IVC
-
Posts
1,174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by IVC
-
-
On 5/28/2020 at 2:30 PM, Styro said:
Well it's definitely not illegal to do that.
Depending on how you see it - I see it as theft and theft is illegal, even if the payment processor was the one to facilitate it. It's just something you don't do to your fellow shooters, or at least not without being outed. (I understand the policy of this forum not to out people, but that's just the forum; other MD-s will find out.)
-
On 5/14/2020 at 11:38 AM, StealthyBlagga said:
However, the competitor (from CA) who submitted the chargeback felt that he deserved a full refund as he "did not feel comfortable coming to the match" - as such, he jumped ahead of other folks and drained the refund pot, leaving less for everyone else. In my mind, this meets the threshold for disreputable behavior.
Probably not - he didn't bring the disrepute to the sport, which is required for 6.4.4.b.
What you have on hands is someone who owes you money. You could go to court and recover the fees regardless of how the bank handled it. The contract you have and which includes the refund policy is independent of any payment network. It's a legal contract that applies equally to someone who paid cash...
While you're not likely to go to court over such a small amount, the real-life remedy is not to allow this person to compete at your match until he pays you what he owes you. You can throw in the extra fees and interest, just to make a point. If you have buddies who are MD-s, you can share the info and everyone can require this person to pay in cash. Similar to how deadbeats have to pay when buying used cars. Short of that, you would have to make a case to NROI that this is stealing from you, which it is. Probably categorize it under "disrupting the match" rather than "bring disrepute to the sport." Stiffing you for entry fee certainly affects your ability to set up matches in the future.
-
On 5/2/2020 at 4:36 PM, SSGGlock said:
Not to steal this thread, but I have question related to brass and moonclips. I just got a 929, 9mm in revolver is strange to me. So I sorted some of my current reloads 125 blue, between federal and win. Both on the same kind of TK moonclip, the standard ones for a 929. The Federal brass jiggle, the Win brass is stiffer. How should you want it?
Stiffer for him, jiggle for her, but let's not allow our minds to wander...
On a serious note, I use 0.040 with Federal and it seems just right. What you want is a small amount of movement to help with lining up against the charge holes, but not too much. If I had to choose, I'd choose tighter fit since too much slows down the reload. Another consideration that someone mentioned above is that the thicker moonclip puts brass closer to the firing pin and, at least in theory, it helps with ignition. In practice, I haven't noticed the difference - if you're running your trigger so light that 0.005 makes a difference, you're playing too close to the edge anyways. It's like loading to 126 PF - even if you can keep it consistent, there is no point since you can't tell the difference from 130+ anyways...
-
One more vote for Federal - both primers and brass. Since your brass is in moonclips, it’s easy to keep track of the brass and you don’t need a huge batch or a special method for sorting.
Not sure about the concern about blowing up a primer - I’ve had enough of them get crushed sideways in 1050 and none went off. Even if they did, they wouldn’t ignite the column in the primer magazine. Even if they did, it would just launch some pieces into the ceiling. Garage ceilings are overrated anyways...
-
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.
-
On 4/3/2020 at 8:31 AM, lroy said:
It sounds like your issue of not initially getting a good grip became more exacerbated once it was essentially locked into place with the grip enhancement. You had more room for forgiveness when you could slide your hand into the right position.
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?
-
21 hours ago, alecmc said:
The energy needs to come from somewhere, what you lose in momentum of travel needs to be made up in mainspring tension.
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.
-
On 3/13/2020 at 10:45 AM, Racinready300ex said:
I signed up for a club match as Hugh Jass once. The stats guy figured me out and changed it though.
Figured out as in noticing your cute petite tushie??
-
1 minute ago, waktasz said:
Nothing says you have to use your real name when you sign up for USPSA or register for matches
Wait, you're telling me those SASS names aren't real either??
-
On 3/9/2020 at 12:36 PM, Glockster1 said:
That's not something I'm interested in.
Yet clicking on your avatar and looking at your post history tells me what kind of bullets and guns you use...
-
On 3/9/2020 at 12:22 PM, Glockster1 said:
THEY will publicize all your types of firearms you compete with, your name, your basic location, your member number, your shooting level/abilities/skill-set level (in class), every shooting match you attend, including dates, times and exact locations. And ALL of that is PUBLIC information for anyone anywhere in the world to view/use, to STALK you, know your regular where-a-bouts and save-to-file, which may be used for or against you by some one or some government agency in the future.
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.
-
2 hours ago, bret said:
in the OP the shooter was able to accomplish it, where is there a problem?
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...
-
On 2/25/2020 at 7:48 PM, MikeyScuba said:
I had to use a squid rod to...
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.
-
18 hours ago, Sarge said:
Pickett fence is not nipple height unless one has really low nipples.
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).
-
2 minutes ago, Thomas H said:
Short people can't magically become taller.
Ever seen a Tom Cruise movie? That's a magical way to make them taller...
-
18 minutes ago, nasty618 said:
What rule would you, as the shooter, state for the reason of your appeal for the presumably incorrectly applied FTSA penalty?
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.18 minutes ago, nasty618 said:If you are on that squad and you clearly saw the shooter not engage the target, will you be OK with the FTSA not given?
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.
Despicable Behavior and Rule 6.4.4: "barred from competition"
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
You're certainly not seeing it in the eyes of the law. Payment processor's rules that allow a charge-back to be physically processed have nothing to do with the contract law that regulates whether the organizer is entitled to the entry fee per the cancellation policy.
If anything, you're conflating the law with the payment processor rules - just because the payment processors transfers the money back to a person doesn't mean that person doesn't still owe the money.