resurrecting the Pact XP -1

[Brick]

I made an expedient repair to the pact a while back and just yesterday got to the indoor range to it out. The Pact is a complete PIA to use outdoors with the standard ambient light sensors. Too much light it doesn't work, too little light it doesn't work, tilt sensors towards the sun it doesn't work, tilt them away from the sun it doesn't work use a battery who's voltage has dropped below 9 VDC it doesn't work. Every outdoor use is trial and error (trial by terror?) until you hit the correct combination. But indoors with the irfra-red sensor array it is a different matter. At least one need only worry about having full power 9 VDC batteries on hand.

I tested a number of loads I'd tested or developed in the past so I could compare results and see if they were at least reasonable. My results are contained in the pdf attached. As always your comments are appreciated.

Some of the results showed only minor variation from previous tests. Like the Sanity check with the 158 gr .38 Spec. load. It is less than 30 fps off prior tests.

The testing also brought some surprises. A#2 results were much faster than I'd expected. Fired from my M1991A1 it gave me 888.7 FPS avg. for a 5.2 gr powder charge (I was looking for something around 750 fps to use as a "bullseye" target load). But testing from 18 August 2012 the same load fired from the same pistol gave 808.2 FPS avg. and I didn't get close to today's velocity until my powder charge approached maximum at 5.8 grs. 893.7 avg. But the real surprise came when I tested the load using the same 0.452" dia. bullet in my S&W Mod 25-2 revolver I end up with an average of 835.7 FPS. More surprising was that I used CCI primers and the revolver fired every one without skipping a beat!

My old and oft used A#5 load of 7.9 grs gave some curious results too. Today, using Penn Bullets 205 gr. (actual avg. weight) LSWC fired from the same M1991A1 pistol an avg. velocity of 850.0 FPS was measured. Acceptable, it meets IDPA Power factor requirements, but is 64 FPS slower than my 18 Aug. 2012 results.

Too be sure some of the earlier results were tests from outdoors with a Shooting Chrony Alpha and I now have a Shooting Chrony Beta that I can use only for outdoor work. I suppose I'm not going to be satisfied until I can test Chrony and XP -1 side by side or maybe better yet in tandem and compare direct results. Maybe the real question is "Does this testing add to my level of understanding and knowledge" or merely add confusion to consternation?

Please be sure to open and read the PDF.