Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

IVC

Classifieds
  • Content Count

    406
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About IVC

  • Rank
    Sees Sights Lift
  • Birthday 12/13/1970

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Temecula, CA
  • Real Name
    I. V. Cadez

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I’m worried about the barrel. What’s a good way to check?
  2. The new Super GP 100 has been sitting in my safe for a while now and I finally took it out to the range yesterday, so just wanted to share a few impressions. I made a few standard upgrades, Hogue big butt grip (goncalo, checkered, finger grooves) and Wolff springs with 9lb hammer and 8lb trigger return springs. There were no issues with ignition and the new grip felt way better than the original, especially because of the shelf for the support-hand pinkie.The ammo was my usual revo loads (Federal brass, N320 3.2 gn, .356 BB 150, 1.120 OAL) with Federal GM100 primers. The ammo was leftovers from a match, already in moonclips, TKC 0.040 stainless. It fits perfectly in GP 100 and reloading was quite smooth. I didn't do any timed reloads (was just sighting it in), only testing by feel how the rounds go in. Even though it says on the website "slight chamfer," there was no sticking to the sides and it felt quite slick. I might add extra chamfer later if I notice any issues while practicing on the timer. My guess is that the steel cylinder of GP 100 is more forgiving than the titanium of 929 when it comes to slight imperfections in chamfering. Moonclips for 929 fit perfectly - besides having the same geometry as 929, the cylinder is cut such that 929 moonclips work. When compared on top of each other, TKC have slightly narrower center opening than the Ruger moonclips (very, very close, though), but no issues. GP 100's cylinder has ample room in the middle. Of course, RS moonclips with their large hole were no problem. There was no issue with using the thickest, 0.040 TKC moonclips. So, both moonclips and DAA Race Master inserts for N-Frames work perfectly with GP 100. Sighting the gun in was a bit of a problem. At 15 yards off the bench and using a small rifle target with 5 bullseyes, I got a beautiful sub-inch group, but at the wrong bullseye - I was shooting the top left one and getting the group in the center one. This was the factory sights setting. Vertical adjustment was a breeze and I set it up the way I like it - POI at the location of the top of the blade. However, to move the POI to the left I ended up moving the rear blade all the way to the limit of its movement and I was almost there. Worked well on closer targets, but shooting at 50+ yard steel I had to use a slight bias to the left to get the hits. This is frustrating. The front sight seems to be centered on the top, so I'm not sure where the offset is coming from. Also, who in the world thought it would be a good idea to use the "white Glock outline" on the rear sight of a competition gun? It's distracting and provides too many additional edges when shooting at speed. Accuracy with my loads was pretty good, nothing I would need or want to change. Very close groups at 15 yards and no issues to 55+ yards which I use as my standard benchmark. So, it was mostly all good, particularly that all my auxiliary gear for 929 works with GP 100. The rear sight has the white outline which must go - I can paint it, or I might choose to replace it. The sighting in was a concern because of the way off-center alignment. Not sure whether this is normal or I should send it back to Ruger. I do have a Glock that is set up with the rear sight way off, but it's a Glock... Finally, anyone has any recommendation for the rear sight?
  3. Close, but let's be precise - in physics it's called "work" and is an integral of the applied force over distance traveled (simple product if the force is constant). This is the energy that comes from the trigger finger and represents the upper bound on the amount of energy that can be stored in the mainspring after the pull is complete. The energy stored in the mainspring will be lower, however, because part of energy goes into loading the trigger return spring and another part into friction and dissipation. Further, trigger pull weight is not a constant over the trigger travel, but a curve - it varies as the trigger moves around. The trigger weight that we measure is the peak of this curve. A smooth trigger will have trigger pull weight look like a square - zero until you start pulling, constant as you pull, then zero after trigger releases. Another trigger can have a relatively low curve with a pronounced peak, so it feels heavy, but is still long because it's not heavy over longer distance of pull. Other triggers can have jagged curve where the pull weight oscillates, and we call them "gritty." There is a lot of room to play with an imperfect trigger. Minimizing energy dissipation (changing support springs and smoothing the action) and changing the trigger pull weight curve (modifying geometry) can produce a consistent trigger pull that is both light(er) and short(er). However, once the trigger is "perfect" (square pull weight curve) and there is no significant waste within the mechanism (low overhead), you do have a hard limit on what can be done - there is just so much energy available from the pull of a trigger. That's why if you pick any brand revolver and create a really good trigger, other revolvers will be at about the same pull weight and about the same pull length no matter what. You can get close to the upper limit, but you can never end up with more energy in the mainspring than the work of the trigger pull created.
  4. Figured out as in noticing your cute petite tushie??
  5. Wait, you're telling me those SASS names aren't real either??
  6. Yet clicking on your avatar and looking at your post history tells me what kind of bullets and guns you use...
  7. That's why I stopped using Internet years ago - nobody will ever know where my bunker is... While treatment of private information is indeed a legitimate concern and it is wrong if it's made public without consent, anything you do online, including posting on this forum is either public or should be treated as public. What you want to hide, e.g., a dead hooker in your trunk, you simply cannot post anywhere. That's just the nature of the times we live in. And, if you believe that some government or ethical consideration will prevent your information from becoming public, intentionally or inadvertently, you're not doing it right - government privacy law to protect you against government intrusion... Hmm.
  8. The question arose at about the time she was figuring out whether she could do it all. Once she determined there was a way, the question changed from "impossibility" to "inconvenience." The former is what I was mostly concerned with, not the latter - at what point does the stage become "impossible" and what are the theoretical and practical limits for accounting for different body types. As a side/humorous issue, there was a guy on the squad, a Master, who is 6'4" and likely bench-presses minivans in his spare time. The stage in OP started in a small house-like structure with narrow doors. We were joking that he either had to slide through the doors sideways, or risk catching and carrying the whole structure on his shoulders through the rest of the stage. I guess different body types always have their own challenges...
  9. One is Hogue Big Butt, the other is Nill Grip. What I like about the Nill is that the shelf at the bottom provides a good place for the support hand pinkie where it sits flat against it and helps with the recoil control (whatever small recoil there is). It has finger grooves that happen to fit me so I don't notice them - it's one of those deals where the feature (finger grooves) doesn't help and can only be a disadvantage if it doesn't fit you. The Big Butt at the bottom is rubber so it doesn't wiggle, it's narrower than Nill so more suitable for smaller hands. No finger grooves makes it suitable for any shape hand without side effects. The bottom shelf works for pinkie, but it's not as nice as on Nill. As you can tell, I prefer Nill, with Big Butt being a close second (not enough preference to change it). I actually ordered another Big Butt for my new Super GP100 and it is wood, has finger grooves and checkering. It shows that such small details are really a matter of preference.
  10. Squid rod for fishing, squib rod for guns...
  11. One more vote for U-die. I use "hundo" case gauge on all calibers (convenient to gauge and then just flip rounds into a plastic box) and if I don't use a U-die it will have much higher rejection rate. I've had issues with Dillon sizing die in .40 even after roll-sizing the brass so I went back to the U-die. While hundo is known to be pretty tight and most rounds that fail will actually chamber (semi-autos), I still put all failed rounds into the range bucket. After experimenting a bit, I figured it's just easiest to stick to the U-dies and not care if it stresses brass a tad more (haven't observed myself any issue, but in theory anything that changes the shape more will add stress). Another consideration for revolver is that reloads will be smoother and less sticky (insertion) if the brass is undersized - I use TKC moonclip checker and can notice the difference when testing the loaded moonclips.
  12. Let's not bring grandma into this discussion... The fence was high(ish), but nothing too bad. It looks like the intent was to force hosing from very close distance, followed by a pretty long shot on a mini-popper for those who didn't engage it from another location (a slightly slower, but safer strategy for the mini-popper).
  13. Ever seen a Tom Cruise movie? That's a magical way to make them taller...
  14. The rule would be quoted by the RO and recorded as 9.5.7. The arbitration request would be to challenge the penalty assessed under rule 9.5.7 because you did engage the target (in reality, this wouldn't go to arbitration and would be resolved by RM under 9.6.6). RO would have to specify how he determined the FTSA. If he says "I watched the competitor and he didn't fire any shots in that direction," then he wins. If he says "I didn't see the infraction, but I looked at the timer" then you win because nothing matters (crossed out) if the RO cannot state the infraction. The procedure is described in 9.6 and you would be challenging the FTSA call using rule 9.6.4 at the moment the RO is scoring the target in question and giving you the procedural under 9.5.7. Further, 11.1.3 disallows any audio, video or photographic evidence and using timer with records audio would clearly fall into that category. However, even if there was no 11.1.3 (which is part of arbitration process and not necessarily directly addressing decisions under 9.6.6), it's still assumed that the RO will make calls based on what he sees. No, I wouldn't, but I cannot be the one to issue the penalty and the best I could do is raise the issue with the RO, CRO and RM. I don't think that there is a mechanism to deal with "corrupt range officials all the way to the top." In reality, if an RO misses a call and it's in good faith, there is little one can do. Sure anyone can point to a no-shoot that the RO didn't see or a hole in hard-cover that would make that Alpha a Mike, but beyond pointing it out there is no real remedy except to talk to the RM who would presumably replace such an official.
×
×
  • Create New...