do this with the second die in your RCBS set, and applying more flare is done by screwing in the stem of the die a little farther.
If you prefer to use something like the NOE expander, Lyman M die, etc, you can certainly do that and might or might not find some advantages with those. However, you can load excellent quality accurate cast bullet ammo with the dies you already have.
Too much flare leading to swaging the bullet is caused by using the Lee Roll crimp die (seater + crimp in 1 stage), right?
To avoid that at the moment, I must set up the the die so there's less flare. I am considering a new press so I can use Seater + Taper in different stages. Would the Lee expander die be good enough? I got a Lyman expander (not the M die I guess, I didn't buy it, I got it from spare parts) but it doesn't seem to push farther -
10 hours ago, jcc7x7 said:
Concur, really full of it!
Guy must have a lot of undersized bullets to sell!
Actually the one who told me is not even selling anything, he's a mechanic and told me it's clearly obvious that pressures will be higher (as much as accuracy). My question at this point is "how much"? He of course think it's much more (maybe 20% more? I don't know)
My easiest way is not to tell him I'm going to try 500 .357. He told me I shouldn't even use 100.
-
@YonderingI've just ordered some .357 (500) and will try them. No issues asking them, I've been asked why but nothing more.
And after I talked to another manifacturer, a big discussion about larger diameters started. Since things here move pretty fast due to social media, I guess, if it does give benefit, it will become more used in few months already.
BTW: I've been told again that shooting 357 with a good alloy is bad for the gun, since it will make the gun break much faster. No need to shoot 357 when the lead alloy is hard enough. I don't know how much pressure can become an issue at that point.
-
11 hours ago, IPSCLUVERRR said:
Does anyone else do the match before theyshoot the stage and calculate what the hf should be?
If you mean the math, yes I do and it does help, especially if there are differences like HF 4 or HF 8, totally two different ways of shooting it.
HF 4 > More accurate (4 points per second), take more time to aim
HF 8 > Less accurate, take more risks in terms of splits, shooting while moving, and similar stuff. This would work even better in Major
Champions do that math
-
1 minute ago, IHAVEGAS said:
Tanfo's have a well deserved reputation for a lot of variability. I would need to see real data before I would think it likely that they have less variability in accuracy that a Shadow 2.
I'd like to know that
I'm talking about stock 2 only, not other Tanfoglio's. It may be a big difference
-
7 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:
Anything reported that does not involve a ransom rest, more than one example of each gun, and a good bit of load development I would personally take with very few grains of salt.
They are both proven to be accurate enough to win any USPSA/IPSC event.
Tanfo's fit my hand better so I sold the Shadow 2.
One has a cone-fit barrel, the other one has nothing. So I would believe the difference.
Rests apart, I've never heard the opposite. I've hear more than once that more accuracy was achieved with Tanfoglio Stock 2, so I'm curious.
With shadow2 I've read that it's more about luck with the bushing.
-
Is a Tanfoglio stock2 more accurate than a Shadow2?
Let's suppose you have all the support, what would you pick?
I've heard more than once that the accuracy difference is noticeable. -
Any reason why you would buy it over a Shadow2 or Stock 2 for IPSC?
-
I didn't notice any improvement compared to my Shadow2, but I tried it with factory rounds, and it may be a huge difference (it was for me). I normally shoot 130/135 PF rounds (124 grains)
-
A miss can equal to 2 more seconds (given a Hit Factor of 7.5) approximately. View it like 15 match points lost in the worst case. It might be about 2% of the overall score.
It won't lose you a match
-
16 hours ago, GOF said:
Nope, you ain't alone. It REALLY helps to have sights you can quickly see, and that hold their zero. Then a trigger that breaks smoothly and consistently. Then, maybe some grips that fit your hand and provide a positive and repeatable grip on the gun. Once you have a gun that facilitates good scores... practice becomes the answer. But spending a lot of time & money practicing with a sub-par gun will still result in your being a sub-par shooter.
The "Indian Not The Arrow" analogy only goes so far. Every successful Indian made darn sure they had quality arrows
Anybody who says practice is better than parts, is lying.
There are a lot of bad examples too. It's so easy to buy some parts (under 200$ in most guns) to achieve great results and save thousands of dollars in practice. I've seen that too many times. Shooting 20'000 rounds just to master a stock glock trigger won't make anyone a great shooter, just one who shot 20'000 rounds to master THAT trigger. -
15 hours ago, kurtm said:
I'm told I do it all wrong, more push pull than "King Kong" grip squeezer. I have notice that the grip squeezer thingys became very popular around here after a few Vogel classes rolled through, and you could here springs squeaking night and day! Some of the guys became better shooters, some didn't. The guys that did swear by the "springs", except almost all of them spent more time practicing and shooting.....I know because I didn't used to see them except on match day, and then I saw them a lot on non match days. Now I am the first to say consistency in gripping is great, but how many of the spring kings get beat by the top women shooters, who don't even have a third of the hand strength? Well quite a lot from what I have seen in the results. Hmmm...... Maybe time behind the gun and consistency is important. Maybe the word "grip" brings to mind different things to different folks, and we all might be saying about the same thing just saying it in our paradigm. I have noticed one thing though. The tighter the gun is squeezed, crushed, smashed like a beer can, the more it induces trigger slap, which is fine as long as nothing moves, but it also hinders fine finger motion and "feel" of the trigger hurting long range performance, in the 30-75 yard range
I won't name a top female shooter which is probably one of the best in open/production but she definitely has more muscles than me or some other shooters I know, of course that will help. And she had really low splits, I can tell it does help. Of course it's not all about splits, but it might be the low hanging fruit for some shooters.
I've seen improvements in splits by squeezing the gun hard but that leads to more trigger freezes sometimes. It doesn't affect my accuracy that much as far as I can tell -
Just now, Blackstone45 said:
Try shooting off a rest for more stability if you're trying to sight. Just make sure you're resting your wrists on the rest, and not the gun itself as that will affect the point of impact.
Another shooter which tests gun for military purposes and similar stuff told me the same, recoil will affect point of impact BEFORE the bullet leaves the barrel.
I'll have to try it again soon
-
4 minutes ago, Mcfoto said:
This debate kind of reminds me of when Skunk Baxter (guitarist for Steely Dan and Doobie brothers) admitted that he used a cheap Sears Silvertone guitar for many of his recordings. He started using it on tour. All of a sudden, it was cool to play a cheap department store ax. Then folks were disappointed when they couldn't cop his sound. Because a) you don't have world-class guitar techs setting it up and b) you're not Skunk Baxter.
So don't expect to buy a Glock17 and use it like Bob Vogel
-
9 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:
I would say there are no recoil issues. but yes in stock form there are trigger issues but it is cheep and easy to make that acceptable.
recoil isn't what affects long or tight shots, light weight and a harder trigger can, unfortunately in the US there are relatively few hard shots in most matches making any advantage there (I concede its real but not as large as I think you believe) a even small percentage of the score.
Light guns on the other hand draw and transition faster so there are some advantages to mitigate the advantages of heavy guns.
I think the biggest thing that gets overlooked in the whole what gun to use is people like having finer more refined things regardless if they work better or not, I don't understand why we feel we justify the desire to have nice stuff by saying its the only way to be competitive when there is so much evidence that its is not. Owning and using nice stuff makes us happy, why do we need more justification than that.
A S2 (either kind) is a very nice gun and compared to a GLOCK it gives more satisfaction of ownership, will it make me a better or worse shooter probably not, will it make me happy to own and use it yes.
Actually this is the first time I hear/read about a glock being as good as a Cz or Tanfoglio except from novices, which likes to say "it's the shooter, not the gun", when in reality top shooters clearly say that the gun they're using affects their score, especially if that's a bad gun. Don't count Vogel or Grauffel, they shoot so much and have an advantage over most shooters, and some differences are bigger for some, and more little for others.
I've always seen a difference in score whenever a worse gun was used. Of course the difference will be much less in USPSA where targets are easier to shoot and at shorter distances than IPSC but there will be a difference anyway
BTW a shooter which had more than 90% in the last world shoot (IPSC) lost a lot by using a gun like Glock 17 in last championship. Maybe it depends on the kind of matches and difficulty.
-
3 minutes ago, GMP said:
.355 is for jacketed. Even the excellent RMR 124g FMJ I have been using mics out to .3555 - .356. What I've experienced is leading and questionable accuracy with .356 coated of several brands, not just one, in four guns(two CZs, an Italian Beretta APX and an FN509). Ibejheads, SNS, DG, Badman, Red River, Brazos bullets in .356 ALL leaded my guns BAD. All of these bullets have coating that will not separate when smashed with a hammer(however ANY coating can be scraped off by a sharp edge/inadequate flare/expansion). I consider my process well developed and bullets were verified not damaged in any way. So, I can't argue with success of my solution. Note that even with some leading accuracy was still adequate for local USPSA(our IPSC) stuff, so some guys there possibly may not even realize it. The guys at Brazos totally agree and you will now find .358 as a standard size option for the 125g 9mm RN. Just try for yourself and see, but slug your barrel so you know what your working with.
Do you shoot both USPSA and IPSC or is USPSA so common that IPSC is like a side sport?
Well, the coated bullets I shoot and most shooters shoot here (not the one sold by companies, but by few manifacturers -- they have a name but it's usually 1 or 2 people producing/sellling them) don't lead the barrel, but I'm not that sure about accuracy. I mean, they're accurate "enough" for most distances, even 40 yards but I don't know what the tightest group can be.
The hard cast bullets I use (356) lead A LOT.
Can a mark in the coating be enough to destroy it when the powder explodes?
How to get a CZ Shadow 2 to make weight in IDPA?
in IDPA Shooting
Posted
So is there any way to make it IDPA legal with lighter guide rod and lighter grips?