The Norinco SKS 7.62x39 - Not just a Crappy Chinese gun.

For once, I have found a firearm made in China that I am quite impressed with from a value standpoint, for what it can deliver based on what it was designed for.
Ok, its technically not a Chinese gun, its Russian, so that helps, but lets give this one to the Chinese for a change.

The crappy $300 cheapo SKS is not the best gun, well its the $300 price tag that makes it very impressive.


The good:

- Shooting open sight it was brilliant. With open sights, shooting in sitting position off a table, using rubbish steel barnaul ammo, from 100 metres away, I grouped in under 3 inches!

- The recoil is very manageable, the jump is not bad, the cheek didnt go soar, & the shoulder was fine

- The gun didnt get too hot after a few continuous shots, or make excessive noise.

- The trigger is better than a Ruger 10/22! It has obvious stage 1 travel, & slight creep, but the break is not bad. The spring tension is uniform all the way through, so there is not much anticipation or excessive finger yanking that happens on other shitty triggers.

- IT IS FUN!! Come on, a nice not too powerful easy to shoot semi automatic centre fire rifle with a built in 7 round clip magazine, cant complain, its a whole lot of fun because the recoil is so manageable.


The Bad:

- The length of pull is not ideal for most average sized people, the stock is too short.
Its like they decided to copy the yanky doodle Ruger 10/22 hoping to get it all right. Well a $30 screw on 1" butt pad upgrade is really easy & very worth it as it provides a bit more non slip grip compared to the plastic, & adds even more softness to the recoil, so its worth it.

- Shit loads of Accessories are available to tempt you into buying them, but most of them are a waste of time, effort & $$!!

- If you ever put a standard full length scope on it, the ejected brass shells will hit the tube on the way out really really hard & dent it really really badly! It dented my $120 Sightron 3-9x40!! >:( Argh, dam u cheap chinese product, dam u hahahaha !!

- Putting a scope or any optical sight on it is a freakin nightmare.

- You cant just drop rings on & go with it. First you'll need to decide what kind of after market scope rail mount youd like to buy & then install it.

- Installing any of the after market mount options is a swearing frenzy. youll be dropping colourful f-words trying to scope the little bast*rd.

My post on SKS mounts is coming soon.

- Youll need to either get a short scope or buy a shell deflector. The shell deflector is of 2 main variants. The SKK & UTG style mount compatible version screws on the side of the mount rail you originally bought. The other more common option is to buy a cover that clamps into the rear sight.

- The rear sight clamp mount is absolutely finnicky, youll need to grind it precisely for a tight fit so that it doesnt keep shaking & start hitting on the scope tube, otherwise its pointless. And the UTG style version requires you buying a UTG style tactical mount that weighs a ton & is too high.

- All this optics & all those extra useless bits of metal increase the weight & screw up what was a nicely balanced rifle.

Decision:

Got a spare $300 for a bit of fun that wont completely disappoint you in the accuracy & usability mark? Get this little toy.

Want something better, go buy a REAL gun, if its accuracy & nice triggers & the best balancing, get a nice light little Sako, or a Tikka if youre on a budget.

If you want identical performance as a Sako with a few small corners cut, get a Tikka bolt action.
Its hard to beat for the price. Tikka guns have impressed me in almost every way.
More on that later.

If a good semi auto centre fire is what you want, perhaps look into a mini 14 or a Browning BAR, never used either but they seem like the standard.

Happy propelling lead & copper down your barrel at high speeds. Well, its a toy, cant call that real shooting now can I ;)

Have you got an SKS? How do you find it? Has it been customised? Was it easy? Please share your experience.

Cessna 172 & 152 Landing - Flare Approach & Attitude Diagrams

Cessna 152 & 172 Landing Procedure - Flare, Approach & Attitude with Cockpit View

Introduction

One thing that took me a while to get right, & I think takes time for many beginners learning to fly, is flaring the aeroplane correctly for a proper landing & holding it correctly for a good touchdown.

Before we go forward, I will point you to the Golden Rule of Flying that made by landing happen, which is in my short previous post: The Golden Rule of Landing Aeroplanes - for beginners

Got it?? If not, please go back & soak it in. Continuing down this article will be of lesser value unless you have understood the previous post.

Once I understood this, I swear to you I could do buttery smooth touch downs, & just enjoyed myself doing circuits.

My experience here relates specifically to the Cessna 152 & 172, both very similar, with the 172 being just a tad faster, its a very slight difference, & in my opinion the techniques & timings are identical.

Have a read of my previous article to see how similar both these planes really are, & what to do if youre in 172 instead of a 152

The main issue seems to be around knowing when to start pulling back, how much to pull & when to hold & know that the plane will sink & touch the ground smoothly rather than with a hard bump.

Lets use photos to illustrate these landing steps:



Cessna Landing Approach Technique Images

My pics are based on my personal style which is based on the obsessive perfectionist desire of making the final touchdown as smooth as I can. You will find that after a few landings, your personal opinion on what these pictures look like in each phase might be slightly different to mine, or even to that of other pilots. As long as you are staying within the recommended operating guidelines of speed & power settings, you will be ok.

Knowing your horizon position cockpit view at each stage is the key to good landing

So the best way to think of it is knowing your horizon position & the view of how the runway is going to be from the cockpit, its relative placement of the lines in your windscreen, & which point on your windscreen you see them intersect toward the end of the runway, & how that intersection point moves through your windscreen.
Ironically, the above blurp makes it sound more complex than it is, but I hope by the end of this post you have some ideas.

In Fig A, lets look at a simple 2D top view of the runway as you approach it. Remember runway is composed of 3 vertical lines, parallel to each other, the outer 2 lines are the boundaries of the concrete & the centre line you want to be as close to. We'll then have 2 horizontal lines for the start & end of the landing zone.

Initial Landing Profile in Late Final:

Lets start with what you would likely see out at 500ft AGL, 30 flap, 60kts IAS & your instructor has probably given you a bit of coaching to get you here.
It should be similar to Fig 1 (in my humble opinion)

Fig 1 onwards, you want to continue on your same glide slope for some time while making the descend at the same 60kts Air speed. But your altitude needs to be Reducing.
If you simply hold your heading, you might be a tad high too flare.
So at this point, usually a very slight nose down is useful.
Now your cockpit view should be similar to Fig 2

Then, you might need to adjust the power just a little bit to ensure youre not descending too rapidly, but dont be tempted to put too much power, that can ruin the entry & make you float.

Identifying your common landing problem:

So at this point, it helps to know whether you are:
1) Starting the flare too late & your instructor gets a bit white everytime youre going to land
2) Starting flare on time but put excessive back pressure for too long & get into a climb, with potentially the stall warning going off, at which point your instructor starts playing the throttle & you either get another go into the flare or you have to go around if the strip is too short
3) Starting the flare too early & not loosing enough altitude to come close enough to the ground. So the plane just keep floating, and might sometimes eventually touch down if the landing strip was long enough

The solution to all the issues is the same, but knowing the problem helps understand whether your issue is between Fig 2 & 3, or Fig 3 & 4, or between Fig 4 & 5.
I would encourage you to open this blog post up in your debriefing with the instructor & request him to tell you which of the above images the landing profile looks like to him.
He will then be able to 'show you' rather than just tell you where you are going wrong,
Once you see the image, it'll click as to what youre doing wrong & you'll be able to fix it.

Likely posibilities

If your attitude is pointing down but you are too fast, you are pushing the nose down too much & not reducing the throttle.
If attitude high & plane too slow, you have not put the nose down enough & not used enough power earlier on.
Sounds familiar to the golden rule doesnt it haha - thats what will fix it.

Good luck fellow aviators, enjoy yourself out there.

The Golden rule of Landing Aeroplanes Nicely - for students

Land a Cessna 152 & 172 - A fundamental golden rule

One thing that can take some time for many beginners learning to fly is flaring the aeroplane correclty for a proper landing.

Before you go away & read my other detailed article on the Cessna Approach & Flare Techniques including diagrams, please have a thorough read of this post.

Before we discuss landing technique in detail in my next post, I will share the 1 thing that made by landing come right, & was the exact reason that it wasnt happening. Once my instructor clarified this in my mind, my landings became exponentially better.

Understanding the following golden sentence made my landing right, & has improved my overall flying & confidence significantly:

Power Controls Height, Attitude Controls Air Speed, (not vice-versa).

At any time in a standard fan propelled training aircraft:
More power = you will climb. Less power = you will descend back down.
Push Nose down = you will speed up. Pull Up = you will slow down.

Basic Technique (follow this & the humble Cessna will practically land itself)

If you want to go up, DONT PULL UP, GIVE IT A LITTLE MORE THROTTLE
Similarly, if you want to go down, TAKE SOME POWER OFF
If you want to speed up, PUSH THE NOSE DOWN
& if you want to slow down, PULL THE YOKE UP

 

When coming in to land:

For a 152 maintain 60 kts Air Speed (70 kts if 172) by adjusting your nose attitude.
When you feel youre too low, or going down too quickly, put in a little more power.
If youre too high, or climbing too much, take off some throttle. Easy!

If you havnt understood this, or want to know this in detail, it relates to the principles of flight, the 4 forces. If this hasnt been properly explained or understood, please go talk to your instructor & then do some google searching.

Soak this into your head completly, turn it into your instinct & you will find your landing just gets so much better.

Now you can read my other post on the details around the flare entry & hold & touchdown etc.

Do you have any golden rules that made or broke your landing?

So Im keen to know if you had understand this thoroughly before your first landing attempt? Did that help? Let us know.
Got any tips for us other new-comers to our fun flying sport?
Please Do post a comment.


Happy Flying, oh well, rather Happy Landing :)

Shooting Customisations - Part 1 - Weight Balancing

In this series of posts, I will talk about why it is my opinion that technical data, bullet trajectories, grouping sizes & long range performance are perhaps less important than good operating capability (ergonomics) of the gun to get the best possible score.

These posts are not meant to undermine the importance of an accurate rifle, it is merely being written to highlight some of the more important human factors that are a critical part pf being a good shooter.

This topic will likely be a few part series, & I hope you find them useful to improve your shooting.

These are just my experiences, no one is paying me to write these. I welcome your experiences too, please share your thoughts. What do you think worked or didnt work?

Simple argument:
A gun that groups 0.25 inches at 25 metres off a rest in a factory test but has a stock that doesnt fit you & has a crappy trigger will shake so much & pull so badly that you will never steadily be able to achieve the 0.5" group. You may infact shoot a 2" group & be very disappointed.

A gun that when benched only gives you 0.5 inch group at 25 metres but has the most brilliant trigger & a stock that just feels like part of your body, will let you get a 1" group easily.

Whats better? Id say its the second option. Yet, when you have to go buy a gun, the first thing we emphaise on is reviews & technical data.

Lets look at some other factors that often cant be given a number or a score, they are going to be different for each individual & what fits one may be horribly bad for the other.



Part 1 - Weight balancing

A recent experience that confirmed my opinion:

I bought a NZ$100 used Stirling bolt action rifle, probably over 20+ years old.
It had a shortened stock & a shortened barrel of only 15". It was modified by the original owner to train young juniors, or ladies, or anyone slightly shorter who needed something lighter & properly fitting their body.
Simple standard sporting rifle with wood stock & blued parts, nothing fancy. The barrel looked slighty thicker than that of a CZ, maybe what we might call close to being a varmint barrel, but it was cut short to 15" from its original full length.

There was rusting, & even some pitting, but the bore didnt look too bad for its age.
The trigger was not as light as my CZ bolt action's modified kit trigger. It had just a little bit of creep, but it was a crisp break otherwise.

Mathematically, the twist rate of this barrel was designed for a full length 20", so cutting it down has dramatically reduced the spin induced on the projectile. Big deal? Lets see..

I screwed on some butt plate extension pieces to increase the length of pull, & put on a cheap but decent simmons scope & gave it a shot in the 25 metre range.
That night, I shot my personal best target of the whole year. Better than with my CZ!

But how can that be despite the trigger being inferior to my CZ bolt action. You'll quickly point out how I above stated the trigger is important.
Also, the stock wasnt much better. Well, the stock was fitting me about as nicely as CZ, but there was 1 new discovery.

The shortened barrel meant less inertia on the tip of the far end, so I could control & keep it
steady from shot to shot relatively easily. Being ticker, the weight on top of my left hand was closer to my hand, again toward the more managable point, yet it wasnt too thin a barrel such that it would float too much in my left hand.

You must have heard me rave about weight balancing & fit in many of my posts, & this is no exception. So in this case:
The perfect weight balance + an adequate enough trigger + a stock that was good enough 
Vs
Less than ideal balance + very good trigger + decent stock

I want to make this more obvious by putting numbers on it:
Lets say a score of 1 to 10 for each of the 3 above categories:

For this cheap Stirling bolt action rifle:
Weight balance = 10/10
Trigger release = 6/10
Stock Fit = 6/10
Total = 22 points

For my CZ bolt action rifle:
Weight balance = 6/10
Trigger release = 8/10
Stock Fit = 6/10
Total = 20 points

The stirling wins, & it makes sense.
So, what Im keen to do now is cut off my CZ bolt action rifle's barrel.

Wait!! wont that completely screw up the long range accuracy of the rifle??
I dont mind!

Wait, what? Youre going to cut off the barrel & youre telling me that despite it shooting badly at 50 metres, maybe not so bad at 25, & you 'dont mind' !?
YES!

Bullshit. - I hear you say...

Well, let me explain...
The inherent level of inaccuracy induced by cutting this barrel down is significantly lesser than the inaccuracy induced by the discomfort of shooting this gun at a long range!

Going back to the very start of this article, thats what I was talking about.

As long as my rifle is capable of shooting tighter groups than I am capable of shooting with it, its good enough.
There is a big gap between what I can do & what my gun is capable of doing.
And I can almost bet you this is tue for most acverage shooters.
Reduce this gap, however it has to be, as long as the combined result gets you a better shot!

Simple isnt it?

What do you think? Tell me your opinions. Do you believe we should just learn to use the best equipment, or make the equipment work for you? What are your experiences if any? Please do share them here.

Cessna 172 vs 152 - Identical planes both easy to fly

Cessna 172 or 152 - The little differences that dont matter

This post is catered mainly towards anyone who wants to learn to fly or is new to flying, & wants to know more specifically about the minute differences between the Cessna 172 & the 152 & how to deal with those differences.

As always these are merely my opinions, no one pays me for it. I welcome you to share your thoughts, please post comments on what you think. If Ive gotten something horribly wrong, please speak up ;)

Maybe you have the option of training in the slightly older (potentially obsolete) 2 seat Cessna 152 planes vs paying more & training in the 4 seat Cessna 172 / 182 etc. & are unsure if doing so will impact them in any negative way when moving on to a 172 or other 4 seat Cessna, or even to other 4 seat air craft.

Short answer, NO it doesnt matter.

I will also cover the few minor differences I did find & how I handled them & what I think about them.

If there is little (or affordable) price difference between training in a 172 vs something else in your flight school, the Cessna 172 is obviously recommended as a 4 seat is what you'll likely fly as a private pilot flying with your freinds & family for day trips.
But that is not the point of this post.

The only fairly noticible difference across the aircrafts is that with the 172 you WILL USE YOUR RUDDER FOR REAL, pressing it quite agressively when needed for all the reasons you were explained in your ground theory, but never had to do so with a 152, it wasnt that important.

Some non technical & non flying literate people out there seem too happy to ditch dirt at training in the humble 152 just because it is now old & outdated & the 172 is probably going to get them more profit.
They may tell you that there are many significant differences betwen the 2, while elaborating on how 152 is 2 seat & 172 is 4 seat over & over again, & youre better off starting with the 4 seat 172 to learn to handle the bigger engine & the inertia & the bigger size etc
Bullshit


Most of my flight training has been on a Cessna 152, 25 odd hours, with compartively only 4 odd hours on a Cessna 172, & Ive flown the mighty Cessna 182 once as well.

I found the Cessna 172 as easy to fly as a 152!
It was slightly different, & Ill expand on how to cater for the differences below in this post.

The 152 is so similar to 172 that most Air speeds & EFATO & turn co-ordination & basic numbers you need to be mindful of are very close.
Just add 5 knots of speed when in a 172 to your 152 numbers & youll pretty much be on the mark for everything including landing approach speeds & best take off climb speeds etc.

The related instruments are all very similar. Your TMFIHC & your BUMFH checks will be just as easy to perform as your EFATO & your flap efficieny at the different angles.

If you close your eyes, get into a 172, & were convinced that this is just a mates newer 152, I promise you it will not be all that different. Even if you fly a 172 exactly like a 152, you wont crash.


You might also hear comments on how the 152 so really easy to fly & the 172 will then be an entirely different ball game.
Bullshit

Firsty, all Cessna 152 & 172 & 182 are basically very easy to fly!
Thats why Cessna are the number 1 training aircraft.

If you want to make your life hard, go fly a tail digger.
So I dont believe in this idea of flying difficult things just because thats the way to learn.
By that measure we should never use calculaters, only paper & pencil.

Some differences that will be apparant & how to deal with them:

1) When on the ground/taxi'ing, the dashboard will seem quite high, & overall youll feel youre into a deep cockpit. The horizon will be at a different point in your windscreen to a 172.
- Just look 50 metres ahead of you when taxing, & also use the side windows more. Take a reference point & taxi to it, works well.
If you are really not tall enough despite setting the seat height, dont hesitate to taxi the plane diagonally left to right every few seconds to get a better view like the old WWII planes need to.

2) When turning on ground, the radius might seem larger.
Its a slightly bigger plane so there is a slight difference, but moreso, use more selective break when turning & you will be fine.

3) When you accelerate for takeoff, the plane will pull a lot more to the left than a 152.
Well big engine more torque no surprises right, just push the rudder in agressively.

4) Turn & slip co-ordination when entering a bank & pulling even rate 1 turns (under 15 degrees bank)
Again, as you know ancillary yaw happens to all aeroplanes, with this one, slightly more noticible so keep a look on your slip indicator ball & push the rudder as needed. With the 152 you'll normally find the push is only needed during entry, but in the 172 youll need in a fair bit into the turns as well.

5) Backpressure in slow turns (ie how much to pull on the yoke)
Thankfully, at cruise speeds, the more powerful 172 will let you manoeuvre the aircraft with easy, especially after a good trim. But on slow speeds, things get a little interesting. Be prepared to give your left hand one hell of a workout. YOU NEED TO PULL THAT YOKE HARDER THAN IN A 152. At slow speeds, its expected in any aircraft, but its probably due to extra weight in the 172 that you notice it.

6) The horizon position is much lower in the windscreen than in a 152, noticible most during straight + level at 2300 - 2400 RPM downwind
Remember when you were on the ground & thought the cockpit was too deep & the dash too high, well, its the opposite now yay! Thanks to the extra engine power, youre Attitude is more horizontal than in a 152. Youll love the beautiful view of things underneath you.
I find straight + level attitude can be mainted easily if you can only just see the end tip of the front engine hood all the way down in a slop. In a 152, its S+L when you cant quite see the tip.

7) Engine power is immediately apparant in rate of climb
Yup, want to climb 1000 feet in a minute. No problem :) But jokes aside, because you have this power, be mindful that you dont get too high before you level. Take PAT & APT action sooner to desired Alt than in a 152.

8) Remember that your recommended landing approach speeds are around 5kts faster than a 152
Your stall speeds are thus also higher, be aware of that. Yes, its likely you wont kill yourself because if you forget, the stall warning will kick in, but be mindful. Anything under 55 bad idea for a beginner. In a 152, its 65 for starters & 60 tad later, & 55 when youre better, so just add 5 & youll be fine.

9) Weight of plane will make its presence felt at flare entry
Pull a tad sooner than a 152 for the smoothness. Dont worry, itll feel different the first few times but as long as you get the numbers right & your basic technique in landing is good, youll be fine.

10) You will have a lower nose attitude & different view of runway before flare.
Well, youve got more power, more flap but still you might notice that just before entering the flare, youre keeping the nose angle pointed a bit more toward the ground then a 152. And then there is the rapid pull up to smooth out the touchdown. This is just timing & practise to smooth out, but you wont crash or feel scared, same as a 152, tad more practise & youll be fine.

Well thats it for now folks.
Have any of you out there been through the experience of learning to fly on either or both, or ever had to switch? What do you folks think. Please share your thoughts.

Happy Flying!

Buying your first Digital SLR camera - 5 Golden rules

The golden rules of cameras & photography, a quick little post that I will expand on in future posts:

1) Its NOT about MegaPixels, DO NOT LET ANYONE TELL YOU OTHERWISE!!

2) Its not about the camera body, ITS THE LENS!

3) Its not all about the camera, its also about LIGHTING.
4) Its not just your Equipment, ITS ALSO YOUR TECHNIQUE THAT MATTERS!
5) Its not about software & editing - Not Photoshop or Instagram. GET IT RIGHT IN CAMERA FOR STARTERS!



Its not about Canon Vs Nikon vs Olympus vs Sony, ITS YOU NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU CAN DO vs LEARNING HOW TO DO IT!

I am a Nikon fan for a whole heap of reasons important to me, but that doesnt mean Canon is bad. A whole lot more people buy Canon compared to any other brand, & that doesnt mean they are the best in everything either.
Just because Toyota sells more cars than Mercedes, doesnt make Toyota the better car does it?

People recommend starting with a Canon or a Nikon simply because these 2 brands have been established for so long that their products are well known & have good resale value, & there is plenty of documentation out there on how to use it. They have been around for ages & optics has been their expertise for all that time. Most people dont do extensive research or have a limited understanding of their needs, so to be safe than sorry, everyone recommends Canon or Nikon.

But the other underdogs arent all that bad anymore. If you do your research, dont hesitate buying what you think best suits your requirement.

You can find my personal list of nikon dslr camera recommendations here, & a list of more general point & shoot cameras recommended here.
I prefer Nikon for a few personal reasons so my recommendations are only in the Nikon lineup, doesnt mean you cant go with Canon.

Enjoy :)

Kidd trigger for the Ruger 10/22 & other Trigger options

Kidd Trigger

So the first thing you will hate about your Ruger 10/22 is the crappy trigger it comes with.

One of the most common options considered by serious shooters is to buy a custom trigger group that entirely replaces the Ruger supplied stuff. In most ways, this is a very good option.

As always, no one is paying me to write these, Im merely telling you my experience. Please feel free to share your experiences with the community by posting comments here.

The upside to buying any of the custom groups is that they usually are made completely of metal includign the housing, whereas Sturm Ruger has a lot of plastic everywhere.
But wait, before you get too happy about it like I originally did, there is a downside to all that metal.

WEIGHT BALANCING!

Please have a read on my post here on why I feel weight balancing is very important for accurate target shooting

Yes, a standard ruger already has way too much metal too close to the stock. On top of that you have your scope & mounts. You add this group & you will find your rifle balancing rather weird.

This will impact your trigger pull simply because your right hand (or left whichever is your master trigger hand) will not only be used for the let off, but also to balance all that extra weight.
For accurate shooting, the ergonimics is very important, the rifle should almost float in your trigger hand while relatively more weight should be in the front.
Not too much more in the front, but just right.

All this metal on these custom trigger groups + scope will really goof up your ruger 10/22's balance.

I would highly dicourage you from buying a steel high weaver rail machined receiver, unless of course youre going for a target style set up ith a heavy bull barel, then the balancing will come right, otherwise, you will find it quite weird to shoot, especially if lying prone.

Tony Kid's trigger group:

Tony Kidd is credited to have made the best trigger for a Ruger 10-22.
Within reason, this claim is true, but Im going to tell you some of my experiences with the Kidd trigger group. Back then he only had the 2 stage, I dont remember seeing a stage 1 group. Im glad he's made one now, & if he always used to, I didnt find it, what a bummer.
My comments are about his 2 stage group, not the other single stage trigger he sells.

Before I continue, let me tell you that this is quite possibly the best realistic attempt anyone has ever made to give a semiauto a top line fully customisable trigger, but it falls shot in certain areas to my taste where some other, cheaper alternatives win.

The Stage 1 travel distance, weight, & creep is not avoidable.
The State 2 thus engages with this intentional travel distance needed & it cant be left out.

Would you have a soft light trigger at 1.2lbs that travels 3-4mm before let off, or a slightly harder trigger at say 2lbs for a considerably shorter almost inexistent creep?

Personally, to me the most important thing in a trigger is it must break cleanly. It should be like an olympic grade match rifle, clean crisp let off. The choice is yours but I recommend a crisp break because if youre feeling it move, youre going to develop the nasty habbit of anticipating the exact pull distance on your shot your shot & potentially develop a weird breathing routine out of the situational awareness anxiety in competitons. But if you like such triggers, go for it.

The kid trigger is perhaps the most customizable Ruger trigger ever engineered so once you accept this inherent design decision, youll enjoy the group.

Also, Tony has very good after sales service, he was prompt in answering my questions & thats very useful. He was quite honest in telling me how I couldnt quite achieve the clean break I wanted with his trigger because he designed it to be a2-stage trigger & thats just how it will be.
He also said that a semi can never really have a clean break, but on that point I disagree with him because heavier triggers do break much better if you dont mind the slight extra weight, as disccused earlier.

His Kid triger group has excellent resale value even if you dont like it. So if you want to try it out for yourself despite being unsure if youll like it, its not the end of the world.

If buying, youll get to pick a sporting style curved trigger face or a target style flat balde.
This might seem not so improtant, but thats the trap I fell into.
This is most important decision you will make when buyin the Kidd trigger!

I bought the target style straight blade because I felt it would be similar to my Anschutz match rifle & would work nicely with a multitude of pull lengths, & it would look cool haha.

When I first put my kit in, it was on a rather customisable target style synthetic stock made by Fajen.
It seemed comfortable. But when I decided that the fajen wasnt as comfy because the shape on the forgrip was diggin into my left hand, I moved to the standard sporting Hogue stock.

Thats when I relised this blade trigger just wasnt as natural.

If you are going to use the Kid trigger on a sporting style stock, get the curved standard trigger, dont buy the blade, I dotn think you will like it. Infact, a curved trigger is more versatile as you can still tolerate it even on a slightly more target style stock as I later found out with my other rifles.

The choice is yours but think carefully, it has a huge impact, more than you might think.

Other trigger options:

The new Kidd single stage trigger might be the best trigger yet. If any of you have had any experiences with it, please post it here & let use all know.

If buying a complete group, the other biggest contender is the Volquartsen parts. Very nice trigger upgrades, not really adjustable, & like everything else Volquartsen, its really really pricy. if you buy every single part, its almost the same price as a Kidd single stage group for what really shouldnt be so expensive, but its very good end result.

I would prefer it to the Kidd for the reason described above, but not for the price, so, I would recommend my next option:

Upgrade your own group with some custom parts, OR even better get a gun smith to polish & install them in.
My $200 Ruger trigger group with volq spring, target sear & hammer was then polished & installed by a gunsmith. Brought the pull down to 2.15lbs with practically 0 creep. Same effect as the volquartsen for half the price. Cant complain.

In hind sight, I think all I needed was the hammer, but well, Im not going to worry about it.
If any of you have experimented with the combinations, please let us know.

2 of my mates did this polishing themselves. Their results werent as great as the professional job, but all they spent was the $90 odd on parts & thats it. Next time around, Ill polish my own parts, watch my blog for that article when it happens...

Im going to get my hands on a Timney trigger soon, watch this space. They are supposed to be the next big thing give volqs the run for its money, & the prices look pretty good.

CZ 452 trigger spring & sear kit - Awesome!

The CZ trigger kit - the best $15 you will ever spend!

If you own a CZ 452 or CZ 455 (also called a Brno Model 2, 4, 5 etc back in the old days) & want to improve your trigger drastically, all you need to spend is $15, yes trust me, this $15 kit is infact a better trigger the the $150 kit sold out there, & it is very very safe when properly setup.

Check out the Eric Brooks CZ452 spring kit, its just brilliant.
Dont worry too much about the Pin & Spring Removal fixtures he also sells, you wont be changing your trigger that often & its not too hard. It needs a bit of patience, but can be done alone, though ideally get a mate to help & you'll be sweet.

The best thing about the E.Brooks kit is that you dont need to make any modification of any kind to your original rifle & its parts. You keep your original CZ spring & parts, just put the Eric Brooks stuff in & when you want to sell the rifle, you can just drop the original parts back on!
There is no grinding, polishing or modification of any kind.

He sends 4 springs, of which the 4th one is infact harder than the stock cz spring so its kind of pointless. Number 1 is way too soft & my gun went off when I tested it by dropping it on the wood floor, so thats not recommended for all you hunters out there.

Ok its not the easiest thing in the world to do with just your 2 hands, & for your first time having a friend assist is probably a good idea. But after youve doen them a couple of times, you can just do it by yourself. Just be careful to ensure you are working in a relatively clean space that doesnt have too much furniture around you, because as a first timer its likely the spring will bounce on your first few attempts & dont we all hate it when the freakin thing decides to roll under a heavy cupboard.

I use spring number 2 + Red sear, & a mate of mine used number 3 & we're both very happy with the results.

As for the sears, I highly recommend you play with the combinations, but as always, if u want a trigger that breaks nicely while being safe, what you'll need to do is put a tighter spring with a thicker sear. For more safety, use the tighter spring with a thinner sear.

For all hunters who use it mainly for field use, I recommend spring 3 + sear 2

If youre only ever going to use it in the range & dont think it will ever drop when loaded, then its ok to go with spring number 1 & sear number 3.

The way to look at it is, springs are your weight & sear are your pull length/creep.
In the perfect world youd use the lightest spring with the thickest sear but I dont recommend that.

Like everything springy, wear & tear will eventually get your spring. Ive had a good 1000 shots out of mine before I noticed the trouble whereby the hammer would not cock when the bolt was closed. The inherently design of the CZ is such that if you didnt have a spring there or a very weak spring, it wont cock which is great, & thats why this kit is pretty safe.

Usually, when your spring looses tension you either buy a new kit, or change to a different spring.
But what I did was put a few extra spacers & washers on the cylinder just before the spring to get the tension the way I like it, & that infact allowed me to precisely calibrate my trigger!

The way to notice if the spring is starting to shit itself is that some day you'll start noticing your trigger is much lighter than you originally thought it was, well, highly likely your spring needs replacement or washers or whatever you want to do.

So, if you want a great trigger thats extremely customisable & will last pretty much forever, save your $150 on buying a so-called CZ trigger kit. The most popular CZ trigger kit is made by Timney & 2 of my mates went down that route.

They said they didnt like the idea of modifying the stock trigger & wanted to keep it aside.
But what people dont realise is that you are NOT MODIFYING ANYTHING!

After trying out my mate's $150 timney kit, I actually found his to not break as crisp! He loved it so thats great for him, but to me, being light is not enough, it has to be clean.
This kit allows you to customise your trigger the way you like it

It would be even better if Mr. Brooks gave people who knew what the wanted the option of buying just the 1 spring & sear they need rather than always selling all 4 in a pack, but heck for $15 Im sure you can live with that.

Looks like this guy here on YoDave is also doing something similar to the Eric Brooks kit above. Never tried his stuff out, but do let me know if any of you have.
Back when I got the eBrooks kit, I dont think he was around.

Happy Shooting people!

Bowers & Wilkins 683 Speakers

The B&W 683 is a true 3-way speaker. & trust me, 3-WAY is 3 WAY! Period.
2.5 way designs will always be good when well made, but the vocal clarity of a 3-way speaker has yet to be beaten by a 2-way or so called '2.5 way' design.

As usual, these are merely my opinions & experiences, no one is paying me to write these out.

With its imposing look comprising 2 aluminium dome woofers, it may appear that the selling point is the low end. Youre right to some extent, but thats not the real kicker.

The real gem in the 683 is the FST midrange driver. This FST speaker is worth every extra dollar you pay for the 683 over any other speaker in the 6 series line-up.. ever!
The FST is what makes the 683 everything it is, without the FST, you would buy a 684.

The FST creates the most brilliant sound stage in the entry level B&W lineup. It has brilliant imaging. A note here, I find that despite the 683 manual suggesting placing speakers 1.5-2metres apart, I place mine 3 metres apart & feel the results are better, again this could be a personal thing.

Also, tilting these speakers slightly toward the listener centre point is absolutely crucial. You will not get the same sound stage if you keep them flat. The manual suggests rotation toward the listener if using for hifi audio & keeping them straight if home theatre movie use, but I just keep min tilted all the time because music is my main use.

The FST driver produces the most beautiful clean & crisp vocals without that annoying brightness that some other speakers have. The voice is warm, mellow yet beautifully detailed. Thats what makes the 683 special.

I heard the 683s side by side to the Paradigm's which are highly applauded for crisp clear flat treble & to me they sounded tatty as hell. It just felt like someone disconnected the squaker out of them!

Im driving my 683 using a Marantz SR6004 receiver & the sound is just brilliant. They say the 683 is very hungry for power, in my experience thats complete rubbish. I get smooth bass to pretty loud spl levels, & there is ample power available out of my 110W per channel Marantz receiver to take care of them even wit 7.1 channel surround sound content.

An observation though is that the frequency reponse in the 1-2Khz mark increases exponentially when spl levels are pushed very high, ie, the vocals suddenly seem to overpower the midbass in a different proportion to what you listen when playing at adequate spl at medium volumes. Now this is could be due to the rooms layout, floors, walls, fixtures etc, but its something I noted back in the dealers audition room as well which should be free of those concerns.

If there is 1 thing I dont like, its that the speakers are inherently a tad dull in the 2Khz mark when played at your average volume levels in a medium to small room. I think this is a design decision, & is purely personal, some people might love that.
I would like them to be a little more open in the 2Khz mark, & thats probably why some people who end up buying the twice as expensive CM9 will tell you the 683 sounded a tad muddy to them.

Another observation is that the sound actually does get better, again in that 2Khz mark if you take the grills off. I would love to take the grille off & show it off, but I know its going to get dirty or some kid is going to dent the speaker. So I leave on & just deal with it using EQ. I suspect its because of the amount of plastic re-inforcement they have on the floorstander grills. But again, its very mild & wont be a show stopper.

The woofers are very very fast. The bass is so clean that if I told you its servo controlled, you'll buy it. The downside to this clean bass is that in some cases, it gives a perception that the roll-off isnt as smooth. I have noticed this when you have sub 50Hz material playing at low spl while mid bass in the 120Hz mark is kicking, & the speaker almost forgets that the bass drum has still got to end.

Dont get me wrong, these speakers go down to 37Hz, so low that you can pretty much get away with not buying a sub. They will shake the floor in a medium sized room happily.

I dont believe much in the concept of a run-in period from a technical standpoint. Yes, by running in, if youre referring to the buyer's ears tuning to their new speakers, then yes thats very common, but a run-in period is often exaggerated by many other magazine reviews & audiophiles, no offence to them.

Saying that, I do feel that the low end in my speakers really came to life after about 50 hrs of use. Of course, we must note that for that time, my ears were getting tuned to my new speakers too!

I personally feel the 683 is best suited to Jazz, classical, some pop, & alternative or classic rock genres. I have not been too impressed listening to hard rock or metal or even techno/house on it. & that makes sense, because these british designs are mainly catered for those mainstreams genres & thats the type of sound most of those listeners will like.

Overall, a great speaker for the NZ $3000 mark. If youre not too sure & want a speaker that wont let you down & will really only grow in you, get the 683, it will not disappoint. If on a budget, buy used from TradeMe or Sella or eBay or whatever you use, these speakers last for donkeys of years. They hold their value really really well.

Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D

Nikon 50mm F/1.8 AF-D Nikkor

This little Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D is a real gem. Its the most brilliant prime lens in the history of mankind.
Seriously, at around NZ$200, this lens is a no brainer. Its bigger brother the 50mm f1.4 is hands down better but heck, for just a stop faster its twice the price, & having owned both, I hardly miss my 1.4 because in terms of colour rendition & contrast I find this as good as the 1.4D version.



As usual, these are just my opinions & experiences, no is paying me to write these. I will tell what I feel is good or bad.

If you are squeezed on a budget & cant decide what to get for decent portraits, decent macro, a little bit of fun, all packed into one, then this is your lense. Pets, flowers, nature, throw it in, this baby will do it rather well.

Above image courtesy of Nikon USA.

A lot of people have written nice things about these 50mm prime lenses & I thought I might give you a few points to consider around all of them.

For you Canon folks out there, the canon f/1.8 is pretty much the same benefits so go for it, but this article related to my Nikkor lens.

Points to double check before you buy:

For $200 you cant go wrong, but then with every lens there will be some downsides.

On any DX sensor camera

The effective focal length will be equal to 75mm, thats a bit too narrow sometimes. The plus side is that being FX compliant, this lense will work just fine without having to worry about crop modes when you do buy a 35mm full frame sensor FX camera dslr body someday.

No Auto Focus on entry level cameras

This lens doesnt have a built in AF motor so will not auto focus on the new D3100 & D5100.

No AutoFocus override, ie, if your in af mode, & the camera is focusing where you dont want it to, you cant just grab the ring. You need to flick the body's AF switch in Manual & then change the focus, thats a precious few seconds lost when youre taking pics of infants or pets for example.
Now this isnt a big deal unless you intend to use it for fast moving subject or sports all of the time, which really isnt the intent with this $200 piece. Do-able though, dont underestimate it, but yes not easy.

Its not the fastest at focusing especially since its screw driven by your camera & doesnt have its own AF motor, but dont let the noise fool you into believe its slow, its just an illusion, its good enough.

Low light performance is impressive as expected.

In low light, this lense is brilliant. It focuses beautifully in low light thanks to that large aperture.
On my D90 with ISO2000 f1.8 I can take photos at 1/250 of a second in candle light!

It also has an aperture ring, now thats something you need on older film cameras, making this lense compatible on almost any Nikon out there since the 60s I think, I could be wrong just double check if youre buying it for an old film slr body.

The perture ring also comes in handy if you want to get onto eBay or TradeMe or whatever auction site you use & buy some cheap older manual focus teleconverts which are otherwise optically ok but just wont focus or meter. I would recommend using the lense with TCs of this type, except when trying to do some macro work, which I will explain later in this post.

Bokeh Characteritics:

This lens bokehs nicely, but not quite to my taste. At $200 though, everything about this lense is brilliant. But the bokeh is a tad too sharp, & though subject isolation is good, its not the best.
It gets nicer when you step down to f2.8, but the inherent quality of this lense is such that the character of the bokeh doesnt change much.

To me, the king of bokehs is (oddly enough a zoom) my beautiful Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR. Even the older Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S is pretty good, but the new VR version has something special. Its not the sharpness in the bokeh, its the detail without the sharpness that I just love. Well at $3000+, that lens better be, so you cant realistically expect the humble $200 50 f/1.8 to beat it.

Now mind you bokeh is a very subjective thing, you might love this lense.
Let me throw you some examples of the bokeh at f/1.8 & you can decide for yourself.
These are straight off camera at f1.8 no manipulation what so ever except a simple resize to make them just a tad smaller.

In the above image, observe the bokeh in the right centre on top of the fence posts. Also spot the ones on the top left around the tree. Like it? Well, if you do great. For $200, its pretty damn good!

Now this image is perhaps a more interesting example. Very faint Bokeh all over the place. Here you see the subject isolation & bokeh dont look the best. Look at how the twigs look like this was taken in excessive wind, it wasnt, it has just been blurred like that.

Feel free to have a read of Ken Rockwell's blog on the 50mm f1.8D as well. Though he doesnt talk bout the bokeh & subject isolation per say, 2 characteristics which are very important to me in any fasy large aperture lens, its still nice to read.

Look at how versatile it is:

The other brilliant thing is you invert this lens on a camera body (ie mounting or even just holding it with the objective toward the camera mount) & it turns into a brilliant macro lens! Of course it wont give you automatic exposure metering or auto focus, but if youve got a steady hand, well, its easy.

Check this out. As usual, no modifications made, straight off camera with a simple resize done just to make it visible on a small screen area.
First a photo of the NZ 10c coin taken at the minimum closeup distance of 45cms:

Not great, but check this next picture out.

It can be a $200 macro lens.

All I did was hold the lense upside down on the body (inverted) & went as close as around 3cms from the coin! I had to use Manual mode ofcourse, set the flash off iTTL into manual mode & set the power to get the right exposure levels. In this case I used 1/200 shutter, F8, BuiltIn flash firing at its lowest 1/128th power setting.

Impressive for a $200 device isnt it!
Ensure youre not in excessive windy or dirty conditions, you dont want to get it all dirty.
You can buy a $10 lense inverter from eBay or wherever which measn you dont have to get all fissly & hold the lense with one hand while doing this.

Saves you buying a $600 60mm f2.8 micro Nikkor macro lens, unless of course youre doing extensive macro work, in which case go for it.

So, if you dont mind the narrow field of view in DX & a bit of brightness in the bokeh, this is a great buy. Thanks Nikon!

Volquartsen Muzzle heavy target barrel for Ruger 10/22

The Volquartsen muzzle weighted target barrel

A few months ago I bought the Volquartsen muzzle weighted target barrel for a Ruger 10/22
Despite being quite pricy at NZ$500, this was very well worth the dollars spent.

No Im not being paid by anyone this is just my personal experience, the good & the bad will both be presented here.

If you want to take an out of the box Ruger 10 22 & turn it into an accurate rifle, you need to do these 2 things:

Firstly & most importantly, IMPROVE THE TRIGGER COMPONENTS!
I bought Volquartsen target sear etc & got a gunsmith to grind them in for a pristine release, & you know, it was awesome. In the past I had just put the parts in without a gun smith polishing them, & it makes a huge difference.
Have a read of my post on Ruger 10-22 triggers here for more details.

Then, add on this Volquartsen muzzle heavy target barrell.
What I love most about this barrel it can fit a standard channel ruger stock because its not thick all the way through, only toward the muzzle end.
You dont need to buy a .920 bull barrel compatible stock to fit it in.
Also, its only 16.5" long & 1.2 kg (around 3 Lbs) in weight compared to full size bull barrels of 20 inches that often are 2kg.

At this weight configuration, its very usable even when standing up as opposed to bipods or prone positions. Though I personally wish something even more lighter was available for more comfortable shooting in the standing position, this is a good start.

Fitting it in wasnt difficult, but its a lot tighter to put into your receiver V-block than a Ruger barrel. Volquartsen recommend applying a lubricant & then tapping it in with a mallet, but even then this needed some solid whacking before it was all the way in (ok I didnt mean to make it sound dodgy to some of you dirty minds out there haha)

But once in, the fit is snug & the accuracy is brilliant. It gave me the same 0.5" grouping that my bolt action CZ 452 does at 25 yards (around 23 metres)

Mine was a factory threaded version with a matching thread protector, but the complaint I had was that continuous firing would make the protector cover loose & had to be tightened often, a little bit annoying.

Also, the breech is tight, very tight. Certain types of ammo will jam. I had great results with Eley & Winchester T22 & was happy with the cheap CCI standard too. It will jam if the projectile is thick or the case rim is too thick.

Overall a nice addition to any Ruger 10-22 type semi auto rifle. Hard to get here in NZ though but keep a look out.

Last words, if you can spare NZD500 get this barrel, you will love it.
But if you cant, dont get a full weight bull barrel which is a tad cheaper, you wont enjoy it much. If you find the barrel too heavy, forget it.

The secret to shooting well is being comfortable. Ergonomics is far more important than people sometimes realise.