lcs
-
Posts
2,158 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by lcs
-
-
I got my hands on 8 lbs of Ramshot comp and need to work up a Major PF load for .40 using 200 grain bullets. I'm using 3.9 grains of N320 currently (which I love) and based on which burn-rate chart you look at, Competition is similar. Does it sound safe to start at 3.6 grains and go up based on chrono results?
I used it all the time for .40 w/200. No problem starting at 3.9. I believe I ended up at 4.2, but all barrels are different.
-
I use it for all -- 9 minor, 9 major, 38SC, 40.
-
Your friends can call you a "lifer" ?
-
I am using these bullets RNFP at the moment with my XD9 tactical very nice. But I am thinking about moving up the the 147gr RN. Shooting IDPA SSP\ESP. Good or bad idea?
If your load works now and is accurate (135gn) why change? IMO and testing, you have nothing to gain but a thinner wallet.
-
www.xtremebullets.com price is right and accuracy is there.
-
How is the durability of the aluminum compared to the stainless?
I have about 10k of 9 Major through mine. No problems.
-
Barrel twist rates do not favor 147. Having said that, you need to push 147 faster to get them to stabilize. I have not found a production gun yet that will shoot any 147 with great accuracy at 130 PF.
124 gr are cheaper anyway.
-
I am having an issue with bullets either falling into the cases and/or very random seating depths. I have tried all I can think of, but am hoping I am missing something simple. So I am hoping there is someone out there who may have run into this issue and found a solution.
First, the info on what equipment I am using:
- Dillon 650
- EGW u die, Dillon powder measure, Hornady micrometer seating die, Lee factory crimp die
- Zero 9mm 147 JHP bullets
- random range brass -> as this is what I will be using to shoot matches and practice with.
This is the second toolhead setup I have run into this issue with. The first is identical except for a Dillon seating die. I called Dillon and they suggested to INCREASE the bell. To me this sounds counter-intuitive, increasing the bell should allow the bullet to fall farther into the case before it hits a spot tight enough to hold the bullet.
I measured the ID of the sized cases and they are right at .355. The U die is setup per the included directions, which say got all the way down till it touches the shellplate. The bullets were measured at random and come in right at .355.
The bell I set originally didn't seem too excessive. It just starts to open the top hair of the case mouth a bit.
This is really driving me crazy. Please let me know what you suggest. I can post pics or take measurements as needed. Thanks
Adam
First: If bullets are falling into the case---you are belling to much! You are expanding the entire case. BTW-you need very bell for a jacketed bullet.
Second: You will ALWAYS have varied OAL. + or - a couple thousandths is normal.
-
Experts-
I was considering shooting Open next season to focus primarily on shot calling during the match and enhancing/speeding up my movement. Plus it just looks like fun!
I want to start out on the 2011 platform and was looking at the STI Truebore. Any advice on the switch? I have NO experience with Open other than messing around with a buddy's Open gun once. Can I compete with a stock STI? Will it be reliable? Or do I have to have it worked on a bunch? Any suggestions on what I may need or want to do to it?
Thanks all!
Don't do it.
That answer is bit vague don't you think!
-
Experts-
I was considering shooting Open next season to focus primarily on shot calling during the match and enhancing/speeding up my movement. Plus it just looks like fun!
I want to start out on the 2011 platform and was looking at the STI Truebore. Any advice on the switch? I have NO experience with Open other than messing around with a buddy's Open gun once. Can I compete with a stock STI? Will it be reliable? Or do I have to have it worked on a bunch? Any suggestions on what I may need or want to do to it?
Thanks all!
You can't go wrong with a stock STI Trubor or a STI GrandMaster in 9Major. If your not real handy with 1911/2011, don't by used unless they are bone stock.
-
One club match does not need computers and scoring software, but an Organization does.
We have a great Organization, its the people running it causing the problem!
-
A new organization you say???That's not a bad thing. It will make the ushering of a new organization easier.
This isn't politics. It is the running of USPSA. Seems incompetent at best. Never thought Dave Thomas would be missed so much. At this rate this organization won't exist in 5 years.
Why even have a new organization?
So just like USPSA HQ, it will stick its grubby little paws into a local club's match fees and extract a $3 tax per shooter?
A new organization to set up an even less transparent and more complex classifier system with never gonna get published high hit factors?
I think former USPSA MD's and clubs would just hold outlaw matches instead, keep all of their match fees and hum Janet Jackson's tune "What have you done for me lately?" while they count their money and are able to put more of it back into their clubs/props/steel/etc.
How do think the computers and software licenses are paid for. I'm sure our yearly membership dues don't cover it. Not sure about your club, but we get charged a fee for using the range.
I do agree the classifier system needs visibility.
The BOD has the power! If we want change- Elect ADs that are not part of the good ole boy program. Just saying....
-
With all the firearm related lube products on the market these days is there a big advantage to using products like Mobil-1 or tranny fluid over one designed for guns?
I wouldn't go out and buy a quart of Mobil 1 for my gun, but if you have it it works. I think FP 1 is the ticket, but whatever works is the ticket.
-
I've shot one like that except with a regular cmore and it is up there with the nicest that I have ever held. 9MM?
I would highly doubt it is 9 MM. Those blow holes bleed off to much gas.
-
I remember the same thing. I'm almost positive that until the Classification scores are paid for, they are not eligible to be run. Simple on the surface, but that is one of the processes i'm sure needs to be addressed.
As a stats guy for our club, I get notifications of all the incorrectly spelled names that were submitted, changes to USPSA number (Life, Three Year, etc.) as well as notifications of USPSA numbers that have expired.
It is a pretty decent scope of work which is why I posted that i'm hoping the volunteer is getting paid and decently so that it becomes a focus for them.
Indeed you are correct. If the bill is not paid, the file is not run.
-
Just to let you guys know, Range monkey has some in stock right now. I called today and they got the shipment in a week ago so they are the Gen 2 scopes. I got this information and bought one so I am passing it on so others can take advantage that did not get one from Primary Arms.
Thanks,
adam
Thanks....I kept missing them--not now.
-
If you are up on aim and pointing in the general direction of a target, regardless of whether you see the target or not, it's legal. You could be pointing at a wall and not see the target because you miss calculated and are a step away (or two) from seeing the target. In the OP, he did see the target, just could not legally shoot at it. He still aimed at the target while he moved two steps to get a legal (better) shot at it.
Using mesh does not change the definition of a
wall.
Two steps behind a wall without a legal target to aim at and your finger is in the trigger guard- it is a DQ.
-
The most interesting part of this thread for me is the number of ROs referring to "finger was off the trigger" and "a little close to the trigger".
The rule is very clear -- "...all movement (see Appendix A3) must be accomplished with the fingers visibly outside the trigger guard..."
Doesn't say anything about "touching the trigger" or "away from the trigger".
Visibly outside the trigger guard.
Exactly!
-
-
As Jack mentioned, the more banging the slide mounted dot takes, the more of a chance the dot point of aim could change. With the frame mounted C-More you can easily change the dot size by plugging in another one.
You DO realize that the C-More Slide Ride, (that we all use for frame-mounted setups), was originally designed to be mounted to the slide of a Glock, right? That's WHY it's called the "Slide Ride."
Hard to imagine a standard C-more mounted on a Glock slide. Interesting.
-
Your missing the applicable part.
....other stable object will not be disqualified provided: 10.5.3.4 The handgun is in the ready condition as specified in Section
8.1, or
The competitor placed the gun on a stable object and doing so was in compliance with the WSB per 8.1........ So the competitor cannot be DQ for complying with the rules. There is no rule to justify a DQ because the wind blew over the table. You can't say "He was not handling the gun as the reason for not DQing him..That is my point.
I did not missed the applicable parts...actually the applicable parts are part of my point that you missed:
...provided:
10.5.3.1
AND
10.5.3.2
AND
etc...
As I pointed out, the provided parts "and/or" was not followed...and would be a DQ. However the ruling was that the competitor was not handling the gun, therefore the competitor did not "dropped" the gun.
Not my ruling or interpretation...BTW
I understand you did not make the ruling....no intent on my part that you did.
I agree the competitor did NOT DQ. I don't agree with the reason stated.- "He wasn't handling the gun" How would that logic apply if.... I set the gun on any object specified by the WSB and assume the start position (let's say facing uprange, wrists above shoulders) and the gun slides off the table.
DQ ? You bet. I was not technically "handling the gun", but because of my action or lack of action the gun hit the ground.
IMO, the reason/justification for not issuing a DQ in the table example is Range Equipment failure.
-
to add to the discussion...
There was a case where it was a table start and you started standing away from the table...i don't remember how far, but it's a few steps to get to the table to retrieve the gun. While the competitor was at the start position, a gust of wind blew the table over, resulting in the gun being on the ground. Some people thought it should be a DQ due to dropped gun. Final decision was that it is NOT a DQ because the competitor was not "handling" the gun.
no - I don't know the exact name and place or time...I think it was brought up during an RO or CRO class...
IMO. Has nothing to do with "NOT a DQ because the competitor was not "handling" the gun. You can't hold a competitior responsible or DQ for range equipment failue. The wind blew over the table and the competitor was in compliance with the WSB.
If at any time during the course of fire, or while loading, reloading or unloading, a competitor drops his handgun or causes it to fall, loaded ornot. Note that a competitor who, for any reason during a course of fire, safely and intentionally places the handgun on the ground or other stable object will not be disqualified provided:10.5.3.1 The competitor maintains constant physical contact with thehandgun, until it is placed firmly and securely on the ground oranother stable object, and10.5.3.2 The competitor remains within 3 feet of the handgun at alltimes (except where the handgun is placed at a greaterdistance, under the supervision of a Range Official, in order tocomply with a start position), and10.5.3.3 The provisions of Rule 10.5.2 do not occur, and10.5.3.4 The handgun is in the ready condition as specified in Section8.1, orIf you want to bring that up...the competitor did not "intentionally" place the gun on the ground, did he??? that's why the discussion was that it was a dropped gun...
The ruling did not rule that it was NOT a DQ because he "placed the gun on the ground". The discussion was whether he dropped the gun provision of 10.5.3. Sub-rules 10.5.3.1-6 did not play a part since he did not place the gun on the ground.
Your missing the applicable part.
....other stable object will not be disqualified provided: 10.5.3.4 The handgun is in the ready condition as specified in Section
8.1, or
The competitor placed the gun on a stable object and doing so was in compliance with the WSB per 8.1........ So the competitor cannot be DQ for complying with the rules. There is no rule to justify a DQ because the wind blew over the table. You can't say "He was not handling the gun as the reason for not DQing him..That is my point.
-
to add to the discussion...
There was a case where it was a table start and you started standing away from the table...i don't remember how far, but it's a few steps to get to the table to retrieve the gun. While the competitor was at the start position, a gust of wind blew the table over, resulting in the gun being on the ground. Some people thought it should be a DQ due to dropped gun. Final decision was that it is NOT a DQ because the competitor was not "handling" the gun.
no - I don't know the exact name and place or time...I think it was brought up during an RO or CRO class...
IMO. Has nothing to do with "NOT a DQ because the competitor was not "handling" the gun. You can't hold a competitior responsible or DQ for range equipment failue. The wind blew over the table and the competitor was in compliance with the WSB.
If at any time during the course of fire, or while loading, reloading or unloading, a competitor drops his handgun or causes it to fall, loaded ornot. Note that a competitor who, for any reason during a course of fire, safely and intentionally places the handgun on the ground or other stable object will not be disqualified provided:10.5.3.1 The competitor maintains constant physical contact with thehandgun, until it is placed firmly and securely on the ground oranother stable object, and10.5.3.2 The competitor remains within 3 feet of the handgun at alltimes (except where the handgun is placed at a greaterdistance, under the supervision of a Range Official, in order tocomply with a start position), and10.5.3.3 The provisions of Rule 10.5.2 do not occur, and10.5.3.4 The handgun is in the ready condition as specified in Section8.1, or -
aggressive texture aluminum
I think I would rather have had regular texture. I am going to try to sand blast it a little to reduce texture.
PT makes a very nice grip.
I have the regular. I have felt the agressive, but never shot a gun with the aggessive. For me, a texture somewhere in between would be right I think.
I've shot around 8k of 9 Major and the grip is great. Great grip.
Starting recipe for Ramshot Competition w/ 200gr .40 bullets
in General Reloading
Posted
I used jacketed and coated. Coated used a little less powder. Several new coated bullets are marketed now and they all work.