IVC

Thumb is pointed along the frame to get the correct wrist angle, not necessarily to control the gun. Whether thumb contacts the frame is a similar question to whether your support hand index finger should be on the trigger guard - both will allow you to torque the gun, which you don't want, while also providing some added leverage, which you MIGHT want. Looking at top shooters and their individual techniques, I'd say that it's mostly a preference and that there isn't right or wrong way.

Long time ago I tried 3, but realized it's a poor choice for accuracy. You lack any precision in alignment and you are forced to use the non-dominant eye for target identification. In fact, you cannot even do properly "focus on front sight with blurred target in the back" because you're covering the target and you have to use input from the other eye, which will drag you towards target focus. Sight picture 2 is pretty much the only real option for combat shooting and by far the most versatile. For precision shooting at fixed distances and fixed target sizes (precision pistol), sight picture 1 is actually better than 2 because it allows a more precise alignment - guessing where the center of the black is is less precise than setting the flat front sight to be a tangent of the black circle. Some competitors even sight in to add a "sliver of white" between flat sight and black circle in order to aid alignment. But this only works for fixed distances and fixed sizes of the black circle, so it's a highly specialized hold. The moment you change the apparent target circle radius (either by changing distance or by changing target size) you lost ALL precision because you have to guess how high your gun shoots. Stick to "2."

Confirm mechanical zero. 20 yards is a good distance so make sure your preferred POA matches POI. Once you have this, it's not the gun, it's you. Once you know it's you, it's the trigger control. You ARE moving the gun prior to firing the shot and you know this because you confirmed the zero. The gun will shoot where it's pointed. You can watch super slow motion videos, or you can do a quick physics calculations to realize that there isn't enough time for the mass of the gun to get moved much by the time the bullet exits the barrel, and the little movement there is is in line with the barrel. So, if you're off it's because you moved the gun as you pulled the trigger. Do a simple test. Shoot free hand in "bullseye mode" where you slowly add pressure to the trigger while keeping sites on the target and let the gun shoot whenever it decides to. Try it with weaker or stronger grip, one or two handed. You should see that the gun is hitting exactly where you're keeping it while operating the trigger. If you convince yourself that the gun WILL shoot where pointed, you'll now have a homework to figure out WHAT is causing the movement when you operate the trigger.

So both of you suggest 115s, and that is what I'm thinking about as a good start - 115 jacketed (PD JHP). Depending on results, I might try some 124s later, then try plated 115s just because I have them already. I've never used WSF, primarily use Vihtavuori and now got a batch of CFE Pistol, but it seems not to be the choice at the top, so likely not optimal for PCC. Since we are talking "fast powders," any opinion on N310 (the fastest I have, I love it for my Limited major in SVI - 4.3gn under 180 FP red coated SNS, getting about 171-172 PF)? Or should I stick to N320 and just find the load that gets me what I'm looking for? I reload on 1050 so once calibrated, it's pretty consistent and I check powder measure calibration before every session by pouring 10 charges together, then spot-checking from time to time a single charge.

Interesting that it's two completely different outcomes. I haven't loaded anything with X-treme yet (just got them when they were in stock during shortage), to the point I didn't even realize they were plated and not FMJs. Doh! But I'll start with jacketed bullets to see what kind of performance I can get in general, then I might try to "downsize" to something cheaper if it doesn't sacrifice performance too much.

Thanks, it's funny that he's looking at exactly the same bullets that I happen to have. My impression is that heavier bullets and coated-through-compensator are not the best choices, even though he talks about them. The video is about making power factor and not getting into trouble, more than it's about the best performance, but some good general information.

Just prior to the lockdowns I managed to get a nice JP GMR-15 (their older, blowback model, not the new JP-5) and take it to the range to sight it in. But soon after, before I got to playing with different loads, first the lockdowns started, then the great component shortage. As I'm getting back into reloading and setting up various gear, I'm back facing the problem I had with the GMR-15. The initial range trip was to sight in the red dot, off of sandbags on the bench. Can't remember whether I decided to sight it in at 25 yards (my usual for pistols) or 50, but I do remember that the accuracy was horrible. Think 12 gauge (and not even full choke). In all fairness, this was expected since I shot some 147 Blue Bullet reloads. They were not only slow (minor), but coated bullets and comps don't mix well. Before I had a chance to try different things, the ranges closed so it was all on hold for a couple years. As things are slowly getting back to normal, it's time to revisit the PCC and get a good load that will work reliably and have good accuracy. So, here are the choices that I currently have, excluding coated handgun fodder, from lightest to heaviest: 115 Precision Delta JHP .356 115 X-Treme RN .356 124 Montana Gold JHP .355 (standard bullet for Open handguns) 124 Montana Gold CMJ .355 (base is covered in addition to having jacket, got them because they were available at MG) 124 X-Treme RN .356 125 HAP .354 (some overrun sold by Midway during pandemic, Hornady doesn't list .354s) 147 Montana Gold CMJ .355 (were in stock, bought them in case I need heavier non-coated bullet) Which of these are likely to work well in the PCC? Note that HAPs are undersized for some reason, not sure if they were factory seconds or some special run sold through Midway. As for powders, I have a stash of N310 (for Limited major .40), 3N38 (for Open 38SC), N320 (for generic 9mm) and CFE Pistol (will try for 9 Major Open). I'm thinking that N320 would be the most obvious choice, but I'm wondering if faster/slower works well with some types of bullets in PCC.

Hardware store is where you buy your hardware and software store is where you buy your brains to use the hardware. The 21st century definitions...

Good to hear that it's not just me, even if I'm not too happy I can expect more issues with these primers. At least they are available, for what it's worth.

It's been a while since I ran the press, first Covid shut down the shooting ranges and stopped local competitions, then the great component shortage started and I didn't feel like burning through my stash, developing new loads and generally having fun. Until recently. It seems that the market is still VERY tight, but at least I can find what I need from time to time and get it in decent quantities. Primers are still the biggest problem, the selection is limited and prices are almost triple what they used to be. Which brings me to the point of this thread. In the distant past (pre-Covid, about three years ago) I would normally use Winchester primers for everything except revolver loads, and I would use Federal and Federal GM for revolver. Fast forward to a few months back and I bought some thousands of WSPPs at a decent price - $83/1K, painful compared to $150/5K not so long ago, but also much better than $120-$200/1K that I've been seeing at the peak of the shortage and even at those prices it was hard to find any in stock. So, the new batch of WSPPs arrived and when I looked at it, the packaging was different on the outside, but inside it was still the Winchester-style small plastic trays. So far so good. What WAS different was that when I looked at the primers, they looked, how to say it, less uniform. As if some of them were flatter and others rounder on the "shiny side". Not a big deal, reloading will likely iron it out, but it suggested potential issues with the QC at the manufacturer, possibly pending issues with reloading. So I loaded a bunch of primer tubes, cleaned up the machine, recalibrated and lubed everything and started cranking out some .40s since that was the setup that was already on the press. After almost a thousand rounds, when I used up the tubes that sat on the bench for a few years, I got to the new primers. And also to the first malfunction. The press hit a hard wall on the down stroke. After looking around, removing everything from the shellplate and lowering the lever slowly, I could see that the indexing pin on the toolhead by the primer station was hitting the primer slide. The slide would move only partially forward, not enough to expose the indexing hole and get the primer in position. That meant, ugh, my favorite fix - removing the primer feeding system with a bunch of primers in it to get to the slide (also rotating the semi-circular block and removing the ratchet from the toolhead). By doing the "fast tilt with quick finger" maneuver, I was able to limit the number of spilled primers and after removing them, I got to the root of the problem. A squished primer in the slide, as expected. It didn't detonate which is neither here nor there. A detonation would've cleaned up the primer system and I wouldn't had have to mess with the loose primers, a silver lining of sorts. I'm including photos of what it looked like. Close-up of the primer. Ignore for the moment the powder grains stuck on the spring grease, I'm not too OCD about cleaning. I clean that area when I change toolheads. The powder by the shellplate is from messing around in that area, I blow it off with compressed air every so often. What I'm wondering is if any of you are using the NEW WSPs, whether you noticed the same thing, that the primers look less uniform than in the past, and whether you had issues with primers causing stoppages. This could've been just a random event where the primer didn't hit the hole in the slide flat, but it could also be an out of spec primer that was the cause, or at lest a contributing factor. Curious minds would like to know... As for the clean-up, alcohol and Q-tips took care of the dust. I made sure I cleaned up the magazine tube with alcohol too, something I actually do clean from time to time even if there are no issues with the primer system - a single kaboom is not too bad, but I'd rather not help it propagate into the magazine tube. I like to keep my ceilings (and my underpants) intact if possible.

Short Version: The metal guide rod I'm using has a screw and a small cap to capture flat springs, but regular wire spring just slides past it. My best guess is that I just take out the screw and use the wire spring like I would in any other gun. But I have a few questions, it's a Gen-3 G34 foofooed by TTI a few years back. Is there any known reliability issue with the non-captured setup, e.g., that the spring and rod interact in some way to snag from time to time? Should I remove the screw or keep it? There is a minimal length difference with and without, but it also makes the tip smooth(er). Should I add a washer and use the existing screw at the tip of the rod to create a captured spring instead of non-captured? Besides being easier to field strip, are there any other considerations between captured and non-captured setups? Long Version: A few years back, just for fun, I got a Gen-3 G34 specifically so that I could send it to TTI for one of their "movie upgrades." The gun came back looking and shooting great, as expected. It's my only full size Glock - I only have a few Glocks and I don't use them in competition so I am not too familiar with more advanced details. Some time later, while shooting some random local matches I figured it would be fun to have it set up for C/O so I got an aftermarket slide from Brownell's that was pre-cut for optics (in CA we have all sorts of limits, so getting a pre-cut slide is a great shortcut). After adding some cerakote finish to the slide and mounting optics, the C/O gun was ready for the show. Or so I thought. It would stove pipe half the time and the other half it would have a FTF where the slide "outruns" the round from the magazine. If it was stock, I would immediately look at the recoil spring, but this is a non-OEM slide on heavily modified frame with some additional finish(es). It wasn't a high priority at the time, so just as I was about to dedicate time to look into the problem, Covid struck and then everything was on hold for a period of time. As the ammo (and primers) are getting back in stock, I had some time to get back to this problem and fix it once and for all. I brought along different ammo, reloads and some factory loads, I had others at the range fire the gun, tried different magazines (metal MBX and standard polymers, both CA and free state), etc. As the last step before I borrowed someone else's frame to test the slide (non-OEM on non-OEM setup), I ordered a spring calibration pack from Wolff. That's when I realized for the first time that the Glock spring assembly is somewhat peculiar with the captured spring (I simply never paid attention to it). Turned out I had three recoil springs lying around, the original plastic that came back after TTI upgrades, the metal one from TTI and (likely) a heavier one that I purchased who knows when. After looking up on the web how it works, I felt I would break the plastic one if I tried to remove the cap, but the extra metal one was perfect for my needs - I could compress the spring, hold the rod with vice-grips and then unscrew the top screw (which had something similar to purple Loctite to keep the screw in place). The plan to diagnose the problem was easy - go to the range with the assortment of springs, use vice-grips and hex key to change them on the fly. If the problem remains, escalate - get a friend or two with stock frames and slides, then start crisscrossing setups and determine whether it's the frame or the slide causing the issues. As I was about to set up the first spring, I put it on the guide rod, compressed it, held it with vice-grips in place, put the screw on, released it slowly and it happily slid over the screw undeterred. Ugh! Frustrating as it can be, before I chucked everything in frustration, I took a look at the design and for the first time noticed that the springs were different. The flat spring not only had a different look, but it was narrower at the end so it could be retained. Doh! Then I looked at how the spring is held in the front of the slide and noticed there is no cup of any kind (like on a 1911/2011), it just rests flat against the slide. But, the guide rod goes through the little hole, so that should hold both the spring and the rod in place if I could squeeze it together and put the slide back on. Sure enough, after a few attempts I was able to find a way to guide the rod through the hole, put the slide on and confirm that it appeared to cycle fine. Well, turns out this is quite a standard setup, it was just new and unknown to me, which I found out after getting home and doing an online search. But I didn't find the fine details about using non-captured springs, hence my question above in this thread. And yes, the spring fixed the problem. It needed a #14 spring to cycle normally. Heavy springs cause slide to go forward prematurely, riding the round in the magazine instead of pushing it forward. And it's likely the same with stovepipes, where the slide doesn't have enough speed or even doesn't go all the way back so the ejector can't do its job. Looking back, it's obvious that a heavier setup with optics on top requires lighter, not heavier spring (which is the first setup I tried, just to be sure/safe). The heavier slide will move slower using the same ammo, even if it is true that a heavier spring would be required if the heavier slide moved at the same speed as the lighter slide. Well, it doesn't. Yet under DOH! Live an learn...

Great info - thanks! That's still a lot of 3N38 for minor - what PF do you get with 124s? My primary load is with Montana Gold JHP 124s so I have a bunch of them (also have some 124 RN that are suitable for comp).

That's similar to my 9 mm setup, I use 147 BB and N320. The problem is that I wouldn't run coated bullets through the comp, too much headache with fouling.

I have two Open guns, one in 38 SC and another in 9 mm Major. I have a stash of N310, N320 and 3N38 that I use for .40 (Limited Major), everything 9 mm minor and 38 SC for Open Major, respectively. From time to time I shoot various local matches that include pistol, mostly without even divisions, certainly no PF requirements. I would like to come up with a puff load for either of the guns using one of the powders I already have. First question: Is it worth using a slow powder to work the comp, or is it better simply to load a weak 9 mm that doesn't recoil to begin with (and what spring modifications would you do)? Second question: What powder and bullet would you use for puff loads, both from the list of what I already have and if you had to choose a new powder? Third question: Since Open guns shoot flat, is it even worth developing a puff load or should I just stick to Major that works the comp (keeping in mind that Major uses quite a bit of 3N38)?

That one didn't save you time and looked like it was just for fun. Like most of the magazine activations...

Not as much. One comment is about not missing, the other is about not waiting for the sound confirmation. Both are about not wasting time.

Even if it works, saving time on one prop on one stage won't make you a better shooter. And if you're a contender, you will only try it if it won't cost you extra time in case you miss. But it's always fun when people try different things.

The basic lean requires you to counter your weight that is on the side of your center of gravity with your leg, which is the only extremity that you can "spare" to provide counterbalance. So, if you want to have both legs on the ground, you have to go low - an outstretched leg at a severe angle won't touch the ground unless your primary leg is very low. Alternatively, if you're finishing the stage or continuing in the direction of the lean, you can keep the leg outstretched and in the air - less balance, but faster. This is often used for finishing a stage with a hard lean. Whatever you do with your body to keep the center of gravity somewhere between your legs is secondary fine tuning. You can't get around the leg position physics.

For USPSA distances, except for some "standards" stages with very long shots, fuzzy sight will not be (much of) a detriment. An acceptable sight picture is usually way less precise than a bit of fuzziness you get from less-than-perfect focus.

For experiment, I analyzed a few stages on paper and matched them to the actual setup. Everything I looked at had angles that were either slightly off, or it was hard to tell whether a target would be visible from a specific location, so only the most obvious plans would work both on paper and in the match. Since then, I use match book just to get a general idea about the type of match it's going to be (and I find out which classifier will be included).

What you say in this paragraph is precisely the tradeoff between speed and accuracy. The theory behind the empirical part "hammered out in practice" is the "1/HF per point lost." The practice just makes it subconscious in order to avoid the calculation in real time, but the tradeoff is still there and the theory behind it is still in the math equations. In fact, if you analyze your empirical data, you will see that it will confirm that the correct "level of Fast and Patient deployment" is exactly where the theory says it is. So, the most efficient way to train for this tradeoff is to be aware of the expected hit factor and experiment around that value to train it into the subconscious. In other words, the "level of Fast or Patient deployment" is not only per-target, where each target is analyzed on its own, but also per-stage. It's the same concept, just with a broader context of "target difficulty and expected stage HF" vs. just "target difficulty." The calculation in this broader context is slightly different and provably optimal. Is it going to make me personally a better shooter? No. Is it going to help my scores? Only if I execute it correctly, which brings us back to practice - to use HF in evaluation of stage one must get it into subconscious during practice. The "striving to shoot all points" is the usual cop-out (and I don't mean it in disrespectful way), with "striving" being the weasel word - Any top level competitor can shoot all the points. There is nothing to strive for when they can do it. Not shooting all points is a choice. The proof that it's a choice is easy - here is a screen shot from the last years Nationals: Percentage of A-s is 77%, 75%, 70%, 79% and 72% respectively. There are quite a few D-s, in fact it's between 1.3% and 5% for the top five. Yet, the stages are a mix of paper and steel, and all these guys shot 100% A-s on steel (the few M-s are likely not steel). One doesn't go from mid 70s% accuracy to 100% by coincidence. It's by choice and by calculation. The top guys most certainly chose to leave some points on the table in exchange for time. They chose to be accurate on steel because steel is very expensive in terms of HF. The same concept of "expensive" and "cheap" points exists on stages with different HF. Sure, most of the time one can ignore it since most stages have similar HF-s, but that's not relevant for the OP - the differences do exist and the calculation changes with wildly varying "expected HF-s" per stage. In fact, taking into account the expected HF on stages that are "unusual" is something that can help the top competitors way more than it can help those with "B class mentality" - tweaking the speed of shooting is a a top level skill, not something for local matches.

Yet there is always a tradeoff between the two and HF happens to be the exact value that quantifies this tradeoff. If points are expensive (low hit factor), the tradeoff goes towards more patience and more A-s. If points are cheap (high hit factor), the tradeoff goes towards more speed and it can even make a D or two acceptable. By "expensive" and "cheap" I mean in terms of time - the tradeoff between points and time. The rest of your post is spot on.

Very nicely put - I'll steal that quote

It's quite amusing to see the emotions Revolver division stirs. It's a division that requires a bit different skill set and it's very useful for refining the separation of grip and trigger pull. One cannot get away with trying to cheat the concept of "pull the trigger while keeping the sights on the target" by using the "sights are lined up, done, pull the trigger quickly." The reload is also a fun skill to practice and possess, much like quad-loading a semi-auto shotgun now that magazine-fed shotguns are readily available. If you don't like it, don't shoot it. Let people shoot what they want. It's the same course of fire and the same shooting whether it's scored in Revolver division or any other division. Drop Revolver and people will shoot it in Open. Doesn't matter. As for arguing the speed, Limited is slower than Open and Production is slower than Carry Optics and Limited. If we go by performance alone, those shooting Glocks are dinosaurs who need to get on with the times and shoot Open. It's the fastest and everyone else should just get with the program, right? Tactical Timmies might even argue that everyone should be shooting PCC because it's what snipers use (sarcasm, obviously) and everything else with low capacity and iron sights is soooo two centuries ago. Besides, as we all know, PCC don't need reloading (ever) which is a waste of time with the historical divisions. Time to start discussing "15 round limit in Production." That's a novel concept that nobody has yet brought up and it would help with saving another division because, obviously, 15 is better than 10...

USPSA is a game, much like IDPA.