Glock3422

I have a VTAC TRX Extreme 13" and really like it. You can feel the warmth coming off the barrel, but it doesn't get hot. I like the slots rather than holes to help keep my fingers away from the barrel. The diameter is perfect. I took the short rail pieces off as soon as I got it. I do have a fold down sight set on it and a QD sling attachment on the top rail.

Our local 3-gun uses Horner scoring and one A/B or two anywhere on paper. We felt it makes long shots matter and multiple guns on a stage rewarded appropriately while allowing for some hosing.

Ain't that the truth? I guess he had to draw the line when it came to a Gen 4 Glock. There is a limit.

Also from the rule book addendum: When cover is available, it MUST be used when shooting unless the competitor starts in the open and must engage targets while on the way to cover. If cover is available anywhere in the COF it must be used for reloading. Competitors may NOT cross any opening (doorways, windows, open spaces, etc) without engaging targets. Basically, other than the initial retreat to cover, shooting on the move is not allowed in IDPA. If IDPA clarified its clarifications, you might find that the quote from the addendum is unofficially (officially) revoked. The rewrite of the rulebook should be interesting. Hopefully, it is not too far down the road.

Many iron sight shooters around here like the ultra match fiber optic that Brownell's has.

I am using an Arredondo for the Benelli that has been modified. It needed to be thinned and shortened because of the length of travel on the FNH release.

Check to see if the shell rim is binding to the bolt release lever and the opposite side of the receiver. If it is, the bolt release lever is likely binding. Mine did this after adding an extended release that did not allow for full travel.

The pad I got were a little heavy and I had to remove material from the center to get them down to 1oz. No problem fitting in the box with a G22. The rules allow up to 1 oz more than stock. Although, the stock pads are only .159 oz.

If you have the adjustable rear sight, and the matching front, you will have problems getting it to fit. This is only on the 34/35. The 17/22 are no problem.

You should also measure that box be certain it is the correct size and square. A lot of them are not.

Or the level of shooters at those matches. By limiting it to only those 2 matches is basically saying that winning other matches isn't any big deal and is meaningless. That is an interesting concept. The only drawback to something like that is there are many matches that limit the number of shooters so 250 would be a tough number. It ought to be a tough number. It should, however, be possible more than twice a year. If a Master wins Division Champion at a small match, why should it count? An Expert can't get bumped with less than 10. How likely is it that a match has the minimum number of shooters for a sanctioned match and still has 10 Masters in a division? Maybe total match attendance isn't a valid criteria. It is more valid than the title "Nationals." Eliminate the total attendance and use a criteria of beating xx Masters. Please don't make it about the money. I am proposing an idea that opens the possibility of awarding a DM bump based on the size of a match that indicates a level of popularity that confirms the quality of the match. Pick a number, but it needs to mean something. Matches limit their participant count due to range limitations. If you can't run xxx shooters through a sanctioned match, why should you be qualified to award a DM bump? On the other hand, if you run a match with xxx shooters and more than 10 Masters in the division, why can't they award a DM bump? If IDPA is listening to the membership, they ought to hear this. There are a lot of people who really don't understand or agree with this move. Nationals is Nationals because HQ awarded it to a club and essentially runs it. S&W is a Nationals because they pay for the privilige. $,$$$. The sanction fee is only $50. I think an interesting off shoot of this is that the current DMs have less motivation to shoot an qualifying IDPA match. They can only lose to a Master, for the time being. They can't really win. The top shooters have always competed for High Overall inspite of the fact that IDPA does not recognize it or approve of it. It is their bragging rights. What is the motivation for a three gun Expert to shoot a match they can't get a bump from? What is the motivation for a three gun Master to shoot a match they can't get a bump from? What is the motivation for a DM to shoot a match they have already topped out in? I think I'll be shooting some outlaw 3-gun for the fun of it.

Limiting the potential DM winners to two matches is really short sighted and does not give credit to the clubs and match directors who put on big, quality matches. I would think any sanctioned match with over 250 competitors should be eligible to award DM if the division champion beats at least 10 masters in that division. There would probably need to be some adjustment for the revolver shooters. They would need to win division champion in say three such matches in a five year period to waive the 10 master portion. I guess we will find out what the criteria is when they figure it out and write it down somewhere.

Purchased upper. BCM Built up lower. I kept a factory receiver and selector. Anyone need parts?

So much for stability of rules. HQ may owe a couple refunds.

That was dicked up.

I'm shocked!

Having been involved with S&W for the last two years, and will be again this year. I can tell you that SOing that match has been the worst possible way to shoot it. Just ask the local SOs who have decided to not participate. Even if you see or actually set up a stage, it is no more benefit than walking on to the stage as a competitor. You still have to make your own decision about the stage and the best way for you to shoot it. If you were an SO last year, the SO shooting day was longer than any other day of the match and did not flow well. This year will be very different and much better. There will be a group of about seven well qualified SOs who will run the seven bays. The match SOs will shoot in squads of about five each. They will move through the match as the competitors will, on match days, in squads of twelve. Is that an advantage? That plan will typically allow for the stage SO, and two to score and paste. The other three will be the guy who just shot, the current shooter, and the next to shoot. Not a lot of down time. S&W has made a financial commitment to do this and improve the experience of the SOs. The guys who run SO day, will shoot as a squad during the competition. Certainly the people designing individual stages have a good idea about how they will be laid out, but S&W is such a unique place, that no one knows what it will look like or how it will be laid out until it is in place and the safety people have blessed it. That is a major factor at this match. I know that most of the S&W stages are designed and on paper. But not all. The execution of some of those stages will change things significantly because of the physical limitations and safety concerns of the facility. That is part of what makes it so special. No, I have not seen the stages on paper and it wouldn't really help. Each of the last two years (and I expect all the others), stages have been changed in significant ways right up until the first shot was fired. The match director last year and this year will not shoot the match. Frank Glover never shoots The Carolina Cup and will not shoot this match either. Frank does not allow anyone to pre-shoot a stage. Timing and transitions off of activators are tested. That is all. I haven't seen any testing in two years at S&W. That has resulted in SO reshoots for activators that were not set correctly. I quit looking at diagrams of stages years ago. The only time I found them to be valuable was a few years ago when they were published on the web before a match. Knowing what they were trying to do, we set up the most difficult version of the diagram we could come up with. Did it help? Probably, on those two or three stages. But not significantly. Going to a major match, practice head shots, strong hand only, and weak hand only at 150% of the rule book maximum. Your practice will be rewarded. Oh, RWR and Tac Loads. They may not be required, but they may come in handy. It is S&W and low light/no light/hostile light should be expected. Have a good flashlight and practice with it. It may not help on many stages, but the stages it helps on could be significant. I have seen guys come in with an inovative plan for use of their light burn down a stage when no one else thought of it, including the SOs running the stage who previewed it. DO NOT SHOOT SMOKEY POWDERS AND LEAD! YOU WILL SUFFER. S&W's restriction on range access is to a degree about keeping the field level. It is mostly about limiting access to a building that does not have space for "tours" while the match is going on. Most of the shooting areas are very tight and there just isn't room for observers. There are five stages where there is absolutely no possiblility of a preview. There are two stages that any one can observe from the retail area. The rest of the areas are just off limits. There will not be any blind stages, but everyone will get the same look.

I understand that you may not agree with or understand the concept behind the first procedural. As a general rule, You may start in a position, facing threats, without cover. You may be tasked with engaging those threats, while retreating/moving to cover. Once you have reached cover, you may initiate a reload. <I personally do not agree with the rule. I see no reason to carry an empty gun to cover, without doing something to improve the situation. It is nonsense and a waste of time.> But, it is the rule. It isn't about being engaged or not. It isn't about being neutralized or not. It is about not being behind cover from the immediate threats, engaged or not, neutralized or not. To argue the tacticians point, you don't know how many friends those guys have coming down the hall. It is important that the SOs and competitors define within the context of a particular course of fire, how the rule will be applied. The rule book is not the be all, end all. It should be the basis from which a course of fire is designed and run. The rule book is the base, but it does not define and address every situation. You can lobby to change the rule, but it is the rule. I don't like it. You don't like it. It just is, until it isn't.

Clearly, two procedurals (since the most recent clarification). The first procedural is for initiating a reload while not behind cover. Granted, cover needs to be defined by the COF in this situation. It should have been stated that cover was behind the vertical cover behind the shooter. By the general rules of the game, there was no cover from the shoot and retreat portion. Cover must be used, if available. Cover was available behind the shooter to the left. Had the shooter experienced a malfunction, they would have had to retreat to the available cover, clear the malfunction and reengage the first two targets using vertical cover around the corner. Note, the shooter would have been required to slice the pie using vertical cover. The second procedural is for leaving cover (crossing the opening) with an empty gun. We all know there are no additional threats down the hall, but there could be. In fact, I think that might be a really good stage. I would encourage everyone to reread the rulebook a couple times a year and think about it. Designing stages and setting up matches with a tough brainstorming crowd will speed the learning curve. IDPA does not require that targets are neutralized to move on, they need to be engaged. The problem with the engaged/neutralized view in this COF, is that they are misplaced notions in this COF. Cover should be defined in all stages.

Actually, Dulles Airport in Virginia is closer than BWI.

Reference please? And could you cross reference the magazine weight issue? And, if you really don't care or have information to offer, why bother? It matters to some of us. Belittling the discussion adds nothing to the exchange of ideas. This is the point at which you close the discussion. Edit to add- The lack of clarity in the IDPA rule book is a matter of continuing disagreement. The now "Official" IDPA Forum has done nothing to clarify anything. We are discussing here, an issue that was raised with the 2005 revision of the rule book. Unofficial opinions restricting a five year old clarification should not be a matter dismissed with such a condecsending attitude by a forum member and certainly not by a moderator. Somebody call Brian.

I'll wait until Bill returns Robert's call. In the meanwhile, you could explain the purpose and application of the "weighted magazine" definition. Weighted Magazine: Any magazine that weighs more than one (1) ounce over the weight of a factory standard magazine for the specific pistol in question. A pistol is a pistol and a magazine is a magazine. A magazine is not a pistol and is not a modification to a pistol. The point of SSP rules seems to keep the gun within the constraints of an issued weapon. That intent still allows changing the sights and internal work. In the case of a Glock, it allows Glock parts that were not originally on the gun. Is a magazine that was not made by Para not allowed in an SSP Para LDA? Never mind.

It must have been my imagination.

I feel a need to reiterate my comment that was accidentially buried in a quote. The rule book is very clear that weighted base pads are not legal. It defines weighted as weighing more than an ounce over factory. A base pad that weighs .9 ounce over factory is not going to be the same material and is not going to duplicate the factory part. The book does not limit the base pad rule to any division(s). Simple application of what is already in the book would clearly make a base pad change legal, as long as it does not weigh more than the factory part by more than an ounce. This clarification did not exist until the 2005 version. I can only add that a magazine is not a gun. It is an accessory. A G17 mag fits in a G19. It is used in conjunction with a gun, much as a speed loader or moon clip would be. The rules require that the gun be weighed with an empty magazine, but does not require a factory magazine. Detachable back straps and presumably other non-permanent parts can be modified for texture and appearance. A magazine is barely external and its constraints are defined by the volume of the gun that holds it and the original magazine +1 ounce. How you get there should be up to your own choice, much as how you stiple your detachable back strap. Wow, we spend a lot of time worrying about nothing. Full disclosure- I have lost more than one Glock magazine because it either did not seat or the base pad came off the magazine during a COF. To me, adding a metal base pad is a reliability issue. My factory base pad magazines actually come out faster and better. That is probably because I only use them for special occasions. SSP is the most restrictive division and yet allows a detachable part to be physically modified. A magazine is a replacible part and there is a rule to limit its modification. Let's move one.

You really need to weigh it, but it probably won't make it.