SteveZ

Hmmm.... Ok....so what about all the previous runs that have been submitted where the shooter DID shoot out of the box? It would seem to me that stepping out of the box could make things a bit easier (and faster???).

Our clubs give out......match results! Typically within in a day or so....sometimes longer.

I know that...and you know that...but I could see the argument made by someone who screws up and wants to push the issue. There is so much discussion about "intent" on classifiers but it seems that all of these problems could have been solved with a careful review by a few experienced shooters prior to publishing. Regarding the "mags on the table" issue...from prior conversations with JA...if its not written in the WSB....its OK. And we've already discussed the "placement" of mags in the past (doesn't have to be on the belt).

CM06-11 I see no problems starting with the slide locked back CM06-08: Says starting in the box...but doesn't say you have to shoot from within the box...so I guess foot faults are OK. CM06-06: So lets say a shooter faults the box during string 1 and then argues that the statement "All rounds fired must be from within Box A." only applies to string 2 because its part of paragraph 2 as applied to string 2?

I've never received a cash payout for ANY match I've shot.....of course doing so would violate my amateur status!

Maybe another idea for a thread might be "what benefits did you find in becoming an RO" or "what detraments do you find in becoming an RO?". Those that have thought about becoming an RO mind find the comments from the first one useful....USPSA might find the comments from the second more interesting.

I don't feel "mandatory" RO certification for class advancement is a good idea......nor do I feel mandatory RO certification for any reason is a good idea. Some people like playing RO, others don't. Personally, I went through the RO course just to become more familar with all the rules (and in my opinion, it also helps one to "game" stages because you know whats legal and whats not).....after I did the RO course, I decided to do the CRO course and learned even more! While I'd recommend the course(s), I don't believe you should require shooters to take them. Another interesting data point one of my shooting buddies (I'll call him GrandMaster T) raised last week; look at the RO certs of the top 20 shooters in each of the classes on the USPSA webpage. As I recall...only 8 of all of the top 20 GM's are RO's. GrandMaster T is on that list...and he's not an RO. I don't think there's a direct coorelation between "making GM" and playing RO but I can tell you that if you play "designated RO" for your squad for an entire match...your match performance WILL suffer. You have too much stuff on your mind to develop a game plan and execute it properly. Even better yet....play RO for an Area championship and see what that does to your overall match score.

I went and checked the Cabelas webpage today for these bullets. Looks like they've jacked the prices up a bit. The 180's were $13.50 just a week ago...now they're $16....for 250.

So what happens if the "machine parts" get stolen or do you insure the "machine parts" for a couple $K? Does UPS/FED-EX have any policy that you misdeclare the package, you can't get re-inbursed for the amount declared?

FYI ..... for anyone interested. I dropped STI an email and was told.... it's 15lbs.

I've got one on order...does anyone know what the weight of the stock mainspring is in an STI Edge?

Well there goes that idea! See... I was planning on writing an article for the USPSA Front Sight ( after the last issue said "send us articles" ) along with a shooting buddy about the past, present and future of L10...I even went to the point of asking ChuckD to give his side from a "restricted state" point of view...but you just went and summarized the exact point that I (and others) have been trying to make ever since SSD was introduced as the "replacement" for L10. L10 needs to stay...now matter how misguided some of the powers that be...want to see it end.

Its hard to say Steve. Was the increase in shooters because of the change from the RL/BE scoring methods....or was it because of the TGO factor...or was it because it was new? I'm certain that "single stack matches" are going to increase in popularity...but what seems to be missing is participation in the division....when other divisions are offered. Single stack matching present a bit of a "captive audience" view of the division. I'll continue to shooting "single stack matches" where thats the dedicated focus of the match....but otherwise, its L10 for me.

because of the lack of a mass exodus of single stack shooters from L10...one might theorize that either they don't view themselves to be at a disadvantage, their 1911 single stacks aren't SSD legal ... or they don't want to invest in new equipment (mags and holsters).

I think the one positive that SSD brings is "rules consistancy" for all of the single stack matches that spring up over the country. But other than that....I see very little participation here locally and like Oregon, single stack guns are issued with birth certificates. Everyone here is shooting single stacks.....in L10. My prediction (since you asked for it)....it won't make it. If it doesn't make it...I hope the one take away is "lets all run the same rules" for single stack only matches.

sure.....the term "make major" refers to achieving a specific "power factor". In IPSC/USPSA shooting, minor power factor is defined to be between 125 and 164.9999, major power factor is defined to be 165 and greater. The targets used in IPSC/USPSA shooting have scoring areas. For center A-zone hits, minor and major power factor both score the same points (5 points) but as you move away from the A-zone, the points awarded for major are greater than minor (e.g. C zone hit: major = 4 points, minor = 3 points). Lastly regarding "power factor" (PF). PF is defined as the bullet weight (in grains) x the bullet velocity (in feet per second) divided by 1000. Example: If your .40 S&W load shoots a 175-grain bullet at 1,000 feet per second…(175 grains times 1,000 feet per second = 175,0000. 175,000 divided by 1,000 = 175 "power factor").

a few states evidently! http://www.trippresearch.com/

Well this is going to sound little crazy..but I started with a Lee Turret press years ago and acquired all my dies at that time ....Lee dies. I've since switched to a Dillon 550B but still running the Lee dies. My FCD is the one with the carbide sizing ring.

Hi Jim...I'm running 4.0gr of Clays and Rainier 230's also through my Springfield. Below is the data I've pulled from my CED chrono: 4.0gr Clays, 230gr Rainier (1.255") High: 749.2 Low: 710.0 E.S.: 39.2 Ave.: 735.4 S.D.: 11.0 PF: 169.1 I'm getting an Extreme Spread of 39..so that falls close to the bottom of what your seeing. I've found the best consistancy when I make sure I've got a good crimp on the bullet. I'm useing a Lee FCD at the final stage in my press. This load is extremely soft shooting.

Don't tell TGO and his 1910 at Bianchi! yeah...while shooting a match back in January with Rob (and Kelly)...I asked Rob about his views on FO sights vs some of the comments made by others that they shoot better without them. Rob's comments about the use of FO sights revolved around shooting certain color targets against certain backgrounds in non-optimal light where the FO helps the shooter find the front sight. Regarding the issues of shooters feeling that they can shoot better without FO's...he pointed out that those shooters typically are placing too much focus on the FO or using the FO itself as a means to sight the gun. I switched to a FO sight years ago and my shooting improved dramatically. What I really like about the FO sight is that during fast transitions...it helps me "locate" the sight once I get there...and then once I locate the sight...I use it as I would a normal sight by looking at the top of the sight....and not the FO element. Hopefully someday, Rob will chime in on his experiences before and after switching.

I've had three guns done now by Virgil and I wouldn't consider anyone else. Virgil treats you like you're his only customer. You can call him up on up the phone and ask questions and you don't get the feeling like he needs to run and do something else. Outstanding work every time...and he's fast!

Ok kids...here's the answer straight from JA himself (thread teaser: Gary Stevens won't be surprised!!! ) I posed two questions to John....the definition of "rearward" in the rule book and how it applied to 10.5.6 and the "safety" aspect of FBI cant holsters allowing the shooter to draw point the muzzle uprange vs a race holster shooter facing up range drawing their gun...where both shooter maintain their muzzles within the 1 meter "bubble". 1) how can "rearward" as used in 10.5.2 be different than the use of "rearward" in 10.5.6. Rearward as used in 10.5.2 implies "uprange". IPSC rules have addressed this in their latest cut of the rule book replacing "rearward" with "uprange". JA--10.5.2 relalates to breaking the 90 rule, it stipulates rearward if there should be a back stop, if there is no back stop, then it clearly states uprange. A competitor should never be allowed to face uprange with a gun in their hand, it should be an automatic DQ. SZ_Note...I think John probably means break the 180 with their muzzle. As others have pointed out...it doesn't matter what direction we face...it matter what direction our muzzles pointing. So there you have it. Facing up range, drawing before breaking the 180 (or more specifically allowing the muzzle to break the 180) is a MDQ. End of Story. 2) how is this act of a shooter facing uprange drawing and pointing their muzzle 1 foot in front of them (less than 1 meter per 10.5.6) and turning any less safe than a shooter using a FBI cant holster facing downrange, drawing and pointing their gun 1 foot behind them (less than1 meter per 10.5.6). The "action" between the two shooters is the same. JA--Question 2 is a two part, part one is answered above, part two is 10.5.6 applies to shooters facing downrange, the 1 meter radius was put in for those with the FBI cant or similar holsters, this gives a safety area for the muzzle pointing uprange during the draw, it also allows the RO to clear the area of the draw from competitors, so should the gun go off, no major accidents should occurr. SZ_Note...while John didn't specifically address the safety difference between the two actions...I think I know where he's coming from. If the USPSA allowed forward facing shooters to draw...and turn under 10.5.6...it wouldn't be long before people started pushing the envelop harder and faster...and sooner or later something BAD is going to happen...and when it does...it isn't going to be pretty. John also said that all of the RO instructor have been brought into line on this one. My guess is when we get the new rule book...you won't be seeing the word "uprange" anywhere in 10.5.6!! So there's the answer for all of you. I hope we all learned something on this one...I know I did!

I wanna thank everyone for keeping this "civil" and offering their opinions. Its interesting that certain RO instructors say there's a bubble...while others say there isn't.....and there is multiple interpretations to the meaning of "rearward" ...after this is all over...we can discuss the meaning of "is"

well then using the same logic...any one facing down range...while drawing allow their muzzle to point uprange...will be DQ'ed too....hell yeah! What escapes me in all of this is why is it "safe" for a shooter facing down range to allow their muzzle to point up range on the draw...but "unsafe" for a shooter facing uprange...to allow their muzzle to point uprange on the draw (both break the 180)....and how does the interpretation of "rearward" change from 10.5.2 to 10.5.6? I've bounced this to JA for his view on those points alone.

..but then you run into a catch-22 situation. Most of the classifiers require mandatory reloads...and madatory reloads aren't allowed unless the stage is a classifier....or its a Level I match. So at a major match...these "yet-to-be classifiers" aren't classifiers...and major matches are typcially Level II and above.