B_RAD

What was the reasoning? Seriously, I don't know. I started shooting USPSA last year. Was it because over the last several years people have gotten better so more people started hitting 100% on each classifer? Just trying to understand it. Based on what I think the perceived problem was, it seems like the results adjustments were a little much. Someone said they basically take the best 10 runs (removed any "outliers" first). In my mind only using 10 to formulate the hhf seems like it's not enough. Not sure if that's really how it's done?

You sure El prez is right? I think the previous hhf is more like 10.8?

Now you'll just see matches with only ones in the green. Gamers gonna game.

Yeah, mine went from 100% to 85%. I do think that one was an easier one, I'm not sure it was 15% too easy!

If that's the case, I think that's a good move. People in C class shouldn't be hit as hard as folks in M class!

One of us isn't doing the math correctly. I had an 86% on the same one. It did not go to 90%. It went to 80%! ETA: scratch that. I'm looking at production. So, PCC the division already too easy to make GM, is now even easier? Ha ha.

IDPA master used to be equal to B class USPSA. Now it's gonna be C class.

I think they should make any scoring changes retroactive. I know there'd be a lot of butt hurt but do you really want to be an A classification sitting at 55%? I personally think they went a little far with some of the increases. Did we really have the big of a problem with people classifing higher than they could shoot? There's always gonna be that overlapping area of talent vs classification. So, it'll just be one classification lower now. In the end, I really don't care though. Not gonna affect the placement in match. People still gonna fall out in the ranking the same. just have a different letter.

I think if they're gonna be 10%-15% more for the same HF, they should apply the new hhf retroactivitly.

It's showing one that I scored 100% on as 85%! Damn! The six used to give me 92.0958% now give me an 86.2363%. Gonna be harder to hit 95%

Thanks.

I should add that I loaded up some rounds @ 1.180" and it did it to those too. Not as bad but it was still hitting them. Makes sense to me that the longer the OAL is, the more impact to the round.

I personally think all my mags are tuned properly. They seem to hold the ammo at the right angles and stack well. I have no issues at all with feeding. Changing anything magazine related is just asking for another problem to pop up, IMO. I thought this was an issue that was due to OAL of the round. That's why I posted it here. Now it's pretty clear that it's related to the gun. Not sure if there's a problem so to speak, but I'm looking into it.

Still wouldn't solve the issue of the feed ramp being too long. Ssanders224 correctly diagnosed the issue. My other gun has a the bottom edge of the feed ramp shortened and this doesn't happen with that gun.

Good to know. Thanks again.

Yep. I had some dummy rounds loaded so I put one in the mag, started with the gun at slide lock and racked the slide back hard to chamber the round. No mark. I've had good SD when chrono but I'll be checking to see if it's seating the bullet deaper.

Thanks man. Never would have thought of that.

I need to correct some info up top. My current load of 180 gr blue bullets are at 1.215". Not 1.250". I was using Xtrme 180 FP loaded to 1.185". I was also incorrect about the base of the bullet being seated to the same depth. The BB are .632" and the Xtreme .575". I must have adjusted to get the blues down to where they are now. The profiles are different between the two but I think the softer blue is why it's deforming.

No. It happens from being chambered. It's not there from reloading.

Try a higher resolution pic.

I switched to blue bullets a few weeks ago. On bullets that have been chambered I've noticed an indention. When switching to these bullets I did not adjust my seating die. These rounds have been 100 percent reliable and the accuracy does not seem to be affected by this. The blue bullets are longer than the Xtreme so by my math, the bullet was seated the same depth inside the case but since they worked I saw no need to seat them any deeper. This was before I noticed this issue. The OAL length of the round is 1.250". Like I said, so far these have been reliable, but the bullets are hitting and being marred. One would think the chances for a malfunction would be higher. I'm guessing here but it looks like the round is hitting the top of the feed ramp? BTW I'm using a 10# recoil spring. Thinking I should experiment with shorter OAL (and reduce the charge). Thoughts?

I just got 2 new ones. I've been using mbx and gen 1 STI. The mbx have been 100% as have the 2 gen1 STI I've used for practice. I bought them used so I'm thinking they (gen 1 STI) may have been tuned before I got them. Anyways, my question about the new gen2 STI mags is are they supposed to be larger? (front to back dimension) The ones I got are. They will fit but they're tight and are less forgiving if slightly canted more than normal. They drop fine and so far have been 100 percent. They do hold 21 so they may just be the ones I use for starting with 22. Just wondering wondering?

Hope it's more accurate for all the trouble.

Anyone else.have issues with swollen mags when using extended base pads loaded to capacity?