Chuck Anderson

3:30 AM, must be time to head to the airport. See ya guys this afternoon.

I would tend to dispute that. We've got a couple shooters that apparently got some old school point shooting training. I've seen them point the gun in the direction of the targets from a lowered shooting position and shoot. Just because it's not a normal shooting position does not make it a DQ. If there are targets available that they could be shooting, and the gun is pointed at them, and a shot goes off?? 8.5.1 Except when the competitor is actually aiming OR shooting at targets. It's an OR, fortunately they've seen me shoot and know that I don't aim too much. However, reload during AD. It's normally pretty easy to tell the ones that the shooter didn't intend for them to go off. Most guys don't point the gun at the target while reloading, they cant the gun or point it somewhere slightly different. I would say when the gun begins the transition to the target, the reload is done.

I think the MOR might be up to 4 stages now. I don't know that the stages are 100% approved yet though.

I think it might be a week or two till the slots actually become avail. I believe the deadline for returning them was May 9. I don't know why they would give them out before that time. Of course there may be some that have already been returned as unused. Those could go early. But there should definitely be a batch Mid May.

Shouldn't be a problem.

I think Omnia1911 has a point. USPSA is it's own organization. But it is sanctioned by IPSC. IPSC certainly has the right to withdraw that sanctioning if they think it's needs are not being met by USPSA. Those needs being the promotion of IPSC in the US. If USPSA makes a token effort at promoting IPSC and becomes in effect, soley a US organization. It only makes sense for IPSC to find another US organization to run IPSC matches. I have no idea what the result of that dissafiliation would be however. I imagine it would make it more difficult for our shooters to shoot internatioanally and also for international shooters to come to the US. On the flip side if USPSA makes an actual push to run some IPSC matches I think it will be pretty cool and work out just fine. The only downside I see it trying to keep the rules straight at matches. The equipment divisions are pretty easy. It's the little subtle rules that will be a pain, like the sight pictures, etc. Right now my understanding is that USPSA does not have a program in place to train RO's for IPSC rules. Hopefully they will have soon.

"Bull"?? Not really. For the most part it takes a 10 minute call to the local chamber of commerce. Do you have anything going on this weekend? It's also pretty easy to get blocks of hotel rooms for events like this. If they're full up, that's a clue that you should pick up on a lot more than 6 weeks before the match. The lack of communication is also surprising. It sounds like nobody has had any difficulty finding hotel rooms. Where did the AD get the info that hotels were hard to come by.

That's an unfortunate situation and one that should not have occurred. If it is true that the JW convention has been in town before, that should have been a clue. If you're going to site a major match you need to check for conflicting events. Match hotels should have been sorted out long before 6 weeks before the match. Between this and Area 8 this year threatening to cancel it makes me really glad that I live in Area 1 where we have lots of clubs that want to put on Area matches.

The S&W M&P with the small backstrap installed has one of the smallest grip circumferences I've felt. Should be a great gun.

Albany will be hosting two 3-Gun matches before the Multi-Gun. The matches will be run under the current USPSA rules. The dates are May 14 (Mother's Day) and June 11. Robert Wright from www.randrracingingonline.com will be the match director. Robbie has been an active 3-Gun competitor for the last few years and should do a great job. Additional info can be found on Albany's website, www.arpc-ipsc.org

I'd bet less than 50 rounds required on the MOR match.

Except, members of the IPSC Board have specifically said that one of the goals of Production was to get manufacturers to step up and start making better guns. How about getting Glock to finally come out with a "Special" USPSA model, ala the Jarret Para. Something like a 34 with a slightly tweaked trigger, Sevigny sights and well that's about all Dave does. Manufacturers trying to make better guns are not a bad thing. Specifically telling them what they can have on the gun, probably a good thing. Like saying to Tanfoglio and H&K no magwells. If it was a little more up front we wouldn't be pissing manufacturers off. What happens when those off the shelf service guns start having features that USPSA doesn't want in Production. I know cops who carry off the shelf STI Tacticals duty. We have guys at my dept. that carry guns with magwells. Just defining as off the shelf means squat. The H&K Expert with Jet Funnel is an off the shelf service gun that I would be happy to carry. And dude, the special made guns are not what push people to the idea of an equipment race. The fact that we're competetive does. If the special guns did the 5906 and H&K's would have a market share in Production and they really don't.

Part of this conversation has been about drawing new shooters to the sport. What message does that send about our sport if we arbitrarily change the rules. "Hey new shooter, IPSC isn't an equipment race, come play. Oh that guy moping over there? He just had to buy another Production gun because he had a set of adjustable sights and now they aren't allowed. Glock won't sell him another slide so he's screwed. That'll be $40.00 bucks for your USPSA membership." I doubt that is going to be attracting any new shooters. And for the guys that are saying shot Limited and L-10. Is that a serious comment or are you just joking. Guys that spend $200.00 to have a set of sights put on aren't the kind that are going to compete in Limited-10 with a minor 9mm gun. Sure it's great for that huge majority (what 12-13 guys...I know it's more, but not by a lot) shooting .40 in Production. Leave the sights alone, leave the aftermarket barrels alone, leave the dang division alone. It's growing fast now. Start messing with it and you're going to tick people off. And if you do plan on changing the rules you better make it known ahead of time and not put it in place for 2-3 years. Give people a change to get their equipment sorted out. As far as the available for a year, I don't really agree with this. I also don't think 2000 made is a good number. 3-6 months maybe, 500 maybe. But telling a manufacturer that they need to have a gun out for a year before we'll even allow it is kind of stifling to them. Why make a gun for a market that won't even accept it till you've already sold it to a market that you didn't make it for. Alot of this goes back to what the intent of the Division is. I still haven't heard an answer from the board, and to be honest I don't expect to because they can't decide. It's surprising to me that they can't come up with a decision. Even if it's a split vote, formalize something and then make the rules fit if you have to change them.

I had actually looked at a 6 or 6.5 inch Model 25, older gun great trigger the bluing was in great condition. I immediately laid down the $325.00 the guy was asking for it. Luckily I forgot my FFL at home that day and had to go through the background check. Gun came back stolen. The dealer bought it from a police dept at auction and they forgot to clear it. Nevertheless it is still sitting in Portland Police's evidence room, never to see the light of day again. I think I'll play with a couple of revolvers first to see what feels better before buying anything. If only there was a revolver shooter locally that would let me play with his stuff (Jerry V).

Yes, it's legal for all divisions.

Just did a search and saw that the 646 seemed to jump around too much with major loads. Didn't seem like the best choice. Sounds like the 625 is the way to go. Is it that much better than a 40? I'm set up for reloading 40 and don't really want another setup. I got rid of my last 625 because I didn't want to load and it's not much fun with factory ammo.

I've been looking for a revolver again and almost bought a 646 but it sounds like that might not be the best choice. I'm looking at two different 625's now, one is a PC 625 with a 5" bbl that has had most of the underlug removed. The other is the 625 JM model with the 4" bbl with full underlug. Which one works better for IPSC? Also what's a good price on the JM gun? Are they worth any extra over a base 625?

In the past Virgil has donated more to matches. Right now he is a little strapped for cash after setting up to build magazines. That stuff is expensive. I don't doubt that he was start again when he get a little more flush. As far as other platers, Techplate, Robar and AP&W have all made donations to Area 1.

Indeed, they ruled the other way at the 3-Gun nationals, moving a suppressed rifle (one exit hole) to Open. Where's the consistency? Just because the STI version doesn't work well as a comp doesn't mean crappy comps are now OK in limited. USPSA changed this ruling in the online meeting 9/05. I think the reason for the Tru-Sight's "expansion chamber" is to keep the weight similar to stock by removing metal, so it's not an external weight.

Part of the problem is no one from the Board has said what Produciton is supposed to be. I've heard everything from a division for box stock guns, DA/SA guns, 9mm guns, low cost entry, practical, carry, to having a division to force the gun makers to make better production guns. The problem is some of those things are mutually exclusive. For manufacturers making the "better" production guns, they're going to be more expensive than a cheap entry level Glock. I think that's one of the main reasons they can't come out with rules that make a bit of sense. If you're trying for an entry level division then a price cap is about the only think that will protect that. If you want a level playing field allowing modifications will allow the lower cost guns to be more comparable to the guns at the expensive side. But until USPSA and IPSC come out and say, "this is what we want production to be", no one is going to be happy. If USPSA decides that they want it to be an entry division, fine, I'll play by those rules. But the way the rules stand, that is not what production is. It is simply a place for DA and 9mm guns to compete.

Does anybody have any experience building on STI's Single stack frames? The have the single stack frames available in the Slide to Frame fit kits. Seems like it'd be a great way to build one.

Anything going on with this? I just heard from someone that the match was in May. I wasn't sure if I missed something.

The class is now full. Seeing how fast this filled up we may try to hold some other classes in the future with Dave or some other instructors. If anyone has any ideas about instructors or dates they'd like to see them teach in the Portland area, please let me know.

Only one slot left.

You're in Al. One slot left.