varminter22

I think there may be a little advantage to using a lighter bullet at a lower PF, but I wouldn't recommend going too low. I loaded some 105 gr bullets in .38 Short Colt at PF of about 63. Yes, 63! (Load came right from Hodgdon as there are light loads for the really old Short Colt revolvers.) They work, but are rather disconcerting as it seems to take forever for the bullet to reach the steel target! I'll likely just go with my regular USPSA/ICORE load. I did read once of a top Steel Challenge shooter talk of loading to around 90 to 100 PF for his autoloader. That might be a good idea. But is it worth it? For me, I have doubts!

Yes.

I see the same thing around here. Years ago, there were "tapers and brassers" but now there are none, and no one seems to care. I don't understand it either.

Dang, I wish I could be there!

Indeed! I shot with you guys once last year, and am hoping my trip timing will allow me to shoot there again this year.

St George is great. And I see Las Vegas came in second. I think the St George is likely the best range, but ya certainly cannot discount the draw, hotels, amenities of Vegas!

Yep, 'twas ICORE's International Revolver Championship.

Agreed. I certainly admire Miculek but he should NOT have been allowed a reshoot.

THAT is why my scores have not improved. I'm not good at flipping and catching.

Well, that is nice. But why wouldn't you shoot CO if it was still simply "Production with Optics"? After all, that is the crux of this entire discussion.

Well said. Agreed!

Very well said.

Interesting. So how do you explain the fact that heavier bullets (such as a 230 gr .45ACP @ 750 fps) knock a bowling pin farther than a lighter but faster 9mm/.38 bullet?

Agreed. I have my Dad's Wingmaster that he bought new in 1953. I shot it a LOT in my youth. Still enjoy shooting it occasionally. Also have a new Wingmaster with a 3" chamber that I use for coyote calling. I'll concede that a high end shotgun will likely withstand much more shooting, but for my purposes I like the Wingmaster.

I could go for that. After all, there is the rimfire divisions for those that are recoil sensitive.

You funny! Rimfire is an afterthought. Hell, SCSA is an afterthought.

The question was: "If removing OL movement made it boring, why are the other seven stages not boring?" And there you have it, folks! Seven out of the eight SCSA stages are boring (at least to some). So why not add movement to all stages? (Which, by the way, I would oppose.) Or why not eliminate the movement in the ONE and ONLY stage? (Which I think is the right thing to do.)

Oh, I'm confident of that. But that wasn't the question. The question was: "If removing OL movement made it boring, why are the other seven stages not boring?"

I'm confused. If removing OL movement made it boring, why are the other seven stages not boring?

I'm having a hard time finding the January in-person BoD minutes. Might you provide a link please?

For sure, the "P" in USPSA should be removed.

I can't remember where I read it, but I read that a CCI engineer said there has been a change in manufacturing and CCI primers are softer now. As soft as Federal? I don't know, but I recently obtained 1000 CCI small pistol primers and had NO problem with them in my M627.

I agree with egd5 (above). They all, except one, are stand and shoot 5 plates as fast as you can. Why just that one? And even if they do test those different skills, why do we need to test movement. As has been said, there are plenty of other places to test that. Either scrap the movement, or make another three (or so) stages of the eight to include movement (which would be dumb too.)

Interesting. That begs the question: If it is a skill that is needed to succeed [in Steel Challenge], then why is there ONLY ONE stage that requires it?

Well said. Shooters that desire stages with movement have plenty of places to play. USPSA and ICORE come readily to mind.