TargetTalk

John,

Thank you. Considering that our team just beat the US Military Academy at West Point in 3 matches out of 5, I figure I will continue to muddle along with my "little knowledge about firearms and ammunition".

Gwhite wrote:John,

Thank you. Considering that our team just beat the US Military Academy at West Point in 3 matches out of 5, I figure I will continue to muddle along with my "little knowledge about firearms and ammunition".

I edited my post to remove the profanity. I appreciate what you do, even if you are on the wrong side of Cambridge :P

Alexander
Post subject: Re: Walther GSP Trouble Shooting?PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:17 pm
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:27 am
Posts: 473
Location: Old Europe
Gwhite: declaring so little knowledge about firearms and ammunition, you really should NOT endeavour to coach. Not beyond scouts level.

Where did this come from ?

Direct opposite to what I think of Gwhite.....

deadeyedick wrote:Where did this come from ?

Direct opposite to what I think of Gwhite.....

it came from somebody who usually avoids putting both of his feet into his mouth at the same time, unike Gwhite (though from time to time, I might be caught with one... not all too frequently though I hope).

In competitive shooting, we have a system consisting of three elements: shooter, gun, and ammunition.
The one that can and should most fruitfully and most effectively be improved, is always the shooter.

Notwithstanding this truism, one will strive - in a MAJOR match, and national championships are a major match - to optimize all three components.
The more important one of them is the shooter, evidently. Several hours extra of dry training and individual coaching are worth more than a case of Eley Tenex or Lapua X-Act. That said and stated however, there is a very valid and very compelling double reason why - not only in rifle, but also in pistol disciplines - one will choose (or why the coach will supply) in major competitions the BEST possible ammunition that exists, for the specific gun. And this has always been the rule. Everywhere. On the globe. In 1968 as much as in 2018, in the Western world as much as in the old Communist bloc.

Anybody who does not follow this truly elementary advice, is either a doofus who has not even understood the MOST elementary basics of shooting, or a rake who thinks so lowly and so derisively of his trainees / wards, that he will sneeringly let them start with inefficient or unfitting equipment, because "dem guys and gals aint worth any real effort anyhow". In either case, he should NOT coach, and that is exactly what I think of Gwhite.
I am only having pity with his shooters.

Alexander

Gwhite, I have recently purchased an older model Pardini SP that wouldn't cycle CCI stn, same as your shooter I was having stove pipes, mis feed, jams etc.
Two things I done this week before shooting it was,
1. I took the magazines apart and thoroughly cleaned them, when I had them apart I stretched out the springs before putting the mags back together, just to add some more pressure to the platform and keep the rounds under pressure.
2. The cci waxy rounds, I took 100 rds and cleaned the wax off them using , white spirts ( mineral spirits ) , I split the 100 into 2 groups, one box I left dry and the other box I put into a small plastic bag and sprayed them lightly with gun oil coating them all and placed them into their box.
I went to the range yesterday and fire all the cci rounds 0 misfires. now it could be the cleaning of the mags or it could be the removal of the wax coating or both.
It might be worth a try.

CCI does tend to have a heavy wax coating, and it tends to vary a bit from lot to lot. Also, as one person pointed out, it may also be affected it it is overheated in transport and melts.

The wax mostly tends to affect feeding. The problem my shooter was having was with extraction/ejection. The wax can gunk up the chamber and cause problems, but cleaning the chamber had no effect on the issue. The fact that oiling the ammo helped considerably also suggests that there is too much drag in the extraction process.

In theory, older Pardini magazines sometimes have issues with CCI. The claim was that the bullet shape is a bit pointier than most, and any extra wax on the tip can make the ammo effectively longer still. Some shooters just wipe the wax off the tips before loading, but I've never found that necessary for my Pardini SP New. I don't know if CCI changed their ammo slightly, Pardini changed their magazines, or it was not a real issue. A local gunsmith used to flatten the bump at the top rear of the magazines to give the rounds a little more space for the (supposed) extra length. My wife has one of those magazines for her SP (old), and it functions no differently from the unmodified versions, but she hasn't shot CCI in years.

What to do, spend $ 390 for a case of CCI SV or get some Lapua at $ 3200 a case. Or Tenex at $2600 a case. Or get some cheap Eley match pistol at $2000 a case. To buy 35000 rounds or 5000. Or 15000 rounds against 5000 if I buy SK pistol.
Cost against benefit. In Australia availability and cost factors into what ammunition I use. I am sure Gwhite factors cost against benefit in his decisions. Pull your head in Alexander, anyone who gives his time up to coach and help other shooters is a valuable resource.

I guess I'm a doofus, then, because I can do a basic cost/benefit analysis.

Support for collegiate pistol shooting in the US is like getting blood from a turnip, and that's putting it extremely kindly. It's very tenuous even to get a full team on the firing line, let alone one that is as successful as MIT. Every collegiate team that I know of owes its existence to the contributions of a dedicated coach, whether that be financial support, use of personal guns, gunsmithing, or sweat equity - oftentimes all of the above.

The alternative to using cost-effective ammo is not Eley or Lapua; that's a false dichotomy. The alternative is no shooting team.

Like I said before: keep it up, Gwhite. Pay no attention to an ignorant naysayer.

Alexander is apparently fortunate enough to shoot in a world where cost is no object. I have to deal with roughly 20 students, mostly shooting pistols that are almost as old as their parents. We shoot RWS "Basic" pellets in all but the National Championships, where we break out some R10. Not because it's more accurate enough to make a difference on the paper, but as a "special" ammo to give the students a psychological boost. Besides, we have a stash in the ammo safe that we inherited.

As for .22 ammo, we shoot what we can afford, and have found is most reliable in any given pistol. Contrary to what folks in "Old Europe" think, most modern standard velocity stuff is all pretty good, including CCI and Aguila. The Winchester we have is from an ancient lot that works very reliably, and it plenty accurate. I can't remember the last time we had an honest to goodness dud with any of the stuff we shoot. Without extensive testing, I wouldn't try Remington or modern T22 in our pistols. I know that Federal won't cycle them reliably, and the last batch we got was so oversized the rifle team gave it to us because it wouldn't chamber in their rifles. We save that for free pistol.

Breaking out high-end .22 ammo just for big matches is asking for trouble. Just because it comes from Europe and costs big bucks does not guarantee that it will shoot reliably in any given pistol. We had a student a few years ago that had a Benelli that worked very well with RWS Target Rifle ammo. He didn't realize there was a difference, and grabbed a couple boxes of RWS Target Pistol in a match. He quickly ran out of allowed malfunctions, and had to withdraw from the competition. Also, the students get used to the recoil characteristics of a given ammo. In Standard Pistol, that can make a difference. Heck, we HAVE a bunch of high end Eley we've won at the National Championships in past years. We don't shoot it because there isn't enough for anyone to both practice and compete with for even part of a season.

Concerning accuracy, fancy ammo is NOT sufficiently more accurate to make a difference at the collegiate level. We mostly shoot at 50 feet. Even out of some of our tired old pistols, all the stuff we shoot is WAY more accurate than the students. Anyone who has studied how different errors affect overall group size (circular error probability analysis) knows that it takes really lousy ammo to affect a score that much. There are countless discussions about how testing air pistol pellets is a waste of time unless you shoot better than ~ 570. The same holds true for .22 ammo. Even good collegiate scores are dragged down by the occasional 6 or 7, not because the ammo veered out of the 10 ring to give them a 9.

Gwhite wrote:Alexander is apparently fortunate enough to shoot in a world where cost is no object.

Indeed that is an - entirely unmerited on my part - advantage that a denizen of a First World country may have vis-à-vis a US American. Namely, to live - well maybe not in a world, but in a nation or merely in a region - where the price difference between 120 rounds of, say Eley Tenex Pistol or Lapua X-Act or whatever works best in the specific gun, and is suitable for the indicidual shooter as well, and 120 rounds of Winchester T22, CCI SV, Federal (ick ick ick !!) or Aguila Standard, does not bar any shooter from using the best available ammunition in a decisive (e.g. national) match.

To be frank, this minuscule price difference is not much of a cost matter even for my Kenyan shooting friends, who certainly are in another income bracket than shooters of the Global North.

The (edited-out) rest was simply a futile attempt to defend the profoundly indefensible.
I can address it too, such as not to appear inattentively oblivious, but I wanted to deal with the thoroughly fallacious entry statement first.

Alexander

john bickar wrote: No, he really should endeavor to coach.

Gwhite is doing something (actually, a hell of a lot) to keep the sport going in the US.

On the other hand, Alexander, you complain on the Internet. Stop acting like a jerk.

Keep it up, Gwhite.

Well said John.

It never ceases to amaze me how anyone can find it rewarding on any level to be overtly disrespectful to someone they do not know and have never met. I’m in this sport and on this forum for the passion I have for shooting, as well as for fun and enjoyment and connecting with others (also a reason for the pursuit of the sport). Notions of winning at all costs, and some objective sense of attaining ‘perfection’ that are not accompanied with some sense of humanity and humility will make any endeavor heartless and lifeless - you may as well be a machine. There’s ample room for all matter of ways pursuing excellence, and always far more important than any hardware choice is the heart and mind and skills that are behind the trigger.

I’m surprised that a moderator has not cut this one short, but I certainly appreciate the dignity with which Gwhite has responded.

Recalcitrant persistence in obvious error is not the same as dignity. Dignity is the ability to learn, to correct oneself, and to grow. If you have held a wrong (and, to be frank: foolish, and detrimental to your trainees) opinion for 20 or even 25 years (see rec.guns), there is little "dignity" in that.
Obstreperousness maybe.
But that is another word.

Alexander

Alexander wrote:Recalcitrant persistence in obvious error is not the same as dignity. Dignity is the ability to learn, to correct oneself, and to grow.

Alexander

Me thinks you ought re-read your posts here as a shining example of what you’ve described right there. You’ve basically repeated the same insults ad nauseum throughout your comments. Your reflection on what others have said here has resulted in no change, correction or growth. Whatever salient points you may have are entirely lost in your lack of civility and your need to be right and make others wrong.

Jaxon: I suggest you start _reading_ the thread. Attentively. To be more on target where it counts, not entirely in the white.
But I won't force you.

Do I have time to make some popcorn?

It would nice if we got back to the original problem, a broken GSP. I joined this forum to help, if I could. I am sorry I contributed after the post got off topic. Will post again if I have something useful helpful and positive to contribute.

Back to the GSP: I'm going to order a bunch of spare parts today. I will be at the range tomorrow (Wednesday), and will take a careful look at the bolt for a bent firing pin or rubbing extractor. The pistol has been shot enough that it could use a good cleaning, and I will also have the student go easy on the oil. We have a match this coming weekend, and we need to be sure it's fixed, or will switch ammo.

Gwhite

My Club has an experienced gunsmith, with hands on knowledge of the GSP, he even uses one. I should see him over the weekend. I will ask him if he can help.
What age is the one you are having problems with. Some parts diagrams from Walther mention these serial number ranges. Serial number 56501 to 67000
serial number 6700 >
serial number < 56500

KH250 wrote:Gwhite

My Club has an experienced gunsmith, with hands on knowledge of the GSP, he even uses one. I should see him over the weekend. I will ask him if he can help.
What age is the one you are having problems with. Some parts diagrams from Walther mention these serial number ranges. Serial number 56501 to 67000
serial number 6700 >
serial number < 56500

I’m curious since my GSP is an earlier example (but not in that range, just before - 520XX) why do they isolate that range? With mine I did have to have some machining done in order to fit the modern magazines, as well as the two-stage trigger. Earl did all the work on mine, and I’ve been very happy with the work.