BR

Hey Charlie- Actually, it looks like a 17 year old "dot gun cheater" won the Utah Championship, beating the closest Limited GM by well over 100 match points.

The OP regularly has been here since his OP, but does not post unless he has something relevant to say. I did try N310 and Precision 185s and shot that combo in a couple matches. Easily made 135 pf in a G35 without any pressure signs. Very soft, ok accuracy, and surprisingly quiet -- just a soft pop, almost on .22 rimfire level. However, I was getting keyholes in the target, and later learned that I either had too much or not enough crimp with the Precisions, I do not remember which after 3 years. Got tired of chasing the mouse-fart dragon and went back to 9mm for production. Much prefer the consistency of N320 with a 124 or 147 bullet, or any 9mm that is already loaded - I don't enjoy reloading. Cheers. -br

I have tried many M&P trigger jobs. Cha-lee gave me the best Production-legal M&P trigger I have ever tried. And his results are consistent. The man is genius with the M&P trigger. His Limited trigger is sublime. Cheers. -br

I did not read this entire threat, but.... Yeahhhh..... that was me. The stage began with shooter seated and loaded gun on table -- on buzzer engage targets, staying within box. At the front of the table, about 3 feet away were cards in groups of five, poker hands, stapled facing toward the shooter. On buzzer, I stood up, retrieved the loaded gun, and my first shot was a bit premature -- before my sights were exactly on target ;-) -- going through, I believe the queen of spades right in the middle hand, a Royal Flush (my buddy Morgan has the photo), and I continued to engage the targets downrange. After I engaged three or four targets the RO called "stop, and unload and show clear." He said something like "I think you should be DQ'd for that first shot." I said something like "well, my first shot went down range, at the targets, did not hit within 10 feet of me, and did not go over the berm. I was not moving or loading or reloading. Please tell me the rule that would justify a DQ." Perhaps the language was a bit more colorful. Anyway, there was conferral, and then further conferral with the bosses, and the decision was there was no specific rule to support a DQ. -br eta: Full disclosure: I sometimes play a lawyer in real life, not just on the range.

Check out the new balance MT110. Minimalist design, only 4mm rise, very lightweight, great traction, and has layer for rock protection. Love mine. -br

Medium.

First link is to vid of Dave Sevigny discussing glock grip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvJzFdcYSag http://www.handgunsmag.com/2007/05/08/the-combat-grip/

I enjoy hockey, and I really LIKE that Sidney Crosby is back, and in style. 2 goals, 2 assists in his first game back. Hope he stays healthy for a long time. Cheers. -br

http://www.glockmeister.com/Glockmeister-Grip-Plug-for-Full-Size-Compact-Gen-4-GLOCKS/productinfo/BCIG4

Charlie- Congrats on an awesome match and great finish! -br

Congrats to Ben and the Top 16. Appeared to be far fewer glocks overall in production, and a very diverse group of production guns used by the super squad - just about every manufacturer was represented. The equipment survey will be interesting, but I a bet glock lost a significant percentage this year.

You can experiment for years, or just buy Charlie Vanek's production trigger, which you ultimately will end up doing anyway. If you have the time and money, then experiment. Otherwise, just cut to the chase an buy a Vanek. Cheers and ciao. -br

I hate getting involved in domestic disputes. But, I think Joe4D is correct. The target was displaced, and 4.6.1 does not equivocate whether that displaced target was due to a shot [or the wind, or anything else] causing the displacement, or whether the displaced target was disappearing [or moving or static], or whether it was displaced before or after the first or the 100th shot. The rule simply, and completely, states that a displaced target is a range equipment failure and the shooter is required to reshoot. A parallel situation at a recent match. First stage of the day, first shooter. Engage a paper close up and then a popper farther downrange that activated a swinger. The first shooter shot the paper, hit the steel, but the swinger did not activate. Why, because the shot on the paper target continued downrange and broke the wire connecting the popper to the swinger. Ostensibly, the failure was "caused" by the shooter, just as the target was displaced by the shooter in the OP's example. But, 4.6.1 does not provide for "shooter causation" or for any discretion on the part of the RO. Reshoot. [Yes, the targets in my example were moved to avoid the shoot-through on the wire]. Domestics suck. Cheers. -br

Dear respected Forum Members- I would have DQ'd that gamer SOB in a heartbeat. Seriously, what was he thinking, putting two rounds through an invisible wall into a wholly visible target? Okay, I have to admit, it sounds like he did it completely safely and within all the rules in the rule book, but he, literally, engaged a visible target through an invisible wall! God forbid -- by the rules it was a WALL dammit (albeit invisible), and even though I cannot find a single rule to support it, it seems obvious that shooting at that fully visible target through an invisible wall should be a disqualifying offense (still looking for that rule). Minimally it should have been a failure to shoot at under 9.5.7, even though clearly there were 2 hits on the face of the scoring target (still looking for that rule too). And then the unofficial majority of NROI does not support my position! How dare they - I demand a BOD vote on this, because it is SO important and we already do not have enough specificity in the USPSA rules. But, at the end of the day, I would just rely on 10.6.1, because this competitor, playing our game, was clearly cheating, dishonest, failed to comply with the reasonable directions of the MD, and/or brought disrepute on our sport. Frankly, this is a game -- and for us to tolerate such behavior -- shooting a visible target through an invisible wall -- by a so-called "competitor" is just beyond the bounds of my comprehension. I, for one, think we should report this behavior to USPSA, and also formally ask this competitor to commit ritualistic seppuku for his violation of the unwritten "code." By the way, JC and CP -- great shooting with you guys this weekend. Playing this game is a lot more fun than arguing about the rules. Cheers. -br