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

IVC

Classified
  • Content Count

    188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IVC

  1. If I load them short, it will be for SP-01, not shorter. Probably to 1.120 or 1.115 to account for variability of bullets within a batch. It's for C/O and steel. Based on my tests, it should work in most of the guns I tested above. I will pay attention to the brass and look for any signs of overpressure. The load was initially around 130 PF, so I have some room for maneuvering. I'll make sure I try it out in the least favorite gun first, just in case...
  2. A quick add-on: Crimp is set at .377 and it matches what the reference factory ammo is crimped to.
  3. I ordered some Blue Bullets sized to .356 (listed at 147, BB states they are 150, most measure around 149) and was doing the plunk test in several guns after my usual 1.145 OAL caused some feeding issue in S&W 952-2 yesterday at the range. The test was for several guns I intend to shoot in local steel matches and for fun at the range. For reference, I used factory 115 FMJ ammo that easily passes in all barrels because it's a longer and narrower bullet. The problem is that BB are not only longer because of weight, but also have a "fat profile" so they tend to stick at longer OAL. As I shorten the OAL and make them pass the test, it's getting pretty short. Combined with longer bullet itself, it leaves much less room in the case. I'm worried that if I load to the shorter OAL I will have to start reducing the amount of powder and then look for the signs of over-pressure as I work it back up, possibly not getting to the PF I need (it's only minor, but this is more about the principle...). Here are the OAL for various guns, sorted in descending order: 1.145 Glock 34 (passes easily, could pass longer; this was the starting point) 1.120 CZ SP01 1.115 S&W 952-2 1.105 CZ TS 1.100 CZ P01 As expected, CZ-s have shorter chambers and like shorter OAL. The P01 is not the one that I would reload for, so it's not really a concern, but it's pretty short at 1.100. The TS is the one that I use for steel from time to time and I would like to have it run reliably. It's barely longer, at 1.105. So, here is the question: Can I go from 1.145 to 1.105 safely by just loading shorter and/or adjusting the powder charge, or are there some additional concerns when loading heavier bullet this short? My standard load is 3.26 grains of N320 (I measure 10 loads as thrown by 1050, then repeat several times; I include the second digit if there is consistency over 10-load measurements) loaded at 1.145 . This works well in Springfield Armory 1911 (not included in the list above because it passes long). I'm getting just north of 130 PF out of semi-autos and just south of 130 PF from a couple of S&W 929 revolvers, so it's a good compromise load. Any thoughts or suggestions?
  4. The reason you're not getting many responses is that your situation is highly specific and very few will know about full retraining using weak hand. While this is normal for long guns, where eye dominance determines which hand should be used as the strong hand, it's not very common for handguns which are shot with the strong hand using cross-dominant eye. Unless the person went through your exact situation, they won't know. Obviously, I cannot provide any insight into your actual question because I have never had to switch primary hand, just wanted to point out why no responses. In fact, you might be the person to perform the switch and update this thread with how the process went, so others can benefit from your voyage.
  5. The transition with a rimfire is the same as the transition with your primary gun and the same as the transition in the dry fire (not counting potential problems with handling a different gun). If you don't have a problem with understanding your sight picture, the speed at which you can do it in dry fire is exactly the same as the speed with which you can do it in live fire. It's the follow up shots that are quite different between live and dry fire as those are affected by the recoil, and your live fire is teaching you to see the sights during recoil - this won't be realistic with rimfire. There might be a benefit with rimfire to speed up the learning process by eliminating recoil and confirming your transitions are correct, but I'm not aware of any recommended or successful training regiment that has measured or shown the benefit of using rimfire for more advanced training. Personally, I have seen the benefit of rimfire as a substitute for centerfire only when working with less experienced shooters on the trigger control itself. Once they figure out trigger control, they have to move on to the target platform for further improvement. Just my 2c.
  6. This slipped off of my mind as I was working on connecting my dry and live fire practice in order to make sure I’m doing it correctly, at least to the extent that I’m not ingraining wrong habits. So, I ordered the book, it arrived a few days early and I’m about one third through it. Some extremely valuable information in that book, including a good, systematic way to analyze the problem in the OP. As a scientist, I find the book to be spot on. It’s not giving you the proverbial fish, it’s not even teaching you how to fish. It’s teaching you how to analyze fishing in general so you can teach yourself any kind of fishing that might exist. Thanks!
  7. This is a technical question about something I have observed during confirmation of dry fire in live fire and I'd like to get some insight from more experienced shooters. It's actually two related observations and questions. The more I am doing consistent dry fire training, the more I am in the mode where I observe myself and start noticing various details. The last one was the lack of gun movement of any kind during splits, which is unique to dry fire (not counting minimal movement during the trigger pull). The rest of the dry fire training involves gun manipulation and driving the gun aggressively, so calling a shot is the same as in the live fire - see the sights as they arrive on a target and recognize the timing of the trigger pull in relation to the sight picture. The gain from training is in the speed of gun manipulation and precision of indexing at higher speeds. However, the splits by themselves just seem unsuitable for dry fire training in general - the lack of recoil makes for a completely unrealistic dry fire simulation when the initial index doubles as the index for the split. There is no additional control or visual information that is being ingrained through practice. This is what I've noticed when pushing hard in live fire - the improvements on all but splits come from dry fire and everything but splits actually feels the same. So, here is the first problem. Is there a good way to practice the most important aspect of splits, the shot calling, in dry fire? For example, it seems that doing a dry fire Bill Drill is good for drawing, indexing and trigger finger speed, but not for the ability to control the gun and read the sights at speed. As such, it seems to be of limited value except for fine tuning draws and the initial shot on target. Maybe also for raw trigger speed and making sure gun doesn't move much during the trigger pull, but this is negligible movement compared to the live fire. This also made me think about the concept of calling shots in live fire during hosing drills such as Bill Drill, particularly when compared to the GM split times of .35 for hard targets (head shots or distant full targets). I know we are talking about the "acceptable sight picture" during hosing, but is it really a proper shot calling when only dealing with marginal sight picture and splits at about half the time it takes for hard targets and properly aimed shots? I mean, it's one thing to "see the sights on the brown background or A zone" and quite different thing to be able to close eyes and know exactly where each shot went. It's almost as if there is not just an acceptable sight picture, but an "acceptable shot calling" where the concept is similar - know roughly where the shot went as long as it stays within a specific zone. Anyone can do a Bill Drill, close their eyes and mark the shots on a separate target? Am I misunderstanding shot calling during hosing and just need to work more to see the sights at all times?
  8. Some very good information, and it seems to show a pattern - no issues with SRP and some issues with SPP, even though in theory SRP is the one that should cause erosion due to not sealing the primer pocket properly. This brings up the next question. What is the mechanism for SPP to cause erosion? Gases are not escaping, so is it the primer itself hitting the breechface?
  9. I'm having second thoughts about "bullets performing as I expected" based on what you wrote. It's possible that I just wasn't paying (enough) attention. Your explanation makes me think about how hard or correctly did I really test it... For reference, can you post your personal expectation for accuracy of a bullet and how you normally measure it? I would like to replicate it (unless you use ransom rest or some other special gear) so I can compare apples to apples. Interesting thread...
  10. Sorry for my thread drift above, back to OP... There is nothing wrong with having to retreat and those stages should be routine. It's like having narrow positions and forcing PCC guys to work a bit, or having stages where one has to navigate around barrels and watch the muzzle. Running up range is just one of the standard course skills. It's certainly not a trap or something that is borderline acceptable.
  11. In my class we talked about questions such as "do you understand the course of fire" and how silly it is because the shooter can answer "no." However, asking about how to ensure a safe COF and also making sure you can pick up the last shot safely is a completely different beast. On a standard course with an Open shooter I don't talk at all beyond basic commands. However, if there is a PCC shooter and the expected last position is awkward, I would tell them that I'll be close at the end to pick up the last shot. It gives him the opportunity to tell me if he intends to do something unusual, so I can be out of the way. There is no point in trying to be close to pick up the shot if the shooters know that they will do something unusual and run into me. The same goes for moving up range - if there is only one natural path from starting position to the last position (or even having two nearby different possible last positions), there isn't much to talk about. I have to stay clear and give the shooter enough space to move as fast as he desires. If I can stay out of the way during the up range movement without talking to the shooter, that's not a problem either. The problem is on some very specific stages, when there are different legitimate ways to move and different possible last positions. In such a case, I need to get close enough at the end, but still stay out of the way until the very end. A quick confirmation about where the shooter is going to finish allows me both to keep an eye on him and to stay out of his way. I'm not asking about strategy or order of shots...
  12. The COF begins at Make Ready and at that time the communication is indeed very formal and well-defined. The safety communication, which this is, happens before the COF and before Make Ready.
  13. I'm not sure why you would phrase it as "not supposed to" - there is no rule against communication before the COF, it's not coaching and it doesn't provide any competitive advantage or anything that would be in any way considered outside the WSB. Of course, you don't have to answer. You don't even have to answer who you are if the RO asks. You can take 15 minutes fidgeting at the Make Ready. There are many things that you can do based on not being prohibited and there are things that ROs can do too. Now, when running up range you can also run into the RO while having a great run and getting a mandatory reshoot, or getting a DQ if the contact causes an action described in 10.3. Even without contact, you can sweep the RO if you as a shooter just ran past him up range - was it you or him in 10.5.5? There are other violations that can happen during RO contact and send you home. Remember, an RO cannot jump out of your way if you run straight into him and there is no way the RO is required to read your mind or figure out where you're going to go. Being a dick goes both ways...
  14. I have DAA magnet and that thing is strong - magazine certainly won't fall off and it's even very hard to pick a magazine and try to lift it up directly. Instead, slide it off of the magnet the way you would pull it out of a pouch. When we have stages where I have to pick up magazines, if it's only one magazine it goes straight on the magnet using the same motion I'd use for reloading. This way the angle is correct and natural. If there are two, I stagger them with the left one protruding more, so when I slap them on the magnet the outside one is the one I reach first. If it's more than two, all bets are off...
  15. Nothing wrong with running up range, but know your audience and be ready to react quickly. When a stage calls for movement up range, I would normally ask the shooter how he plans to shoot so that I can stay out of his way. However, the tricky ones are when a new(ish) shooter decides he forgot something along the way running down range and suddenly decides to reverse and run up range. I just had to DQ a guy for not only doing this, but pointing the gun in the air and turning around thinking that wouldn't count as a 180 violation. It's so nice to RO people who know what they are doing...
  16. I've seen this argument before and it all makes sense, but then it would mean that the only people shooting .355 Blues would be those with .354 bore. That would seem to be a very small group at best. So, why would Blue Bullets provide .355 as their default size and run .356 as a special order? I have just recently reloaded some 3K of .355 BB-s and haven't noticed any particular issue. I'm testing them on paper from rest and 25-55 steel plates, some quite small. Am I not being discerning enough, or is it just luck that they seem to work in a bunch of guns (two 929-s, SA 1911, CZ TS, SZ SP-01, Sig P226 X5, etc.)? I would like to revisit and retest accuracy much more systematically if it's likely that I'm using the wrong size...
  17. There seems to be an ongoing discussion about which primers to use for major, from harder CCIs to small rifle primers. Besides the preference, the main concern seems to be the overpressure signs - flattening and particularly cratering. Is there any observable effect of softer primers on the breechface over time? I am asking those who have shot tens of thousands of rounds using softer primers. It seems that one school of thought likes the softer ones because they prevent gasses from escaping through the charge hole, while the other questions the impact of flattening against the breechface. Anyone has any hard data on the effect of primers on the gun itself?
  18. Thanks everyone who responded - quite a bit of valuable information and insights. I'll keep my dry fire training in Limited and stick to the routine. If I want to shoot something else from time to time, I'll treat it as the time off, maybe do a few days of division-specific training, but mostly count on the single division, Limited, to be the primary driver of all improvements. To what extent these improvements transfer to any other platform will be the extent of my improvement in those other divisions.
  19. Just to add to the previous post about the goal related to classifiers... I'm not looking to shoot a single classifier multiple times until I get a good enough score using point shooting because I'm not precise in transitions, don't see my sights and cannot call shots. I'm also not looking at practicing specific classifier until I can nail it. Instead, I'm looking at building my skills to the point where I can shoot classifiers at a certain level. It's what they call in the books "being fast, not shooting fast." I don't mind if it's initially "paper(ish) class" because it's a stepping stone. Classification system gives me a measurable progress indicator.
  20. Thanks for the detailed response - I knew about goals and measuring milestones, but not the acronym which is quite handy. Since we are getting into details, my initial mid to long term goal is to reach 85%+ on classifiers. Not any particular performance in the matches, just the classifiers. This is where I am very specific, not because I don't want to do well in matches (I do), but because I want a measurable goal that I can detect when I achieve, and can track the progress along the way analytically via my current classification record. A more immediate goal, a milestone if you wish, is getting to 75%+. The method to get there is to have a systematic practice for getting faster, more consistent and more precise in all skills. That's where the consistent dry fire regimen kicks in. It's no good to do it from time to time or only when it's convenient. It must be organized, repetitive and routine. The burnout I mentioned in a later post is not really about getting burned out on the overall practice - as long as I have a goal and I am not there, the fire is burning within (pardon the pun). What I wanted to prevent is getting to spend too much time initially, before I build the routine, then realize it's interfering with the rest of my life too much and is unsustainable. Instead, I want to have a dedicated amount of time, which I currently do, and make a change in my daily routine so that dry fire is a natural part of it. At the moment, I decided to have my morning coffee become my dry fire time. It's half hour of taking a sip here and there between drills. Instead of wasting time reading news or just relaxing with the coffee, I can do something much more useful and fun. It gets the day going and fits in perfectly. The real question is what happens when (if) I achieve my initial goal. That's where I'll spend some more time thinking as I (hopefully) get closer to the goal. At the moment, I see two paths: pushing the classifiers to the top class, or concentrating on the sport itself and overall match strategies. Maybe both. It will depend on how hard it is to achieve my current goal and whether I believe I have the aptitude to push it further. In the meantime, the side divisions are literally just for fun and to see how well the skills from the primary division transfer to the others. It's like taking a two week vacation, relaxing and doing something else. What I want to make sure is that it won't affect or mess up my main training. Seems like the main effect would be the time away from the primary practice, which is not too steep a price.
  21. That's what I was looking for - the switch is not too complicated once you have the basics in each division, but it's also not something that you just pick up and are immediately where you left it off. It's good to hear that you are the same class in both divisions, which means that the skill does transfer between the two (even if you have to work a bit every time you switch).
  22. This is an interesting point. Everything I do in dry fire is "by the book," which means almost all is on timer. I record par times and work on them. I also study my deficiencies in matches and at the range, e.g., indexing accuracy of wider transitions, calling shots, observing sights, etc., which gives me plenty of fine details to work on in dry fire. My initial goal is to work on speeding up the core technique to match difficult par times, while slowly introducing aspects of the game such as movement, entries and exits, etc. The reason is the same as when people work on accuracy initially - one cannot be fast and accurate unless one can be accurate in the first place. It's also how the book is structured, where most of the drills are for speed of manipulation and shooting, and movement is added from time to time. Are you saying that I should have a specific set time frame for getting to a specific par time? Or, that I should set up goals such as "I expect to make class X in Y amount of time?" I wouldn't mind something like that, I just don't understand the benefit or the meaning of trying to guess how quickly I can learn and improve. It's not that I'm putzing around with the gun, I'm working the best I can on improving my times.
  23. Fair point, but let me clarify a bit. I am organizing my daily dry fire routine around a specific amount of time in the morning (half hour). There are two immediate goals: create a habit, and, don't get burned out or overdo it during the habit-building phase. That's my "current 100%" and I wouldn't be taking away or adding to it. If down the road I decide to add training time, it would be for getting ready for a particular higher level match and I would stick to the single division at that time.
  24. Any thoughts or experience on doing systematic dry fire in two divisions at the same time? (I don't mean necessarily in the same session, more about alternating sessions.) My primary division is Limited (used to be Tanfo in L10 due to magazine restrictions in CA, now it's an SVI with standard magazines, allowed by a court ruling in CA; long story). However, I have an Open gun that is the same platform and fits in the exactly the same rig, and I enjoy shooting Revolver and have the full setup for it as of recently (I've had belt/holster/clip holders for a long time, but I have finally started reloading for it and can now control brass/primers/bullets). I would like to keep shooting Limited and have it as my primary division, but I would also like to shoot some classifiers or matches in Open and/or Revolver. Compared to Limited, Open will mess with the target/sights focus and Revolver will mess with the trigger pull. Is there anyone doing multiple divisions like this and does it affect performance of the primary division? I don't want to mess up my primary training, but wouldn't mind throwing in a less involved secondary training with a secondary gun that I can use from time to time. Note that I'm not talking about similar divisions such as Limited and Single Stack, or completely different platforms such as Limited and PCC, but about divisions with significant differences when it comes to aiming and trigger pull. More of a "Production and Carry Optics at the same time" setup. Thoughts? (I am 67% in Limited, working on moving up.)
  25. IVC

    929 Info

    I believe they are 0.035 - that's what TKC consider "standard." Only SS will have different thickness options.
×
×
  • Create New...