deerslayer

EXACTLY. He didn’t rule out a semi-auto, but felt that none available would meet his needs. A standard AR sized rifle wouldn’t chamber a big enough round and an AR-10 sized frame would make the gun too heavy. Firepower and capacity were not important; handiness and practical accuracy were paramount. His essay about the rifle goes into lots of detail: https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2014/10/2/throwback-thursday-the-scout-rifle/

I have a 5.5" that looks like it was recovered from the Titanic and I have my dad's 6.5" three screw model. My favorite is the 4 & 5/8 version. There's something about the ejector rod shroud being flush with the muzzle that's just cool.

Which ACOG? I'm not an ACOG expert, but I thought most were straight-power. I don't think Cooper would be a big fan of a LPVO, depending on how variable we are talking about. Cooper's original goal for the scout concept was a general-purpose bolt action, compact, lightweight, handy rifle with a forward mounted intermediate eye relief 3x (max) optic and he mentioned that 2x may be even better. His biggest reason for mounting forward was so the shooter could see the entire countryside as well as the crosshair on target. He reasoned that this mandates a low magnification to reduce disparity between the two eyes. This setup, in Cooper's opinion, allowed the fastest sighting arrangement possible. He mentioned other benefits as well--lower scope mounting, no pinching when operating the bolt, stripper clips can be used, and single-round loading while staying on target is easier. While he may have adjusted his goals or opinions over the years, everything I've read about him leads me to doubt it. I don't believe he would find a 1-6 or even a 1-4 very useful on his scout concept.

Just for clarity, do you have a .223 caliber rifle or a .257 caliber rifle?

Nobody said they were smart Marines.

I know a Marine who said when he and his buddies got bored in Iraq, they would have a big game of taser tag. I’m glad those guys are on our side.

Some manufacturers market flatpoints and truncated cone toward competitive shooters who have to knock down steel. A flatter bullet is less likely to ricochet or deflect off a steel popper than a round nose when hit at an angle or on the edge, or so the theory goes. I don’t necessarily buy this theory, but I know from experience that edge shots and glancing hits can fail to drop steel (especially when shooting minor), so FP and TC bullets may have a small advantage.

If I see a deal on a .40 I like, I may pick one up. .40 ammo didn’t vanish like 9mm did.

I’ve been shooting a G24 in USPSA Limited division for the last seven or eight months. It’s been massaged and I have it set up “just so.” It is indeed a shooter.

Some jacketed hollow point pistol bullets have a copper base instead of exposed lead, like many jacketed round nose and flat points. This can reduce fouling.

What rifle

If I ever get tired of shooting handguns, I’m gonna learn to play a guitar. That probably won’t happen, but that’s my plan.

The guy earned it.

Damn, a first class ticket was worth its weight in gold on that flight.

CZ 455 and a Ruger Mk II bull barrel. Both will shoot the lights out.

That Clark Kent fellow is the only guy that can do that.

Gotcha. My bad on the confusion.

I shoot handguns left-handed. Over the years, I have found many right-handed guns to be quite lefty friendly. A 1911 (with ambi safety) is a perfect example. In fact, when certain guns started being offered with ambi mag catches and slide releases, I thought, “why would I do that? It works better set up for right-handed shooting.” A couple right-handed friends have set up their ambi guns for a leftybecause they discovered that they preferred dropping a magazine or the slide with their trigger finger the way I do. Being about 60% left-handed and mildly ambidextrous, I could switch hands and may eventually be as good right-handed. But it wouldn’t make sense unless I had to. I guess that’s a southpaw’s life in a right-handed world.

Well maybe that clears some of the confusion if we are talking about a shooter who doesn’t know. If someone is unaware of eye dominance issues, all that makes sense. However, there are some who insist that shooting cross dominant is hopelessly flawed and the only solution is to switch hands (again, talking handguns here). Some consider cross-dominance a problem even when the cross-dominant shooter is not having problems. I have heard of a couple trainers in the past (can’t remember who) who would force students to switch hands as a rule, not after working with the student. This is asinine. Switching hands to cure eye dominance issues should be a last resort in most cases.

But why on earth would a cross-dominant shooter not compensate?

Yes I get all that, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say. There is no "problem" with shooting cross-dominant. Rotating one's head a couple inches to the left or right is a minor adjustment that cross-dominant shooters do, but after that, everything is the same. Are you referring to cross-dominant shooters who don't know they are cross-dominant?

I’ve done business with Old South a couple times. Good folks.

I don’t understand this. I’m a cross-dominant shooter and if I close my dominant eye and correct my aim, the sights are still lined up on the target whether I move the gun or move my head. I’m just using my other eye. If the sights are not lined up on the target, I didn’t correct anything.

What type of shooting did you coach? Long-gun related dominance issues sometimes seem to be harder to deal with than when shooting a handgun. Also, it helps if one eye is DOMINANT. I've occasionally run across a shooter who has a barely dominant eye and can't decide which eye to use. Those are harder to solve than the ones who are shooting cross-dominant. Seems like a lot of them end up with a piece of clear tape on their glasses over whichever eye they are trying not to use.

The bottom half of a 2011 is (until recently) polymer. The "grip" is a one piece item that consists of the grip and trigger guard and a separate mainspring housing. This part mates to a chassis (aka frame), which together form what we would think of as the frame of a 1911. I say until recently because people have started making metal grips. A 2011 is a completely different animal than simply being a double stack 1911. Below is an example of a 2011 frame: https://www.midwestgunworks.com/page/mgwi/prod/190-750020111-00