Comparing 4.25 Nighthawk Talon II With 5" SIGARMS GSR XO : IDPA Classifier Results

[JonInWA]

A follow up to this thread:http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?14390-1911-For-Competition-Advice-Solicited-NHC-Talon-II-4-25-quot-vs-SIG-GSR-XO-5-quot

Last weekend, I had an opportunity to comparatively use both pistols through an IDPA Classifier; I was able to send each gun through the entire Classifier (usually shooting a given stage portion with the NHC first, and then the SIG).

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Nighthawk%20Talon%20II/DSCN3208.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Nighthawk%20Talon%20II/DSCN3208.jpg.html)

As suggested by The Man of Orange, I was able to get a set of VCD grips for the NHC-David Barnes' generous Holiday pricing for the grips was appreciated, and, much as I'd liked the look and performance of the OEM NHC VZ Blasted Black Canvas grips, the new VCD grips (which I got in brown, aesthetically nicely going along with the semi-retro theme that I have going with the gun) provide a quantum increase in hold and controllability. http://www.vcdgrips.com/

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Nighthawk%20Talon%20II/DSCN3209.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Nighthawk%20Talon%20II/DSCN3209.jpg.html)
http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Nighthawk%20Talon%20II/DSCN3210.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Nighthawk%20Talon%20II/DSCN3210.jpg.html)

Additionally, the front sight's back face was given a base coat of flat white acrylic paint, followed by a coat of Testor's Fluorescent Orange, with a Fluorescent Green dot.

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Nighthawk%20Talon%20II/DSCN3214.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Nighthawk%20Talon%20II/DSCN3214.jpg.html)
http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Nighthawk%20Talon%20II/DSCN3211.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Nighthawk%20Talon%20II/DSCN3211.jpg.html)
http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Nighthawk%20Talon%20II/DSCN3222.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Nighthawk%20Talon%20II/DSCN3222.jpg.html)

The rear sight is a Novak Low Mount Wide Notch tritium (with the tritium capsules/white surrounds blacked out, making it in effect a plain black sight).

The conventional 20 lb recoil spring was replaced with a brand-new 20 lb conventional recoil spring. I've had excellent results with this recoil spring weight, and as I use standard (full) power 230 gr or 185 gr +P loads for carry and competition, this seems like a good spring to cover the waterfront.

Magazines used throughout were Check-Mate welded baseplate Hybrid feed-lipped, metal fully skirted and dimpled followered, predominantly 8 round stainless steel, but with 2 of the blued steel 7 round variants also used. Extra-strength springs were used in all magazines.

Ammunition for both guns throughout was Federal Champion aluminum cased jacketed ball, 230 grain-standard pressure, but towards the high end of "norm," judging by the blast and recoil.

The SIGARMS GSR XO has had the VCD grips that I'd obtained for it in olive drab installed;

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/SIG-Sauer%20GSR%20XO/DSCN2493.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/SIG-Sauer%20GSR%20XO/DSCN2493.jpg.html)
http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/SIG-Sauer%20GSR%20XO/DSCN3216.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/SIG-Sauer%20GSR%20XO/DSCN3216.jpg.html)

The front sight is the original OEM Novak .125 white dot contrast sight. The rear sight is a Novak Low Mount Wide Notch in plain black.

The OEM Wolff 18.5 lb conventional recoil spring was replaced with a new Wolff 18.5 lb variable recoil spring.

Magazines used throughout were Check-Mate Extended Tube Hybrids, with a metal fully skirted/dimpled follower, and extra-strength springs, along with several CerTac Extended Tube magzines, with semi-wadcutter feed lips and metal, fully skirted, but dimpleless followers.

Guns were zeroed, cleaned and lubricated; lubricants were TW25B grease and Weapon Shield.

Holster and magazine pouch were from Tactical Tailor. While the guns are normally carried in gun-specific holsters (usually Blade-Tech IWB), to expedite the process of this test I realized that it would be less distractive/time consuming if I used a single holster that worked with both 1911s, facilitating just switching the guns at the firing line, as opposed to having to go to the Safety Area subsequent to each gun's use and switch holsters. Tactical Tailor's excellent Low Profile Holster, a reinforced nylon/cordura fabric OWB holster really filled the bill nicely, both accommodating and correctly positioning both guns nicely. I use it without the thumbstrap. The additional fabric trim at the holster mouth nicely sufficiently keeps the holster mouth open after the gun is withdrawn, making one-handed re-holstering viable.

http://www.tacticaltailor.com/lowprofileholster.aspx

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Magazine%20Pouches/DSCN3219.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Magazine%20Pouches/DSCN3219.jpg.html)
http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Magazine%20Pouches/DSCN3220.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Magazine%20Pouches/DSCN3220.jpg.html)

Magazine pouch is also from Tactical Tailor, being their Magna Triple Pistol Magazine Pouch,http://www.tacticaltailor.com/magnamagtriplepistolmagpouch.aspx (although in the images you'll see the near-identical Magna double magazine pouch that I normally use for carry) which incorporated rare earth magnets in the body of each pouch segment; the magnets' strength is sufficient for me to carry the pouch upsidedown, allowing me to simply access a reload and yank down from the pouch-a technique that I've been using for over a year with good results (some magazines are more amenable to this than others-check to see if the magazine's weight when loaded overcomes the retentive strength of the magnets)-it's particularly beneficial when wearing sweaters or Hawaiian shirts as a concealment garment.

Belt used was The Wilderness' Frequent Flyer model, 1.25" width.

The Results: The underlying question for me is which 1911 would I be better with, as to channel my primary use and concentration towards it. The results were...mixed. On half the stages, I did better, both speed and accuracy wise, with the 4.25" Nighthawk Custom Talon II-Interestingly, the stages where this 1911 shined were on the movement and medium-distance stages. The SIG GSR XO seemed to excel on the close-in and farther-distance Classifier stages.

Subjectively, I came out of it favoring the Nighthawk Custom Talon II, for the following reasons: Significantly gentler recoil impulse made it easier to make follow-up shots and target transition shots. The orange/green-dot front sight face was very easy to acquire (but it will be easy enough to give this sight appearance to the SIG as well, which I'll probably do). I was again somewhat surprised by the increased recoil forces/gun torquing felt in my hand with the 5" SIG. It really was a significant increase compared to the NHC. I plan on experimenting with 16 lb and 18.5 lb conventional recoil springs with the SIG; at this point, I'm personally not very impressed or pleased with the 18.5 lb variable recoil spring.

Both guns and magazine sets ran flawlessly throughout the day, with literally zero hiccups or incidents of any type.

Tentative Conclusions: I will likely primarily concentrate on the 4.25" Nighthawk Custom Talon II, but will continue to refine the SIG GSR XO. At the end of the comparison, the NHC is easier and faster to shoot by a slight margin. While this might seem somewhat intuitive, given the assumed greater attention to assembly detail and higher cost/quality of components as provided as part of the NHC parcel, in my case there are several things inherent to the SIG that actually place the guns on a more even playing field; 1) It's an early "Second Generation" GSR, with very high quality internal components that were OEM sourcings by SIG back in that day (long since gone), and 2) two of SIG's most senior gunsmiths have personally gone through and set up my personal gun. At the end of the day, while I feel I can achieve desirable results with either gun, it's the NHC that, despite it's shorter barrel length (and correspondingly shorter sight plane) that will likely get (or more frequently get) the nod for use this year.

Other take-outs: I seriously need to concentrate on my distance shooting, both off-hand and kneeling low cover. While I shot marginally better with the 5" SIG in these stages, my results were still indicative of more (much more) work being needed, particularly on trigger control.

Despite it raining throughout most of the day, being able to shoot the same match with the two guns was a huge help to me-both in terms of increasing my 1911 platform time, and in diagnosing my relative strengths and weaknesses, and areas needed for training/practice concentration. And yeah-while I still feel, and perform significantly better with my Glock, Beretta, Ruger semi-auto platforms and my Ruger revolver platforms, this year I've committed to primarily concentrating on my 1911s (and no, Todd hasn't guilt-ed or paid me off for this, amazingly enough)(although I have absolutely no doubts but that he is quietly snickering on the sidelines). It'll be an interesting year. Thanks again for everyone's contributions on the previous thread where I solicited input towards my selection-the input/suggestions were very helpful and much appreciated.

Best, Jon

[nwhpfan]

What was your score and what were your times?

Were you fairly close on 1 compared to the other....

For example I shoot an M&P 45 loaded to minor almost exclusively... But one day I shot the IDPA Classifier with my XDM 5.25 9mm which I bought from Springer Precision. There was less than 2 seconds difference between the two pistols. 79:XX to 80:xx. The difference just confirmed to me that the gun really isn't that important to performance (assuming we are comparing quality to quality).

But I know too that itself can be a distraction.

Sometimes you have to pick one and stay with it.

[JonInWA]

That's a fair question; overall, my score was certainly nothing to write home about, and I'm treating it a diagnostic more than anything else. The points down differentiation, except for in one of the long-distance stages were relatively small-generally around 5 points between the guns on most of the stages.

In that sense, on the one hand I can feel pretty confident with either of the 1911s, relatively speaking. The NHC does seem to feel/fit a bit better, and certainly handles recoil better, but it's not a quantum difference; I plan on further research and experimentation with the recoil spring for the SIG, as I think it can be a fruitful area of improvement in diminishing (or more evenly spreading out) the recoil impulse.

Best, Jon

[nwhpfan]

I plan on further research and experimentation with the recoil spring for the SIG, as I think it can be a fruitful area of improvement in diminishing (or more evenly spreading out) the recoil impulse.

I got some advice from a USPSA National Champion once in regards to my own quest for that perfect response from my reloads.

-Stop it.

As long as it reliable and accurate load it, shoot it, practice; get better, etc.

Something to think about.

[JonInWA]

14 lb Conventional, 14 lb Variable, and 15 lb Conventional recoil springs enroute from Wolff. I already have on hand a new 16 lb Conventional, and 18.5 lb Conventional and Variable.

I will need to spend a modicum of time with the SIG, as the new series of Check-Mate magazines I'll be participating in the field test of will have removable polymer basepads; the Nighthawk Talon II has a beveled inner frontstrap bottom which tends to "chisel" itself behind the basepad fronts, inducing operational issues (unless the magazine has a controlled, not forceable insertion) Hence, I prefer to utiilize welded baseplate magazines with the Nighthawk. The bottom of the SIG's frontstrap is a normal flat ledge, which works well with most magazine variants.

The upshot is that while I'm preferentiably inclined towards the NHC, I need to work up on the SIG as well.

Best, Jon

[HopetonBrown]

Would be nice to know the times.

[JonInWA]

This is probably a foray into the esoteric, but since two of you have asked, and to be totally (if somewhat embarrassingly) transparent, here are my comparative Classifier scores broken out.

Stage 1: Classifier Stage 2A, Strings 1-2 (Draw and advance towards targets; Draw and retreat from targets): NHC: 18.33 (9 pts down), SIG: 18.43 (7 pts down) Conclusion: Significantly faster with NHC, although slightly less accurate.

Stage 2: Classifier Stage 2B, Strings 3-4 (El Pres plus reload string; then a strong hand only string): NHC: 30. 59 (18 pts down), SIG: 34.52 (23 pts down) Conclusion: Faster and more accurate w/ NHC

Stage 3: Classifier Stage 3A, String 1 (Shooting both sides of barricade @ 20 yds) NHC: 30:07 (19 pts down), SIG: 47:72 (50 pts down-ouch) Conclusion: Faster and significantly more accurate w/ NHC

Stage 4: Classifier Stage 3B, Strings 2-3 (Barricade @ 20 yds w/ reload, rush to low cover, kneeling @ 15 yds, then another kneeling low cover string) NHC: 78:63 (66 pts down) ouch...SIG: 67:94 (52 pts down) Conclusion: While I was both faster and more accurate with the SIG, that's a relative conclusion. The accuracy issues were primarily from low shots-distance shots will definitely establish trigger control, and, to a lesser extent, sight alignment issues. I need to significantly improve in these areas, irrespective of the gun.

Stage 5: Classifier Stage 1A, Strings 1-4 (At 7 yds, three strings of draw, 2 shots to body, 1 to head followed by 1 string of 2 shots to heads) NHC: 32:99 (19 pts down), SIG: 27:18 (14 pts down) Conclusion: Whole slightly faster and more accurate with the SIG, the real take-out is that most of the points down were incurred by missing 1 or more of the head shots w/ each gun; I need to improve trigger pulls

Stage 6: Classifier Stage 1B, Stages 5-7 (Respectively, a weak hand string, another El Pres string with a reload, and a strong hand only string-all @ 7 yds) NHC: 37:04 (20 pts down), SIG: 34:61 (20 pts down) Conclusion: Slightly faster and more accurate with the SIG, but really pretty much a wash between the 2 guns.

Additionally, there was an initial "warm up" string, performed prior to the commencement of the Classifier by all shooters, which comprised of a string @ 7 yds of 1 shot to each body, followed by 1 shot to each head;
NHC: 15:97 (13 pts down), SIG: 16:28 (12 pts down) Conclusion: While marginally faster (and marginally less accurate) with the NHC, speed trumped, with the NHC overall performing slightly better, but again, another relative wash between the 2 guns.

Overall, while looking at all the stages (including the "warm up" stage), the NHC turned in the slightly superior performance. However, the real take out is that I significantly need to work on my trigger control, and, to a lesser extent, my sight alignment for the more distant targets, and my overall speed needs to be ramped up. While I'm not particularly pleased with my performances (missing the Marksman qualification gate by 48.62 points with the NHC, and 51.69 points with the SIG), it served as a great, and relatively objective diagnostic for me-both in terms of ascertaining areas needing significant attention and improvements, and in the differences in the characteristics of the 4.25" Highthawk Custom Talon II versus the 5" SIGARMS GSR XO. For me, I'm a'thinkin that the sight plane differences are of FAR lesser importance than fundamental mastery of trigger control and, to a lesser extent, sight alignment. Also of significance is how the guns respectively handle recoil-there simply is more of the recoil impulse and gun torquing present with the 5" SIG. Obviously, there's some correspondence between increased slide mass, momentum, and velocity; not being an engineer (and engineers {and any others} feel free to chime in on the critique), I'm going to attempt to objectively experiment with lower poundage recoil springs with the SIG.

I find it FAR easier to classify with my 9mm Stock Service Pistol (SSP) guns-be they Glock, Beretta or Ruger, and also easier with my Ruger Stock Service Revolvers (SSR)-but 1) I have far more hammer time and dedicated use with them, and 2) I'm realizing that the SA 1911 triggerpull is something that requires significant dedication and finesse to master.

As I've previously mentioned, and has been suggested by others, while the smartest thing to do would probably be to simply choose one of the 1911 (and my immediate overall preference would be towards the NHC), life realities really dictate that I master, or achieve a competent parity with both. Hence, the VCD grip and sight standardization (the SIG now has the orange overall front sight face with a green front sight dot), and the work-up on the SIG's recoil spring.

I appreciate everyone's patience and participation on this admittedly self-serving thread; hopefully there are some worth-while take-outs for others.

Best, Jon

[HopetonBrown]

Very interesting, thanks for the detailed breakdown. Did you shoot the Sig or NHC first for each string? I'm wondering if you shot better on the 2nd outing of each string, because you had already just shot it and got more of a feel.

I'm just a lowly Sharp Shooter, my first qual was with a Wilson 1911, and my second was with a Walther PPQ. I haven't seen my score for the second one, but I feel I did better, despite the gun being 8 times cheaper. Well, we know why.

[JonInWA]

I shot the NHC first in each stage/string "clumps". Immediately after finishing with the NHC, I bagged it, switched to the SIG, and then re-shot the same stage with it. That process pretty much simplified life for everyone, and being able to use the same holster throughout vastly simplified things as well. Since I'm familiar with the Classifier, and was consistent in the gun order throughout, I don't think that which one was shot first was of any particular relevance to the results achieved.

I will further comment that the stages were not shot in the order listed; in my squad, we ended up starting off in Stage 1, first shooting the Warm-Up, and then the Classifier proper portion of the stage (wherever each individual squad started, they started off with the Warm Up first), and we did Stage 4, my bete noir, towards the end of the day-so shooter fatigue may have accounted for my dismal showing there (but it's still a lame excuse-and historically that's the stage that I have the greatest difficulty with, so even if I'd been fresher when I shot it, I suspect that while the times might have been faster and the points down lower, they still likely would have been proportionally shower and higher compared to the other stages.

Best, Jon

[Jim Watson]

While I applaud your analytical approach, I fear that shooting deep Novice ("missing the Marksman qualification gate by 48.62 points") indicates you are not testing the guns. You are testing your skill and management of the 1911 operating system and your subjective experience with the two makes is just that, subjective.

What class are you in SSP with more familiar guns?

[HopetonBrown]

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.

[JonInWA]

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

[JonInWA]

While I applaud your analytical approach, I fear that shooting deep Novice ("missing the Marksman qualification gate by 48.62 points") indicates you are not testing the guns. You are testing your skill and management of the 1911 operating system and your subjective experience with the two makes is just that, subjective.

What class are you in SSP with more familiar guns?

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.

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

[TheRoland]

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.

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.


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

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.

[JonInWA]

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

[HopetonBrown]

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.

[JonInWA]

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