belus

I started in the internet era, but before electronic scoring. It was paper sheets for each stage and clip boards. You'd turn in your score sheets at the end of the match and wait for the stats person to run the numbers and e-mail you or post the results to the website. Sometimes it was same-day service, but often you wouldn't see until the next day. There definitely wasn't an option of checking your standing mid-match. The results were just a big text file printout with different sections for division or stage breakdowns. This is the oldest archived score I could find of a match I've shot: http://uspsa2.org/match_results/RMAP/20100117/ It looks like the score display got a little more sophisticated in the next year: http://www.uspsa2.org/match_results/match_disp.php?match=20110528&club=HPP

I say buy it when you need it. They don't increase in price faster than anything else. I'd also say buy a 550 over the 750, unless you know with good confidence what you're planning to reload and how much. Since you are willing to let it sit a couple years, I suspect the 550 would fit your needs and budget better. Loading with two hands is not as sexy, but it's the more versatile and robust machine. I'm planning to sell my 650 because the 1050/550 combo dominates its niche.

The one with slide cuts is not legal. Rule D5 22. If it's one of the Doug Koenig models go for it. There's nothing special or wrong with the SW 1911s with respect to aftermarket parts. eta: I think the Pro Series is another name S&W uses for 1911's without holes in the slide. Or was there some sloppiness in the title and you're asking about a S&W 945? The 945 is not legal.

I agree with this. 10yd and 25yd are often the same zero on pistols. In south Texas I've never seen paper beyond 35yds or so. Poppers are sometimes set out at ~70yds, but they're big and tall.

This isn't exactly a sight rib, but it's similar and decently cheap: https://www.gunpartscorp.com/products/1572030A I'm not sure why you'd want one though. If you're trying to slow the slide down get a new firing pin retaining plate and put a smaller radius on it. I like HPs, and my first centerfire pistol was one, but they don't have a great reputation for durability. I only have an early Mk II now and it sees little use, though I've never seen a simpler handgun. It's main purpose is to get disassembled to show new shooters how the internals of pistols work.

This is an important question because all the holes are off center in the same direction. If the bullets were precessing or tumbling I'd expect that feature to be random.

If you overtighten these screws the thin aluminum wall on the primer magazine bracket can bulge and make the primer transfer bar stick. A small safety file will knock down these high pressure points and give you back the smooth reliability. I used the file that comes in a Kart EZ fit barrel kit.

I think the difference originates in how the package would respond to a fire, vehicular or warehouse. Ammo is pretty stable and requires a lot of sustained heat cook off. Primers and powder will burn much more readily and exacerbate the situation. I wouldn't be surprised if shipping warehouses have special storage for hazmat labeled items and regulations on how much can be on site overnight. I'm speculating as chemist who deals with a lot of hazmat materials going and coming from the lab. We have pretty strict regulations to follow wrt to storage and quantities.

You need to drop the powder after priming. So correct, there's no way to move the powder drop to station one. This is what I did on the 650. I loaded ~20k without lube first but it's a much nicer experience with it. I now have automated 1050s and process all my brass separate from loading. Processing 9mm is just decapping and sorting because it helps me contain the primer dust. All the sizing/swaging/loading is done in one pass. I've never used the powder check and have no interest in it.

Maybe an easier way to think of it, without using the term lift, is remembering the silhouette of your sights against the muzzle flash. That alignment tells you where the bullet will hit before it even reaches the target, and with that knowledge you know whether a make-up shot is necessary or if you can move on with your stage plan. With practice and experience you will know how misaligned the sights can be in that moment to still get the points you want.

One thing you'll pick up on these forums is the concept of Shot Calling: that the sights should tell you what your hits are. But this takes a lot of practice and concentration. If you're looking at the target you're going really slow.

I'm not going to say anything new as the posts I've quoted have already stated this. A reloading manual shouldn't be approached like a recipe book. The first few chapters will explain the techniques you use to develop a load for your own gun using your choice in components. The tabulated data are reference points with specific components. As always, you need to do your own homework and start at an estimated safe combination and adjust things until the performance is what you want. When people share specific recipes on forums they're usually not complete enough to be used themselves without some additional leg work. Read the first few chapters in your reloading manual and don't make a lot of ammo in your first batches - you may be disassembling it later. I personally have never given much thought to how deep the bullet sits in a pistol case. My 9mm rounds are regularly coke-bottle shaped. But I've done the due diligence of working up a load that safely and reliably meets my goals. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, but if I were concerned about loosing 0.030" of case capacity I'd be choosing different components.

We tried that 2014 through 2019. It's too much trouble for RO's to keep track of compliance. IPSC also tried this strategy which is why the SP-01 with 18+1 was the dominating gun for it until 2010 they limited mag capacity to 15 rounds. Finally, people like modifying their guns and resent being told they bought the wrong thing for the sport. I think one of the reasons CO is popular, besides 140mm and a dot for tired eyes, is that it's much more free with permissible modifications. I wish the D7 13 rule was removed so we could use CO as a home for full capacity iron sighted pistols too, but that's far afield from the discussion in this topic. 8M/10m is an interesting trade off and it's not obvious which is favored. Guys with SAO skinny guns shooting under SS rules happen to perform indistinguishably from Production shooters. I'd like them to compete against each other on a more formally recognized basis and extend the interesting 8M/10m choice to Production. I think @Gary Stevens great insight was the equality, or at least ambiguous advantage, of 8M/10 when he introduced SS division. We could use that lesson to improve the degree of competition in two divisions by consolidating them while being reasonably sure nobody's favored pistol would become obsolete.

Wasn't a large driver of introducing SS to USPSA copying IDPA's intent so there would be easy exchange between shooters? @Gary Stevens is the guy who would know, I guess. That's what I remember at least, and it's why SS started with the holster rules it did.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting changing revolver. There were some limited hysterics earlier as people lashed out against changes in general. I'm trying to keep this topic more focused on letting SS and Production compete against each other officially, while not derailing other threads with this idea. There's decent evidence from low capacity specialty matches suggesting they shoot equivalent HFs on the same stages. I don't think many would complain about this, and some, like myself, may even welcome it. Yeah, we might get an XO calling all high-cap mags machine guns as apparently all you need now is something to hold a spring. I'm hoping due process doesn't play second fiddle.

This board loves to complain that there are too many divisions or participation trophies, while waxing poetic about the old days when there was only Limited or Open. Then we'll turn around and whine about about some new gadget breaking the competitive balance like thumb rest slide stops in CO. If we're going to entertain the idea of consolidating divisions, it should be a merger between divisions with fewer or diminishing numbers of competitors (i.e. don't mess with what works), and between divisions which achieve the same HFs on the same stages. SS and Production are the best candidates for this exercise, though there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the hypothetical details.

This isn't very different from deleting the first clause of rule D7 13.

It does seem crazy. On top of that, 1911s with 8M/10m demonstrably shoot the same HF as production guns on the same stages. The distinction between them is just an arbitrary rule, left over from when we didn't know any better. Battle in the Bluegrass IX https://practiscore.com/results/new/55010Battle In The Bluegrass X https://practiscore.com/results/new/78817 This is more the fault of our BOD approving guns with only 500 manufactured down from 2000. Manufacturers now specially manufacture boutique versions of their pistols for us. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. It's kind of nice to be catered too, even if it is pricier than we anticipated. Sure. But we also know that SS doesn't outshoot Production in the same match. Why not expand the equipment available to Production shooters to include something we know isn't a game changing advantage?

The idea is a consolidation of the current iron sight restricted capacity divisions that already shoot substantially identical HFs on the same stages. The point of consolidating is to create a deeper competitive field for the lagging SS division shooters by making it part of Production. Capacity would restricted at 8M/10m, which is a pretty balanced trade off. Production doesn't really need the change, but I don't think it would be harmed by the inclusion. Production is already feeling attrition pressure from the full capacity minor scoring CO, so this is possibly a preemptive change to keep the overall Lo-Cap participation up. As a bonus, it happens to capture the vast majority of mass market guns available and capacity jurisdictions making it a very accessible division to new competitors regardless of their state or country of residence, providing they don't mind having 5-6 mag pouches. If USPSA did this I'd want to drop L10 all together and get rid of the dot requirement in CO (maybe make dot/irons a category), but those are separate discussions. edit: I don't really care how much your SS weighs in the hypothetical Lo-Cap division. I don't think it'd be an issue to remove the weight limit or even let the full dustcover STI Rangemaster play. I'd also let bull barrel 1911's shoot ala IPSC and let people puts lights or frame weights on their Glocks. Thumb rests would also be fine if you think it helps you. Basically I envision: 8M/10m, fits in a box, slide mounted iron sights, SAO single stack, DA or Striker double stack, gear behind hipbones without race holsters. Magnets okay before start signal.

I would expect the magwells on SS, and all guns still fitting in more or less the same box dimensions. Another approach could be limiting the maximum magazine well opening for the division as a whole and letting people put shorter skirt mag wells on their Production guns, like the X5 currently has. I'm not too concerned. A clean practiced reload will still be important. I don't shoot limited so I don't have a sense for how much the large magwell helps. It's just a perception thing for me and I could be totally off base. The Stan Chen magwell for a SS is cavernous. It seems so nice that I see no point in arguing S&A vs Dawson Ice styles. I also use DS Perman 19-20 grips which are wider than a S&A.

I'm in the same boat and reluctant to roll L10 into the hypothetical Lo-Cap division. Even with a gear behind hip-bones rule, I wouldn't think it fun for plastic wonder 9s to compete against a 2011 with a 2.5" wide magwell and sight block. SS+Pro seems close enough that I'm not sure there's an advantage either way. Both divisions were introduced with a pitch based on their accessibility to new competitors: "everyone has a Glock", "everyone has a 1911", "Let's make a division where [common pistol] is competitive." Turns out they're also competitive against each other too. Maybe another way of conceptualizing the change is allowing SAO skinny guns and introducing 8M/10m in Production. If I were picking a pistol for that division it'd probably be the Stock II in .40sw.

I believe you, so let's not disparage one of our main public representations for trying to show some diversity. eta: Representation matters.

Battle in the Bluegrass IX https://practiscore.com/results/new/55010 Battle In The Bluegrass X https://practiscore.com/results/new/78817 Notably none of the top placers who shot it both years bothered to change their division. Still the same people shooting SS Major, SS Minor, or Production.

You must not be trying to bring anyone new into the sport. I think the magazine is about expanding the base of shooters, not keeping the old guys who are already committed. They already know it all anyways.

Do you still think this is true of SS too Rowdy? If Production let you shoot 8M do you think you would? I think the 8M/10m capacity limit is pretty balanced, especially when stages are designed around guys with 23+ in a mag. Bumping this thread/discussion after two years to not derail the other one further. We've had some major Production rule changes in the last two years, and now SS/Pro belt rules are the same. The equipment differences have lessened between these two divisions, and they've both been losing participation to CO and PCC. There's definitely something to be said against messing with something that works, but with single digit participation, I don't think you can say SS is working. I think Production could absorb it without disruption as well, based on how similarly shooters perform in both.