Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

TnBaadBoy

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TnBaadBoy

  • Birthday 09/03/1950

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Memphis, TN
  • Real Name
    Bob Briggs

TnBaadBoy's Achievements

Looks for Range

Looks for Range (1/11)

  1. Clasifier Times: MA < 102.0 EX < 124.0 SS < 158.0 MM < 218.0 SSR = Speedloaders only ESR = Moonclips permitted Power Factor SSR = 105; ESR = 155 So (maybe) the demise of the #625 is a tad 'early' to call?!?
  2. Exceptions and specific examples abound! Consider these sets of circumstances .......which 'could' affect ANY division.... Example: 2014 IDPA Nationals. ONE of the very few FTDRs was issued to a SSR shooter for failing to 'fire' the minimum number of rounds per target! Stage: 18 rounds; 6 targets; required 3x rounds per target. Final target disappeared from view at the last 'normal' (primary) shooting position, but by dashing 8 yards that final target presented a head shot, so it was deemed a NON-disappearing target for scoring purposes. New rules no longer allow the 'gray' excuse of completing COF requirements by merely firing 18 rounds. New rules mandate a minimum (engagement) number of shots 'fired' for each target. SSR shooter attempted to 'fire' the required number of rounds with the required number of engagements for each target as prescribed. However...ONE of his attempts resulted in a 'light-strike' .... i.e. clicky / no bangy! At the conclusion of the SSR shooter's attempt, the S/O plainly states, "IF the shooter is finished UNload" command. As normal the shooter unloads believing he has done his best to comply with the COF. The shooter is issued a 20-second FTDR for not 'firing' the required number of shots as required, because he DID have additional ammo on his belt and did NOT reload and 'fire' the remaining single round. I attempted to serve as the shooter's advocate, since he was visibly shaken by the inference that he was 'cheating' or demonstrated any degree of UNsportsman-like behavior and so deserved an FTDR. After much debate and personal discussions with the MD and the AC, the operative word in this whole event is 'fire', and the penalty eventually stood, the shooter opted NOT to pursue an official $100 resolution. As a post-script to the event, it was determined that the shooter was NOT required to reload and race to the alternate shooting position to 'fire' an additional shot, but could have merely reloaded and 'fired' an additional shot into the berm and met the criteria of minimum 'fired' shots / engagements. Obviously, the operative word in this whole example is "FIRED", versus pressing the trigger in an engagement 'best-efforts' attempt. ** [ My personal past experience (along with others) netted most 'opinions' that an 'engagement' requirement was met by pulling a trigger and ATTEMPTING to engage the target....but for lack of mechanical/ammo difficulties meeting the intent of the COF. Clearly NOT considered as appropriate and 'over-ruled' in this instance! ] ** Although likely not the case, this same set of circumstances could occur to a shooter in any division, even with the significant differences of number of rounds carried. Bob **Edit #1 to clarify the OLD (wrong) concept of 'engagement interpretation' **
  3. OK John. You've shamed me into it. Just penned Frank to change me to SSR / Ex, adding one more to the 'mix'. See you there! Bob
  4. Good Morning! I'm appealing to the 10% crowd (lefties) for opinions and suggestions for acquiring a 'flexible' revolver SPEED holster. Participated in 2 ICORE matches. One limited, the other in "Retro". Both shot from IDPA holsters by Blade-Tech, straight draw kydex. Now? In need of a better 'game' holster, more suitable for both ICORE and USPSA, for 3 pieces of hardware: S&W #610 3.75" S&W #686 4.0" S&W #627 5.0" with tapered underlug I've looked at the gamut of offerings. Safariland Cup; CR Speed; Ghost; and even the new Blade-tech 'racing gear' holster introduced at SHOT show (Front Sight Magazine, May/June,Page #8) Expense aside, the object is to attempt to secure a single holster to service all the hardware for BOTH shooting disciplines (ICORE and USPSA). Acquired a CR Speed holster, on the advice of a trusted friend who is RIGHT-HANDED. The advertising 'claims' to permit conversion to left-handed opertion. But after reading the instructions it is NOT an 'easy' venture. Disappointingly, it requires drilling and virtually re-building the whole piece, and then...the locking controls will still be awkward, and NOT ergonomic for a leftie. The Ghost holster does NOT offer a 'stock' Left-handed model, although I called Angus yesterday and he claims there 'MAY' be a chance to have the folks in Italy make one, for an 'estimated' $30 more, or so. Blade-Tech's new offering MAY or may NOT be in production, and then MAY or may NOT be offered to us 'lefties'. The customer serivce folks there had absolutely NO information on this holster as of yesterday, and I have NOT had a return call-back from the 'production manager' there as of yet. From the picture, it appears to be a 'limitedly' adjustable rake, kydex body, attached to their standard belt or paddle mount. The 20-year-old offering from Safariland (Cup Challenge) IS available and is about 30% the cost of the other higher-tech late-comers. The 4-inch model SHOULD permit me to use it with all 3 firearms with the 5" barrel extending slightly thru the open end. Admittedly, it offers NO options or adjustments for changing ANY angle or heights. I solicit your kind direction and exchange. Thank you all!
  5. Got my HANDs and EYEs on a Gen #4 pistol for 1st time last night! Before Shotshow 2010, there had been several 'advance' reports on the attributes of this 'new' pistol. Some...UNfortunately....were contradictory. Robert Ray's article from IDPA Tac Journal was but a BRIEF thumnail. For time being? Initially only Models #17 and Models #22 will be available in this configuration (NOT Model 19 as per the article). INITIAL OBSERVATIONS? 1. Reduced stipling "RTF" (rough texture finish) has been calmed down. Daily wear Policemen were complaining about the 'original' RTF models making spaghetti of their polyester uniform shirts from rubbing. RTF model has been 'abandoned'. 2. Grasping grooves have returned to VERTICAL serrations, versus the RTF experiment of the grooves being angled, sort of in an 'arrow head' appearance. 3. Magazine release button has been ENLARGED, as well as the cut in the frame to handle this new size. From the factory, while the SURFACE AREA is larger, it is NOT as EXTENDED as is standard on models #34/#35, or available after-market. 4. Magazine release button CAN be moved from LEFT to RIGHT side of frame as desired. 5. OLDER magazines WILL work in the Gen #4.....as LONG as you KEEP the magazine release button on the LEFT side of the frame. IF you elect to use the button on the RIGHT side of the frame you MUST use the NEW magazines that come ONLY (so far) with the Gen #4 pistols. They feature yet ANOTHER 'cut' on the LEFT side of the magazine. So? The OLDER magazines had but ONE cut on the RIGHT side of the magazine; After Glock introduced the 'ambi' safety on the GL-21SF model, they advanced to include the cut in the CENTER face of the magazine in addition to the cut on the RIGHT side; and now (?) ........ They have added a THIRD 'cut' on the LEFT side as well. I MY opinion? it is VERY 'busy'. I really didn't 'care' for the center cut, much less even MORE interference with the 'tactile' feeling during mag changes. I'm SURE that tactical reloads (especially into the belt area) WILL be more difficult, with all the nooks and crannies to 'catch' on clothing, etc. But? The NEW mags will fit ALL present models in the line. Conversely, the OLDER mags will fit the Gen #4 firearm.......again........as LONG as you leave the mag. button configured for Right-Hand shooters, mounted on the LEFT side of the frame. 6. Backstrap has 3 interchangeable panels to better fit the shooter's hand. Glock KEPT the traditional 'swale' on the back of the grip. 7. FRAME is totally different from previous models. To accommodate the LEFT/RIGHT magazine release mechanism the interior of the frame has been modified, and the Ejector housing piece is slightly smaller than previous models. Without modification or 'fitting' the OLDER ejector housing piece will NOT interchange with the NEW frame. 8. SLIDE is totally different from previous models. PORTIONS of the INTERIOR of the Gen #4 slide is much WIDER than Gen #3 models. The track/slide 'rails' of the slide are FLAIRED toward the front of slide, in part to accommodate the LARGER dimension of the 'compound recoil spring' used in the NEW gun. The HOLE to capture to recoil spring is LARGER than older models. 9. RECOIL SPRING. Due to the interior DIMENSIONS differences, the OLDER springs can NOT be used with the new models......and NEW compound spring can NOT be used on OLDER guns. So? THAT answers the question about swapping a NEW spring into an older gun, etc. Apprently NOT possible. 10. GUIDE ROD. I could be wrong, but.....I could detect but ONLY ONE piece fitting against the lug of barrel being made of metal. The balance of the rod appears to remain a PLASTIC piece. OPINION? For time being ...... with the EXCEPTION of the PLUSES of the increased stipling and modular back strap panels .... I'm VERY HAPPY to stick with the older models, which allowing MUCH more 'flexibility' in exchanging parts with virtually ANY of the other older models. At present? Gen #4 slides and/or frames can be exchanged ONLY with other Gen #4 models. Regarding the most recent ruling from IDPA headquarters concerning 'allowing' STI recoil master and new Glock Gen. #4 spring? Perhaps 'genius' in wordsmithing. Wording the newest 'ruling' by limiting the modification to 'compound spring' configurations only .... MAY end the controversy concerning NON-compound spring guns. It appears to me (at least with the new Glock) the guide rods and springs are NOT interchangeable from the NEW gun to OLDER guns because of DIMENSIONAL limitations and differences. Since the new ruling, there has been a 'firestorm' of controversy & speculation on IDPA forums concerning the 'potential' of metal guiderod replacements for ALL divisions. The existing Sprinco replacement was NOT specifically named in the ruling. At a MINIMUM there may be 'delays' in other rulings until it is all 'sorted out'. I'm SURE there will be more notices on THIS issue shortly. And so? It goes............ Cheers from Memphis......
×
×
  • Create New...