ATLDave

I use Double Alpha racers.

I think stage and match design have a lot in common with golf architecture. Both are essentially designing the "opponent" for competition. Both are composed of discrete subparts (holes or stages) which have no direct relationship to one another, but which combine to create a larger whole (the golf course or the match). Both allow the designer to dictate certain demonstrations of skill, but also allow a lot of flexibility as to how a competitor meets the challenge/solves the problem. Assuming one buys this basic analogy, then perhaps course designers can benefit from the century-plus of serious scholarship, criticism, analysis, and theory that has been developed around golf course architecture and bring some insights into stage and match design. Some of the things that golf architecture theorists largely agree on and that can, IMO, be usefully applied to stage/match design are: Choices are fun. Giving different players the chance to chart different courses, depending on their personal strengths and weaknesses, makes things enjoyable for a wider array of people and more fun to think about and discuss. Risk/reward tradeoffs are fun. Letting people attempt something hard that will reward them if they succeed, but punish them if they fail, but not FORCING that approach, is especially fun. It lets people gamble or play safe. Challenges that are repetitive are not fun; variety is the spice of life. If every shot on a golf course is substantially the same, people get bored quickly. Same with practical shooting; if EVERY target is at 10 yards, that gets old quickly. If EVERY target is wide open, or, conversely, is heavily guarded with no-shoots, that gets old quickly. Making players a little uncomfortable with odd stances can bring some energy and creativity to the game. Anything that gets people away from just repeating their "stock shot" from the range (driving range or square shooting range, same thing) will test the mental and psychological flexibility of the player. For purposes of match drama, routing matters. To the extent that a USPSA course designer anticipates that highly-competitive squads will shoot a given stage last, the chances of having the outcome in doubt depend on there both being sufficient match points available on the final stage and enough of a disaster factor prospect that a current leader might stumble (yet still providing a chance for an aggressive chaser to go all-out and gain points if they succeed). Risk/reward is especially good for match drama towards the end. There are lots of other lessons we could draw from golf architecture, but these are some of the basic concepts that substantially ALL modern golf critics/theorists agree on, and that I think are readily applicable to USPSA or other similar games.

Either timing or you don't yet trust that gun. I flinch with a lot of "new" guns absent extraordinary concentration, at least until my brain learns, "oh, hey this is just like all the other guns we shoot... it's going to make a loud noise and try to move back and up, but that's cool, nothing to worry about!"

Oh, I know all about that. You're not going to change that with the recoil spring anyway. I played with various springs for a while to address that and it made no discernable difference. And it stayed true even with 10mm rounds loaded down to just make major in USPSA (which is less than max 40). Here's what I think is going on. The large frame Witnesses are all designed to have different-caliber top ends work with them. Some of the calibers are "long" calibers, like 10mm, 45ACP, and .38 super. Some, like 9mm and .40, are short calibers. To accommodate these variations, the frame-mounted ejector is very long. Even a stroke of the slide that doesn't get all the way to the rear still applies a lot of ejector to the case, and it starts doing so fairly early in the stroke, when the slide velocity is at its highest. I've heard that filing off some of the ejector is the best way to alter the ejection pattern/distance. My 10mm Match throws brass into low earth orbit (as did the one I owned before). My current 10mm Limited, with a somewhat heavier slide and a bull barrel, doesn't do it with quite as much vigor, but it still tosses them. OTOH, both of mine run like absolute tops, and are literally just as reliable as the Glocks I see being run in competition. Never had a stovepipe with them!

I would add that my personal view is that having a really, really heavy recoil spring as a way to take wear off the frame may not be sound physics.

Yeah, I recall having that same issue. I think I finally got it jammed in there one time, then realized that my near-max 10mm 180gr/AA#9 rounds wouldn't cycle the slide reliably with the spring that heavy. 18lb seemed to be the way to go.

Henning has always taken care of me when I've had any issues with his stuff. First rate guy.

I chipped an extractor one time, so I keep a couple extra of those on hand. And the trigger return spring has a tendency to get bent when you re-install the trigger, so if you plan to tear it down to the stripped frame at any point, may want a couple of those. And Henning's guide rod is a nice upgrade over the stock guide rod. The slide stop would seem to take a pretty good beating, but I've not had one go bad.

Dagnabit accidental triple-post!

I would say not to bother. I got some blue to try... it's very, very dim. Nothing like their green nor even red or yellow. Might as well paint the end of the dot with some blue enamel paint for all the light transmission I got.

I would say not to bother. I got some blue to try... it's very, very dim. Nothing like their green nor even red or yellow. Might as well paint the end of the dot with some blue enamel paint for all the light transmission I got.

I would say not to bother. I got some blue to try... it's very, very dim. Nothing like their green nor even red or yellow. Might as well paint the end of the dot with some blue enamel paint for all the light transmission I got.

I have the adjustable DAA thumb rest on my Limited. Cocking/clearing using the front serrations is pretty much a no-go with it installed. You run out of clearance before the slide is all the way back.

The screw keeps the pad from getting bumped off the magazine! To hold the pad on, you back out the screw enough for it to lock the pad on. To remove the pad, you screw it in a bit.

The screw keeps the pad from getting bumped off the magazine! To hold the pad on, you back out the screw enough for it to lock the pad on. To remove the pad, you screw it in a bit.

I have struggled with this at times, often because I was trying for a stage plan that was too focused on maximizing efficiency, which often required skipping targets in one position to get them from a different position later, trying to find one magic spot where I could see a bunch of things by leaning and craning, etc. I have since come to the conclusion that the best approach for me is usually to: 1. Figure out where I have to go to see all the targets. 2. Go to those places. 3. Shoot everything I can see from there unless I can already see bullet holes in it. 4. If I'm torn between stage plans, go with the one that minimizes the chance of me forgetting a target (or DQ'ing, which is an even bigger disaster). Sometimes this creates a stage plan that is not the fastest possible stage plan. Better to take an extra second than to eat -30 for not even engaging one of the targets. Similarly, if you are torn between two stage plans, and one will require you to remember to make a huge transition to even see a target, and one avoids that, go with the one where you don't have to remember to turn through 120+° just to pick up the target. If you are torn between two spots to engage a target that you are worried about forgetting, and one of those spots has a better marker (a barrel rather than just a discoloration on a fault line, for instance), pick the spot with the more prominent marker. You're less likely to forget the spot entirely, and you'll have to spend less mental capacity on hunting it down, rather than remembering what to shoot once you get there. Similarly, if running the course from one direction lets you see more targets heading into your position or see the marker that's going to remind you to look for a hidden target, go with that direction. Taking this approach has helped me significantly.

Conventional Wisdom. The CW says that if riding the safety is forcing your grip higher on the gun, that's a feature, not a defect. That's what I found when I switched to guns on which I could ride the safety. Now I wouldn't want one any other way. But, like I said, maybe you're right. Either for you or in general. But many of us affirmatively LIKE riding the safety. And not just on 1911's. Tanfos and non-decocker CZ's and several other guns are set up that way.

The CW is that your crush grip on the gun is not coming from thumb pressure, which is generally thought to be a source of "steering." If you have been using your thumb to grip the gun, then you have been violating the CW. The 1911 design makes it hard to do it what CW calls the "wrong" way. Maybe you have figured out a better way than all the people who back the CW. Or maybe not. FWIW, I won't own a pistol that I can't ride the safety on. I like what it does for my grip.

I just made B in Limited, so it may take me a while, but I'm in. A82809 .

Atlanta is a good area for small indoor evening matches. If you're just beginning to wade into USPSA, those are a low-stress, low-time-investment way to rapidly familiarize yourself with the game and to get up to speed for the bigger matches.

V2plus25, I've used that drill, and have a lot of small targets up in my dry fire area. But it wasn't translating to matches, because I was being given apparently-bigger targets. With a Hopkins drill, the only thing that is available is a small target, so you will aim very specifically. My issue - or at least the issue I'm talking about - is getting my brain to not simply see the big brown target and aim roughly at the center of it. FWIW, in looking back at the matches I've shot since having this realization, my % of available points has gone from the mid-80s to the low-90s. I can do better yet, but it seems to be more than an illusion.

Interesting that you mention steel. The fact that I generally don't have a problem with steel is part of what got me thinking about this. How can I hit mini-poppers pretty reliably, yet have trouble getting 2 A's on a metric target at the same distance? It's a larger area, how can I hit it less reliably? I think maybe it's because I'm not aiming at the A zone, just at the target as a whole. Prior to this realization, I would absolutely have said I was aiming at the A, but I think I was just aiming at "the middle of" the target/available brown. Thinking about the A-zone as not just being the approximate center of the target but the target itself is the shift I'm talking about.

I've been frustrated with the number of points that I drop on targets in terms of B's and C's and even D's, even on targets where there is no question about my ability to hit the A-zone and also no question that I saw the sights. During dry-fire practice, it occurred to me that I am shifting my eyes to the target, then shifting focus to the sights... but during the time I am looking for/at the target, I have been looking for the whole target and then getting the sights kind of on "the middle" of the target. It seemed to me that I needed to see a little bit more specifically - i.e., see the A-zone, or a particular aim point, or something more definite than just brown. The actual shot is still fired with a front-sight focus, but the approach to the target-focused portion of the aiming/acquisition is different than just looking for the next target. I shot a small match last night and this approach certainly seemed to improve the hits without much slowing down the speed. Am I on to something? Is this something that everyone already does and I'm just stupid for not doing this sooner? Is this an approach that will cap my ultimate speed?

I have enjoyed my IWB/OWB convertible from Fist. Leather holsters custom made for under $100 and, IME, in a couple of weeks. http://www.fist-holsters.com/

I recently moved to the DAA Race Master holster (magnetic). I had to fiddle with the angle on it a bit to get it to work with my natural/ingrained draw angle. You have to draw it "straight up" relative to the holster. So if your draw stroke is not perfectly vertical, having the holster perfectly vertical can cause binding. So adjust it so that the holster is aligned to your draw stroke, and the binding doesn't happen. Only complaints: Sometimes re-holstering takes a couple of passes at it. And you REALLY have to tighten the adjustment screws hard to avoid getting wobble/play in it.