IVC
-
Posts
1,174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by IVC
-
-
2 hours ago, Bwilmot said:
I ended up dumping that sideways c more and going with the DPP and never looked back. Lot more room for you grip.
I would prefer to keep it very close to the bore axis, if possible, so I don't have to deal with the large offsets at close ranges. But, I might have to give in and just use the standard mount if I can't make it work.
From the photos, though, it looks like I can make it work if I replace one of the two mounts. I'll get in touch with some local Open shooters when I run into them to see if I can check out their setups. Didn't realize it was going to be a problem.
-
6 hours ago, Bwilmot said:
Gg thumb rest prob won’t be the best choice for that set up. Daa or aerredondo would work better
4 hours ago, molson said:Seems to work fine for me 8).
Mike
Looks like I'll have to change one of the two - either a different thumb rest, or a different mount (the one in the last photo is different, it's not offset to the back).
-
3.1 grains of N320, 150 Blue Bullets (listed at 147, but .356 diameter, so they are 149-150), 1.120 OAL, Federal #100 (or GM), Federal brass.
The two components that are revolver-specific are the brass (bought it new and only use it for revolver) and primers (I save Federals for revolver, mostly use WSP for all other loads). I prefer to keep the powder dispenser and bullet seating dies calibrated and not tinker with them, so my shorter OAL allows me to load 9mm for my CZ-s with shorter chambers by simply using mixed brass and WSP. I will have to change things a bit when I start loading different bullets, which I have to to do because Blues are fouling my PCC comp pretty bad and accuracy is crap (6" at 25 yards, so clearly there is at least quite a bit of contact with the compensator).
-
Hmm, that looks good... Mine doesn't align even close to that. Here is the concept (gun is not yet put together)
-
Must have been answered many times..., but how do you set up a vertical C-More Slide Ride AND a thumb rest when you're a righty and both of those are on the left side of the frame?
I'm preparing/collecting parts for a custom Open build and today both my Slide Ride and the thumb rest (the GoGuns one, can't type the name because forum bot will remove it) were dropped off by UPS. I already had a Cheely vertical/offset mount (I think it's called "horizontal offset") that I bought several years ago, but never used. If I line up the two brackets, the body of the optics sits on top of the thumb rest and appears to interfere with the thumb itself. It is almost as if they would have to be mounted next to each other, which would then put the optics way up front.
There must be a solution to this puzzle. I hope it's not that "it can't be done" or "become a lefty." I don't mind a bit of extra cost for the mounts, but it would be frustrating to have to change the setup based on such a simple mechanical issue.
-
This comes down to the difference between predictive and reactive shooting.
In predictive shooting, you don't have time to go through the mental process of "I see the sights, I see acceptable sight picture, I am pulling the trigger" on the second shot. Instead, you go through that process on the first shot, and you know how well you grip the gun and how your gun behaves in recoil, so you can pull the trigger in correct timing for the second shot. The second shot is still aimed (not a contradiction), but you are not reacting to the sight picture, you are observing the sight picture as you fire the shot (you're still calling the shot).
It's extremely important to remember that If you don't see the sights on the second shot it's a wasted shot since you don't know where it went, you don't know whether you're doing it right, you don't know what or by how much to fix, etc. The derogatory "double tap" term describes precisely this case, where the second shot ends up not only being random, but when the shooter is surprised by the Alpha-Mike on the target because he has no clue what happened on that second shot.
In reactive shooting, you treat the second shot as you would any initial shot on the, e.g., draw, reload or transition. It is a completely separate shot that requires seeing the sights, recognizing the sight picture and pulling the trigger. It takes longer, it's more accurate, it doesn't require refined grip or recoil control, and it doesn't require developed shot-calling. The reason you can get away with more slop is because you're taking time to remove the slop. For example, if the recoil makes your gun jump unpredictably, you can still do it because you're waiting to get the sights on target before starting on the next shot. Compare to predictive shooting, where the second shot would end up in an unpredictable location due to the unpredictable recoil of the gun.
In reactive shooting drill, it's very important to remember that you still have to be able to "pull the trigger as fast as you can without disturbing the sight picture." The limiting factor here should be how fast the gun returns to the target, how fast it settles and how fast you can recognize it. If you see the sights on the target and are not shooting you're too slow for this drill. If you don't have trigger control at this level, work on a simple timed drill - aim at the target and on buzzer just pull the trigger as fast as you can without missing. This is a bread-and-butter skill of action shooting and will tell you how accurate you can be at speed (should be plenty).
To summarize (and there are many other details), in both cases you're working on your recoil control and shot calling (which is critical), but in one case you're counting on your skill to get the second shot (and recognize when you miss), while in the other case you are counting on your vision to give you the fast cue (and also recognize when you miss).
Another way to look at it is that when you shoot fast, say a Bill Drill, you can either pull the trigger very fast and enjoy observing the ride (just mentally recording where the shots were as the gun fired), or you can recognize the sights on each shot and only pull the trigger when your vision tells you to. The latter will give you better groups (the more skill you have the smaller the difference between the two), but at the cost of extra time.
Yet another way to think about the difference between the two is that when you shoot doubles, your "wobble zone" is defined by your fundamentals including grip, while when shooting pairs your "wobble zone" is just that of pulling the trigger fast (which in itself is larger than the "wobble zone" of the slow, bullseye trigger press). You have to take into account that you're working off of acceptable sight picture and not perfect sight picture, but the idea is the same.
Hope this helps you...
-
The rule of thumb is the heavier bullet the lower the velocity, the lower the velocity the lower powder charge, the lower powder charge the lass gasses to work the comp... Of course, it's just a rule of thumb and the only way to know is to try it out. Load a batch of 147s and measure how flat they shoot.
-
An old thread, but Alpha X are a poor design - they were supposed to be an improvement over the Race Masters and the polymer insert was, but the mounting system was wishful thinking and was a huge step back. If you look at the DAA website, they only sell Xi and Race Master, no more Alpha X. That tells you that they quietly scraped the Alpha X design and are burying the whole fiasco with the pouches falling off (happened to me, luckily during dry fire).
Alpha Xi is what Alpha X was supposed to be. An actual improvement. I have several Alpha X pouches that are being relegated to backup rigs and to the rear pouches. Anything in front or important is either the old Race Master (I have gazillion of those), or the new Alpha Xi.
This situation reminds me of how the DAA Primer Pro fared - it was an interesting design, but didn't work well, so they introduced a "semi-automatic" primer filler, which is precisely what they should've done all along. Flipping primers is not a big deal, picking them up into tubes and making sure they don't flip in the process is. Paying for something that needs to be replaced or that doesn't work all that well happens all the time to the early adopters...
-
Crimp band and Hornady not listing it are the two reasons I wanted to get some input...
Midway is a reputable company, so I'm pretty sure these were made by Hornady. The question is if there are any known issues with .354, or I just load a few and test accuracy (and velocity) in various guns. Worst case scenario is that I'll use them all up for plinking, but it would be great if I could make them run well in my PCC or my Open gun since these are jacketed and won't foul the compensator (like the Blue Bullets did; it was a real pain to clean the baffles). When the supply normalizes, I'll use .355-s...
-
Here is the photo of the tag and the few bullets... They are HAP-s, no expansion cuts, etc.
-
5 hours ago, AverageJoeShooting said:
and on the classifier my 8 sec open time was an A score and guy in SS with the same time had a GM score.
Happens to me all the time... oh, and the GM score guy has no mikes, so that makes a difference too.
-
Found these in stock at Midway and ordered a sample just because... And, because everything is out of stock.
So, they arrived today, beautiful, shiny, and consistently exactly 0.354 diameter. I was going to try them for my JP PCC, maybe try them in 38SC, or even vanilla 9mm (JP compensator doesn’t like coated and .356 lead had abysmal accuracy.)
I couldn’t find these on Hornady’s website and I’ve never used .354. What are they good for?
-
38 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:
It's still interesting you don't think people should care about winning, and use that as a reason to have more divisions for people to win at. It's a odd way to look at it for sure. But you do you.
I'm not advocating for more divisions, just for leaving the ones that are already there. It seems every few weeks there is a thread about combining this division with that, removing some other division, prognosticating doom for some third division, analyzing failure of some caliber, etc. It's as if we should feel better by limiting options and choices for others to whatever the division or caliber du jour is...
-
2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:
If you don't care about winning, why do you need a special division just for your gun with only 5 people and trophy?
I never thought people competed in those divisions to win a trophy - if you want a trophy, they are cheap to buy online and you can always find an excuse to give yourself a trophy (Millennials do it all the time). The problem with "caring about winning" is that even if you do care, you're not really winning any more or less based on your gear and based on the (lack of) competition in a particular match. Unless you're at the top and going against the (known) top guys in the sport, "winning" just means "they didn't show up" - not a huge accomplishment.
Maybe I'm different since I do several other sports regularly and see people "wanting to win" mostly at the lower and intro levels...
-
5 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:
Did the winners of those three division really win? I'd rather win C-class CO then beat 1 one guy for the L10 title.
They are equally meaningless... Shoot to attain certain level of proficiency, compete against everyone else, understand your gear handicap, enjoy shooting different guns.
If all you want is to win, grab a few non-shooting buddies, set up a few stages and destroy them. Like any other sport, winning is relevant only at the very top of the sport. Outside the very top, winning is a matter of who shows up. In this day and age we *know* who can shoot better than us and by how much. That's the beauty of having metrics to compare performance.
-
So what if a division is having just a few shooters? People want to shoot what they have. Those who understand shooting in general will know how to compare their performance to comparable other divisions, those who don't will gripe about winning a division or (ugh) a class. Either way, guys shooting divisions with just a few shooters aren't hurting anyone.
What's next? A marathon runner complaining that there are more runners in a major marathon than all of the USPSA active shooters in a week? So what? I'd still much rather shoot than run...
-
Thanks everyone - I ordered Brazos bold slide, unique cut, so it can be cut in any way necessary to match the frame. I have also a KKM threaded hybrid bull barrel 5.4" on order, and a Binary Engineering 3 port Ti compensator, so I'm good with the major parts. The rest is mostly a matter of preference and shouldn't be a problem (I have springs and some other parts lying around, doesn't seem to be a problem with out of stock anyways...)
Even if some parts turn out to be sub-optimal, it's relatively easy (and inexpensive) to get something else. The expensive stuff is mostly set.
-
PT doesn't sell slides anymore (I assume their in-house builds use their own slides, but I haven't seen any for sale). Thanks for the warning on Caspian's QC, that can be a pain to deal with...
A quick follow-up question: If I use a hybrid barrel, then the popple holes are independent of the slide since the whole part of the slide is missing. It also lightens the slide. Can any slide be cut to accept hybrid barrel or are there special slides for that? I would assume it's best to start with the regular slide and just cut it to match the profile of the hybrid barrel... Correct?
-
I managed to procure a PT long frame (living in CA, this requires some gymnastics) and am about to have a gunsmith build me a 9 major open gun. The PT EVO grip (aggressive, double undercut) is on its way, but the rest of the parts will require some shopping around, mostly out of stock or on back order. Ordering a part and returning it or similar is not an option. So...
Which slides go well with the PT frames (Clark-Para cut)? I was thinking about getting a Caspian bold slide, but can't find one in carbon in stock. Brazos has some slides that are available and I'm sure there are others. Gunsmith will have to mill the slide for popple holes and slide racker, so there will be quite a work involved no matter what...
Any suggestions or experiences on slides in general, and how they mate with PT frames in particular, would be appreciated.
-
This thread started a year ago and .40 is still around...
Never understood why someone shooting one division would care what people shoot in other divisions. As if it matters how many participants are in different divisions. Shoot what you have, use PractiScore Competitor to combine results, count your M-s and D-s, get better, suck less, enjoy the stages...
-
Different matches, different rules.
Most local matches to me don't require tear-down from the squads. The entry fee is a bit higher, at 40, it goes to those who set up stages and it's all fair. They get paid and they work for it. If the fee is lower and the SOP is for the shooters to tear down stages, that's okay too - you have a choice of participating or not.
Otherwise, refusing to tear down stages if it's expected is akin to refusing to tape because you can simply not do it. Not acceptable. If you don't like it, don't show up at the match. If you show up at the match, you accept the expected responsibilities for *that* club/match.
-
I live in California. We are not allowed cool toys or dangerous supplies, so nobody in CA has any guns or primers. We also don't talk about it online...
-
I still have a gut feeling that there must be a way to define a concept of "shooting position" (or similar) where the RJH's sketch would have only two and the stage would be provably illegal instead of just not passing the smell test.
But, as you point out, it would have to be very simple and "uncomplicated" as it would indeed create all sorts of unintended consequences if it was even remotely cumbersome or unclear. I guess we keep the "location or view" wording and use the current cumbersome glossary definitions of "location," "view," "array" and "new view." If it ain't broken...
-
The fine point here is that there is a “location or view” in the rear left part of the shooting area of your “illegal” sketch where you can see only target 1 (maybe targets 1 and 2, but not the rest). This is a different “location or view” from the forward left corner where the full array is visible. So, at least target 1 is offered from a different “location or view” and the array doesn’t have to be shot from the left corner of the barrier.
Looks like there isn’t a clear cut good way to describe the intent of the rule without going into some complex analysis and wording.
Vertical Slide Ride Mount and Thumb Rest
in Open Pistols
Posted
Haha, I was wondering about that since I saw it on the description of the mount I have. It said "horizontal" but it was what I would consider "vertical." I was looking at the direction of the base plane, so I would call this "vertical." If it's industry standard nomenclature, I guess I'll have to start calling it "horizontal."
Oh, well...