IVC

Either get stainless clips, or get a bigger belly that holds down the belt quite effectively. You can get clips online, while you can get beer at your local grocery store. Each has its pluses and minuses...

It's about going faster, but there is a trick - it's not constant speed, it's variable speed. Look in the video how slow your hands move to your reloading point (which is also too high, but that's a matter of technique, not speed). Then look at how slow they move once you have the new clip in and into your firing position. Those are trivial movements that don't require fine motor skill, yet you're doing them as if they are going to help you somehow with consistency. They won't. It reminds me of people drawing on a hard target and for some reason deciding to move their hands slowly, as if the sight picture acquisition started while grabbing the gun. Here is a simple drill to do a few times and every time when you feel your hands are getting sluggish. Set par time to 0.8 seconds. On first beep bring the gun with both hands as fast as you can to the low ready position where you would normally reload. On the second beep punch it out into acceptable sight picture as fast as you can, should be by the time the beep ends. All you're working on here is reaction to the timer and fast hand movement. The goal is to maximize the "dead time" you have with the gun at your waist. After a few reps, you'll see that you can have quite a bit of time between the beeps and this time is available to you only because you moved your hands as fast as you could. After you figure out how to move hands fast, go back to your 3.5 seconds par, move hands as fast as you can, spend 2.5 seconds entering the moonclip in the "dead time" and you'll be at your par time. Except, it will feel that you have a massive amount of time (which you do). You should be able to shave a second from your reload relatively easily, just by understanding that the reload is "fast-medium-fast" and not constant speed "medium-medium-medium." The top guys shave off time by optimizing the reload part, but you should be able to match their hand speed outside the reload since it's just a matter of moving, not skill.

Good approach and makes quite a bit of sense. I'll try it next time when I'm up for renewal.

That's where I'm not sure - it's not that I am not getting a good grip, it's that the technique for getting the good grip involves slight movement of hand against the gun. When I initiate the draw, my hand will always be in the correct and final position as the gun starts moving out of the holster (on a normal, good draw). Essentially, the grip liquid slightly interferes with the technique, which makes me wonder whether I should push through the resistance or modify the technique...

For quite some time I haven’t used any grip enhancer until a few days back I put some grip liquid on my hands only to realize that my initial purchase on the gun was a bit inconsistent. When really working the clock, I would place my hand on the grip, slide it a bit down/forward into correct position, then initiate the draw with the correct grip. It’s minute movement of the hand against the grip, but sufficient to position the strong hand perfectly. However, with grip fluid, my hand would stick and not slide this small distance, so I would end up with slightly inconsistent grip. I played with working on accuracy of the initial grip, but then thought that it might be the wrong thing to do. Why try to perfect something that is likely to be worse than allowing the hand to wiggle a bit during the draw process? The problem is that I’m not sure what the correct answer is. Is it good or bad to have a small amount of play during the initial purchase on the gun and allow the hand to slide into correct position, or should I strive to get the perfect grip on initial contact with the gun?

I’m worried about the barrel. What’s a good way to check?

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?

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.

Figured out as in noticing your cute petite tushie??

Wait, you're telling me those SASS names aren't real either??

Yet clicking on your avatar and looking at your post history tells me what kind of bullets and guns you use...

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.

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...

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.

Here are two of mine...

Squid rod for fishing, squib rod for guns...

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.

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).

Ever seen a Tom Cruise movie? That's a magical way to make them taller...

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.

It's the brass issue - if it expands too easily, it will stick. I have a very similar load, except I use .356 BB which are listed at 147 (they are actually 150), 3.2 grains of N320 (it was 3.1, I bumped it to 3.2 to be safe at chrono) and a bit shorter OAL at 1.120 (to fit some CZs). Range mix brass that I sometimes shoot in practice will occasionally stick and make the cylinder hard to rotate, hard to extract or both. Not to mention that the range mix will have all sorts of issues with the thicker TKC moonclips (0.040), but it's good enough for messing around. Get uniform brass that won't stick, get matching moonclips and call it good.

Yes, she ended up being able to do it, but how would the extra box fit into the rules without others being able to raise the issue and try to toss the stage? What I'm trying to figure out here is both "rules as written" and what happens in practice at higher level matches when similar situations arise...

That's part of the question - what are the options? Is it even within the rules to provide a prop (some sort of a step) to one shooter and one shooter only? The other shooters could then complain that the change violated competitive equity for them and try to toss the stage. What are the realistic options to resolve an issue like this? (I understand that because she was able to stand on the fault line and tiptoe into shooting position it ended up not being an issue, but what if she couldn't have.)

My local club was hosting its first Level 2 match last weekend (Western States Single Stack and Revolver) and I ended up on the squad with the very well known shooters. One of them is a junior lady who ended up 6th overall and a high lady (easy to figure out who it is). She is 17 and pretty short, I would say 4' 10" or so (and a great shooter). On stage 5, there was an array of three targets on the ground that were shot at arms' length distance, but over a picket fence with hard-cover edge at the top. It wasn't particularly tall, but it was sufficiently tall that this lady had an issue shooting over it so she asked about something to stand on to get competitive equity. The RO said he didn't have anything (not sure he would allow it if he did) so she figured she could shoot (barely-ish) if she stood on the fault line. Some of the other guys on the squad (friends) were joking that it was a payback for all the low ports... As a matter of rules, what is the correct procedure here? "Competitive equity" shows up in rules in completely different context (mid-match changes to a stage) so I'm not sure it would apply at all. The only rule I see is 1.1.6 that talks about allowing for reasonable differences in competitor's build. However, I didn't find anything that would either prohibit stages like this, or permit additional props (not talking about special accommodations for disabled competitors or penalties in lieu of course requirements, that wasn't the case here). Also, at what point does "reasonable" become "unreasonable?" (both as a matter of rules and as a practical matter).

Getting the correct time recorded is a matter of understanding how the timer works and there is nothing wrong with reviewing the time to determine whether the timer picked up something after the last shot. RO uses timer as a tool and the correct use is to figure out the time, not to blindly read the display. For the same reason RO cannot use timer to figure out any procedurals during the course of fire - procedurals are called by RO as they occur and trying to deduce something from timer would be an easy arbitration case: "Did you see the shooter fail to shoot at a target? No. Case closed." As a practical matter, I will confirm the timer is picking up first few shots, then I will make sure I watch the timer at the very end both to ensure the last shot is picked up and that nothing extra is. I will only memorize the ballpark time (seconds) so I can make the correct call if something bumps it or it picks up some other noise. If the timer didn't record the last shot, it's a reshoot. I make sure I'm very close to PCCs for this particular reason.