Carlos

+ 1 Where is that well-made argument posted by Ron Avery about how USPSA today has too many gimmicks & games that have NOTHING to do with shooting skill? EDIT TO ADD (before I get called on it) - yeah, I am guilty of having designed that kind of stage back when Shooters was still around; the one I can recall designing had either a red or a black card you looked at, but you had to shoot your way through most of a regular stage and THEN remember to shoot the right targets out of an array of 4 at the very end of the stage. But I would not design that sort of stage in the future.

Congrats Larry! Sounds like you are moving up and I think you deserve it because we all know you have worked hard over the years, first volunteering to head the Juniors program and also representing H&K. Quick Q: will these law enforcement tactical 3gun shoots be open to regular civilians / USPSA members? Sounds great and I know we would all like to give it a try. Thanks again for your support of the sport Larry, D.

Smart move. Did the same & had NO issues. I even used a factory cardboard ammo box that already had the ORM-D printed on it (ask for one at the gunshop). Taking ammo to a counter person is just asking for an argument. Follow the laws, mark it right, and leave it for the driver - he is only concerned with the bar code you attach. What about the corporate policy to use a UPS hub? Corporate policy is only corporate policy. I.e. - private policy is NOT law nor regulation. Just policy, that's it. Most you have to lose is UPS failing to honor your insurance claim (how often have you had to file UPS insurance claims? I've never had to). What is the value of one batch of your reloads? What is the value of 2 or more trips to the UPS hub to fight with ignorant counter monkeys? I'll take the home pick-up route thanks.

Good point. Have not cleaned my Limited or production barrels in over 25k+ rounds THere's a guy named Wil Schuemann who makes a pretty good 1911 barrel. Since he made the barrel, I guess he knows what he's talking about when he advises to never clean the barrel - so long as you only shoot jacketed bullets that is. Cleaning? I don't miss it. But again - there is no denying the cost factor of lead. To each his own.

I used to shoot so much that lead exposure became an issue. I don't like shooting lead nor do i like being around it while volunteer RO'ing for those who do, though there's nothing to do about it, so I never complain. It can make seeing the target difficult too. Guess its coming back due to bullet prices.

Seems like this is the SECOND time such a situation has happened with Vihta Vouri in recent memory (yes i realize their distributor has changed to hodgdon). Ever since the US World Shoot team got screwed by the failure to ship their ammo internationally, I am really not surprised by import/export fiascos we continue to hear about. And to think I was once interested in working in the field of international import/export.

Note of clarification: It is not legal under IPSC Production division rules to remove a Glock striker safety. Why? Because there has NEVER been a Glock sent from either the US or Austrian factory that had that safety removed. Therefore, it must remain in the gun to be legal. In contrast, the one and only CZ factory in the Czech Republic has shipped SP-01s without the firing pin safety included and the lack of any firing pin safety in the gun is a recognized factory configuration that is legal at all levels of competition, including the world shoot (ask Vince on the Global Village if you don't believe me). As Angus pointed out, the lack of that CZ firing pin safety is exactly like all the 1911s without the dreaded "series 80" safeties and it is every bit as safe as any 1911 - if not more so. Regards, d.

William F. Buckley - who died on Wednesday - once said that all of our country's modern ills stem from the deterioration of our school system. I agree with him.

I agree. Besides, a de-cocker is a mechanical device that can and eventually will fail, resulting in an ND. In contrast, manually lowering the hammer will never fail so long as I do my part (and I take personal responsibility for my actions - instead of relying on a mechanical device like the one that failed above - see first post).

Media frequently gets it wrong, but there are 3 consistent themes listed in all the stories: -alleged fraud -alleged money-laundering -alleged "firearms violations" (which is automatic in this case, if the first 2 are proven). One common cause rumored (though only on the net) is: "disgruntled employee." I've no idea if thats true or not. But if so, it is possible that this might be a case of a single person making a sworn statement to BATFE. It might also be a tough case to prove. In any event, Cav Arms seems to have really supported the 3gun sports - so yesterday was certainly a set back for us competition shooters.

You are, as usual, right. Read a long time ago a quote from someone in my grandfather's generation that went something like: "When I was a kid, we had MUCH greater access to guns than today's kids. Difference is, we knew better than to use those guns on each other." As far as what's going on with these recent ones? I wish I knew & also had an answer as to how to reign these violent people in.

For club matches those targets are GREAT! Where a range has limited distance to work with (like here in A8), the small targets do the best job possible of simulating distance (yeah, I know - there is nothing quite like the real thing). I used to help run a 3gun at an indoor range - we had 25 yards max distance so small targets were the norm - as were occasional low-light 3gun shoots. The small targets are not approved for the big shoots though.

Is that an electric egg-beater he is using??!? His wife will be PISSED when she finds out!

Go cheap. Why? These are just back up sights for emergencies. That's it. I don't experience many emergencies in my life. If you want competitive irons for Limited, then buy top quality fixed irons installed on a dedicated upper, and don't rely on an expediant flip up. Does an M-40 Sniper rifle have back-up irons? Does an issue Barret? Sure - but how often are they needed? Besides, we all started with irons so we know how to use them. I have cheap YHMs on my gun, true, but I still train/shoot 99% of the time using plan A (optic) and 1% back up sights (I zeroed them & left them there for emergencies). Magpull's sight looks like an excellent option.

Decision expected in June or July. North's post on the prior page (page 8) quotes the central premise of the S.G.'s position. (quoted in part et the end of this post). So, will the S. Ct. follow the S.G.'s suggestion and remand to the D.C. Circuit? Possibly. Why? A few reasons I can think of: 1) The S.G. asserts that the D.C. Circuit did not employ the correct standard (strict v. mid level scrutiny), and therefore the outcome of the D.C. Circuit's analysis is flawed. But, the S.Ct. cannot simply take over for the D.C. Circuit and apply the "correct" standard suggested by the S.G. Why? Because the Supreme Court is an appellate body whose function is to adjudicate, not to create, a factual record and they typically review the record as it existed before the court below, in light of the arguments made on appeal. Therefore, the most prudent course of action could be to remand for further fact finding (question of fact) under the new standard given to the D.C. Circuit by the S. Ct. (question of law having been resolved). I believe such an outcome would be unfortunate. But again, is it likely? Another thought: 2) Justices discuss and debate decisions during lengthy conferences. Like jury deliberations, these discussions are not public, and thus no one can verify the exact process. But it appears that compromise is common. A remand could resolve a possible impasse. Alternatively, Justices have the option of concurring, dissenting, or entering a combination of these dispositions. In addition, remands from the S. Ct. are extremely common. 3) Is there any cause for optimism here? The ONLY thing I can find is the following possible flaw in the S.G.'s reasoning: "whether D.C.’s trigger-lock provision, D.C. Code § 7-2507.02, can properly be interpreted (as petitioners contend, see Br. 56) in a manner that allows respondent to possess a functional long gun in his home." Problem is, the S.Ct. has already selected its OWN wording of the issue presented, and that issue squarely asks whether handguns are included in the 2nd amendment (provided its an individual right). The S.G.'s proposal seems to dodge the question - or at least posit that a ban on handguns is compatible with a finding that the 2nd amendment is an individual right -something which the S.Ct. seems unwilling to find if I read their question correctly. In any event, here is the S.G.'s quote, thanks to North: "When, as here, a law directly limits the private possession of “Arms” in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice, the Second Amendment requires that the law be subject to heightened scrutiny that con- siders (a) the practical impact of the challenged restrictions on the plaintiff’s ability to possess firearms for lawful purposes (which depends in turn on the nature and functional adequacy of available alternatives), and ( the strength of the government’s interest in enforcement of the relevant restriction. The court of appeals, by contrast, appears to have adopted a more categorical approach. The court’s deci- sion could be read to hold that the Second Amendment categorically precludes any ban on a category of “Arms” that can be traced back to the Founding era. If adopted by this Court, such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns. However, the text and history of the Second Amendment point to a more flexible standard of review. The determination whether those laws deprive respondent of a functional firearm depends substantially on whether D.C.’s trigger-lock provision, D.C. Code § 7-2507.02, can properly be interpreted (as petitioners contend, see Br. 56) in a manner that allows respondent to possess a functional long gun in his home. And if the trigger-lock pro- vision can be construed in such a manner, the courts below would be required to address the factual is- sue—not fully explored during the prior course of the litigation—whether the firearms that are lawfully avail- able to respondent are significantly less suited to the identified lawful purpose (self-defense in the home) than the type of firearm (i.e., a handgun) that D.C. law bars respondent from possessing. To the extent necessary, further consideration of those questions should occur in the lower courts, which would be in the best position to determine, in light of this Court’s exposition of the proper standard of review, whether any fact-finding is necessary, and to place any appropriate limits on any evidentiary proceedings. Moreover, even if the existing record proved to be adequate, initial examination of those issues is typically better reserved for the lower courts."

Hi Bomadera, You did not give us much info, like: gun, OAL, bullet, Division, etc. Are you talking about MINOR (for Production Division) ?? Then, yes, N-310 is a good choice. With 200s, you only need to exceed 625 FPS. You could even use (for MINOR) some Clays in .40. If you are talking about Major, - then, STOP! -Unless you are a very experienced handgun cartridge reloader with a firm understanding of set-back (and how to prevent it) then forget about N310 and stick with N320. You really MUST load long for N310 and you can only do that with a STI/SV or Tanfoglio that can take 1.200" or LONGER. Load N310 short and you WILL blow up your gun. Yes, that combo has been used by some of our top shooters, but its not a forgiving load at all and its not suitable for most reloaders. Approach with extreme caution. Or, better yet, stick with N320 since its nearly as good for competition.

2 interesting developments in the case: 1) Oral argument set for March 18, BUT they denied TX' request to argue and granted the anti-gun solicitor general's argument time - indicating at a minimum they are interested in hearing out his position that strict scrutiny does not apply and that the case ought to be remanded. Here is the story, thanks to the legal times: Gun Case Argument Schedule is Set By Tony Mauro Legal Times February 25, 2008 In a brief order on today's order list the Supreme Court dashed the hopes of gun rights advocates who hoped to have two lawyers and additional time arguing their cause before the Supreme Court when it hears arguments in the historic case D.C. v. Heller on March 18. Without explanation, the Court denied the motion of Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz for argument time on the side of Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky, who has argued the pro-Second Amendment position from the start of the case. But the Court did agree to give Solicitor General Paul Clement 15 minutes to argue, in addition to the 30 minutes for each side in the case. The Court's action can be read as a small but not insignificant victory for supporters of D.C.'s handgun control ordinance at issue in the case. Cruz had argued to the Court that he should be heard on behalf of 31 states favoring a broad view of the Second Amendment, because Solicitor General Paul Clement's brief in the case is "contrary" to the position of gun rights supporters. While Clement supports an "individual right" view of the Second Amendment, he advocates a standard of review that critics say will allow too many gun regulations to stand. Clement also urged vacating and remanding the lower court ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the case, the first ever to strike down a gun regulation on Second Amendment grounds. Walter Dellinger of O'Melveny & Myers, who will argue in defense of the D.C. handgun ban, had opposed the Texas motion, but supported Clement's request for added argument time. It is very common for the Court to say yes to a request from the solicitor general for argument time as amicus curiae no matter where he stands. As for states, in recent years they have won argument time with greater frequency — four times last term alone — though this term the success rate has been lower. One factor working against Texas in the D.C. case is that states are not unanimous on the Second Amendment issue; New York, joined by Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico, filed a brief on the gun control side. So, even though Clement's brief lends support to both sides, the net effect of today's Court action is that the justices will hear 45 minutes of advocacy from those who want the lower court ruling eliminated, and 30 minutes from those who want it upheld."" 2) In another development, Montana is warning that if the S.Ct. does not affirm the individual right of citizens to own guns, then Montana's agreement to join the USA could be invalid (wild stuff here - but they are NOT kidding about this). Here is the LINK or try: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d.../757685551/1002

Not sure, but I bet this guy was not using re-loaded ammo: I bet he was surprised when that happened.

Hi Henning - I agree with you as to the IMI frames and slides being cast by Tanfoglio in Italy. Polygonal barrels appear to be Italian too. But final fitting, grips, and some completion/finish work on the IMI/Jericho 941 line (aka "baby" desert eagle) is done by IMI in Israel - so they can truthfully claim "MADE IN ISREAL" as it states on the gun. Parts are, as you state, interchangeable. Regards, D.

I shot and STI Edge 5.0 in .45 for the 1st 3 yrs in USPSA. My STI Edge was built by STI - meaning they built the gun, put the parts together, etc. (ie Stock STI-built gun). It was during the ban so mags were STI as that was all that was available (legally). Tubes, when replaced, were STI that were made by STI. Had them tuned by Bevin & used his mag springs. Ramp cut was the only one available on STI: Nowlin/Wilson. It was never 100% reliable. Sold it in 2003. Sent mags to Bevin who turned them into .40 mags. Bought an SV and built a .40 top for it - it runs well.

Glad it was the railway tie that took the hit . . . and not the RO's head!

Hi Asko: I realize you are in Finnland, and thus have IPSC rules (not USPSA rules) so 140s are too long. What about Jonnie's site?: www.strictlyIPSC.com Is that guy in Sweden not making any more? Regards, D.

Sounds like what they REALLY wanted is exactly what they got: they made it economically impossible to have a shooting range in that location. Result: range shuts down & gun owners stop shooting (or passing on their sport to family and friends). Today is a victory - for the anti-gun forces. I am sorry for your loss. Hope you all can find a nearby venue soon. Why is it we hear a lot about range closings but almost nothing about range openings?

Agreed. Plus, Glock 17 gets you into IPSC Production Division, whereas the Glock 34 is banned.

re: Scandium - no argument here as to durability. I carry a 340PD with the early Scandium cylinder. I understand that S&W has now discontinued using that metal for cylinders and current guns come with a blackened stainless cylinder. Plus, during the ICORE I shot with it, extraction was sticky and not reliable. re Taurus and Ruger: I am not argueing the status quo (in fact, see my tag line). My hope is that in the future, both companies will get a clue as to how important competition and customer service can be to their bottom line & that they start paying more attention to us. I guess I am still on the optimistic side as far as the possibilities. Hope Ruger & Taurus are reading this forum.