Fishbreath
-
Posts
798 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Fishbreath
-
-
15 hours ago, Sanzo said:
But take a second to check out VZ grips. I use their alien of their tactical diamond texture and it feels really good in the hand.
I do like the look of them, and the through-screw doesn't bug me—same as on the Rugers. How wide are they?
-
14 minutes ago, rooster mcbee said:
On a different note, I have 2 pin gauges that are + gauges. Can you tell me the difference between the + and - designations? Thanks, Doug
The tolerance on a plus gauge is on top of the target measurement: a ZZ .357+ gauge is .357(-0, +0.0002). A minus gauge puts the tolerance under the target: .357(-0.0002,+0).
One of my Rugers has .3575" throats, and one has .358" throats. I shoot .357" bullets through both, and they both shoot cloverleaf groups at 10 yards off of a rest.
-
2 hours ago, RangerMcFadden said:
If you like your super gp grips then send it into Houge and tell them to make the same exact one but make it go on an N-frame.
Now that's a good idea. I need to send them one of my Super GP cylinder releases anyway.
-
I wanted to give the RevUp hammer a try, and also wanted to save myself from having to carry two calibers of ammunition to matches for my two Rugers, so I ordered a Smith. I'd like to sound out the forum on grip options, since I have something fairly specific that I like on my Rugers, and would like to find something similar if I can. My criteria are:
1. No finger grooves or palm swells. (Links are pictures my current grips.) I don't want a grip that has strong opinions about where my hands ought to go.
2. Lightly textured/grippy surface. I do the weak hand reload, so it's okay if my strong hand stays put.
3. Rubber is nice, although I'd take some synthetic material or even wood if it meets the other criteria.
I think the Hogue no-finger-groove rubber grips are almost what I want, although with a somewhat different grip angle, but something in the same vein without palm swells would be even better. Any ideas?
-
On 3/22/2022 at 6:01 PM, pskys2 said:
Heck we've got 16 now at the Kansas Free State!
It's a haul, but for 16 revolvers, I might have to make the trek one of these years.
-
19 hours ago, MikeyScuba said:
Forgive me if I would take some heat... the never ending winter up here is grinding the life out of me. The puddles on the building site across the the road were frozen this morning.
It's not ideal down here in Pennsylvania, either. We've had about a month of 70F Wednesdays and 40F weekends.
-
42 minutes ago, testosterone said:
You really really owe it to yourself to have olhasso tune those guns for you, seriously.
Maybe the second 9mm will go straight to him, then, when I find it!
I think we're both shooting revolver at MD State, albeit not on the same squad—maybe I'll see if he'll let me try the trigger a few times at the safe table.
-
13 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:
a not very smooth 7.5 pound trigger
I have my Rugers pretty slick now—there's a lot to polish beyond just the trigger/hammer interfaces, though, including things like the mainspring strut and the hammer pin. When I find a second 9mm Super GP, I'll write it all down as I do it, and share it somewhere.
I still haven't so much as dry-fired a nicely tuned Smith for comparison, though. Hoping I get to rectify that this weekend. If not then, I'll certainly bug someone about it at nationals.
-
I haven't run one myself, but the regular Redhawk has different lockwork than the SP101/GP100/Super Redhawk, with one spring powering the hammer and returning the trigger rather than separate hammer and return springs.
I've heard that they're harder to tune than the dual-spring Rugers (less room to reduce the spring), but not from competition people.
-
Your failsafe rod is definitely off. The lower of the two sharp bends (on the lower end of the horizontal part that goes through the bellcrank) should be about 90 degrees.
It's a known issue, and there was a fairly recent batch that was way off, as yours looks to be. Dillon will warranty it for you, if you contact them.
-
16 hours ago, mike NM said:
So let's assume we do the internal polishing, replace the trigger/hammer springs and other tweeks... From what I read it seems you may end up with a better "game" trigger with the S&W?
Ruger shooter here: you will probably end up with a heavier pull on the Ruger than the Smith once the gunsmiths have a look at both. (I haven't actually played with a fully-tuned Smith, but that's what people who have run both say.) The Ruger is notably better out of the box, in my opinion: I spent a few minutes dry firing a 929 next to a .357 Super GP at the local gun store when I was getting into revolver, and the Ruger was the clear winner in stock format. The Ruger design is simple to polish, and mine are both nicely slick, even if they're heavy by Smith standards. The yoke/crane on the Ruger is much stronger than the Smith design, and is retained by interlocking parts on the trigger and the crane, rather than a screw and pin, so you can beat on the cylinder quite a bit (by Smith standards) without breaking anything.
The S&W aftermarket is miles better. (In particular, @Toolguy's N-frame hammer seems like a huge win in ease of tuning.) Ruger's service department is great, but they're also fastidious about replacing any aftermarket or sufficiently-modified part. There are some QC things to watch out for: two of the three Super GPs I've seen in person have had the barrel shroud incorrectly clocked, so the front sight tilts; and they're very sensitive to any slight misalignment or misconfiguration of the ratchet and pawl, and to a lesser extent the other timing-relevant parts (cylinder latch and plunger, mostly).
The Ruger is the CZ of the revolver world, in that the chambers are short and tight.
-
Another thing that occurred to me this morning is that, while you can average the benefit of a dot or rifle (for instance) over not having those features, you can't actually trust that average to be correct at any given match.
Picture two matches: one, whose targets are all three-yard hoser specials, and another, whose targets are all 20-yard partial accuracy tests. For the hoser match, a dot is a much smaller advantage than average. If a dot gets a 5% handicap, but irons are only 2% slower, you'd want to shoot irons. For the accuracy match, the dot is a bigger advantage than average: dots are particularly good relative to irons when the irons shooter has to pay attention to sight alignment. If a dot gets a 5% handicap, but is 8% faster, you want the dot.
Most examples won't be so extreme, but the handicap between certain kinds of equipment on every stage will fall somewhere around the average, rather than on the average exactly. By handicapping certain features by a fixed amount, you encourage gaming of the equipment rules: if you don't have at least a dot gun and an irons gun, you're potentially handicapping yourself a few percent based on the character of the match.
-
23 minutes ago, CClassForLife said:
uncertainty in equipment configuration but certainty in competition
This is ultimately where I think your idea falls apart. In a sport where equipment runs anywhere from a few thousand dollars to a lot of thousands of dollars, certainly in equipment configuration is a feature, not a bug, unless you want to totally crater casual participation.
Large pools of competitors to shoot against are nice, but we already have that in the popular divisions, for the people who think it's important: rejiggering the equipment rules to try to bring more shooters together is a solution to a problem we don't have, and seems much more likely to make resentful, reluctant shooters out of people who are caught out by them than it does to do anything positive.
-
1 minute ago, CClassForLife said:
revolver gets +10% modifier bonus.
It's more like 20-30% against Production or Single Stack, if you look at recent Nationals results.
-
Whenever I see a proposal like this, I like to ask, "In what concrete way does it make the game better than it is now?" Like most proposals, I don't think this one is a clear, obvious improvement over the current system, which ought to be the standard for any change to the rules, much less a complete and total overhaul of the equipment rules.
Mostly I'm on Team Stop Screwing With the Rules Already, with some sympathy for Team Wouldn't It Be Cool If We Tried to Keep in Sync With IPSC.
-
2 hours ago, ysrracer said:
How is that possible? The primer punch on a 750 is smaller in diameter than both the primer and the primer pocket.
Depending on primer pocket and press tolerances, the punch may not protrude far enough from the ram to seat deeper than Dillon's spec, which is 2-6 thou.
-
Getting my 750 to reliably seat primers as deep as I can get them on my turret press has been an ongoing and not entirely successful endeavor—a gun that happily took a 10lb hammer spring with turret press ammo needs a 12lb hammer spring with 750 ammo, to catch the occasional primer not fully seated. I'm hoping that maybe the Federal SPPs I cracked open the other day will be a little easier to light than the SPMs I bought mid-pandemic, but time will tell.
(Orthogonal to Muffintop's problems with factory ammo, but it's an ongoing concern for me.)
-
I haven't converted anyone yet (although I have a spare gun this year, and should be able to let people borrow it at locals; even more so once I have two 9mm guns and won't need to schlep .38 Short along too), but I have had people comment on how much better I've gotten with semi-autos when I play in those divisions. ("I won't mind when you go back to revolver," one said, after I burned down a stage.)
I should give your approach a try!
-
In re: chamber tightness, I went straight to a Lee U-die and haven't had any problems through about 500 rounds of practice. It is picky about bullet diameter/profile and OAL, however. I wanted to try the Blue Bullets 147gr, because they're the pointiest ones I could find, but I would have had to load them very short or use .356 in .3575" throats. I ended up with Bang and Clang .357 145s at 1.135, which is certainly an unusual load if you're used to 929s, but fairly ordinary by semi-auto standards.
For smoothness, I think mine are pretty good, although I don't have a tuned-up 6-round GP100 to compare to. One unexpected place that has needed polishing on both of mine was the hammer pivot pin. They were rough out of the box on both of my guns, and cleaning them up with my usual 1000/1500/2000/2500-grit sandpaper plus Flitz regime made the largest perceptual difference. Weight-wise, mine run the 11 and 12lb Wolff hammer springs, which translates to 6.5lb and 7lb measured at the bottom of the trigger, and >8lb measured from the middle, on my cheapo spring-based trigger pull scale. I can go lower, but I have to pay more attention to my reloading process if I do, so I've resigned myself to it for now.
Agree that timing on the Super GPs can be a little iffy, and annoyingly, Ruger calls the pawl a factory-fit part, and it doesn't seem to be quite the same pawl as on the Super Redhawk. (Maybe it's a Redhawk pawl, since that's where the 8-round .357 was in the Ruger lineup before? Ordering parts from Numrich and hoping they'll work is getting old, though, so until I have a third one to mess with, I don't plan on experimenting further. Alternately, maybe I'll call customer support and see if I can wheedle them into sending me one anyway.) My 9mm gun is timed pretty early on most chambers, and the .357 is right on the edge of late. The teeth on the ratchet are slightly inconsistent, on close inspection—some are cut deeper, with a correspondingly longer slope, and some have a shallower cut with a slope and a flat at the end, which seems less than ideal for repeatability.
A somewhat more refined phase 2 would be great to see, although I'm not unhappy with mine by any means.
-
4 hours ago, Boomstick303 said:
What is too far away?
30 minutes is about my limit. I'll have to take a look in/around Anniston, though; thanks for the tip.
-
On 2/26/2022 at 2:14 PM, pskys2 said:
Anyone have a good Hotel picked out?
I was looking at Airbnb options, but the most interesting ones are too far away. I'm curious what other people are doing.
I'm on 206.
-
At lunch today, I popped up to the range for some practice with the 9mm gun, and to verify that it and the .357 were both zeroed. The .357 is hitting primers off-center (slightly to the right, slightly up).
On the one hand, if my aggressive reloads bent the crane tube, it would be bent in that direction, and it would explain both the nature of the off-center primer hits and late carry-up.
On the other hand, the primers hits have been off-center since I bought the gun (I just wanted to verify the direction), and the sideways displacement of the primer hit is enough that I'd expect the cylinder to be visibly out of true if it were bending-related.
It is basically impossible to replicate the timing issue without trying to, so it'll serve as the backup gun until such time as I have a third, and can let Ruger take a look at this one, again.
Edit/update from the next day: the off-center primer hits might just be the way the guns are. Measuring the crane in various ways, I see no evidence of bending, and the new 9mm isn't quite centered either (although it's closer than the .357).
-
10 hours ago, Carmoney said:
Keep a close eye on your primer indents. If they are consistently well-centered, don't change anything.
Thanks, that's a good rubric (and heaven knows I need to be told 'don't change anything' more often). I'll keep an eye on the primer strikes when I'm at the range today
I did get a pawl from Numrich to look into changing it, but the nose of the Super Redhawk pawl is a bit shorter than the nose of the Super GP pawl, and doesn't quite engage one of the teeth on the ratchet.
-
2 hours ago, ysrracer said:
On a semi related question, how many revolver competitors are the in the USA?
About 700 different people submitted USPSA revolver scores in 2021, according to the USPSA Insights instagram guy, if I'm remembering right.
I video'd myself shooting, should I have my thumbs crossed?
in Revolver Forum
Posted
I'm about 95% sure the cameraman is uprange. GoPros really distort angles. They have 170-degree fields of view, which means 85 degrees on either side of the centerline. You could be looking at a target 45 degrees up from the 180, and still catch a guy standing 40 degrees behind the 180 at the edge of the frame.