ATLDave
-
Posts
581 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by ATLDave
-
-
16 hours ago, Bifurcate said:
The truth is the new divisions (CO and PCC) will be popular with people who think "maybe I'll be better at that!" then realize they both take work and switch back to Limited or Open. I've seen enough unskilled shooters pick up PCCs thinking it'll be easy to know the real problem is people just don't want to put in the work in any division.
I'm not sure. It's true that they all take work to be good/be competitive/win. However, dots are a lot lower-stress for shooters who struggle with calling shots with iron sights. With iron sights, some shots are stress-inducing in terms of whether the competitor will be able to make the shot at any kind of match pace. Dots remove that stress.
I really have not seen very many people come back from the land of dots, and I think this is why. They're not any more competitive in their division with a dot than they were with irons, but they're not generally racking up mikes and no-shoots or going to war with mini-poppers. They can make all the shots pretty much all the time. For people with a relatively casual level of participation, this is a far more enjoyable way to shoot, as opposed to stressing about whether the equal-light-bars really were equal enough on that 20 yard partial.
I do not think the iron-sight divisions are going to recover shooters lost to dots any time soon.
-
2 hours ago, ClangClang said:
Incredible video, so glad it got captured on film. Otherwise I would never believe it
That being said, it only represents a failing of the mounting plate, not an inherent flaw with the LeupoldOf course. I just think it's funny as hell.
-
Imma just leave this here:
-
What about the holster? If my holster gets bumped to a different adjustment/position, that can cause the kind of issue you're describing.
-
All dot-equipped divisions are up in my area, and all the iron-sighted divisions are down. PCC and CO are both big and growing where I am, cannibalizing LTD and PROD.
-
There's also the approach of putting some scotch tape or a smidge of grease over the left lens of the shooting glasses where the sights appear in a normal shooting position. You can force a temporary dominance switch that way. Everyone is right eye dominant if something is occluding the view of the left eye (and vice versa).
-
Uprange movement is part of the game. Learning to move uprange safely and efficiently is a skill. Best way to learn and maintain that skill is to have regular practice at it. A local club that never has uprange movement is doing its shooters no favors (they will probably DQ or have some train wreck if their first exposure to it is at a bigger match), nor is it helping the sport overall (again, the shooters will be less safe at other matches that throw novel-to-them uprange movement at them in a less comfortable environment).
-
I'm OK with the existence of Virginia count, but I have always been a bit puzzled by its predominance in classifiers, when that very poorly represents even the stand-and-shoot skills of the broader sport. As for its practicality, I think there is an argument to be made that, in a self-defense situation, having a miss (which means a stray bullet somewhere) heavily penalized may be quite practical.
-
It's best if the next round of "likely suspects" can get pulled up into running the club/MD'ing gradually. If you've got a group of people running the club, rather than having them all leave at once and trying to find replacements across the board (or a new guy who's going to take sole primary responsibility), it's better to stagger the departures.
When the existing club leadership is in good shape, that's the time to start incorporating other folks. Ask shooters who are local and have high overall enthusiasm levels for the sport to come up with a stage design for a match. Help them troubleshoot it. Then do it again next match or the one after that. After they've learned some of the stage design lessons, ask them to guest MD a match.
Part of running a club isn't just putting on the next match... it's succession planning. You have to help create the next generation of MD's while you're in charge. If you wait until you're burned out, then asking people to go from 0-60 is a big ask. And will generally require the "club's gonna end unless one of you f***ers steps up" threat. Sometimes that's inevitable, but if it really comes to that, it's usually a sign people in charge haven't been thinking long term.
-
17 hours ago, Mrmackc said:
Don't look like I am going to get any replies on this forum, doesn't surprise me . Should haven't bought a gun from EAA. I bit the bait once, not again.
Most of the people here are primarily into full-sized guns.
-
If all the stages are really simple go-here-shoot-array-X-on-berm, go-here-shoot-array-Y-on-berm, yes, it is super easy to not have to worry about wall shots. If the match is trying to present more interesting stages that more closely approximate the feel of "real" outdoor stages, then geometry gets really complicated in a hurry. If you've got bullet traps to work with, then that also makes it easy.
But getting complicated geometry completely right, with no oblique visibility anywhere of any wall-shot target is not easy to do in 45 minutes of setup time. And it's even harder to be certain that you've done it. So, as a safety measure and to make sure the club doesn't get kicked out of the range (thus ending the match forever), sometimes the MD/RM reminds people not to do anything that creates a wall shot.
Here's the thing: I have never, ever seen anyone actually DQ'ed for this. Because, in real life, people aren't generally jerks. They understand the concept "hey, don't get us kicked out of this range forever or kill someone in the next bay just because we missed a gap in a wall that makes it possible to shoot a target at a 175° angle." Nobody is building stages that force people to consciously monitor that stuff... they're just telling people not to "game" some obscure defect in the stage design/setup and create a match-ending situation. In the context of matches with an hour to set up, everyone understands the reasonableness of this direction.
-
On 8/20/2019 at 2:20 PM, DKorn said:
The solution is to design the stages so that there’s no place where you could take a shot that would then hit the side wall, not to try to enforce something not allowed under USPSA rules.
That is, indeed, the primary solution. However, many indoor matches have very limited windows for set-up time, and sometimes there are positions where some sliver or highly-acute angle shot is technically available yet unsafe, and fixing that would add 30 more minutes to setup time (and knock at least one stage out of the match due to time constraints). So the club (that wants to be allowed to continue using the range) announces that shots that go into side walls are unsafe.
It's not a thing that people actually object to in person.
-
26 minutes ago, Yondering said:
It seems that you're really just looking to argue about something instead of responding to what I actually said.
Your repeated contention is that the slide weight of the G40, as compared to a Tanfo', makes it suited to 10mm. This obviously raises the question as to whether the G20 and G29 - both of which have shorter, lighter slides than a G40 - are unsuited to 10mm.
My feelings are unhurt. I am also un-bothered by anyone's brand preferences. I do wonder what malady you contend my 10mm Tanfoglios are due to suffer from... what, exactly, is it that you contend the too-light slide of my Match or Limited is going to inflict?
-
Yondering,
1 hour ago, Yondering said:The Glock 10mm long slide really is that much more massive than the others...
Including other 10mm non-long-slide Glocks. Even the little Glock 29 works very reliably. Are you contending that G 20's and G 29's are not well suited to handling 10mm safely or reliably?
I do not believe you are thinking about this correctly. I think you're attaching WAY too much importance to slide mass in terms of how/when the action unlocks.
I also think you are mistaken about the effect of slide mass on recoil/battering. Momentum is mass times velocity. If a slide is lightened, it will move faster... but it will have less mass. The momentum will be the same when it hits home at the end of the slide's rearward traverse.
-
15 hours ago, Yondering said:
My question was whether you have experience in the other guns mentioned for comparison, or just the Tanfos. You claim the Tanfo is just as good, but how do you know?
I have shot a number of other 10mm launchers. Including a few generations of Glocks (20's, 29's, and one 40). And several 1911 platforms.
I'm pretty familiar with the cartridge. It is not some nuclear device. In terms of recoil force, it does not generate a great deal more than stout 45ACP +P.
You seem to attach a great deal of weight (ha!) to the mass of the slide. We're talking about Browning-type locked-breech tilting barrel actions. The slide's mass is not the primary control on the timing of unlocking; nor, for that matter, is the recoil spring. These are not Hi-Point guns where the mass of the slide is the thing keeping the chamber from opening early and allow the case to blow out.
-
20 hours ago, Yondering said:
I have no problem with your disagreement, but do wonder about your basis for comparison. Have you spent much time with heavy loads in both and tuning the pistols to work with those loads? Or are you just a Tanfo fan?
Yes, I have substantial experience with 10mm Tanfo's and my own handloaded ammo (typically max or near-max loads of AA#9).
I have both a Match and an Limited in 10mm. I know several other people who have shot a lot of 10mm out of other Match'es as well.
I have no experience with the base-model guns in older vintages. But the design in the Elite series is quite well suited to 10mm.
-
13 hours ago, Yondering said:
Full power 10mm is at it's best in a longer barrel with a heavier slide (one strike against Tanfos with their lighter slides).
Man, I just totally disagree with the notion that the Tanfo' is a less-good gun for 10mm than the Glock. I just do not agree with that at all. At all.
And of the Elite-series Tanfo's (Match and up) make "real" 10mm very manageable.
-
6 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:
How about this theory for why stages with choices are better.
In this game we only get to shoot for a few seconds per stage, but we get to work on solving the puzzle of the stage for as long as we want, so a simple stage with no puzzle to solve is just that few seconds of shooting.
basically the stage choices are about puzzle solving and talking stage plans with your friends and enjoying that process.
That is a very big part of it.
When I design stages and people talk about their plans both before and after they shoot, and particularly when they debate which approach was better, I feel good about the stage design.
-
Choices are part of what make the game appealing. Choices are part of what set USPSA apart from, say, IDPA. Choices means problem-solving. Some people like problem-solving - those who don't like problem solving aren't USPSA shooters for long. We've basically selected for a population of people who dig problem solving... no surprise that they like stages with choices.
This is a common dynamic in games/sports. Golf is a very similar game to USPSA, believe it or not. Like a USPSA match, a round of golf is made up of a bunch of discrete segments (USPSA calls them stages, golf calls them holes). Competitors are facing the course, not each other except in comparison to how they fared against the course. The combination of their chosen strategy/approach and their execution determines what they experience on the stage/hole and the scored outcome. Golfers have STRONG opinions on what golf holes are good - stronger even than USPSA shooters' opinions about stages.
It is axiomatic in golf that the best golf architecture is not whatever is "hardest," but that which provides a combination of a thorough test with lots of choices for the player, with risk-reward choices being particularly good. Although the most skilled golfer is generally going to beat the less skilled golfer, people pay great sums of money to play the courses that offer the most and most varied and most interesting choices. Professional golfers and amateurs alike generally have the same preference, although some courses are just too difficult for many amateurs to be able make any meaningful choice. When the golf course does't present any real choices, just do-or-die tests on hole after hole, that's called a "penal" course. And very few people (pros included) think that is any fun or a worthy background for serious competition.
Similarly, most USPSA shooters love meaningful risk-reward choices, such as those that allow a position to be eliminated in exchange for harder shot values or awkward movement. If we wanted to shoot a pistol game without choices, we'd just shoot something like bullseye.
-
^ This.
There was a barely-plausible view that irons might be faster for many shots... right up until the data started coming in. It's perfectly clear - the dot, even a reciprocating dot, is a massive advantage.
-
22 hours ago, motosapiens said:
we could call it 'timmay!'
Sweet baby jesus, we must do this.
moto's posts are straight fire in this thread, yo.
-
I guess they're worth it if you really want a magwell, because I think that's the only option!
At some point, though, you may well decide (as I did) to go ahead and get a model that is equipped to take readily-available bolt-on magwells... or even use the factory magwell.
-
Sadly, the Match's frame doesn't have the mounting points for a magwell that the square-trigger-guard frames have.
Canyon Creek made one for a few years that could be welded on... but they seem to be long-gone from production or retail availability. I shot in limited division for a while with a Match, but the desire for a magwell was one of the things that ultimately prompted me to get a Limited. My Match now serves as my bedside-safe home defense gun - which says something about how reliable it demonstrated itself to be in competition (very).
-
12 hours ago, Htreat said:
Will the Henning HS-T0923 work in the Witness Elite Limited? I've heard that some magazines that work in the Witness, do not work in the Witness Elite Limited.
Yes, it's designed for Tanfo' magwell guns. I've been using that combination for years in USPSA competition.
The magazine issue has to do with the "regular" factory magazine's long plate at the front of the magazine. That long plate is just there to match the grip bottom of a non-magwell gun for a "flush fit." The front of that long plate interferes with the magwell.
Any of the aftermarket baseplates that do not have that long front lip should work with magwells just fine.
Leaving the shooting area during course of fire
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
That's pretty much my reaction!
If non-classifier stages have lots of crazy directions and requirements, about 95+% of the time, it means the MD either has a poor command of the rules, lacks a basic understanding of what "freestyle" means, or both. Complexity in the sport should come from stage design, not from stage instructions. This ain't IDPA (thank God).