Thursday, December 18, 2014

Sierra Bullets tip out.

I got distinguished shooting nothing but MatchKings in rifle and TournamentMasters in pistol.  Now they have improved the ballistic co-efficient on the rifle bullets by adding a little tip.  I've always wondered how the Hornady tips survived the heat and shock of being fired.  I guess they must.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Cousin Wallace shoots the wadcutters.

10 Decembre 2014

Over the last couple of years I've been very intrigued with shooting Bullseye Pistol. Not necessarily the official NRA version but a modified version more related to the new CMP Military and Police match. This match shares the same B-8 target used at 25 yards in the NRA version but time limits are way more generous and geared toward maximum accuracy other than shooting the NRA  timed and rapid-fire stages. Our local version of the match allows just about any type pistol (or, revolver) with any sighting system and any safe ammo. It's all for fun and to stimulate local handgunners to get involved in some friendly competition as well as increasing their skill levels. Most shooters really like it with a few getting "hooked" on it...guess you better count me as hooked as I really enjoy it!
Again, my good friend was more than willing to lend me two of his pistols, likely used in the popular bullseye matches of yesteryear, to evaluate for this report. I chose these two to test/eval because they are unusual in the fact that they are semi-autos built to shoot a traditional and popular calibre, the .38 Special. The .38 Special is a fairly long case so in order to make it work in a semi-auto's magazine, the bullets are seated flush with the case mouth and typically a light roll crimp is applied just over the front of the flat-nosed wadcutter bullet. The .38 wadcutter is famous for it's high level of accuracy and for being lots of fun to shoot since it is generally loaded very mild, between 700 and 800 fps. This loading was very popular for revolvers so I guess the auto folks wanted to get in on the fun. Colt and Smith and Wesson responded by building pistols specifically for the .38 wadcutter to cater to the Bullseye crowd. As far as I know production ceased on these models years ago. There are still a lot around and I wanted to try these two to see what I could, I just like to shoot!
With my busy work schedule, it took several days of waiting to finally get a day off where I could devote enough time and get suitable weather to do a comparison between the two. I wanted to do a little accuracy testing from the benchrest as well as some offhand "real world" shooting to get a feel of what each had to offer. Shooting would be at 25 yards on the B-8 target. I had four different loads with fully seated wadcutters to try. I used the issue iron sights and tried my best to do my part in removing human error from the bench. Of course, when shooting offhand, human error is one of the biggest factors involved in how well the pistol shoots. Since these pistols are not frequently encountered, I wanted to give everyone my impressions in case they are considering getting one. They are still available but it will take some searching. Of course, they can be pricey but that's to be expected with an out of production, quality made gun.
 The first was a Colt 1911 adapted to shoot the .38 wadcutter with the slide marked National Match Midrange. The top of the slide has a flat rib with grooves running it's full length.  Instead of the traditional swinging link / locking barrel, it was a straight blowback design. The take down pin does pass through a block attached to the underside of the chamber but it has an oblong hole instead of a swinging link. The chamber of the 5" barrel was very unusual in that the chamber was "grooved" with approximately 12 - 15 ( I didn't count them)  grooves going all the way around the chamber, not flutes like H&K chambers but, circular grooves. I haven't read the reason but I'm guessing it was Colt's way of retarding the ejection process. Weird. Spent brass had sooty marks around their circumference. The barrel / slide fit was very tight and this pistol felt every bit as good in the hand as all 1911's do to me. I noticed the barrel bushing was shorter than a normal bushing but worked just the same. The barrel has 6-grooves and is LH twist. Weight with empty magazine was 38 ounces. The trigger was the extended type with grooves and had an overtravel adjustment screw within it. It has a full spur hammer and conventional grip safety. Grips are checked wood and the mainspring housing is flat with vertical grooves. The front strap of the grip also has vertical grooves. Sights were Ellison adjustable rear and an undercut front. They were plain black on black with a good sight picture. Magazines were different from what everyone is used to seeing. The sides are open allowing one to grasp the follower tabs and compress the spring to aide in loading 5 rounds. The springs are strong and hard to compress. My finger and thumb were sore by the end of the session. I found it best to place the baseplate of the magazine on the table top, use one hand to compress the spring while popping the rounds down into the mag with my other hand. After experiencing this, it makes me glad regular .45 mags load so easy!
The other pistol was Smith & Wesson's answer to the bullseye crowd. The Model 52-2. (I understand there are three models with the last being the 52-2 that had an improved extractor design).  It looks like they modified the old Model 39 single-stack, first generation autos to handle the .38 Special. However, this pistol is single-action. Grip shape looks the same to me with the rounded butt. S&W took extra pains to accurize this pistol and it has a curious star shaped nut that surrounds the barrel. I'm guessing this is where tightness / lockup can be adjusted? Although the Colt's barrel was the same diameter throughout it's length, the S&W barrel had a small "dog knot" near the end where it's diameter increased noticeably. The 5" barrel has 5-grooves with a RH twist.  The trigger is grooved with an overtravel stop screw tapped into the frame behind it. This pistol also has a conventional spur hammer but no grip safety. It does have a slide mounted thumb safety that serves to block the hammer from the firing pin. The wooden grips are checkered as is the rounded backstrap. The front strap has vertical grooves. Weight with empty magazine is 40 ounces. This pistol has a magazine safety which prohibits firing unless there is a magazine locked in place. The sights are adjustable with the front sight being a bright orange. I found that very odd since this pistol is intended for bullseye target work. The magazines for this pistol also have open sides with follower tabs similar to the Colt to grasp in order to compress the spring. These magazines were also difficult to load easily and I used the same method described above to load them.
Without having to list all the individual results of my benchrest testing, I'll list the loads used, best and worst groups and overall average of groups. There really wasn't much of a difference in group sizes after all was said and done. I'm sure with a little load development and tailoring a load to each gun, these groups would probably be smaller. Anyhow, here goes. The pistols' owner graciously provided some commercially loaded swaged lead wadcutters by Wisconsin Cartridge Company. Along with these were three handloads of my own. Two used the Remington 148gr HBWC over either 3.0grs of Bullseye or 3.2grs of W231 and the other was my home cast 148gr WC from a Lee mould over 2.8grs of Bullseye. I fired two 5-shot groups of each load from the bench at 25 yards and averaged them. The Colt shot the worst and the best groups of the day at 3.63" and 1.81" and had an overall average for all four loads of 2.64". The S&W groups were in between those extremes with a four load average of 2.58" so, it was pretty much a dead heat off of the bench. 
Now, for the "real world" test, offhand shooting on the aforementioned B-8 target. Just like a guy would have to do if he were shooting these guns in competition. I decided to shoot a "half-match" with each. This meant to shoot a 5-shot string from each of four stages: Two-handed Slow-Fire, Left Hand Only, Right Hand Only and finally 5-shots in 30 seconds to simulate our 70-second "Timed Fire" stage (minus the normally required reload). By doing a half match, I could hopefully avoid fatigue and also only expend 40 rounds instead of 80. I would then double the score to arrive at an estimated score for each stage. Clear as mud, huh? After firing all four stages, I could estimate how each pistol would have scored in a match. Pistols were alternated between stages to try my best to be fair. Below are the results.
                 Colt 1911                                                S&W  52-2 
SLOW   X X 10 9 7  ( x2) = 92 - 2X             X X X 10 10  (x2)  = 100 -6X   
LEFT     X X X 9 9    (x2) = 96 - 6X             X X X 10 9    (x2)  =  98 - 6X
RIGHT  X 10 10 9 8 (x2) =  94 - 2X             X X 10 10 8  (x2)  =  96 - 4X
TIMED  X 10 9 9 8   (x2) =  92 - 2X             X 10 10 10 9 (x2) =  98 - 2X
----------------------------------------------            ------------------------------------------
TOTAL                        374 - 12X                                         392 - 18X
This test made it clear which pistol was the winner, at least in my hands. In case anyone is wondering, I did get both pistols zeroed to my satisfaction during the benchrest testing so both were sighted in properly. With all this being said, I think it's time to give my "likes" and "dislikes" on each pistol which I feel are big factors in how the "shootability" in this test played out. First, it's no secret that I absolutely love the feel of a 1911 in my hands! Big advantage Colt here. I wasn't fond of the rounded butt of the S& just doesn't feel as secure in my hand as a 1911. The Colt's plain black sights were another big advantage, especially in the bright sunlight of the outdoors. The bright orange front sight on the S&W hindered my ability to properly focus on the front sight. The Colt's recoil spring definitely felt stronger, not heavy at all but way more frisky than the spring in the S&W. The S&W's spring was downright lazy, sometimes requiring I nudge the back of the slide to get a round to chamber out of the magazine. I have no idea what factored into recoil perception but the Colt's recoil was a bit more than the S&W's. Neither were anywhere close to being unpleasant. The S&W definitely had the better trigger, somewhat lighter with no creep. The Colt's trigger wasn't too bad but did have a bit of creep to the sensitive trigger finger.
Neither pistol was without problems in feeding. The Colt had about three times as many malfunctions as the S&W. Many times the Colt would extract the case but not fully eject it. The cases were frequently ruined as they were smashed into the feed ramp or back of the barrel, tearing the case walls sometimes as much as a quarter-inch. Two magazines were tried and malfunctions occurred with both. Made me wonder if this was a problem associated with the ringed chamber? The S&W also had a few hick-ups. The weak recoil spring made me wonder if it could be the culprit. Of course the loads could also be at fault on some of these issues. I'm sure the old-timers that shot these pistols in competition would have the answers but, during this limited test, I don't. The Colt never made it through a 5-shot string without a malfunction. The S&W functioned 100% with the 3.0gr Bullseye and 3.2gr W231 loads but malfunctioned on the lighter loads. I also observed a very troubling thing on the lighter loads in the S&W. I noticed while checking groups that some of the holes were not completely round in the paper.....Utt Oh!!!  Bullets not completely stabilized. That is bound to affect groups sizes. They were not "key holes" but obviously some were oblong holes. I'm thinking the S&W may need a bit faster load to get optimal groups. I've read the oldtimers believed the Colt revolvers stabilized bullets a bit better than S&W due to their faster rates of twist. Could this be the case with the S&W 52? You'd have thought S&W would have figgered that out??? For the half matches above, I used the factory WCC load in the Colt but had to switch to my homecast bullets (shorter than the HBWC's) in my S&W which seemed to stabilize just fine.
As to final thoughts. I'd love to have the 1911's grip frame, plain black sights and rifling twist mixed in with the S&W's sweet trigger and better function and lighter recoil. I really thought I'd do better in match mode with the Colt's better feel in my hand. This was not the case as the S&W proved superior shooting the half-match. There didn't seem to be a whole lot of difference in mechanical accuracy though the S&W probably suffered a bit with marginally stabilized bullets in certain loads before I noticed the oblong holes in the paper. This could probably be eliminated by load development and avoiding the loads that were not fully stabilized. The Colt's trigger could be tweaked a bit to get rid of the (very) slight creep. I'm thinking surely the Colt can be made to function properly if the right load was discovered or, is it a problem child as a straight blowback that deviates from the tried and true swinging link / locking barrel design of other 1911's?  Both of these pistols were new to me and I don't have any prior experiences with these designs to elaborate on.
As always, I hope this was informative and served as a bit of entertainment. This are my impressions, I'm sure others may have differing opinions. I'd love to hear back from you as to what you think.

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Daily Deercam: Scrape traffic.

All at scrape across creek.  I put out a little corn.  Cam about dead when I was there, so don't expect much on next cam check.  Nothing on the closer cam.  Activity but no files.

Doe and fawns.

Doe and fawns again.

Little buck.

Doe and fawns with other deer around.

Coyote checking the scents.

Big wandering spike.

Probably little buck going by.  You get this a lot.

Single doe.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

New Moultrie cam.

New cam has a MUCH less wild-angle view.  Every other cam I have owned, (and that's getting to be a pile now...), hasn't had this narrow angle.  Always something new.

  Feeder was vomiting corn all over.  I turned the time and intensity down.  Battery probably dead now and I don't have a charger yet.

  Haven't checked it in a week.  This is kind of a lost deer season as other events over-ride hunting.  I noticed how many dead does were along the highway last Tuesday when I drove to Longview for a photoshoot.  That was probably the heart of the rut.  Tapering off now.  

  Going to have to move this cam back.  It does point North for good lighting.  Have to find another tree.  Most of the files were blank plus a couple IR frames.  I obviously don't understand it yet.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Texas State Rifle Association Garand/1903 Springfield/M1 Carbine/Vintage Military/Modern Military State Championship.

  I guess that would be the TSRAGSCVMM, or something like that.  Seasonal weather cut the comfort factor but folks seemed to shoot along briskly in spite of it.  Two days of shooting under the organizational skills of TSRA Match Director Karl Schultz with assistance from John Jebaby, Dave Wilson, Roy Plumlee running a Service Pistol Match and Ron Leraas on the Carbine line.  Thanks to all those guys for putting on a solid weekend of shooting.

  As usual, the old wooden rifles came out of the safes and closets and acquitted themselves with normal accuracy.  Karl Schultz issued 30-06 ammo for the Garand and Springfield match and we shot through quite a bit of CMP HXP.

  Here's some photos from Saturday and just a few minutes of the action.  Four relays shot each day with 16 shooters for the CMP Bulls-eye Service Pistol LEG match on Sunday.

The Shooting McDaniels Clan burning HXP.  

The Swashbuckling John Ilzhofer preps an AR carbine for the Modern Military Match.

John Jebaby on the line.

Target scored at the new 200 yard berm.

David Keys fires his 1903A3 Springfield.

The McDaniels getting their shooting faces on.

Mitchell Hogg anchored the line on the high end with his dad's 1903A3.

The line firing under slightly misty conditions.

Competitors headed downrange to score targets.

Many Swiss K31s now find themselves in Texas.

Jebaby firing Garand.

Part of the line from above.

A Swiss K31 almost too pretty to shoot!

Eric McDaniel on his way to medaling with a gun three times as old as he is.

A gorgeous Garand between strings.

Les Baer only comes out for LEG it was happy.

Firing center line.

This is kind of how it went, for me.

Bill Aten firing a Swede.

Keith Stephens watches Will Willhite shoot M1 Garand.

  Thanks to the Terrell Rifle and Pistol Club for hosting us again.  That's a great facility.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Cousin Wallace: Colt and S&W Target Revolvers.


                                               Colt vrs Smith & Wesson Target Revolvers

Most folks who know me realize my love of shooting many types of firearms and my sometimes insatiable desire to do side by side testing to determine, at least in my own mind, what works best in a variety of categories. Function/reliability, accuracy, practicality, value for the money, appearance, pride of ownership and "shootability" are usually a few of the things I form opinions on during my evaluations. Of course, these are "my" opinions and like Ford vrs Chevy, others will obviously have a favorite.

I am fortunate to have a friend with a great collection of firearms who is more than happy to loan me anything in his collection in order to do these "unofficial" personal evaluations. I enjoy getting to experience all these different firearms and sharing with others what I find through these reports. I'm not a professional writer but I hope these reports are informative and serve to entertain. I try to "tell it like it is"...sometimes with my favorites not coming out on top in all categories. Oh well, that's part of the fun!

This eval deals with a decades old debate about old classic target revolvers. The Colt Officer's Model Target in both .22 rimfire and .38 Special vrs the Smith & Wesson model 17-4 "K-22 Masterpiece" and model 14-4 "K-38 Masterpiece."  All four of these revolvers had 6" barrels and were in excellent shape. All were very handsome with beautiful blued finishes. In these days of polymer framed hi-cap autos, it was nice to handle these great wheelguns made of steel and wood. I enjoy revolvers every bit as much as autoloaders, especially quality brands such as these.

I gathered several types of ammo and headed for a private range. Range time is hard to come by so I had to shoot on a day with gusty southwest winds. I really wanted to shoot "freehanded" but the wind was so high nothing would have been relevant. Therefore all accuracy testing was from sandbags at 25 yards on the B-8 target. Even from the bench, the pesky winds made it difficult to wring the most accuracy out of these revolvers and I'm afraid my tests have an amount of error in them. I tried to hold steady but, it was really tough. I would have loved to have been able to evaluate some double-action shooting too. Since learning to shoot DA, it's really pretty effective with a properly tuned action. Briefly trying the DA mode on these four revolvers quickly revealed only the K-22's action was smooth enough to render accurate DA shooting.  

I started the testing from the bench with the .22 revolvers. I noted both had cylinders with recessed chambers. Cylinder diameter on the Colt was 1.552" and 1.445" on the S&W. Weights were 42 ounces on the Colt and 43 oz on the S&W. The Colt's barrel was plain and had a more pronounced taper measuring .574" dia at the muzzle. The S&W had a less obvious taper and a solid rib on top, ending with a muzzle dia of .593". Although their weights were almost the same, The Colt's weight was mostly toward the rear. The S&W's was more muzzle heavy, leading to a steadier hold. Again, this is my opinion and I believe this would be a factor If firing without support. The Colt's front sight is about 1/10" wide and used for elevation changes by changing sight blades of various heights. The S&W's front sight is fixed and wider, being about 1/8" wide. Both have just about the right amount of gap on each side when aligned with the rear notch. The Colt's rear sight is adjustable for just windage and the S&W's has both windage and elevation adjustments. I was happy with either sight picture. Kinda nice not having to deal with those horrible but popular 3-dot sights!

Now to the shooting. I grabbed what was handy on the shelf and took four different types. Remington .22 standard velocity 40gr solid ( CMP surplus, 1984 vintage), CCI Blazer .22LR High Vel 40gr solid, Winchester Hi-vel 37gr hollow-point and Remington 36gr Hi-vel HP I shot two 5-shot groups with each type from sandbags and averaged the group sizes. I've had better days to shoot and feel like both revolvers have the potential factor to deliver better performance in calmer conditions. The Colt's trigger was a bit harder than the sweet trigger of the K-22. The Colt's overall average was 2.40" and the S&W averaged 2.37" overall with the four ammo types....a dead heat. If the Colt's trigger had been smoother, it might have edged out the S&W in accuracy from the bench. I feel the S&W would hold an advantage if shot unsupported due to it's muzzle heavy feel....wonder if some folks would refer to this as better "balanced" old term I've heard all my life that, in my opinion, equates to "how good it feels in their hand." I could warm up to either revolver and probably shoot either to good effect but gotta give the nod to the sweet K-22....due to "better balance."

Next came the .38 calibres. Again, the Colt had a plain barrel with an elegant taper to a muzzle dia of .568" and the S&W again had a solid rib barrel, less tapered with a muzzle dia of .640". Cylinder dia on the Colt was 1.552" and 1.452 on the S&W. Neither cylinder was counterbored. The cylinder on the Colt was a tighter fit for one of my handloads using cast bullets sized to .358". They had to be seated in the cylinder with a firm push. Obviously the Colt's chambers were tighter. An old retired Officer with my department had mentioned his Colt Trooper had this same issue when he carried it on duty while the issued S&W's did not. The tight chambers could be an advantage in the accuracy department but for a combat gun it would worry me if I had to perform a quick reload from a speedloader. The Colt weighed 38 oz. The S&W had a red dot optic sight mounted and weighed 49 oz with the addition of that gizmo in place of the rear sight. This time the Colt had the sweeter trigger although I didn't care at all for the trigger shoe that was in place. The S&W's trigger felt really heavy & gritty, like a brand new, not broken in trigger. Very unlike most S&W triggers. It surely could benefit greatly from a trigger job! Even from the bench, the S&W trigger was difficult to deal with and not "pull" shots. The optic sight worked OK, not sure one could say this was a fair test since the Colt had standard iron sights. 

I chose five types of ammo, again firing from sandbags on the B-8 target @ 25 yards. My home cast Lee 148gr wadcutter over 3.0grs of Bullseye, the Remington 148gr HBWC over 3.0grs of Bullseye, another load using the Rem 148gr HBWC over 3.2grs of W231, the old standard .38 Special 158gr RNL (Remington factory load) and another Remington factory load, the 130gr FMC military loading. The most accurate load in both revolvers was the 148gr HBWC over the 3.0grs of Bullseye with the best 5-shot group of 1" recorded by the S&W K-38 when I was able to get five consistent trigger pulls. Overall though, the Colt averaged 2.094" and the S&W came in at 2.434"....advantage Colt, from the bench. With equal triggers I think the S&W would make up the difference if shot offhand due to more weight toward the muzzle. The Colt is a fine revolver and a hoot to shoot though. I liked both of them!

Final impressions: Both brands had their advantages. Both are obviously high quality and beautiful revolvers. I'll readily admit I'm a big S&W fan but the Colts may well edge them out in mechanical accuracy with all having equal sighting systems and smooth triggers. I've read Colt uses a different twist rate in their barrels and the old timers believed they held an accuracy advantage over the S&W...very well may be true! The Colt .38's barrel had 6 narrow lands & grooves with a LH twist. The S&W .38's barrel was a 5-groove RH twist with much wider lands. Can't say which holds an advantage, both worked.  I've also read the Colt's required a lot of tuning by someone who really understood them to arrive at a great trigger pull. I've shot an 8" Python in the past that had a fine trigger pull so, I know the Colt triggers can be improved. Neither of these two examples were particularly bad but both could have been better. The .38 Colt's trigger was much better than the .22 version. The K-22 S&W was just a sweetheart to shoot with an excellent trigger. Sadly, the K-38's trigger put it at a big disadvantage but, this can easily be fixed. I did try a few offhand shots in the wind to try to gain a feel for how all four of these revolvers would perform without a sandbag rest. All were fun but it is my belief and opinion, the S&W's hold the advantage here with their muzzle heavy feel compared to the light/whippy barrels of the Colts. Others may have a different opinion....Ford and Chevy thing, again.
As always, I welcome everyone's opinions and comments.

Saturday, November 1, 2014

Daily Deercam, November 1, 2014. Opening day.

Mom and the twins.

She's a smart and experienced doe.  Got these twins alive and up.  

She doesn't like that cam much.


Just like the movie: Bambi!

Nice enough buck in the light. 

He's working a scrape.  Not a trophy, but nice sized.

Baby bucks.  Spike has lost a whole horn down to the socket on one side. 

Corn-fed coons.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Cousin Wallace Trains them up.

All this week I've been @ APD Firing Range assisting/instructing our current class of Cadets in firearms.
We've cussed and discussed just about every conceivable aspect of shooting and launched a lot of lead at paper, falling plates, reactive paper targets and steel silhoettes (sp).
Shooting stance. Orientation of body armor to threat. Proper grip. Proper sight alignment. Proper trigger control.  Drawing from level three security holsters. Focusing on front sight. Weak hand/strong hand drills. Transition from handgun to carbine drills. Immediate action drills. Remedial action drills. One-handed malfunction clearing drills of handguns (Not once in thousands of rounds have I seen an actual malfunction of their Glocks in both 9x19mm or .40 S&W...we purposefully load 2 or 3 dummy rounds in their mags so they never know when their weapon will FTF). Tactical reloads. Slide lock reloads. Turn left/right/180 degrees toward threat & shoot drills. Shooting from sitting. Shooting supine. Shooting from side laying on non-weapon side/weapon side. Shooting prone flat/left side/right side. Shooting moving forward/laterally/backing up. Shooting w/weapon mounted lights. One-hand hand-held flashlight techniques. Two-handed flashlight techniques. Shooting with backlight. Shooting with no light. shooting with take-down/overhead flashing and/or strobe lights. Shooting with ambient light. Shooting after being blinded by light. Shooting with and without night sights. Being aware of muzzle flash. Getting off the "X" after delivering fire or during reloads.  Shooting drills with shotgun/birdshot. Shooting and what to expect from different types of buckshot (regular 00 Buck vrs Federal Tactical 00 Buck). Shooting shotgun slugs. Shooting practicals with less lethal (bean bag rounds). Shooting from cover vrs concealment. Shooting from under vehicles. Bounding overwatch drills. Providing cover fire. Communication during critical incidents. Shooting targets and being aware of the 3-D aspect. The 21 foot edged weapon rule, demonstrated. Timed hit from holster drills. Timed hit from sewell drills. .... I'm sure I've forgotten some of the other stuff we've done all week.
Training has come a long way in the last few years. I'm proud I'm able to help teach these new troops some of this. Also glad we have top-notch instructors! We really put these guys through the ringer! Our ultimate goal is to teach them enough to survive if they are unfortunate enough to get into more & more frequent deadly encounters. Our officer involved shootings have really been on the increase over the last few years...not good.
I'm also glad/fortunate to see what really works & don't work with different types of weapons. Like em or not, the Glock is one heck of a tool for law enforcement work. When you are charged w/training these FNG's, some of which have never fired a handgun, this is an important consideration. We have the data and experience to show the modern striker-fired sidearms have many advantages over DA/SA or SA autos....not trying to ruffle feathers as I like a lot of those types too....but have to admit SA XD's, Glocks & other striker-fired pistols are just superior in many categories.
Also got to admit I'm not as hard-headed on caliber choice as I used to be. With our wonderful Winchester "Talon" bullets, even the 9x19mm is a damned fine performer! Never been a big proponent of the .40 S&W but got to admit it's really performed nicely in actual shootings we've had. The .357 SIG and .45ACP ought to be icing on the cake! With that being said, some of these guys have no bizzness trying to shoot anything bigger than a 9x19....some were not performing up to par with the .40S&W were switched to a 9x19 and they are doing very well....guess that's what Tx DPS was thinking when they were going to switch from .357 SIG since it's quite a bit more frisky to shoot. I'm sticking to my .357 SIG as long as they allow it but, if forced to switch, as long as I could shoot +P+ Win Talons in a 9x19, I wouldn't feel nearly as bad as I would have 20 years ago without Talons. ( Can you tell I'm a fan of W-W Talons???? hahaha! ).
Anyhow, we've had some very practical/valuable training this week....probably would have cost a person $3K @ places like Thunder Ranch!  Good stuff!  

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Daily Deercam, Oct 28, 2014.

Just a few day to deer season.
Little buck.  Not the same as the little buck below.

Doe and two fawns on the scrape and having a little corn.

Suspiscious doe.  

She's seen that cam somewhere before.....

The flash goes off.

Both little bucks were on cam for the first shot, then two blank shots.  The flash scared them off.  Usually not the case.