Skywalker

I was going to post something along the lines of " ... glocks are among the easiest guns to fix by yourself ..." when I read this second post of yours. I'd say bummer ... or ... if you still remember some words from italian ... "che sfiga!" ... OTOH, a box of 50 9mm commercial ammo shouldn't be that far from your reloads, and it might be a good backup. BTW, does this emoticon help in expressing your feelings?

Great stuff Jake, thanks for posting! Although, what caught my eye is that I swear I read "article by Ally Bagget" ...

But ... but ... but ... It's not april, 1st yet!

Well well well ... After a year and a half, I finally had the nerve and time to start learning how to checker. This weekend I took out of the spare parts box an old Wilson beavertail (the one with pad) and decided to try my hand at checkering. I did it totally freehand (no guide tools) with the beavertail pressed into the vice, and this is how it turned out. 25 LPI checkering. Now, I think I learned some points, and I will definitely try and improve before I turn checkering the frontstrap of my Colt 1911, but I'd like some knowledgeable people have a look at my first try and comment on flaws (I know there are several), possibly pointing me to the right direction to avoid them in the future. Thanks in advance.

Hi Jeff, welcome to the forum! Powder safety issues: gun powder is not (contrary to common beliefs) an explosive substance; it's a combustible one: there's at least one magnitude order difference between the two (explosive and combustible) when it comes to flame propagation velocity. In practical terms, this means that unless gunpowder is confined in very small (solid) containers, it won't explode, but rather simply burn. If you keep your gun powder in a cool, dry place, it will last forever. Here you can see my reloading room, carved into the basement of my house: as you can see, I have gun powder on one shelf, and primers on the shelf below. OTOH, the furnace/water heater is in a different room of the basement. Have been doing it this way for the last 10+ years.

Although I only shot a magful through a Modified gun some years ago, I'd say that there is a difference. In Open you're shooting a 9mm/.38" super gun loaded to 160+ Major PF in long barrels (5+ inches), while in Modified you're shooting a .40" caliber gun loaded to 170+PF in very short barrels (usually 4 inches or less).

I'd be in total disagreement with Mr. Briatore and Mr. Head. We have seen all too well and frequently in the past seasons slower (and I mean REALLY slower) cars being able to keep behind them the top championship ones. I fail to see the logic in the following reasoning: "...the tracks do not allow for easy or frequent overtaking (and this is stated ad nauseam by the top drivers), so let's have the fastest guys starting from behind ...

I guess I didn't explain myself correctly. I mean, there's no point in giving up accuracy (i.e. accepting less visual inputs, or breaking the shot as soon as the front sight is on brown) to try and shoot faster, since even the slightest sights misalignment (a Charlie instead of an Alpha, 3 points vs 5) is going to cost a 40% increase in speed to get even. Let's assume you can score an A hit in a .25s split, this is a 20HF: if (by chance) the hit will only be a C, you will need a 40% speed increase, i.e. a .15s split to get even. As you can see, there's plenty of time to score that A. The balance is worse with minor scoring than with major, (C vs A is only a 20% points loss), where in some cases it might be acceptable. When I said "accuracy, speed will follow up" I meant exactly that: shoot for As, with whatever speed comes out.

This is exactly what leads me away from F1. I used to love F1 racing in mid 80es and early 90es, but right now it's even less entertaining than a scalextric race among kids ... The cars have progressed to the point where the pilot might account for 30% or less of the whole performance; if you want to be a successful driver you shall be an average pilot and a great test driver who's able to spot the best car setup in the shortest time. The tracks are ludicrous for the actual cars: take montecarlo as an example, can you imagine F1 cars trying to race and pass each other in your (narrow) city streets? It might have worked 30+ years ago, but today? An effective F1 track, that could still prove who's the best pilot, allowing for passes and some real challenge, would be the one with at least a 20m wide lane, and a lenght of no less than 20Km. Alas, all the actual circuits fall short of this, and the only thrill you get from a race is when they pit stop, and you are anxiously watching the stopwatch to know if the car will re-enter the race in the lead or behind...

Was a controlled second shot or a let 'er rip doubletap? Naah, either it was the mouse that went full-auto or the crappy internet connection I have at work that goosebumped ... On a sidenote, I am sick and tired of local journalists knowing everything and nothing, so I stopped reading newspapers and listening TV news about 6/7 years ago ...

Thank Dale.

Thank Dale.

Slightly OT, but ... I like learning. I know where does the "cop" nickname come from, but I wonder on "buck"...

Hi John, if you're already double-plugging, there's not much more you can do. You could perhaps check if the pads are sealing or not: goggles arms are usually the culprit here, having to slide under the pads and not allowing for perfect sealing. A possible solution could be to use gel/silicone filled pads, that will conform to your temples profile while wearing goggles. Or, you could try and reduce the bulk of goggles arms: I removed the plastic cover from the arms of my Rudy project glasses, bringing them back to needle-like rods. For double plugging, I'd advice to get some custom ear molded plugs instead of using normal foam ones.

The rule is in the rulebook, and it's published on IPSC website. The interpretation of the rule is also published on the IPSC website. The discussion originated by people who still didn't understand either the rule or the interpretation is on the IPSC forum. Do you need anything else? As I wrote above, you can read an answer from the FAQ section of IPSC website as well: see Q. #11. This addresses the "no-decocker lever" guns part. The other part of the question is answered by the rulebook in section 8.1.2.2 . Thus, combining the two parts, you get that:- If the gun doesn't have a decocker lever, the hammer must be manually lowered to full down, as stated by 8.1.2.2 ("hammer fully down" part). - If the gun has a decocker lever, then the "decocked" part of rule 8.1.2.2 applies. Last, there's no supersecret password needed to read the official IPSC forum, you just have to join it with your real name. USPSA does require everybody wishing to read certain areas of its website (e.g. match results) to join USPSA ranks, thus I see the same logic applied. Why does everything has to boild down to USPSA vs. IPSC on this forum? What happened to the friendly attitude of shooters talking to other shooters that permeated this forum until a few years ago?

I am, that's why I posted a link to the offical IPSC forum, where the question has been officially answered.

My Stock II is a small frame ... 9mm. It is my understanding that the same gun will come in different frames depending on the caliber: 9mm is based on the small frame, while .38", .40" 10mm and .45" are based on a large frame. Maybe you can get more info directly from Tanfoglio website, they updated it entirely.

Accuracy, speed will follow up. If you're not scoring mostly A's, then you'll have to run a lot faster, to keep up with accurate guys, than with major scoring. 2 As in minor are worth 10 points, while an A-C only 8: this means that you'll have to score an A-C in 20% lesst time of the guy who scored 2 As to get even. In major scoring, an A-C is worth 9 points, thus you will have to run only 10% faster.

In 9x21mm I loaded as low as 3.3 grs under a 137grs LRN bullet (1.165" OAL; 119 PF). In .40" SW lowest load I developed was 3.5 grs under a 200grs LFP bullet (1.200" OAL; 156 PF).

That was an old rule enforced until about 2003 (I have found it in IPSC rulebook since 13th edition, 1996): Since rulebook 2004 this requirement (being of the same caliber) has been dropped.

Jim ... honestly ... if you weren't prepared to being shown a .38" at a gunshow ...

Which is exactly what has been ruled for IPSC, as I posted a couple of pages ago.

Thanks a lot guys and gals, I really appreciate it! I truly hope to be able to meet all of you someday on some range.

Don't really want to mess with USPSA rules but I think I need to understand this: in USPSA, if you have a gun whose decocker doesn't completely lower the hammer (e.g. CZ-75BD and the SP-01, I've been told), you can't use the originally designed safety mechanism, and have to manually lower the hammer all the way down?

By the same logic ANY of the things we do in practical shooting is unsafe as well. If you consider the load and make ready procedure "extreme conditions of weather and stress" that shouldn't allow for manually lowering the hammer, then you might want to ban practical shooting as well: can you imagine someone running and gunning on uneven ground, while being high on adrenaline and trying to run faster than the clock? On the subject topic: I don't know for USPSA, but for IPSC If the gun is equipped with a decocker mechanism, then this has to be used, and it doesn't matter if the final result is hammer fully down or on half cock notch, provided you fully operate the device the gun is equipped with. if the gun doesn't feature a decocker, you have to manually lower the hammer to full down position; you can't lower it to half cock notch. You can read it here.