gr7070

Thanks for the clarification Rick. And thanks for the great podcasts. Keep the revolver content coming!!

Much thanks. Nice show, and I especially appreciate anything revolver-centric. While he doesn't come right out and say it, at the 7:50 mark Rick might imply (through his body language, inflections, and lack of acknowledging the strong side option) that the third speedloader must be worn on the weak side. That's not correct as I read the rule addendum in conjunction with the rule book. The third speedloacer may still be placed on either side. I'm guessing since Rick is a lefty that his third is preferred on his weak side and that he doesn't do so because he thinks it's required to be there. Anyway, it was something that stood out to me while watching the episode. Nicely done show.

I think the question has been covered well all ready, but since you also asked about steel I'll throw a couple things out there. I'd eventually like to get a 627 to shoot Steel Challenge with. I currently shoot a 617 (.22 LR) in Steel Challenge and very much like the gun and the game. Of course, neither of these models are really much of an option for the USPSA or IDPA. I do shoot a 686 in IDPA. It appears a 625 is going to be more competitive in both games against all other divisions.

I own the classics, and have not seen the IM. As handy as they are they do require a little wiggling to get them to slide in. The added clearance that the IMs provide might be helpful for this by clearing the stocks more easily.

So was there reason for the rule or no reason? You contradict yourself. 158 gr ammo is not consistently available in stores, if at all in many. And I'm not sure what the PF change has to do with "gaming". It's not at all about intentionally skirting the rules to gain an advantage. People shot sub-PF ammo not for an advantage, but because they couldn't follow a rule even though they wanted to.

How 'bout Executive Platinum Master. Instead of USPSA they can use the airlines as a model.

It's understandable, though. That's part of what makes IDPA IDPA. It's part of their branding. They're 7up, the uncola. They're flame broiled. They eat more chikin.

Add an Astra to the list???

I have a buddy looking for an IDPA holster for an Astra 357. Anyone know if these guns are closer to an L-frame or an N-Frame? He's interested in a CompTac Belt Holster for it, but not sure which frame model to order. I've heard their like a S&W model 27/28, but I don't really know if that's all that useful info and if older Smiths have similarities to today's frame sizes??? Thanks in advance.

It's not just limited to MA. There are EX and SS that get a match bump that can't shoot the classifier, and vice versa. It is possible to increase correlation. The classifier splits were arbitrarily determined. They are also not normally distributed between divisions. One division 10% of the shooters may be MA and another 2%. Due to arbitrarily setting splits and match bumps. They work well enough, but there's not much real meaning behind the classifier and it needs sanctioned matches with big enough classes to confirm the classifier reults.

Sure, so you have a few anecdotes that may explain some great results, and of course it may not be applicable as well. Without some actual real analysis that will strip out most of the noise we're left with no definititve answers and just a bunch of individual guesses based on a vary small sample size. One can't fix sandbagging and improvement of ability, but one can improve the system if desired.

I had looked at the Nationals for the same reasons, Steve, but decided not to bother posting results - they seemed to be all over the place. One class winner would have taken 4th place above, rather impressive. Another class would have only had a few placing in the top ten above. Another had sixteen beating at least one shooter above out of the 21 above. I didn't think I could draw much of a conclusion from what I saw, other than one class is better. ;-)

How do you know those folks achieved their classification via the classifier and not from a match bump? Your observation says nothing of the classifier itself, but may speak to the classification system. I do think the classification system works well enough. I think the classifier (numbers) could be improved in a number of areas, but it, too, does work well enough.

I sent my 686 to him that should arrive in his mailbox today. I have some Ahrend's grips at home that I haven't shot with it yet either. I'm looking forward to trying out all the new goodies (sites, grips, and action job) it upon its return!

Anyone use a leather holster in competition? Any suggestions for a decent quality leather holster at a decent price? Edit: I shoot IDPA, and it doesn't have to be a true high-speed holster, just not terribly slow.

I've just read through this thread. Most of it has focused on GM potentially being a desire of the mid-level or lower MA shooters. I find it interesting that no post mentioned the possibility that this idea might be coming from IDPA HQ because it might benefit IDPA (which is fine), and have little or nothing to do with the MA shooters that have been mentioned heavily in this thread. I don't know Dave or JM or any of the other top MA shooters mentioned and the following isn't meant to denigrate any of these fine shooters. It's also possible that the elite level MA shooters want the GM class more than anyone else. Maybe some of them want the added distinction for their own reasons. Personally, if they're going to monkey with classifications I'd like to see them revamp it completely and adjust the times of all classes using some objective analysis. I doubt the large gap between SSP and ESP/CDP is realistic. I also doubt that the time percentage difference between all the classes should be the same across divisions - in other words the distribution of each class is likely not linear within each division. If adding another class is a part of any revision, meh.

The below link was posted on the S&W forum. It's from a Canadian dealer - Canada has laws restricting < 4.2" bbls. http://www.badgerarmssupply.com/index.php?page=smithwesson Scroll down.

I've watched someone shoot a stage while smoking a pipe. He shot a revolver, though, so it "worked". Had it been a plstic gun I don't know that he could have pulled that off stylistically. ;-)

I wouldn't consider a CCW product after seeing that. Dave's work perfectly, the plastic is heavy duty, and his service was outstanding. Oh and they're far less expensive than CCW, too. Get DS-10-Speedloaders!!

Yep, I received an order for Christmas. Dave was also very accommodating of an error by the person who ordered and Dave provided the actual desired ordered and returned money. It's a great product, and had great service.

I'm planning to add a green FO SDM front sight for my 686. I haven't done so yet, so I can't comment on it, but many recommend it. I've seriously considered adding a gold bead to my 617 which I've shot a couple times in Steel Challeneg now. That or the same FO as above. Not sure which I'd prefer or why one over the other. I do think either would be an improvement over my patridge and my red ramp sights, fwtw.

I wouldn't want to use any (significant) abrasive on the forcing cone and change the gap, or the angle between the forcing cone and the cylinder face, or round the edges on the barrel, etc. that polishing might introduce. Clean with a brush and solvent and that should be good enough.

I've checked their website. It doesn't appear the new issue (these articles specifically) is available online. Can anyone please correct me if I'm wrong?

Much thanks for the help y'all!

No reason you can't shoot it as is. I wouldn't want to chop it either; so shoot it stock.