ATLDave

We can have it any way the rules are written. The rules are currently written to ding you for the extra hit. We (USPSA) could change that. USPSA could ditch Virginia-count altogether. We could have a robust discussion about what the value of having VA count even is (or Comstock, for that matter). But mostly I was joking. The rules are what they are. And they're pretty clear.

That happened to me in one of my first 4 or 5 USPSA matches. I knew I didn't know the rules well enough to argue, but it sure made me wonder if I was being screwed. Later I learned that I was being screwed, but that the screwing was perfectly in accordance with the rules!

I have heard, though, that the moved brass sometimes closes up the extractor groove a bit. Depending on the brass and the gun's extractor, this can cause problems. And the potential for other people to have problems if they pick up your brass.

johnbu, got any suggestions for a source of stronger springs to stick under the rear sight leaf?

MecGar has been making the factory mags for many years.

I try to nonchallantly grab a couple of pieces on my way to or from pasting targets. Then circle back at the end of the match to finish up.

The frame weight just adds inertia, the compensator uses a jet of pressurized gas to actually push the muzzle downward. If compensators were not vastly more effective than simple frame weights, lots of open shooters would go without comps and just run frame weights. Nobody who is competitive does this. It's not a close comparison. *Note, the above is for a well-designed compensator that is actually directing a material amount of gas. If you're talking about just throwing a couple of holes in the top of a barrel (porting), that might well be outdone in effectiveness by simply adding mass.

This proposed rule language about wall "supports" is clearly flawed. They need to fix that.

Dear lord... actual data! PocketPistol, if you happen to find yourself in Atlanta, a beer or coffee is on me. Thanks for your effort and contribution!

I honestly think the improvement of going to the Henning is not the pull itself (that's more about the polishing and the sear/hammer interface)... it's the ease of reassembly compared to the factory design. And the elimination of trigger return spring failures. It's a better design, but, when everything else is correct/polished/optimized, the factory trigger is capable of a pull that is just as nice.

I have a Limited that is actually chambered in 10mm, though I make ~170PF rounds for it. I have tens of thousands of rounds through it. The rear sight is the weak point. Slide and frame? No, no problem. As CHA-LEE says repeatedly, he is good at breaking stuff. He breaks his 2011's, too... it's just a little easier to "feed them new slides" as he put it. But, no, they do not have some systemic problem. That's simply not true.

Ugh. It seems like EAA goes through cycles where they are reasonable with customers and then unreasonable. I, too, am baffled as to how polishing a trigger bar could cause timing issues... I wonder if calling one of the EAA dealers who have some kind of relationship with the people in Rockledge might be helpful.

Just came by to offer a hearty "amen" to CHA-LEE's words about the flip-and-catch being the safer of the round-retention methods. And MemphisMechanic is also correct that, every once in a while, you just can't catch it easily... you just let that one go.

Dang it. I'm a useless paper-pusher. I don't have a lathe and such!

Awesome. Now... who did the installation?

Ah, that makes sense. The "host" doesn't matter much, at least when they are as similar at a GT and LTD. Barrel and comp do matter. And y'all's view is that the unported barrel and Durso comp combo is flatter/softer/better than the ported GT. Is that a fair summary?

Still unclear to me. Are you saying that both comps seem to work about the same, but that the porting does change? I can't tell if you're saying that the Durso comp is about as effective as the other comp if they are both on un-ported barrels... or what. It may be easier to start by saying what you experienced with the comp, and then comparing the differences or similarities to other setups.

I'm glad I was not the only one puzzled by what this proposed rule change was addressing or would mean in practice. I have no idea what problem this is supposed to solve. I'm sure it's in response to something, but it is not self-explanatory for those who have not been following whatever that something was.

I'm confused by your post. Are you saying this setup is close to the Gold Team in terms of flip, or not close to the Gold Team in terms of flip?

Hopefully they will still print paper copies, because cell service sucks at many ranges.

I just ordered one... I want to reward those who cater to this market!

Thanks. I've not unsubscribed to that, but it is so larded up with graphics and irrelevant garbage from other gun-related-but-otherwise-totally-irrelevant sources that I hardly ever read it.

I see in the September BOD minutes that the proposed new comprehensive rule set is supposed to be available to members on the USPSA site. After poking around a few minutes (yes, I signed in), I could not find it. Is it up yet? Anyone have a link handy?

I have been using a Limited for several years for USPSA. I have never used or needed an extended firing pin. I think that's mainly essential for people who are trying to run super light springs in order to make the DA pull on Stock II/Stock III/Lim Pro guns nice.

This is the nice thing about a percentile based system: those rare hero-or-zero hook-up runs count... but only in proportion to how many there are. They don't screw up the curve in the way that a small number of outliers changes things all the way down with a straight percentage system, as we use now. Similarly, the system is self-correcting/learning as the classifier is re-used. If something debuts at nationals and everyone turtles it for safety, but shoot it much faster in subsequent locals... the percentiles will move quickly to reflect the reality of where/when/how most scores are coming from. We do percentage because that's also how we do match points (which is fine for how to determine a match winner). I'm pretty sure that's the only reason we do it that way in the classifiers - there's really not another good rationale that I have ever heard for it.