So, after a gruelling 2.5 days of deliberation (around about 2 of which was nothing but nonsensical justification) I pulled the trigger (zing!!) on my first hand gun.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/Jervisaurus/DSCN1459.jpg)
It started off as a normal peruse through a local pawn shop and ended with a salesman's pep talk into me buying yet another expensive toy. A friend actually just got a glock 9mm compact (we can conceal and carry here in Mo) which I really liked, but the barrel was both too fat and too short at the same time. The guy totally sold me on the Springfield. It's a standard Springfield Armory XD with a 4 inch barrel, but the reason I really liked it over the standard was because of the ported barrel and the safety system. Not only is it loud as balls, but it sounds and looks downright mean. It's kind of disconcerting though trying to keep a good eye on a target through all that upper muzzle flash.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/Jervisaurus/DSCN1461.jpg)
When I started shopping around for handguns I intially wanted to get a lefty, or at least a gun from someone who made a lefty slide/barrel conversion. After fiddling around with this one though, it's not hard to navigate the various controls with the wrong hand. I've gotten my palm pinched between the slide and the barrel a couple of times (I tell you, it feels GREAT) but other than that everything's totally doable from my left side. I thought about switching over to the dark side, but my right hand is absolutely retarded.
So far I'm pretty thrilled with it. Not having shot a handgun bigger than a little baby .38 revolver and growing up on .22s and 12guages, this thing is definitely a different kind of beast. Despite the muzzle flash, I really like the look and sound of the barrel. One thing I might change though is the trigger. A guy down the range from me last night had an XD match grade edition, which is pretty much the same gun, but with a match grade steel barrel and a short/light pull trigger and the trigger had a feather light feel to it. I know it looks like every tactical weapon ever made (at least to the untrained eye), but if the gun fits......
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/Jervisaurus/DSCN1462.jpg)
Nice!
I have an XD also. A 45gap with a 5in barrel. You get the power of the 45acp in a compact frame, for my little carnie hands. I got it for home security, definitely not a gun for long range accuracy.
Springfield here as well.
XD .45
gotta love the grip size on a double stack .45acp! ;D
I bought mine about 3 or 4 years ago, right before there acp version came out, which I'd prefer. The gap rounds are expensive and not everybody even stocks them.
thats a nice looking gun I must say
post some vids
Here's mine.
Smaller but with a little more bite.
I need to get a 9mm barrel for it to save some money at the range though.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3388/3175878964_f9cc05142d_b.jpg)
I carry one (4" XD .45) on duty, I like the grip but have problems with the magazines not dropping out on their own. The moment my agency approves single action I am going right back to a 1911.
I have an XD9, which I love, but I'm looking to sell it in favor of the XD45. Anyone interested?? ;D
Quote from: NvrSummer on January 07, 2009, 07:28:39 AM
I have an XD9, which I love, but I'm looking to sell it in favor of the XD45. Anyone interested?? ;D
is it the subcompact?
ive been shopping for a gun for a while and so far the xd is the one that fits my hands the best, but i really like the way the subcompact feels, even though the main reason i liked the xd is because it isnt narrow like every glock ive ever used. it seems like everyone i know has the xd and they havent told me anything bad about them yet so its my top choice so far, but my best friends sister has a cz that i wanna try out before i buy anything.
I never shot the glock, but I really didn't like the way the grip felt (reread my post, I originally put "barrel"). Not only was the barrel really fat feeling in my hand, but it was so short I couldn't find a good point to wrap my strong hand around. My pinky kept slipping off the bottom, even with the extended mag in place. I prefer the size and look of the sub compact, it just didn't fit my needs.
HBliam, what did you mean by the clips not dropping out on their own? I've only put a handful of rounds through mine (far from broken in) but the mag has a tendency to eject out of the grip. I've never had a problem getting it out. With the spring tension on the new mags though, getting it in takes a bit more force than I'm used to.
Are the 9mm and .45 barrels interchangable, just so long as you get the model right? That sounds like an interesting upgrade I may do in the future. The 9's are just too cheap to give up, at least for just plinking around. Does anyone reload their own pistol rounds?
Quote from: Jarvicious on January 07, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
HBliam, what did you mean by the clips not dropping out on their own? I've only put a handful of rounds through mine (far from broken in) but the mag has a tendency to eject out of the grip. I've never had a problem getting it out. With the spring tension on the new mags though, getting it in takes a bit more force than I'm used to.
On a tactical reload I press the mag release button and the mag drops a bit and then stops. I have to pull it out with my hand. Enough of a reason to get rid of the gun right there. Now that you have me thinking about it I think I may go buy a new gun today.
Quote from: toaster on January 07, 2009, 08:32:59 AM
is it the subcompact?
ive been shopping for a gun for a while and so far the xd is the one that fits my hands the best, but i really like the way the subcompact feels, even though the main reason i liked the xd is because it isnt narrow like every glock ive ever used. it seems like everyone i know has the xd and they havent told me anything bad about them yet so its my top choice so far, but my best friends sister has a cz that i wanna try out before i buy anything.
Nope, it's the Service model so 4" barrel. Those CZ's are a fun guns and pack quite a punch! Ammo is tough to find in that caliber though.
Quote from: Jarvicious on January 07, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
Are the 9mm and .45 barrels interchangable, just so long as you get the model right? That sounds like an interesting upgrade I may do in the future. The 9's are just too cheap to give up, at least for just plinking around. Does anyone reload their own pistol rounds?
When I bought mine, it was the only one with interchangeable barrels. I don't know if that's still the case or not.
It's a .40 and they make 9mm and .357 barrels for it. With them you can still use the same mags.
Quote from: Jarvicious on January 07, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
I never shot the glock, but I really didn't like the way the grip felt (reread my post, I originally put "barrel"). Not only was the barrel really fat feeling in my hand, but it was so short I couldn't find a good point to wrap my strong hand around. My pinky kept slipping off the bottom, even with the extended mag in place. I prefer the size and look of the sub compact, it just didn't fit my needs.
HBliam, what did you mean by the clips not dropping out on their own? I've only put a handful of rounds through mine (far from broken in) but the mag has a tendency to eject out of the grip. I've never had a problem getting it out. With the spring tension on the new mags though, getting it in takes a bit more force than I'm used to.
Are the 9mm and .45 barrels interchangable, just so long as you get the model right? That sounds like an interesting upgrade I may do in the future. The 9's are just too cheap to give up, at least for just plinking around. Does anyone reload their own pistol rounds?
Takes a certain hand to feel comfortable with the Glock's grip I love my brother's friend but he is always pregnant doging about the grip feel. Unfortunately, I can't get myself to part with my Taurus .40 to trade him.
We're going out this Saturday so I'll probably put a couple of clips through his compact just to compare it.
As far as the interchangeable barrels go, the guy who run the local range here KNOWS HIS SHIT so I'll have to run it by him. I just bought the damn thing so i'm not looking to "pimp" it just yet with the exception of the lefty holster.
hbliam, have you thought about just modifying the mag a little bit? I took a look at both of my mags after I read your post and there's definitely a wear line where the release pin in the handle rubs on the mag just above the latch hole. I'd imagine a little bit of modification/lube on the latch would facilitate things. Then again, if you're just looking for an excuse to pick up a new piece far be it from me to try and talk you out of it ;D.
I have heard the top ported barrel on those things (is that right term? the holes on the barrel through the slide) blow a bunch of particle dust in your face.
That was on the glock model with the same set up.
Anyone hear differently?
However, that is a fine looking gun [thumbsup]
Well, you're not supposed to fire ported barrel guns from the hip for that reason, but when you're shooting normally it doesn't make too much difference. After all, that's why you wear goggles ;D.
Either way though, I wouldn't give a shit if it was more dangerous. It was too cool looking NOT to buy it 8).
Quote from: Jarvicious on January 07, 2009, 03:11:21 PM
As far as the interchangeable barrels go, the guy who run the local range here KNOWS HIS SHIT so I'll have to run it by him. I just bought the damn thing so i'm not looking to "pimp" it just yet with the exception of the lefty holster.
Okay, what I've been able to find is that conversion barrels are available to go from .40 to either .357 or 9mm and from .357 to 9mm, but not up in caliber at all and not down from .45.
Quote from: hbliam on January 07, 2009, 12:01:42 PM
On a tactical reload I press the mag release button and the mag drops a bit and then stops. I have to pull it out with my hand. Enough of a reason to get rid of the gun right there. Now that you have me thinking about it I think I may go buy a new gun today.
Scott, there's a company that makes aftermarket mags for the XD that're coated in some sort of anti-friction material for better drop-out, but I can only find them in 9mm and .40. The company is called Mec-Gar, you might have better luck finding something than I did.
Oh man! Guns are evil! You are a danger to society! You are a BAD BAD BAD person.
Oh wait, I have a carry permit and many guns and have actually never been a danger to society.
Nevermind.
Nice piece! I want a 1911 BAD, but can't afford a good one right now.
Quote from: Rameses on January 07, 2009, 11:21:08 PM
Scott, there's a company that makes aftermarket mags for the XD that're coated in some sort of anti-friction material for better drop-out, but I can only find them in 9mm and .40. The company is called Mec-Gar, you might have better luck finding something than I did.
I'll take a look around. What's bad is that someone has to make a mag to specifically fix a problem that should not exist. If I can't get it fixed in teh next week or so I'm gonna have to carry something else.
Quote from: hbliam on January 08, 2009, 06:35:58 PM
I'll take a look around. What's bad is that someone has to make a mag to specifically fix a problem that should not exist. If I can't get it fixed in teh next week or so I'm gonna have to carry something else.
You can switch duty weapons that easily?
Quote from: Slag on January 08, 2009, 06:41:41 PM
You can switch duty weapons that easily?
Maybe it is his backup weapon?
But then don't you have to qualify on the range with that new gun?
I know all departments I have been around make officer's qualify to the same standards as their duty weapon
We had to qualify with our duty weapon, back up, and anything we were going to carry off duty. That included rifles for hunting [bang] PITA, but the dept had to protect themselves from lawsuits.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on January 07, 2009, 03:19:39 PM
I have heard the top ported barrel on those things (is that right term? the holes on the barrel through the slide) blow a bunch of particle dust in your face.
My issue with ported barrels is the flash. It will kill your night vision.
Quote from: Slag on January 08, 2009, 07:33:13 PM
We had to qualify with our duty weapon, back up, and anything we were going to carry off duty. That included rifles for hunting [bang] PITA, but the dept had to protect themselves from lawsuits.
I have talked about it with Grifo (LEO) and when he switched to a compact 1911 for his backup, he had to qualify.
that is a bad ass gun.
Quote from: Slag on January 08, 2009, 07:35:05 PM
My issue with ported barrels is the flash. It will kill your night vision.
I heard that too, but figured all the debris flying out the front would be enough to deter me from owning one.
So far I haven't had any problems with debri hitting me, but I've only been through a couple of boxes so far. I have a few hundred rounds sitting in the closet itching to be shot so I'll get back to the crowd on the barrel issue. As far as the night vision is concerned, this guy is just for plinking. If I'm ever in a combat situation, I'll be sure to pick up a new barrel ;D
hbliam, I agree. That would be kind of like buying a brand new bicycle that you had to immediately tear down and lube every bearing on. I doubt SA had a "forced upgrade" in mind when they designed her, but it should at least perform well out of the box.
Has anyone ever used this ammo?
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/AMM406-1.html (http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/AMM406-1.html)
I guess it's been a standard in law enforcement/military for years and there are mixed reviews on it, most of which are pretty exceptional. I was thinking about picking up a box or two to load in the gun for self defense, especially with them at that price.
nice gun
how much barrel do you have before the porting starts? it looks like you have about an inch.
does the rifling continue thru the porting? that would be interesting since the porting means no more back pressure on the projectile.
i have a ported revolver but the barrel is 8" and the porting is the last inch with no rifling, so it is really shooting a 7", but it's in 44 mag and you need every oz of bleedoff.
i always liked the HS2000, I was surprised Springfield picked it up so quick, but what a good deal for them!
Quote from: cyrus buelton on January 07, 2009, 03:19:39 PM
I have heard the top ported barrel on those things (is that right term? the holes on the barrel through the slide) blow a bunch of particle dust in your face.
That was on the glock model with the same set up.
it will definitely kick some debris in your face if you are holding it below your head, which you generally should NOT be doing. proper Weaver or isoceles shooting stance has the pistol at near arm's length from your face.
What is the purpose of the ported barrel?
Quote from: cyrus buelton on January 08, 2009, 07:26:06 PM
Maybe it is his backup weapon?
But then don't you have to qualify on the range with that new gun?
I know all departments I have been around make officer's qualify to the same standards as their duty weapon
it's not a back up. but yes, we have to qualify quarterly with our duty weapon, back up, shotgun, MP5, and any gun we want to carry off duty. Our range is behind our station so it's not a big deal to go out back and qualify.
and normally your back up it's not held to the same standard as your duty weapon. for instance, at my last agency to qualify with my back up (S&W 342 PD, 1 3/4" 5 shot .38)I had to pass the regular qualification course which included 8 shots one handed (4 left, 4 right) from 25 yards. With a snub nose hammerless .38! It sucked. After you do that once the yearly requal is just 5 rounds in the head of the target from 7 yards. Realistically your backup will probably be used from less then 1-3 yards anyway.
Quote from: NAKID on January 10, 2009, 06:11:43 PM
What is the purpose of the ported barrel?
routes some of the high-pressure gases upward which offsets some of the recoil.
net result to ballistics is that it saps some energy from the projectile as well.
hard to tell if the recoil advantage is due to the porting or to the lost energy.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on January 10, 2009, 08:32:21 PM
routes some of the high-pressure gases upward which offsets some of the recoil.
net result to ballistics is that it saps some energy from the projectile as well.
hard to tell if the recoil advantage is due to the porting or to the lost energy.
I was thinking it would take some of the power away from the round but couldn't think of an upside...
Quote from: ducatizzzz on January 10, 2009, 08:32:21 PM
routes some of the high-pressure gases upward which offsets some of the recoil.
net result to ballistics is that it saps some energy from the projectile as well.
hard to tell if the recoil advantage is due to the porting or to the lost energy.
probably a bit of both, but probably mostly from the gasses offsetting the muzzle lift, giving a preception of reducing recoil.
I question the thinking of it, especially in 9mm. even a sub compact 9mm's recoil is managable, and as mentioned, the flash and the powder coming back towards your face isn't good, terrible in a dark defensive situation..
if it does take enough energy from the projectile, thats energy lost from cycling the slide which could result in misfeeding. Not a fan of that idea.
For instance, I have a PPKS (.380) that will only reliably eat very hot ammo. I tried "reduced recoil" threw it and it jammed every round, to its credit the recoil was pretty light (felt like a .22)
Quote from: acalles on January 11, 2009, 07:15:38 AM
probably a bit of both, but probably mostly from the gasses offsetting the muzzle lift, giving a preception of reducing recoil.
I question the thinking of it, especially in 9mm. even a sub compact 9mm's recoil is managable, and as mentioned, the flash and the powder coming back towards your face isn't good, terrible in a dark defensive situation..
if it does take enough energy from the projectile, thats energy lost from cycling the slide which could result in misfeeding. Not a fan of that idea.
For instance, I have a PPKS (.380) that will only reliably eat very hot ammo. I tried "reduced recoil" threw it and it jammed every round, to its credit the recoil was pretty light (felt like a .22)
the PPK's are all blowback, which makes me think you have a too-strong spring in that gun. I would send it to Walther and get them to put a weaker spring in it -- probably drop a half pound and it will work find. Those PPKs should work with any ammo!
I am also not a fan of porting on a small gun. I don't see the need, but I know it's popular. I am just concerned that with a 3" barrel, you are shaving off projectile performance. If the barrel is bleeding off gases, then the projectile is no longer accelerating (or is accelerating at a much lower rate). I wonder what the diameter of those porting holes is combined? Seems you would lose quite a bit once the projectile clears 4 of them.
Tizzy' turned me onto CZ guns last year and the end result was me purchasing a CZ 85 9mm.
That gun literally has no recoil
Quote from: ZLTFUL on January 07, 2009, 02:30:16 PM
...I love my brother's friend...
Have you shared your feelings with your brother, or his friend?
[laugh]Shit, dude, I couldn't resist....
Quote from: cyrus buelton on January 11, 2009, 08:46:02 AM
Tizzy' turned me onto CZ guns last year and the end result was me purchasing a CZ 85 9mm.
That gun literally has no recoil
they are well balanced but they do have recoil.. i guess you have strong wrists from all that auto pleasuring you do. but the recoil is well weighted since it's a steel-framed gun.
i do love the CZ guns though, I have a clutch of them.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on January 11, 2009, 02:44:01 PM
i do love the CZ guns though, I have a clutch of them.
More than a brace, eh? Nice.
Quote from: Sinister on January 11, 2009, 03:04:05 PM
More than a brace, eh? Nice.
rofl.. actually the count of a clutch is relative to container size... :D and a brace is only two identical things... :D
only two actual CZ make, the others are Tanfoglio and IAI. I have a Mini Desert Eagle in 41AE which rocks. my cz85 is one of the original imports with no firing pin safety and a solid front sight. they are better built than the B versions now available, but the B's are excellent by far.
Now that I've put a couple hundred rounds through it I figured I'd give an update.
Coming from a background with minimal handgun usage, I immediately found this gun to have more kick than I thought it would. As it turns out, it was just the ammo I was using. I traded a clip full with my buddy yesterday and was amazed at what a difference it made. I don't know if it was a smaller bullet or they just used a smaller load, but his rounds definitely shot smoother than the shit I've been using (and cost less to boot).
I finally got my hands on his Glock (19 i think) and his wife's Kahr 9mm. It was amusing to try the different guns with the different ammo and really reinforced my purchase decision. We were discussing the ported barrel option at the range and the consensus was that it does help with the recoil. It's a pretty mild effect though. It kinda felt as though the ports didn't minimalize the distance the barrel jumped, but rather made it feel as though I had more control over the recoil (compared to the glock).
I don't doubt that it saps some of the projectile energy, but what kind of effect do you honestly think even 100 (unlikely loss of power) would have on the gun's effectiveness? Even if it's running, say, 800 fps (not likely given the barrel's length) shouldn't that be close to as effective as a +P round? How much difference would 200 fps make? I'm not being argumentative here (mostly ;D), just looking for one of you folks with some gun exp. to lend some educated responses. I have a feeling though that even if we determined the ports are counter productive, I still would have bought the same gun :). I'm a trained designer that thinks more like an engineer so the never ending battle of form vs. function is pretty constant in my mind, but form won this one.
I was bored this morning so I did a little bit of math and the ports only account for the tiniest bit over 1% of the surface area of the barrel. It's a pretty simple concept that when a cylindrical projectile is propelled from a larger cylinder, any exhaust prior to the end of the larger cylinder will cause a loss in back pressure, but I'm not about to run the math on just how much force there is behind X bullet with Y loss in velocity due to Z amount in pressure loss. I'm not that bored. Here's a pic of the barrel. There are five ports on each side that vent through the slots in the top of the slide.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/Jervisaurus/DSCN1464.jpg)
Before we proceed any further repeat the following.
"Clips are for hair, magazines are for guns."
:)
Quote from: hbliam on January 12, 2009, 10:28:22 AM
Before we proceed any further repeat the following.
"Clips are for hair, magazines are for guns."
:)
What about an M1 Garand?
:P
Quote from: Jarvicious on January 12, 2009, 09:21:32 AM
It's a pretty simple concept that when a cylindrical projectile is propelled from a larger cylinder, any exhaust prior to the end of the larger cylinder will cause a loss in back pressure, but I'm not about to run the math on just how much force there is behind X bullet with Y loss in velocity due to Z amount in pressure loss. I'm not that bored. Here's a pic of the barrel. There are five ports on each side that vent through the slots in the top of the slide.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/Jervisaurus/DSCN1464.jpg)
well, instead of running crazy math numbers, you could get a chronograph and measure speed, then run the numbers threw something like this.
http://billstclair.com/energy.html (http://billstclair.com/energy.html)
but Ammo is all different, lots of different powders with different burn rates, lots of different bullet weights from lots of manufactures.
lets say your shooting 115 grain ammo at 1200 fps. your energy is 368 ft/lbs.
if your drop that velocity to 800 fps your down to 163 ft/lbs/ even if your shooting 150 grain at that speed your down to 203 ft/lbs.
I would call that a unacceptable loss. if you only lose 100 fps your still at 306ft/lbs. which isn't bad.
chronoing a non ported bbl, against a your ported bbl, with the ammo you wish to carry would be the best way to figure in gains/losses.
Chronograph - range
Math - livingroom and a cup of coffee ;D
I've met quite a few folks with standard or match grade barrel XDs, but I'm not sure who might have a chronograph around here. Any speed or energy testing would be strictly amusement and curiosity though. If i start running ammo that jams once or twice per magazine (happy hbliam?? ;)) I'll strongly reconsider doing some research. Otherwise, the gun is just something to gain experience with and to go playing around with on the weekends.
I am enjoying getting back into shooting though. Next time I see my parents I'm planning on stealing my .222 and taking it to a proper range. Last time me and a buddy went out to his uncle's farm and screwed with it for a couple of hours, but didn't have much luck sighting in the scope. I got home and was talking to dad about it and his words were something along these lines: Shooting at 75 yards ehh? Well, I guess that would prove difficult on a gun sighted in at 400.
Quote from: Rameses on January 12, 2009, 10:34:34 AM
What about an M1 Garand?
:P
rofl
technically, the M1 has an internal magazine but it is definitely a clip holding the rounds.
Quote from: Jarvicious on January 12, 2009, 09:21:32 AM
I don't doubt that it saps some of the projectile energy, but what kind of effect do you honestly think even 100 (unlikely loss of power) would have on the gun's effectiveness? Even if it's running, say, 800 fps (not likely given the barrel's length) shouldn't that be close to as effective as a +P round? How much difference would 200 fps make? I'm not being argumentative here (mostly ;D), just looking for one of you folks with some gun exp. to lend some educated responses. I have a feeling though that even if we determined the ports are counter productive, I still would have bought the same gun :). I'm a trained designer that thinks more like an engineer so the never ending battle of form vs. function is pretty constant in my mind, but form won this one.
For typical 115 gr projectiles, a 9mm round will have a muzzle velocity of about 1100-1200 fps with a 4" barrel.
I have seen ported barrels bleed off as much as 25% of the muzzle velocity from a roudn, but it depends on the barrel (i.e. a 4" barrel with 2" of porting is worse off than an 8" barrel with 1" of porting)
For a 9mm, that drops its terminal performance to around the level of a stock .380 (9mm short), which is usually a 98 gr projectile with 1000 fps at the muzzle.
Also, I would say that your experience of recoil is more due to your relative newness to shooting rather than the gun itself. Most issues with recoil are due ot the shooter, not the gun -- meaning once you are more experienced with grip and stance, you will not have recoil issues- - that is the main reason I tell ppl to start shooting with a 22 -- no matter what. You learn bad habits if you start "big".
I did reserve judgment on the recoil issue until I had a couple of other people shoot my gun, and they both agreed that though the results were very minimal, it made a difference. Then again, maybe we were all taking placebo pills ;). I had a quick lesson with the guy running the range last week and he said my grip is pretty solid. I'm pulling right hard on all my shots so I'm gonna have to modify it a little, but I'm plenty stable. I finally got the vid off of my girlfriend's camera and noticed my head snaps a little on the first shot, but everything else looks ultramega ok. Then again, what do I know ;D
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/Jervisaurus/th_MVI_2449.jpg) (http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/Jervisaurus/?action=view¤t=MVI_2449.flv)
BTW, did you ever pick up a new backup sidearm hbliam, or are you going to hold off in search of those mags?
Quote from: Jarvicious on January 12, 2009, 11:43:06 AM
I did reserve judgment on the recoil issue until I had a couple of other people shoot my gun, and they both agreed that though the results were very minimal, it made a difference. Then again, maybe we were all taking placebo pills ;). I had a quick lesson with the guy running the range last week and he said my grip is pretty solid. I'm pulling right hard on all my shots so I'm gonna have to modify it a little, but I'm plenty stable. I finally got the vid off of my girlfriend's camera and noticed my head snaps a little on the first shot, but everything else looks ultramega ok. Then again, what do I know ;D
it looks like your upper body is leaning back, you should be leaning forward, knees slightly bent. think of a football crouch but not as far down. you want your center mass to be low and forward.
shooting is easy but getting good at it takes a lot of practice, patience and paper (to log your performance and the rounds you are firing).
if you are pulling right (shooting right handed) you might be flinching. you'd have to do some bench shooting to figure if it is the gun or you.
Jarvicious, how's the gun been the last few months? Looking to pick one up...
Quote from: NAKID on January 10, 2009, 10:55:30 PM
I was thinking it would take some of the power away from the round but couldn't think of an upside...
If you get it right, you can slow the projectile down enough that it will not go through a person; thus creating maximum damage by transferring all of the energy of the projectile to the target.
Weaver stance?
Try shooting isosceles. It might feel weird at first but you should shoot better.
Thought I would share my new addition
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3333/3442972303_89e43b4fbe_o.jpg)
Can't find any ammo around here to try it out though :-[
mitt
Quote from: mitt on April 14, 2009, 08:14:16 PM
Thought I would share my new addition
Can't find any ammo around here to try it out though :-[
mitt
where are you??
Quote from: ducatizzzz on April 14, 2009, 08:16:24 PM
where are you??
Iowa. I have checked out our Walmart, Theisens (like a Farm and Fleet), and Gander Mountain. I need to swing by a gun store near my work and check it out.
The only box of 9x19 I found last week was $60 hollow points :o
mitt