bdpaz

Call a podiatrist or a physical therapy office. Ask. Call your insurance company and ask about coverage. They run $200-300, plus professional fees. Worth it. Absolutely worth it. I had constant low grade knee pain for years that cleared up immediately when I got mine (in my case my feet tend to rotate outwards stressing my knees). And no matter what the dork at the shoe store/department says, the arch supports they sell are not custom orthotics.

The same rounds that everyone here feels are showing signs of too much pressure? I'd back way down and load some small batches stepping up incrementally to what he has now and start chrono testing with the lightest. Probably double check with SVI also. I'm far from an authority but using the same bullet weight and powder charge in both .45 and .40 major loads just seems odd.

He's using .45 data for his .40??? Hodgdon shows a max 3.5 Clays with 180gr jacketed .40. In .45 they show a max of 4.3 with 200gr JHP so his .45 load is fine but the .40 load sounds scary.

A. Try a compromise distance correction for your dominant eye where the target is less clear but you can kinda sorta see the sights. B. Only shoot outdoors in really bright sunlight with clear lenses giving you your maximum depth of field. I'm mildly near sighted and B is the only thing that works for me.

On the bright side, working CVTs are cool. Had a Nissan and then a Lexus with CVTs and I liked them, particularly when going up hill. They just dial in the necessary gear ratio to keep the engine in its best rpm range.

I sure I hope I never need (most of) you all's help in brainstorming ! Don't be negative or judgmental - and that includes asking if SV has stopped innovating. In this case, the first step is to come up with ideas/functions that you want without considering cost or current technical capabilities. The result is a blue sky wish list of random cool features. Then consider the pros and cons of the features, individually and as related to each other. If you don't like someone's idea don't criticize the person but state the functional drawbacks to that idea, and ideally offer an alternative. Don't defend an idea just because it was yours (if you've thrown out a lot of ideas, chances are some will look silly after some more thought). You can begin to consider physical limitations in general terms (e.g. is there space on the gun to display XXX info while maintaining a firing grip or will it need some type of remote display?). After you have refined the concepts into some specific items/improvements/additions, the third phase is to consider their value (NOT THEIR COST!!!). Is a given feature hugely important and worth hundreds of dollars to you, is it cool but of no major importance so that you'd only pay a few dollars for it, or somewhere in between. Now get this information to the manufacturers so they know what features you'd like and approximately what you'd pay for them. Maybe something will come of it, maybe not. But it never hurts to ask!

My original post stated "I am a physician working in NYC" - At a large university medical center. I just moved from NYC across the river to NJ. Sorry, that wasn't clear. It was directed towards future contributors so they follow your lead and give a good frame of reference .

Good topic but one suggestion: If you post provide some background on your location. City and state if it's not in your profile. If "at work" is it a small/med/giant company, manufacturing or office work, etc.

As usual, I'm confused! Are you saying any brass used more than once will have splits? That brass from other guns could have splits but yours never will? You think the "once fired brass" may include some worn out cases and you don't want to inspect a large quantity at once? IMHO, pristine brass just isn't necessary for safety. For top accuracy and reliability in a big match, knock yourself out sorting and inspecting and counting number of uses but otherwise use what you can find. On a side note, I don't believe in cutting corners for practice ammo. The only difference for me is using new or once fired cases for a match.

I bought some blue from fiberoptics.com when I last ordered "normal" colors and it wasn't very bright or colorful. I think they mention that somewhere and they are correct!

I may just be having a bad day but as I read it this wasn't a one-armed 75 year old being penalized on top of his already slow time. The OP is concerned about his score and wants to win - so I'm assuming he would be competitive if he didn't have to get to the ground. He can only shoot standing which is faster than getting down and back up yet doesn't think it is fair to be assessed a penalty. If I'm wrong and his point is that a penalty is just insult on top of injury, then I agree that a penalty isn't called for at the local level. But if he has a shot at winning except for a physical limitation that won't allow him to shoot the stage as specified, and he needs to shoot in a manner which is faster then yes, a suitable penalty should be given to make up for the time he saved by remaining standing. If you want to have fun, then do whatever it takes to get through the match. But if winning is important then follow the rules. Movement (sometimes approaching acrobatics) is part of USPSA.

I firmly believe that accommodations should be made for anyone who wants to participate, have fun, and compete against themselves to measure their progress. If you can't perform some of the shooting or support functions, who cares? I'll reset steel, tape targets, pick up brass for you .. whatever is needed. If it takes someone five minutes to shoot a stage that others burn through in one, it doesn't bother me. BUT, if you are competing to win you simply have to perform all the required actions. How could it possibly be fair any other way?

Are you sure you really "see them better" (as in precisely and consistently aligned), or do you just find it more quickly?

This entire topic is artificially polarized by the limited, structured nature of an internet forum. It is a complex subject and I think if we were sitting around discussing it we'd find that we'd all be less extreme in our positions than comes across here. Not everyone opposed to the humanoid target is a PC tree hugger trying to make shooting warm & fuzzy, and not all in favor of keeping it are closed minded folks selfishly limiting the growth of USPSA. For example, I think it is mildly silly to keep the metric target for "realism" when nothing else is realistic - real life isn't structured with unvarying color codes for shoot/no shoot/hard cover along with standard scoring areas and fixed number of hits specified ahead of time. But that isn't a reason to eliminate the target, it is a reason to vary the course of fire (in my opinion - and I don't really expect any changes). On the other hand, I do think JThompson's comment "I think it's a good reminder for everyone that if you screw up, you're not just killing a geometric form, but a real human." is a compelling reason FOR keeping the humanoid shape. One last touchy feely thought: take pictures or video of yourself at a USPSA match shooting a stage using the turtle target and also shooting a stage using the metric target. Show the metric to some casual acquaintances and co-workers and turtle to others and see if the response is any different depending on the target used.

As an adult I have no problem shooting targets shaped like people, and I refer to the upper A/B zone as "the head". But what happens when you take a pre-teen friend of your son or daughter, or neighbor kid, or any random youngster of your acquaintance to a USPSA match. You can talk all you want about sport and gun safety but is pretty clear that you are shooting at targets the represent people - and guess how they are going to describe it to mom and dad when they get home? If we want to get more people involved at a young age I think changing targets is something to consider. I have nephews age 13 and 10 that are interested in what I do. The 13 year old could probably understand but I don't think that 10 year olds really need to start out learning to shoot at people. And personally, while I don't expect this to happen, I'd like to have a wider variety of targets with the scoring zones positioned differently so more thought is required. Maybe shade the A-zone as the position won't be consistent and can't be memorized, and introduce some target discrimination into the stages.

Just looking out for you ! People get upset over imagined slights from firsthand conversations and it is even worse when something from "The Internet" is passed along incorrectly. If your post was relayed only as "...My first USPSA match was in March..." and "I can't seem to be happy with anything less than first..." without your shooting background for a frame of reference you can see how that might annoy someone. And of course he or she won't discuss it with you because you are obviously a dork for saying it (you know, that thing you never actually said) and it just gets worse from there. Yes, I am bitter and cynical .

You've only been doing it for two months and you are not happy because you aren't first? The winning shooters have likely worked very hard for months or years. Have you given any thought to how that might come across to them? Arrogant is one word that comes to mind. You may simply be asking for opinions on how hard to push to improve after doing so well initially, but just be aware you might be unintentionally offending some people.

Who says you should shoot all "A"s? Long shots and targets with only a small part of the A-zone visible are examples of when hitting all "A"s just takes too much time, and then minor hurts. You may not be able to miss fast enough to win but you can certainly hit slow enough to lose - I do it regularly!

It is very consistent on my 550 so it's all you. Something is wrong with your powder measure if Titegroup doesn't meter well. As CocoBolo said, tear it down and clean everything and then see how it works.

I have read that it is pronounced "Guys Lee". Don't know for a fact if that is correct.

I don't understand - winning Master in Limited bumps you to Unlimited? If so, what happens to the winner of Unlimited?

The (unanswerable here) question is, does the company make a profit from the sales of those guns that occurred because of sponsoring a pro shooter - and not because of other advertising - after covering the cost of the sponsorship? You can debate the percentage but I don't think anyone believes that the competition market accounts for the majority of S&W, Springfield, and Glock sales. Winning big matches and championships is significant to us but the reality is, that outside of active participants, USPSA type shooting is almost unknown. In my experience, the majority of shooters in Arizona have never even heard of Rob Leatham - and he lives here! As none of us have access to the gun makers' financial statements this whole discussion is meaningless (but fun ). My opinion (or guess) is that sponsored shooters do sell more guns in the competition markets but that the increase rarely pays for the sponsorship.

Don't try to ride the reset to the 2nd stage when shooting fast - blow through both stages intentionally. Having said that, I do like AR Gold better for the fast stuff. I'm still a relative novice in the AR world but I have a rifle with an AR Gold, another with a Geissele SSR, and have had (and am building another) one with the Geissele Match. I find the SSR and the AR Gold to be good for 3-gun shooting, with the AR Gold a little stronger in the fast stuff and the SSR a little better on the long range shots. The DMR and Match Geisseles kick butt on the long precision shots where you have time to take up the first stage and make use of the light crisp 2nd stage break.

Initially I'd go overboard to to avoid even the perception that he'd be a problem. You may know he won't wander down range but others, particularly the shooter, might be concerned - and distracted. Keep a close watch on him when you're not shooting and tie him up or have someone else actively in charge while you are shooting.

That's my point ! I'd just suggest that at the next match you make a point to talk to the powers-that-be and make sure they understand what you were asking.