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

d_striker

Classifieds
  • Content Count

    1,777
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About d_striker

  • Rank
    Beyond it All
  • Birthday 06/07/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
  • Interests
    Beer, Guns, Freedom.
  • Real Name
    Dominic Koh

Recent Profile Visitors

1,866 profile views
  1. A buddy and I have almost identical Akai's in 9 major. The only difference is his has the tungsten sleeve. I've tested them side by side with the same ammo. Does the sleeve make a difference? Absolutely. Is it worth $1000? That's entirely up to the individual. If you got the money to spend, why not get it? If you are tight on money, maybe skip it.
  2. Shoot a couple of rounds in a mag that's mostly loaded. Then remove magazine and look at how far forward the top round in the magazine is. If the top round is pretty far forward, this could be your problem. At least it has been for me in pretty much every Open gun I've ever shot. Once that top round gets dragged forward by the bottom of the breach face or rough/sharp edges on the disconnector rail, the round is far more likely to nose dive as it's not being correctly supported by the magazine feed lips. This is completely irrespective of whether your mag lips are correctly spaced or not.
  3. Agreed. Also, some pasters are so glossy that bullets don't leave a grease mark on them.
  4. The most relevant point to me was regarding the part of 9.5.5 that mentions a "grease mark or crown." The article states that the "e.g." in this rule makes "grease marks or crowns" EXAMPLES of evidence of a hit and that they are not a REQUIREMENT to be scored a hit. And even then, rule 9.5.5 is only relevant for enlarged or irregular holes in paper. How many times have you heard an RO say that there has to be a grease mark on a perfect bullet hole in paper?
  5. There’s a good article in the most recent USPSA magazine on this very subject. ETA- page 64 in Sept/Oct 2019 issue
  6. Good point. This sounds like a better idea the more one thinks about it. We would just need to rename the division but that's not a big deal. It would be much better than changing an existing division that would piss off a lot of people and also better than introducing a new division.
  7. They should just remove the requirement. Then all of the Production shooters that want more than 10 rounds could just load up their guns with 140mm mags and run irons if they chose to, and we could rid the internet of Production-15 threads.
  8. The steel on stage 9 was ridiculous. We rolled up on that stage and the squad ahead of us was still waiting on the squad ahead of them. There was some sort of popper drama at least every 3 shooters. What made the situation the most frustrating was that it was painfully obvious that the steel was not calibrated properly and the RO's insisted that the steel was fine. One shooter on the squad ahead of us even asked the RM for a calibration prior to his run and the RM stated that it was not allowed. He said something along the lines that a calibration could only be performed if a s
  9. Rule states there is an exception for reloading or correcting a malfunction.
  10. IPSC Rulebook 10.2.8 If a course of fire (or part thereof) stipulates shooting strong or weak hand only, a competitor will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence of touching the handgun (or scooping it from a table etc.) with the other hand after the Start Signal (or from the point where single hand shooting has been stipulated). Exceptions are releasing an external safety (without scooping), reloading or correcting a malfunction. However, the procedural penalty will be applied on a "per shot fired" basis when a competitor uses the other hand or arm to: 10.2.8
  11. It's stuff like this that has made me stay away from the Area 3 championship. Looks like they finally noticed attendance dropping and they toned it down a bit. This will be the first year going back to that match after three years staying away.
  12. Rule 10.4.2 states, "A shot which strikes the ground within 10 feet of the competitor, except when shooting at a cardboard target closer than 10 feet to the competitor." Let's say a competitor is intending to shoot a target (either drawing to or transitioning to) within 10 feet and he AD's into the ground. Do you feel that the "exception" language of 10.4.2 is exempting shots with the qualifier that they actually hit the target? Or do you think that as long as the shooter's intent was to engage said close target, they can AD into the ground and it's not a
×
×
  • Create New...