Hi Rich,

Hi Garrison,

I hate to advertise directly to the list (If lots of people were to want
these, I'd have to build more and then I couldn't shoot as much), but in
response to your question, I do make a hobby/craft quality controller which
has the commands from, "Is the line ready?" through, "Ready on the firing
line."  The unit has a relay and controls designed to work with turning
targets or other target controllers.  Although requested by some, and I have
designed a solution, I have not implemented any form of tone for start and
stop.  The controller is designed to initiate or control the timing of
another system, be it the turning mechanism itself or a pre-existing
timer/controller.

Although the one your club has is (close to) white, the current ones are
black and excluding the buttons measure about 4.7 x 2.6 x 1.6 inches.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: Johns, Garrison <Garrison.Johns@hp.com>
To: bullseye list <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 12:33 PM
Subject: [bullseye-l] Range Commands- Recorded and controllers

Speaking of recorded callers,

You don't have to haul that PC around.  Our own Ed Hall makes and sells (or
at least used to) equipment that hooks into range systems to call the line.
His wife has a very pleasant voice (I think that is who he recorded) :-)  I
think he still makes them, because I just saw a portable target turning
system he invented and he used his own box to control it.

Our range uses one of his and I THINK that it is a little white box about 6"
X 2" X 1"
Anyway, how about it Ed?  What do have these days?

Garrison

Hi Mike,

Hi Norm,

You're going to be close. (I'll explain below.) The NRA bulletin is still
only "preliminary" in regards to the CMP matches.  The official CMP bulletin
will be out after they do all the verifying of ALL the CMP matches.  It will
take some time.  As a look to the past, I checked the last three
years to compare the NTI (preliminary) scores listed in the official NRA
bulletin to the official CMP bulletin and the results are:

                     NRA     CMP
     1999       266-0x   264-3x
     2000       265-3x   260-6x
     2001       264-5x   262-3x

I predict your score to be the cutoff, plus or minus one position.  I base
this on the number of shooters in the medals area that I believe are already
distinguished but labeled differently, as well as how far the overall number
of non-distiguished will drop once all the verification is accomplished.
Yours is a tough call.  I wish you luck that you've made it...

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: The Glitz Family <nglitz@optonline.net>
To: Bullseye List <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 2:43 PM
Subject: [bullseye-l] Perry Results

Thanks Garrison,

It is true, I was issued a brand new HM card to use at Perry, but after they
saw how I treated it, they sent an official out onto the field to find me
and tear it up... %^)

Indeed, I have attained HM.  I suppose the next step is 2650...

Thanks for the notice...

Take Care,
Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Johns, Garrison <Garrison.Johns@hp.com>
To: <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Cc: <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 2:40 PM
Subject: [bullseye-l] Ed Hall !

Hey Ed,

I just noticed you were listed in the HIGH MASTER ranks at Perry!!

Is there something you haven't told us??

Congratulations!!
Garrison

Hi Benjamin,

It was good to see you at Perry.

If you look back into your question below, there is a partial answer,
"National champion class shooters expect to get 100 in timed fire and nearly
that good in rapid fire on almost every target. I am a long way from such
scores, especially with center fire guns."

The question becomes, "What does it take to build the confidence to expect
100 on your sustained fire targets?"

As you also noted, confidence in your equipment is a must.  You won't get
there if you wonder whether your gun cycled with each shot.

On to the pertinent part:  In order to achieve 100s, it is necessary to
break the routine down to its smallest fraction, the individual shots.  A
100 is made up of two strings of five individual shots.  Each string is
broken into those five shots.  Remember that if your first shot isn't a ten,
the result will not be 100.  Therefore, if you are solely practicing strings
of fire, and you're not shooting 100s, then you need to break your practice
down into training for the individual shots.  I suggest that you work on
firing just one shot at the turn of the target until you achieve a ten for
that first shot every time.  Then add a second shot.  If it messes up the
first, go back to the first and work it back to a ten, and then try again
with the second shot.  Work with two shots until they are both solid tens
and then progress further.  Once you get to all five, practice it over and
over until you "know" that's the way you shoot.  Then you too will, "expect
to get 100 in timed fire and nearly that good in rapid fire on almost every
target."

Now to add in a little extra.  We always hear the words, "accept the shot,
race the dot, keep the trigger moving," etc.  But do we really study what
that means to us individually?  Even when I describe something, and am told
by the listener (or reader) that they understand, I have no guarantee that
what they "understand" is what I meant.  That's why our definitions of
things are in constant change.  Because of this, we grow.  One of the things
that made a difference to me was realizing that, "accepting my hold" meant
not fixing anything and that it is extremely important to break the link
between what we see and the operation of the trigger.  If we can interupt
the trigger based on what we see, and we can't accept our hold, we can't
achieve a good trigger manipulation.  Keith Sanderson recently described
this in a very good way.  He said to pull the trigger as though your eyes
are closed.  I would suggest actully performing this only in dry fire or
with a safety observer.  If your trigger takes a lot longer to come back
with your eyes open, it is because you're mentally interfering with it.  So
work on pointing the aligned sights at the aiming area and then, without
fixing anything, bring the trigger back.  "Without fixing anything," means
allow the natural movement (hold) to occur without placing the sights back
to a point on the target.  In sustained fire, this will come to mean,
starting the trigger before the sights are back on target, but "knowing"
they will arrive before the hammer falls.  You must achieve the "knowing"
part of this procedure before you can allow yourself to start the trigger
early.  And you must really "accept" your hold, and don't "fix" anything.

Take Care,
Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin McLeod <bennnancy@erols.com>
To: <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 6:50 PM
Subject: [bullseye-l] How to learn rapid fire?

> To: David Rodgers and others...
>
> I am doing fairly well in slow fire. My center fire slow fire score of 188
> with my revolver at Camp Perry beat a lot of really good shooters, even if
> the guy next to me did get a 191 to win the Expert class.
>
> I know how to shoot sustained fire, having been told several times by
> national champions. Which does not imply that I am actually able to do it.
I
> had a timed fire 50 on one .45 target, although that was partly the gun's
> fault for jamming so much and I only had 6 shots at the target. I'm
working
> on the gun, but the consistent problem is my own skill level.
>
> So my question is, not "how should I do sustained fire", but "what do I
need
> to do to actually put into practice what everyone has been telling me
about
> sustained fire"? National champion class shooters expect to get 100 in
timed
> fire and nearly that good in rapid fire on almost every target. I am a
long
> way from such scores, especially with center fire guns.
>
> - Benjamin

Hi List,

Let me toss some conceptual material out into the mix.  This is something
I've been working on for awhile:

Since everything we perceive has already happened and reactions take time to
initiate and complete, it is virtually impossible to consistently yank the
trigger when we see everything is perfect, and have the shots hit the
middle.  Then how can we find a way to hit the middle?  In our very old
description of the perfect shot we can find the clues, "Align the sights and
manipulate the trigger so as to not disturb this alignment."  In my personal
analysis of this statement and the study of the activity that goes on during
a shot, I've formed my own interpretation.  I call it creating the best
environment for a good shot.  Let's take portions of the whole and then look
at the entire picture.  For the first portion, let's analyze the visual
input.  What we see is not a perfect picture as in the books.  But everyone
already knows that.  Some of us less than others, but all of us see
movement.  What is the movement?  It is our body trying to align the sights
and place them at a specific point.  The reason we can't hold perfectly
still is because we have all these muscles contradicting each other's pulls
in varying amounts.  What we end up with is an error-correcting routine
which keeps moving around trying to keep us centered where we're pointing.
Let's call this the natural arc of movement.  If we let this arc proceed it
will gently move around the center of the target.  Where we have trouble is
when we don't like where it is at some point in time and "adjust" it.  If we
happen to fire while we're adjusting it, the shot will most likely be less
than perfect.  For some of us, this adjusting is actually what we're
constantly doing.  Instead of letting the arc take its course, we keep
"fixing" it.  We need to allow the natural arc of movement to proceed
naturally.

Next let's examine the trigger manipulation.  We're always saying straight
back and steadily increasing and such.  I would like to suggest that the
steadily increasing with no hesitation is more important than the straight
back, but that the more straight you can make it, the better the shot if
your trigger has hesitation.  I hope I'm not too confusing on this issue.
What I'm trying to get to is that the real trouble in obtaining centered
shots comes from a start and stop trigger and is amplified by pressure that
is not straight back.  What causes us to hesitate?  Why would we stop the
trigger once we start it?  Not accepting what we see.  Something even worse,
is trying to correct what we see.  Our conscious self says, "It's not right!
Stop!" and then, "OK, start again."  How do we fix this situation?

The two steps to setting up an environment goes back to the old quote from
above.  First, set up the error-correcting routine that provides our hold
and produces our arc of movement.  Study this process at home and at times
when you're not shooting.  Recognize your personal pattern in this movement.
Second initiate the trigger such that it will complete somewhere within your
minimum arc.  Don't correct anything!  If you drift too far out of your
aiming area to accept, abort the shot.  If you notice that your finger
stopped bringing the trigger back, abort the shot.  Learn to accept the
natural movement of the sights and bring the trigger back as one continuous
motion.  In this way you have the error-correcting routine working to keep
you in the middle and the steadily increasing trigger pressure to cause
ignition during that natural arc.  All this probably sounds like, "Align the
sights and manipulate the trigger so as to not disturb this alignment."

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi Paul,

Hi Peter,

I thought I'd chime in on the side for scoring the "five-shot string" as a
group since rule 14.2 says, ". . .  The scorer must be at the target when
scoring."

Since rule 9.7 reads:  ". . . competitors . . . will continue to fire
five-shot strings until a hit is made outside the scoring ring of highest
value."  this means complete five-shot strings are to be evaluated.  This
combined with the above portion of rule 14.2 leads me to conclude that the
scoring is done by the scorekeeper at the target and the count is total x's.
Continuation only occurs if all are x's.

I think the spotter(s) was a (mis)interpretation of the rules based on the
logic that the record should uniquely identify only those x's fired in a
row.  This is not the logic I see in the rules.  When we acquire x's in our
scores, they are based on the total amount we get of the amount available.
When a record is being challenged, why would the challenger not be allowed
the total acquired for the amount available?  IOW, if the challenger is
allowed a string of five shots, why would he not be allowed all the x's he
can get during that string no matter when they occurred?

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi List,

I recently had some trouble with CCI-SV lot# J17G09.  Four rounds of 96
failed to fire.  Upon closer inspection I found that the primer material
broke away instead of igniting.  I would like to send an email to CCI.  If
anyone can supply an address they've used I would appreciate it.  I was
using my 208s which has a relatively new firing pin in nearly perfect
condition.

Hi Paul and Garrison,

And yet some more info.  Although I don't have anything handy on 2032 I do
have a catalog I order from that has BR vs CR for Panasonic batteries.  Here
is their statement:

"BR, or (CF) n/Li, batteries provide a more stable voltage particularly
during the last half of discharge, while CR, or Mn02/Li, batteries provide a
higher voltage during the first half.  CR batteries also can provide a
higher current capabilty than BR batteries.  In storage, BR batteries
perform better at high temperatures..."

I'm not sure if this was helpful or produced more questions.  I also wonder
if something is missing in the " (CF) n/Li" above.  It looks as though the
chemical makeup is slightly different even though both are Lithium.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: <fehder@mindspring.com>
To: Johns, Garrison <Garrison.Johns@COMPAQ.com>
Cc: Bullseye-L <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] UltraDot batteries - type? life?

> Garrison ~
>
> It has always been my impression that it's the number (2032) that
specifies
> the "geometry" (shape and dimensions) of these button cells -- while the
> prefix letters are simply manufacturers' identification.
>
> I checked my back-up pack of Duracell 2032s purchased in 09/01, and
they're
> stamped DL2032 ("Duracell Lithium"?) -- but the note at the bottom of the
> card says that they'll replace DL2032 and CR2032.  My suspicion is that
"CR"
> is some other mfg's prefix.
>
> To my knowledge, the 2032s are always lithium cells.  Has anyone seen
2032s
> that are not lithium... maybe silver oxide or some other electrolyte?
>
>   ~ Paul
>

Hi Tony,

OK, I've got the glove for now. %^)

I actually have my own (what might be believed by some as pretty radical)
thoughts on the "practicing" that should be used to accelerate through the
ranks.  And of course as always, these are my opinions, with no flames
intended:

I think training should be approached in steps.  And practice should involve
repetetive performance of "perfect" execution to gain the best result.  What
does that mean?  And more important, what does it mean to you?

What it means to me is that practicing to shoot five shots in 10 or 20
seconds is not necessarily the best approach.  It also means doing this with
a second (bigger) gun is not necesarily the best approach.  But remember
that this is a game and participants want to participate, in the whole game.
So your training/competing will have to have a balance.

First, let's look at what we normally practice.  I'm going to focus on
sustained fire for this.  Our goal is set forth in the description
of the stage, "This will be the Timed Fire Stage...  consisting of two
strings of FIVE ROUNDS, TWENTY SECONDS per string."  Notice the upper case
lettering.  We are mentally poised to ensure we shoot FIVE rounds in the
time limit we're given.  In rapid fire that means we place in our mind the
thought that we must fire those five rounds in the ten seconds we're
allowed.  Getting those five shots off is our primary concern.  Where they
go (although we'll argue to no end this point), is secondary to that "all
five" programming.

So what is the result?  A lot of time the result is the same splatter of
shots that we always get and the same results we embed deeper and deeper
into our subconscious.  This is great if the splatter is a high 90's target.
Or is it?

If we're not shooting perfect targets (at least almost) every time, why
would we want that imprinted into our subconscious?  Wouldn't it be better
to imprint perfect performance?  Wouldn't it be better for us to learn how
to fire the first shot into the center and progress from there.  This is
where training comes into the picture.  If the only shooting you're doing
consists of matches and leagues, to use my suggested approach you will need
a strong determination and vast discipline.  If you have training time away
from the match environment then it may be a better setting, because what I'm
suggesting is to only work on one shot, the first one, until you can place
it in the center every time - you decide what your definition of center is.
Once you can place that first shot where you want it, move to two and stay
there until you have two centered shots.  Then you can move to three, etc.
Never give up the earlier shots to get the next one in on time.  Learn
instead to quicken the earlier ones with them still centered.  If you're
doing this for scored events, you're going to miss out on a lot of points
for your league or matches if you cut back on how many you get off;  a good
reason to move this to the training arena.  But this can work well in the
leagues and matches if you have the discipline to see it through.  Let the
subsequent shots be the carrots for good performance of the early ones.

Back to the .45:  Yes, I am of the opinion (mine, of course) that the .45
will cover up a lot of information when it recoils, that the .22 will not
hide, and that you can use this information to propel yourself into the mid
800's and then start working with the .45.  This also has the added benefit
of allowing the .45 to be the carrot for those mid 800 scores with the .22.

I will not contest that you can start with hardball .45 and work your way in
the other direction.  I started that way.  I didn't even know there was a
.22 involved in the competition when I started.  Nor did I know about
wadcutter ammo.  When I finally found out about the .22, I started picking
that up as well so I could shoot that part, but I still shot double .45
hardball for the rest of the 2700s for quite a while.

Having been there and having worked the .22 issue with some new shooters, I
still think it is better (and less expensive) to get a firm grasp of the
fundamentals through the .22 and then move to the .45.  But as others here
say, YMMV...

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: <FocaIPoint@aol.com>
To: <Nikonjockey@aol.com>; <anthonydsottile@netzero.net>
Cc: <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] 45 Shooting

> I think this thread illustrates the wisdom of what Ed K suggested on list
> some time back re resisting the temptation to pick up that wad gun until
your
> . 22 scores are in the neighborhood of 840 or so. It's all of what has
been
> suggested plus balance and command of the fundamentals.
>
> Question: have you found your .22 scores suffering? That you are having
> difficulty transitioning between the two guns? It may not be a bad idea to
> put up the.45 for a while and focus on the fundamentals with the .22.
Don't
> give up on the .45. To do so is giving up on yourself.  My problem with
the
> .45 is one of strength and stamina. Hopefully, both will be back in a few
> months and I'll be able to shoot a complete 2700.
>
> I'm not going to paraphrase Ed and would hope he would pick the glove up
off
> the floor and explain and expand.
>
> Just a personal opinion of course.
>
> All the best.
>
> David Napierkowski
>

Hi Bob,

There are several electronuic trainers on the market which range quite
widely in cost and what you get for that cost.  The Beamhit which you
mention will give you a limited amount of data and is mostly used to provide
a computer screen representation of where your hits landed.  The latest
version has a little more information, but I'm not familiar with how much
more.  The Beamhit systems are in the range of $200-$400, I believe.

The next group of trainers include the Rika, Curt, Scatt and Sam.  These
actually give you quantities of data which show things like hold over time,
what your actual movement did leading through the shot to include
follow-through and some even show time displacement which can tell you if
you should be shooting faster than you are.  These units range from
$1000~$1700(?).

If money is available, the Noptel is a valued system used by some of the
bigger teams.  It gives all the information the above units have as well as
the ability to use it with full live fire at any reasonable distance for
handgun and some longer ranges for rifle.  Its cost is higher than the other
systems, but I'm not sure of how much.  It might be around $2500 and/up.

Most of the systems have software which you can download and review with
some traces provided by leading shooters.  Even if you don't buy the system
it can be of great help to study the traces of some of those top shooters.
This is a list of the latest URLs I have:

<snip> Is there any ways to improve concentration? <snip>

I'll toss out some comment (opinion) for this one...

What we need to work for is a balance between being focused on the shot at
hand and relaxing when we're not.  But this is actually a very complex
endeavor if we look at the whole of it.

First let's examine the focus needed and a suggested description.  The only
time we need real focus is during the shot (or string) execution, and this
focus needs to be acute.  We need to be so involved in our plan that outside
factors don't enter the picture at all (short of a "cease fire" command).
How do we get there?  We get there by bringing in our peripheral attention,
in stages, until we're solely in the moment.  We need to be definitely in
the now!  We can work at this away from the range.  Take a moment to look
ahead at a bland area of the wall perhaps and think about all the sounds you
hear and all the things you can make out with your peripheral vision.  Next
single out one of the sounds you can hear and think about it while you
glance around and pick out a particular object.  Start to study the object
further and begin to define its details.  Finally study the texture of the
object to such a degree that you lose track of the sound you identified.

Back at the range this focus can be used to study the sighting system; for a
front sight you can look for details of how the surface is contoured and
textured, and then how it mates with the rear notch and for a dot scope you
can study the individual points of light that make up the complete dot.

Now that we've looked at the focus part, let's turn our "attention" to the
relaxed part, which needs to be all the rest of the time.  Several things
come into "focus" here.  The stance has to be relaxed.  The arm has to be
relaxed.  The grip has to be relaxed.  The eye has to be relaxed.  And very
important, the mental relaxation...

For the stance we need to do a full check to make sure we're not locked
anywhere and that our shoulders are relaxed.  For our arm we need to allow
our muscles to relax and the same somewhat for the grip, although most would
contend that for subsequent shots or strings it would be beneficial to keep
the same grip.  You can keep the same grip while relaxing it a bit from what
is used for firing.

Eye relaxation is an interesting subject.  In order to truly rest your eyes,
you need to let them defocus or drift to a relaxed state.  An important
factor is not changing the amount of light when you rest them, especially
not looking toward something considerably brighter than the target.  Closing
your eyes to rest them is not necessarily good.  If your eyes have to adjust
often for different light levels they will fatigue faster and if you go from
bright to dark it can take a considerable amount of time to readjust.

Ah, the mental relaxation.  This part is very individualized.  Only you can
find the thoughts that relax you.  For some it may be the woodland
environment, someone else might relax well to calculating math based word
problems.  One thing that should be avoided is any controversy that hasn't
been solved.  But you can't just push thoughts out of your mind and expect
them to stay.  What you can do is to bargain for time, if you're sincere to
yourself.  If a controversial thought arises at an inopportune time, here's
what you do:  Set a time after the match when you will address the issue.
Very important - address the issue at the agreed upon time.  If you get in a
habit of  addressing the issues you've agreed with yourself to address, this
will work.  If you get in the habit of setting things aside for later and
later never arrives, after a while the issues will cease being put off till
later and they'll bombard you when you don't want to hear about them.

With practice for both the focus and the relaxation, we can learn to move
easily from one to the other and gain the benefit of only expending the
required amount of energy for the task at hand.  This can beome quite an aid
for those long matches, like the one-day full 2700 with fired team matches
and a service pistol match with team thrown in...

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi Paul,

I believe the book you described is, "The Inner Game of Tennis" by W.
Timothy Gallwey.  I read it just a few months ago.  It was mentioned to me
by the USAMU coach.  He definitely has some concepts that bear checking out.
Especially, having self-1 become an impartial observer.  IOW, omitting the
judgment of shots.  Instead of good and bad, they're all just shots.  This
is an interesting divergence from my previous beliefs in which I felt that
good shots should be firmly commended.  But his view is that even
highlighting good shots means the rest are bad.  I believe I also got from
the book that the purpose of focus was to give our self-1 something to do to
keep it out of the way of self-2.

Take Care,
Ed Hall
----- Original Message -----
From: <fehder@mindspring.com>
To: Jerry Blinn <support@avisys.net>
Cc: Bullseye-L <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] Profundity

> Many years ago, my doctor "prescribed" a book for me called "Inner Tennis:
> Playing the Game".  I'm not sure of the author's name, but I think it was
> something like "Galway".
>
> In any event, the author is a tennis coach that has helped many of the top
> tennis pros out of "slumps" -- and is apparently very well regarded in the
> sport.
>
> His techniques are based on the theory that there are really two "yous".
> One, which he calls "Self-1" is the thinking, reasoning, goal-setting
you --
> and also has control of the senses.  The second, "Self-2" is, in essence,
> the "animal" you.
>
> The problem is that in competition, Self-1 will often interfere with
Self-2.
> You hit a good shot in tennis, or bowl a strike, or put a shot right in
the
> middle of the X-ring... and Self-1 says "I'm gonna' do that again!" (the
> emphasis here in on the "I'm").  The problem is that only Self-2 knows how
> to move all those muscles in exactly the right way to hit another good
shot
> or roll another strike or shoot another X.
>
> What the author did was to develop a set of exercises (again, this is for
> tennis pros) that (1) focus Self-1's attention on something that will
> provide the necessary sensory feedback, but (2) will occupy Self-1 so that
> it doesn't attempt to interfere with Self-2's execution.  And as many of
the
> top tennis pros will attest, they work!
>
> I wonder if we're seeing some of that in some of the techniques that have
> been developed for improving our BE shooting.  For example, some months
ago,
> someone (maybe Ed Hall?) suggested that when shooting with a red dot
scope,
> you focus your attention on trying to keep the little red dot centered in
> the tube.  I've been practicing that technique lately -- and it's
definitely
> tightened my groups.
>
> I think what's happening is that Self-1 is occupied trying to keep the dot
> centered -- while Self-2 knows that it's time to release the shot when the
> dot is in the center of the black.  And it's Self-2 that knows just how
much
> pressure to apply to the trigger to get the shot to go.
>
> 'Just another approach to all the complexities of our game...
>
>   ~ Paul
>

I see a lot of messages about practicing more.  What does this mean to you,
the individual shooter?  Some answers will include:

Shooting more matches
Practicing matches
Shooting National Match Courses (NMC) three times a week
Studying the sights for an hour each night
Studying the trigger for an hour each night
Dry firing for an hour...
Working with an electronic trainer...
Reading as much about shooting as possible
Bringing a new shooter into the game
Thinking about shooting
Visualizing shooting.

I'm sure each of you can relate to an above item.  Each of you can probably
add an item to this list.  But now let's get to the point where you say,
"Ed, that's just semantics!"  And I'll reply, "You're right!  But doesn't
everything about shooting really pertain to our personal definition(s)?"

Under my definition, more practice means practicing more frequently.  My
definition of practice, is to perform the same action over and over again.
As Greg Derr pointed out in a post, "The subconscience takes over from the
conscience mind only after it has been imprinted by repetition."

What if we're a Marksman and our practice is designed to emulate matches?
Let's say that we go to the range three times a week and shoot two NMCs.
Are we not practicing to be a Marksman?  Are we not imprinting our
subconscious self with the repetition of a Marksman's performance?

I'm not saying that practicing is not good.  But practicing things correctly
is paramount.  What you want to imprint is the correct program.  As others
have said many times before, "Perfect practice makes perfect."

So now we move to another definition.  To me training means perfecting those
actions that we want imprinted.  When we get those actions correct, then we
can practice them and try to imprint them.  I know, semantics again!

I've taken newer shooters to the range a few times to work with them and
some have commented that we spent perhaps two hours, but only shot thirty
rounds.  However, they would also add that they really felt they had gotten
a lot from the outing.  What did we do for two hours?  We examined
fundamental definitions.  We discussed trigger control and sight alignment.
We tried different approaches.  We performed shots, but we didn't just
practice what we knew, we worked on perfecting what we would later practice.

Let's say a shooter averages an 89 for Timed Fire.  Now let's take that
shooter and just practice Timed Fire, over and over.  Will they improve?  As
they get comfortable with the routine, yes.  But what they will really be
doing is practicing to be an average 89 shooter.

What if this same shooter decides to perfect their technique and then
practice it correctly?   Hmmm...  Let's say we start from scratch.  How do
we approach learning to shoot Timed Fire?  For most of us we load with five
rounds and when the target turns we try to make sure we fire all our rounds.
Practicing in this method is great if almost all our rounds go in the ten
ring.  But what about our 89 average shooter?  S/he's not too bad.  Almost
as many tens as eights.  But what if we started out training one round at a
time instead of jumping right in.  Let's say we loaded one round and kept
working on that first shot until we found out how to shoot a ten every time.
Then we practiced it enough to imprint it.  OK, now we've got an edge.  We
KNOW our first shot will be a ten.  Now we load with two rounds and still
practicing the first shot, learn how to make the second shot a ten as well.
In this exampe, we're not firing as many rounds as we would if we just kept
shooting Timed strings, but couldn't this be more productive?

Let's look at some other issues.  Would you agee that shooting a 60 shot
league match once a week is good pratice?  Would a person improve with just
this routine?  What if they added in a half-hour dry fire three times a
week?  What if they added in a half-hour of visualization three times a
week?

Let's touch on visualization momentarily so I can invoke some flames.  If
you're going to put the effort into visualizing, put it into visualizing
perfect technique.  Don't try to visualize what you may consider "real
life."  IOW, don't "joke" around visualizing less than perfect shots.
However, don't try to visualize the overall result being something you KNOW
to be unattainable.  Avoid all references to a score.  You're not looking
for numbers.  You're looking for perfect shot performance.

So where was I headed with all this?  Just trying to have you think about
how you want to practice or train and define what they mean to you.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

I recently posted some info from the CMP regarding updates to rules not yet
in their rule book.  There had been some difficulty by some finding the
info.  Here are some direct links for those looking for info on the
following questions.  I am quoting the pistol portions not the entire FAQ
here.  For those intersted in printing out a copy for use at the next match,
it is available at the below .pdf address.   Here are the CMP addresses:

The "old" method for loading a 1911 included pulling the trigger, blocking
the hammer and dropping the slide by using the slide stop.  Pulling the
trigger does not block the hammer, but it does prevent inertia from rattling
the sear engagement.  Explanation:  When the slide is released to travel
forward, if the hammer and trigger are left alone, the shock of the slide
reaching battery, which happens in a forward direction, can cause a rearward
pressure (due to inertia) on the trigger.  In guns with reduced hammer hooks
and modified sear tips, this can cause the sear to disengage from the hooks.
Aluminum triggers do reduce this effect.  By pulling the trigger to the
rear, the inertial component is removed and the disconnector allows the sear
to fully seat against the hammer.  This is actually what is happening during
firing.

However, this loading procedure is not free from problems, and still allows
a few discharges during loading.  The two main reasons for a discharge under
this procedure are from not having a good pull on the trigger (the trigger
is actually loosely held and the shooter lightly manipulates it during the
loading) and not having a good firm depress on the grip safety.  In this
case the trigger is resting against the safety, which is not fully depressed
and as the slide reaches battery the shock completes the unlocking of the
grip safety and the trigger completes its movement, firing the gun.  Neither
of these allow discharge if the shooter has a good hold on the hammer and
pays attention to whether the sear is holding the hammer when they release
it.  The problem occurs when after years of never having trouble the shooter
gets a little lax in holding (or checking) the hammer.

At least some of the armorers are now teaching to block the hammer, but
leave your finger off the trigger.  This is awkward for some of us "older"
taught shooters, but is a better method in most cases.

However, 1911s with Beavertail safeties normally don't allow you to block
the hammer.  In this case, the shooter will have to determine the safest
method for loading their particular gun.

As an additional safety step in loading the 1911, it is also suggested that
the holding arm be fully and firmly extended during the loading process.
This gives an extra margin of safety should the gun go full auto.  If this
happens, the force should take your whole arm upward into the rafters
instead of bending it at the elbow and bringing the muzzle toward your face.

The "new" procedure goes like this:  Firmly grasp the gun with your shooting
hand, with your trigger finger against the side of the frame.  Insert the
magazine.  Extend your arm.  With your nonshooting thumb hold the hammer
back.  Release the slide with your left index finger.  Bring the index
finger of your nonshooting hand (the one with the thumb on the hammer) in
front of the hammer.  Release the pressure with your thumb and verify that
the hammer rests on the sear instead of your index finger.  Remove your
index finger.  You are loaded and ready.

For some left handed shooters the above procedure may prove difficult in
releasing the slide with their index (trigger) finger.  For those shooters
it may be easier to load right handed.

It should be noted that the halfcock safety is the first line of defense
from having a full auto condition.  If the hammer does follow the slide when
loading, the half cock catches it in a properly working gun.  However, a
common trigger job from past years included cutting away all but the central
portion of the half cock hook.  These reduced area hooks can break off
rather easily, especially if they are hit often by the hammer falling on
them.  Shooters should routinely check all the safety features.  Not just to
be legal, but to be safe.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Messages -----

> Please explain how pulling the trigger blocks the hammer.
> thanks,
> Bob Fleming
>
-----  and  ------

>It's my opinion that any 1911 that drops the hammer when the slide is
>released is unsafe and should have the trigger reworked. I would offer that
>we should pull the trigger and block the hammer when dropping the slide as
>a safety precaution only, and if it ever does "follow", stop right there
>and get that pistol worked on. I once shot a match next to a guy who had
>his 1911 go full auto, and it was very unnerving, for all of us.

Hi Dwight,

Here's more than you asked, but sometimes I get carried away with numbers
and such:-)

The short answer seems to be slow fire.  For every group below, the slow
fire average is lower than the others.

The longer answer is below.

Here is a breakdown from the 2001 ASNPC.  I have listed the numbers of
competitors for each class with the averages for slow timed and rapid
matches for each gun.

        HM   MA   EX   SS   MK
Number  27   34   36   14   16
.22SF  188  184  177  167  155
.22TF  199  197  192  190  177
.22RF  197  195  189  181  174
 CFSF  186  179  169  163  150
 CFTF  198  193  187  183  159
 CFRF  193  188  178  175  155
.45SF  187  181  171  165  145
.45TF  198  195  184  178  167
.45RF  194  188  177  172  153

Take Care, Happy Holidays,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: Dwight L. Brown <n5wrw@delrio.com>
To: <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Cc: Bullseye List <Bullseye-L@lava.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] Classifications

> I shot a 95 rapid and a 96 timed today with the .22 ( this only proves
> that probability swings both ways ;-)
>
>
> Do Masters and High Masters drop the most points in rapid, timed, or
> slow fire at the long line?
>
>
> Dwight
>

Hi Eagle,

It is based on your average.  If you shoot  270 out of a possible 300, that
would come out to 270/300 = .9 which is 90%.  This would be just breaking
into the Expert class.

>From the rule book:

19.15 Individual Class Averages - Competitors will be classified as follows
and NRA Classification Cards issued accordingly:

TABLE NO. II - INDIVIDUAL,

High Master ....................97.00 and above
Master ............................95.00 to 96.99
Expert ............................ 90.00 to 94.99
Sharpshooter .................. 85.00 to 89.99
Marksman ....................... Below 85.00

19.16 Establishing Classification - A competitor will be officially
classified by the NRA when the total score for a minimum of 360 shots has
been reported for either indoor or outdoor. However, classification averages
will be computed only after the total score for a tournament or league has
been posted and, therefore, the average may be based on a greater number of
shots, but will not be based upon a lesser number. Total scores so reported
to the NRA will be posted to the Classification Record for the competitor
concerned. When the scores for the stated minimum of 360 shots (or more if
this minimum is reached during the scores of any tournament or league) have
been so posted, the average score per 10-shot string will be computed. The
competitor will be sent an Official NRA Classification Card based on the
average so computed and according to the table in Rule 19.15, which
classification will become effective the date shown on the card issued by
NRA.

You may also get a temporary book at your first match to record your average
and compete in your proper class prior to receiving your NRA card.

Take Care, Happy Holidays,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: <jjawa3@attbi.com>
To: <bullseye-L@lava.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 4:09 PM
Subject: [bullseye-l] Classifications

> How does one determine your classification for Outdoor
> Pistol? (I'm talking point-wise, BTW)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eagle
>

Hi Steve,

Let's try a detailed description from "my" understanding and see what types
of comments appear:

Takeup - This is the slight amount of movement under very little pressure at
the very beginning of travel .  It is the part of travel where the only
resistance is the trigger return spring.  In autoloading guns, like the
1911, a slight amount of takeup is needed to ensure the disconnector can
reset.  The adding of a shim to the back of the trigger is a method of
decreasing takeup, however some of the newer triggers are adjustable by
small "fingers" cut into the front of the bow in a manner to allow them to
be bent forward slightly so they contact the frame and keep it from
tarvelling as far forward.

Crisp - This means that when the breaking pressure is reached, the sear
releases the hammer in a very quick single motion.  In effect, as you
described, after takeup, the movement stops until the breaking weight is
reached, at which point the rest of the movement occurs.

Roll - After takeup, there is a point on the pressure curve where the
trigger will begin to move again perceptively.  This movement can be felt
for a short time before the hammer is released.  As Ed M. wrote, this gives
the assurance that the trigger is not stopped.  Don Nygord addresses this in
one of his latest "notes."

Creep - This is movement that is felt that provides "jumps" in the travel of
the trigger.  It is normally characterized by small movements in a
start/stop manner as the trigger travels.  This can be caused by rough
mating surfaces between the hammer and sear.

Glasslike - This is a description of how smooth the sear moves across the
hammer hook(s).  It is more noticeable in a roll type trigger.  In this
case, as the sear moves along on its way to the edge, the movement is very
smooth with no "catches."

Breaks-like-glass - This is a representation of a crisp buildup of pressure
and sudden release of the hammer as in the "snapping" of a piece of glass.

Two-stage - These trigger systems have two separate parts to the travel
between takeup and breaking.  In this way, some weight is taken up by the
first stage, which typically has a longer travel, and the rest is taken up
at the second stage.  The difference from a single-stage is that you have a
definite stopping point before the shot is fired.  The best use of this type
is to learn to take up the first stage immediately, stop at the second and
when ready, take up the last bit of the weight to fire.  This gives a
perceived lighter trigger.  Two-stage triggers also have a takeup, so your
description would make these three-stage:-)

Overtravel - This is the amount of physical travel of the trigger after the
hammer is released.  Some overtravel is necessary to keep the sear from
contacting the hammer after release.  An often overlooked problem is the
contact of the sear with the halfcock area of the hammer.  When overtravel
is adjusted, care must be taken to check for this condition by riding the
hammer throughout its arc, with the trigger pulled, and checking for any
"catches" in the smooth hammer swing.  If this condition is left unchecked
it can result in premature wear of a good trigger job.

Corrections/additions please...

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Hull <bullseye@steve-hull.com>
To: 'Bullseye List' <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:53 PM
Subject: [bullseye-l] Bullseye Triggers

> All this talk about Bullseye triggers is very timely.  I just installed a
> new hammer, sear, and disconnector and am pretty pleased, but it's not as
> crisp as I would prefer.  I set the trigger pull at just over 3 1/2 lbs,
> and had no problems when I tested it at the range.  It's hard to put in
> words what I feel when I pull the trigger.  I've seen terms used like
creep
> (actually got called one back in high school), take-up, breaking like
> glass, single-stage, two-stage, etc.  Pardon me if I use these terms
> incorrectly, and please feel free to correct me.
>
> When I first start squeezing the trigger, it only requires a light
pressure
> (maybe 1 pound) to move the trigger back the first few fractions of an
> inch.  I want to call this take-up.  I have seen ads for some triggers in
> Brownell's that say they are adjustable for take-up and overtravel.  I
> understand how to use the set screw to adjust the overtravel, but am not
> sure how you would adjust the amount of take-up.  I saw in Hallock's .45
> handbook that you can silver solder a shim to the back of the trigger bow
> (where it hits the disconnector), but I don't think that's what these
> trigger manufacturers are claiming when they say their triggers can be
> adjusted for take-up.
>
> After my trigger moves thru the take-up stage, I have to apply more
> pressure (3.5 lbs) for the trigger to break.  I can't really feel anything
> different as I increase the pressure- I just have to keep tightening my
> trigger finger a little more until the gun fires.  I guess this is a good
> thing, because I don't really know when the gun is going to fire, so I'm
> not going to tense up at the last second in anticipation.  Does the term
> "creep" refer to the movement of the trigger during what I called the
> take-up stage, or does "creep" occur after take-up, while I'm increasing
> pressure, before the hammer is released?
>
> Does the phrase, "breaks like glass" refer to a sudden release of the
> hammer?  I get no feelings of premonition that the sear is about to
release
> the hammer - it sure seems sudden to me when the hammer drops.  Yet, I've
> fired a gun with a Masaki trigger, and it certainly felt different.
>  Different in a good way, but still hard to describe. (Crisp?)
>
> I also read with interest a recent thread discussing one of the Hammerli
> models that had   a two-stage trigger.  Because I feel different trigger
> pressure during the take-up stage and the
> applying-enough-additional-pressure-to-fire-the-gun stage, I guess I could
> say I have a two-stage trigger, but I'm sure I'd be using the term
> incorrectly.
>
> I would greatly appreciate any insights or comments you may have.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Steve Hull

The Gil Hebard's p/n is MCS-45 for the stainless, 7 round, welded (drilled
for baseplate), ridged one-piece rounded metal follower.  The price in my
older catalog is $16.00

The pads don't seem to have a p/n, but the black ones look like $6.00 for 6
(includes screws), or $6.80 for 6 red, blue or yellow.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: B. Hamilton <bh1@acer-access.com>
To: bullseye list <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 1:04 AM
Subject: [bullseye-l] more info on 1911 mags please

Wow , i can't believe it. I asked which mags to buy and got  99% reply
recommending metalforms! I guess i'd have to be an idiot not to go with the
flow.
1.Problem is no one gave me an actual model number. I go to brownells and i
don't see a (7 round metalform ss with a round follower)?
2. And i'm confused about welded or removable base plate? Do they make both?
3. And last , which bumper pads should i buy?
Thanks again for all the help.

Hi George,

You bring a question to mind with this post.  My understanding is that
208s's brought into the US must meet the US requirements.  Doesn't a 208s
brought in have to have the safety knob at the back of the slide?  And don't
the European versions omit this?  Does this particular gun have this safety?
If not would that prohibit its importation?

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: Geo. Anderson <mitty@scc.net>
To: bullseye-l <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 10:41 AM
Subject: RE: [bullseye-l] Hammerli 208s for Sale

<snip>
> Unless things have changed, any FFL can bring in the gun for you.  It is
> called "Occasional Importation by Nonlicensees."  "A federally licensed
> dealer located in the nonlicensee's State of residence may act as an
> agent to import the nonlicensee's firearm, provided that the firearm is
> lawfully importable."  This is from page 94 of some kind of BATF
> handbook that my friendly neighborhood BATF guy (really!) faxed me.
>  Basically, you fill out a "Form 6" for the FFL, he finishes it and
> signs it.  It goes to Washington for approval, you wait 6 weeks or so to
> get it back, and then you can have the gun shipped to the FFL.  I just
> had the Australian dealer hold my guns with a credit card during the
> waiting period.
>
<snip>

----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Lohkamp <loko@earthlink.net>
To: <Bullseye-L@lava.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] Sighters vs Record Shots
> I think the key is 'record shot'. I have been haveing better success
> lately by just shooting for fun. I usually shoot better when it doesn't
> count. Today I shot a practice of 4 rapid series at 25 yards and scored
> it a 395. Most of the summer I struggled with why I couldn't do the same
> thing in a match. I have come to the conclusion that while you have to
> care to shoot well, you can easilly care so much that you interfere with
> you body's ability to perform. Scores are coming back up now that I've
> stopped worrying about it all so much.
>

Caution!  The following is dangerous...  Proceed with care...  Don't perform
the following examples.  You'll get hurt and blame me.

Have you ever tried to check on all the movements your tongue makes placing
food in exact locations to be crushed by your teeth?  Most often when you do
try to "check it out" your "checking" interrupts the smooth flow and your
tongue gets bitten.

Have you ever tried to "examine" all the muscle movements your legs make
when you run around?  If you did, you would probably stop or stumble because
your conscious mind "got in the way."  (Don't try this!  When you do, don't
say I didn't warn you.)

The above are examples of our subconscious knowing exactly what to do and
our conscious getting in the way and messing it up.  This is why we can walk
along a two-foot wide sidewalk with no trouble, unless it's on an overpass
and has nothing on either side but air.

We don't care any less about the outcome of the events.  The difference is
in the confidence of achievement.  We know from years of practice that we
can eat without directing our tongue, walk without directing our legs and
many other things.  We're probably born without teeth so we can learn about
moving our tongue around by it being gummed instead of "toothed."  And the
leg part is why we're born short...  Have you ever bitten your tongue and
then studied how you did it?  If so, did you bite it again the same way?
More often we respond in some appropriate way and then after a short while,
we're eating right along without giving it any more worry.  We don't need to
study that mistake to carry on doing it "right."  We made a mistake.  We may
make it again.  But for now we just go on doing it right, and eating along
as though everything's fine.  It is fine.

What does this have to do with shooting?  When we have the confidence, it
works fine.  It's when we question our ability that that ability falters.
That's what happens when we get "too concerned" about the way we're
performing.  Our conscious self starts "examining our process" and gets in
the way of its operation.  Result - biting our tongue, stumbling, placing
flyers.

The answer?  Trust!

If you can trust your shooting as you trust your eating, or any of a
thousand other performances we act out each day, things will fall into
place.  Will we achieve perfect scores every time?  Do we ever swallow
something too large?  Do we ever scuff our shoe or catch it on a walking
surface?

Don't get wrapped up in the mistakes.  Expect things to be fine.  Trust that
they will be fine and mentally step back and watch as they unfold.  Don't
judge good or bad about your shooting.  It's just causing holes in paper.
When we eat, we don't think, "Well, I made it through that meat without
choking.  Let's try the corn."  (Well I don't anyway.)   Let the event
happen and criticize later to look for improvement areas.  Don't evaluate
individual shots.  Evaluate the overall result.  And don't place good or bad
labels on your outings (scores).  This snowballs into tyring to make sure
you don't have "bad" times (scores), which in turn helps to distract from
having "good" times.

> Free and air pistol are real bears of a match. All of the other
> precission shooting games give you a change of rythem, different target,
> different gun, something to break things up the tension. Keeping your
> concentration up for 60 shots of slow fire takes real mental discipline.
> I tend to shoot air well at the beginning and the end, but loose it in
> the middle. Its lost concentration in applying the fundamentals shot
> after shot. I think that I need to take a sitdown, drink of water, or a
> short walk after the first 10 or 15 shots. Do they let you have food on
> the line at Atlanta? I can see having a cruller and a swallow or two of
> a latte about a third of the way into free  pistol.
>
> Larry Lohkamp
>

As Benjamin pointed out a while ago, relaxation between shots is an
important issue, and as you mention, "Keeping your concentration up for 60
shots of slow fire takes real mental discipline."  The key is in the
balance, as of course you already knew.  You need to balance putting forth a
total effort for the shot followed by total relaxation between shots.  What
is total relaxation?  Being asleep?  Maybe, but do we need to go that far?
Let's first examine what isn't relaxation.  Let's see... any unusual
tensions in our body.  These could be an uncomfortable stance or the
shoulders being held too firm, or quite often, a tight grip being maintained
throughout the resting period.  On the mental side, any tensions could be
defined as unacknowledged weights such as, "What am I going to do when..."
or "I hope I don't shoot..." or even "What if I win today...?"

OK, how do we work on the relaxation part?  One way is to add into the "shot
plan" things to check and things to do to relieve tensions.  We could place
keys like, "check grip" and, "check shoulders" and even some nice items to
think about to relax our mental tensions.  An imortant item to have in the
list might be, "remember to breathe."  Another could be, "yawn."  Even a
fake yawn has relaxing effects.

Of course, we must remember that overall endurance is a limiting factor and
the more we can do to improve our endurance, the better chance all the above
suggestions have to work.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi Duke,

Thanks Bobbo, Larry and the other list members,

The chart fits in pretty close to my numbers although the chart seems to
disagree with my theory of the first crossover being near the 25 yard line.
The chart has a positive .2 inch by 10 yards which means the initial
crossover is even earlier.  However, the chart is based on a sight height of
.5 inch.  Larry's data calculated with a height of 1.5 inches is much closer
to my actual sight at 1.3 inches.  But then again, in Larry's calculation,
the bullet is just about to crossover at 50 feet (only .05 inch low).  For
my 1.3 inches, it would have crossed by 50 feet.  The data seem to point out
that there can be quite a difference based on the height of the sight.  I
wonder if Larry could run his program against a couple of other heights and
see if this is so?  It might mean that a sight closer to the bore isn't
necessarily the best choice for everyone.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Liles <rliles@midsouth.rr.com>
To: ed_ka2fwj <ed_ka2fwj@netzero.net>
Cc: <bullseye-L@lava.net>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] .22 Bullet Drop Post for Math Buffs

> A while back I emailed CCI and asked for a trajectory table for their
> CCI-SV ammunition.  This attachment is what they sent me (via snail
> mail).
>
> Bobbo

Quite a question, with good points all around.  But who's right?  Everyone
is.  The correctness is determined by the individual shooter, and the
correct use will ebb and flow as (s)he progresses.

For a newer shooter, less scope is better.  A "beginner" needs to be
concerned about performing the action at the gun consistently to create
groups downrange.  The scope tends to be a great distraction in that it
"helps" the beginner to chase the holes instead of concentrate on the
sights.  In this case it's better to use it only after the entire string.
But this is a difficult task, because the newer shooter wants to see results
right away.  It is tough to realize that at the beginning, the results of
grouping are more important after the group than during the group.  Also a
newer shooter is more prone to the effects of flyers and good groups (hero
syndrome).

For the intermediate shooter, more use is necessary.  This is when the
shooter transistions from working on producing groups, to calling shots.
Near instant feedback is important here.  But misuse must be avoided.  When
learning to call shots, the shooter should study the sights intensely
through the shot and then pause for a moment and evaluate "exactly"  what
occurred.  Then, after the evaluation, check the scope to verify the hit.
Now, re-examine what was really seen when the shot fired.

For a more advanced shooter who can call shots well, the scope takes on a
diferent task.  Now the shooter can check for fine zero.  (S)He can actually
make corrections in the X-ring.  "That was a high X.  OK, it's at six
o'clock in the X.  I'll come up one click.  Then my call will match my
zero."

The scope should be a tool which adds to your comfort in shooting.  Only you
can decide how to be comfortable with it.  If it bothers you to see 10s
adding up, do what you, individually need to do, to become comfortable.  If
it bothers you to skip looking because your curiosity runs away, do what you
need to, to become comfortable.  What you "see" when you use your scope is
determined by you, the individual.  Just as some of us see a full glass -
half water, half air, others see half empty, and still others, half full.
You can use the scope to see the past;  what did I get?  Or you can use the
scope to visualize the future;  OK, that's a nice looking X.  Imprint it.
Visualize it.  Do it.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hello Jack,

My next excursion is planned as similar.  I intend to load a dummy round
under five live ones.  Then remove the magazine after four shots and reload
it (the same mag) with another five to complete the set of ten.  Since I
didn't show many flyers in the previous eight targets for the first round
(only one), and since in competition, I don't have the luxury of throwing
away the first round over the target, I will include it in the groups.
We'll see if I do have any first round flyers...

As an aside, Ed Masaki has been telling folks for years, not to rest the
1911 on its front on the bench between shots because it will change the
lockup.  Way back when I was only a couple of years into competition, I
remember actually pressing the gun into the bench and unlocking and locking
it in that manner between shots.  Lately, I've been wondering if a routine
such as unlocking/locking by hand, or individually loading one round at a
time might be of advantage.  Some day I may even get around to trying
something like that.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: Jack H <jwheisel@yahoo.com>
To: ed_ka2fwj <ed_ka2fwj@netzero.net>; <Bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] Lockup - RR - Last Round Flyers Was: Some Star
185gr LSWCHP Test Results

> Why don't you test with
> Load 7
> Shoot 1 - disregard
> Shoot 5
> Load 6 more
> Shoot 1 - disregard
> Shoot 5
> Unload 1 (....I think)
> This way all 10 were fire cycled over at least one in
> the mag.
> Or you could load 5, shoot 5, just like you do
> standing.
> Jack
>

Hi Bob and list,

I'm going to discuss theory here.  I have not actually tried to prove or
disprove this.  I'm also going to mention some stuff from other messages.

As to the question below, "how could the lockup be different?"  Let's look
at what lockup is in a tight pistol.  Tight lockup is produced by wedging
the barrel between the top of the slide and slide stop pin.  Accuracy is
determined by how well that lockup can be reproduced exactly the same each
time.  Gunsmiths go to great effort to equalize the pressure on the two
bottom lugs, as well as balancing the rest of the fit in the slide.  The
reason for all of this is because those pressures determine how the barrel
will react when a bullet is travelling through it.  The bullet is trying to
get out in the most direct manner, but the rifling is providing a
restriction over and above that of just friction.  Not only is the rifling
making the bullet spin, but the bullet is actually trying to turn the barrel
in the gun as well.  We all know that the .45 gives a twisting motion as it
recoils.  The tight lockup is derived from the small contact area of the
bottom lugs and slide stop pin, and any differences in that contact point
can cause differences in the reaction of the twisting motion and ultimately
the trajectory of the bullet.  That difference could be from a difference in
pressure.

Now let's look at the magazines.  Each magaznine has its own set of
dimensions:  width of lips, shape of lips, angles of lips, friction of lips,
pressure of follower springs, and on and on.  The combination of all of
these determine how the rounds will be stripped from the magazine.

Now let's look at the gun.  There are certain parameters here too:  recoil
spring weight, tightness of slide, lubricant coefficients, etc. that
determine how well it goes into battery.  Let's pick a totally abitrary
figure of 10lbs of pressure that will be used to "slam" a slide home without
any round going into the chamber.  Many recommend not dropping the slide on
an empty chamber, because there is no drag to keep from excessive battering
of the components.  OK, let's add the magazine and rounds.  Now there's a
drag introduced by the magaznine, as well as the rounds themselves.  All
kinds of things come into play here.  In fact they're all those things we
tell everyone to look at when they're having feeding troubles:  How much
pressure is the extractor imparting?  This determines how easily the rounds
will move up the breechface, which in turn determines how readily they will
line up with and enter the chamber.  Back to the magazine, again.  How do
the lips react with the rounds?  They impart, not only a particular drag,
but also a tip to the rounds which affect how they are chambered.  All these
drags and tips and pressures act to slow down that forward momentum in the
slide.  If we go back to the arbitrary 10lbs above, one magazine might
reduce that to 5lbs, while another may reduce it to 3.5lbs.  This means that
our wedge (barrel) is driven into place with a different amount of force,
which in turn correlates to a different pressure, which can react
differently to the twisting of the system as a whole.

--Different topic - Machine vs. shooter:

Someone mentioned Bill Blankenship shooting better than a machine rest.
This was/is not that uncommon, especially with guns that are less tight in
slide to frame fit.  The sighting system is normally mounted on the slide
(disregarding frames mounts, momentarily).  The barrel locks into the slide.
When an individual uses the sights to fire a shot, they are lining up the
barrel with their taget.  When the gun is mounted in a machine rest, it is
lining up the frame so that it sits in the exact same spot each time.  In
affect, the machine is lining up the frame with the target.  In order for
this to work, it assumes that the slide will be lined up via the frame.  If
there is frame to slide play, this will readily widen the groups from a
machine rest.  This also means that a frame mounted sighting system will be
less effective with a loose gun.

--Different topic - Last round flyers:

How interesting!  I hadn't even thought about last round flyers until the
messages yesterday.  When I went to look at the eight targets I started this
thread with, I found that indeed, two had last round flyers and three others
had the last round on the extremes of the groups.  I then checked for fifth
round flyers and only found one, however five of the other seven were on the
outer edges of the groups.   The way I fire for my tests involves changing
magazines after the fourth shot.  This means that the fifth and the tenth
shots are loaded as the last from each magazine.  An item I didn't address
above is that the top round in the magazine also provides an upward pressure
on the bottom of the slide as it goes into battery.  For the last round from
a magazine, the pressure is from the slide stop against the bottom of the
left slide rail.  I suppose this could be forming a twisting pressure
instead of the centered pressure from the upcoming cartridge.?.

Wow, so many things to take into consideration.  No wonder the ten ring
meassures so far across. :-)

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: robert brown <rbrownlakeside_1039@msn.com>
To: ed_ka2fwj <ed_ka2fwj@netzero.net>; NSK Co. <nsk@nsksales.com>
Cc: Bullseye <Bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] Some Star 185gr LSWCHP Test Results

Hey Ed,

Let's say the rounds are stripped differently.  Considering an absolutely
tight pistol, how could the lockup be different?  I'm eager to learn....

Bob

Hi Neil,

A few shooters use a single magazine.  Jason Meidinger once told us that he
would remove the magazine and reload with one hand to maintain his grip and
to use the same magazine for the entire 10 rounds.  I think he meant all the
way through the match.  The mechanics (theory) is that since the rounds are
stripped differently due to magazine differences, the lockup will be
slightly different.  I can't argue with Jason Meidinger's success either.

Take Care
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: NSK Co. <nsk@nsksales.com>
To: ed_ka2fwj <ed_ka2fwj@netzero.net>; <Bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] Some Star 185gr LSWCHP Test Results

Hi Neil,

Actually, at first I was kind of jesting, but then I got a bit more serious.
I really do need to test these from a RR.  Right now I agree about the
Noslers because they've consistently given me better overall results, but
check this out:

>From my Nosler notes when I first started testing my Kart barrel:

 2.4" cnt-cnt for 9 shots; 3.7" for 10th.
 1.75" cnt-cnt for 9 shots; 3" for 10th(1st)
 2" cnt-cnt for 9 shots; 3" for 10th
 2.5" cnt-cnt for 9 shots; 4" for 10th.

The only difference here is one flyer instead of two or three with the
Stars.  But let's look at some of my other Nosler notes:

 3.2" cnt-cnt for all 10.
 3" cnt-cnt for all 10.
 4.1" cnt-cnt for all 10.

And now to finish with of some good groups, of course:

 2.5" cnt-cnt for all 10.
 2.35" cnt-cnt for all 10.
 2.2" cnt-cnt for all 10.
 2.1" cnt-cnt for all 10.  (This one was a 10X!)

So...are flyers inherently fewer with the Noslers?  It would seem so, except
that I've done a lot more testing with the Noslers.  With more testing with
the Stars, perhaps I'll collect some better groups.

One thing I've recently tried to be aware of and find interesting is that
about fifty per cent of my first rounds fired are either the highest or
lowest velocity for the ten shots.  However, very few of the first shots are
flyers, and much more interesting, I can't find any correlation with the
first shot being a flyer AND either highest or lowest velocity.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: NSK Co. <nsk@nsksales.com>
To: ed_ka2fwj <ed_ka2fwj@netzero.net>; <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] Some Star 185gr LSWCHP Test Results

Hi List,

I mentioned my Star load recently and had some off list thoughts and
questions and such.  Since the weather warmed up I took some of my 25 yard
Star ammo out and tested it at 50 yards.  I also changed the OAL for half of
the rounds to a more "normal" length with just a small amount of shoulder.
I also tried two different primers.  In an attempt not to be confusing, I
shot 20 rounds (two targets of ten) for each type.  Type one (tests 1 & 2)
was with Remington primers and an OAL of 1.260 inches.  Type two (tests 3 &
4) was with WLP primers and an OAL of 1.260 inches.  Type three (tests 5 &
6) was with Remington primers and an OAL of 1.215 inches.  Type four (tests
7 & 8) was with WLP primers and an OAL of 1.215 inches.  Hopefully this
isn't too confusing yet.  I'll chart it out below.

Some more background:  All rounds were using Federal Brass and Star 185gr
SWCHP, back lube, bulk packed, carefully transported, bullets.  The cases
were not prepped in any way other than normal case cleaning in a vibratory
cleaner with old primers still in place.  The gun was the same one I've
described here before with the Kart Easy-Fit barrel.  I used a reticle scope
set at 4X and fired from a hand hold off a bench.  The weather was about 65
degrees and there was a slight breeze from varying directions.  The Chrony
was set at 12 feet.

My initial impression after firing the first target was, "Why am I spending
extra money for Noslers?"  I did have two flyers that were in opposite
directions (of course) to give an overall group size of 3.56 inches, but the
remaining eight shots were tightly grouped into one hole centered between
the flyers, that measured less than 1.75 inches - clearly a 100-8X possible
score.  The second target wasn't quite as impressive, but still had a group
of seven shots in less than 1.75 inches.  However the three flyers opened
this one up to 4.14 inches and centering an overlay gave a score of 98-6X.
If I moved the overlay left a bit, I could get the score to be 99-7X.

On to the data:  (Each test# represents ten shots)  (Tests 1 - 4 are with my
longer OAL version and 5 - 8 are with the more "normal" seating)

#  Primer   group   score   average   Spead     SD
--   -----    ----     ------    ------     ------    -----
1    Rem    3.56    100-8    750.3    30.10    10.09
2    Rem    4.14     98-6    761.8    57.42    18.84
3    WLP    4.00     98-5    743.4    62.30    17.32
4    WLP    3.10    100-5    744.2    33.79    9.79
5    Rem    5.09     98-4    765.0    42.01    12.56
6    Rem    5.63     98-7    766.7    33.77    11.26
7    WLP    3.13    100-5    744.3    40.21    11.48
8    WLP    2.83    100-6    742.5    42.56    13.07

Take Care,
Ed Hall

A good point is made here.  Doc Young mentioned it in his post as well.
I've had some off-line questions asked, too.  I'll try to address several
points about my round.  First, I must point out that I am doing several
things recommended against.  I also recommend against building your rounds
this way and then heading off to a match.  I did quite a bit of
experimenting and proving of these rounds before I started shooting them
regularly.  I still occasionally trap a piece of brass.

On to the technical stuff:  My 1911 is the one I've described here several
times, but here are some details.  It has a Kart Easy-Fit barrel, Clark
slide mount, Ultradot 1" and a 10lb spring.  The chamber measures .907 inch.
This is to the back edge of the hood, but there is no clearance between the
back edge of the hood and the breechface.

The round as loaded using a 185 grain Star hollow point (black lube) has an
OAL of 1.259 inches.  This gives a shoulder that is about .088 inch (this
depends on the case length).  The distance from the base of the case to the
top of the shoulder is .972 inch.

I use 4.0 grains of Bullseye powder and WLP primers.  I use either Federal
or WW brass almost exclusively.  I get an average velocity of around 720
fps.

When I drop this round into the chamber with the barrel out of the gun, it
does not drop past the hood.  (No surprise here, right?)  In fact, it rides
about .018 inch above it, but with minimal pressure, it will settle past the
hood.  This is one area that is recommended against.  If your rounds are
loaded in this manner, they can easily be kept from fully seating into the
chamber.  The fact that these are swaged bullets may be in my favor here.

Someone wondered if the bullet may be being seated further by the action of
being loaded. I have found cycled rounds to be the same length before and
after going into the chamber.

I haven't done much testing of these rounds at 50 yards, so I don't know if
they are accurate that far, but they do well on the short line.

I hope I've answered all the questions that have been asked.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: M.J. Kaas <m.j.kaas@verizon.net>
To: Bullseye-L <bullseye-L@lava.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] Headspace

> I know the one time I loaded a box of 45's with 200gr SWC a bit longer
than
> usual they all ran tight in the magazine and would not function with only
> spring pressure.  I have to assume that my Kimber would chamber a longer
> round than my mags could use.  I suggest that any increased length loading
> be checked immediately in the magazine before you make  a bunch that won't
> work. I adjusted the seating die and reseated them a bit deeper.
> m.j.kaas@verizon.net
>

Thanks Doc,

This is actually how I load my Star 185gr HP rounds.  The crimp is barely
above the lube ring.  Everyone who sees them tells me they're much too far
out and won't work.  They work fine in _my_ gun, but they may be quite right
that they wouldn't work in their gun.  I think I might actually be more than
"slightly" engaging the leade.:~))

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: <dyoung@televar.com>
To: <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 10:43 AM
Subject: [bullseye-l] Headspace

The topic of .45 headspace in terms of case length and type of crimp draws
interest.  I have found you can avoid most of these problems by setting the
headspace on the bullet shoulder.  That is seat the bullet out far enough to
slightly engage the leade.  The base of the cartridge should be flush with
the barrel tang.  This combination is often be limited to the gun in
question and this ammo may not function in another .45.  Also with the total
length of the cartridge being longer one needs to check if it will feed in
the magazine.  Very long nose bullets may not work in the magazine using
this method. This system works best with  sharp shoulder bullets and not the
round nose Nosler.

Darius Young

It seems like this comes around every so often.

Let's look at this a little more indepth this time.  Headspacing is defined
specifically in reference to how far into the chamber a loaded cartridge
sits when in battery.  The technical answer for the .45 is case mouth.
Various people believe extractor and others admit to not caring.  In
actuallity, if you can locate the specifications and do the math, you will
find that depending on maximum chamber depth and minimum case length being
within specs, the cartridge can sit somewhere between having the case mouth
touching the end of the chamber, and having the base against the breechface.
In none of this area can a properly built extractor "hook" be hanging onto
the case rim.  (The rim is slightly less than .050" while the extractor
notch is ~.100" normally.  This leaves >.050" of tolerance.  The difference
between the minimum cartridge length and the maximum chamber depth is
considerably less than .050 inch.) However, the tension of the extractor
"notch" against the cartridge rim plays a role in where the round ends up
after inertia from the slide closing (as well as all the other recoil
movements) finishes affecting the cartridge.  In effect, the extractor
places lateral pressure against the rim, at first pressing it against the
opposite side of the slide, as the cartridge is pushed into the chamber by
the breech face.  In the final shift of the barrel upwards into its lugs in
the slide, the extractor pressure changes to holding the cartridge against
the opposite side of the chamber.  Depending upon frictions set up by the
interaction of the extractor pressure and the chamber wall, the mass of the
cartridge may or may not provide enough inertia for it to move away from the
breechface.  In a superbly cleaned chamber the round may very well move
forward to the end of the chamber due to inertia.  Maybe during the first
shot?  After a buildup of debris, it is much more likely that the round will
remain against the breechface.

Enter the next variable - bullets.  Jacketed bullets will not play a role,
per se, but lead bullets can.  If lead bullets are seated with the shoulder
far enough out of the case, they can engage the leade and keep the case
against the breechface.  This is sometimes referred to as, "Headspacing off
the bullet."  Jacketed bullets tend to have to be too far out (practically)
for this effect.

Just to get back to the original remarks of this thread for a moment, it is
recommend to never _roll crimp_ the .45 ACP because if the case is sitting
with the mouth against the end of the chamber when fired, the roll crimp
will unroll into the leade and can cause dangerous overpressure.  A taper
crimp would need to be far too extreme to similarly make it into the leade.

OK, flame suit ready.  Let the fire evolve.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: Leslie Swartz <leslieswartz@erinet.com>
To: <Rick10010X@aol.com>; <FocaIPoint@aol.com>; <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] Confusion Reins

And more to the point, who sez the .45 ACP headspaces on the mouth?  Take
some measurements and you'll find the .45 ACP doesn't really "headspace" on
anything.  The bullet actually "toespaces" as it's held in place on the
slide by the extractor.  The case mouth generally sits (see Dean Grenell's
book) at least 0.020 or so away from the end of chamber/beginning of
freebore.

Let the flames begin . . .

Steve

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Rick10010X@aol.com
  To: FocaIPoint@aol.com ; bullseye-l@lava.net
  Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:27 PM
  Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] Confusion Reins

  In a message dated 10/1/01 12:20:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
FocaIPoint@aol.com writes:

    it is generally recommended that the case NOT be taper crimped or only
very lightly for that reason.

  Who are these people who generally recommend that the case NOT be taper
crimped?  No one I have ever met.  I always taper crimp my .45 cases to
0.472 inch diameter, which is the diameter that the factories use.
  Rick

In my recipe for my current Nosler load, I mistyped the crimp dimension.

----- Original Message -----
<snip>
> My current load is:
>
> - WW once-fired brass with primer pocket uniformed
> - Federal Magnum Large Pistol primers seated to full depth
> - 4.5 grains Bullseye powder
> - 185gr Nosler JHP at ~1.194" OAL
> - .470" crimp
> <end snip>

My crimp is actually .472"

Also, it was asked as to my choice of magnum primers.  I'm currently testing
the magnum primers in an attempt to get more of the Bullseye powder
involved.  There always seemed to be unburnt powder all over after shooting.
The 100-10x target was fired with the magnum primers, so we'll see...

Take Care,
Ed Hall

I recently purchased some of NSK's "Premium Match" 45ACP ammunition that
Neil was developing some months ago.  I'm not in NSK's employ, just a
customer.  I told him I'd post some results of testing to the List at some
point.  This is that posting.

The ammunition arrived via UPS and although I felt the price was quite
reasonable (less than $15.00/ box - Federal is over $20.00/box), the
shipping was nearly $10.00 for 100 rounds (2 boxes).  If I buy any more, it
will be in person.

The rounds were constructed of new primed brass with the headstamp
"WINCHESTER 45 AUTO" and 185 grain Nosler JHP bullets.  The box was labelled
with "MV 780fps."  The crimp measured a very consistent .468 inch for all
the rounds checked.  The OAL read between 1.210" and 1.214."  I find the OAL
difficult to measure on Nosler rounds because of the sharp rim around the
hollow point.  Since this round is seated by die contact with the ogive, and
because of the rim sharpness, I consider the OAL kind of arbitrary for this
bullet.  The bullets themselves showed no adverse marks from seating.

The testing was done hand held from a bench.  The gun was topped with a
slide mounted 4X reticle scope.  All testing was at 50 yards.  The
temperature was between 52 and 56 degrees Fahrenheit and there was some
breeze.  The "Chrony" was set at 12 feet from the muzzle.  All groups were
of ten shots.  Two magazines, each loaded with 5 rounds, were used in the
following manner: First round loaded by releasing slide on first magazine,
magazines swapped before fifth shot.  The wadcutter .45 is fitted with an
Easy-fit Kart barrel which I've described in the past here on the list.

The first two groups were fired from an uncleaned condition.  The barrel had
a 2700's worth of use prior to the testing.  All other groups were from a
cleaned condition.  The derived score was from placing an overlay of the
scoring rings on top of the group.  I placed it assuming how I would have
expected the group to lie if zeroed.  I didn't go for highest score/x count.
I fired four groups of NSK ammo, three other groups and added at the bottom,
results from some of my earlier testing.  For ease of measuring, I rounded
to the nearest .025 inch.  I've made two tables below in case mail programs,
like mine, squash up the info.

Table 1: (Score and group sizes)
Ammunition   Score  10-Shots   9-Shots

NSK #1       98-7x   4.525      3.025
NSK #2      100-7x   2.650      2.075
NSK #3      100-4x   3.150      2.825
NSK #4      100-7x   3.000      2.700

My Load      98-7x   4.200      2.975
Federal      98-5x   3.450      3.300
Star 200gr   98-5x   4.450      3.150

Prior best test
My Load     100-10x  2.100     not taken

Rough average of my earlier loads
My Load     100-6x     3.000       2.500

Table 2: (Velocity measurements (fps))
Ammo  High  Low   Ave   Spread Sd

NSK#1 857.3 786.0 809.0 71.34  21.97
NSK#2 842.8 763.1 807.8 79.67  26.81
NSK#3 850.7 800.1 826.4 50.57  15.81
NSK#4 846.5 769.4 810.8 77.13  27.34

Mine  829.4 782.8 805.3 46.57  15.93
Fedrl 885.1 823.3 850-8 61.78  18.81
*200  707.3 679.0 695.5 28.26  10.39

The *200gr were loaded in Federal cases with WLP primers and 4.0 BE powder.

For those who are asking, "What's your personal Nosler load?"

My current load is:

- WW once-fired brass with primer pocket uniformed
- Federal Magnum Large Pistol primers seated to full depth
- 4.5 grains Bullseye powder
- 185gr Nosler JHP at ~1.194" OAL
- .470" crimp

If anyone is interested in a more indepth, per shot, analysis, let me know.
I recorded each hit for NSK's groups and plan to plot each shot with its
velocity and a direction and distance measurement from a central point, if I
can ever find my protractor.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

<snip>
> I think we would get more interest in bullseye, if there were more prize
> money. <snip>

> So what did the action shooter organizers do to arrange so much
> financial participation, and could we do the same thing for Bullseye and
> International without detracting from them?

I'll agree with you, kind of.  I've seen a situation, where an idividual was
the overall winner of a big match and didn't receive enough awards to pay
for his entry fee.  He swore he'd never shoot that match again.  I'm not
sure about the money side though, but I know prizes make a difference.  I
remember when I was first starting out, I shot a match at 12th Precinct (MD)
where they had all sorts of prizes for different individual winners.  My
memory isn't great about for what, but it seemed that they had grips and
mounts and magazines and all kinds of stuff to award to many shooters.
Maybe they awarded something to the winner of each of the matches (Slow
Fire, NMC, TF, RF), etc.  I remember that the line was quite full of
competitors back then.

What does it take to make this happen, and what are the results?

It takes a great deal of work from an organizer and a sponsor/sponsors that
will/can put forth the backing.  I'd like to take a moment to provide a
great example, where a success story has been unfolding over the last few
years:

In 1997 there were 32 competitors at the Maryland State Pistol Championship.
The Open Winner shot 2580-75x, there were no High Masters, and a total of 17
(16 non-distinguished) leg match shooters.  The top EIC score was
278-6x.  (247 was the cutoff for points.)

Hi Randy,

Sorry for the confusion.  It's sometimes difficult to give a good
explanation that conveys what is meant.  I'll try a different approach.

Although you can see everything and be aware of everything, in order to
truly focus on an individual item, you need to bring your conscious focus in
to that item.  I find it to be greatly different to "see" the target and
mentally "focus" on the dot, and to "see" the dot and mentally "focus" on
the target.  If I am focusing on the dot in its relation to the target, I
see all the movement I have in the black.  If I bring my mental focus back
into the scope, I become much more aware of the dot in relation to the tube,
and much less aware of the movement at the target.  I'm also able at that
point to pick up things like the dot moving to the lower left portion of the
tube, which signals to me that I'm misapplying the trigger.

If I travel all the way to the target with my mental focus, I find that
again, the movement is greater, but more importantly, I'm not as critical of
my trigger application.  This does work for short periods of time, but then
I start to get sloppy with my trigger and everything widens at the target.
When I can perfect my trigger enough, I may be able to extend these short
periods into longer ones and finally put together enough high master scores
in a row to make it.

I hope this conveyed my thoughts well.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Pafford <r.pafford@gte.net>
To: ed_ka2fwj <ed_ka2fwj@netzero.net>; <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] Notes from Quantico bullseye clinic 9/23/01

>
> Ed,
>
> I'm probably just slow, but I don't quite understand this post. Even if
I'm
> "looking at the target" I'm quite of aware of the tube and the dot itself.
> So I'm a little confused here by where you are going.
>
> Randy
>

Gee, Dave,

Where does that leave me?  I see the glass as full - half liquid - half air!

"the half full people..."  Oh, I get it, I'm full of it, right?

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: Lesley L. Young <lesyoung@erols.com>
To: Orvin, Marc <Marc.Orvin@coors.com>
Cc: 'bullseye' <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] Shooting Sports magazine

<snip>>
>  Just another example of the glass half empty or half full parable, I
guess, but
> you know, the half full people are the effective advocates!
>
<snip>>
> Dave
>

<soapbox> (Wow!  It makes me taller.)

I rarely spend any time or energy on this issue, but I consider this to be
along the lines of, "I didn't have any shoes when I went to school.  Why
should you?"

I'm sure there have always been "purists" who have wanted something to be
exactly the same forever, or it just isn't valid.  I'll bet there were
groups of protestors the first time an adjustable sight was brought to the
line, and the first time someone tightened a slide or welded some extra
metal on the barrel, etc.  Interestingly, some of the strongest protestors
are also the ones that fill a line up with staff and spouses at the leg
matches to "GIVE AWAY" more points.

There were always some shooters who would have an upper hand over others in
the realm of ammunition.  This may be in a "hometown" advantage where the
locals had access to the type of ammunition being used beforehand, for
zeroing, practice, etc., or at least the knowledge of the type being used,
to the use of "commercial" ammo that was constructed to specific design of a
particular customer.

Is ammunition that great an advantage?  It sure can be!  Especially if we
fill our younger shooters with the idea that they really won't achieve
anything if they don't do it with "real" ammunition.  Bull.....!  The
competitors that operate their pistols most effectively at the match on a
given day under certain conditions will gain points.  If those that gained
the points did it with "soft" ammunition while our struggling proteges
missed out because we whined about the ammunition (or the gun, for that
matter) and made them feel guilty, then we did them a disservice.  Shame on
us!  If they wish to use "hard" ammo, OK.  If they want to use "soft" ammo,
OK.

The field is much more level than it was, if we allow shooters to play by
the current rules.  No longer can a competitor "reload" his commercial
rounds to gain an advantage; no longer can a larger entity have "commercial"
ammo made to _their_ specs to gain an advantage; no longer are out of town
shooters at a disadvantage because their gun doesn't shoot the WCC that the
club acquired (becasue their shooters liked it).

If we insist that "our" offspring use hardball and truly believe that
the softball ammo gives others an advantage, then we are really mistreating
those who look to us for guidance.  We're letting those "others" have the
points that "ours" deserve.  Only if we get rid of the, "I'm better, because
I had it harder." attitude can the current playing field be truly level.

I think someone in the top ten per cent of a match today is just as entitled
to the Distinguished points as those from the past.

If you really want a tough award, try making it the top ten per cent of ALL
the competitors.  Then the distinguished ones would be being approached to
please NOT shoot.

</soapbox>

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi Sandy,

Would you settle for something from a not quite HM to start with? <grin>

I used to make up chants and use all kinds of them in my shooting and they
seemed to help.  I've also preached on their useage from time to time.  But
my opinion has changed (evolved?) over the years.

Chants give our conscious mind something to do while we try to shoot.  This
part is good and chants do work and have worked for me in past years.  The
problem is if we give it too much and/or use the chants as instructions for
conscious effort.  Take the chant, "Straight back trigger." for instance.
This is good in that it is a single focus point.  It will work fine as long
as we use it as a reference to what we want to work on.  The problem arises
when we use the chant to trigger an evaluation of the action.  That
evaluation can cause us to interrupt that smooth trigger if it doesn't seem
to be perfect.

Even worse could be a chant which involves more than one item, "Straight
back trigger. Center dot. Straight back trigger..."  (Sorry Sandy, I know
this sounds like yours.  Please don't think I'm flaming you.)  In this
instance, the focus goes back and forth between the sights and the trigger.
What really happens is that each time it switches, there's an instant
"check" to whichever the focus moves to. This can cause the trigger to be
stopped and started in an attempt to make sure it meets with the focus.  The
question would be, "Do you stop the trigger each time you move to the sights
and restart it when you move back?"

What chants do when working well, is give the conscious mind something to
keep it busy so the unconscious part can make a good shot.  Therefore the
best chant might be something that has nothing that can be equated to the
actual performance of the shot.  That way there's no evaluation of any of
the shot performance, and subsequently no starting and stopping of the shot.

I'm currently approaching this very issue in a different way.  I recently
read "The Inner Game of Tennis" which has been mentioned by the USAMU coach.
Since reading it, I've been working on the idea of "observing" rather than
"controlling" my shots.  All my work so far has been with my .22. and has
proven quite interesting.  What I do is, as I come down into the black
through my normal proceedure (shot plan), I simply take on the attitude that
I am going to impartially watch to see what happens.  I mentally step back
from the shot and try to only "observe" the activity.  I try to remain
uninvolved as to "how" it looks.  I just watch.

What I have discovered so far, is that it is apparent that my subconscious
is quite able to perform the shot(s), since I do shoot without actually
thinking anything about starting the trigger.  Also, this seems to happen
"before I know it" because it goes off almost right away.  I am finding my
ten shots to be completed in around four to five minutes using this concept.
Not only is my slow fire quickened, but my Timed and Rapid have really sped
up as well.  In fact, with the .22, I only take about six seconds to fire
five rounds now with scores of 7 or 8 X, clean.  What I see, is the sight
coming back into the center and the shot being fired almost immediately.
Interestingly, if I make a conscious effort to slow down (probably trying to
pick up those two Xs), my group opens up to around a 96 with very few Xs.

Instead of a series of thoughts or a chant going through my mind, I'm in a
state of waiting to see what happens, rather than trying to make something
happen.  I'm also working with only "observing" where each shot went,
without labeling it good or bad.  Just seeing it as a shot.  This part is
taking a little more work.  I still tend to equate a ten with being good.

I've only been working with this for a short time, in practicing and
leagues, so I'm looking forward to seeing how I can incorporate it into the
matches.  Maybe this is what I'm needing to move me solidly into the HM
category instead of just flirting with it.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: 20/20 Concepts <sjtye@erols.com>
To: <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 10:52 PM
Subject: [bullseye-l] Self-talk; shot plan

> Just curious about what you guys and gals might say to yourselves (if you
> say anything at all) during the shot process.  Is there a mental checklist
> that you go through explicitely for each shot or string?
>
> Mine has evolved over time and it goes something like this: "front sight,
> stay on the trigger".  It's been pared down and certainly nothing radical,
> but only recently have I started reciting this to myself to make sure that
I
> stay focused (and try to do these at the SAME TIME).  I think it has
helped
> my shooting, but just because it might help me doesn't mean it would
> necessarily benefit everyone.  I'm especially curious about what the HM's
> do.
>
> But like the Gunny says - the first step is to have a shot plan, and a
good
> goal is to execute it for every single shot or string!
>
> always learning,
>
> Sandy Tye
>
> PS If anyone hears any other voices in their head then I don't want to
know
> about it ;-)
>

Hi Tony,

Hi Pam/John,

I know this will seem a lot compared to what you asked, but here're my
several cents...

My first suggestion is to do some work at home with completely empty guns
and a blank wall.  Get a comfortable stance and bring the gun up to its
normal position with your eyes closed but facing the gun.  Now, without
moving anything, look at the scope.  Can you see the dot?  If so, skip to
the next paragraph.  If not, look at what it would take to be able to.  If
it's just a matter of raising or lowering it, do so.  If it would take more,
stop everything, adjust your grip, etc. and start over.  Do this until you
can pretty much come up in front of you and see the dot in the tube without
adjusting anything.  What you're working on here is finding a repeatable
position that gives you the most natural "feel."

Next, practice holding the gun out and studying the dot.  Compare its
redness to the wall color.  Now compare it to the circle of the scope.  Now
look for any dirt, etc, on the lenses and note how the dot becomes fuzzy if
you start looking at the rearward glass.  Last, notice how little movement
there is when you reference the dot to the circle of the scope tube.  Do
this a few times each for about 20-30 seconds.  Then do a couple where the
only concentration is in keeping the dot to tube relationship the same.

Spend some time with this exercise and then take a break.  That's enough for
one session.

Notice that you still haven't dry fired anything, just studied the sighting
system, and your hold.

Although I'll be adding progressive sessions, you should go back to earlier
ones often and try to note how they may change as you progress.

New session:  This time make a line on a piece of paper and place it
vertically oriented on the wall at the proper height for your hold.  Move
close to the wall, just a few inches away.  Work on holding the dot on the
line for 20-30 second intervals.  Then take a break.  When you come back
orient the paper so that the line is horizontal and work with it the same
way.

Take a longer break.

Notice that you still haven't dry fired anything, just studied the sighting
system, and your hold again.

By now you have a pretty good idea of what the sights look like when they
aren't disturbed.  You will be aware of the natural movement that you have
at the gun.  You shoud also notice that the dot to tube relationship does
move, but not a considerable amount.  You should be able to pretty much hold
the dot centered in the tube against the blank wall.

New session:  OK, now we'll add the trigger part.  Head for the blank wall
again.  Make sure the gun is empty!  Also use some sort of chamber
protection (snap cap, empty case, rubber band, etc.) if needed for your .22.
Bring the gun up just like before and study the dot as before.  Now apply
some pressure to the trigger.  Don't pull all the way through, just apply
"some" pressure.  Study the dot.  Did it stay where it was in the scope or
did it move around different from the holding exercise?  Work with this for
a while until you can apply pressure, hold it, and then release the pressure
without disturbing the natural movement you saw from the first two
exercises.

Take a break.

I know, you added the trigger, but you still didn't dry fire.  That's OK,
we'll get there.  What I would like you to be able to do, is to judge your
application of the trigger, using the sighting system, working at the gun
only.

New session:  We're going to be a bit different now.  Take your gun to a
favorite easy chair.  Make sure it is empty! (the gun!... well maybe the
chair too!)  Also remember if anything is needed to protect the chamber.
Grip the gun with your non-shooting hand and place it in your shooting hand.
Make it ready to dry fire.  Without aiming it, but while keeping it pointed
in a safe direction (of course), and still holding it with both hands, dry
fire it a few times paying attention to the "feel" of the release.  Make the
application determined, but not fast.  It should take about one to two
seconds to release the hammer.  After a few dry fires like this, find a
comfortable position with your arm resting on the chair in a safe way that
you can see the dot.  Now you can work with just the trigger.  Find a way to
start the trigger and then move to concentrating on the dot until the hammer
falls.  Work with the trigger this way until you can drop the hammer without
disturbing the normal movement of the dot.

Take a break.

New session:  This time move back to the blank wall, verify your empty gun
again, and work with the trigger in the same way you did from the chair, but
now studying the dot to tube against the blank wall.  Work with this until,
again, the normal dot movement is not disturbed.

OK, now pack up your stuff and head to the range.

Last session, for now:  Shoot your match, practice, etc. working with the
relationship of the dot in the scope.  Let the target fuzz a bit.  This will
help cut down on perceived movement.  Work on starting the trigger,
concentrating on the dot to tube relationship, and being patient.  If
anything breaks your concentration, stop and start over.  Remember that if
you question whether you've held too long, you have.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: john kretzer,jr <jek3042@hotmail.com>
To: <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 10:28 AM
Subject: [bullseye-l] Trigger pull/jerk

> List
> Okay
> Trigger,,, pull, jerk, squeeze, snatch, jump, and to quote our daughter,
> "what ever".
> I tell myself to squeeze the trigger till it goes off, but, by the time I
> do, the dot has cleared the black, so I stop and start over, getting the
dot
> back to the black.
> Of course I know the dot will never stop moving.
> My shots that feel , and score the best, are the ones that seem to me to
be
> the ones that I " squeeze fast", when the dot is still under my control,
and
> still in the black.
> I still have trouble putting the gun down when the wobble, is un
> controllable, but am working on that in slow fire, but that is not an
option
> in timed and rapid.
> my wife and I are, so far just shoot in a 22 league, our second.
> I have made it to 800 twice, but usually 750 or so 7-8 out of ten in the
> black, but the 7-8 are high enough to keep the score up.
> I guess my question, is, are we on the right track, and need more
practice,
> or should we be practicing some thing different?
> we both do hand weights, and read the list daily, and try to follow the
> suggestions,SO-ooooooo, what next,
> Pam/John K

Hi Eric,

You're just a little bit SW of a BE shooting hot-spot.  If you're ready to
shoot in matches right now, Quantico Marine Corps Base will have a regional
match on the 23-24th and Fairfax will have a 2700 on the 24th.  When I was
down there, I used to shoot the Quantico match all on Saturday and then hit
the Fairfax one Sunday.  If you don't mind travelling a bit, there is a
year-round league (Wed Night and Sat Morning) at the 12th Precinct in
Harwood Maryland. Each is two 900s.  The All States National Pistol
Championship (ASNPC) will be held in Marriottsville, MD from 29 Jun-1 Jul.
The NRA also has a Monday night league during part of the year, but that may
not be during this part. The12th hosts several 2700s throughout the year (8
Jul is the next one), as do the others I mentioned and Anne Arundel Fish and
Game (hosting a regional 22-24 Jun).

Websites to check:

>From below:

> ...  Is Pistol
> Match worth the extra $5/brick?

The short answer:

To me, yes, it would be.

The longer answer:

How timely!  Although I don't have an IZH, I did, just this Monday, get a
chance to take some SK out to the range and test it in my 208s.  For
testing, I don't have a Ransom Rest, so I use a 4x reticle scope off the
bench with my reference being a 50 foot target placed out at 50 yards.  All
my tests were ten shot groups fired from two five shot magazines, both shot
dry.  The actual groups would be difficult to explain fully, but I'll
provide my initial impression after the data.

Type  Match   Rifle   Standard   Pistol   Match   Match
              Match    Plus      Match     Gold     50

Vdim   2.3"    3.4"    1.95"     1.3"    1.825"    2.3"
Hdim   1.225"  1.175"  1.3"      1.3"    0.4"      1.3"
AvgV 977.2   940.9   926.9     951.4   985.1     982.2
ES    42.66   51.33   91.56     46.06   37.23     40.55
Sd    11.61   15.93   27.85     15.84   10.77     11.61

Explanation of Abreviations:
Vdim  Vertical dimimension of group in inches
Hdim  Horizontal dimension of group in inches
AvgV  Average Velocity in feet per second
ES    Extreme Spread of velocities in feet per second
Sd    Standard Deviation in feet per second

Now for my initial impression... First, this is only ten shots of each and
more testing will have to be done to finalize my choices, but from this
initial data, if I was going to use SK as my competition ammo, I would
choose the high dollar stuff (Match Gold) for the long line, and Pistol
Match for the short.

To answer as to the difference between Pistol Match and Standard Plus, the
Pistol Match group looked significantly better to me.  The Standard Plus
group actually had four shots taking the vertical dimension out to its
extreme.  However, remember that this is from my 208s.  Another gun may just
as well like the Standard Plus better.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: <fehder@mindspring.com>
To: ed_ka2fwj <ed_ka2fwj@netzero.net>
Cc: Bullseye-L <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [bullseye-l] SK Jagd 22 ammunition

> Since the supply of Aguila SV and PMC ScoreMaster seems to have dried-up,
> I've been thinking of trying the SK ammo in my IZH-35M.  Would anyone care
> to comment on the relative merits of "Standard Plus" vs. "Pistol Match"?
I
> remember some posts on this earlier, but can't find them now.  Is Pistol
> Match worth the extra $5/brick?
>
>   TIA -- Paul

About this time last year there were lots of eWSA messages hitting this
board.  President Steve, is the association still active?  Are we still
looking for new membership?  Are we still forming teams?  Was a website ever
developed?  Will we have our annual meeting at Camp Perry again?  Thanks.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi Neil,

I would be willing to try some, but would probably not purchase more than
1/2 case a year even if they worked great.  My personal recipe is the same
except for a 1.194" OAL.  My crimp is .472 inch.  My powder preference is
BE.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: NSK Co. <nsk@nsksales.com>
To: <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:51 PM
Subject: [bullseye-l] Ammo question for the list

Hello list.

Here is a quick question for the list.

If, I were to manufacture NEW ammo using the following specs and sell it for
14.50 per box of 50, would anyone be interested in buying it?

Nosler 185 gr. JHP Bullet
NEW Winchester Primed Case (purchased from Winchester Primed)
Either:  4.2 grs. of VVN310  or 4.5 grs. of Bullseye  Powder  (powder charge
courtesy of Ed Masaki)
OAL: TBD; probably 1.212" or the majority preference of the list.

Please let me know your thoughts; even if it is the OAL.

Hi Richie,

It can be adjusted to place all the weight on the first stage, but the
travel of the first stage is quite extreme.  I had mine set that way for a
while, but I've gone back to two stages.  The advantage of removing the
second stage is that when you have no stop for it, the trigger should just
move right to the breakpoint.  Unfortunately, for me at least, I started
trying to judge where "just before the break" was, and it made me move the
trigger in little spurts and stops until it went off.  If you'd like to try
it for yourself, you can back out the second stage adjustment (the allen
screw inside the sleeve type screw) in the front of the magazine well, and
then increase the first stage by adjusting the tiny allen screw up in behind
the trigger (this screw is very wobbly due to it being placed inside a
rotating pin in the assembly).  Be careful with this screw.  If you strip
it, the trigger assembly has to be removed to replace it.  It screws out of
the rocker toward the inside.  I was able to put a little over 2 pounds on
the trigger in this manner.

You can adjust the first stage to a minimum, but this isn't recommended
because the trigger has to travel its full distance forward in order to
reset for the next shot.

As I mentioned earlier, I've since gone back to a two stage and am doing
quite well with it in that configuration.  I have a fairly heavy first stage
still, with just enough weight left for the second, to let me know where it
is.

Remember when adjusting the 208s that there needs to be a tiny amount of
freeplay (slack) just before the first stage, in order to ensure the trigger
bar will reset on the sear after disconnecting during the cycling of the
slide.  Also remember to leave a tiny amount of play before the stop.  I
adjust both of these by removing the slide and watching the motion of the
parts.  For the slack (small allen screw in the front of the trigger rail),
I watch the contact point between the trigger bar and the sear arm and make
sure there is just a little movement of the bar before it touches the arm,
as I move the trigger slightly.  For the stop (allen screw inside the frame
hidden behind the top front of the guard - the guard must be pulled down to
access this screw), I remove the mainspring, and adjust the setting to just
where there is totally free travel of the hammer with the trigger fully
pulled.  This adjustment ensures that the sear doesn't drag at all as the
hammer travels forward.

One thing to also check whenever you're adjusting, etc. is that the sear
moves freely back and forth during the first stage.  When you bring the
trigger back to the second stage and stop, if you then release the trigger,
the sear, as well as the bar, should move back.  If this doesn't
happen, the sear is probably sitting exactly on the edge of the hook, or the
surfaces have been damaged.  This will cause a noticeable difference in your
first stage.  The first pull will have the full first stage weight, but if
you release, when you reapply, there will be much less weight up to the
second stage point.  The outer adjustment screw (the sleeve around the
second stage weight screw) in the front of the magazine well can adjust
this.  This adjustment is used normally to change between a roll and a crisp
trigger, however if adjusted too far, it can cause troubles like the one
described.  When adjusting this screw, it is necessary to turn the weight
adjustment screw inward out of the way, or use a spanner type screwdriver.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Gates <rgates@optonline.net>
To: <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 7:13 PM
Subject: [bullseye-l] Hammerli 208s

>    Curious to know, can trigger be changed so it operates as a single
stage?
>
> Richie
>

Hi Mark,

If this is similar to the ammo they've had in the past, no, it isn't
comparable.

I bought two cases of the Remington they had for sale in 1999.  It was in
white boxes with "Remington" on one side and a national stock number and "50
CTG CAL 22 LR SV" along with "RA-95E001-066" on the other side.  I typically
have one or two misfires in my 208s from every box (50).  I pull the bullets
on any misfires I have, and these have very little primer, or none.

Back to your question:  Quickly looking over my testing data, the Remington
had an average velocity of about 1010 fps and SD of around 30 fps through my
208s.  Through a rifle, the average velocity was about 1070 fps with about
20 fps SD.  The CCI SV showed an average velocity around 980 fps with SD <8
fps through my 208s.  Through the same rifle as before, the CCI SV showed an
average velocity around 1020 fps with about 9 fps SD.

What isn't shown in my rough data above, is that one lot of CCI SV showed a
higher SD (about 2 fps) than the others in my 208s, and this is the only lot
that I have rifle data on.  All of my CCI SV showed less than 10 fps SD, but
only one showed greater than 8 fps through my 208s.

My personal conclusion is that the military Remington (at least my
particular lot) is great practice and league ammo, but I don't use it in
matches.

My understanding was that they ran out of the Remington which I had bought.
This could very well be a totally new ammo, or it could be some "found" ammo
of the same that I bought way back when.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: <GFBBENNETT@aol.com>
To: <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 10:37 PM
Subject: [bullseye-l] Remington SV .22 ammo

> Just visited the CMP web site.
>
> They have Remington Standard Volosity .22 ammo for $75.00 per 5,000.
>
> Anyone have any experience with it. I wonder if its comparable to CCI SV?
>
> Mark Bennett
> Acworth, Georgia
>

Hi Dan,

The answer to your trouble may not be an easy one.  There are several
factors involved in getting the ejection to be reliable.  The first area to
start with is to check that the empty case is held securely against the
opposite inside of the slide by the extractor.  This is a balancing act.
The extractor must hang on tight to the old case, yet allow the new round to
slide up under the hook when it moves forward.  If the extractor doesn't
hold onto the fired case well enough, the case will slip out slightly on the
way back and will not contact the ejector with enough force to throw it out.

Next you have to look toward the ejector.  The face angle of the ejector
plays a part in directing the case exit.  You may need to adjust the angle
of the front edge.  Also, the length determines when it will be tipped out.

If your slide locks back on the last round fired from a magazine, your slide
should be cycling far enough for the ejector to perform its job.  Only if
the slide closes sometimes would I recommend going to a lighter spring or
heavier load.

You may also find this to be a magazine related problem.  During the time
the case is being extracted, it is also being pushed on from below.  If it
is loosened during this travel, it may not hit the ejector with enough force
to clear the port.  You might try to determine the difference in ejection
between using a full magazine, a couple rounds in a magazine, an empty
magazine and no magazine.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Allen <dallen@gis.net>
To: <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:34 PM
Subject: [bullseye-l] still having trouble with .45

> I am still having trouble with brass getting trapped between the top
> rear of the barrel and the ejection port. This problem started when I
> went to a slide mount from a frame mount. I tried a 10# spring and a
> little heavier load, 4.3 b.e. and 200 gr. swc., but  I still can't seem
> to get the brass past the scope every time.The ejection port has been
> lowered and a new ejector installed but it seems like either the brass
> is not coming out sideways enough or the slide still isn't moving fast
> enough. Very frustrating. Summer season almost here.
> Thanks again,
> Dan

It's interesting how "over the years" the same items take on new meanings.
When those that have gone before, tell us things, we only understand them
within our own belief system.  Frank Green (USAF, Maj?) put out some tapes
years ago (I'm not sure if they're still available) in which he described
starting the trigger action as a conscious event, then letting it proceed by
itself (subconscioulsy).  He said that a big problem was the way the
fundamentals were worded - "Align the sights and cause the hammer to fall
without disturbing the alignment."  He felt that this was backwards - you
should start the trigger and then go to and stay on the sights.  His
description went something like, "Once you consciously start an action, it
will continue until you consciously stop it.  Therefore, you should
consciously start the trigger and then consciously focus on the sights until
the gun fires."  I would venture to ask, "Which order are you using for your
Rapid Fire?"  It takes a dedicated effort to start your trigger before you
see everything lined up.  I first heard the following description from Sgt
Jason Meidinger (USMC).  He explained the activity as, "Racing the dot."  He
said to start the trigger and then try to get the sights aligned and on
target before it goes bang.  Sounds like what Frank Green was describing,
doesn't it?

Take Care,
Ed Hall

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Snyder <msnyder@otherside.com>
To: Bullseye List <bullseye-l@lava.net>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 8:13 AM
Subject: [bullseye-l] Subconscious Trigger Control

> Over the years, I've read many articles and posts about trigger control,
but
> somehow it never really sunk in that the goal of trigger control was to
make
> it a subconscious act. When I'm shooting my best, I just apply initial
> pressure and allow the shot to break. This is a very important part of my
> shot plan, and I wasted many a year trying to "make" the trigger break
> smoothly. Now if I could only get the hang of rapid fire, I'd really put
> together a good score.
>
> Mike
> Bullseye Rules!

Norman (and Others),

If you can send me all the articles that are listed at my site(s), I will gladly put them up so the links can again work.  Although I used to keep all the messages personally, I stopped doing so and  (foolishly) relied on the archive to be the source of all the material.  Unfortunately, the loss has been to much more than just these article, but also to messages containing rules clarifications (CMP responses, etc.) and source information (M9 manual, etc.) so the loss of the archive has dealt quite a blow to my web page.  Additionally, all the posts I've made over the last couple years were not retained by me, since I expected the archive to do that.

Anyway, I had posts by Drs. Norman Wong and John Heiby, Ron Steinbrecher, Allan Bacon, Cecil Rhodes, Grayson Palmer, Jim Poppe, Jack H and Dennis Willing, specifically at:

Hi Norman,

Thanks for the added information.  I'll supply some more from experimentation here:

Some more data - lookout for overload.(smile)

-Free pistol front sight to front of glasses 44 inches
-1911 pistol front sight to front of glasses 36.5 inches
-Both front sights clearer "looking" against subdued surface
-Both front sights blurred against bright surface, but 1911 much worse
-0.50 diopter ClearSight improves both front sights against bright background but both still fuzzy with Free a bit worse

-Rear Sights clearer, but 1911 rectangular notch becomes barrel shaped against the bright surface.  IOW, the top corners seem to constrict toward the front sight.  I can't seem to force that any better.  The Free rear sight is not rectangular so I can't compare.  It is a shallow U shaped sight, or more like the bottom half of an o.  I can clear up the focus of the Free rear sight much more than the front sight against the bright surface.

-In further study of the clarity of the sights against the subdued surface, you may be correct in the assessment that they aren't truly clear there either, but they look a lot better than at the bright surface and the rear sight is definitely rectangular.

-The 1911 rear sight has been opened so there is a good amount of light between the sights.
-With the 0.50 diopter in place I definitely can't bring convergence to the front sight without my brain saying, "What Happened?!?"

-a 0.75 diopter appears the same with the 1911, but a tiny bit worse with the Free although I can still clear up the rear sight with forced focus

Probably enough for now.  Are we getting there yet?  Boy, I'm going to have a big bill by the time Camp Perry comes around again.(smile)

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi Norman,

I'd better supply more info:

The trouble I described hasn't anything to do with the bull, but it does apear to have something to do with my Rx and follows your focus issue thoughts.  It occurs above the bull as I move the sights onto the top of the backer, and it happens when the backer is significantly brighter than the surroundings.  To describe better I just went and got my ball gun out and duplicated the problem here.  I'll describe as best I can.  With my distance Rx, if I hold the gun out at a medium color temperature, plain wood surface, near an incandescent light, I can see a perfect sight image.  If I then move the sights onto a white area of the light base, or onto the white shade of the light, the sights are destroyed.  The illuminated shade is worse than the white base, but neither is anyway near the perfect image I have at the lower light level.  It is impossible for me to clear the sight image up against the lighter surface.  I can't force the image any better at that point.  With my Clears

 ite, I can make the image better against the light, but it doesn't seem quite as good against the somewhat darker area.  It seems with the Clearsight that the image is the same at all the light levels of the background, but not as good as with the distance Rx alone at the darker background.  I probably need to work more with some lenses to figure this out.  Anyway, any further thoughts would be appreciated.

As to my Rx, etc. I'll mention some more details:

I've been using the same distance Rx, (except for a slight change that wasn't supposed to matter, but drove me crazy), for at least the last thirty years.  Uncorrected, my dominant right eye is 20/40 and my left is 20/25.  Corrected, most of the time, both eyes are 20/15.  I say most of the time, because my right dominant eye has had in the past, days where it just doesn't seem to be quite right to me, but measured it still meets 20/15.  The not quite right times were extremely frequent during the above mentioned change that wasn't supposed to be noticed.  That change, I believe, was supposed to be a 3 degree axis change.  A few years ago I started needing bifocals to bring back close up things, when viewing with my distance Rx, however, I have to remove my glasses entirely to work with something as close as a laptop screen.  I have recently noticed that my rigt eye is still clear through my distance Rx down to about 18 inches, but my left eye is now poor closer than three fe

 et.  Without any Rx, both are still clear to about a foot.  I've probably provided much more info than the list needed (or cared about) but I wanted to try to be thorough.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Thanks Richard,

I would expect the CMP armorer to have a gauge.  He's sitting at the Nationals representing the CMP.  But does every "Joe Smith" who's putting on an EIC match at the local Regional/State level have one too?  Some of those "Joe Smiths" won't even know that rule, if they haven't looked in a new book.  And, does the CMP sell these new gauges?  I can't find them.  If not, where is one to look for them?

Take Care,
Ed Hall

-- Richard <staghorn@COX.NET> wrote:

  I have a Springfield Armory ball gun, the factory hammer of which has
no half-cock.  The CMP Armorers at Camp Perry had a gauge that they used
to verify that it doesn't fall too far.

Richard Ashmore

Hi Norman,

I'm wondering if a problem I'm experiencing outdoors is the same or perhaps a different version.  While shooting outdoors with iron sights and my normal distance Rx, I can have a perfect image of the sights against most any background, except a really well lit target.  I'm thinking this is more pronounced if I'm shooting from a darkened cover, but I don't remember for sure, at the moment.  I can hold the sights up into the sky or at a backdrop and then bring them down into the target and as soon as I get the heavy contrast between the sights and the top of the target, the sights wipe out.  Moving back and forth shows good vs. bad, off and on the target.  I don't think I notice it in less brilliant days.  Since this is in full light, as opposed to dim indoor, is this something different, or the same as the other poster's issue?

Thanks again for all.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi Dave,

They changed the rule a little and added something that will be difficult to test at most matches; check the last item.

from the 2005 rule book:

6.3.2(5) All safety features must remain in place and operate properly.  All pistol hammers must have a standard captive halfcock notch that prevents the hammer from falling when the trigger is pulled in the halfcock position or be a series 80-type pistol with a series 80 hammer and fully functional firing pin block or have a series 80-type hammer with a halfcock shelf that does not allow the hammer to fall more than .090".

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Thanks for the detailed reply Norman.  You aren't that much older than I am, are you?  And I'm always patient in waiting for responses.  I take quite some time myself.

Some notes along the subject of my dominance, first.  I have tried many of the different dominance tests over the years, and even forced use of my left eye, to no avail.  However, interestingly, if I do a quick test, often I come up initially between the two.  And then immediately move to the right eye.  The most telling tail is, as I sit here and type, if I raise my finger quickly to point at a position on the screen (which is about four feet away), the left finger (which aligns to the point on the screen) in my binocular image is quite dense in appearance and my right one is quite transparent.  Waiting for the images to shift in their appearance, never allows them to swap intensities fully, although they do reach equality for short time periods.  Times I've forced myself to use my non-dominant eye gave me some real trouble in the form of losing the sights altogether for short intervals.  I had a really good view of my occluder.

I will be doing more experimentation, of course, and thank you for bringing up all this new stuff to add to the mix.  I had, if you recall, brought up the question before about setting the at rest focus to the front sight and whether that would affect convergence, etc.

Again, thanks much for all the info.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi Norman,

Thanks for another fine piece of work written for the betterment of our list.  In reviewing it in detail, as I tend to do, I have found something I think bears further examination.  As you know, I fit a description you gave in a recent post - between 47 and 49, tall with long arms, and of course I will be speaking from that image. Additionally, I am speaking from the use of only my normal distance Rx, since only recently, (with you, at Perry) have I been able to get any benefit from my ClearSight.

In your article, you refer to two sets of images and seem to include two front sights in that explanation.  This goes against my thinking and personal experience in shooting using both eyes.  Although most of my shooting now includes an occluder, it is small and I still use both eyes as a test I'll explain momentarily.

We once spoke of a "triad" which seems to work well for younger eyes, but diminishes as we age.  If I remember right it partially involves triangulation of our eyes to a point, a distance away and the response our eyes make to focus at that point, as well as adjust pupil size.  If I understand that concept correctly, my focus based on triangulation still seems to be intact down to about 18 inches with my distance Rx; about twelve inches with no Rx.

OK, here's where I'm searching.  From my experience, I find that the only time I have true focus on the front sight is when I have both my eyes pointed at it.  This means that I have one front sight and two rear sights, plus two targets.  The single front sight is something I key on to prove focus at that point.  When I shot using both eyes, this is my test for front sight focus.  As I mentioned above, I use an occluder now, but it is small and I still test my focus as before.  When I'm using open sights with the occluder, I will move my head slightly to to be able to pick up the front sight with both eyes to verify focus at that point, and then move back into position holding the focus with my aiming eye.  To me, if I'm seeing two front sights, I'm focused somewhere else.

Again, it seems as though you are advocating two of everything in your article.  Is this based on using a prescription to draw the resting focus to the front sight?  And, wouldn't the loss of triangulation mean the brain would be trying to focus the eye somewhere else?  Wouldn't this set up a conflict?

I would like to add that when I do use both eyes and have my focus on the front sight, it is definitely a better image.  In fact, with the use of both eyes, I can see more of the front sight, because my off eye doesn't have the front sight blocked by the rear sight.  The main reason I currently use an occluder is that my non-dominant eye sees better and I was having trouble with the extra targets.

Thanks again for your continued support to the list.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

The apex is the tallest portion and represents the extreme outline as viewed from the shooter's sighting position.  IOW, it is wherever the highest outline of the silhouetted front sight image comes from in reference to the sight.  This is quite often, but not always, the top of the rear vertical flat of the sight for target sights.  For a sight with a ramp up on the front edge, it would be the highest point visible from the shooting eye during firing.  Wow; did I say it enough ways to be confusing yet?

Take Care,
Ed Hall
 

Since you already checked out everything on the preferences page, this may not be helpful, but I'll send something in hopes...

There are three settings that come to mind:

"Receive your own posts to the list?"

This, of course, determines whether you get things you send. Y/N

"Receive acknowledgement mail when you send mail to the list?"

If you're getting confirmation, this must be working. Y/N

"Avoid duplicate copies of messages?"

This may keep you from receiving a copy depending on whether you're getting the digest version or regular. Y/N

For the three, I'd try Y Y N.  You may already have these set, in which case admin will have to provide more info.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Just some notes:

The file on Bill's site is the one I did.  My name is still in the header.  That's fine.  I'm glad to see it getting around and it's nice it still has a reference to me.(smile)

Yes, there are places that print up the SR1s from file for the shooters to sign when they register.  The ASNPC is one place I see this.  That's also why I have a feature in my Bullseye.xls package that allows you to highlight an NRA number on the shooters sheet and automatically make an SR1 card for them.

For those places that insist on a cardboard copy, I'm a bit confused as to why, but that's their tournament - they make those parts of the rules.  If you still want to do them ahead of time, you can get card stock to print on and you can trim before you go.

The NRA only requires the information now, so you can save postage by sending a combined listing of the necessary information instead of a pack of SR1s.  They do require a mail-in though and justify this by not having an electronic avenue to pay the match fees.  My Bullseye.xls has a feature that constructs a report to send to NRA that meets their requirement for match info.

There are many venues that don't use SR1s at all.  They simply request your initial info (via phone/email/etc.), keep it electronically and request you update with new class and address as necessary.  For these, you call in ahead of time and when you show up, pay your fee and get your scorecards.  All else is taken care of "behind the scenes" by a team of hard workers who put together these matches.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

I received this from NRA and can think of several list members who may be interested.  Instructions for submittal are at the bottom:

Take Care,
Ed Hall

------- original message ---------

R.V. Campground Usage at Camp Perry Survey

It is very possible that Camp Perry will be able to accommodate self- contained R.V.'s in 2006. Base Commander Col. Jim Chisman would like to know if there is any interest by shooters for these R.V. sites. The cost is estimated to be $20 to $30 per night; costs are not firm at this point. Power and water will be available to the sites.

Would you use an R.V. site in 2006?

Yes ____ No____

Do you think that there are shooters that you know that would use an RV site at Camp Perry in 2006?

Yes_____ No____

Would you consider using R.V. facilities in the future?

Yes____ No____

Please pass this question on to other shooters and forums that you access.

Cut and paste your response into an email and send it to: mkrei@nrahq.org

----------- end original message ----------

Hi Guys,

Yes, I'm still out here, and the price is still good.  But, the reason the price seems low is because I'm charging only a little above cost and I'm real slow getting them completed.  (I don't have a stock; I build as they are ordered.)  I just delivered some that were ordered in July.  I've got too many projects all going at the same time, to include the finishing touch on yet a newer (and cheaper/smaller) version that is designed for 50 foot target use.  I have two shooters waiting for me to complete that version.  (They've also been waiting since July.)  For such a simple design, it isn't quite ready to send out.  I'll put it up on my site as a do-it-yourself project as well.  If you don't mind a bit of a wait, let me know if you'd like one, and I'll put you on my list for the next ones out the door, but sorry, I can't even give you an estimate, because I might take a while.  You can find more information on what you get for $220.00 (which includes shipping to lower 48) fro

 m these three .pdfs:

Thanks Tom,

I hadn't considered myself a "top competitor" although I have made it to High Master, which means that at Camp Perry I have a chance of being on the first page of the results.<smile>

I think in this day of the Internet there are lots of sports where one can "converse" with top competitors.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Thanks Al,

I appreciate your message.  The apologies were because I felt them necessary.  I didn't write what I meant to say originally and often big disagreements occur over misunderstandings.  Since I try to be precise in my writings I needed to clarify things.  That way we can have big disagreements with understanding.(smile)

Thanks also for the feedback on my postings.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Just to add to your "possibles" list, here's a site with matches all along the East Coast:

Hi Rich and Tom,

I'll try to intersperse some comments into the specific questions below:

I was wondering if you could elaborate on how you came to shoot the 200-20 in the first place.

[Ed] Basically, it was a fortunate accident.  I didn't do it on purpose.  Although I have shot 10x targets on purpose (my first one was even on purpose), most are simply the result of focusing on proper operation of the trigger.  My goal for this event was to clean the short line for the first time, by operating the trigger properly for each shot.  (I still haven't cleaned it.)

In particular, how much practice you put in,  How many matches you've shot over the summer, and what other mental and physical training regimens you think may have helped achieve this performance.

[Ed] I must confess to having had a small amount of practice of late - once a week league.  I think I shot six 2700s (including Camp Perry) this year.  As to the training aspect, that too has been lacking in time spent.  However, where both training and practice lack as to amount of time spent, I have tried to make up ground in the quality of time spent.  I'm always suggesting that the trigger is the most important part of the operation and that has been my focus for all training, practice and matches.  I am striving to make the trigger consistent, deliberate and straight all the time.  I use the sighting system to observe the purity of the operation.

Do you use a "long roll?" And if so, can you give us some points on why and how you use it?

[Ed] I guess you could say that I have a long roll on my 208s.  I have my first stage weight set pretty high and the second stage set as long as I can, and consider both stages as the travel for the trigger operation.  In a way this gives a "speed bump" to the smoothness of the entire travel, but as long as I've set up a straight operation, it comes together.  I also can use the first stage travel as a check point to see if my trigger operation is pure.  This gives me a possible abort point if I notice it isn't, or a chance to bring everything back in line if it is required.

The most common "why" is to be able to confirm that the trigger operation is, in fact, progressing, not stopped at some point due to hesitation.  In light of this, the proper operation for a roll trigger should be the continuous movement trough the entire travel without any stops along the way.

As mentioned above, I didn't shoot 200-20x on purpose.  I just lucked into having two 10x targets happen when they did.  What I was working on was the same thing I'm always suggesting.  Learn how to operate the trigger in a determined manner from start to finish while using the

sights as a "trigger purity indicator."  I hope this was helpful.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Just some more thoughts to bring out in the ongoing discussion:

Let's address the question of different order for shots or different values for those that don't score X:

The books are full of records that have been achieved by a variety of ways  If one person fires 100-10X + 97-6x and sets the record at 197-16x, and then the next person fires 99-3x + 99-4x, guess what the record is; 198-7x!  The order of Xs and values of individual shots don't make a difference in less than 20x records.  Why should we make them important in greater than 20x records?

Why should we deny a record to someone because they didn't perform "far enough" above the previous performer?  Aren't we being unfair to the shooter who does shoot better than the previous record, but "not far enough?"  If we take that backwards, why should we award records for less than 20 that aren't divisible by 5?  Shouldn't we take all those records like 200-16 and change them to 200-15?  You didn't get that last five, so you don't get any of them!  Is it fair that shooter A gets a record for 200-20x, fires two more Xs which don't count and holds the 200-20x record; now shooter B fires 200-20x and four more Xs that don't count, and becomes a co-holder to shooter A.  He clearly fired more Xs in the last string, but where's his reward?

As we delve into this more deeply I'm beginning to wonder if the 5 or nothing was brought about by the same discussions we're having; the need to score final strings only, but the insistence on sequential Xs.  But why the insistence on sequential Xs?  Perhaps because of the scenario provided by John?  I am beginning to wonder why we only look for additional Xs; why not full score?  Has anyone else noticed that the record sheets have a column titled "+Score" as well as the "+X/10" column which holds the additional Xs?  What's that "+Score" column for?  Looks like it was meant for the additional numeric value of the subsequent strings.  Although it may very well be a leftover column from a different discipline, or from a form thrown together.  I haven't looked everywhere, but I didn't see it used anywhere I looked.

I still pose the questions of why we feel the need to change the rules for those challenging the higher records?  Why do we feel compelled to make it even harder for those in the 20x group?  We don't care about sequential Xs for less than 20.  We don't care about specific values for less than 200.  Why add that to the burden for 200-20x shooters?

One more note as I try to get away from this.  I was asked off line why I feel my accomplishment will be tainted.  It is for this very reason that we are discussing this subject.  Do I deserve a record?  Does it depend on which group you subscribe to?  Actually, it may not.  What if Doc Young shot 200-20x with four more Xs in his fifth string that someone wouldn't let him have because his first shot was a ten, or because he didn't get all five?  Could Doc have fired a fifth string and not hit the X at all?

Take Care,
Ed Hall

This is an unsolicited apology for my misuse of terminology in the recent posts regarding the handling of National Record procedures.  In one of my messages (which has now been copied and distributed numerous times), I inappropriately accused (an) official(s) of cheating.  I would hope that the next sentence in that specific message would help to support my following explanation.  Although I believe a wrong was performed, it was not "cheating!"  The official(s) in question were performing their duties consistent with trying to be fair; quite the contrary to cheating.  In their role of officiating, I'm certain they drew upon experience (theirs and/or others') to make their decision on how to proceed.  It was uncalled for, for me to accuse them of cheating, even if the shooter was effectively "cheated" out of a record.  The fact that it was not an intentional act, should prevent the official from being accused of cheating, as I inappropriately did with my wording.  Again, my in

 tention was different from my words; but my words are what were written.  My sincere apologies to all involved.  May anyone hurt by my words take console in the fact that this entire issue will remain a part of the memory, and taint my achievement, whether I am awarded a National Record or not.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Thanks Ron,

I hope you had a great time up in Maine.

Yes, I was aware of you being the holder of the other 200-20x+3, but was holding your name in reserve for the next round.(smile)  I feel privileged to follow in your footsteps.  Great job, plowing through an alibi and shining forth.

I've also contacted Mr. Piccoli on this subject and he says High Power Rifle seems to have been discussing the same issue, and that he will be placing this matter on the pistol committee agenda for their meeting in October.

To the list members:

My apologies to anyone who feels I flamed them.  This is a chance to make the rules as you see fit.  (Maybe you can get back at me.[smile])  Whichever side of the issue you are on, I suggest you submit your arguments to the committee members.  This is an opportunity to be involved in the process (as Dennis Willing has mentioned in the past).  And, yes, I even invite those arguments for the need for consecutive Xs, if you feel that is a must.  I'm sure there are some who have reasons other than, "that's the way I saw it done."  Dennis Willing, Robert Piccoli and Mike Dane are but a few who may field messages to the topic for inclusion in the discussion at the Committee meeting.  I would hope Dennis has been catching these posts, but we shouldn't assume he has and the archives are down.

Thank you again, Ron.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Thanks for the message, Robert,

I've interspersed the answers below.  I hope I've provided what you requested...

Ed,
first off, congratulations. I would like to hear from you your mindset during the different strings. Did each string feel the same or did pressure mount as you went?

(Ed) Thanks Robert!  I was spending some time writing a long essay on the event, but decided to just answer your questions directly.  There was no pressure until just before the extra five-shot string.  Although I wouldn't call it pressure, there was a distinct distraction of the event throughout the rest of the 2700.

--------------

Did you become aware of your record performance at any time?

(Ed) I'm not sure I understand the question.  I knew 200-20x should allow me a chance to challenge the current record, but I wasn't thinking of 20x prior to the target.

--------------

Was each string nice and steady with smooth trigger control or did you have to "make" shots happen?

(Ed) The four 5x strings were fired as normal with focus on the trigger operation and looked good enough that I was certain they were tens.  The fifth string was quite forced and lacked any cadence.

--------------

Did you scope your target after each string or do you wait to go downrange?

(Ed) I don't use a scope at all any more.  I do have some small binoculars to use if I "just have to."  So I only know the hits when I go down range for the .22.  Sometimes I lose a few points in Slow Fire if my zero is off, but I'm really working on group rather than score.

--------------

Did you KNOW each string was 5X or were you pleasantly surprised each time?

(Ed) I have been shooting high X counts with an occasional 10x here and there, so the first one wasn't extra special, although I did remove it for my collection.  The second target gave a mixture of thought.  Although they were all Xs, three of them were trying to exit the top left of the X-ring.  At that time I got wrapped up in the official being called and the arrangements for the extra string, etc.

--------------

I'm just curious about your rapid fire aggregate score following?

(Ed) Very disappointing!  I have never fired a clean short line and felt that it was going to happen that day, right up until the record challenge string.  I have fired several 599s, but have not yet achieved 600 for the sustained portion.  My first Rapid Fire Match target gave me that darned 9, so I only finished with a 199-17x for the Rapid Fire Match.(smile)

--------------

Did you feel pressure or were you excited from all the extra events taking you out of a regular match sequence?

(Ed) As mentioned above, I felt very distracted for the rest of the entire 2700.  I don't think I had any good runs until the .45 Timed Fire (199-12x).

--------------

I suspect when Zins breaks the 2680 record, that he will say it felt like any other match, no big deal:') What say ye???

Faisal,

I apologize to you directly because it is felt by some (perhaps yourself) that you were the brunt of my Thoughts post. In fact you were part of the inspiration, but not the subject and I will explain for the group.  I will also take a portion from another message to later illustrate further.

When we show (or tell) new shooters how to perform certain routines, or allow our leagues to be relaxed in our rules and don't follow up by supplying the references and the correct procedures for sanctioned matches, we do them an injustice.  It may be inadvertent, and we may mean well, but the end result is misinterpretation.  We've recently had just such a thread as to how "we" do such-and-such at our range being thought by newer shooters as "the" way to do it.  These new shooters will propagate this information until they get to a sanctioned match and find out "it ain't so" in the real world.  We owe it to our new shooters to point them to the source as well as tell them our understanding.  We especially should make it a point let them know of any rules that are relaxed for a league.  An example might be allowing shooters to claim and clear their own alibis in an informal league.  The first time they try it at a match, they may be disappointed.  I'm not saying don't have re

 laxed rules of any sort, but I am saying "teach" the proper way as part of the overall scene.

Now to my illustration:

(Sorry to seem to pick on the poster - I'm not really, but bear with me.)

<snip>
At any rate, I have seen this situation first hand.  This is how it was handled at that particular match.

The shooter who fired the perfect score was set up on line, and one of the line officers aimed a scope at his target before the string of fire began. During the string, his firing was observed as it was impacted--as soon as he shot outside of the X, cease fire was called.  I believe the score was 200/20/1X.  Short 5th string, eh?

<end snip>

In my personal opinion (for what it may be worth), if that was done under the current rules, that shooter was CHEATED out of any extra Xs he might have attained!   The line officer flat out CHEATED!  He probably didn't cheat intentionally;  he probably thought he knew, because that was how he saw it done.  The rule, at least as far back as the turn of the century (smile) clearly states, "...will continue to fire five-shot strings..."  "Five-shot strings" seems pretty darn clear to me.  Where's the reference that tells the line officials to set up scopes and try to determine hits from the bench and stop shooters in the middle of strings and all that other...?  Where's the reference that says the Xs have to be consecutive?

Which brings me to my point.  The poster of this scene "saw" it done that way.  Does that make it right?  What if at your league you allow new shooters to use two hands?  Does that mean they can use two hands at a sanctioned match because they're new?  They saw it done!

We must be careful of what we propagate to the new shooters as well as how we conduct our matches.  That shooter in the above scene may have been able to fire 200-20x+4.  The record for his match might have been 200-20x+2 and he should have been rewarded...

Why do we feel the need to add extra criteria for achievements over and above what the rules say?

Back to Faisal, as a newer shooter: (And a pretty darn good one, at that.  How many other new shooters attain a record within a couple years of starting out?)  He deserves valid and correct information from us.  My apologies again to him for seeming to be the focus of my Thoughts post.  I've received a number of posts off line and on and some were of various flavor along the subject at hand.  These were the prod that moved me.

Basically, I would like to think that the majority of shooters are not vindictive in their intentions, even if they do continue a tradition that has either changed or been misinterpreted over the years.  Sometimes procedures are formed from shooters bringing something from another discipline.  There are differences; like not being able to load your magazines prior to the load command in International.

Anyway, I may be full of it again (there's that brown area in my eye showing up), or I may just be sleep-deprived over worrying whether I'll really be a record holder...  Wait a minute;  I have some albums here.  I can hold a bunch of records, for a little while...

My apologies to the entire list now for possibly seeming to flame anyone or for being too rigid in my convictions, but what are we without those convictions.

Thank you to all the replies I've received, especially if I haven't had a chance to answer any off line messages.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Boy, I sure stirred up a hornet's nest by challenging a record, didn't I?  I would like to ask a question to the list members, for thought, but not to answer openly.  Just mull it over within your own thoughts for awhile and ask yourself why you believe the way you do.

Question to consider:

Why do some of us come down so hard on anybody that seems to achieve anything, that we have to tear apart and scrutinize every detail to the nth degree in an attempt to deny the accomplishment or prove that it isn't warranted, even to the extent of adding extra qualifiers that aren't referenced in any written source?

I don't need an answer, although I will offer a possible one to consider:  That's how we heard it from a respected source, we didn't bother to research it ourselves, and it is human nature to think there must be something wrong with how it was done because we didn't oversee it personally.  (I hold another possible theory - actually a few, but I won't submit them, so you may be free to ponder this for awhile.)

Remember, I'm not concerned with responses, especially any quick turn-around info.  Take awhile with this and really think about it...

Take Care,
Ed Hall

<snip>What pistol and what ammo was used for this national record (which I'm sure it will be)?
 
Norman<snip>

Thanks Norman,

I was shooting my Hammerli 208s with a new slide from Larry Carter.  I have an Ultradot 1" mounted on a modified Knapp mount that I purchased with the pistol in (I think) 2000.

The ammo was my first firing of some Eley Match EPS (totally black box) ammo, that was hand delivered to me at Camp Perry this year by the Match Director for the Twelfth Precinct Pistol Club's State Match.  It seems that wherever I fell in the list of competitors netted me some of this ammo.  Thanks for that delivery, Garrison!(smile)  The EPS style for those that aren't aware, is a blunted nose with a small post in the center.  This style bullet has been said to cause trouble in some autoloading pistols, but my 208s appeared to like it.(VBG)

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the note.  You may be right, but that's not the way the current rules read.  You may have missed a large list discussion on this very topic many months ago.  I'm banking that the +5x records you're seeing are left from a time when things were done differently, either due to a different set of rules, by shooters who "saw" it done a different way and didn't know any better or by shooters that don't read the rules.  I've heard the suggestion that you have to set up scopes and stop the count as soon as the X is missed the first time and similar things.  But that isn't what the rules say; at least not the current rules.  They allow you to fire five more shots and count the X's.  Five X's allow you to continue - but you don't have to.  I would find it rather odd that they only allow X's that are fired in a row, or only in groups of five when the records are full of scores like:

.22 caliber Civilian NMC  300-23
 CF Police SF (reduced)   195-13
 CF Open NRA Short Course 298-17
.45 Civilian RF (Indoor)  200-16
.45 caliber Civilian TF   200-20+3

Notice the last one, which was chosen on purpose.  The same score fired in the same match in a different caliber.

So I don't see a reason why they would discount my +3 when they don't seem to mind other X counts that aren't based on a five count, but then again, one never knows.  It was fun to challenge the record whether I get 200-20+3, 200-20 or nothing at all...

By the way, Faisal did a great job of explaining the way a record challenge is conducted.  It was just like the way it seemed when Bob Picolli and I discussed the subject at Camp Perry a few years ago.

Please don't feel I'm not grateful that you brought this up.  I appreciate your input.  You have been bringing some great info to the group and I thank you for it, and this one, as well.

We'll see what, if any, official word comes of the submittal.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi Dave and Norman,

Thanks for the messages.  I appreciate them. I've no explanation for the bounces.

As for the size of the target, we took a newer shooter to his first Outdoor match that day, and I had (more than once) been explaining to him prior to the match how "HUGE" the target was compared to the 50 foot one he's used to.  (We even walked down to the 50 and 25 yard target lines and discussed the target differences that morning.)  Some of that thought probably helped me too.(smile)  BTW, he fired his Indoor average for his first Outdoor .22 and is seriously considering bringing a bigger gun for the Center Fire portion next time.

Thanks again, guys!

Take Care,
Ed Hall
 

Thanks, B754020 and Faisal, (and all),

<snip>Was this indoors or outdoors?<snip>

It was with that "Huge" 25 yard Outdoor target.  You know, the one with such a big X ring, you can't miss it...(VBG)  Thanks again, guys!

Take Care,
Ed

Hey TG,

I guess everyone is too busy with all those ammo intricacies to give you any advice.<smile>

The first thing I would do is sit down with your results bulletins and see where the discrepancies lie.  Is the difference across the board or more apparent in a certain stage, perhaps Slow Fire.  From that research consider whether it may be a mechanical or a training issue.  For example, if your .45 scores are considerably lower at 50 yards, but not too different at 25, maybe you need to check your gun/ammo.  If your SF is not too different, but your Rapid Fire is the wide discrepancy, maybe you need to check your grip and trigger finger placement.  If your scores are just down overall with no particular area more or less different, you probably just need more training time with the .45, specifically in the area of trigger operation.

You may also have slipped into a mental limitation if you're expecting to have lower .45 scores.  This one may be difficult to work out, but basically you will need to convince yourself that you shoot the .45 as well, or better, than the .22.

I expect to be at Castleton on Saturday.  Will you be there?  Maybe we can discuss this a bit more over lunch.

Take Care,
Ed Hall
 

I don't have any official information, but the fact that it was removed from the general section of an earlier printing and placed in the specific 9mm section, suggests that it is no longer approved for use on the 1911.  There is something more to think about.  The width of the grip on the 1911 has been reduced to 1.3 inches from 1.5 inches.  It is common practice to take grip tape under the front edge of the grip panels to help secure it.  Depending on how this is done (extra shimming is often needed to keep from splitting the panel), it can increase the overall width beyond the allowable dimension.  Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

Take Care,
Ed Hall   

It is correct that they have been working on their newest FAQ for quite some time and if you use their FAQ link from the competitions page at:

The CMP has a FAQ at:

My incident wasn't .32 caliber, but was extra holes causing confusion at Perry.  I was firing my Model 19.  It was my first (and only, so far) attempt at reloading .38s for a match, but not my first Reeves which added to my disappointment that year - no T-Shirt. <boo-hoo>  For mine, the fact that something was amiss was quite apparent prior to seeing the hits during scoring; much more dramatic than simply finding extra holes.  Also, the hits were far dispersed with two way high and two way low.  I used 2.5 of BE behind a Speer 148 HBWC, but I used MAGNUM PRIMERS, which apparently led to the trouble.  The skirt interference for those rounds caused excessive report and recoil.  They started happening during Timed fire - Bang -Bang - Bang - BOOM - Bang, Bang - Bang - BOOM - Bang - Bang!  The extra holes were only slightly elongated and all seemed good hits.  I had no idea what was going on and took a refire for excessive hits.  The problem got worse as I progressed though and by

  the time I was finished with Rapid and the Refire it was happening quite regularly.  I left Perry confused as to what was going on, but having checked the gun over well, happy there seemed to be no damage.  After lots of study and conversations with many, I decided the MAGNUM PRIMERS gave me too much ignition with the 2.5 BE, which was well within normal range for that combination.

I've since moved to firing the 158 LRN for both matches, however, I didn't do as well this year as the Federal wadcutter has allowed me to in the past - again, I'm shirtless...

Take Care,
Ed Hall         

Hi Reggie,

August 27/28 2700

with a free practice NMC after the match for hardball or revolver firing

September 24/25 NYS Outdoor Championship (one of three venues)

with CMP Service Pistol Match and NRA Distinguished Revolver Match

Take Care,
Ed Hall

<snip>
Just wondering what older(60+) do to maintain a level of profeciency that they had in earlier years?
<snip>

<snip>
I had asked Steve Reiter the same question while at Perry last month.  His routine is much like mine.  Upper body exercise becomes more important than before and DRY-FIRING to improve/maintain trigger control is absolutely ESSENTIAL!  Other than that, practice - practice - practice.

<snip>

Not to flame, but just to add some thought to the above:

"practice - practice - practice" for Steve Reiter means "practice - practice - practice" shooting tens!

"practice - practice - practice" does help "maintain a level."

Be sure that's what you're after...

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Try checking this post in the archives:

Hi Listmembers,

A few times I've had requests for a book or compilation of things I've posted.  I even enjoyed some requests at Camp Perry the last couple of years.  (Thanks to all who offered encouragement.)  Although I have no current plans for writing a book, I did at least sit down and look over some of my archived posts and came up with a list of messages mostly pertaining to my viewpoints on training and fundamentals.  I've tried to weed out most of the other types of posts I've put forth.  These posts are a compilation of originals and replies and I suggest studying the complete threads on many of the topics by using that archive feature.  Anyway, for anyone interested, I've placed the list of posts at:

"Has anybody made their own Targer Turner?"

Yeah, lots of them.<smile>

"I found Ed Hall's plans on his site. Very good! I like the use of cost effective materials (camera tripod & wiper motor) but needed a picture on how all the washers and bolts go together."

Thank you, but your description sounds like the older version.  The newer version doesn't include the tripod and is down to using only one washer mounted directly on the bracket.  It is much simpler in its design and I find it easier to construct (as well as less costly).  The project at the site is only a suggestion to get folks going.  You can be pretty free with the modifications and may need to research out alternate parts.  The only downfall to the new system is that the motor is now right below the frame.  An errant shot can catch the machinery easier.

The newer version is here:

This is to answer the originator's question:

Each member has a configuration setting accessible by going to the page linked at the bottom of all the messages under the heading of "Member Options Page:"

At the bottom of the page brought up by this link is a field where you can enter the email address you're subscribed under.  You will also need your password.  If you don't know what it is, you can have it sent to to your subscribed email account.  Unless you've turned off the option, you already get a monthly reminder that looks like the one the list receives:

You might want to check out these posts in the archives:

Hi Neil,

I can't get your link to work, but if I go to

Thanks for all the replies and for the verification, Neil.  So those of you in the MD/VA area could have quite a weekly schedule, if time were to permit it:

Mon - 60 round league at NRA HQ
Tue - 90 round league at Associated Gun Clubs
Wed - 180 round league at 12th
Thu - 180 round league at Anne Arundel
Fri - reloading session
Sat - 180 round league at 12th or 2700 nearby
Sun - 90 round league at Anne Arundel or 2700 nearby

Unfortunately, Ron, I actually live in a somewhat Match Challenged area as you've desribed.  The closest matches are three hours away and only three Outdoor and three Indoor during the year.  That's one of the things that make traveling to MD/VA each spring/summer the fun it is.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

I recently returned from a trip to the most "Bullseye Competition" rich region I'm aware of.  Picture an area that has three 1800s EACH WEEK throughout the year, combined with a 90 shot and a separate 60 shot league EACH WEEK (possible extra 90 round practice league each week), add in a weekly 2700 almost continuously from May through September (some large events with big prizes), all within about ninety minutes of each other and you have a good description of the region.  If you'd like to know more, read on and I'll give some extra details:

NRA Distinguished Pistol Match

should read

NRA Distinguished Revolver Match

in my previous post...

Sorry 'bout that...

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi Reggie,

The Castleton Fish & Game Protective Association will be hosting a regional on 25/26 June.

I believe the schedule is set to fire the 2700, a CMP EIC Match, an NRA Distinguished Pistol Match and Team Matches each day.  The two days are then combined into the overall Match results.

>From the NRA website:

Just a note that the CMP Trophies are on line, but I haven't found a way to navigate to them from the home page.  Unless you know where they are, I don't think they can be found via the CMP site.  They are located at:

The new rule book is up and now includes some of the material from their earlier supplemental file.  You can download the pdf file from:

This is just a reminder that the Maryland State Match will be held this weekend.

--------original text--------

Final reminder for the Maryland 2005 Outdoor Conventional Pistol Championships.
Hosted by the 12th Precinct Pistol Club in Harwood (Davidsonville) Maryland.
Full 2700 on each day - Saturday June 11   & Sunday June 12.

Distinguished Revolver match following the 2700 on Saturday, and EIC Leg match following the 2700 on Sunday.

Top prize is again a MARVEL Conversion unit!!
Class 1st place winners will receive a beautiful etched glass and wood trophy, and Ammo prizes for Class 1st and 2nd.
(Second place trophy when class exceeds 10 competitors)

Ammo includes brick(s) of Eley 10x EPS, Federal UltraMatch, SK Jagd Pistol Match, Sk Jagd Standard Plus and more!

--------end original text----------

I have the Program flyer on line at:

Hi Reggie, and Listmembers,

I'm not sure if you have their list of suggested lodging or not, but in addition to Forest Motel, they include the following suggestions in their Program Flyer:

Knights Inn  1-800-843-5644  = Located on route 40, about 1 mile west of 695 beltway exit 15.  About 20 minutes from the range.

Holiday Inn  1-410-799-7500  = Columbia, MD

Sheraton Columbia Hotel  1-410-730-1290  = Colmbia, MD

The first thing I would do is to study the why before doing any modifications to anything.  There are a few things to check.

This is a re-submittal of a post from the archives at

I'm not aware of the wording of your Sectional rules but classes will be combined upwards only.  IOW, if you have less than the award number in a particular class, they will be moved upward, never downward.  That leaves the HM class with nowhere to go, however it should not restrict the MA from moving upward into the HM class.

Rule 19.8 second paragraph:

"When there are insufficient entries in any class to warrant an award in that class according to the match program conditions, the individual or team concerned may be moved by the Tournament Match Director to a higher class provided this change is made prior to the individual or team concerned having commenced firing in the tournament."

There is nothing in the wording to restrict lower classes from being combined upward into the HM class, however, technically, any moves are supposed to be made before the match begins.  In practice this is not workable for matches across several days because you wouldn't know until the final day how many competitors were in each class, and you could theoretically hold a match that had no class awards given at all.  Wouldn't that foster return competitors?  Most match programs make mention of the pending move if fewer shooters enter a class.

Having written all of the above, note that the new rule 19.8, first paragraph, restricts voluntary upward class entry to MA and below:

"Competing In a Higher Class - Any individual or team may elect, before firing, to compete in a higher classification, except the classification of High Master, than the one in which classified. Such individual or team must fire in such higher class throughout the tournament and may not revert to earned classification for any event in that tournament."

This rule is probably why the officials at Camp Perry wouldn't let me move into my new HM class a couple years ago, until I could prove to them I had a High Master card.

I see no reason lower classes can't be combined upward into the HM class for any matches unless there is additional information not yet available in the rule book/changes.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

For most CF, I would say badly? - NO, but damaged? - YES.

The 1911 can suffer a cracked (or broken) firing pin stop or a broken firing pin.  I have found a cracked stop on several 1911s.  Most shooters will never notice this unless it fails entirely and breaks in two.  If you'd like to check for the telltale crack, look very closely at the area where the cutout for the ejector comes in close proximity to the firing pin hole.  You might even feel it with a fingernail.  This crack appears long before the stop would fail since there's a lot more metal on the other side, but I replace the stop as soon as I find that crack.

I've also broken several firing pins in both CF and RF pistols over the years.

I don't personally consider it a frequent enough problem to use snap caps/dry fire plugs in anything other than my 208s (which breaks pins even with the dry fire plug).  I just carry an extra pin and stop in my gun box.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

-----Original Message-----

Are snap caps "required" or "recommended" for dry firing center fire
pistols?  I know that on .22's (rimfire) you should, but I have not seen on
this
list people talking about snap caps for CF.  I was at a gun show  this
weekend
and a guy was selling CF snap caps and he said you could badly  damage your
CF
if you did not use these.  Thanks,

Lloyd

I (and others) have several prior posts in the archives.  I've listed some of mine below.  They include info on other systems as well.

My personal experience, using it for myself, as well as acting as a coach for others, is that one of the better results is if you can use it to improve your perception of your dry fire, and then carry that perception into your live fire.  For me, after a short while using the system, I gained a real appreciation of how detailed you can be in your observation of dry fire shots.  I began to be able to mentally see all the details as the shot progressed and then verify what I saw via the Rika.  At that point I didn't really need the Rika any longer to study my dry fire.  However, the Rika can remember the details of my patterns for a much longer time and aggregate the shots.  I still go back and look at my data from time to time.  I also still use it to work on certain items, and as I mentioned, I use it with other shooters.

The Rika can be a very valuable tool, but it can also be frustrating at times.  As someone else mentioned, there are some moments when a coach is a definite benefit, especially when you can't figure out what to modify to effect a particular change.  A coach may say look here, when without a coach, you may be looking at too many aspects at once.

I consider the Rika the best value of this type of training system, but of course, only the individual can determine whether the cost is within their budget.

Serious questions to consider:

- How much time do you put into dry firing right now?
- How much time would you put into dry firing with the Rika?
  this is important - the Rika may provide the interest
  needed to "get you to train," but it might also gather
  dust after the "newness" wears off.

Here are some of my prior posts:

Hi Neil,

Try this link:

Sorry if I seem to be picking on you Ed (this is not really meant that way), but why are you trying for a

"smooth and slow" trigger operation?

Slow often equates to tying to be too careful and often leads to a series of hesitations based on good/bad judgments of the development of the shot through visual indications.  IOW, you'll often keep trying to correct the sights, with a corresponding hesitation in the trigger.  The optimum is a "smooth fast" trigger which can be performed without misalignment of the sighting system.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Meant in fun (with a touch of truth)

Actually, Ron, I know the three points you're trying to pick up are the last three available, and that's where the difficulty lies.<smile>

Since you can't get above the 300 limit, there's a natural block that prevents the average from getting there unless you are always shooting 300.  In the case of my 290 average It is comprised of 285 through 295 such that it forms 290.  If I suddenly had to adjust all my 290+ scores to 290, that average would fall to around 287, leaving those darned last three points very difficult to obtain.

Why am I (a High Master Outdoor) only averaging 290?  Because I'm only a Master Indoor and my current mental attitude keeps me there.  I can, and have shot 299, I can and have cleaned the 50' Slow Fire target, but my attitude will adjust my other scores to put me back to 290 because 291 is High Master.  As soon as I can put forth the correct attitude change, I'll step up Indoors as well.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Thanks John (and Bob) for the formula.  I hate to say this (not really :-), but it looks a lot like what I put in the other reply I posted.  There are several points to bring up, though.  Sorry Norman, but you only use one bullet diameter instead of two.  This is because to adjust, you need to change the circle to the center of a bullet that just touches the ring, therefore it would be one-half the diameter all around the circle.  This totals two-halves across the circle, or one full bullet.

The next point is that there is only one reduced target for each distance, but several bullets used.  I'll give you some results below for the 25 yard reduced and then the 50 foot reduced Slow Fire targets, and for you die-hards, I'll even move to the nine ring .<smile - do take this all light heartedly>

The numbers per the NRA formula:

Dsr = 5.54" [9-ring ;-(]
Db  = .22", .45", .357", .335" (average of .22 + .45)
F   = .5
Ro  = 50 yd
R   = 25 yd

M   = 2.66" (.22")
M   = 2.545" (.45")
M   = 2.5915" (.357")
M   = 2.6025" (.335")

Actual ring size is 2.60"

Speculation only, but I would conclude the NRA used an average between the .22 and the .45 round to reduce the Slow Fire target from 50 yards to 25 yards (B6 to B16)

Now let's recheck the value for 50 feet:

Dsr = 5.54" [9-ring ;-(]
Db  = .22", .45", .357", .335" (average of .22 + .45)
F   = .3333333333...
Ro  = 150 ft
R   = 50 ft

M   = 1.7" (.22")
M   = 1.54666..." (.45")
M   = 1.60866..." (.357")
M   = 1.62333..." (.335")

Actual ring size is 1.54"

Hmm, there is a difference of 0.16" for the .22! That's more than a whole tenth of an inch!!  It's greater than four millimeters!!!

To be serious, it does look like they used some different criteria for the 50 foot reduction since 1.54" does not fall within the range between .22 and .45.  Just for grins and to humor an Outdoor High Master, let's go back to the ten ring and see what numbers we come up with now:

Dsr = 3.36" [10-ring ;-)]
Db  = .22", .45", .357", .335" (average of .22 + .45)
F   = .5
Ro  = 150 ft
R   = 50 ft

M   = 0.97333..." (.22")
M   = 0.82" (.45")
M   = 0.882" (.357")
M   = 0.89666..." (.335")

Actual ring size is 0.90"

Note: These are the same numbers I had in my previous post ;-)

By golly, I think I've hit on something.  The difference in the ten ring size is greater than seventy-three thousandths inch for the .22.  That means it's less of a difference than the nine ring.  If I read this correctly, the ten ring is closer to a true conversion than the nine ring is.  That should mean it would be easier to duplicate tens at fifty feet than nines.  Sounds like a good reason to move one's focus back to the gun.<big smile>

As a last point, I'd like to bring up the fact that Indoor and Outdoor are two different disciplines.  Although extremely similar, even with scores within 5% between the two, it is a different discipline.  We shoot many different disciplines across our ranks to include various International events.  Each has its own set of rules and may or may not use another discipline's targets.  Free Pistol is an International discipline that has some really large differences in target ring sizes from our familiar ones.  The scores are not comparable even a little with conventional.  But, you know what?  All those scores are only compared within the same discipline, just like Indoor and Outdoor have their own set of records.  Although we may try to compare our Indoor and Outdoor scores individually, all our scores are only compared within the same discipline when competition arises.

As a final note, I would again suggest moving into the realm of the gun and working with the study of how your trigger operation affects the alignment of the sighting system.  My interpretation of the time honored shot description:  Learn to use the sights as a purity gauge for your trigger operation.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Please take this in the manner of jest it is intended:

First, I'd like to note that when I approached this math problem with the first post mentioning the size difference, I went directly to the ten ring without even thinking of any others (HM thinking?).  I've since noticed a lot of other references to smaller numbered rings (credits to Larry Lang and David Daniels for trying to move the mass into the ten).  I've been watching the development and finally felt compelled to interject some thoughts:

<snip>AND NOW YOU HAVE THE COMPLETE AND TRUE STORY!<snip>

Not quite!

To complete the analysis it is necessary to factor in the bullet sizes since they do not reduce as the target rings do.

In reality the "effective" size of the full size outdoor targets' ten rings are 3.58" for .22 and 3.81" for .45.  These are the numbers to examine when reducing.  For the .22, if we now reduce 3.58 (50 yards) to 50' we get 1.1933 inches.  But, wait!  Now we must adjust for the bullet again, but in the other direction.  After adjustment the .22 size is .9733 inch.

If we do the same for the .45 we start with an effective size of 3.81" and find an adjusted ring size of 0.82 inch.

Since the actual size of the 50' Slow Fire ten ring is .9" it just happens to fit right in between the two adjusted values of .9733" for 22 and 0.82" for .45.  This would tend to support the theory of the target being (only slightly) more difficult for .22 competitors, but it also means that the .45 competitors have a pretty good advantage.

But, wait again!  There's even more.  The deviation of the bullets in their flight path does not progress linearly.  It progresses parabolically, which means the deviation at 50' would be significantly less than at greater distances.  Perhaps someone would like to work with those numbers to find that an even more precise value for the ring would be closer to its current size for .22 and give an even greater advantage for the .45.

My recommendation, like others, is to move back from the target into the gun by way of its sighting system, study how to operate the trigger to achieve the desired results, and study only the ten ring when evaluating. <smile>

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi Brian,

Just a note to mention that I've added a .pdf version to the formats for Dr. Wong's article.  Thank you to the list member that did the conversion.  It is the best looking and printing of the offered formats and should provide for a more professional looking document.  Since it looks as good as it does, I may very well delete the others.

It can be downloaded directly from

Larry Carter strongly opposes the use of any solvents in the 208s because they can/will get into the sear/hammer area and wash out the special moly lube.  This will result in premature wear of the sear, a rather expensive part.  The sear surface has a crosshatch pattern that holds the moly lube.  Without the lube, the crosshatch will be destroyed.  I have some cleaning, lubricating and adjustment information from a session with Larry Carter that explains his recommendations located at:

I was going to write up some info to elaborate on this, but there was a good thread on scope height above bore in relationship to the crossover points back in November of 2001.  I started that thread with the message at

In rereading the thread, I need to make some notes for the list.

First, the original intent, as I seem to see it now, was to point out the difference in drop between the different velocities and Jim Poppe's observation was right on as to the difference in drop between the two velocities.  The difference in drop between 850 and 750 is only 1.6728 inches in my calculations.

I'm sorry for the confusion on all of this.

I was also going to comment along the lines of what Karl has now mentioned and have done so in the past, as to the dis/advantages of scope distance above bore for different velocities, such that the crossover points at 25 and 50 yards, between the up and down portions of the trajectory, can coincide with the sighting system.

I'm pressed for time right now, but can elaborate later if anyone is interested.  (Or you might find it in the archives.)

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hi Jim,

First, I really enjoyed your post on "Short Cuts to Master..."  Thanks for the great info.  I hope you don't mind that I added it to a page of links I have at my site so it can be found a bit more easily than searching the archives.  (I obviously promote its reading.)

Now to the subject at hand.  Here are my workings:

I actually used a transit time of .172 second in my original calculations in my article, due to disregarding the slow down over the distance.  Let me see how this works out if I take it step-by-step through again.

850 fps = 850 feet each second
The distance of observation is 50 yards which = 150 feet
If we divide 150 feet by 850 feet we should get transit time

150/850 = .17647 second plus a tiny bit
Let's use .177 second.

Objects fall in line with the following formula:

distance = (1/2) X (the rate of acceleration (32.17ft/s/s)) X (time in seconds) X (time in seconds)

Written in numbers using .177 this should look like:

distance = .5 times 32.17ft/s/s times .177s times .177s

or

distance = .5 x 32.17 x .177 x .177

The seconds are going to cancel themselves out and leave feet (ft) as the resulting unit (distance)

Multiplying the above numbers results in:

.5039 plus a tiny bit
Let's say .504
This value is still in feet, so if we adjust for inches by multiplying by 12

.504 x 12 = 6.048

This should show that a projectile at 850 fps traverses 50 yards in .177 second and drops approximately 6 inches.

This is the drop value that ballistics calculators show for these inputs.

Thanks for the reply and I look forward to many more posts from you.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Hmm,

I may be stepping on my tongue here (or maybe my fingers), but could you guys check on your figures one more time?

I wrote an article quite a few years ago about the affects of cant in BE shooting, and my figures (for an air-frictionless sample) gave a drop of just less than six inches for 850 feet per second.  The article is at

This is just a note for those who may not be aware that CMP has the Distinguished Shooter Lists for International, Rifle and Pistol on their website.  Everyone, except the Air Force, has been incorporated into their lists.  (We've been working the AF Distinguished with them since 1998, but that's another issue.)  Anyway, the lists are at:

Congratulations, Jack,

That's great to hear!  It's nice to see all the work you've been putting in has paid off.  (And I like Roddy's description of how he got you to the meeting.<smile>)

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Welcome back into the game, and thanks for the history.  If you happen to have any Air Force notes from back then, please send them to me.  I'm trying to add history items to the AF Team site.

I liked a lot of the responses I read on your topic (especially that from Cecil Rhodes), but of course I'd like to add some more and different perspective to the picture.

First, as you were quite aware of back in your iron sight days, the alignment of the sighting system was of prime importance.  It showed you what was going on at the gun.  What's happening at the gun is still of primary importance.  In comes dot sights.  My recommendation stands at learning to compare the dot to the tube rather than the dot to the target.  When you used iron sights, you were very aware of the sights and less so of the target.  The sights didn't show that much wobble, and with the target blurred, you didn't perceive as much movement in reference to the target.  The same will happen with the dot if you work at it.  My best suggestion for this work is the same you did with the iron sights; dry fire against a blank wall working with dot to tube relationship in mind.  Many will say it doesn't matter where the dot is in the tube because most are parallax free, but parallax isn't the issue.  The purity of the trigger is the issue and this can be seen in how the dot

 reacts within the circle of the tube just as it can be seen in how the front sight reacts within the cutout of the rear.

Let's take a brief side step to the perceived movement of the dot to target.  With both in focus and comparing the dot to the target we see all kinds of motion.  This motion was there for irons, but not as noticeable.  The good news is that it isn't as bad as it looks.  We are really perceiving a very attention getting bit of light dancing all over the place, and we are also over critical of how far it "seems" to be from center.  The dot has width to it just as the front sight has width and they can't really be compared to the width of the bull that is 49-50 yards further away because of convergence.  If you were to mathematically and optically compare the very center of the dot to the actual pinpoint of its placement on the target, you would find it isn't as far out as we perceive it.  Additionally, as you are already aware, most of your actual hold is within those extremes by a clear margin, which gives you much better odds of shots well within the hold extremes.  In effect

 , your hold is much better than you perceive.

So my recommendation is to place the dot pattern over the bull and move your attention into the tube while you operate the trigger in the manner you did with irons sights.

Again, welcome back and good luck with your studies of the "new" sights.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

There is a brief description of the Air Force Distinguished Program at

I thought I'd toss some more ideas out for those who would like to study these subjects in more depth.

Since I consider Trigger Operation as "numeral uno" in the equation, let's start there.  What is a good trigger operation?  Some may describe it as a smooth, straight back, uninterrupted movement of the trigger until the hammer falls.  This is a good definition, but does it go far enough?  It doesn't address the speed of this, "smooth, straight, uninterrupted" description, or does it?

I like to suggest that the operation be on the faster side rather than the slower side.  In fact, I suggest that you find your "proper trigger operation based on the one you'll use in sustained fire.  There are a couple reasons for this:  First, it is the operation you'll use for sustained fire.  Second, it will show you more clearly the results of your trigger operation in dry fire.

Let's look more in depth at the actual manipulation itself.  If you spend time dry firing, what are you actually trying to achieve?  (You do have a goal for your session, right?)  Let's consider your goal as practicing your trigger operation to ingrain a "smooth, straight, uninterrupted" movement.  What's the normal procedure for our dry fire?  Is it to bring our safety checked, unloaded gun, up to a bull on the wall at some distance and bring the trigger back as carefully as we can while maintaining that optimum sight picture?  Or is it to bring our safety checked gun up against a blank wall and bring the trigger back without hesitation and observe what the sighting system does?

I like to suggest that you study the trigger operation starting with how fast it should be.  One to two seconds should be long enough.  If you hold the gun up bringing the trigger back for six seconds, are you really increasing the pressure steadily, or are you trying to only increase it when the sighting system looks good?  In the "Pistol Shooter's Treasury" Bill Blankenship talks about training at home such that he could obtain the fastest trigger operation possible that wouldn't disturb his sights.  How would you personally describe your trigger training?

If you are bringing the trigger back slow and carefully, are you really learning to bring it back "smooth, straight and uninterrupted," or are you masking the trigger results with your focus on keeping the sights aligned?  I believe that if you want to improve your trigger operation, you should learn to observe what the sights do when you operate the trigger and adjust your trigger manipulation such that it enhances the sight alignment.  Learn to bring the trigger back "smooth, straight, uninterrupted and somewhat fast (deliberate)" and observe the sighting system.  If the sights misalign, stop and start again with a slightly different trigger approach.  When you meet the desired results, practice the operation.

OK, I spent a lot of time on the trigger operation, but I really believe that it is the most important single item and the old description of "causing the hammer to fall without disturbing the sight alignment" means to use the sighting system as what I call "a trigger purity indicator."  IOW, use the reaction of the sighting system to refine your trigger operation.

To Dry Fire:  As I mentioned above, I like to focus on the trigger operation for dry fire training.  I like to start from a very basic point - the movement of the trigger to release the hammer.  With a safety checked, unloaded, gun pointed in a safe direction, I operate the trigger without looking at the sighting system until I can get a feel for what the operation entails.  You would be surprised at how fast the hammer falls!  I then move to trying to match that operation while observing the sighting system.  My, how the trigger slows when we start looking at the sights!  I try to get the two operations to match.  Finally, I move to adding a bull and again try to get all the trigger operations to match.  This is the trigger operation I practice.

On to Follow Through:  What good is holding the pistol on target after the bullet is downrange?  Well, of course the answer is none, if you're really talking about after the bullet is downrange.  But, our subconscious activities cover a huge array of things that we have to watch out for.  One is the anticipation of the shot happening.  We all know how that can affect the trigger operation, but it also affects other things.  One is our preparation of what to do after the shot is fired.  Unfortunately, sometimes we start doing it just a tad early.  It's difficult to catch the timing on this during recoil, but a lack of follow through manifests itself in our reaction to recoil, just an instant before it actually happens.  This manifestation may be in the form of a slight relaxation or even as a recovery before the fact.  So the answer to "What good is it?" is that it allows us to stay fully on track through the entire important portion of the shot.

How do you train for Follow Though?  Do you let the gun do what it will in recoil?  Do you yank it back to the center?  Well actually, either of these operations might be too extreme.  The best way to practice Follow Through is back in your dry fire training.  When the hammer falls, let the gun sit there for a second while you study what the sighting system did at the fall.  Then move to your next dry fire shot.

Other Thoughts:  We all want to perform good strings of sustained fire.  I prefer to suggest building from one shot forward to achieve those good strings in less time.  The trigger operation you practice in dry firing should be the one you use for live firing.  Your training for sustained fire should include that trigger operation.  The training should also be built from the first shot forward.  IOW, train for the first shot until it is always where you want it, before adding in the second one.  What good is practicing how to shoot outside of where you want?  Then, add in additional shots as appropriate.  Be sure to work with your "smooth, straight, uninterrupted, deliberate" trigger operation.

All comments welcomed...

Take Care,
Ed Hall

This will probably go against many of the ideas expressed on the list, but is not intended as a "you're wrong - this is right" post, simply an opinion offered to promote thought and possibly discussion (flames?) on the subject as it relates to areas of our "art" of pistol shooting.

First, I'll revisit my stand on training and such for those that may not be familiar with my viewpoint.  I believe there are old, tried and true methods for reaching the upper levels of our sport, but I also believe there are improvements for many of those methods.  I consider many training procedures as indirect and negative in their approach, and therefore, suggest alternatives for our time-starved lifestyle of today.

As older listers will remember, I believe in focusing on those things that work and removing from our process, those things that yield less than optimum results.  Unfortunately, much of our lives are governed by an "error analysis and correction" attitude.  This is ingrained throughout our external learning from an early age.  We are taught to learn from our errors; IOW, study them.  This does work and may seem necessary in some instances, but I believe some of those error correction routines can be modified into refinement routines, not just in our discipline, but in many areas of life.  I'd also like to suggest, that sometimes it's quicker to rewrite from scratch than try to fix all the errors, even though fixing all the errors may be doable.

Once we create a mental program and practice it for any length of time, it is recorded in its present form.  It is very difficult to change something within the "recording."  The most sure method is to create a new program from scratch leaving the old one intact, but unused.  Mentally, this also allows for the old one to be a comfort blanket that is available untouched, "in case the new technique doesn't work out."  This is why I suggest going all the way back to the start and studying the trigger application from its very basic form forward.  It is sometimes both easier and quicker to start afresh than to jump out of a practiced routine at some point.

Now, let's turn our focus back to our tried and true error correction method for improving our shooting skills.  Our first task is to identify a problem.  Next, we analyze it.  Then we study it and try to come up with a set of solutions.  After we form our set, we must test each solution to see if it has merit.  Finally, if a particular solution works, we must determine how to implement it and we're set.  Let me break this down with some comments (opinions).

- "I have a problem!"

- "What am I doing wrong?  Let's look for it and focus in on it and make it happen enough that I can recognize it."  Sometimes we bring others into the search.  "Help me find what I'm doing wrong."  We as helpful peers tell the shooter all kinds of errors to look for.  We might even get the shooter to study errors they weren't originally experiencing.

- "OK, now I've got it where I can recognize my true error and do it enough that I now know exactly what I'm doing wrong.  Now that I've practiced it thoroughly enough, how do I stop doing it?"  This can even be a high point in our lives that we can tell everyone about.  "I've figured it out now!  I know exactly what I'm doing wrong!"  Congratulations!<grimmace>

- "OK, I have a list of things to try.  But, how long should I try each of these to see if they actually correct my error?"

- (much later)  "OK, that fixed that one.  What other errors can I practice?"

As you may be able to see from the way I worded the above, I consider this method as the long way.  I don't disagree with its ability to produce good results.  It has worked for many great shooters of the past and present.  But most of those shooters had/have adequate time for this method.  I think for the rest of us, we need to find a less time consuming approach, and I believe it can be found in focusing on what brings us the results we seek and leaving behind those behaviors that produce results other than what we seek.

My suggestion is to spend available study time focused on what activities cause desired results.  Move toward improving and refining those as you progress.

Let's take another aside, (hopefully) briefly.  Teaching has been defined as effecting a change in behavior.  There are many methods used to provide an environment for that change, but the necessary ingredient is for the student to want to learn.  One of the ways to create that desire is through embarrassment.  Does this sound like an embarrassing scenario?  Let's have several "extras" watch a ball and dummy exercise?  Or, how about throwing a brand new shooter to the Master class wolves at the next Regional?  The desire to improve can be the greatest factor to improvement.  You can offer all the help in the world to another, but until they truly want to effect a change, you're spinning your wheels.  IOW, only the recipient can determine if they will improve.

Someone who shows up for leagues and fires a monthly match, but makes no extra effort, may "want" to shoot better, but they don't really "desire" it enough to effect the necessary change.  Someone who really desires to reach that next goal will put an effort in toward that goal.   Starting the flame of desire is the first real challenge for any instructor.

Back to my suggestion for a quicker path.  Once the desire to improve is found, I believe focusing on the things that work will get you to the next level faster than studying all the errors you make along the way.  Remember all those "gifted" shooters all around us, the ones labeled as "natural" or "from some other planet?"  I'll venture they didn't spend a lot of time studying how to do things wrong.  I think they were busy studying how to do them right.  Maybe their "gift" is in the ability to focus on improvement.

Contrary to popular belief, I also disagree that everyone has to admit they have a problem.  I think they do need to agree that they could stand some improvement.  These are different attitudes, but they allow for levels that reflect a shooter's location on a path to perfection.  None of us are at the extreme ends of the path, but are instead located along it.  And we shooters individually are moving in either direction or even standing idle along the way at any given point.  Since none of us are at the extreme high end, are we all doing something wrong, or are we just reflecting our level of understanding at this point on the path?

I hope Cecil won't mind me bringing up his recent post on training.  It was a great post.  I would like to ask readers to reflect on his post and see if he is looking for errors to correct.  When I look at how he has it written, I only see him refining areas that he would like to improve.  He has specific areas identified, but not as errors needing correction, rather as areas that could stand improvement.  Perhaps Cecil can comment on whether I'm correct in his approach or off track.

What I'm suggesting is possibly only a point of semantics to some, but I feel there is a different mental approach between "fixing a problem" and "refining a process."  I think the latter is a more direct approach and therefore can be quite time conservative.  It is also more positive in its approach.  It still has the necessity of a desire for improvement, but it doesn't require a shooter to believe they have a problem that needs fixing, just that they still haven't reached the extreme end of the path.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

I have the following forms available in Excel:
     NRA SR-1, Score Cards, CMP EIC Entry/Score Form

and in Word:
     CMP Eligibility Affidavit

at:

Look toward the bottom of the home page for the link.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

> In the past I have seen plans for a benchrest and a gunrack made
> from "PVC" pipe but have searched unsuccessfully to find again. Can
> anyone locate these pics?<snip>

I have a PVC handgun rest at

under the Do-It-Yourself plans on the home page.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

The most effective way to break a bad habit is actually to start from scratch and build a new routine.  In effect, if we try to jump away from the middle of an ingrained program, it's difficult to get that jump point to be consistent as it moves into the new routine.

I always suggest moving to a dry fire routine in the most basic sense, involving only the operation of the trigger and then building from there.  The steps I promote:

1. Make sure the gun is totally unloaded.  Make sure there is a snap cap or such, if necessary.  Recheck that it is unloaded.

2. Hold the gun in a safe position (down range), dry fire and reset a couple of times, proving it is unloaded.

3. Sit, with the gun in your lap, POINTED IN A SAFE DIRECTION (down range), comfortably, such that you can dry fire and reset the trigger easily.

4. Dry fire this way until you get a good feel for a smooth, somewhat quick, uninterrupted, trigger activity.

5. Move to watching the gun from above, as you perform the previous step.

6. Once this looks/feels comfortable, take a break.

7. After the break, go through steps 1-5 again checking for the look/feel from before.

8. This time while still sitting, hold the gun out IN A SAFE DIRECTION (down range), with no target and dry fire alternately while looking at the sights and looking at the side of the gun.  Mentally compare the look/feel with the look/feel of the dry fire from before.  Work toward all the scenarios matching.

9. After all the scenarios look/feel the same, move to the normal stance and continue dry fire down range at a blank target surface.

10. Now, add the bull and keep checking for that look/feel of trigger application.

11. Finally, move back to live fire, possibly including ball/dummy drills.

Note that this should be approached in steps and not necessarily at one sitting.  For the best results each step should be revisited and a move to subsequent steps only when the current one is acceptable.

Take Care,
Ed Hall

Joe White, who was shooting in MD in the late '80s, bought a new house and sold all his equipment around 1993.

Dry fire with a determined trigger operation. Make the trigger manipulation the same whether you are looking at the sights or not, during dry fire. It should be somewhat fast, but not jerked - hard to explain, but once you study it a bit, it will clear up.