Walküre

As noted in the OP, Rich stopped accepting new work (been over a year now, actually).

Is there anybody building Open Tanfos these days? Everything posted so far seems to be Production and Limited/Standard focused.

True, but all of the factory solutions are much more expensive without offering anything more. Hardware store magnet + bolt + CR Speed loop = ~$12. About a third the cost of anything pre-made out there that I'm aware of.

Meh. The only reason I shoot a Tanfo is because CZ doesn't make an Open gun in the appropriate caliber. (The magazine options were also a bit crap when their offering first came out as well, and overpriced to boot.)

7.4gr under a 124gr Berry's TP-HBRN @ 1.260" yields 171 PF out of my 5" Tanfo Custom, with no holes and a 4-port comp. Another recent thread on the subject: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=225372

I run Arredondo guts in my mags. I lose one round versus Grams, but they have proved to be more reliable for me. With the Arredondos, my big sticks hold 27, my older shorts hold 22, and the newer shorts hold 23 - all reloadable. (The "older" are the older blued tubes with Hennings older set-screw pads, while the "newer" are the current AFC or "K" tubes with Hennings current plunger pads.) I also keep one factory 17-rounder in reserve, as a barney and "just in case" mag, as I'm confident that it will always work 100%. From the factory, it will be set up for Super. It should run SC with little issue, but for best reliability you will want to tune or swap the extractor, which will likely eliminate the ability to run Super. Being semi-rimmed, Super is much more likely to cause feeding issues from the magazines, and you will likely be down at least one round in capacity running Super versus Super Comp (or similar rimless variants). I played with Super for a while in my current gun, as I had a fair amount of brass collected from working matches. After dealing with some mag issues and seeing that I lost at least one round in every mag (compared to my previous V12 that only ever saw SC), I switched back to SC. Now I've got the extractor tuned up a bit, and I cannot run Super any longer.

NO NO NO you don't want to do this! If you do most likely you will drill the frame, then what are you going to do. Just hit the starter punch HARD with a big hammer! May take 4-5 hard hits. It only has to move 1/8" then you use a pin punch. Not a problem at all given the right equipment - I would agree that it would be folly to attempt with a hand drill, but it's nothing with a drill press. I had to drill out the pin in my Shadow the last time I needed to get to the trigger. I don't recall the size bit I used, but there was no chance of hitting the frame with it.

You said "double the money for the club", so that means double the paid entries (which is what I meant by "shooters"), regardless of the number of actual persons. There are already clubs around here that offer second entries. I don't see there being that level of interest in PCC to suddenly make the rest want to shoot twice and/or draw enough additional PCC-only shooters to actually see a doubling in the number of total entries. I think that trying to sell any division on a pseudo financial angle generally isn't a good way to approach things. (That is, I don't think it's good for the sport to drive decisions by saying we should do X because we think it will make clubs more money. It might be the case that clubs see more entries as a result, but that shouldn't be the rationale used to get rule changes in place.)

And that argument can be used right back at you - there is no proof that you will draw in double the shooters by offering PCC. Again, at least among the local shooters I hang out with, none of us have expressed any real interest in shooting PCC at any of our regular matches, despite the fact that several of us already have suitable rifles. Timer won't pick up the shots reliably with a suppressor. I haven't tried to time a suppressed 9mm rifle/carbine, but at least with my pistols, I have had a CED 7000 register them after adjusting sensitivity. There is a risk of picking up more echoes and such, though. I would rather see them permitted and see if it actually becomes a problem - this is provisional after all.

I'm running 7.4gr WAC behind a 124gr Berrys HBRN-TP @ 1.260" for 171PF. Very consistent for me, too. Custom Tanfo (based off of a Limited), 5" barrel with no holes and a 4-port comp. Was previously running 3N38, but got sick of dealing with availability issues on top of the higher pricing. I can pick up WAC pretty much anywhere, any time, and it's about half the cost (and I also need less).

I never said that any of those things are impossible - it's simply something I see as being a likely issue. I think that a lot of MDs are not going to be comfortable forcing some of the more complicated handling scenarios on shooters, particularly when I've seen some talking about how PCC may be the newest "beginner-friendly" division. And when I'm talking about tight port shots, I'm not talking about itty-bitty ports. I'm talking about shots where you end up having to put yourself quite a bit through the port to be able to make the shot. I've shot some of the not-so-tight examples of that with my rifle, and was glad I had a 11.5" SBR rather than a 16" or 18" rifle for those, as it made maneuvering in, around, and out of the ports a lot easier. Can it be done otherwise? Of course. But I think that you'll see more stages shy away from this kind of stuff for the same reason that stage designs often try to avoid 180 traps. Side note: in the little core group I shoot with, I don't think any of us are excited at all about PCC - heck, I haven't heard anybody really express interest in running it, despite there being several PCC owners in the group. Contrast that with CO, which had several of us excited, even though none of us had eligible guns to begin with.

I am another who sees trying to add rifles to a pistol match as a bad thing. I'm all for trying out all kinds of divisions, but this is adding a whole new discipline, and one that presents some very real differences when it comes to designing stages. Differences in basic start positions aren't really the problem. Other things are harder to address, and any of these may - and I would argue, will likely - lead to stage designs being modified to accommodate rifles at the expense of pistols. For example, I would expect that matches offering PCC would tend to: - Eliminate props that force SHO/WHO, because people will be uncomfortable forcing one-handed rifle shooting. - Eliminate some tight port shots, because of concerns with maneuvering a 16" carbine in there. - Eliminate any sections requiring tight movement, again because of concerns with taking a rifle through them. And with regards to starts, people may just start deciding not to have any "boxed" starts, or other unconventional start positions, because it's easier and simpler to have one start position for everybody rather than have two that depend on what the person is shooting. Not everybody runs stages that would present problems for rifles, but some do. Adding in rifles limits the potential stage design possibilities - things that are entirely possible (and safe) with pistols - and I see that as a bad thing.

'84 date stamp. Well after the short-rails. Just a run-of-the-mill pre-B; some value, but nothing spectacular. The transitionals (of which this isn't) are arguably less desirable, though that depends on who you ask (I myself don't really want one). There have been a number of people who have cut up some of the surplused pre-Bs from recent years for new sights to use in USPSA/IPSC. (I actually thought about it, but never got around to actually picking one up for that purpose.) That one seems to be in pretty good shape; if it were me, I'd leave it be. Short-rails aren't common anywhere, but are particularly rare in the US, given that CZs were not imported during the time of their production (short-rails were phased out during 1980). I have heard of some surplused short-rails coming in a few years back, but aside from those (if they actually did arrive), the only short-rails stateside are those that people personally imported, mainly by servicemembers buying them when stationed in Europe before returning home. I have a 1978 short-rail. I would love for CZ to make a truly accurate reproduction; it would become my Production gun immediately. Some of the recent "retro" attempts try to fake a few of the lines, but miss the mark by a wide margin (especially given that they have FPBs, and I'm betting half-cock notches as well).

Depends. It's not a short-rail, is it? What year? The regular pre-Bs aren't particularly collectible (at the moment), but short-rails are, and always will be. (If it's a short-rail, please, for the love of everything that is good, don't do anything to it.)

No issues here. Both the V12 I used to have and the custom I have now used the DoubleTap mounts with a traditional C-More.