rmills

Over the last year, one of the forum topics discussed the "cocking" rule change in USPSA. It was stated that many shooters including some top shooters wanted the rule added. Whether it was the top shooters or the Joe Average shooters who stated that a 1st round DA shot was too difficult on far away targets, I can't answer. When I get more time, I'll start searching the forum archives. The rule change was still a watering down of the rules AS is the allowance of a guiderod 2oz. over factory weight. If the guiderod is heavier than than factory produced guiderod, how is the pistol then a true Production gun? Kyle, you may rationalize this however you feel necessary, but USPSA Production Class has deviated from it's original purpose. As I do not shoot USPSA matches any longer, perhaps I should hold comment on these forums. However, when I see someone like Vince, who is probably one of the most experienced indivduals on the planet in regards to IPSC (and even USPSA) rules and procedures constantly get questioned and sometimes shown disrespect on this forum by relative newcomers to the sport, it makes one want to chime in. Hey Vince, we understand at this point in time the USPSA is the governing body for IPSC here in the states, but with that said, could we ask the IPSC governing council to consider allowing IPSC clubs to form here in the states and follow the IPSC rules instead of USPSA rules? You might be suprised as to the number of shooters who would join. Oh well...................as I'm sure the above comments will give Kyle something to do this afternoon, I'm going shooting......................

Yes, what started out as a good idea in IPSC is turning into just another "gamer gun" division in USPSA. With the advent of allowing a shooter to cock their hammer to receive a SA shot on the first round and then each subsequent round was the first step. All because too many "top" shooters complained that it was too difficult to make a long range shot DA. And what about allowing a tungsten guide rod in Production? I've yet to run across a manufacturer who supplies tungsten guide rods as a standard in their mass produced pistols. IPSC Production and IDPA SSP, the real factory gun divisions.

"Tac loads off the clock" are common at many IDPA matches (local and major). The scenario is that you have engaged and neutralized a number of threat targets and there is a lull in the action (you took out the guys outside the store and are preparing to enter) and want to "top off" before the engagement.

No. Shoot thru's are covered in the rule book. While most here are looking at shoot thru's as an advantage (and no, I've never seen a FTDR penalty for one, as when it happens the RO more times than not states "oops! Poor course design."), the fact that they are allowed can also be a disadvantage. For example, if a round goes thru a threat target and hits a non-threat target, points are given for the hits on the threat target and penalties are given for hits on the non-threat target.

Great idea Bill! (If the 2nd string is on a different set of targets) Technically, it is two COF's in one OR a stage with two strings.

As everyone is aware, in IDPA, any round that passes thru one target and enters another counts as a hit on both targets. While most of the time this situation is due to poor course design, sometimes it can be used to create a unique COF. Sometimes when designing IPDA COF's, I do provide a possible shoot-thru scenario, BUT the shooter has to move to a position that will possibly add more time to their score to take advantage of the target placement. I've seen shooters go both ways, engage the targets one by one or move a little extra distance and shoot less shots. The results are interesting as some competitor's scores are almost identical even though they chose different solutions to the COF. Once shooters see two indivduals shoot the COF two different ways, you can hear the gears in their heads start turning. Does anyone else offer shoot thru's as an option on stages?

41 oz. for CDP is correct. Sorry for the fat finger typo..........

Also, when adding a magwell to a Para in ESP or CDP, remember to check the pistol's weight. ESP's maximum weight is 43 oz. and CDP's maximum weight is 40 oz.

Hi Dave: Yes, the .45 LDA is legal in SSP division. Please note that there is no weight restriction in SSP division. The "Box" is 1.625" high. Typically a Para has no problems fitting into the box (except Para's in ESP or CDP class with bloated IPSC like magwells). Good Luck!

Anything new on the Novak magwell?

Vince. I agree with the IPSC rules in regards to sight pictures (even though I feel one sight picture is too much). Shooters who come to the line are expected to be ready to shoot, period. Perhaps IPSC should add a 30 second time limit so that if a shooter comes to the line and is given the LAMR command and they do not acknowledge that they are ready in 30 seconds, they will be asked to unload and move to the back of the line.

What happened with Ernest Langdon and SIG? His web site states that he no longer does work on SIG's or sells parts for them. Strange after he won last year's IDPA CDP Division beating out TGO with a SIG.

Thanks ima45dv8 for the info on the Frankford Arsenal Vibra-Prime unit! I had been holding off on buying a Dillon for two years due to all of the issues I had heard about (plus the ridiculous price). Based on your post, I ordered one of the Frankford units along with 3 additional primer trays and tube adapters for my existing Dillon pick-up tubes. It works flawlessly! I load up 10 tubes in no time flat. The total cost with the extra parts (including shipping) was $61. Again, THANKS!

Hey Michael: When does Shooting Gallery's next season start? Roy

Be careful when installing the Teflon coated sights. I would recommend a sight pusher and be careful not to chip the coating. Vince, no my Glock factory sights didn't rust BUT after a year of fast holster draws, the front sight reduced it's height approx. .050" due to wear. Heinie Slant Pro sights are second to none.

I ran the scoring for two monthly USPSA matches for 6 years using MSS and Easy Winscore. The largest matches had upwards of 50 people. It took at least 35 to 45 minutes (based on 5-6 stages of scoresheets) to enter the times, penalties, etc. With the IDPA Scoring software, I do the same in 15 minutes. The scoresheets are much more simple and intuitive since everything is based on the Vickers Count scoring system and the only component entered is time. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but I find the IDPA software very simple and fast.

The reason in IDPA that scores are grouped together based on class (i.e. MM, SS, EXP, MA, etc.) is based on the concept that you are ONLY competing with people in your class. It's also important to remember that if you win your class at a major match, you are automatically moved to the next higher class on the spot (if you win your class with a score that beats others in even higher classes, you may be leapfroged over the next class and be moved to an even higher class). IDPA methods and procedures differ from USPSA and IPSC and cannot be viewed with the same rationale. It would be like comparing a steel match to a bullseye match, two completely different sports.

For IDPA shooting (Glock 35, SSP Division), I use a 200 grain lead (Vance) and 2.6 grains of Tite Group loaded to 1.141". Produces a PF of 128. Super soft, no recoil, absolutely no signs of pressure.

I purchased direct from Star for over 8 years. Great quality, great services, and great prices. For example: Roze Distribution (Directly from their web site)- 40S&W, 180, FMJ $74.45/1000 (Includes Shipping). An order for 5000 totals $372.25. Star - 40S&W, 180, FMJ $47.00/1000. I recently purchased 5000 and with $70 shipping added, the total was $305.00, a savings of $67.25 (18%). 18% is a significant difference in price. Unfortunately, Star's demise will possibly fuel price increases from the other suppliers due to the loss of a low cost competitor.

Interesting point Rhino, perhaps the 13 second spread between Sevigny and Leatham would have become smaller.

Dave Sevigny continues to amaze. His low overall match score was quite a feat in beating out CDP and ESP division winners with his Glock. Way to go Dave!

I've been using this load for years in IDPA SSP and ESP: 180FMJ, 3.0 grains Clays, length 1.141" In the Glock 35 I use an ISMI 13# spring In the Springfield 1911, I use a 10# spring PF with a 5" barrel - 135 Good accuracy, no recoil (goes "Poof" when fired) My 2 cents.............

I'm not sure I understand this comment as to Dave Sevigny "earning" his win. He did and always has earned his wins with hard work and determination. As far as the other competitor's equipment not being capable of competing in a national event, that's part of the competition, having equipment up to the task (he wasn't shooting a Glock was he?). Saying that Sevigny didn't earn his win is like saying Rob Leatham didn't earn his win.

Lone Wolf is advertising Hi-Cap Glock mags for $19.95.

The typical barrels that you see in "Hybrid" style Glocks are usually KKM. Schuemann does not make a Glock barrel. If you have any questions about these type of setups for the Glock, contact Tom Novak at: www.handgunneroutlet.net You can see some examples on his website.