.jpg.b4ffb6c0e79686cb7cdd9676e3ab1c72.jpg)
Patrick Scott
-
Posts
639 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Patrick Scott
-
-
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.
-
Just now, B_RAD said:
Maybe he did. Maybe they say that so they can charge $400 more that option?
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.
-
1 minute ago, B_RAD said:
Do heavier guns really mean better when it comes to competition? I'm not saying they don't but not sure they do either. I will say that a heavier gun may mask the negative affects when someone doesn't grip as hard as they may need to. Meaning, a heavier gun should rise in recoil less than a lighter gun. But most folks would agree if you grip hard enough, that issue is now irrelevant.
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.
-
11 minutes ago, DKorn said:
If it was all one piece, maybe. Since it isn’t, I would call that a replacement pin and a separate thumb rest and therefore not allowed.
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.
-
1 hour ago, MemphisMechanic said:
When I loaded ammo to 1.125”... I would see 1.120” - 1.128” or so on the OAL. Mind you, that is AFTER all of the expensive upgrades. The shellplate bearing and most of the other things offered by places like Reloading Evolution.
Same thing here on my 650
-
18 hours ago, Chuck Anderson said:
Suck it up buttercup. I mean that seriously. Suck it up into your shoulder. The looser it is, the more likely to bump fire. You can also adjust your buffer weight/spring/recoil system. The bump fire happens because the gun moves back enough in recoil your trigger finger comes off past the reset point, then the bolt comes back forward. When it hits home, the gun moves back forward and the trigger hits the finger. Reduce that movement and the potential is reduced.
This, all of it.
-
26 minutes ago, waktasz said:
Looks like it, but it probably won't fit the box
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.
-
26 minutes ago, ATLDave said:
It should be quite obvious that I and others do not agree that the rules says what you think it says. Nobody is saying to disregard a rule - we’re saying that one reading is better than another, and that the practical effects of how the rule is read help inform which reading is better.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIm 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.
-
11 minutes ago, ATLDave said:
Nobody says it is impossible.
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.
-
Just now, ATLDave said:
It's unsafe gun handling to try to shoot them from that position, but it's not an "[un]safe angle of fire."
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. -
3 minutes ago, motosapiens said:
unsafe gun handling per the rules is not the same as unsafe angles of fire per the rules.
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".
-
1 minute ago, motosapiens said:
umm. that's not how we decide what is genuinely unsafe. that's how we decide what is against the rules.
I thought we were talking about USPSA rules, not whats safe/unsafe on the streets or in real life.
-
3 minutes ago, motosapiens said:
breaching the 180 is not always unsafe, but it is always against the rules. I think wacokid has the right idea. It's lot more important to make sure that (for example) shooting up through a a low port doesn't cause rounds to go over the berm, than it is to make sure that no targets are ever visible once the shooter has moved downrange of them.
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. -
1 hour ago, theWacoKid said:
First, "safe angles of fire" is EXPLICITLY defined in the rule book in 2.1.2. It states:
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.
-
2 minutes ago, elguapo said:
it's legal if you have an operator beard
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.
-
16 hours ago, HoMiE said:
Groups open up to 3.5-4” when shooting with a 1x dot at 100yds. Shooting past out to 200yd, the bullet drops like 12”+ but capable of hitting a 2/3 ipsc or a 12” steel.
My setup and load mirrors these results, same barrel as HoMiE for what its worth.
-
On 3/12/2019 at 8:41 AM, MemphisMechanic said:
Long mag, beercan grip, keep the gun shouldered and barely rotate the magwell from firing position.
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.
Unloaded PCC table start, hand position not specified in WSB
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
I agree it was a poor WSB