Blammer - Gun Blog

Grummz showed me how to reload using his Dillon “Square Deal B” progressive loader. He’s been after me for months to get into reloading, and in fact is working up an article about it for his own site.

The Dillon is a 4-stage handgun caliber reloading press. We used new Winchester .45ACP brass and jacketed Hornady bullets, with 5.1 ounces of Bullseye on top of CCI primers. After Grummz demonstrated the basics and went over safety (particularly, how not to blow up a stack of primers in your face), I got to load 100 rounds of the stuff, ostensibly to put through his Springfield Armory GI 1911. Grummz has been using the Springfield as a platform for his gunsmithing practice, so we were eager to see how it would shoot. Alas, the range closed early on Sunday, so we couldn’t test out what I loaded.

So I have a pretty good idea now of what goes into reloading, and am jazzed to start loading my own ammunition so I can afford to shoot more .45 ACP and other cartridges. Whoop!

I got a chance to go shooting with gun buddy Grummz, at what I think was the On-Target Range in Orange County. It was a nice facility, with a pretty extensive gun and accessories store.

Grummz has a nice collection of revolvers and a little Walther P22 auto. I was particularly fond of his Ruger GP100 and Beretta Stampede. I haven’t done much revolver shooting at all before this, so it was a pretty new experience. I found I shot most accurately with .357 through the GP100, as opposed to .38 for some reason. The Stampede was also a lot of fun, being a single-action revolver patterned after the famous Colt Single Action Army. There was a lot of finicky things you needed to do to load it, cartridge-by-cartridge through a gate, but the gun makes a lot of neat clicking sounds. It’s a bit tedious, but sorta fun in that “Let’s Pretend I’m Clint Eastwood in A Fistful of Dollars” kind of way.

We rented a Kimber Stainless II, so Grummz could help diagnose my 1911 shooting technique. My groups were pretty shaky and kind of all over the place, except for one time when I was just sort of idly shooting and not looking directly at the front sights. That group was small and tight… could it be that looking at the front sight was actually hurting my accuracy? It’s such a standard thing to do…focus on the front sight alignment picture, keep the target blurry.

I shot the next group looking at the target, with the sights blurry instead. And lo, I shot a great second group. We theorized that I was trying to keep the sight picture stable to the point that I wasn’t really making the best use of my vision abilities; I am able to see very minute imbalances in alignment from some distance to an extent that freaks people out. I once spotted an alignment error on a poster of 2/72nds of an inch from 10 feet away, which which the poster’s creator sitting in front of it couldn’t see and didn’t believe until he got out a ruler and checked his original digital file. Anyway, I’ll have to try this again next time I’m at the range.

Grummz also had a really nice Dan Wesson .41 magnum. Kind of an oddball cartridge, he said, but shoots real nice. I have to agree. The gun was quite beautiful as well.

We also rented a Desert Eagle in .44 magnum for the hell of it, because neither of us had ever shot one. It is ludicrously large and ungainly, feeding full-size rimmed .44 magnum revolver cartridges into an enormous gas-powered slide/barrel assembly. A real chest-beater of a gun.

The recoil was surprisingly mild…I’d say the .41 kicked more. I’m almost embarassed to say that I liked it a lot…it’s almost a parody of a real gun, but its mild recoil and sheer mechanical mass made it fun. Grummz in particular shot very well with it, as you can see in the image, and he doesn’t even like autoloaders. This was at about 7.5yards, best I can remember. I suggested that since it shot .44 magnum rimmed cartridges, it was almost a revolver, and should he acquire a .44 Magnum revolver he could reload and shoot both of them. He must have been thinking the same thing, since we priced out another Desert Eagle before leaving…about $1400 if I recall. Ouch! As a consolation prize I bought a Fobus two-mag belt holster for Beretta 9mms (the Springfield XD uses Beretta mags).

All in all, a satisfying day out.

Shooting buddy Seuss and I have been debating whether it’s possible to sight in the Ruger .22 with ADCO Optical Sight so the sights work the same for both of us. I contend that the pistol has a single point of aim through the sights, and any tendency for the pistol to shoot non-zero is due to the shooter. Seuss contends that each shooter may need to adjust the point-of-aim depending on their vision, or adapt to their shooting style. On that latter point, I didn’t think it was a good idea to adjust the sights to compensate for a probably lack of precise technique. However, I did think his former point (point-of-aim varying depending on vision) might have some credence, as he’s cross-eye dominant and with the large diameter of the sight’s optics: was it possible that a multi-element lens system did not correct for off-axis viewing?

The parallax effect I’m thinking of is the optical kind, like when you’re looking through a thick pane of glass at an angle, or when you see a straw in a glass of water. The pane of glass will offset the apparent position of something behind it when viewed at an angle, and the glass of water will apparently bend the straw. This is due to light refraction; though light travels in a straight line, when it enters a material of different density it will be deflected by a particular amount. This happens when light enters and exits a pane of glass. If you’ve ever put a coin under a thick piece of glass and noticed it appeared in a different place than you thought, that’s what I’m talking about.

This article about parallax explains that parallax in a low-power scope at close ranges is not that significant. As a test, I took the scope and placed it on a table so it wouldn’t move. I aimed it at a small leaf about 50 feet away, then moved my head side-to-side to see if the dot moved. It didn’t move significantly for me if at all, staying smack dab in the center of a small leaf. In any case, if I was aiming such that the red dot was centered approximately in the sight, the amount of deviation was imperceptable. It was certainly below the difference in “center of group” between Seuss’ and my targets. After reading this article that Seuss found, I’m thinking it’s probably trigger and hold that’s the root cause; since we’re both new shooters, we have little technical consistency from shot-to-shot.

There’s another kind of parallax that is related to the offset of the optical sight relative to the axis of the gun barrel. Seuss had sighted it in already to compensate for this, but since I’ve cleaned the gun it may have shifted again.

I recently had a chance to try a rifle at MFL. I’m not even sure what kind of rifle it was, but it was a lot of fun and I wanted one. I had that sense of being able to really reach out and touch a distant target. I liked it!

I had previous shot a few rounds through the AR-15, but we couldn’t get the gun to cycle completely, so it was more awkward than fun. Still need to bring it back and see if the intensive cleaning has smoothed it out any.

Anyway, I asked one of the range operators which rifles I could shoot indoors. You can shoot the AR-15 if you use their frangible ammunition; the velocity limit at MFL is 2000fps. Ordinary .223 Remington and 5.56mm NATO have velocities in the 2500-2800fps range. The frangible ammunition is designed to crumble on hard contact rather than penetrate (such is the definition of “frangible”). The problem is it’s about 50 cents a shot. Yikes.

When I asked what other rifles we could shoot indoors, a .30-06 was fine, as were any carbines in pistol calibers. There were some .44 and .45 calibers that I didn’t quite catch. So this might be a good opportunity to pick up that cowbow lever action rifle. Pricewise, finding something in 9mm would be cheapest to shoot. Otherwise, I guess I’m looking at reloading at some point to keep costs down.

Headed over to MFL with Seuss to do some long overdue shooting. We mostly practiced some of the drawing from holster and practicing the “hot range” protocol. After looking over the range rules, it didn’t seem that this was against them. This was different from what we had been doing before, which was to have a bunch of loose unloaded guns on the table. Working from the holster was much better and focused. So while we weren’t particularly fast, we each got a couple dozen or so practice draws, heavily scrutinized by the other for flaws in gun administration and safety.

(more…)

I finally picked up a holster for the Kimber TLE, another Fobus plastic thing. This one was a paddle… not having been too pleased with the inexpensive BladeTech injection-molded holster, I asked if they had the Fobus in a belt style. The gun store guy said, “Nope…can’t give those away, so I don’t stock ‘em anymore. The paddles are much better.” This was from a 1911 guy, so I went with it despite some misgivings, and headed out to the range to do a bit of shooting with gun buddy Seuss.

Seuss got to try it first. At first he pulled it out of his pants, but he hadn’t set the paddle deep enough to be caught by his belt. Comparing it to the belt Fobus for the Glock, Seuss declared the Fobus Paddle to be more comfortable. He also liked shooting the 1911…it really does seem to suit him.

I tried it next, and found it stayed in place and felt pretty darn good. Compared to the BladeTech, it seems a lot more stable. But why?

On the surface, the Fobus seems to ride about 3/4th of an inch lower, hug about 1/4th inch closer, and hold onto your pants better than the BladeTech.

The paddle twice as long on the Fobus, and the way that the paddle is molded provides a channel for your belt to ride in. There are three places where there is some tooth to the channel, whereas the BladeTech provides a single narrow tooth for this function, centered in the middle of the paddle. It provides very little grip by comparison. The Fobus paddle is also textured slightly whereas the BladeTech paddle is smooth. In practice I doubt the texture makes a difference, but who knows?

The Fobus doesn’t have an adjustable tension for retainment like the BladeTech does, but it seems to draw fine for me. You need to be pretty deliberate about getting the gun out…a good sharp tug straight out seems to work. One possible issue is the front sight…tall ones might get stuck. Mine was fine, though.

My initial impression is that the Fobus is the better holster. It might look and feel cheap (and pricewise, it’s only about 25 bucks), but the design features seem more effective than the BladeTech’s bottom-rung Injection Molded product. Of course, I still haven’t been about to use the damn thing because of the missing screw. Their other holsters appear to use the same paddle from Galco, so I’m wondering if they have the same relatively anemic ability to hold onto your pants without moving around a lot, but I’ll have to check them out some time to be sure.

At the top is the Fobus hugging a Glock 34. At the bottom is the Uncle Mike’s Kydex sheathing a Springfield Armory XD. You can see the difference in material thickness and build.

I ordered a couple of these injection-molded holsters from Blade-Tech’s online store. Blade-Tech makes several Kydex holsters of various styles for $50-$60 a piece, which these ain’t. These paddle holsters about $17 apiece. I figured I would try a paddle-style holster to see how I liked them, before spending any real money on them. These are made of some kind of different plastic that isn’t Kydex.

The holster material itself is between the Fobus and the Uncle Mike’s in rigidity…I’d say slightly less rigid. It’s a paddle holster that can be worn without a belt, so it’s allegedly easier to put on and take off. I find it doesn’t feel very stable or in place, so I’m not too pleased with it. If there was some kind of clamping action in the holster, that might make it feel more in-place.

You can adjust the angle of the the holster to forward, straight, or backwards, so it’s pretty versatile.

One odd thing is that although each holster allegedly has the same finish, one is obviously more matte than the other. The Glock 26-sized holster is textured in a matte way, while the Glock 17/22/34 holster is smoother. Also, the Glock 26 holster came missing one of the screws that attach the holster to the paddle, so it’s not wearable until I get a replacement sent. This is pretty annoying, especially given the so-called “quality control” paper slip by “ZS” and the indeterminate wait time I had for getting the holster in the first place. The finish of the plastic (which isn’t Kydex) is a little rough around the edges of the mouth…ugly injection molding marks, whereas they’re more refined in the Uncle Mikes and Fobus holsters.

I’d like to also order some kind of belt clip to convert this holster, but can’t find this separately listed. I’m not sure if the “Tac Lock” stuff will work with this…it looked like it wouldn’t.

On a side note, the packaging is kind of quaint: a ziplock freezer bag with a printed “Blade-Tech” single page insert. The insert is nicely printed, though it’s not specific to the holster I got. It looks more like a sell sheet that describes their regular holster line.

My impression is this is a cheap entry into the Blade-Tech family, and my experience has not been particularly stellar yet. With the wait and missing part, I’m a little disappointed. We’ll see if they answer my email, or if I have to actually call them up.

Incidentally, the Glock 34 fits just fine in either holster. So I guess you could buy the Glock 26 version for your concealed carry Glock, but then also use it on the range for your full-sized gun if you didn’t mind the front of the gun sticking out through the bottom.

It’s a little hard to get at the mag release with the gun in the holster.

UPDATE NOVEMBER 23, 2004

Although I got no acknowledgement about my complaint about missing parts of the holster, I today received an envelope from Blade-Tech with a bag full of nuts. It must be a complete screw-nut kit, far more than what I need. It’s nice that they were responsive, though a note would have been nice. Now I can finally try the holster out for real!

This belt holster from Fobus cost me $25 locally. Compared to the Uncle Mike’s Kydex Holster, this holster uses thinner and more supple plastic. The Uncle Mike’s holster is very rigid and holds its shape. The Fobus is more like a flexible sleeve, rigid enough to hold its shape but compressable.

On closer inspection, you can see the rivet-style constructions, holding the thin pieces of plastic together. It looks like it would be a piece of junk, but on your hip it feels pretty good. It holds my Glock 34 well, requiring a snappy pull to get the gun clear. If you don’t do a really straight and snappy pull, the gun doesn’t come as easily, probably because the material flexes a bit and holds more than a rigid, slippery holster would. It’s not bad, though.

The holster holds closer than the Uncle Mike’s Kydex, which is canted out slightly from the belt. The angle is also at the “FBI cant”, angled back by 30 degrees. I noticed that this allows you to sit and still by able to draw, compared to the nearly-straight drop of the Uncle Mike’s holster.

There is no tension adjustment at all on this holster. It retains well new. There are multiple belt loop sizes, but you will need a sturdy belt still.

It’s a little harder to get at the mag release in this holster. The material partially covers the button. Also, the travelling of the button pushes against the other side of the holster, requiring additional force.

Overall, I actually like this holster better than the Blade-Tech for some reason. It’s a pleasing combination of lightness, close fit, and an interesting material (it’s kind of silky), but the real test will be on the range.

My Uncle Mike’s Kydex Holster blocks the left side magazine release, making in-the-holster mag changes awkward. Who needs that! The dremel tool dug a nice hole for the mag release to move; while it’s still blocked from the left side, the right side can now be depressed without having to flex the gun in its holster.