Carlos

Congrats Tim! That is fantastic news & your new grand daughter is lucky to have folks like you as her family. Regards, D.

Agree w/ Kimmel - have caught shrapnel off cast lead far more often than w/ jacketed - though I have seem some nasty jacketed "low-velocity roll-backs" including one that penetrated the RO's fingernail.

Welcom to the Commonwealth! The vamdsection.org site may not be much to look at but it about says it all. Are there any IPSC shooters here you ask? Sure, plenty of regular USPSA folks as well as Grand Masters Phil Strader & Todd Jarrett w/ regular local appearances by J.J. Racaza, and there are ton of lesser-known GM and masters who live here, and now the best part: w/in 2.5 hours drive from most anywhere in Northern VA, there is a match w/ at least 4 and usually 6 stages every single weekend, sometimes w/ one Sat. & one on Sunday during the season! During the late fall, winter, and very early spring, there will be once a month Wednesday night indoor IPSC style matches at Phil Strader's Shooters Paradise (www.shootersparadise.com) as well as the monthly tuesday night IPSC style match down in the basement at NRA Headquarters. If you want to shoot GSSF, IDPA, SASS, pins, steel, clay, etc, there is plenty of that stuff too. If you are a shooter, you will not be bored in Virginia.

Tightloop asked: "What is the recoil like? Mine is bad, but the pistol is heavy and that helps a bit. Answer: Absolutely miserable! But not unmanageable & sufficiently accurate for defense. Best so far: 158 grn LWC .38 Special. Worst: Cor-Bon 110 Grn JHP. Recently, I had some loads I made up for a 6" S&W 686 that consisted of a 125 grn TMJ over 17.5 grns of 2400. It is listed in the manuals as heading out at about 1400 FPS. Just for fun I tried a couple out of the 1 and 7/8 in barreled 340PD: Result: muzzle blast consisting of a bowling ball sized orange sphere just in front of the muzzle; very entertaining for spectators; most unpleasant for the shooter. Worst of all, this load limped over the chrono at just over 1000 FPS! I think my new carry load may be the Co-Bon 180 or 200 grn SP hunting loads. The are supposed to reach 1265 & 1200 fps, respectively, (certainly out of a longer test barrel) but if I could get 900 to 1000 out of them, I believe they would work well for defense.

Jeeper wrote: "It is a place where that kind of crap has never existed. I tolerate it other places on the net because most other forums are full of slack jawed fools who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. That is not the case here. This forum is a wealth of knowledge where there has always been a higher standard for people's actions." I agree! This is THE shooting sanctuary for those who think & contribute useful content. BE - As far as the "free speech" issue, those who would use it to criticize you or your site do not understand the Constitution nor do they understand the intent of our founding fathers. Are the critics entitled to air their opinion? Sure, just as long as they buy all the equipment & pay to start their own internet forum - they are free to go elsewhere as you see fit. As for allegations of censorship? Only Government can censor content. If you, as a citizen, remove content or a contributor, you are merely exercising your rights over your own property. No problem there. Rock on BE!

I can confirm the increased stiffness of the CR speed over the safariland since I have 2 safariland belts & one CR speed belt. The CR is far superior & keeps all your equipment from flopping around when moving. Its inner core feels like it is made from spring steel and I doubt a belt could be made more stiff. Understand that the safariland belts are OK (I have used them since I started in USPSA) its just that the CR belt is a better product for use in USPSA/IPSC.

Could not agree more w/Lynn re: find an experienced reloader willing to teach. Short of that, the Lyman book is quite good (though the IPSC chapter is rather dated since it still lists the old 175 power factor). You may also consider the very inexpensive Lee book for an intro. Read what you can before you spend anything on equipment. I took the advice of many & first bought a single stage press to learn on even though I knew it was not the right tool for volume loading & would soon be discarded. If you go this route, understand you will eventually NEED a progressive like the Dillon (preferred) and the single stage press will probably end up sitting in a box under your reloading bench - this is one reason why you might consider skipping the single stage press altogether. Keeping in mind the eventual NEED for a progressive/Dillon, DO NOT buy a premium brand single stage press! Instead, the LEE brand presses are very, very inexpensive and the LEE pistol dies you buy will work on the Dillon you eventually buy. I still use & recommend Lee dies - I cannot say the same for the Lee progressive presses, but the Single stage Lee presses are certainly fine to start and they will not break the bank. BTW, what caliber? Which sport are you planning to shoot?

S&W 340PD 5 round Airweight .357 Magnum

Whatever works for you, go with it. You might try this: square up to the target as in both toes on the line, shoulder width apart. put your weight forward onto your toes - almost to the point of falling forward with the gun on target. Do NOT mount the gun on your shoulder. Instead, place the butt squarely on the centerline of your chest & high enough to get your cheek down on the stock. Pull the but into your chest & keep that head down. Now try shooting fast & compare your splits & hits to your normal method. Remember Brian's ancedote about how when he started out, all the top shooters told him to use the "correct" grip - then he expiramented w/ many variations & discovered something better. Will this stance work for you? One way to find out.

We did a poll on primer hardness some time back and I seem to recall most of us (BE included) agreed 1)CCI hands down hardest 2) Winchester & Remington in the middle and 3) Federal the softest/easiest to set off - hopefully while seated in a loaded round in the chamber of a gun & not in the press. If you call Dillon, they may (depending on who you talk to) bad-mouth Federal and/or CCI primers; and Lee Reloading also faults Federal, claiming that Federal primers leave primer residue behind (go look it up). Lee claims many things & some of it is true. Personally, I have loaded thousands of both brands through the 650 w/o problem but I choose to avoind the whole controversy & just use Winchester. No problems w/ Winchester.

I made the case for a nationals move to Area 8, but I would also be up for jhgtyre's suggestion of Las Vegas; it would make spending one week's worth of vacation time (out of the 2 or 3 weeks per year most Americans get) more marketable to everyone - especially to those with kids and/or a spouse since there is something else to do in the area during the Nationals week. TDean asked: "Jack, have you checked the availibility of a Springfield .40 double-stack? Someone on the forum got a response back from the custom shop a while back. I remember it being over 2k !!" They actually sell such things to the public? I have yet to see this gun advertised in their VERY common magazine ads or for sale through any of the SA dealers I have visited accross the US. In fact, I have never seen one at a match and I don't believe there were any SA 1911 widebodies at the XD match series. I appreciate their support for our sport and I am grateful for their revival of the imported Croatian HS2000 (aka the "XD"), however, it seems a bit cynical to use a gun like the .40 1911 widebody to win USPSA matches & then make the competition public jump through hoops to obtain one. For less than $2000, the S_I limited gun is a much better deal for the majority of the USPSA membership.

Try GT Targets at: http://www.gttargets.com/ Karl McKeever/CEO is an active USPSA competitor & sponsor of major matches including the Summer Blast. His targets are made of steel selected to take the counstant pounding of open guns launching 124 Montanas at well over 1330FPS - why does this matter? Because, many of the other steel target manufacturers out there produce steel targets w/ SASS/Cowboy action shooting in mind where all bullets are required to be non-jacketed lead and velocities are typically quite low. The steel they often use does not stand up as well as the steel used in Karl's targets. Besides, his match sponsorship matters to us all. Whoever you select, you might want to ask if their targets are specifically designed for USPSA/IPSC. DVC, D.

Bucky wrote: "If USPSA moves to the 5" rule, how will that make Glock feel? It is my understanding that Glock specifically designed this gun to fit the box. Will they be miffed that a rule changed severly lower the demand for a now how selling item? Glock is a VERY generous sponsor to this sport and it would be shame to loose them." How would they feel? Maybe S&W knows - didn't some of their guns get ruled out of IPSC?. I do not claim to be a USPSA history buff - there are others here who know more about this However, its my understanding that not only did they get shafted by building 7 & 8 shot revolvers suitable for IPSC that were later dis-allowed w/ the 6 shot rule, but later they developed that 356TSW round but the rule changes doomed it. Of course, you could still find some used TSW guns out there on the market and CDNN blew out the remaining ammo so it is technically possible to scrounge up a TSW gun/ammo and then go shoot it in Open division - only that has not happened in the real world. Rather, the program was a flop as a result of rule changes. Now Glock guns will still rule the roost - especially in Production - under all of the proposed rules I have seen. If not the 34 then the 17. The 24C is gone but I think IPSC Modified division is not far behind. However, I think Bucky's concerns are valid & I would hope that USPSA will think long and hard about the financial impact on sponsors before they make any more rule changes.

Still no word back from MV to the email from me or MGMCALEER as to what division changes he was thinking of when he responded to the candidate questions. I am fairly sure he is going to win. I realize he may be too busy to respond & that is OK by me, but I hope he at least read my e-mail and is aware of the opinions expressed on this thread. Many of us do not want to see any of the current Divisions eliminated. Yes, yes I damn well know the argument, "well you could still shoot your gun in Open minor - blah blah blah" I stand by my point: don't eliminate divisions or you will lose shooters.

Sam wrote: "and the maniacs like us that run with loaded guns. It's just easier to understand the other guy's point of view after he's let you crank a few rounds through his blaster." Amen! The Cowboys have growth in their sport beyond our wildest dreams and they even had a favorable report on communist National Public Radio a few years back. Like us, they actually draw right from holsters without shooting their toes off and run with loaded guns! (something that would ordinarily scare the hell out of your average NPR listener - not to mention most Bullseye shooters, hunters, clay target shooters, benchrest guys - and yes, I have tried those sports). Action pistol shooters of all types should stick together. It would piss me off if anybody - Cowboy or otherwise - took over my range unannounced. However, the way I see it, the Cowboys open people's eyes to action handgun sports in a non threatening manner. Folks are a lot more willing to consider allowing IDPA or IPSC at a club after they see the Cowboys put on a match without loss of life or limb. I may not choose to shoot cowboy, but I won't criticize it.

Patrick: I am w/ Kyle on this - move the nationals out of the boonies. How about here?: http://www.tcandsc.org/ While the resident USPSA IPSC club is underdeveloped, the facility has 6 bays that will soon be 10 or more in addition to a 300 yard rifle range and about a 1/2 mile strip of trap ranges. There are camping hookups and a river suitable for small boats/trout fishing and a clubhouse with a pool. As for the location benefits, its about 1.5 hours or less from D.C., Baltimore, and not much more to Pittsburg. Close to Baltimore/Washington International, Dulles & Reagan International Airport (so the families have something else to do including NRA Headquarters, the National Firearms Museum, and HQ range run by GM Greg Wodack). Plenty of train access too and NYC is within 4.5 hours drive. As far as local talent, Thurmont is driving distance for GMs J.J. Racaza, Phil Strader, Todd Jarret, and Matt Trout (among others). You would also attract well known shooters like former US Army Team shooter Julie Goloski and Junior A class shooter B.J. Norris - who was mentioned on the front page of the recent Glock/GSSF report. Area 8 would clearly be a better location for the nationals. The Thurmont location is only one example of where we -could- host the nationals if there were the motivation to move out of PASA park. I do not buy the excuse that there simply are no other suitable clubs - or clubs that could easily be made suitable - in the entire USA. The clubs are out there. What I question is whether there is any interest within USPSA to find a better location & thus, more potential for growth of our sport. Erik/Bear - agree 100% w/ comments on scoring & use of the classic targets. Like it or not, if we want media attention, we are inviting attack by using the current target. If we want the growth of paintball, follow their lead - they don't even call their equipment "guns", notice Gorilla called them "markers"?? I hate political correctness, but ignoring it will not make it disappear in the minds of the public. A switch to the classic targets is in order. As for scoring, the US is hooked on instant gratification & our current scoring system denies us (& the pontential new shooter) any satisfaction. Regards, D.C. Johnson TY 44934

Why not post basic information sheets at all the local ranges - including those that do not shoot IPSC - w/ contact info/website with match dates and sign up info?? Once you get the new people to show up, what then? While prizes, plaques and pins are a hot topic right now, why not offer incentives to all shooters that can be seen by the new shooters so they have something to strive for? I am thinking of a prize in L-10 of a box of 1000 primers for the winners of each class and in Production, a gift certificate for one Value Pack of Winchester 9mm (is the .40 available yet?). Also, at the beginning of the match, pick one shooter at random and make their match a free match - new shooters will see this too & feel like the club is giving back to them.

"VV310 is a fast...and high pressure powder. Be super-duper, setra specail careful with it. (Too hot, you could have pressure problems...too low, and the round might blow up instead of firing) If this is your first time relaoding...start with a middle of the pack load...get it out of a book. Oh...and 147's are at the heavy end for 9mm (I think). Heavy bullets can cause pressure problems too. Be careful." Plenty of good advice & I will add that you have yet another potential new reloader problem: bullet set-back. 1st) I load 147 Zeros over N310 & use it in a G17 & Steyr M9, at the max OAL for 9mm Glock mags, approx. 1.155" (may vary a bit). I get flat primers/pressure signs w/ Win sm pistol primers at 3.2 grns. of N310. I never had pressure problems with Titegroup & the loads I used were book loads (unlike N310/147 which you will never find in a book). Why the set-back warning? You mentioned a Dillon 650 - good choice, I use one too & they are hands down the BEST. However, I can't say the same for the Dillon re-size die. All the other Dillon dies are top-notch. With the resize die however, due to the extreme bell, the Dillon sized far less of the case than any other brand I have tried (RCBS & Lee). What portion it did size seemed larger than other dies. Why was that a problem? I had set-back problems. More crimp you might think? No, you should not be adjusting the crimp die to correct set-back problems in 9mm, you should get a tighter re-size die. Now, you must be thinking this is an answer for a non-existant problem since you have not had a set back or KB yet. However, my dillon size-die set-backs happened w/ Titegroup and thankfully, the gun jammed each time and I caught them. A set back w. Titegroup might have been bad- but imagine my N310 load setting back. This stuff gives pressure signs at normal AOL. At a drastically reduced OAL, I shudder to think that might happen. I agree 100% with those here that you are better off w N320 or Titegroup. For those who use the Dillon size die (maybe you even loaded 1000s of rounds on it) & have not had a problem, great, I am happy for you. IMHO, this die is less than ideal and I believe it has caused a number of KBs that were probably attributed to double charges when it was actually an oversized case that let the bullet slip.

A number of good points. As if it were not obvious from my comments on the other thread, I am not in favor of any Division changes in USPSA. That being said, Vince has raised a valid point since in many places (Area 8 for one) L10 is often (if not mostly) shot w/ built Limited STI/SVI .40s downloaded to 10. The divisions seem nearly identical and if all the stages in a match are built 10-round nuetral (i.e. movement between every 10 shots or less), a shooter should be able to complete the course in exactly the same time w/o additional challenge just by putting 10 rounds in his S_I mags instead of 20 or 21. What is the point? The point is, as Skyalker points out, L10 allows one to comply w/ the '94 magazine capacity ban even if many somehow find a way around it (for now) with certain guns. I can think of replacement tubes for exactly 3 brands: Glock, Para and S_I. Everyone else is SOL & has to hunt around for pre-bans - then hope they don't wear out. That is why we have L10. There is a point to L10 besides providing a home for .45 1911s. Is there an easy out? I do not think so. How about .45ACP only? That might get rid of many of the crossover STI/SVs (though I shot a .45 Edge for a while), it would also rule out many common 40s like the Glock22, CZs, EAAs, HK, XD40, 96, Sig, STI BLS, M40, Rugers, S&Ws, Kahrs, etc. etc. etc. How about Single Stack only? I thought 10 round Glock mags were single stack mags. Also, when I bought my Edge .45, it had the factory single stack grip frame on it - along with all the other features that the traditional single stack guns lack like dustcover, full profile slide, etc. It was a quick mod away from a double stack STI Edge. There are still fat mags that are also "single stack". Seems a bit arbitrary. Single action, single stack .45 only? Isn't that why we have the Singlestack classic? Besides, that leaves new shooters who happen to own non-1911s or .40s to go play in Limited - and to have to try to hunt down standard caps. I.e., many guns will not have a competitive home in USPSA. I don't think there is an easy answer. I'd leave the divisions as they are. I would also encourage the new USPSA president to table any further discussion of division mergers until we see the outcome of the AWB. Erik/Bear wrote: "(That one should stir something up)" Looks like you will have to try harder to get the wheelgun crowd pissed off good buddy! BTW, Bear is the only guy I know who has outright won a mixed-division match shooting a Production division gun (Black Creek last year).

I believe what reneet means is that L10 can and usually is shot (in area 8 anyway) with an Limited class STI or SVI .40 bull barrel, long heavy dust cover & tungsten guide rod, mag well, light tuned trigger & highcaps loaded to 10 rounds. Granted, Leatham has shown that he (& lesser mortals) can realistically compete in L10 with a nearly stock Springfield or Kimber 1911 in .45, scored major. Production is a different matter. While a bone stock Glock 17/Sig/92F/CZ/S&W auto in the hands of a 1st time shooter 'could' enter L10/scored minor, does anyone think that his or her scores would be competitive? Still, we still have no answer as to exactly what Division changes might be proposed by a potential president. It would be ideal to find out their answer & then discuss the merits of the proposed change. Flex - agreed & it needs to be remembered that there is a full government in place and the president cannot act alone. However, the issue here is the leadership of our president. The choices are defined by the campaign platforms of Minor v. Voigt v. Pomeroy. While the president is not a dictator, I would like to know in what direction our leader intends to lead us. Whether he/she will succeed in leading us down that road is a different issue.

Vince: Point taken & thanks, that is an important clarification. Without the direct financial interest in SV, it is less clear where MV may be headed. Thus, it would appear all the more crucial to have a response from MV as to which divisions "may need to be reduced" since the divisions under MV's consideration for reduction might even include Open and Limited. Only MV knows for certain. As has been pointed out, shooters in each division have substantial amounts invested in equipment particular to the division rules. When discussing the reduction of divisions, the stakes would appear quite high. Stewart: Thanks, your reply was quick. Will you post answers to the remaining candidate questions?

Here is the e-mail I forwarded to our president this morning. I will post his response if it is sent to me. Dear Mike, There is an important on-going discussion concerning the current election for USPSA presidency which involves your position on the future of our divisions. Please take a look at the forum run by IPSC Grand Master Brian Enos at www.brianenos.com under USPSA questions & titled "Minor v. Voigt". I have posted a direct link to the post below. Specifically, could you please clarify your position on which USPSA divisions may need to be reduced? Thank you for all of your hard work to date on behalf of the USPSA membership and I look forward to your response. Very best regards, D.C. Johnson, TY44934 http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...f=6&t=7314&st=0 Skywalker: Thanks again; I think your experiences with Production in Italy are relevant re: growth & new shooters. Also agree about modified division which, as you know, is not recognized in USPSA; I think it is a dying division everywhere else. BTW, I posted a link to your fine site over on Glocktalk since Rex powder came up & you guys have more experince with the stuff that we here in the US. DVC! Regards, C.

Issues: there seem to be 2 issues here: 1) the future of some un-named division in USPSA and 2) the USPSA presidency. To Stewart Pomeroy: would you please post your own responses to the exact candidate questions as they appeared in Front Sight? Specifically, this discussion suggests we are all interested in knowing exactly what you (and Mike Voigt) propose to do to our current divisions. It seems clear that Denise Minor would keep the divisions intact. Thanks to MGMCALEER, we know that Mike Voigt's response from Front Sight is: “I believe we may need to reduce the number of divisions we have currently.” The rest of his response addresses the possibility of aligning USPSA divisions w/ IPSC or vice versa, which tells us nothing about what USPSA divisions he wants to “reduce”. As of this morning, it does not appear that MV has responded to MGMCALEER’s request for clarification. I want to know the answer to this but it is predictable as to what it will be. Considering the fact that the company owned by MV does not produce or sell any revolvers or double action pistols, and that his company (along w/ STI) produce the majority of Limited and Open division guns used in the nationals (according to the equipment poll results published in Front Sight) I do not believe MV will propose to eliminate (or “reduce” - call it what you like) either Open or Limited division. Thus, I believe the divisions which MV has said “may need to [be] reduce[d]” are: Production, Revolver, and L10. I use the word “believe” because, again, we have not had a response from Mike Voigt. Accordingly, I will re-send MGMCALEER’s question and post the response (if any) here. I have owned and competed with the excellent quality and innovative SV and STI products in Limited and Open, as well as owning & competing with guns governed by Production & L10 divisions. While I have enjoyed Open & Limited, I see a dire need for the other divisions. I could not agree more with Vince Pinto’s statements & comment: “Limited 10 is overwhelmingly dominated by SAO pistols (e.g. the STI/SVI/Para/Caspian genre), as are Open and Limited Divisions. Production Division specifically prohibits SAO pistols, hence this is the only place where "mainstream" manufacturers (e.g. Glock, Beretta, S&W, CZ, H&K, Sig-Sauer, Walther etc.) are competitive. If you try to combine Limited 10 with Production, say "Bye Bye" to the mainstream manufacturers, their sponsorship dollars and all their fans, with absolutely nothing gained.” If one cares only about Open & Limited, one might not care what happens to Production or L10. Some might even be happy to see the Production shooters & their “minor only” scoring leave the USPSA scene altogether. However, some of us within the USPSA membership are very concerned with the declining growth of USPSA. The fact is that new shooters most often try USPSA for the first time with something other than a competitive Open or Limited division gun. The new shooters I see all want to use their own firearm, not some unfamiliar borrowed Open or Limited gun. If we “reduce” Production or L-10, could these future new shooters still try out USPSA in Open or Limited with guns from the "mainstream manufacturers” mentioned by Vince?? Sure, under the rules, but honestly ask yourself how many new shooters would return for a second match once they had to fight with x-number of additional mag changes and saw their minor scores compared to the rest of the crowd? When was the last time anybody in your local club won outright in combined results with a production gun? I think it has happened once here in Area 8 in recent memory - rare enough that it was a mere fluke of unusually good shooting by a rare individual (Eric Lund). In reality, new shooters with "mainstream manufacturers" guns would quickly realize that the price of admission to competitively shoot, not just shoot, but competitively shoot in USPSA would be the price of a purpose built & modified Open or Limited division gun, which (not) coincidently you could buy right from very few manufacturers not listed among the “mainstream manufacturers”. Would it be very long before such new shooters took their “mainstream manufacturers” guns w/ minor PF ammo and switched to shooting IDPA? Would the manufacturer's support follow those shooters or stay in USPSA to help out sales of some other company? The idea that we “may” need to “reduce” L10 or Production division seems a perfect way get rid of potential new shooters & ensure the continued decline of USPSA So, what is the candidate’s answer to the question of where our USPSA divisions are headed? I think we deserve a clear & detailed response from all the candidates on this. I will not comment on issue #2, that is, the USPSA presidency.

I have run 2 lbs of titegroup through a Dillon measure's hopper without reaction. I would suspect that RCBS is using a different type pf plastic than Dillon & that it is reacting w/ Titegroup's unusually high nitro content as opposed to other powders (just speculation however). Duane - are you still in contact w/ the tech you spoke w/ at Hodgdon? Perhaps they could shed some light on this.

Zero 108 - perhaps that or the lighter .355s for .380 (88 &90 grn) might be the ticket for low recoil GSSF ammo. The complaint from my friends was: "using value pack or blazer 115, the competition 17C w/ a red dot does not seem any faster than a regular 17 w/ same ammo - can you improve on it?" I set about building a load to work the ports- power factor be damned. Maybe the answer is in 88s , 90s or 108s at a lower PF. Will give it a try. Thanks for the thoughts on this.