Chuck Anderson

I sent an email to Amidon a few days ago asking for clarification. I'll post the answer when I get it.

I'm not sure John understood the question fully on the other website the way it was written. By his ruling if a gun doesn't fully decock it cannot be used in Production because 10.5.9 would make it a DQ to lower the hammer. I really don't think that was the intent of his ruling and it doesn't make any sense that it would conflict with IPSC (which it does) for the exact same rule.

IMHO - a bad exception to allow a bad design to get over. I think that since the Tanfoglio and CZ are the post popular gun in IPSC Production with maybe (and that's a big maybe) the exception of the Glock that calling it a bad design might be pushing it a bit far. People have been lowering hammers for years with little to no problems. And just because a few people have DQ'd letting the hammer slip doesn't negate the design. I've DQ'd more people with STI pattern guns than any other. If I used that logic, the 1911 is a bad design. To the point of the thread. I think that if the gun has a decocker that you have deactivated by making an external modificaiton to the gun, specifially the extended mag release, that you're going to run into problems and that 10.5.9's exception would not apply to your gun, making it a DQ for you to decock.

We've got several very good LE shooters in my area, including a couple GM's. However, there are 1000's of cops within a 50 mile area and we get maybe 15 that shoot with any kind of consistency. There are a couple issues that I think may effect this. One is scheduling. For the most part we hold matches on Sat/Sun and the new guys that may be into IPSC for bettering their skills are pretty much working the weekends. I think another is the way IPSC is presented to them as a way to increase their shooting skills to make them better cops. I think that causes a big ego hit when they go out and get their butt kicked by the CPA, attorney, drywaller, etc. I have had better luck explaining that only a portion of it is shooting. The rest of it is tactics. Normally at first I get a snort where they say that IPSC isn't tactical. I point out that the best shooters will always go into a stage with a plan in mind and rehearsed. There are "rules" for which targets to shoot first, and what order to engage them etc. These are tactics for shooting the stage. I explain that a lot of the reason that the folks that aren't cops are kicking their butts are because they know these special game related tactics and the officer doesn't yet, but they will pick them up over time. At least with my agency, I know that the majority of our officers are C class shooters with several B class and a couple that are pretty easily M class if they spent a little time at matches (one guy consistenly does .75 draws out of a security holster, I didn't believe him till I put him on a timer). However they will only get to that point if they spend more than a couple matches learning the game. As far as IPSC's benefits, I know that it has helped me tremendously on the street. I have yet to jump into a room with 16 targets and hosed them all down. I haven't stood in a little box and shot 8 suspects down that are lined up 4 in front of the other 4. But it has allowed me to not worry if I can make a shot on the street. I don't consider my skill with a gun when I'm working. I know if the time comes to make a shot, that I can make it. This means I don't have to crowd up to a bad situation because I don't think I can make a shot from 15 yds. I allows me to focus completely on the tactics needed to get me out of the gunfight, before I have to use the skills I learned shooting IPSC.

While USPSA may reward Major PF, IMGA doesn't do squat. Also at some matches there is an afwul lot of steel which doesn't reward major either. As for IMGA the only difference is adding the C zone to the one shot to neutralize. You can shoot 1 A and neutralize the target with a .223 now. As far as getting the "USPSA Sponsors" to do anything, why. They are already giving away a ton of money. It costs a bunch more money to tool up to make a different style magazine and there just isn't enough interested in 30 round 308's to justify it. Besides there are already 30 round .308 mags available in the FN-Fal as well as the RRA .308 platform and I've seen a .308 C-Mag for the M1A at the last couple SHOT Shows (Although I'm not sure if that unholy beast is actually in production).

US IPSC Nationals? As in an actual IPSC Nationals as opposed to USPSA? I would go to that.

Iron sights? Does anyone still shoot those things? Just kidding Kurt. I have absolutely no problem with letting as many iron sight shooters sign as want to. I don't see any reason to restrict the number of divisions but I do think the rewards should be equal to the participation. If there are only 6% of the registered shooters signed up in a division, they should only get 6% of the prize table. I also don't like the matches where the iron sight shooters are factored into the optics division, like SMM3G has done. It works okay if there are a couple shooters there like Kurt who can make sure the Iron sight scores are high enough. But if there aren't any really good Limited shooters it skews the results.

Sounds okay to me. I don't think you'd see a flood of .308 shooters, but it would certainly be an increase.

Sorry, I was referring to the 58 folks that picked Iron only. Not exactly dominating over the 41 who wanted Iron and Optics. As far as the SS pistol rules I completely disagree with the way they wrote those rules.

Kurt, I got the location and the test group that you looked at, but HM shooters, up to this point, have been Iron sight shooters. If you poll that group, that's the result you will get. As far as Gordon's poll, how many responses were there, 50ish? That's not exactly a statistical certainty. To be honest I don't think the question should be what do current HM shooters want. The question should be how to make it so the current ones don't leave but more folks decide to shoot it. As far as the optics, that seems like a reasonable way to do it. You still have iron sight division for the folks who want it and for the folks who want an optic, they have a place to shoot as well. I've talked to several folks, not hundreds but more than a couple, that are planning to build .308 rifles for HM competition now that they can add an optic. Is that going to dramatically change HM, I doubt it. Trapr as far as whether you consider USPSA a viable reference for this discussion, that is what it is about...USPSA. This is not a requirement for IMGA, it is a way to try and breathe the fresh air into what is a pretty sad branch of multi gun. IMGA matches tend to fill, USPSA rarely (and I'm not sure on the Area matches so that is why there is the wiggle room) fill. Okay you win your other argument. Optics are easier to shoot. Who cares. You can still shoot Iron sights and not have to compete against us wussy, easy way out taking optics shooters. If there is a large portion of the HM crowd that chooses to shoot optics and take the easy way out, well I don't know what to say to that. If they move away from Irons to shoot optics, I guess there will be some negative impact. If it adds folks to the HM fold, wouldn't that be a good thing though?

Saying that one person with one set of eye problems can do it is a panacea for writing off a division is...well short sighted. Once again. No one is taking away your iron sight Division (now it's even a division, not just a category) From the very beginning USPSA (or at least Bruce Gary) always said there was an option for HM Tactical. That was part of the reason for originally making it a category. You could have it be a category of Limited or Tactical. Who is slapping who in the face. You're the one who said that shooters who went to Tactical did it because it's easier. I did it because I could use the same equipment that I use at work. And because Iron sights don't work well for me. And because I hate shooting open. Just out of curiousity have your eyes started to harden with age, as most folks will? I always find it interesting when someone tells people they need to work harder to overcome a problem that the person making the statement doesn't have. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

First to Kurt's argument. Saying that the vast majority of shooters in an Iron sight only division like iron sights is a little bit of a backwards argument. Of course they shoot Irons. There isn't really anyway to know what percentage of potential HM shooters would like to shoot Optics because there really hasn't been a good test bed. Second to Trapr's argument. Show me a USPSA 3-Gun Nationals that has filled up...ever. Until that is the case there is plenty of room for both divisions. According to Kurt, the huge majority of HM shooters want to shoot Iron anyway so I'm sure there will only be one or two poor suckers with an optic on their HM rifle. I tend to agree with you on the part about shooters liking things easier. I don't necessarily think that is the reason that Tactical became so big in USPSA. I think it has more to do with it being a more practical divison and that is what people tend to use on their rifles. For example, look at current military rifles. If shooters wanted things to be easiest, why wouldn't everyone shoot open with the easy shotgun load and no pistol reloading? As for practicing my eyeballs enough, ain't gonna happen. I was a guinea pig for LASIK when it was still experimental and have a wrinkle in my cornea. I can't practice that away and it makes it difficult to engage rifle targets at distance with irons. I know that is an oddball situation and not what the division was created for. But I also know that as a lot of folks get older and need to wear bifocals, etc. using iron sights on a rifle gets very difficult. One of two things is going to happen. The people who shoot HM will all stick to Irons and there will be no change. Or they will switch to optics and the divisions existence will be validated.

Here's a solution for the people that don't want scoped Heavy Metal. Don't shoot that division. I've never heard so much whining over something that doesn't effect anyone. If you don't want to use an optic...don't. I doubt it's going to have much of an effect on the overwhelming popularity of the Heavy Metal category as it stood. I've been wanting to try heavy metal but my eyes don't do well with irons. And sorry Trapr, but no amount of practice is going to change that fact for me. With the addition of an optic I at least have the option. As far as the Single Stack rules for the pistol, I think that is an extremely poor choice and only serves to limit the pool of potential competitors for what is already a tiny group.

Send it to SJC. I don't know of anyone more versed in working on Glocks. You should be able to ship the frame ground without the overnight costs if you don't have to send the top end with it.

I wouldn't use it for a Limited gun, but it would be great for an Open or Steel gun.

I can email you the dealer agreement that I just signed if you'd like to double check.

Some people like a lighter smoother transitioning gun more than a heavy chunk of steel. Especially for Steel Challenge type matches. Then there would be the other market, LE/Military. The SP-01 was designed first as a duty weapon, not a play gun for IPSC. Would you rather tote around 40 some odd ounces of steel or almost a pound less.

Aimpoint actually does not have a lifetime warranty. The warranty is 10 years, or 2 years in the case of Professional users (defined as LE, military and competition shooters). That said, they don't seem to really care when you bought them or what you use them for (as long as you don't drive over them or something). Just don't tell them how old they are or what you use them for.

It's a 32 round field course and shouldn't take more than 3-5 seconds to open the door and get to the gun, if you pop it the first time.

That door was a nice change from the usual at Benning. I watched a number of shooters take more than one swing at it. Also saw a DQ there when a shooter took a herculean swing and his gun belt popped off and hit the ground.... I heard about that one also. That's why I wanted to start with the gun on the other side of the door. Figured that would be the safest way.

The door is coming from a match sponsor Breaching Technologies Incorporated. It's a $4000.00 breaching door designed for repeated use by SWAT Teams. I've used the door at the 2006 Ft. Benning 3-Gun match for those folks that were there. It's plenty strong and there won't be any problems with that. The gun will be placed so that there is not a 180 degree issue.

We have very few spots left open to shoot Sat/Sun. If you want it you might still get in if you send the app in immediately. Otherwise plan on Friday/Saturday or all day Friday

I've tested the door with the ram. It is very easy to open assuming any form of the proper technique is used. This will be demonstrated by the RO, who is retired Special Forces and has a little bit of experience swinging a ram. I don't anticipate needing to penalize anyone and I think just about anyone should be able to do this. However, I've also seen guys swing and miss repeatedly and not be able to open the door. And these have been some pretty big guys. What I don't want is for people to not try.

I'm setting up a stage with a breaching door and ram. Stage will start with the gun on the other side of the door from you. The plan is to start with the ram in hand, open the door with it, proceed through the door, pick up the gun and engage the targets. I'm not sure if everyone will be able to open the door. We're using the lightest pin and it goes open pretty easily but we've got some pretty young/old shooters as well. I was planning to assess one procedural for not opening the door and one procedural for not proceeding through the door. This would leave the option for the folks who can't open it to go to the end of the wall and enter the course. Does that make sense? And more importantly is it legal?

Does anyone manufacture a magazine tube extension for the Mossberg 930? Looked like they would be okay for three gun but the high cap gun is only 7+1.