Patrick Scott

I agree it was a poor WSB

Shot a club match yesterday. Stage 3 was an unloaded table start. The WSB did NOT include any instructions for hand/arm placement or ammo placement for handgun or PCC. It was only stated that the shooter needed to stand behind the table. Here is my question: Could a PCC shooter be touching his/her gun and/or ammo after "stand by" and before the beep. I know in the rules its a no-no for handgun shooters(8.2.3), but since PCC generally starts while touching the firearm(ie no rule against it) and this particular WSB had no instruction for hand/arm placement, what say you? FWIW, I did not start touching the gun or magazine. I don't care either way, but as a PCC competitor this is something I would like to know.

A pretty reliable source said he was asking for the gun to be heavier, but you could be right. I know he was also very interested in the aftermarket heavy grip setup thats been out for a while.

I cant prove heavier is better either, but I did read that a big part of why sig now makes a p320 with tungsten powder mixed into the polymer was because Max M wanted the gun to be heavier. Im guessing that his grip is OK.

It looks to me from the instructions that it has one pin "made" to it and another pin that locks it all up. Who knows

Looks like replacement pins to me.. What do you guys think? https://www.tecperformance.com/product/glock-thumb-grip/ Joking- kind of

For me, I can't think of any rifle/carbine only action shooting matches that are even remotely within driving distance to me. I would rather shoot a rifle/carbine than a handgun any day for fun/sport. That leaves me with USPSA PCC since there are a couple of clubs within a 2hr driving distance. It may not be the perfect match for a rifle/carbine but its certainly the most accessible, prolific and fun type of action rifle/carbine only shooting for a lot of folks. Sure one could go to outlaw matches, but I enjoy the fact that no matter where I go the rules are the same. I could do three gun in this area, but I dont have the money or time to dump into three guns and the training that comes along with them to be competitive.

Same thing here on my 650

This, all of it.

Could always trim it if it doesnt and for CO is shouldnt matter right? No box for CO.

Slip 200EWL is all I ever use on my blowback AR9. I only really clean the gun about every 10K(not kidding). I will wipe down and relube the bolt before a match or practice session. Ran the gun 1600rds in a day once at a class, I put a little lube on the bolt about halfway through. I have been running the gun like this for years and I don't think I have ever had a malfunction that wasnt bad ammo or the one time I didn't clean a mag that got a lot of dirt in it.

Im talking about 2.1.1 in this case, which I think is a stronger rule than 2.1.2 as far as targets being able to be shot beyond the 180 go. "2.1.1 Physical Construction – Safety considerations in the design, physical construction and stated requirements for any course of fire are the responsibility of the host organization subject to the approval of the Range Master. Reasonable effort must be made to prevent injury to competitors, officials and spectators during the match. Course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions wherever possible. Consideration must be given to the operation of any course of fire to provide suitable access for officials supervising the competitors." Target placement falls under course design, no? We have already agreed that it is possible to prevent shots breaching the 180. A competitor shooting targets while breaching the 180 is always inadvertent I'd dare say, and by the rules an unsafe action. Have'nt met a shooter yet that has done it on purpose knowing its a DQ'able offence. So between DNROI's public and private statements(some listed in this post) about 2.1.2 and the wording of 2.1.1(quoted above), Id say having targets availible beyond the 180 is a no go. FWIW- RMI George Jones alse echoed DNROI's and my thoughts on this rule when he was at one of my clubs matches last year. All of this is pretty convincing to me. For those that disagree, do what you like, no skin off my teeth. Take care.

If its not impossible you are just choosing to ignore 2.1.1 because it can be impractical? What other rules can we toss because they are impractical? Sometimes I find it impractical or I dont have the props to comply with the steel distance rules(2.1.3), but I still make sure its correct per the rule book.

Again, look at 2.1.1 "course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions where ever possible Shooting them from that position is (buy your post) an usafe action( the action of unsafely handling the gun) . 2.1.1 clearly to prevent that when possible. I have never seen a case where it is impossible to prevent a target from being shot from beyond the 180. you can shield them, move them, change course design. Its not impossible.

Slight confusion here. I thought you were referencing my post about rule 2.1.1 because that is one you quoted. "course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions where ever possible".

I thought we were talking about USPSA rules, not whats safe/unsafe on the streets or in real life.

Under what rule section is one DQed for breaking the 180? 10.5- Unsafe gun handling, rule 10.5.2 USPSA is explicitly defining under its rules that breach the 180 is unsafe.

Are general regulations always considered explicit definitions? 2.1.2 is in the General Regulations section. Explicit definitions are in A3, "safe angles of fire" does not appear there. If you are going to consider 2.1.2 and explicit definition that does not mean targets need to be hidden past the 180, then I'll maybe counter you with rule 2.1.1 "course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions where ever possible" Chance are when folks breach the 180 its done inadvertently.

Here is my take on it(FWIW). I read the rule like as it is. We need to prevent targets from being shot beyond the 180. Its not that hard to do and it makes sense. It almost like the steel distance rules. We don't make it the shooters responsibility to make sure steel is shot from a safe distance, we have rules to prevent the shooter from DQin by getting too close to steel.

I guess Im good to go, lol

Tried a search here, didn't come up with anything conclusive. Are Polymer 80 Glock(ish) builds legal for Carry Optics provided all other rules are followed?

Tevo Sports posted on Facebook that they should have a 510 cover on their site soon.

My setup and load mirrors these results, same barrel as HoMiE for what its worth.

This

I think 45* safeties are neat and I do like them. Because of possible compatibility issues and the fact that I really doubt it makes any difference on the clock they are not important or neat enough to stress over it if you don't have one.