Chuck Anderson

Lancer is set up at the FNH match. I know you're not looking any more but their CF tube would fit the bill. It's the only CF tube I've seen with flats. Nice rounded corners, not sharp. Lots of slots for accessory rails if you need them. Very light weight and looked fairly simple to install.

Lancer is set up vending at the FN match. Great guy. I took a look at the forends and I really like them. Looks like its time to build another rifle.

Don't know why I didn't think of it before but the Leupold IMS mount is another good option. Think of the RAMP with the tail cutoff. I'm running one now with Dueck sights at the back. IMS with side irons, RAMP with side optics.

Hornady Steel match 55 JHP was very close out of my gun.

So you think the guy who won the HM Limited National title against the challenging field of one other guy should walk the prize table before Taran Butler? Who finished 2nd to Daniel? Yeah, that sounds much more fair.

I don't have to worry about that. My wife is always telling me my magazine is short

Jesse apparently someone started a rumor that they would be running a chronograph and there were a bunch of shooters that couldn't afford the extra $6 in ammo.

At the airport waiting on the plane. Just a short 8 hours Ina shiny metal tube, and two or three more hours in DC traffic and Im there. Who's dumb idea was it to get into DC at 5pm anyway...oh yeah me. D'oh

It's just above the stages. Listed as Match booklet, FNH waiver and Peacemaker waiver. If its not there you might need to refresh the page.

The Warne Ramp has the bolts on the right side. I think it's what most of the FN team guys are running. Along with Leupold 1.5-5 or 1-8 scopes

So I got the link to the match booklet. The squad model looks like we're just shooting the stage order instead of zones. Unless I'm missing something. Is this just an error?

If you're in the top 50, you're already invited. If you're in 51-85 group I'd probably plan on sticking around. The top 50 are guranteed. After that there may be some folks that only have two matches in that will slip into the top 64. Some that are sitting 60-65 now will probably drop a spot or two. Yes there are some that won't show up. Who knows how many. I talks to a couple at the MG Nats and they still weren't sure I they were going or not. I didn't make it in to the match last year so I'm not sure how they did it last year. Doesn't seem that much difference though.

There are still ballots being received by members. Voigt only received his last night. The mailing date was November 1. I know some people received their ballot before that date, but some are probably in transit in the mail. Unfortunately if it doesn't show up there is no resolution in the By-laws for ballots not received. As for the original ballot, I can't answer that one.

This one predated my time on the BOD but I would certainly support a DQ for the above scenario. The word "allow" is very specific. During the course of fire if the shooter allows the gun to break 180 it's a DQ. Not if they do it intentionally, but if any time during the COF the muzzle is beyond the 180, the shooter has allowed it. If it was written, the shooter "causes" that would be completely different, and subject to interpretation. Take for example an RO interference issue. Say the shooter goes back uprange, runs into the RO, muzzle breaks the 180. In this case the shooter allowed the muzzle to break the 180, but range lawyers would contend that the RO was the cause of the violation. (and that may be subject to an exceptional circumstances Arb even with the current rule) In the case with the basket as the example the shooter is responsible for the actions of his gun. If he allowed the muzzle to point uprange, for any reason it's a DQ. It doesn't matter if he's the cause, the basket is the cause, or if he knocked the table over standing up. He didn't stop the muzzle from pointing up range and therefore "allowed" it. One of the basic premises of the rule book is that the shooter is responsible for his gun during the the COF.

IPSC and USPSA have at their basis three fundamental principles. DVC. Accuracy Power and Speed. It's like a three legged stool. Take one leg away and you end up like IPSC with Airsoft. I don't understand what the big deal is with Major Minor. If you want to shoot 9mm go for it. It's not that big of a deal. The number of guys shooting major rifle is really minuscule. For those that were around it's not like USPSA was the first to require power in three gun. I still have an ammo can filled with 180+PF .40 ammo to make power at the SOF match. And if memory serve they used to have a requirement for Service power rifle ammo. Or something similar to that.

There is an option to sling the shotgun and start with a hot pistol, or shotgun hot and chamber empty on the holstered pistol. It would be a very unusual course layout that I would start with the shotgun slung.

So they last 400 miles. Lets see, my normal running practice, divided by 400...they should last me 798 years!

Just got a Five Shot Leather belt. Looks great, stiff as heck and surprisingly thin. Bit more expensive than I expected but serves me right for not looking at a price list before ordering.

Ballot sent back in.

It has to be received by December 1 to count.

The stages for the 3GN match are up on their website.

Check with your gunsmith. A lot of them only have one set of tools to thread barrels. I've got a lot of my guns threaded for RemChoke, Rem, Browning, Saiga, because that's what the smith had.

That's me! I agree with this point completely. However, I think Chuck is failing to realize something. If USPSA is truly trying to bring people over to USPSA 3 gun, why have maj/min?? How many USPSA pistol shooters have a 308 laying around or better yet, some wildcat cartridge??? I would say not many. How many have an AR in 223 laying around? I would say quite a few. Wouldnt no power factor attract quite a few more people?? IMGA already has classes to award hi power, its called Heavy Metal. Just my .02 Because the PF is much more relevant with pistols than with rifles. How many people use Major rifle even at USPSA events. 1% maybe? Outside of HM which requires it of course. Everyone is using minor rifle. But the majority of USPSA pistol shooters are going to have a Limited or Open gun in a Major caliber. The majority of the time sucking targets with rifle are steel anyway. PF has no effect on this. Not so with the pistol. So the question remains, do we want to court existing USPSA members to start 3 Gun, attract IMGA shooters to try USPSA 3 Gun, or attract people that have never been involved in the action shooting sports. BTW, my personal preference is for straight time plus, not Hit Factor, not Horner, just straight up time plus. The one advantage I can see with Horner is the ability to scale stages for points. Not keen on it being solely based on the number of guns used. I can definitely see having a higher point value on a stage that takes 150 seconds for the first place shooter to complete as opposed to the 15 second stage. But I can also see that my personal opinion might not be what is best for the sport. That said, given my choice I'd rather include a couple scoring options in the final rules. Allow the MD to pick his choice and post it ahead of time. USPSA match 1 shot Horner, USPSA match 2 shot Hit Factor, USPSA match 3 shot Time Plus.

So you went to a National Championship match with stuff you bought at Walmart and it almost didn't make power factor. There's something wrong here, but I think it's more someone showing up for a major match with untested equipment. If someone went to the pistol nationals with ammo that didn't meet declared power factor that's on the shooter. Why should this match be different? You shot a .40, which I'm assuming you don't for IMGA. You must have known you needed to make PF right? So here's another sticking point. Who is USPSA trying to attract with MultiGun? New members from IMGA matches, or give existing USPSA members another format to shoot. If it's the former, yes we should do away with PF in the matches. If it's the latter than it makes sense to have commonality with our most popular and relevant divisions. There are a lot of folks talking about the "explosion" of 3 gun matches. Even with the dramatic increase in major matches there are likly under 1000 people nationwide competing in these big matches. I know I see a lot of the same faces at each one I go to. What's missing from 3 Gun is the local match. It's harder to get people involved for their first match when you tell them it's 1000 miles away and has a $300.00 entry fee. Develop the structure for the local matches and hopefully two things will happen. More people will participate overall and some of the pressure on major matches might dissipate. (No guarantee on the latter but I've talked to a lot of people that would be happy to shoot 6 local's rather than one major they have to fly to.)

It's been said before, but using an electronic voting system wasn't appreciably cheaper (it was significantly more expensive) than the paper ballots. At least to maintain some semblance of security in the voting process. Some people take the voting very seriously and would rather have the assurance that the vote was done accurately and fairly. The other side to this is whether there is actually an advantage to making it easier to vote. While I would be thrilled to have every member cast an informed ballot, that likely will not happen. There are many members that just don't care to take the time and effort to make an informed decision. If they can't be bothered to put a stamp on an envelope and send it in, are they really concerned about who they're voting for? It's a pretty minimal hurdle to jump through if you care enough to vote.