YVK

I've seen this happen with Staccato and SRO but haven't heard about that happening with AOS. Speaking of AOS, who cut your old slide for the Prodigy AOS setup?

It will but so what? Giving these new elections any hint of membership's support is more damaging than letting any puppet in, especially considering that all the power is consolidated with the board anyway. The only elections I am participating will be AD elections where I will vote against the incumbent regardless who else runs.

I hope that none of you and nobody else in the membership casts a vote for Yeemin's replacement, whoever the candidates are. Having total of 50 people participate in the voting process will be the first and immediate show of non-confidence to the board.

The issue wasn't in seating the gun on a hanger but not seating it deep enough so the lock wasn't functioning properly. With gun in place, work the locking lever and see if it is functioning smoothly and is closing without excessive resistance.

P.S. Has to be done on both sides. Didn't take too long, a little filing and a little smoothing up with sand paper.

Everglades sent me the exact same ^^^^ photo this morning.

I've direct mill with threads visible, with threads not visible, and CZC plate. I prefer Primary Machine work as shown above.

There's a lock on the back that I'm supposed to be able to put in three different positions. It is immovable. Do I have to have a gun in to do that? In addition, I can't shorten the distance between holster and belt. Looks like should be easy enough task, take one screw out and push it in but it is not budging even with a light mallet tapping.

I've just got one. No instructions sent with a holster. None that I can find on their site. Did a search here, nothing too. This is a first race holster for me, I'm supposed to figure out if my Cheely grip fits but at this point I need to figure out how to work it. Anybody has a link to instructions of some sort?

I had a chance to examine a D2 gun that Dan built for a local shooter. Very good quality. Angle of a pic makes it hard to see the bbl dia - 9 or 40?

I thought that 1911 / 2011 slide was too narrow to be milled directly for SRO. Is it the case or am I wrong? A friend pointed out that TTI mills theirs directly. Unlike Vudoo who clearly makes their slides wider at the optic's bed, Taran's seems to be a standard width?

Well, your work looks very promising. Good luck in your endeavors.

You can't deny the consistency in behavior: industry makes it, USPSA takes it. Besides, 59 oz weight and 140 mm mags is fairly restrictive. Could've been 170. Industry is now awash in carry comps and we still don't have a division for them in minor pf.

Excellent. I think that the AOS plate has a better design than other plates that are commonly used for 1911s/2011s. I wish more builders would use it. Is this a "one of" project, or something you might be offering commercially?

https://vudoogunworks.com/priest/ Don't know anything about this gun except that I like how slide is widened at the optic's bed.

Makes sense or doesn't make sense depends on the initial intent or philosophy behind proposed changes. If the intent is/was to let what manufacturers are offering play because some people want that, then no, it makes no sense at all. If the intent is/was to incentivize members to shoot in divisions that require more skills than what's needed to shoot decent splits with 130 pf out of 40 - 50 oz guns, then it does make sense.

So people who shoot factory 9 mm can pack it and go do IDPA?

That argument is about as good as "minor is competitive in Lim" because of Nils winning Limited with 9 mm Canik. One dude, who is about my son's age, making a GM with a G26 is a pretty week supporting evidence. That USPSA has no division in which guns that comprise the vast majority of daily carry options are competitive is a point that merits no further discussion, or wasting time on. The question whether people would want to shoot there or not will remain a purely theoretical blah-blah until such division is created. Which is going to happen never, unless something else happens. I don't need to imagine it. I started USPSA and IDPA with my actual carry gun which then was HK P30 with LEM trigger module, which as practical of a carry gun as it is unfit for competition. Even trained with Manny Bragg with it. I actually think that 39 oz CCP is more of a joke that 59 oz CO. USPSA has shed all pretense of being anything practical or carry for a while. It is a race in every division. IDPA is still clinging to the carry image while continuing to set the divisions that fit Wilson Combat product lines.

I think that this is an assertion that's worth testing in provisional divisions. I started CO with G19x and enjoyed it quite a bit but when the gun is not competitive, you end up making some changes. IPSC at least tested this notion in practice, as opposed to leaving it to the web-based discussions. Open and Limited are existing legacy divisions that count for over 1/3 of participation. They are uniquely different from other divisions (unlike LO vs CO) so they have enough merits to stay. I don't think anybody would say a word if L10 was nuked, and probably a revo too except for 100 people who shoot it in the country. I looked at CCP rules. 39 oz weight limit. Compact and Carry, lol.

Based on the results of these surveys, 900 members of 34,000 organization want to shoot them. STI's annual production is about 15K, which is a drop in a 4 mil handguns yearly produced bucket (not counting imported). Glock 19 outsells all 9mm 2011 put together by a metric ton but nobody is rushing to create a division where G19 will be competitive. I don't see huge popularity of these things but I do see a lot of media coverage. Those 2011s are sexy.

I forgot about a poll that I had started here Very similar to USPSA poll. Suggests the engaged members of this forum reasonably well represent the engaged members of organization.

While I am appreciative of USPSA's effort to get members' input and some objective data behind their decisions, maybe they can get professional help in designing their data collection instruments the next time around. 20% of responders are against the division altogether. Why are their opinions on a power factor of a division they don't want to happen relevant? The results of two last two pie chart diagrams of the LO part of survey are contradictory to each other. Same number of respondents replied to a question "if you already shoot CO..." and to a question "If you don't shoot gun with an optic...", with the sum of the numbers of responses well exceeding the total number of people who have replied. In well designed surveys negative answers to some questions preclude one from answering the next questions, and some choices have to be mutually exclusive. The way this one was set, I see up to 20% potential error rate on power factor discussion alone, and evidence of low internal validity.

Interesting software feature that you can't vote if you looked up the voting results first. Promotion of independent thinking? I agree with first two posters above. If SAO minor was the ultimate goal, just plug it into CO. If figuring out what members really want is the purpose, then have to allow both in provisional phase. You have to accept that you can't make everyone happy. Hopefully optic mounting solutions that people choose would allow to install iron sights plate back on.

My opinion only: with permanent divisions, certainly. Provisional divisions are the opportunity for members to shape the direction and to some extent negate the paternalistic "we give you the division minor, or the division major, or whatever else" from the board. If folks don't see it that way and just want to run off to the races, well, we get what we deserve. While the division is provisional, I am going to shoot it minor. When it is permanent, that may change.

If lots of people choose LO major, that would be a pretty good indicator that this is what the division should be.