2MoreChains
-
Posts
1,182 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by 2MoreChains
-
-
I don't disagree with your points at all, although I don't think it'll be as bad as you suggest. Some of the divisions have a big influence on stage design. 24 rnds was the longest stage at SS Nats last year. Several stages at this year's Open/L10 match got modified on changover day from the way they were setup for the Limited match, and many of the stages were made harder because of Open (to the chagrin of the L10 folks). So its already happening.
But we also have rules to follow. 3" or 4" KDs that are common in 3 gun are not allowed in USPSA because its below the minimum size for steel targets. Many clubs also have limitations on bay size which will be another limiting factor. As a stage designer/MD for my local club I can also foresee pushback from my shooters if I start designing stages that challenge the PCC guys at the expense of crushing a C or D iron sight pistol shooter, just like I would if I designed stages to cater to the M-class Open guy.
I agree that people who shoot multiple divisions at a SC match can and do slow things down with all the juggling of pistols and rifles and the associated paraphenalia, but I've also seen prepared shooters come to the line with everything laid out and ready to go. Walk up, unbag at the MR command, at the end ULASC then bag. Its manageable, especailly if we limit folks to shooting just one division at the match.
I do like your idea of replacing SG with a PCC at Multigun matches. I've seen stages where you had your choice of SG or pistol, and PCC would be a hoot.
Or maybe I'm just looking for a venue to shoot a PCC, I don't know... But at $1,000 for the gun and maybe $200-400 for the red dot, hell yeah, lets race!
-
No need to change stuff for the new division. PCC is not particularly relevent in 3-Gun because you already have a pistol in that format. Also, the PCC is not ideal for the more distant targets in 3-gun/Multigun.
The "P" in USPSA is not for Pistol...
I agree but just to play devil's advocate....
It stands for "Practical." With the origins of the sport in mind, is it practical for you to carry around a carbine all day while you go about your day to day business?
What happens if you apply that same logic to Open?
Alright, you got me. Good point.
One could still probably get away with carrying an Open pistol though.
Trench coats and food courts go hand in hand, don't they? LOL
-
No need to change stuff for the new division. PCC is not particularly relevent in 3-Gun because you already have a pistol in that format. Also, the PCC is not ideal for the more distant targets in 3-gun/Multigun.
The "P" in USPSA is not for Pistol...
I agree but just to play devil's advocate....
It stands for "Practical." With the origins of the sport in mind, is it practical for you to carry around a carbine all day while you go about your day to day business?
What happens if you apply that same logic to Open?
-
If PCC pushes stage design to
Why would it matter as long as you were competing against other PCCs?PCC would be a better fit in Multi Gun, not the Pistol competition.
Maybe including it into USPSA Multi-Gun competition would help USPSA compete against the 3 gun nation multi-gun competitions.
Pistol competition should stay a Handgun, not a shoulder fired weapon, competition.
favortest PCC equipment capabilities at the expense of pistol, it is probably not the wisest move to mix the two.That's a good point, but I think the conventional pistol shooter will continue to be the main audience at our matches and will still drive stage design. Then again, its easy to tell when a left-hander shooter designs a stage... LOL.
I'm thinking about side matches at our local club to test the waters, plus I think it would be fun. We used to offer side matches after the main match for those that wanted to run their ARs (.223/5.56) but always had to remove the steel since we were going by pistol guidelines (23-26'). But with pistol caliber carbines, that wouldn't be neccessary.
Currently we have 2 Carry-Optics attendees at our locals. If PCC were to become a division I can see a handful of people crossing over from the other divisions but I can also see attracting a new type of shooter that isn't already in USPSA. Cost-wise, its not prohibitive to buy/build one of these which is another good thing.
-
Ah copy. I thought maybe you were hoping there would be major PF in PCC. I shoot a lot of .40 as well, but also shoot quite a bit of 9mm.
I've been researching parts for 9mm and learned there were a few differences between pistol caliber ARs and standard .223/5.56. Mostly having to do with the buffer weight and length of the buffer that some people say you need for blow-back action. Seems like there has been more experimenting with 9mm ARs than .40, so more 9mm info to find on the 'net. The rest seems pretty vanilla: caliber specific bolt (most recommend ramped), barrel, handguard, maybe a muzzle device... no gas tube. Some of the uppers I've seen vary between having a case deflector, others do not. Quarter Circle 10, Model1 Sales, 9mmAR, or Palmetto State Armoury are some websites I've been perusing a lot lately. I'm sure there are others.
But I'm only just getting into it right now. Got my lower together today, waiting on parts for the upper.
-
I'm in the process of putting one together in 9mm. Kinda always wanted one and maybe will get a chance to shoot it in SC then see where this goes.
Just curious, why .40?
-
It was good to see Moto back at the range today!
-
A couple years ago at a local match we included a chrono stage for s&g's, plus there was a Lvl 2 match coming up that same month and wanted to give people a chance to do one last chrono check. I didn't tell people about that ahead of time, but even so not a single person did not make their declared PF.
-
You don't really need a back-up until you need it... Things break despite our efforts at preventative maintenance. However there are ways around that without actually buying one (i.e. borrow one, or travel to big matches with somebody that shoots the same division).
But when I was first starting out I just had the one gun I shot in competition. Later on it became multiple as I dabbled in other divisions or felt the need to upgrade to a new gun. At local matches I don't worry too much about bringing a back-up but then again I usually have a CCW in the vehicle that I could always finish the match with -even if it meant a bump to Open div.
-
You might check how much of your decapping pin is extruding below your sizing die. I found that too much pin can cause what you're describing. But even so, periodically one or two will end up not falling into the cup.
-
.40 mags will fit in your Kimber frame. Some people have made .45 mags work for .40.
When I got back into SS, I chose to go .40 because in the intervening years I shot Limited in .40 and had a ton of components not to mention a nice load that I worked up. However if you're just playing in the one division I don't thing .40 vs .45 amounts to much difference other than maybe a few $$ per 1,000 if you buy components in bulk.
-
I've tried a few different magwells over the years. Started out with the basic S&A msh/magwell combo and still have those on my HD or carry guns. They work pretty good and are compatible with a wide range of magazines.
I currently have two of the Techwells on my current SS guns, the XT IPSC model on my .40 and the SP model on my 9mm. There are pros and cons to everything...
Pros to the XT IPSC: Big honking magwell and thinned down to fit the IPSC box for Classic division (so clearly they fit the box for USPSA). Full wrap around but still retains the gap in front to prevent mag overinsertion. Being aluminum, it is easy to blend to the frame with handtools. Plus they lock onto the frame really well when paired with the Techwell Aluma grips.
Cons to the XT IPSC: Its a tall magwell, so you need mags with a tall basepad (.625"). But I run the Tripp Corey mags which are about as long as you can get and still fit the box, so no issues there. Despite the huge magwell its still a skinny mag into a skinny hole, but the same can be said about any of the 1911 magwells...). The Techwells require prorprietary grips sold by Techwell, or DIY mods to your own grips (which is not hard to do).
As far as the SP models, same pros and cons above except having a smaller funnel you don't need mags with as tall of a basepad (.325" works just fine) and your typical Tripp Cobra or Wilson ETM or 47D works just fine with the SP.
I tried the ICE no-gap for a few short months a few years back. It was OK, but at the time I was using 47D and ETM mags with my .45 and didn't want to buy bigger basepads which is what the ICE requires, even the no-gap, since the funnel is so deep.
Happy hunting.
-
I ended up getting a handful of Tripp 9mm mags. So far so good.
-
When I first started getting interested in Limited Div and 3-gun I did the one-gun-to-rule-them-all and went with a 2011 Eagle in .40SW. I chose the Eagle (as opposed to the Edge) because at the time I was also shooting IDPA and needed that SDC and bushing barrel to stay legal in ESP. I ran major PF and 140mm mags for Limited, minor PF with 140mm mags for 3-gun, and minor PF with 126mm mags for IDPA. I worked up a minor load that was stupid-soft recoiling but had to switch springs in order for the gun to eject the cases cleanly.
I did that for a couple of years, but eventually came to the conclusion that if I was going to shoot minor I much prefer the snappier recoil of a 9mm so I had a 9mm slide/barrel fit to the Eagle's frame.
-
Milt Sparks VMII (IWB)
-
All of which are considered higher penalties for hits on Non-Threats, que no?
-
I'm going off memory, but if the original intent from J.W. was "CCW'ers need to be accountable for where their bullets go" (or words to that effect) wouldn't the better way to handle that be a higher penalty for FTNs and hits on non-threats?
Hell, for that matter recognize PF and the almighty hammer of Thor that is the .45 by making the penalty for a .45 hit on a NT be higher but allow 2 hits from a .45 in the groin of a Threat target to count as neutralized (I winced as I typed that).
-
ETR7. The charge weights are almost exactly the same as N320. I load N320 for match load and ETR7 for practice. When switching back and forth between the two powders I don't have to change the powder measurer its that close.
-
Good to know Eric, thanks for he feedback.
-
I'm currently debating between Dawsons and Tripp 9mm mags as the way to go. I know one guy who have Dawsons and and another who has Tripps. I think some T&E is in order.
-
Well, the .40 Corey mags continue to work with 9mm but I might have found an unforseen issue. I ended up shooting my .40 at today's match, but afterwards blew thru a couple hundred rounds thru the 9 as practice/function testing.
When loading at slide lock if you slam the mag in hard the top bullet has a tendency to bounce up and may wedge itself between the feed lips. The rounds all fed from slide lock but I'm worried that over time I may distort the feed lip dimensions of the .40 mags.
Sounds like a lot of you guys like the regular Tripp mags for 9mm. Has anybody ever called Tripp and asked if they can do for a 9mm mag what they did for the .40 Corey mags?
-
I just had a 9mm 1911 built for SS minor. Before dropping a couple hundred bucks on new mags I thought I'd try the Tripp Corey mags, the ones built on a 10-rnd 10mm mag body with the hybrid follower, that I use with my .40 1911.
Interestingly enough, they seem to be working just fine with my 9mm 1911. I also found I can load 11 rnds of 9mm in the Corey mag which appeals to my lazy side at make-ready. Plus the extra room in the mag bodies makes seating a mag loaded with 10-rnds pretty easy.
I've got about 500 rnds thru the gun so far using those mags. I have a match tomorrow so I'll see if it holds up under match conditions.
Anybody else do this?
-
I tried a 10 lb spring for a little bit. Didn't like the way the gun felt so went back to the 11 lb'er.
-
^me too. The beaver tail is the reason I got a Gen 4. Otherwise I bleed.
Building an AR chambered in .40 SW
in Rifle - Technical
Posted
Hey Zack, I understand you had some input with drafting the proposed PCC equipment guidelines. Any chance you can give us a hint of the highlights?