Okay, I totally did not see the missing Marksman by 48+ points.
It looks like you're letting your gear get in between you and your score. I mean there seems to be so much focus on the guns themselves. I don't think you're at the point in your shooting progression where you can really be saying which gun is better, and why.
Do you find that running bullets backwards as more advantageous than the more generally used bullets forward? It appears as you're running bullets backwards in your photos.
The bullets face forward when carried; as I described earlier, the magnetic pouches allow the magazines to be carried upsidedown, and pulled down for access, as opposed to up.
Best, Jon
Well, while at the end of the day I probably don't fundamentally disagree with you, Jim, from my standpoint I see myself as testing/evaluating both the guns as well as my particular skill-set(s) with them. From my standpoint, my results are empirical-I guess whether my interpretations are subjective or objective are up for discussion. I'm trying, warts and all, to be objective.Originally Posted by Jim Watson
And I hardly claim to be the next shooting star in the galaxy (pun intended...). I'm classified Marksman in SSP and SSR.
I do appreciate your comments and critique.
Best, Jon
I don't think people are saying that you can't look at these results as objective because you're bad or anything like that. It's a matter of consistency and sample size.
People are assuming that at the level you're shooting, you're dropping points and going a certain speed not because that's your accuracy and speed, but because different runs aren't consistent; some strings go great, some strings go poorly. This may or may not be you, but it sure was me, and lots of other people.
So if you have two runs, it may be that one run was a terrible run with amazing equipment, or a great run with terrible equipment. It's really impossible to know unless either you're unusually consistent (which is, if course, possible) or you have a much larger sample size.
With regards to recoil springs and recoil impulse, before tinkering, first consider if your shot-to-shot time is the easiest place to make gains. Getting to the SS/EX line, for me, was all about not making mistakes (misses and bobbled reloads) not actually improving my performance significantly. You sound like you're on the right track here, in the original post.
Not that you asked for help on this, but this sounds like it may be slower for you, since you're pulling downwards to extract the mag, then reversing direction to get the magazine up to the gun. Have you tried it on a timer? Apologies for the unsought advice.
Last edited by TheRoland; 01-22-2015 at 07:47 PM.
Update on springs for the 5" SIG GSR XO: I ordered a brand-new 14 lb Variable, a 14 lb Conventional, a 15 Lb Conventional from Wolff, and already had on hand a new 16 lb Conventional and 18.5 lb Conventional and Variable.
I tested the gun with the 14 lb Variable first, and was unimpressed. I seemed to be fighting the recoil, and splits seemed to be slowed because of it. Having already run, and been dissatisfied with the 18.5 lb Conventional and Variable springs, I switched to the 15 lb Conventional. I immediately noticed a night-and-day difference between it and the 14 lb Variable; recoil impulse and control seemed significantly less, splits were significantly faster, and accuracy was superb-an easily achieved 1" group at 7-10 yards.
While neither an exhaustive, or a high round-count test (less than 50 rounds, all with 230 grain standard pressure Federal Champion Aluminum and Brass ball cartridges), and with a mix of Check-Mate Hybrid and CerTac 8 round extended tube magazines), reliability was flawless, control was noticeably improved, and recoil impulse seemed significantly decreased. Color me impressed. I'll run the 15 lb Conventional and see how it does, and perhaps further compare/contrast with the 16 lb Conventional that I have on hand.
As Wolff intimates in their literature and on their site, the Variable springs seem more oriented towards lightly loaded/compensated raceguns, as opposed to standard pressure (or +P) duty guns. After my comparisons to date, I'm personally firmly in the Conventional camp after spending some time with both.
Best, Jon
Jon, all those different spring weights are for guys who roll their own, not guys shooting factory.
You didn't ask, but I think your time would be better spent practicing, and not futzing around with spring weights, or trying to gauge whether a commander or gov't shoots better. And I'd suggest carrying mags in a way that 99% of the forum members do; rounds forward, magazines pointed upwards.
HopetonBrown, when I started this thread, I realized that I'd be potentially opening myself up to a degree of critique, some potentially painful, as well as self-examination. On a mature, balanced, experienced fourm like this, I genuinely welcome it. I appreciate your comments, and let me address a couple of things.
First, while the Colt factory recoil spring weight on a 5" Government is 16 lbs, some extremely experienced 1911 shooters that I personally know, respect and have shot with in various venues for years feel that when you carefully examine the springs that John Browning used were actually closer to, if not at 14 lbs, particularly when their material and tensility is considered. And that was with 230 grain, standard pressure ball ammunition. So, with that in mind, I felt that there was in fact some validity to experimentation-which has ended up with me settling with (at least for the time being) with the 15 lb conventional recoil spring-based on my empirical testing and satisfaction with the gun's characteristics with it.
Second, I certainly am not arguing against the (painfully) obvious- that what I need is significantly more platform time on 1911s. While I've had them for years, I've never really put in more than 2 months or so of concentrated effort on them in a given year. Part of that is because I frankly index, and perform better, at least initially, with some of my other platforms. Part of it is because I enjoyed shooting my Beretta 92D, which my sponsor also makes magazines for. However, as I've previously mentioned, this year, due to several reasons, I've comitted to spending the proponderance of the year on the 1911 platform. Having 2 divergent guns, I felt that it would be worthwhile to see if there was a significantly discernible difference in the (or my) performances with one over the other. The short answers is, "Meh, a little towards the Nighthawk, but not really significantly so." (Of course, another way of looking at it is, "Boy, JonInWA really sucks equally with either!-for some reason, I prefer the first interpretation...). So yes, practice time is definitely called for-thank you.
Regarding the magazine orientation: I don't doubt that a vast majority of PF members conventionally orient their magazines. My point is, here's an alternative technique that can be beneficial wihen wearing certain items of concealment garnments-notably sweaters and Hawaiian shirts, where its a simple action to pull down on the magazine to obtain it, as opposed to having to first pull up on the concealment garnment to expose the magazine, and then to tug the magazine up and then out. Hey, it's a potential technique/equipment tool for one's toolbox-if you don't like it, don't use it. I suspect that most PF members don't appendix carry, either-but it's a valid approach for some, as we've seen. Similarly, for years, it was an "established truth" espoused in manuals and by trainers that the most efficacious way to get a slide from slidelock into battery was via manipulation of the slide-and that the "slide stop" was just, and only, that. Subsequent empirical experimentation revealed that using the slide stop/release is often the faster, and more efficacious technique...I see both techniques as being situationally desirable, and train on both accordingly (although I usually personally prefer on most guns to default to using the slide release).
And, regarding the magazine orientation in the pouch: (For about the third time), the bullets ARE facing forward-so you yank a magazine down down out of the pouch, then thrust up and into the gun. No flipping or other physiological esoterica required. Is it faster than the conventional magazine pouch aperture orientation? Without concealment garnments, it seems to be a wash in my experimentation. Again, the benefits are to be primarily accrued with specific clothing types (and it's easier when reloading from kneeling and/or prone positions). All I suggest is that it might be worth a try (and that you check to ensure that the pouch magnets (at least those that I'm familiar with, the Tactical Tailor Magna pouches) are indeed sufficient for your magazines and activities).
Best, Jon
Last edited by JonInWA; 01-30-2015 at 05:40 PM.
Reply With Quote