xsquidgator's Blog

Basic marksmanship firt and foremost.
Reloads second.

After that, then speed.

-madogre

Right, forgot about the reloads. My IDPA partner had us practicing that, doing what I believe is called "El Presidente" with 3 targets, gun and all mags loaded with 2 rounds each. Engage T1 through T3 with 2 shots each from not very far away.

I feel the best thing I get out of it after marksmanship training/practice, is "muscle memory". Doing things over and over so that the mechanics of each thing, aiming, shooting, reloading, getting to cover, all that becomes doable without needing much conscious thought. I've read Army trainers talk about building "muscle memory" like this in repeated training exercises to teach soldiers how to respond immediately and correctly to various combat situations like ambushes. If you practice reacting properly, it won't take nearly so much thought to do it correctly on demand because your body will already know what it feels like, almost instinctively, to perform certain actions. I find as I get more familiar with certain IDPA situations that moving and shooting the stage does get faster for me, without consciously hurrying. (Unlike my first match or two where just a tiny bit of time pressure from the timer made me hurry up and accuracy went all to hell, even on easy shots).

I know IDPA is still a game and thus has to have certain artificial rules for safety and other reasons, but it's still fun and at least builds these kinds of things much better than the simple paper punching which is all many ranges can safely allow members to shoot.

Well, one more little sort-of gun related thing to mention from the USS Francis Scott Key... the Trident-I (C4) missile/weapons system, which was the Key's main battery.

If you're a good shooter, you can shoot maybe 1 MOA or so perhaps with a rifle? I'm not all that good with a rifle, but I can do maybe 1MOA with my rifle and a bipod at 100 yards. 1 MOA ~ 1 inch at 100 yards. Certainly good enough to specify which eye, right or left, you want to poke a hole in on the bad guy's head at 100 yards, and good enough for a head shot or a varmint shot some distance further out. So how does lobbing a Trident missile at the enemy compare in terms of accuracy?

I'm not using the actual numbers here of course, these are order of magnitude estimates I've seen published in various open media places. But, consider the "group size" of the projectiles we would have been throwing at the USSR.

Ballpark accuracy per "projectile" (each missile carried a number of them, each of which could be sent to its own target), was say 100 yards at a range of 4000 miles (the real numbers are different of course, these are just open-source estimates). That's a group size of about 3600 inches at 4000 miles. (1 nautical mile = 2000 yards)
So, working it back to 100 yards, that comes out to a group size of 0.045 inches at 100 yards, or 0.045 MOA.

Pretty cool stuff considering the submarine was designed in the early 1960s with late 1950s technology, and the missile system was brought online in the late 1970s using late 1960s technology.

-xsquidgator

Well, one more little sort-of gun related thing to mention from the USS Francis Scott Key... the Trident-I (C4) missile/weapons system, which was the Key's main battery.

If you're a good shooter, you can shoot maybe 1 MOA or so perhaps with a rifle? I'm not all that good with a rifle, but I can do maybe 1MOA with my rifle and a bipod at 100 yards. 1 MOA ~ 1 inch at 100 yards.

I'm not using the actual numbers here of course, these are order of magnitude estimates I've seen published in various open media places. But, consider the "group size" of the projectiles we would have been throwing at the USSR.

Ballpark accuracy per "projectile" (each missile carried a number of them, each of which could be sent to its own target), was say 100 yards at a range of 4000 miles (the real numbers are different of course, these are just open-source estimates). That's a group size of about 3600 inches at 4000 miles. (1 nautical mile = 2000 yards)
So, working it back to 100 yards, that comes out to a group size of 0.045 inches at 100 yards, or 0.045 MOA.

Pretty cool stuff considering the submarine was designed in the early 1960s with late 1950s technology, and the missile system was brought online in the late 1970s using late 1960s technology.

What would be ideal practice, and short of ideal, what kind of practice/drills etc do you do?

I got into IDPA a few months ago, and feel really lucky to belong to a club with an IDPA chapter and a set of action ranges that I can use for practice when they're not being used for matches. Another one of the members and I have started practicing drills and IDPA stuff together, and I feel lucky for that too because I get a lot more out of doing this stuff with someone else (almost like working out and having a spotter/partner vs doing it solo).

My practice partner went so far as to buy a timer, and between that and stuff we've managed to pull out of the trash after matches, we can setup and go through our own stages as much as we want. The club provides target stands, barricades and barrels, 1x2's for holding IDPA style targets, and a bunch of steel plate targets. We pulled a bunch of unused pasters and some not-too-badly- shotup targets from the trash, and we were set.

So, what kind of drills and practice do you or would you do if you could? For starters we've been doing the IDPA classifier stages and drills. What else are good skills to practice? In no particular order,...

-practice parts of the classifier :
-draw and doubletap followed by headshot
-practice "slicing the pie" around windows/barriers while engaging targets
-practice strong- and weak-hand only shooting at least once or twice per session

-dryfire exercise for wheeelguns: empty your revolver. Hold in strong hand, and place a quarter on the topstrap or on top of the barrel if there's room. Pull of 25 double-action trigger pulls, without dropping the quarter. After enough time (days/weeks) and your wrist strength has gotten better, replace the quarter with a dime. Repeat.

Any particular skills or drills you do or recommend for self-improvement?

I know a week isn't much time in the big picture of a lawsuit, but in internet time it's a while. Anyone have any new news on the THR situation, or is it still pretty much the same? Can't speak for anyone else but I've hardly even visited the site (maybe 2x in the last week; back before this happened my norm was probably 20x a day) and haven't posted anything since this started. I was wondering if a marked reduction in hits and posts had perhaps caused Derek to reconsider?

-xsquidgator

I know a week isn't much time in the big picture of a lawsuit, but in internet time it's a while. Anyone have any new news on the THR situation, or is it still pretty much the same? Can't speak for anyone else but I've hardly even visited the site (maybe 2x; back before this happened my norm was probably 20x a day) and haven't posted anything since this started. I was wondering if a marked reduction in hits and posts had perhaps caused Derek to reconsider?

As of today, new daily carry- Springfield XD40sc with Trijicon night sights - woot! This has been my most eagerly-anticipated handgun in quite a while. A month ago I bought the reloading dies for .40SW and a boolit mould. Two or three weeks ago I cast some boolits and loaded them up with range pickup .40 brass I had. And then I waited to finish getting my $ together for the gun. Then I ordered it finally. Then I waited. And waited a few more days. And waited... well wait no more! Picked it up yesterday along with a Desantis Nemesis pocket holster and the range/store comped me the range time since I bought the pistol from 'em. Shot a dash of oil into the workings, and then blasted off the several boxes of 170 LFP reloads I'd made plus some FMJ and HP store bought ammo.

I've had it for only a day but I LIKE this gun! Accurate and easy to shoot. Well ok, the 40 recoil IS snappier than 9mm or 45ACP like I'd heard, but still very manageable with this gun. Nice trigger with a clean break, and I find the grip ergonomics to be great for my hands, and very easy to be right on target accurate with this thing. New carry guns are always fun and this one is really fun.

Woo hoo, yesterday my XD40sc with the trijicon night sights came in and I was able to pick it up and run a few boxes through it. I still can't get over what a comic-book looking, blocky caricature (sp?) of a pistol it is, especially with the 3" barrel, and yet what a sweet-shooting gun it is. I wasn't shooting groups, just wanted to run 200+ rounds through it for breaking in and seeing reliability. But even just blasting away, the grip, trigger, mechanical fit and everything all together in that XD package let me rapid fire a bunch of .40 holes into a several inch group at 40 feet (as long as this indoor range was). Up close at 20' I felt like I was using a sharpie or something to put holes in the paper, just like pointing a finger. Wow, I like this gun. I like all my others too but these XDs really rub me the right way, I don't think this will be my last XD. New daily carry.

Oh, and on the original subject, the trijicon night sights are really nice too.

AR15 collapsing stock carbine followed closely by AK clone (plain jane WASR-10) and SKS. I really like 'em all, the only thing right now that gives the nod to the AR15 is that I can always find lots of free range pickup brass for reloading. Hardly ever do I find 7.62x39 reloadable brass, and then I lose at least a few in the grass each time I go out. But as far as the rifles go, I just like shooting all 3 of these quite a bit, lots of fun.

I don't like the Straight 8 night sights... they don't work quite as well.

-madogre

Great, thanks for sharing your experience on that. Gonna get the Trijicon 3-dots then as I was leaning towards that anyway. My Kahr CW9 has dot-and-post sights which are ok I guess and are probably like the 8 sights, but I prefer the 3-dots when it comes to the regular sights. Glad to get the input.

For a carry gun? I'm very close to ordering a Springfield XD40 compact (3" barrel) and I think it would be good to splurge extra for night sights, right now I have no night-sighted guns. So, the cost is the same for the Heine "8" sights (dot over a dot) or for the Trijicon 3-dot night sights.

Is it just a matter of personal preference which to get, if one gets night sights? I don't know that it would matter much to me, although I'm leaning towards 3-dot to be like a number of my other pistols.

I know 1911s have a rep for sometimes being very finicky about the kinds of ammo they'll feed. I'm having that kind problem, and the answer might be that there is no answer. Please tell me what you think.

My issue is with a Springfield Armory GI 1911, the most basic and simple parkerized model with the tiny old-style sights. Not the nicest 1911 but I like it for what it is, my first 1911. Anyway, it seems to feed 230FMJ and 230JHP commercial ammo fine, at least the couple of mags of JHP I put through it (all with a COL of 1.260", by the way).

I cast my own bullets and this pistol also seems to feed the Lee tumble lubed 230LRNs ok, especially after I seated the bullet not quite so deep. I load the 230LRNs at about 1.275" and I don't get the occasional FTF jams I used to get when I was making 1.260" length rounds like the reloading manual says. The pistol also went back to SA to get a strut replaced and while it was there they polished the feed ramp for me and also reamed the chamber.

Ok, so the problem is that I bought a mould to make 230LSWCs and I'd rather shoot these than the LRNs if I could. I heard that they would feed better if I made the rounds longer so I did, all the way up to about 1.290" which is about as long as they can be and still fit in the magazine. (As well as that seems to push the bullet about to the end of the leade and into the rifling, based on trying to chamber one of these). Bottom line is no matter what I've tried so far, my GI 1911 will NOT take these semi-wadcutter rounds, it jams up hard (FTF I would describe it) and won't go all the way into battery. The same rounds go fine through my M&P45, so I am sure it's not an issue of not crimping correctly or of not resizing the cases correctly.

Anyone got any ideas of other stuff I could try? For shooting paper I like the nice holes the SWCs make and I've been told that for hunting and defense, flat nosed pistol bullets are more effective anyway. I'd like to use these if I can, but for now I just don't see how to make these work in my 1911.

I generally like Bushnell just fine, it sounds like this particular model sucks. Maybe try a different Bushnell product?

-tom-the-impaler

Naw, they have it now and I'll let 'em do whatever to it and see how it works after that. 3-4 weeks processing time and shipping both ways, this is almost as bad as waiting for Rossi to fix my cheapo 357 snubbie that kept breaking. Well, not as bad as that.

I've not seen a Multi-Reticle type red dot that was worth a dayum. Not one.If you want a cheap Red Dot that is good and solid, TruGlo makes a decent one. Not as clear and sharp as higher end units, but they are built pretty tough You can get one for 50 bucks.

Does that go for those Eotechs even (maybe I have the name wrong, but I mean those $450 holosight things that I believe have different reticles at the touch of a button). If the reticles are mechanically switched in and out it's easy to see how misalignments could occur. I was hoping that something like a higher end holosight or the military-grade ones were solid state or something where they're all equally well-aligned.

I've tried those and the problem I has was that the various reticle patterns weren't aligned to one another. So you'd zero in the reticle and then switch to another reticle and it'd be way to heck and gone off.

I thought I was seeing the same effect, but it turned out that first range trip with it I didn't have the rings tightened very well and maybe this other problem was at work too. Perhaps I'm slowly making progress though. My first red dot was a $40 BSA cheap that kept having electrical contact problems until I tightened the bejesus out of the battery cover. This one was $80. The next dot sight I get, I'll probably do it right and get one of the $250-$400 Eotech or Eotech clones. I still am optimistic about this Bushnell scope though; I'll leave it on it's bullseye reticle and just enjoy it that way.

Ok one more time here trying to fix the stupid links (the link tool on the toolbar is grayed out)

Anyone here ever heard of this? Thought I would shine a little flashlight on part of US military history that is generally out of sight, out of mind, the ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) force. "41 for Freedom" referred to the first 41 SSBNs of the George Washington/Layfayette/Madison/Franklin classes, which were all named for different patriots. My little plug is for the USS Francis Scott Key (SSBN 657), whose main distinction was being the first of these "old" boomers to be backfitted to carry the Trident I missile. The "new" boomers of the Ohio class (SSBN 726) are what people mean when they talk about "one of the Tridents" (submarines) but these old boats actually carried the bulk of the seaborne ballistic missile load from the 1960s into the 1990s. www.ssbn657.com has some neato submarine pictures if you want a break from Abrahms battle tanks, Apache gunships and fireteam door-to-door tactics.Whattya' know, there is just a little bit of small arms stuff here after all

Every now and then the Captain would have them break out one of the M14s to do some blasting (surfaced only, of course).Link fixed. My interest in the Key was that I was the Reactor Controls Officer and then the Assistant Weapons Officer on the Key Blue crew from 1990 to 1993, including the decomm in Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. When I arrived in 1990 we were still watching out for Soviet SSNs lurking off the east cost trying to pick us up as we went out on patrol, by the time we decommed in 1993 there wasn't even a USSR anymore :) or :( since maybe Russia & CIS isn't all that different from the USSR

www.ssbn657.com