The Gun Doesn't Matter

[CClassForLife]

9 hours ago, crg said:

Do you dryfire with the same grip pressure you'd use in live fire? Are you mixing in exercises that don't require holding the gun?

 

 

 

I probably use more grip pressure in dry fire than live fire (I optimize slightly differently during live fire, but that's a different rabbit hole). The limiting factor is my cardio, not my grip during dry fire. When I first get a gun, I make it comfortable for my hand. This involves getting the grip texture aggressive enough, but not so aggressive that it will rub the skin off my hands. I also file down any hot spots which would have caused calluses or blisters. I use enough grip pressure where my hands will bleed if I were to use silicon carbide. My dry fire exercises involve enough movement or complexity that if they were adapted to live fire would result in 6-10 HF stages. If I practiced faster speed shoots or more standardized setups, then I would probably be smoked after 30 minutes too.

 

If I have access to a gun, then I would incorporate it into the exercise. This means I don't mix in exercises that don't require holding the gun.

 

9 hours ago, crg said:

...you mention being away from home... I'm going to be in a similar situation soon and was wondering if you could suggest any other exercises you used to train without a gun.

 

Depends on how long you'll be away. Personally, if it's less than a month, then I'll just enjoy the trip. I might air gun here and there, but I'm not going out of my way to practice. For longer trips, I would probably bring my VR headset as the carrying case is the size of a football. If that's not an option, then I've also dry fired with pretty much anything that can fit in my hands. Hold your phone and use the top edge as irons, start at low ready and practice how you normally would. Ultimately, our sport is simply (1) point at stuff and (2) pull the trigger while still pointed at said stuff. The gun isn't necessary for practice, it merely makes it more enjoyable.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by CClassForLife

[CClassForLife]

 

The non-scientific graph above describes my current skill level. Hit factor falls off a cliff when I push. Part of this is due to my body preferring one side during movement. For example, which foot leads when hurdling over an obstacle? I found out that it's my right. There was a stage at my last match where it would have been advantageous to hurdle through a port, but then I would be flagging my leg with my left hand. This would not have been a problem if I was using my right hand. I tried testing to hurdle left leg first, but it felt awkward and probably not worth risking with a walkthrough's worth of practice.

 

PractiScore link to match. The level of urgency I felt I needed to match the GMs resulted in indexing mistakes which either ended in a tremendous amount of misses or makeup shots. Basically, do I take 5+ misses per stage or 2-4 additional seconds per stage. I also wanted to test my casual shooting pace on the classifier as that has the most data. It was an 84% under Open (106% under CO), so not too shabby.

 

The next objective is to flatten out the right side of the curve. I'm going to try and use the opposite foot for daily movements and rewire my movement. Stuff like using the opposite foot first when going up stairs. I think this might have just enough of an effect to correct my index under urgency.

[crg]

On 6/19/2022 at 11:56 AM, CClassForLife said:

 

I probably use more grip pressure in dry fire than live fire (I optimize slightly differently during live fire, but that's a different rabbit hole). The limiting factor is my cardio, not my grip during dry fire. When I first get a gun, I make it comfortable for my hand. This involves getting the grip texture aggressive enough, but not so aggressive that it will rub the skin off my hands. I also file down any hot spots which would have caused calluses or blisters. I use enough grip pressure where my hands will bleed if I were to use silicon carbide. My dry fire exercises involve enough movement or complexity that if they were adapted to live fire would result in 6-10 HF stages. If I practiced faster speed shoots or more standardized setups, then I would probably be smoked after 30 minutes too.

 

If I have access to a gun, then I would incorporate it into the exercise. This means I don't mix in exercises that don't require holding the gun.

 

 

Depends on how long you'll be away. Personally, if it's less than a month, then I'll just enjoy the trip. I might air gun here and there, but I'm not going out of my way to practice. For longer trips, I would probably bring my VR headset as the carrying case is the size of a football. If that's not an option, then I've also dry fired with pretty much anything that can fit in my hands. Hold your phone and use the top edge as irons, start at low ready and practice how you normally would. Ultimately, our sport is simply (1) point at stuff and (2) pull the trigger while still pointed at said stuff. The gun isn't necessary for practice, it merely makes it more enjoyable.

 

 

 

Thanks for the response, this gives me some ideas to work with.

[CClassForLife]

Shot a match on Saturday with the mindset of consistency. This means I wasn't going for maximum performance but with the mentality of being able to shoot it the same way 100 times in a row. The result was a penalty free match (only Alphas and Charlies) and 99.29% of the overall winner. I know from past experience that this level of shooting is pretty much guaranteed to be within 20% of a National champ. Therefore, if I can find an additional 20%+ of performance in consistency mode, then I'll be a dark horse. Below are my observations after analyzing every shot of the match:

• Splits ranged from 0.22-0.57s. Stage split averages ranged from 0.36-0.49s.
  • Taking off a tenth from stage averages will increase HF by 6-10%.
• Draws took up 10.5-22.0% of the stage time.
  • Getting the draw to a reasonable 1.0s static, 1.2s side step, 1.4s wide step, and 1.8s rack static bumps increases HF by 2-10%.
• I shot two makeup shots the entire match, which accounted for 3.2% and 4.2% of their respective stage times.
• Transitions blended with movement had stage averages of 0.42-1.07s and accounted for 22.2-62.4% of stage times.

Working on the draw and doubles will gain 9-20% of HF. Lowering transitions by a tenth bumps the cumulative HF gain to 17-28%. This is enough to win, but the hard part is incorporating these potential gains under a comfortable match pace.

 

 

Training thoughts:

• Draw - just dry fire a bunch (estimated 50 hours)
• Splits - need to practice doubles to refine grip to allow for faster dot observation (estimated 10 hours and 2,000 rounds)
• Transitions - VR, I might develop a training game for this very purpose (estimated 100 hours + 200 hours for game development)

This means I'll have to invest an additional 360 hours on top of my normal dry fire schedule. This means roughly 16 hours each week if I want to get to beast mode by end of year. Hmm... maybe.

[CClassForLife]

I have a breakthrough in my understanding of practice that I will attempt to convey here.

 

My assumptions:

1. Nature appears to take shortcuts because it does not have unlimited resources.
2. Time is a non-negotiable ingredient to change.

The thought experiment that led me down this line of thought.

 

Quote

Imagine a blank white wall. You begin to see black dots appear on it. They appear random at first, but you start to think there's a pattern forming. After some amount of dots, you feel confident that whatever is making them is aiming at a particular spot. How many dots have to appear before you're confident that you can pinpoint the exact spot?

 

The exact spot can be thought of as the technique of focus. The spread of the dots is the variance of our individual attempts. I argue that our brains automatically goes through this estimation process during and after our training session. Specifically, it is actively observing our attempts during training, then it does its calculations and makes an educated guess some time after the training.

 

The practical questions then become:

1. How many attempts are necessary in order to provide enough meaningful data that will produce an average estimation as close to the technique of focus as possible?
2. How much time do we give this supposed automatic process to do its magic?

My untested, but somewhat thought through answers:

1. Practice a specific skill at the pace you want 300 times. Only rest to catch your breath. It's important that you actively focus intently on hitting the mark and don't just go through the motions. Why 300? At first, I was going to do some statistical modeling with degrees of freedom relative to our physiology but said screw that nerdy stuff and just took a generally accepted number for minimum sample size in regards to polling. It's a lot of reps to do, but I think it's within reason for someone who's obsessed about getting better.
2. 48-72 hours. I just picked a range that seems to be an agreed upon rest interval between max effort workouts.

How this changes things:

• Don't bother practicing the same thing multiple days in a row. Your mind is already optimizing what you previously done without any additional effort. Give your full attention to the next thing on your list. Ever realized that you seem to plateau even though you're training the same thing over and over? This is because your mind is still actively observing instead of solidifying the information.
• This should lead to less frustration as perfect reps aren't necessary as long as the mistakes average out to the correct technique. I'm so convinced of this that if somehow you did 300 reloads, half of them missed one direction and the other half missed the other direction, then you'll suddenly become better 3 days later. The only requirement is that each attempt be a genuine try.
• Please sleep and rest. Your brain requires this to properly do the math.

 

TL;DR: Our brains are lazy and will average out all our attempts with the most recent and focused attempts being weighted more. So if you want a (1) sub second reload, (2) sub second draw, and (3) sick ass transitions, then all you have to do is practice (1) 300 times one day, (2) 300 times the next day, then (3) 300 times after that. Do not care about having perfect reps, all that matters is that you're intensely focused on moving at the pace you want and that you properly rest each day.

[ScottR65]

Brilliant breakthrough, similar to point of diminishing returns. Or like how you're better at something after you've taken a break. Your subconscious is still analyzing and improving the process ready to execute it better next time. Though there is a point where the break is too long. 

[crg]

Interesting theory. My initial thoughts are given that Gaussian distributions are prevalent in nature, it's reasonable to believe that the brain has some capability to filter such a distribution in the same way that a Kalman filter is used for state estimation. A regression algorithm may be a better analogy though if we're talking about the brain filtering some dataset after the fact, e.g. results of 300 practice attempts to do something earlier in the day.

 

A few challenges immediately come to mind. The first is the assumption that the results form a normal distribution with a mean that is at least very close to the desired result. Frankly I don't know whether this is a reasonable assumption or not but the first thing that came to my mind is reloads. There's a lot of factors involved in getting a reload right: six degrees of freedom of magazine's position alone, and a laundry list of things that contribute to time. I'd wager the position variables would fall on something close to a normal distribution so long as you're not obviously repeatedly making the same mistake (an issue I don't want to go into in detail but would result in reinforcing the mistake as "correct"). If the target time is something sufficiently challenging, however, I would think the chances of your actual times forming a normal distribution with the target time as the mean is very small unless you're forcing yourself to go at the desired speed every attempt regardless of how poor the result is.

 

This ties in to the next thing I want to mention so I'll get that out of the way first. The second big challenge (or maybe question is more accurate) is whether there's any value in practicing according to your theory versus prevailing knowledge. As you suggest, one thing it would change is how you actually practice. Following your theory you may want to reload at whatever speed is required to meet your target time no matter how poor the result, and trust that your brain will filter out the results and figure out what you're actually intending to do. Prevailing knowledge on the other hand would err on the side of doing it slower with better results ("Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect."), and increasing the speed over time. If your theory is correct then the way we typically practice is probably not ideal even if the end result is the same. It's worth noting though that the typical way may work well because of your theory but with the variables swapped, e.g. magazine position during the reload is kept relatively constant within some acceptable range for it to go into the magwell, and the mean time is slowly driven down through repetition. This opens another can of worms..

 

There's a lot more I could say but I'm mostly just rambling at this point so I'll leave it at that. As far as how we actually learn, you may find this article of some interest: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-short-term-memories-become-l/#:~:text=A short-term memory's conversion,our memory%2C is called consolidation. The excerpt below provides some support for your idea.

 

Quote

A short-term memory's conversion to a long-term memory requires changes within the brain that protect the memory from interference from competing stimuli or disruption from injury or disease. This time-dependent process, whereby experiences achieve a permanent record in our memory, is called consolidation.

 

The line about "interference from competing stimuli" is particularly interesting and seems to suggest there's value in waiting a few days while the brain consolidates data between training the same skill regardless of how the brain processes that data. The big takeaway I have after putting some thought into this is that however you actually practice, there is probably some value in isolating certain skills to be practiced then forming a training schedule where you only practice each skill once every few days. This has the added benefit of giving specific muscle groups some rest if you plan well.

Edited July 2, 2022 by crg

[-JCN-]

On 6/29/2022 at 11:31 PM, CClassForLife said:

I have a breakthrough in my understanding of practice that I will attempt to convey here.

Breakthrough or theory?

 

I’m going to disagree with the theory. 
 

Of course if you do more reps you’ll likely get better. 
 

But the question is… is it the most efficient way to improve?

 

My opinions (and we’ve talked about this a little before):

 

There’s a limit to how quickly you can pick up a skill from a chronological standpoint. 
 

It’s limited by neuronal plasticity and muscle strength / coordination which both take time to accumulate the structural changes at the cellular level. That’s the limit at which people can improve.

 

In terms of burning in the proper neuronal pathways, you’re right. It’s not just doing it, the intensity matters. 
 

But more than that… the immediate reward and feedback matter even more. 
 

That’s the part that’s missing from your learning theory. 
 

The old parts of the brain literally crave the validation and acceptance of doing a good job. 
 

So to add to your model of improvement, I would say giving the brain proper feedback in addition to intense feedback makes the most dramatic changes at the cellular level. 
 

But it still takes time for the receptors to be made and accumulate. 
 

And all of that is separate from the muscle / coordination that needs to develop. 
 

So the key is to NOT give the same mental feedback for crappy reps. Otherwise your nerve cells will blunt and dull out the good reps and all you’ll be left with is more speed from the muscles but not necessarily more accuracy. 
 

You need both to be awesome. 

[CClassForLife]

@crg and @-JCN-

 

I've read all your words. Yes, I realize that my model assumptions are simple and there are things that are taken for granted (such as being able to recognize what the technique of focus actually is). The issue with this discussion is that I'm in the unenviable position of defending with little to no evidence counter to the accepted norm. In such a case, time is best spent focused in the gravity chamber. Be back in a few months.

[rowdyb]

17 hours ago, CClassForLife said:

@crg and @-JCN-

 

I've read all your words. Yes, I realize that my model assumptions are simple and there are things that are taken for granted (such as being able to recognize what the technique of focus actually is). The issue with this discussion is that I'm in the unenviable position of defending with little to no evidence counter to the accepted norm. In such a case, time is best spent focused in the gravity chamber. Be back in a few months.

I do really respect you for taking a path of your own choice and discovery. Even when we disagree. 

[-JCN-]

On 7/5/2022 at 11:02 PM, CClassForLife said:

@crg and @-JCN-

 

I've read all your words. Yes, I realize that my model assumptions are simple and there are things that are taken for granted (such as being able to recognize what the technique of focus actually is). The issue with this discussion is that I'm in the unenviable position of defending with little to no evidence counter to the accepted norm. In such a case, time is best spent focused in the gravity chamber. Be back in a few months.

It’s not an accepted norm because it’s an opinion, it’s how neuronal plasticity works at a very basic animal level. 
 

This is not a human brain thing or even a  mammalian brain thing. It’s down even past vertebrate brain thing. 
 

So you can go do it your way for three months and be better. But the question is whether you could have been even better had you gotten better feedback. 
 

Most of the advancement in sport has been in advancement in specific feedback, not in number of reps or commitment to work. 
 

I’ll give you a specific experiment you can do on your own to highlight how lack of feedback during reps actually erases gains. 
 

Get a baseline on your 1 second draw to a 1” paster at 7 yards and measure the distance of each shot from the center. 10 shots and throw out high and low. 
 

Then do your 300 rep draws for a week or two. Then repeat the test. 
 

Should have some improvement. 
 

Now test extinguishing. 
 

For the subsequent week or two, only draw blindfolded. 
 

No draws with eyes open (except for matches if you need to). 
 

Same number of reps you did before, but now without visual feedback. 
 

You can concentrate and focus a lot. You just can’t use your eyes. 
 

If your theory is correct, you should still see same rate of gain barring plateau. 
 

If extinguishment and the visual reward matters, then you should have no gain or even decrement in the performance when you test it. 
 

 

[shred]

I'll be interested to see how this goes.  I got good because I like to shoot.  I don't particularly like to train in the classical sense, let alone dry-fire and am a strong believer that time off from being serious about competition is valuable to rid my brain of extraneous 'noise' around it.

 

When my foot was broken I'd go to the range with a couple hundred rounds and do stationary transition drills.  Were my transitions significantly better after several weeks of doing that once or twice a week?  Maybe.  They feel a bit better, but it's hard to quantify on the timer.  I did learn a couple other tangential things to put to use.

 

 

[Reds_Dot]

I am far from a statistician, scientist, or neurologist. 

 

So here is the humble observation I have after actually trying this technique. 

 

I actually worked reloads because I ditched my magwell and went back to the factory "magwell". I did as prescribed. I focused for 300 reps of reloads (VERY DIFFICULT to focus for that long BTW). To be fair I did change it up a bit for my sanity. I did 100 static reloads. Then 200 reloads alternating one step left or right. I focused on reloading at my target speed (~0.9s). I'd say I hit my reloads 40% of the time. The rest were wonky going in or just plain missed reloads. I parked the reloads after that.

 

The next four days I worked on other things in dryfire while PURPOSELY skipping reloads. I went back to reloads on the fifth day. I decided a test was in order. So I did 100 reloads. 30 static. The remaining 60 alternating left and right. I landed about 40% of my reloads like before. It wasn't much different.

 

Except one thing. While doing the original 300 reloads it was difficult to focus solely on that but I managed and when I had a missed reload I tried to diagnose what the issue was and rectify it. Now this time with the 100 reps even when I was missing the issue that caused the miss was VERY apparent to me. Whereas before I was taking an educated guess. Most of my misses came in the first 50 or so reps and after that I was sinking them much more consistently and +/- 0.1s of my target speed. 

 

After that I went back to more "traditional" training when I saw the issue I slowed down to figure put the correct motion/index/position then went right back to speed. It cleaned up my reloads very quickly. 

 

So, maybe my less educated brain learned how to pay attention to the reloads more effectively versus just sorting out how to reload better. I dunno. This is also a sample size of one, thus completely anecdotal. 

[ncrivello]

On 6/11/2022 at 2:01 PM, CClassForLife said:

 

Now the most important thing, I believe VR is going to be an indispensable training tool going forward.

 

Equipment: Hot links to product pages, I have no affiliation with any products listed nor do I get a cut from you clicking it.

• Meta Quest 2 (no computer needed, it's self contained and allows you to run around with no cables)
• Better third party head strap (better adjustment and comfort)
• Gun grip controller adapter (gives the controller a more gunlike index)
• Automotive wheel weights (to mimic real weight)
• VR Practical Shooting (the absolute best practical shooting simulator out now)

VR is a great supplement to my normal dry fire. It's not going to help with gun manipulations, but it does help with transitions and stage execution. The issue with normal dry fire is that there's a difference between when I think I pull the trigger and when I actually pull the trigger. This difference is minimized through repeated live fire training, but it's ultimately something that comes with practice of actually shooting a projectile. I honestly believe that VR can minimize this error just as effectively with a far lower cost. I found it surprising that my in game hit factors were similar to real world conditions, and I would miss exactly how I would miss during a match. I have since fixed these timing issues and I feel much faster. In my experience, real world performance translates quite well to VR gun play. If the reverse is also true, then it's probably the best way to get to Grauffel-esque shooting outside of shooting 3+ million rounds.

 

Your comments on VR training have me intrigued.  Can you provide an update on how it's been implemented and contributed to your training?  Wary of spending a chunk of cash on something that'll end up being a distraction or a paperweight.

[CClassForLife]

@ncrivello I'll have a more in depth answer in October. I feel faster, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Till then, I'll keep this journal quiet.

[CClassForLife]

Don't laugh.

 

 

 

 

[Johnny_Chimpo]

11 hours ago, CClassForLife said:

Don't laugh.

 

 

 

 

 

Quite honestly, I'd laugh after watching you smoke a bunch of dudes with open guns that cost 3X - 4X what that one costs.

[Chillywig]

On 8/12/2022 at 11:02 PM, CClassForLife said:

Don't laugh.

I just stumbled across this topic and spent the past hour reading about your journey. Very interesting and I feel like I learnt a few things. You didn't talk me into a G26, but I am going to do some dry fire and reflect...

 

Good luck and keep the updates rolling in...

[CClassForLife]

Observations from the Open Major P320.

• 14# recoil spring had better return than 12#.
• I've never shot a more accurate 25 yard group at speed. Roughly a softball with 0.5s cadence.
• Dawson sight pusher does not make a good sight racker, it cracked after a mag. This was due to a combination of using aluminum and drilling the through holes with not enough material clearance. I bought some 0.375" aluminum bar stock as a temporary fix. I prefer to stay with Al for now due to ease of machining with my hand tools.
• The compensator is not aggressive enough for the ammo load. I might create my own using CFD analysis in the future. I have some thoughts about using a PCC compensator.
• Two failures to ignite out of a 120 round batch due to using CCI 550 Small Magnum Pistol Primers. Switched to CCI 500 to see if the issue persists.

Current ammo recipe:

• Precision Delta V2 124 gr JHP
• 6.9 gr Winchester AutoComp
• 1.13 +/- 0.005 OAL
• CCI 500
• ? PF, I'm estimating 172-176 based off of feel, will chrono this weekend.

 

The gun works surprisingly well.

 

So far, I've unintentionally spent over $7K on this project (yes, I feel as stupid as this gun looks). However, it should cost less than $2700 including the Sig Romeo3 Max optic. If the gun remains functional after 10K or so rounds, then I think it will be a very good entry level option for those who are open major curious.

[ScottR65]

11 minutes ago, CClassForLife said:

Observations from the Open Major P320.

• 14# recoil spring had better return than 12#.
• I've never shot a more accurate 25 yard group at speed. Roughly a softball with 0.5s cadence.
• Dawson sight pusher does not make a good sight racker, it cracked after a mag. This was due to a combination of using aluminum and drilling the through holes with not enough material clearance. I bought some 0.375" aluminum bar stock as a temporary fix. I prefer to stay with Al for now due to ease of machining with my hand tools.
• The compensator is not aggressive enough for the ammo load. I might create my own using CFD analysis in the future. I have some thoughts about using a PCC compensator.
• Two failures to ignite out of a 120 round batch due to using CCI 550 Small Magnum Pistol Primers. Switched to CCI 500 to see if the issue persists.

Current ammo recipe:

• Precision Delta V2 124 gr JHP
• 6.9 gr Winchester AutoComp
• 1.13 +/- 0.005 OAL
• CCI 500
• ? PF, I'm estimating 172-176 based off of feel, will chrono this weekend.

 

The gun works surprisingly well.

 

So far, I've unintentionally spent over $7K on this project (yes, I feel as stupid as this gun looks). However, it should cost less than $2700 including the Sig Romeo3 Max optic. If the gun remains functional after 10K or so rounds, then I think it will be a very good entry level option for those who are open major curious.

 

Sorry if I missed it before but is your 320 an X5? Appreciate all your knowledge transfers!

[CClassForLife]

4 minutes ago, ScottR65 said:

 

Sorry if I missed it before but is your 320 an X5? Appreciate all your knowledge transfers!

 

The grip is from an AXG Pro. I'll put together a more thorough list of parts after testing the 4.7" barrel/slide setup.

[ScottR65]

7 minutes ago, CClassForLife said:

 

The grip is from an AXG Pro. I'll put together a more thorough list of parts after testing the 4.7" barrel/slide setup.

 

Nice. I love the AXG Pro more than the X5 setup actually, (here's mine), plus it can double as my EDC. Well, I don't have a photo small enough to upload. 

[Boomstick303]

1 hour ago, CClassForLife said:

If the gun remains functional after 10K or so rounds, then I think it will be a very good entry level option for those who are open major curious.

 

Very curious on how the FCU and AXG module hold up to Major PF.

[CClassForLife]

Chrono results with ambient temp of 95 degrees and first cold bore shot thrown out (4 shots counted):

• 1382 ft/s average
• 8 ft/s extreme spread
• 3 ft/s standard deviation
• 171 PF average

The gun with the stock striker from the X5 slide assembly had two light primer strikes during indoor range practice. I'm thinking the striker is slightly out of spec, or I seated the primer slightly too deep. I replaced the striker with the one from the AXG Pro slide and shot two matches with no further issues. Thus far, the gun is running like a champ.

 

Further observations:

• Compensator doesn't seem to be good enough. Gun cycles completely fine with factory ammo. I went down a rabbit hole studying compensator physics, and I have an intuition that the direction of gases doesn't matter. I think it's a byproduct of increased surface area normal to the gas flow that actually influences compensator/muzzle brake efficiency. In short, it's best to pick a design that maximizes force transfer to the muzzle device which means less is transferred to the slide itself. I bought another Precision Armament HyperTap, and I'm confident that it will provide vastly superior recoil mitigation even though the gases vent perpendicular to muzzle rise.
• Grip panel screws and optic mount will get loose without threadlocker (I was waiting on a bottle of Vibra-tite VC-3, so I left the threads bare like a dummy).
• Current major round count through the X5 FCU is roughly 800 rounds and is holding strong. X5 striker has 500 rounds of major with 4 total light strikes. AXG Pro striker has 300 rounds with no malfunctions.
• I can only get 28 rounds in my 170mm mags (OEM 21 rd tube + Springer Precision 170mm extension). Using a Graham's follower led to stuck rounds in testing. I saw a post of some guy getting 31 with the stock follower, which I find to be wizardry.
• @Dazhi whooped my ass shooting minor (CTASA 8/21).

I haven't been dry firing the past week due to tinkering (the opportunity cost of gear ), but I should be able to bump my HF 15%+ by the time North Texas Open rolls around.

 

Trijicon charging handle for entertainment purposes only.

[caspian guy]

26 minutes ago, CClassForLife said:

Chrono results with ambient temp of 95 degrees and first cold bore shot thrown out (4 shots counted):

• 1382 ft/s average
• 8 ft/s extreme spread
• 3 ft/s standard deviation
• 171 PF average

The gun with the stock striker from the X5 slide assembly had two light primer strikes during indoor range practice. I'm thinking the striker is slightly out of spec, or I seated the primer slightly too deep. I replaced the striker with the one from the AXG Pro slide and shot two matches with no further issues. Thus far, the gun is running like a champ.

 

Further observations:

• Compensator doesn't seem to be good enough. Gun cycles completely fine with factory ammo. I went down a rabbit hole studying compensator physics, and I have an intuition that the direction of gases doesn't matter. I think it's a byproduct of increased surface area normal to the gas flow that actually influences compensator/muzzle brake efficiency. In short, it's best to pick a design that maximizes force transfer to the muzzle device which means less is transferred to the slide itself. I bought another Precision Armament HyperTap, and I'm confident that it will provide vastly superior recoil mitigation even though the gases vent perpendicular to muzzle rise.
• Grip panel screws and optic mount will get loose without threadlocker (I was waiting on a bottle of Vibra-tite VC-3, so I left the threads bare like a dummy).
• Current major round count through the X5 FCU is roughly 800 rounds and is holding strong. X5 striker has 500 rounds of major with 4 total light strikes. AXG Pro striker has 300 rounds with no malfunctions.
• I can only get 28 rounds in my 170mm mags (OEM 21 rd tube + Springer Precision 170mm extension). Using a Graham's follower led to stuck rounds in testing. I saw a post of some guy getting 31 with the stock follower, which I find to be wizardry.
• @Dazhi whooped my ass shooting minor (CTASA 8/21).

I haven't been dry firing the past week due to tinkering (the opportunity cost of gear ), but I should be able to bump my HF 15%+ by the time North Texas Open rolls around.

 

Trijicon charging handle for entertainment purposes only.

So far as making it soft you are probably right about area of the baffles (look at a rifle comp most of them have their ports or the side) being the important part but if you want flatness probably you want to exhaust the gas up so as to push the muzzle down. Making it softer does help with flatness as the bore axis doesn't run through your hand so there is a moment arm. Just a thought to consider.

Edited August 24, 2022 by caspian guy