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

MrPCHead

Classified
  • Posts

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Real Name
    William Daugherty

Recent Profile Visitors

319 profile views

MrPCHead's Achievements

Looks for Range

Looks for Range (1/11)

  1. MrPCHead

    Romeo 1 Pro

    Does anyone know what front sight will be required to work with the R1Pro rear notch? I am certain the existing Dawson front sight will be far too low.
  2. Honestly we're already there...as long as it's not externally visible. OK, I guess that big, lead-filled base pad is visible, but there's no way to police frame weights. I guess I'm just disappointed that we had a division that was 1) as close to guns most of us carry as we've had in decades, and 2) allowed an optic which my eyes really need, and now it's been warped into something like Open/Minor.
  3. That would make a lot of sense I think. As it is now, we are no longer resembling anything like a "carry gun" with 140mm weighted mags, frame plugs, etc. Silly.
  4. Granted a 10% difference is minimal, but going from 29oz to 45oz is dramatic. I was originally told by several people after the January rules change that I could NOT add weight beyond the +2oz mentioned above. Now it seems people are putting 3-5oz in the base of the 140mm mags, several ounces in the frame plug, heavy guide rods, and probably lots of other places that aren't externally visible. Obviously we are well beyond the philosophical origins of "Carry Optics". In fact, I would submit the pendulum has swung past Production. It's a shame USPSA can't maintain a "minimalist" division.
  5. Both my CO guns are within the +2oz for weight limit with the optic mounted. I have no heavy guide rod, base pads, or anything else that would add weight.
  6. I have yet to receive any response from either of my emails to DNROI. Until I do, or there's an official clarification, I will continue to err on the side of caution, i.e., strictly interpreting the rule as I originally indicated.
  7. So I've recently noticed that many Carry Optics shooters are ignoring Appendix D7 21.5. Specifically the section that says: "Note that the weight limits in D4-18 remain in force and relevant." D4-18 says "Maximum weight: Yes, 2 ounces with empty magazine inserted over weight listed on approved pistol list" I saw numerous CO shooters at Area 7 that were using all sorts of extra weights to get their guns closer to the 45oz. overall weight limit for the division, but they are clearly ignoring the above rule. What gives? I emailed Troy two weeks ago after Area 7 but have heard nothing.
  8. I've never had a problem with light strikes, unless it was due to a high primer, and I also use CCI primers. I'm now on my third M&P9 with the CompAEK and I honestly can't imagine shooting anything else for Production/SSP.
  9. I'm still waiting for a taker on the bet that this all goes away shortly. -William Daugherty
  10. Rob may be onto something: Price Limit! Kind of like a salary cap. "I'm sorry Mr. Trigger but you've outlived your usefulness and Mr. Barrel is going to take more money than we expected, so..." Wait, he said "readily available". Damn, that kills my plan, er, idea: "inexpensive" parts from my pals in Los Osos for my salary-capped M&P in exchange for an undisclosed compensatory action. Or a player to be named at a later date maybe? This is crazy, isn't it? I'm on vacation visiting dear old mom and she is now actually interested in this discussion. She now wants to know what gun she should buy for Production! What have I done??? -William Daugherty
  11. Even if your numbers are correct (and they obviously aren't), they represent about 15x more member opinions from Production shooters than were represented art the BOD meeting that I attended. Harris or Gallup would absolutely KILL for a 1.5% sample. -William Daugherty
  12. I paid $450 for my M&P9 Pro. I then paid $99 for an Apex Tactical Systems Comp AEK. I would hardly call that "extensive aftermarket support" yet my trigger is 2.75 lbs. and is wonderful to shoot. For me the difference was immediate and dramatic. I don't have all the original parts so to change back would be expensive. Probably more for the original parts than I paid for the AEK. And, most importantly to me, my fun quotient skyrocketed with this simple, inexpensive change. I think that the rules as they stood prior to the two recent changes were certainly arbitrary but I felt they had been in place for long enough that they were stable and workable. Apparently somebody, somewhere felt the Division was "broken". Funny that those of us shooting it missed that, right? ;-) I don't want to insult the BoD or make inflammatory statements but I will say that one fellow posting on the other thread insisted that this forum was not representative of the total membership, that polls and online efforts to fact-find were of no value and that his personal conversations with members led him to the yes vote on the TP rule. To that gentleman I would suggest he rethink those positions. Anecdotal evidence is the weakest kind, especially if/once others determine you already have a position. Volunteer bias will attract people with a similar view, reinforcing what is likely an erroneous assumption. Along those lines, sample size is insignificant once you reach a certain number and can assure good representation. I don't know whether this forum meets either but I would bet it's better than "hallway conversation" data. Bottom line: Production is a Tsunami. Pushing against it won't work. The best we can do is shift the flow or better yet, ride it out. -William Daugherty
  13. Thanks for the explanation and reasoning. Although I would say rules born out of extraordinary personal experience rarely are beneficial to those that are just ordinary ; Wait, did I read that right? "M&P9 Pro" and "totally stock" in the same breath? It seems to me that the Pro is already a purpose-built pistol for Production Division, yes? I can't imagine it being described as a "carry/duty" pistol. Seems we are now on the other side of the argument. -William Daugherty Exactly - especially if you consider that the mods they added for the pro model were born in the crucible of competition. Smart gun makers pay attention to what we do to our pistols and improve their product accordingly. Do we really want to stifle that relationship? I have no problem with manufacturers building a better gun. Don't think having to do it with a 3 pound trigger is going to affect them at all. Probably make their lawyers happy. The issue is what shooters are doing after they get their hand on them. I certainly have no problem with them building better guns either, but the logic behind the new rule (as stated here by those directly involved) was to try and steer Production back to the "duty/carry" model concept. How can you square that with using a purpose-built competition model like the G34, M&P Pro or the new XDm? Seems to be a supremely arbitrary move that hurts a lot of folks already in the game. -William Daugherty
  14. Thanks for the explanation and reasoning. Although I would say rules born out of extraordinary personal experience rarely are beneficial to those that are just ordinary ; Wait, did I read that right? "M&P9 Pro" and "totally stock" in the same breath? It seems to me that the Pro is already a purpose-built pistol for Production Division, yes? I can't imagine it being described as a "carry/duty" pistol. Seems we are now on the other side of the argument. -William Daugherty
×
×
  • Create New...