Garrett

I'm not terribly proficient on a Mac either. But since my 10+ year old PC is really slow and needs to be replaced (I'm not much of a techie, can you tell), I can try to get by on the wife's Macbook.

For splicing videos together, I just use https://www.youtube.com/editor It's built into youtube, and (obviously) free. Not perfect, though. The titles & labels I add only show up on the PC version, so you don't see them on a phone or tablet. And I haven't been able to do picture-in-picture. I'd like to sync head cam and other cam footage at the same time. I may try iMovie for that in the future. Here's a match from last summer:

That brings up a minor point that I'm still scratching my head over. Maybe it was discussed somewhere in the last 13 pages and I missed it: why restrict both mag length and mag capacity? If you have a 10-round limit, does running a big stick provide some kind of advantage?Or maybe this was put in so it's set up to eventually drop the 10-round limit from the rules?

That argument doesn't go very far. Are you suggesting that nobody shoots Open in California, since they have a 10-round mag limit?

5320.20 is currently unavailable through eforms. It's paper only for the time being. It really doesn't even do that for them. I've currently got approved forms for half a dozen different states. So "where" are they right now?From a practical standpoint, it's not much hassle. ATF will approve them for up to a 1-year date range, and for multiple trips. So each year you file for any state you think you may want to visit. Even if you're not sure, go ahead and fill out the form for that one too. It doesn't cost you anything more than an extra couple of pieces of paper. Just remember to send them in early enough. I'm currently waiting on another set that I sent in a month ago.

I bought a used Open gun reportedly built by Dawson some time in the 90s. I discovered the dust cover cracking when it dropped to the point that I ran out of elevation adjustment. I was going to get it welded up, but had to have the chrome playing stripped first. I sent it to Virgil Tripp to un-chrome it. That's when he discovered the cracks on both sides of the grip frame where the trigger bow cuts had been made. Interestingly, when this gun had been built, it used the STI-type cut for the barrel, not the typical Para cut. So I bought an STI frame and shipped it to Virgil and he fit the top end to the new frame and added a C-more. I've still got the cracked frame sitting in the back of the safe. I keep thinking I should build it up with a Mech Tech or something. For what it would cost to build a gun from a complete P18*9, I would lean toward just using an STI/SV. Oh yeah, one thing going for the Para is if you cut and weld mags, you should be able to get around 33 rounds in a 170 tube.

You just need to train the RO better. Shooters have been running suppressors at subgun matches for years with no issues. Keep in mind, the timer really only needs to pick up the last round fired. The RO usually knows about when / where this is going to take place. When the shooter is nearly done with the stage, they just need to get the timer close to the ejection port. Some ROs will even try to position so the brass hits the timer as it ejects, as that will usually register. I find a silencer usually helps with recoil on a PCC or subgun, and does a better job than a traditional comp. However, it may just be the added length & weight at the end of the barrel doing most of the recoil reduction. And then there is the added length & weight you have to deal with when negotiating the stage. So like everything else, it's a trade-off. Of course this is all moot, now that the PCC rules have been posted at the USPSA website (http://uspsa.org/document_library/2016/PCC%20Appendix%20for%20USPSA_D8_DNROI_posting3116.pdf), and they specifically disallow silencers. I'd be curious as to their reasoning.

Para factory extractor.

I really like the Vhit powders. But they have had supply issues in the States off and on. I mostly stopped using them 10 or so years ago when they went through a phase of low availability. But I still keep some N320 around for my .40 loads. N350 was great in .38 Super, and ran much cleaner than the Longshot that I currently use. I guess I had assumed the WST/WSF/WSL powders were made similar to 231 in that they are all flake powders. Are they not made the same way as 231? I am seeing all of those locally, but not 231. So are these others the "new chemistry" stuff? I've been using some WSF recently, as it gives better velocities than 231. I haven't seen Tightgroup in a while either. Shooting .38 Special through a T/C Contender, I got much better groups than a similar load with 231. I've never seen that kind of accuracy increase in a pistol cartridge before just by changing powder. So while 231 has been my "go to" powder for the past couple of decades, I'm not opposed to switching to something else once my current supply runs out.

I'd try it, just to try it. I've got a glock set up with a C-More STS on a dovetail mount that I use with a suppressor. I'd just remove the can and put the factory barrel back in and give CO a whirl with my Glock blaster. I occasionally shoot a local "tactical" match that allows similar sights. It seems to do fine for that one. But in the end, I'll probably stick with Limited and Open. I currently have exactly 4 Production classifiers on my record from 2002. Again, just to say I've tried it. I'm thinking CO might end up the same way for me. But that's just me.

Yes, but...This was with a mid-range book load of Win 231 with a MG 124 gr. FMJ. I've found even the fastest powders are still burning at the end of your typical rifle-length barrel. True, the incremental increase gets a lot less, but you do still see some increase. For example, I had a similar 231 load but using a plated 115 gr. bullet. In the same 5.5" barrel noted above, this load was averaging 1238 fps. In a 16" barrel, it still increased to 1410 fps. I suspect how tight the chamber and barrel are can play as much into the issue as anything. In the example I gave above, the 10.2" barrel is a surplus machine gun barrel. So it probably has somewhat generous chamber tolenrances, where a target barrel would be tighter and likely give higher velocities because of it.

I have found the individual barrel makes more difference than anything. Yes - a longer barrel will generally produce higher velocities. But that is not always the case. I was just running a load through the chronograph yesterday. I was testing it in three different guns with different barrel lengths, and the results were interesting. 5.5" barrel = 1002.6 fps 8.375" barrel = 1083.0 fps 10.2" barrel = 1003.4 fps The long and short barrels shot almost exactly the same average velocity (very similar high/low velocities as well), while the mid-length barrel shot significantly faster. If I was using these in a match where power factor was measured, only one barrel pushed the 124 gr. bullet over 125PF. If I had developed the load in the 5.5" barrel, and presumed it would be over 125PF in the 10.2" barrel, I would have been dissappointed. As noted by others, you need to chrono the load in each gun you intend to use it in.

I used nothing but small rifle primers (typically WSR and CCI#400) in pistol cartridges for years with no problems. I had one Glock that had issues, but had since traded it off, and all the other Glocks ran with SR primers with no problems. During the Great Primer Drought of 2008, I bought some CCI 41 primers and loaded up a bunch of 9mm and .38 Super with them, not thinking much of it. They resulted in a high number of dud rounds in all guns I tried. The Super was run through an STI-framed 2011. Should be no issue there. The 9mm had issues in various handguns, an AR15/9mm and even a couple of open-bolt subguns. I'm not sure if I got a dud batch of primers, or what. After that, I stuck with standard "known" rifle primers. With the nagging doubt in the back of my head, I started stocking pistol primers again as well. Your rifle primers "should" work. But I would test any new primer out completely before loading up a bunch of ammo with them.

I usually work out my plan for the stage, where to reload, etc. Then I bring at least one more mag than I think I need. In Limited, that might mean I bring 3 or 4 mags to the stage. Open is 2 or 3 usually. I keep thinking I should get classified in SS, just because. I'm not sure if my 5 or 6 mags will get it, though. And I don't know if I want to buy a bunch more for a division I might not play much in. Kind of like how I'm classified in Production. I've got exactly 4 Pro classifiers... from 2002. And I don't think I've shot that division since.

I use nitrile gloves often when I'm cleaning guns, but not when reloading. I haven't even seen latex gloves in a store for a number of years. Seems everywhere has pretty well switched over to nitrile, due to latex allergies. That being said, I haven't looked all that hard for latex. Although latex seems more stretchy and fits more tightly to the hands, giving a better fit. Once my box of nitrile runs out, I might see if I can find latex on Amazon. The post about solvents eating them has me wondering a little, but it's not like they cost a whole lot.

I've had mixed results with Xtreme. The .355" are marginal at best in most of my guns, but their .356" are okay. For roughly the same price, I seem to get better results from Berrys.

I played with some 158 gr. bullets in 9mm a couple of years ago using Win 231. They shot fine, and I was getting anywhere from 800 to 900 fps in a 10" barrel, depending on the load. These were for taking down heavy steel at subgun matches. But I ran some numbers and found I can get both higher PF and higher KE using a 147 gr. or 124 gr. bullet. I didn't try them in a handgun. But I would imagine it would be similar to running the extra-heavy bullets in the .40, as was popular 15 or so years ago. (anyone remember the D&J 220 gr .40 bullets? I might still have a few kicking around somewhere).

Great for open guns. Lots of gas to work the comp. As noted by others, it would make for more recoil than you need in a Limited gun, though. Faster powders are better for non-comped guns.

I occasionally shoot bowling pin matches with a Desert Eagle Open gun in .44 Mag. I suppose I could run it in USPSA, but I'd need an extra dozen mags, and I'd have to figure out something for a holster. It has to be loaded to at least 300 PF just to get it to cycle.

Does anyone know were I can get a 2-piece safety drum for a MK-XIX? It's the dodad in the slide that the safety levers attach to. I tried ordering a set through MRI, but they have it on backorder. Numrich only has the 1-piece drum for the MK-VII, which is not interchangeable with the MK-XIX. http://www.magnumresearch.com/GetDynamicImage.aspx?dir=itemImages&path=19A-Left-Safety-Internal-XIX5064.jpg&w=652&h=556 http://www.magnumresearch.com/GetDynamicImage.aspx?dir=itemImages&path=19-Right-Safety-Internal-XIX5063.jpg&w=652&h=556

It seems to be working...

I've had an XL650 for around a decade now. Since that time it seems my loading bench is always covered with the little cleaning media granules. Because it seems it doesn't matter how well you separate your brass after cleaning, you always end up leaving a few granules of media in the brass. So when you dump the brass into the case feeder, a little media goes along as well. Dillon must have recognized this, and surmised it would eventually built up to the point of binding things up or otherwise causing issues. So they put a couple of small holes in the bottom of the feeder bowl. That works fine and well, as the last little bit of media works its way to the bottom of the feeder. But then it falls out the little holes and gets all over the bench. So I finally got smart and decided to do something about it. I was thinking of using some tubing to direct the crud down into a container. But not having any tubing on hand, I went with a simpler approach. I just taped a couple of small plastic cups to the back of the case feeder under the holes. I used the little measuring cups that come with children's medicine (anyone with small kids ends up with dozens of these little things). When they fill up I can just pull them off and dump them. I'll have to report back once I've had a chance to try them out. So has anyone come up with a better approach?

I previously had a para 38super open gun and had a 170mm mag made by welding two bodies together, worked awesome but sold the gun and mags and dont want to have to do it again.Can you elaborate on the STI mag and mag catch option? I havent heard of this before. What mag catch are you using? Is it as simple as switching the mag catch and then using standard STI mags? Thanks in advance. I used to have a Para open gun, and I had a couple of the "STI for Para" mags for it. You can't just file the mag catch slot on the mag and get it to work. That works when going from a Para mag to STI, not the other way around. To do that, you would have to first weld up the hole in the mag and re-cut it for the Para catch.You may be able to modify the mag catch in the gun to work with standard STI mags, but I haven't looked at whether or not this would work. If you cut and weld a couple of Para mags, you can end up with a 170 mm mag that holds more ammo than any STI/SV mag out there. I've heard of people getting 33 or so rounds in the welded Para mags. Of course, you are then relying on the skill of the welder. But it's an option.

I'm getting in here a little late, but I found this while trying to decide what kind of camera to get. I had a set of IKam Extreme video glasses a couple of years ago. They were a good idea, but could have used a little more development. They finally broke - frame is cracked, and the recording comes out looking funny. They were slow to initialize when you turned them on, and would only stay on in "standby" mode for a short amount of time. So you had to wait until just before the LAMR command, then turn them on, load up, then hit the record button. The other issue I found was that I tend to bend my head forward when shooting. So when wearing the glasses normally, I am recording the ground 10 feet in front of me. To get the right alignment, I would have to wear the earpiece across my ears, not over / behind them in the typical manner. I never had an issue with them coming off, but the potential was there. Also, I found when shooting long guns, I would often get a nice video of the side of my scope as I ran through the stage - not terribly useful. Also, they were bulky enough that I could not wear muffs with them. Plugs only. I'm thinking the Pivotheads will have the same alignment / muff issue. Otherwise I'd consider them. I like the looks of the Tachyon Ops. Not as bulky as the GoPro. I like the hat clip option, but I wonder how secure it is. (reading product info, it looks like you can get one that screws to the hat brim as well) I'm thinking a head-mounted cam is going to work better than a glasses-mounted cam also for shooting long-guns, where mounting the camera a little higher is going to be a good thing. Here's some video from a few years ago from the IKam glasses. On this one, the rear sight covered a lot of the viewing area. With a scoped AR15, you couldn't see anything other than the side of the gun / scope.

I have seen some video from a subgun match last month in Las Vegas. They said it wasn't a distraction. Just that it was kind of noisy - like a swarm of bees.