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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ezra650

  • Rank
    Finally read the FAQs

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Lula, GA
  • Real Name
    Ezra Helton

Recent Profile Visitors

224 profile views
  1. Thanks for that tip. Didn't know about the 243. I've used 242 for several years and I have notice that 242 does break loose when around oil, and especially oil and heat. Most noticeable is the allchin mounts for my CMORE coming loose on 22/45s. I have some red 262 as well. I've used it once on a 1911 front sight that I slightly under fit, it hasn't moved in over 1yr of shooting. And I used the red 262 on open gun optic mount. The Green #290 sounds promising as mentioned above. Blue 242 could be too weak for center fire iron sights, but the OP is using a 22. Less heat and no more than 5 (you hope) shots in steel challenge. It's not like you are hosing a centerfire in USPSA.
  2. Ben nailed it. I did a similar experiment on a smaller scale with my 22/45. I shot the same course in practice with an aluminum comp vs a steel comp I borrowed. I took immediate notice of the difference in "swing weight". Initially I thought the steel comp would help me stop on target quicker thus being more accurate/faster. My times were exactly the same. I even did it again on a different day so I could start shooting cold with the steel comp. Times didn't change. Knowing that I choose to keep the aluminum comp as it's what I've been using and practiced with and I hadn't purchased the steel comp so more funds for ammo. When/If I trash the AL comp at some point I will probably go to the steel simply for ease of cleaning lol. I use a drill bit to clean my 22 comps. I did notice that immediately changing back to back on the comps did trick me into wanting to overswing going back to the AL, but trusting my eyes I had no problem with it. A dry run or 2 and I was good to go. I shoot my 22/45 lite immediately after my full size 1911/2011 at SC matches. Never even think about or notice the weight difference. Don't get lackadaisical with your grip on 22s/light guns either. I grip them just as hard as any center fire gun I shoot. It's just as important if not more so, because a light grip with a light gun equals extraneous dot movement more than you would realize. Not as much from recoil on a 22, but the movement from your body. You will be fast with whatever you practice with. I owned a 15-22 as a plinker then sold it, long before I ever shot USPSA/SC. I'm working on getting a 10/22 race ready now for SC. For $1k you can get one that weighs sub 3.5lbs total weight with a single stage 1.5lb trigger and an AR pattern stock.
  3. I've though about getting one for shooting RFPI. I already have a 22/45 RFPO gun so not switching that anytime soon. But all my comp guns are 1911/2011. Does it use the same sear spring/FCG and mainspring housing? lol I wonder what lb main spring is in them. I'm guessing most of the differences are just in the top end?
  4. No worries. I was just confused why you might have thought I had little experience. It may be my personal preference, but also one I feel the majority of shooters share. You are right about not everyone being there to beat someone and you are spot on with the shooting against yourself comment. That is one thing I really enjoy about steel because the fixed scoring allows you to do that. Fair point about more competitors not automatically increasing competitiveness, although I do believe it still holds some truth. Does it come into play at a local match? I'd say no, the effect would be more at the larger lvl 2 and 3 matches One option that may be beneficial is moving some of the less shot divisions to category status. You still can cater/advertise to shooters who want to be specific about their gun, but then at larger matches have more competitors in a division. Just a thought. Also a division for hi-points.... that would be... entertaining.. at first haha. The NHRA comparison is apples to oranges. That is an association that has been around a bit longer and receives way more media attention and sponsorship dollars. With the new upgrades allowed now to productions guns I can't see that enough of a difference in the single action triggers of each to be that opposing. I could see how killing production for steel might dissuade some local shooters from showing up with their plastic fantastic, but if they aren't there to win would they really care? Other than that I don't see much cons to it. I think we could go back forth all day about it. Either way I'm excited to see what the future of steel challenge is.
  5. I had trouble finding video as well. Here are some takeways I learned from the few videos that helped me. Use a rubber band to hold the trigger bar/disconnector up and out of the way until you are ready to drop it into place. Use the safety plate to capture the sear in the forward position. While holding this in place insert the safety/pin to capture the plate and therefore the sear. Now you can remove the rubber band and position the trigger bar/disconnector correctly on the hammer and place the hammer in the frame. The hammer will be almost sticking straight up in order for the pin holes to line up. I went ahead and place the pin in the frame so when the hammer was in correct position I could simply push the pin through. Make sure the hammer strut doesn't fall out of the mainspring cap indentation, similar to a 1911, but there is a big gap the strut can fall into on the 22/45. After the hammer is installed you should be able to push the hammer back and it should "cock" and engage on the sear. Don't forget to put the allen retaining screw back in the safety pin on the right side of the gun. Best of luck!
  6. See my previous reply about divisions. Fair questions about the slide mounted vs frame mounted. I believe the main disadvantage between the 2 is the lack of a comp in CO. Combining those 2 very well could keep USPSA CO shooters from competing. Genuinely curious. You show up and shoot 6 different firearms at a match? Or do you shoot some of the same guns twice? And I'm not getting hung up on an arbitrary number of divisions, but the nuances between some beg the question of why we have so many and wouldn't the sport be better served with more competitors going head to head. Valid points about adding stages. Except I don't see why nostalgia has anything to do with it?? Agreed though that the consistency is nice. However, how does adding 1-3 stages take that consistency away? Once the stage is learned you know it. One option might be dropping a stage off of the current roster and replacing it. Lord knows I'd be fine with not having to shoot pendulum ever again . Who says that a lvl 2 or lvl 3 match has to use all the stages? One advantage is it could allow clubs to fit more stages on their bays, whereas now some clubs can't shoot/host a major match because not all stages will fit. I agree the AM/PM format is awesome and the way to go for matches.
  7. I have shot many more than a couple of matches. Are you confusing my opinion with Valentine's? Division Consolidation: Nobody wants to show up to major match or local match for that matter and only have a handful of people to shoot against, because everyone has their own little pet division they want to shoot and beat the other 5 people in. More competitors in a division increases the competitiveness of the sport and pushes shooters to increase their skill. I never said anything about prize tables and could give 2 flips about them. Yeah they are cool, but my main concern is my match fee being used to facilitate a well executed match that I can enjoy and participate in. I never mentioned merging limited and production. Some anecdotal evidence I have observed is many production USPSA shooters will register in limited. I saw a handful here shoot 1 or 2 matches in production. Next match shooting the same rigs, they registered in limited... hmmm wonder why. Your assertion about limited and production being "considerably" different is interesting. Could you provide some clarification on how transitions and grip are different between limited and production eligible guns? I can see valid points about trigger manipulation, especially when requiring DA on first shot, but beyond that you've lost me.
  8. @Czgunsalot was correct. Thank you. All it took was some sanding to smooth up where it was machined. No more brass hairs. Which is great cause before I fixed it one of them found it's way into my palm while shooting... ouch!
  9. Asking me or Mike? I've been shooting for USPSA/SC all together for 5 years with a 1yr hiatus where I attended about 2-3 matches the entire year due to other life situations. This past year and the year before I have focused only on steel. I wouldn't call that no or little experience. I've seen good and bad changes in the sport overall. Does increasing the difficulty i.e. CHALLENGE of steel challenge strike you as a poor idea? A deeper pool of competitors at all level of matches and a few fresh stages sounds like a promising aspect to me. But again that's just my opinion... which is why I recommended Mike to poll the membership. If you are asking why Mike would want to make changes I'd wager that he doesn't want to give a non answer for the sake of his campaign platform.
  10. 1911s in production makes zero sense to me because of the DA/SA trigger difference. One might even argue that an iron sight centerfire and optic centerfire division is enough for steel challenge. In addition to the rimfire and PCC divisons of course. However, what do most people shoot in limited? 2011s, or other metal framed guns with single action triggers, a few glocks here and there. And does a race holster make enough of a difference to have an entirely different division? No. For USPSA a SS division makes sense due to mag capacity/reloads/stage planning, but for steel challenge no. I think adding a few stages would be nice. I don't think there would be much if any competitive change as the stage diagrams would be available. It's only 5 plates you know. I personally enjoy the continuity of steel challenge stages and trying to increase times. It wouldn't take many stages to freshen things up. maybe 2 or 4 stages. Then clubs could host an 8- 12 stage major match if they desired.
  11. Mike, What are your plans/changes for steel challenge if elected? This has interest to me as I'm currently a primary SC shooter. ------------------------------------------------- From Mike: I have participated in a handful of steel challenge matches but am by no means an expert at it. I have had a few conversations with people like yourself that are primarily involved in steel challenge and the general consensus is that more thought needs to be given to when the championship match is and more stages need to be created. I personally would like to see the number of clubs running matches increase and I believe that HQ can be more involved in starting those clubs and helping match directors start matches. What are your thoughts/concerns? -------------------------------------------------- Me: Well I'm in the same boat as you and really didn't get into SC until last year. I started in uspsa for 3yrs and now I find I am enjoying the difficulty and speed, shooting steel challenge provides. It's simple, but can be very challenging and you can compare identical scores with any of the shooters in the sport. I haven't attended a lvl 2 or 3 SC match yet, but plan to next year with the hopes of preparation to win a division. So no thoughts on the changes there as I have no experience. New stages definitely sound exciting! I would definitely be against any stages that involve movement. That is one of the main draws for steel challenge for senior shooters, disabled shooters, new shooters and people like me who just want to drag race with a gun and leave the run and gun for uspsa. In fact I would like to see the movement eliminated from the outer limits stage. It could be setup like showdown or it could possibly be shot all from one box. I also advocate for the review of the PST for many divisions and removal of some to increase the skill pool in other divisions. The PST for some divisions are set too low. Take CO for example. It's nearly the same peak time as production. Polling the steel challenge member base would be a great idea in regard to changes. One I would advocate is the removal of SS. Those shooters can compete just as well in limited and have a larger playing field. I shoot a SS gun but register in limited at all my matches. *Clarification* And to clarify about the PST. The 100% times are too easy to attain and are being surpassed by many shooters. It would be great to see new matches. The ATL area thankfully is great for competition shooting, but still I know of one club who runs a steel challenge match, but doesn't want to bother with affiliation... or electronic scoring. I'd like to see some push on both of those. It's 2019. I'm not sure if mandating e scoring as the primary scoring method would be possible for uspsa/SC but it wouldn't bother me one bit. In regard to uspsa I have one major complaint. Eliminate popper calibration. Score it like steel challenge. If there is a visible hit it's a scored hit. ------------------------------------------------------- From Mike: Thank you for your insight. What you said makes a lot of sense. And best of luck in your try at the higher level matches. I am a huge advocate for shooting lvl 2 and above matches simply because they draw a deeper talent pool and give you a better reference of exact how you are doing and what to strive for. Please feel free to let me know if you think of anything else. ------------------------------------------------------- END DISCUSSION Not overly insightful. I'd like to hear him make some more concrete statements about steel challenge, but he appears to have an open mind. My comments about the PST and divisions are worded funny. In short. Make PST times faster and thin down some of the divisions.
  12. Also that 1992 match video is pretty cool! That match was shot before I was born. The pneumatic plates are interesting, but I think pointless.
  13. I'm in the same boat. In fact outer limits is currently 1 of only 2 stages I've shot over 100% in RFPO. If I win a steel match I don't want it to be because I scurried between two boxes faster. I want to win based on shooting speed and accuracy. I do agree it looks a little lame when shot from one position. Plate placement could be modified. Maybe move the 12" plates closer and leave the stop at 18yd to create a distance change up... I don't know, but it would be nice for a change. I'm about to post some info regarding a conversation I had with Mike Valentine over the web about steel challenge changes.... or is that not allowed on the enos forum??
  14. I'd also like to see this change and I believe most steel competitors would as well. Steel challenge is about fast and accurate. If we wanted to get our cardio in we would go shoot a USPSA match lololol. I wonder what if any changes will be made in regards to steel challenge with the presidential election coming up?? Any insight Zack? The only one I know of running besides Foley is Valentine.
  15. +1 ZZT said it before I could. Un-parallel frame holes are not fun. Why do you think so many smaller shops are starting to make their own in house frames??? Especially with the cost of STI's now. STI no longer is primarily aiming their market toward the competition shooters. They are selling more guns to people who prefer to take pictures of their guns instead of shoot them and selling to tactical timmys.
  • Create New...