Whoops!

I don’t think I’d call a consistent top finisher at every event he attends “lucky.”

Except for KC who somehow manages to do many stages two seconds faster than everyone else. I’m still trying to figure out how he bends time.

I get to respond a lot today since I have access to nothing but my phone. Nils did the calculation for if he had shot major and it would have put him at approximately 99.98% of the win.

I think I understand why you think the opposite. The reason I am where I am is because it seems like the less nose heavy a gun is, the less it wobbles when being moved quickly (pendulum effect). On long targets, this might have more of an impact than recoil mitigation.

I chatted with Nils about his choice of irons and minor. Basically, if I remember correct (loud music and I was a little buzzed) he simply didn’t have enough time to get his major setup ready for the match. I theorize that the more long distance targets there are, the greater advantage the lighter guns have. Thoughts?

Thanks. Sadly, I didn’t have a single video - but Maxamundi and Lynda got all of them.

Remember my PCC feedback thread? Well here you go, for all those looking for more info. Pros: Great competition. With as many high end competitors as were running - you had to keep an 80+ % average finish on every stage if you wanted to make super squad. To do that, you had to be able to nail 25 yard poppers consistently and without delay. You also had to be moving and shooting every time the movement gained you anything - regardless of target distance or size. Complicated but consistent stages - blending all commonly used USPSA skills. Consistency is the name of the game - it’s what makes a sport a sport. This match made USPSA feel like a sport and not a crazy idea. They fixed the stage design issues of the PCC Nationals. There weren’t any long swingers. The stage with the structure was used again but this time competitors only shot in from one angle - an angle which I *think* wouldn’t cause a full blind issue with glare regardless of where the sun is. I didn’t hear any competitor complain about anything the match could control. Everything ran smoothly and on schedule. I talked for a while with a USPSA executive at the event. A few impressions are : He knows his stuff. He’s quick. If he could provide more for the sport and competitors, he would. Cons: More gun owners don’t know about this sport. Matches can’t control the consistency of ROs. Some are amazing. Some are the opposite. But seriously, if you’re always angry and you get your rocks off telling competitors what to do - don’t be an RO. Especially don’t be a CRO. Overall, great match. At this point in the sport, I’m not sure it could be much better. I hated my performance in it - mainly because I had so much proof I could do better. When all the scores were in, I had 4 top 10 stage finishes. But, mainly because of serious performance and mag issues on the 3rd day - I ended up at 80% and 42nd place. Next year suckers. Next year.

My work here is done. You’ll be winning Carry Optics at Area matches in no time.

Lol, I see what you did there. My gun thought it was funny too.

Either way, the teams of people I work with, both in creating and interpreting regulations, would very clearly interpret that the note on internal and external safeties remaining functional only applies to throating and polishing of components. There is a way regulations are interpreted in America. If people want to try and write requirements, in America, they should do it appropriately, as Americans. This is a whole field of study. It needs to remain consistent so that rules can be consistently applied. There’s a simple way to do this. Make the section I’m attaching clearly apply to both internal and external safeties. Otherwise, anyone who says differently is wrong.

Actually, in this case, it is extremely clear that USPSA does not require the internal safeties - by the way the book is written. As a result of the part of the book talking about internal small parts. If DNROI intends for the rule to be interpreted any other way - his book needs to be rewritten. IPSC requires all internal safeties to remain functional.

With regard to polishing and throating - read the header for 21.1. I design regulations for a living - the way they read is that subtext to a header applies to the header. In this case, that header is polishing and throating. If it applied to everything - there would be no need for another section that says external safeties must remain functional.

21.1 is specifically with regard to throating and polishing. So, if you polish the fpb to the point where it no longer works, but keep it in the gun, you are violating that section. However, removal of safeties is covered by 21.5 and 22.1 - and those sections state that only external safeties can not be removed. The reason the polishing aspect is not allowed is because of the safety hazards (or even competitive advantage) it could create in some platforms by adjusting the safety mechanism to do something other than intended.

At least you can use the short sticks if nothing else. I’m in a similar boat - just got a brand new dot and mount two days ago....

If the mag is the root cause, it would be extremely unusual for the ammunition to get that far into the chamber consistently. At that point in the feed cycle, there are only two things that could even possibly be stopping it - the width of the front of the brass or the extractor.

That happened with me as well with my Tanfoglio. The 170’s are more sensitive to extractor fitment than the shorter mags. In my case, It was a slight fitment issue with the extractor that led to the failures when it was only the 170 causing them. The end of my hook was just a little too close to my breechface and sitting at just slightly the wrong angle. Ran perfectly fine with shorter mags, failed with one 170 - I can only surmise because of the additional variabilities in tension as a result of having to run through a taller stack. Your mag measurements are good - I would put money on the extractor. Springs are cheap and easy to replace. Best place to start.

Don’t confuse the rim with the neck. Yes, it fits over the rim fine, but the neck is what pushes the extractor out. Too much extractor tension and that’s where it stops. Not sliding over the rim would indicate substantial fitment issue - which he doesn’t appear to have. If there is a fit issue - it appears minor.

I haven’t seen a single Leadstar in the DFW area run reliably. All the JP’s appear to run reliably. I run a Brekke Custom / Smoke Composites front end and it is awesome. The rest of the parts don’t matter much - the barrel and hand guard are what slow people down because they are the furthest from the point of rotation and ergonomically are the hardest to support.

This is easy. Definitely too much extractor tension. Open guns running major need just the right amount - just barely allowing the slide to fully cycle with a lighter recoil spring. If the slide cycles too easily, the extractor doesn’t have enough tension for consistent extraction. Putting in a heavier recoil spring makes it easier to tune, but affects the recoil characteristics to the point where they aren’t ideal. Check out the pics of the first and second gun. That exact point in the slide travel is where the top of the neck in the brass tries to slide under the extractor. The second gun even shows the neck of the brass against the extractor - unable to slide under it from excess tension. This issue is easy for any experienced open gunsmith to fix and kudos to everyone who diagnosed it correctly. The stronger your grip, the less likely for this to happen. Shay has a very strong grip. He probably ran 50 rounds through it and didn’t have any issue - which is about the most you can expect from any builder because it is a balancing act tuned to the individual when it comes to extractor tension - especially on the more finicky CZ/Tanfoglio platform. As you can probably deduce from this also - it is possible to “fix” this by making the gun feed easier in other aspects - but that isn’t the root of the issue. Oh, and by the way - adjusting tension in an Aftec doesn’t just mean two springs or one spring or filing. Sometimes the ideal solution may lie in cutting springs.

Got ahold of one - would be an amazingly good solution - if the dot were brighter. It’s too dim, even with a fresh battery installed.

Team 144 on Facebook just told me they are and have a picture of one on a DVC Open. Looks like a potential Max alternative - I’ll give it a shot.

Weird indeed. I literally bumped into a pole while walking, barely felt the bump. Could have something to do with the shape difference between the MAX and XL. Max should theoretically be a more durably shaped lens because it will distribute shock more evenly around the circumference.

Looks like it might be RTS, anyone know for sure?

I bumped into a post while walking with my holstered gun yesterday. I thought nothing of it until I looked at the Romeo 3 XL. Don’t even think about drop safe . . . It isn’t even walk safe. This is the second one, first one died because it allowed water in.

Yeah, I’d like to do this myself. Very little info that isn’t arbitrary on the custom manufacturer’s.