Vlad

It isn't entirely paranoia, I live in a state that has a smart gun law on the books.

I'd assume if the locking lugs are not perfectly fit to the slide (and when are they ever), and if the slide can move backwards enough to build up some velocity before hitting the first lug, that could end up cracking the barrel after a while, specially if there is a stress riser there.

That's is part of why we try to keep this sort of thing from catching on. Eventually we'll lose, but its worth doing it.

Increase accuracy "exponentially" ? Err ... no, that's not how any of this works. So it has a mechanical failover, great if the thing fails dead, what if fails the other way? What if crud gets in there in bridges the contact? What if crud gets between the trigger and the contact point and the circuit doesn't get closed? Keep that crap away from my rifle.

And to boot, with a bit of practice my draws from it are just as fast as they were from bladetech's, so now it is also my production holster. In fact I think my draws are more consistent because if my thumb isn't in the right place it doesn't work,

Whatever you can afford. You don't really need to worry about fouling the barrel, so shoot whatever you can afford until you know what works best for you.

Yes I have one. It is much better then no comp, but it is certainly not in the same class with the top of the line comps. It biggest advantages is size, it is TINNY, it is the same diameter as the barrel. This is also a big advantage in state that still have AWBs because you can pin it and still take the gas block off the gun right over the comp. If you want a more effective comp and weight and AWB are not issues for you, for about the same money you can get a Miculek comp which will work a lot better as a comp.

Heck, year one is still fun. It is year 7 or 8 where it starts getting really annoying

ROFL. Yep, you go ahead and suggest that to him. I'm sure his first action should be pissing off as many clubs as possible, that would show everyone who is boss.

The part where I make the decision based on safety, yes. The part where the club bans someone from the property for non-uspsa reason, not really.

To be fair I don't think you are flat wrong, I actually think under ideal circumstances you are correct. Unfortunately not everyone gets to have the ideal circumstances. In fact, if my club BOD posed to me the same issue as they did to you I would probably also threaten to quit, the big problem of course is that in my case the BOD would most likely say "Its been nice knowing you, someone would love to have the range that weekend". The thing I keep trying to get across is that every place is different, around my armpit of the woods (we are in NJ after all) there are a LOT of matches and a lot contention over any available time slot on the few ranges we have. The clubs would probably not suffer greatly if USPSA went away, something else would quickly take our place.

You don't see the problem? Sorry man, I don't know who to explain it to you better. One of the clubs I belong to has 3000 members, they probably ban 10 people per year or more for some reason or another. You want me to file paper work for all those folks even if they are not USPSA members? You really seem to think that USPSA is some form of higher power instead of a partner in a three way relationship between land owners, match organizers and USPSA. I'm not really making this about you, but I'm encouraging you to follow through the logic of what you are asking for. I can tell you that in my experience usually it isn't the land owner who signs and agreement with USPSA, it is a third party that has to play monkey in the middle. Make that monkey's life difficult and quickly you will notice fewer clubs. You seem to think my arguments are hypothetical but they are concrete examples of the bkeeler's club and mine, for different reasons. Heck, I tell people all the time they can't shoot at my club, because I don't believe they know how to handle a gun. I have no idea if USPSA approves of that, and some are even USPSA members that signed up before they even shot a match.

Sarge, that's not really the point here is it? We are not talking about game changing local rules. Also I'll point that the affiliation doesn't say USPSA members in good standing, it says people ELIGIBLE to be USPSA members. There is a difference between those. But again, you and I discussed this elsewhere and we've disagreed before on the notion that USPSA can realistically hold it's rules above those property owners and hope to survive.

BTW, I have a reason why I'm involved in this conversation beyond the hypothetical. That agreement says that matches should be open to anyone ELIGIBLE to a USPSA membership. First of all, as a match director I have no way to verify who is eligible or not. Heck I don't think I even have access to a list of people explicitly banned from USPSA competition, but lets leave that aside. Secondly, I have real life examples why that a completely broken requirement. Both of the clubs I am involved with have banned people from their property for reasons that have nothing to do with USPSA or USPSA membership eligibility. If the affiliation agreement was to be taken as an inflexible requirement, then the logical conclusion would be that if one of the people banned from USPSA wanted to attend an USPSA match on a property they were banned from the match director would have one of 3 options: a) allow them and be in conflict with the property owners, disallow them and be in conflict with USPSA or c) get an exemption from USPSA whenever someone gets banned by the property owners which may involve communicating to USPSA things they are not allowed to divulge because of legal proceedings or other privacy issues. All of that seems rather odd, specially if the person in questions is not even a USPSA member. I was personally involved in the banning of 2 people from the club property, both of which used to shoot USPSA matches. I informed USPSA about the clubs decision, but not asked for their permission. I suppose technically I'm in violation of my agreement with USPSA.

Thomas you seem to refuse to answer a question because it leaves down an uncomfortable path. Let me do that for you anyway. My first question to you was what if an exemption is applied for and denied? Should the match be closed down? There are only two possible answers, yes and no, but both come with significant implications. If the answer is yes, you just told 50 or whatever number of USPSA members who weren't hurting anyone and paying their fees to USPSA that their fun must go away because some theoretical people who may or may not exist can not play along with them. That's a rather shitty thing to do, IMHO. It doesn't help USPSA and it doesn't help the shooters. If I was a match director forced in that position I'm not sure I would want to take the chance to ask for an exemption and not receive it, ending up with closing the doors. If the answer is no, then why bother with the process. So, given that context, I ask you again, should the match be closed down if an exemption is not granted? This isn't a theoretical question, it is an attempt to get you to think on consequences of ones actions instead on pounding on a rule book. That is exactly the same reason why I asked about entitlements. To me, this entire conversation steams from the notion that paying $40 a year for a USPSA membership somehow grants on the right to participate in any USPSA competition on any private property, with the private property owners signing away a lot of their property rights to meet USPSA rules. I have a problem with that, no matter what the USPSA rules say about it. I think if you put yourself in the shoes of property owners faced with that choice you might realize that if USPSA decided to be a hard case about these issues there would be a lot fewer USPSA matches and a lot fewer clubs willing to even start one. There is this line of thought that USPSA's rules are somehow sacrosanct (never mind we change them with disturbing regularity) and superseding all other. I think that is a good goal to preserve competitive equity and we should never compromise those rules for L2 and above matches, but asking for those ADMINISTRATIVE rules to be enforced without exceptions at L1 matches is asking to be ignored and made irrelevant. We are not talking about competitive differences, safety differences, or social or racial exclusion here. It seems to me that wisely USPSA isn't actually making that big of an issue about these things so far. Pushing the issue might be a mistake. Edited to add: and consider this, if an exemptions is applied and granted, we now might as well remove that language from affiliation contract, as it is meaningless.

I actually think a polymer striker fired 9mm might be the ideal gun for 3gun. You can abandon it without worrying about manual safeties coming off, they are lighter on the belt next to the rest of the gear, you don't cry if you ding it, etc. In some ways I think the perfect 3gun handgun is a production division plastic fantastic plus base pads. A limited gun will give up some capacity and a "fancy" limited gun may not get treated with the same level of abuse as you might otherwise need to inflict on you 3 gun pistol. Last weekend I had retrieve mine from a bucket of water in a stage.

I know I have a question still pending for you, but I have a another, Thomas. Do we have a "right" or entitlement to shoot a USPSA match? Followup question, why should anyone else care what you can or can not do for fun?

Simple, go shoot other guns. Beg, borrow, or .. hmm .. just beg and borrow some different guns, put a couple hundred rounds through each if you can and see if one of them speaks to you.

Thomas, quick question, lets say an exception is not granted, should that match be shut down? Think carefully about what the answer implies.

So you are saying he is doing this on purpose to screw with you and others and it is out of the blackness of his heart that he is not canceling the match to spite his local club, and the 50 or so shooters who would then not have a USPSA match at all? That makes about as much sense as cutting off ones nose to spite ... oh wait. Never mind.

Darren, your point will fall on deaf ears, mostly. I've gone down this path arguing with people about keeping USPSA matches alive despite local club rules, and all I got back was "No, zee rules must be followed, it is better to not shoot at all then have to bend the rules". All I can recommend is hum "Shake it off" to yourself and don't let it get to you.

I'm always amused about "spirits of laws and rules". Words on a piece of paper have no soul nor spirits. If you write up a rule, always write it up as to be so clear as to not allow conversation about spirits. I don't have a strong opinion on the subject at hand, I'm here mostly to bitch that we have a rule book that gets tweaked and prodded and massaged and given a happy ending seemingly every afternoon, but there is somehow still conversation about spirits. If the books and bylaws don't cover a subject then there is no spirit of that subject. If the affiliation contract includes provisions not backed by the bylaws or rule book, then the contract is wrong and should be fixed. If you think the contract is right, then go fix the rules. Casper the friendly ghost should never be invoked.

Tell that to nearly all of 3gun.

Personally, I always thought the notion of IPSC in the Olympics was harebrained at best. One, it was never going to happen anyway, and secondly why would you want it to happen? Was the notion that we didn't have enough rules and needed even more rule making bodies sticking their fingers in the pie somehow appealing? Whatever the reason, that hopeless attempt drove IPSC towards political correctness exactly the time USPSA was driving the other way. That's fine by me, I like seeing USPSA being dragged kicking and screaming into a more modern world and I really don't care what IPSC does. The new USPSA 3gun rules are a good thing and I'm glad to see USPSA swinging in that direction.

Yep, you can do this. Select the shooter with "wrong" score, I think hit review, then the 3 vertical dots in upper right, and there should be an option there to copy the scores to the correct shooter. Then you rescore the "wrong" person with the right new scores.