Camhabib

Really bad idea to do this. Toothpaste is a fine abrasive (which is how it cleans your teeth). Putting this on an optical surface will create marring and fine scratches. The science behind a lot of these solutions is that they reduce surface tension, creating a layer of water instead of drops of water which cause diffraction of light. Anything that leaves a film of detergent will ideally do this, but many will also inadvertently negatively effect the resolving ability of the optics.

Appreciate the replies so far everyone. I should say that while I realize the draw is a small part of the stage, it’s one of the few things I’ve really been able to practice at home and get some actual metrics on to see if I’m making any progress. I’ve picked up a couple Stoeger books (including the dry fire) and have been doing lots of other exercises, but few others give me numbers to work with to compare my performance. Really looking forward to getting out there though.

Complete beginner here, coming form the world of skeet shooting. Since I haven't been able to attend my first match yet, I've been doing some dry firing at home, working on both my draw and trigger pull. I have a Mantis X10 that I've been using to improve what I can from home, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what kind of numbers I should be shooting for (pun intended). According to my data, from buzzer to shot fired on target (with hands starting above the head), I'm about 1.9-2 seconds (see bellow). I just picked up the Ben Stoeger book and have been going through it, but I'd love to know how horrible my numbers are compared to others. According to the software, the various times are defined as: Grip: time from the start beep to when your hand grips the gun Pull: how long it takes you to pull the firearm out of the holster Horizontal: time from the pull to when the gun is drawn and rotated to horizontal alignment Target: how long it takes you to get on target after getting the gun horizontally Shot: time from being on-target to when the shot breaks

No, as a doctor, I don't. But I do have a good amount of experience with medicine, which I feel like hearing may have a bit to do with.

Pro tip: your point is better illustrated if you correct your post to “leave” not “didn’t left me.” It wasn’t an analogy (which is a comparison) but rather a wild thing called an “example” used to demonstrate that if we can find hearing protection against louder sound, we can find it against a softer sound. Replace “jets” with cell disruptor / homogenizer, industrial machine shop, top fuel dragster, etc. I don’t understand why you’re getting hung up on the particular example I picked but, that seems an issue outside the scope of this discussion. All this is to say, the engineers at 3M, Bose, Honeywell, numerous other companies, and academic labs (of which I posted an journal paper from) all say that, used correctly, level dependent hearing protection is safe. On the other hand, we have some shady at best anecdotal evidence from 2-3 people arguing they aren’t.

I can only assume your “years in the navy” left you with a slight reading impediment. I wasn’t speaking about level-dependent heading protectors, but rather commenting on how one (very bright with a $1700 analyzer) user said there is “no level of protection” suitable for an open gun. But sure, please continue about “full moon on my side” (do we need an astronomy lesson next?).

Lol, yes, what’s a peer reviewed journal article from a research laboratory in an impact factor rated journal to your analyzer. Crazy how we can find ear protection against jets taking off from aircraft carriers but not open guns, which apparently “no level of hearing protection” could suffice. Is it a full moon out or something?

Oy vey.

Just for good measure so I don't have to deal with reading any more insanity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6651885/ "The results of the assessment of level-dependent hearing protectors demonstrated that it is possible to adequately protect the hearing of a shooting instructor who is at an indoor shooting range when using protectors of this type. It is possible to choose hearing protectors, both earmuffs and earplugs, that will sufficiently reduce the impulse noise to which the instructor is exposed."

Just got a Range Panda cover in for my SRO and it’s great. Fits snug, feels like it would actually provide some protection in case of a hit, and wasn’t expensive at all.

Whatever you do, don’t buy from OpticsPlanet. Ordered an in stock item a few weeks ago that said “ships in 1 business day.” Took a week to get a tracking number for the package, and it’s been a week since that and they still haven’t actually shipped it. Called up today since they disabled their chat function and they aren’t picking up their phone, and say that they aren’t allowing voicemails either. Current turnaround time on email for them is over a week. I’d go for B&H, they typically ship much sooner than they estimate and are great to work with.

Thanks all for the suggestions. Wound up picking up some DAA Racers and a DAA Premium Belt. The Blue Alpha belt looks a lot nicer but it just doesn’t seem like it’ll work out.

I saw the Alpha Xi but at $320 for a set of 4 with the belt adapters, it’s just a bit too rich for my blood right now. The only pouches I’ve been able to find that work on a 1.75” out of the gate are the Ghost 360, which seem to have questionable reviews from some. I do like the idea of glueing on some velcro to increase attachment surface area to the inner belt, just wish there were more packages that supported this belt width. Is there a reason why 1.75” just doesn’t seem at all popular?

Appreciate it. Sadly, I’ve been looking and it doesn’t seem like they’d fit on my belt since it’s 1.75”.

Are any of these compatible with a 1.75” belt or are they all limited to 1.5”? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk