WaJim

Yeah and they're taking in trade a gun they built....so, trading quality for quality with a previous customer is great business sense. Builds consumer confidence.

Thanks Guys.... I'm loading the 124's today and we shal see.....stock recoil spring in the compact is pretty stiff. I usually shoot 147's Going to use the same powder charge.

I attended an IDPA match last weekend, usually shoot the other one :). Guy shooting CCP says IDPA dropped CCP power factor to 105? Really? I'm massaging a CZ75 Compact for my Wife to shoot that division.... At a point the load wont expand the shell in the chamber tight enough to keep the gun clean....ish Years ago I tried dropping a Colt Officer 1911 to 125pf for this Division....it got really dirty, fast. Anyone have good results with that load? and would you go heavy bullet or light? Thinking light would have more powder.

Showing up the day before and designing/setting up a stage of your own that you designed will change your outlook on stage issues.

I have a John Larson (JPL Precision) built 9 Maj. Open. 2 years of sooooooooo many rounds/matches. No issues...

. In the PNW we have a Safety Officer. Each Club keeps track of the DQ's and send the reports to this Officer. At IIRC 2 or 3 DQ in 3 months the shooter HAS to visit the Safety Officer before he can compete in the local clubs. If this shooter continues to be a problem then the Safety Officer will give the shooter a vacation from all local matches.....

RO'd a Multigun Outlaw match last weekend.....pcc instead of rifle. Mall Ninja Operator seemed to be the theme. Whole lot of speed USC crap going on and a few more than normal semi irritated shooters when I said I NEED to see the show clear part of that dance. Also, lets see how many of you guys can sweep your hand/wrist bagging a PCC Gotta say...USPSA has a great set of rules. I feel much safer there.

Don't know if there is an advantage to shooting either 9Maj, 357sig or 38s vs 40 or 45. Never shot a 1911 using 38s loaded major...(no Comp).... Couldn't be that much fun. As far as money 9'd be the cheapest rd, then 40 (may be a toss up) then 45 then either of the other two.

:Facepalm:

Yeah, you've already said that...i get it.

Thanks Memphis, the thread wasn't about changing a rule, its directive or its meaning just rewording it. A subtle change. Actually the change would make it less wordy and would affect nothing but clarity, as the case may be.

Not at all. You can agree or not, of course, as the case may be. It's 2021 not 1776 and people with a keen grasp of the English language don't necessarily get or use Lawyer Speak. I'm saying the passage is not necessary and can be confusing. I also think the mere posting this concern on BE about the wording helps another RO understand a wordy rule is a positive move.. Like I said earlier...the test isn't a group effort. So if this helps that one RO...I'm good.

Agreed. The rules can be modified without cutting one tree. I thought that this was the proper place for airing a concern about how a rule was written. Next time ill just PM Dirk. BTW Broadside when was the last time you used the phrase "as the case may be" ? Now that I have googled it I find out its a Legal phrase.....used in contracts.

Have you taken the RO test ...? Pretty important for the rules to be easily understood. The test is not a joint effort with other ROs....or shouldnt be. The way I wrote it is clearer by far than the way it is written. My 2 cents.