Carlos

Hi Olp & good post. I have to load 9mm major "short" for my HJC Glock. You mentioned that you are starting out with a gun that requires shorter OALs. For starters, please stick with 124 grn bullets; I used the excellent Montana Gold 124s (either the JHP or the CMJ-RN). For safety, I always use a EGW "U" die which prevents bullet set back. For powder, the old Tanfoglio stand-by was & is HS-6; there is a lot of data here and some of it should include loads under 1.160" OAL. I would suggest starting with that powder since its available, cheap and safe. As for pressure, the 9mm case can take it using a variety of loads the book data is simply VERY weak. Forget about what is in the books. The book loads have to account for weak and antique guns that are also 9mm. Comps have no effect on lowering pressure. If you still have difficulty finding Tanfoglio loads under 1.160", do a google search on "Jeff Maass reloading" which should bring up his old data for the 9x21 and can serve as a starting point. NOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - that data is for 175+ Power Factor!! It MUST be reduced. It is also for 9x21 and says you should not use it for 9mm major - but, remember, you are going to REDUCE those loads at least 15% - 20% to start & carefuly chrono from there. Finally, consider this: of the 9x21 was safe at short OALs loaded all the way to 180 PF, don't you think that lower 165+ PF loads would also be safe? The published data is weak - VERY weak. Regards, D. BTW, the powders I used were N350, 3N38 and Power Pistol. Of those, N350 will also work well for your purposes.

I think the original ones that Angus made or had made up for him were welded up from CZ parts. Angus showed prototypes a long time ago - but I am guessing the problem was mass-producing what is really a hand-made part on a cost-effective basis. Tanfoglio has had these for a while - but the safety detent systems are completely different from the CZ's system. Looking forward to whatever comes out for the TS.

Awesome! Great job Alan and THANKS - this is going to be a great match.

I think there is. You just need to go international (which Dave did). LOL, I was thinking the same thing. We have been talking about Limited division or S_I 2K vs Glock's and such. Did Dave win Standard at a WS with a Glock? No Dave won Production at the WS. I think Luca meant to say that there is a place above US National Champion, winning the World Shoot. Thanks for catching that Spook - I should have been more clear. My point is: a) there is no significant diference in accuracy between the stock Production division glock Dave used and a Glock used in Limited or IPSC's Standard. Dave's win at the world shoot required him to: 1) shoot MORE accurately due to the Minor scoring for Production division and 2) IPSC's targets are smaller and often further than USPSA's targets. c) The Limited Glock is more than accurate enough for USPSA (that is the point Flex was making - and he has the stats & experience to prove it). So, we can collectively dismiss as untrue the argument that: "you need to spend $2000 for a sufficiently accurate USPSA gun." It simply is not true.

Hi Ron! I remember that quote! I think you are right about it appearing on GT. Funny thing about that paraphrased quote & the people who might believe it: by "better gun," most people are thinking "1911 = better gun." Yet, Sevigny DOES shoot a custom 1911 in the single stack nationals AND he practices with it; I know because he came here to our section & shot a club match with his 1911 before the last nationals. He did not win the single stack nationals (even though he was shooting a "better" gun). Spook wrote: "I think the S_I vs Glock boils down to this in the end. You can do equally well with either, but the illusion that you're shooting a better gun makes people happy (or, the illusion that they're shooting the worse gun makes them want the "better" one...)" -er, is that the equivalent of the "placebo effect" in the shooting world?

JayC - I wanted to chime in on your broken extractor issue. On my primary SP01, I've broken 5 extractors in the past year and a half (probably 15-20k rounds). After the most recent breakage, I noted that the end of my extractor protrudes about 0.3 mm forward of the plane of the breech face (for comparison, the extractor end sits flush with the breech face on another well-used SP01 that has not had extractor issues). In the past, I had checked this area and noted that it did not contact the barrel in battery, however it may have been contacting the barrel as it unlocked. To remedy this, I added a little more clearance to make sure there is no longer any possibility that the extractor is making contact with the barrel at anytime during the cycle. If this holds up, I figure the problem is solved. You may want to have a look at yours to see if this is a possibility. I'd be interested in what you note. That makes a lot of sense. I have yet to break any extractors in my CZs, but I do carry a spare. I have broken 1911 extrators though. No tuning required on the CZ extractor. I just replace the extractor spring every 2 years with a Wolff XP spring.

Hahaha! Yeah - right. Like 35 yard targets EVER happen at the typical USPSA match these days. You must be confusing our current hoser sport (USPSA) with IPSC where they actually DO put tough targets further than 5-10 yards away. True, we used to shoot 50 yard standards in USPSA. Nowadays, we just hose. Its sad. AND - the fact that 99% of the targets are easy close range targets make that $2000 gun (the one that can hold under 3" at 50 yards) even LESS justifiable, IMHO. But, even if the targets are 35 yards away, the Glock can easily keep up. Sevigny's Limited win was no fluke. Niether was his L-10 win. Or all the other Glock wins. Remember, the Glock also won in IPSC when it was scored minor AND the targets' A zones were smaller AND they were farther away. But if you believe you NEED 3" at 50 yards, John Nagel can now build you an Open gun to do it without resorting to an STI, SV or SPS frame/slide. Flex wrote: "Just don't tell me a Glock isn't good enough." Agreed.

I owned 2 CZ "Tactical Sports" / Standard IPSC .40s and one of them came with CZ factory buffers; they were a hard black plastic and fit all my other CZs in 9mm and 40. Buffer Technologies probably makes one.

Welcome Ignatz! Noticed you shoot a 625. I am sure the other revolver shooters here will be along shortly w/ their welcome. Good Q. on lead bullets - especially considering the stagering bullet price increases lately because now more people will be shooting lead. I have noticed more smoke on hot days than in cold weather. The biggest problems I have had with lead were shooting indoors and shooting long strings in certain lighting conditions. DEADEYE: RE Titegroup(TG): the problem with TG is not really its fast burning speed. For example, Clays also burns fast but does not smoke as much as TG. The real problem with TG is how hot it burns. TG has the highest Nitro content of any of the double-based powders (about 37% according to Hodgdon & the Blue Press article). The high nitro content seems to contribute to the heat TG produces. The extra heat seems to make lead and poly-coated bullets smoke more. I use Solo 1000 with both jacketed and lead. Solo 1000 is a single base fast burning powder. (Ignatz - good 1st post BTW). Regards, D.

I could not agree more - and very well said! I see the SAME thing here in our area. Frankly, I am sick of seeing USPSA being the "S_I and Glock Show" - and frankly, the situation is bad for America. Why? The high dollar guns so prevelent in our sport DO have a profound impact on the handgun owners we are trying to attract. The reality is, we (USPSA) are tiny. We are miniscule. Go to the SHOT show sometime & you will see what I mean. Even the Cowboy/single action shooters are far larger than us - and WE came before them! Not only that, USPSA and IDPA are supposed to be the "practical" sports - but we're smaller than a group using replica antiques. And what do you see every time you go into a gunshop? Its not S_I. The gun-owning public is buying handguns more than ever. But, when they show up at our shoots, they see or are told (or both) that what they just bought is somehow "not good enough" - at least not good enough for "our" shoots. And then they are gone. True - there are many reasons newbies don't stick with the sports besides the universal $2000 guns. But the prevelence of $2000 guns is a big part of the turn off (including the $2000 CDP guns). So, USPSA/IDPA stay tiny & insignificant because "handgun-owning-America" stays away from us. That is, I believe, a lose-lose situation that hurts America since we could otherwise help out the millions of handgun owners who desperately NEED help with their gun-handling and shooting skills. And, is what the average own really "not good enough" ?? Even for L10? Hardly. The situation could be improved if they saw & met USPSA competitors shooting guns like those that are actually sold in the average gunshop, and sold to the very people we need to attract: the average gun owner. Finally, I appreciate our sponsors (thanks guys). But the $2000+ guns that have been the trend over the past 15 years and that virtually EVERYONE uses in Limited and Open have become counter-productive and unecessary. I hope that trend changes as it would be in everyone's best interest.

I was wondering about the rotating barrel thing too; it appears similar to Beretta's PX 4 Storm LINK TO BERETTA USA PX4 -that gun has not really caught on in popularity - at least in this section of USPSA - but is it a viable action? No doubt about that. Beretta's been making such guns for quite a while (in addition to their much older 90-series tilting block guns). Flex - 'smatter with a 9mm 180 grian over some N310??!? I thought you were FOR having .22s in USPSA? (-or do some of us already have them ).

I like it almost as much as the typical cover of the Blue Press! Good to see "the better half" well-represented.

. So whats the deal, are there 2 different Steel Challenge factions happening with slightly different rules or what? From what I have found the movement rule at these two major steel matches are in fact different, someone correct me if I'm wrong. SCSA http://www.steelchallenge.com/ http://www.steelchallenge.com/ARCHIVE/2003/rules.htm US National Steel Championship http://www.ussteelshoot.com/ http://www.ussteelshoot.com/MatchRules.htm So are there 2 different movement rules depending on if you go to the original official SCSA in California, or if you go to the 'new' US national Steel match in Florida? Why do we need consistent rules? (answer should be obvious to everyone). I'd wager there are at least a half-dozen sets of inconsistent rules for the various "major" steel matches around the USA right now. -we (USPSA) can't do anything about that sad state of affairs for any steel match save one: the one we now own: Steel Challenge. Again, I don't care WHAT they do with that 1x per year California carnival big money match; most of us will never shoot it & we don't care what happens to it; most of us don't even magazines legal in that state anymore. I only care about the REST of the USPSA-owned steel challenge because that is where my USPSA money goes and that is what I might shoot someday. Should there be any rules at all? If they are not consistent from match to match, can we even call them "rules"??

Looks likely. At least S&W realized that low bore axis is important. Maybe STI can request a design-alteration? On the other hand, STI has shown they stand behind their products - even if they don't actually make them (like their STI Spartan 1911) and STI supports us - not to mention the possibility of contingency $$$. While I'm hardly going to give up my CZs, I am pleased to see more brand competition in Production.

I think the idea of local matches, state shoots, etc. will appeal to a lot of folks who just don't have the resources to make the trip to Piru.Carlos: Give me your honest opinion. Should our club list all categories (see I learned something here) on our entry form? Should there be a minimum number of shooters in a category to be recognized? For instance, what would be better, to put a lone shooter in their own category or to mix and match? I have no problem using all of the categories, but I really don't want to buy a bunch of trophies that will go in the garbage. Hi Ron! I re-read your post from page 2 (folks- Ron & I are talking about the Wyoming State steel match Ron is running - see below). Looks like its a trophy-only match and you are planning to have trophies done ahead of time. The presents quite a dilema as far as what categories to recognize! Most simple/least expensive arrangement is only 4 trophies: Limited/Open/Revolver/.22 and call it a day. There will be some disappointed shooters with that system I imagine! Why would I even bring it up? You let us know: "Many of you have more attendance at a club match than we have at a state match. In fact, I would wager (barring a crash) that I can pick the top two finishers in each division when I do registration. At our state IPSC match last year we had exactly one production shooter, only two revolver shooters, etc. Would you rather we allow people to combine into fewer divisions, or should we recognize everything and have 0, 1, or 2 shooters per division? The fact if the matter is, around these parts the folks who are really into Steel Challenge are from the ranks of NRA Action Pistol. So, should we start making additional divisions around their rules? As another poster pointed out, we need to eventually migrate towards a uniform rulebook that doesn't try to make divisions all over the place and let shooters gear up accordingly. My whole point is this, collectively USPSA members have a lot of experience and there is no reason why we can't over come any obstacles in the path to success." I agree there is a way to collectively overcome these obstacles, though I'll leave it to those with more creative ideas & more big match organizing experience to figure out the best solution in this case. Ron - thanks in advance for making the Steel Challenge (or something darn close to it) a reality outside of Piru.

GUYS - Flex has clarified the issues for us and there are TWO (2) issues impacting this discussion (please pick ONE and STATE WHICH ONE you are talking about in all future posts here): 1) "The" Steel Challenge match, held ONCE per year in Piru California. I will probably never make it to that match nor will MOST USPSA members, so most really do not care that much what goes on out there. Keep it as is for now if it works. I think prize tables are dumb and would rather see lower match fees, but again, I don't care HOW they do it in California & so I should not comment on "THE" challenge further. 2) The Discipline of Steel challenge - which MIGHT be coming to a range near me (or you). THAT matters to a whole lot more folks here among the be.com community for our future. Remember, USPSA bought THE WHOLE SHOOTING MATCH - including club matches. That being said, I see Steel Challence being a potential bridge between USPSA and other pistol sports - including those who want to shoot .22s - we've all seen there is demand for .22 shooting opportunities, but not as a traditional USPSA Division). For the club matches, I'd like to see the SASS divisions included too - and as they shoot SA revolvers that no USPSA shooters compete with, why not leave them alone as well? Granted the only results are "combined results" and the divisions are actually "categories" - but lets not alienate people we have not even met & don't regularly meet without giving these different categories a chance. (thanks Flex). I would point out, however, that what makes for a good big match, doesn't translate to the local monthly matches. And, that is what the SC organization never capitalized on. I think there were something like 31 listed clubs that were affiliated with the SC organization. Of those, I'll bet that half of them were not current with their dues and such. SC never offered out any support and guidance to the clubs at the local level. We need to remember that USPSA didn't just buy "a match". If we don't think about it in a way that gets the matches built out on the local level, then we are stuck with just "a match". Thus, lowering the benefits of the purchase.

Clark has been around for a few years posting his experiments on "overcharges" in handguns. He keeps upping the charge wights just to see what will happen (ie don't buy a used handgun from Clark!). Then he posts his findings. In sum, most modern handguns we use in USPSA or IDPA are very strong and they are built with significant safety margins to protect the shooter. On the one hand, he is subjected to the same criticism we USPSA shooters have endured for years when we reject the watered down data in published reloading manuals (which are often written by liability lawyers and intended for sheep). He is also good enough to share his experience with us (thank you for that Clark). On the other hand, Clark's goal is to test to destruction - which is the opposite goal of a USPSA shooter/reloader.

Happy to help out. I think your current TG load is excellent for felt recoil. Plus, its in the loading manuals and is therefore safe to use. Accuracy with TG is usually great (unless you try using plated bullets - but that's another issue). As far as felt recoil, there ARE options for even softer loads than TG and the 147 - but they are not published and probably not good choices just starting out. In the 2005 IDPA S&W Winter Nationals, Phil Strader took 2nd place in SSP with a Glock 17 using the 147 grn Zero JHP; I know because I loaded the ammo he used for that match. The load, while similar to yours, shot softer by virtue of N-310 powder. How much softer than your TG load? Not much. And the load is not a published one. There are others using an unpublished load using straight clays powder - but again, its not published and I cant' vouch for its safety. I think you are probably doing great so far in using excellent bullets & a safe, low recoil, clean consistent powder. Regards, D.

Hi Doug! I used to live in MD; dunno about the USNA team. But, I can shed some light on Annapolis area shoots: there are none. I used to shoot bowling pins at the 12th Precinct Pistol club just south of there; the membership was super-paranoid about pin shooting and forced the pin-shooters to actually START each run pointing the pistol AT the pin! Holsters were out of the question; even "low-ready" was considered "too unsafe." You couldn't even touch your gun - they made you unbag under supervision at the start of the shoot & you had to leave your pistol on the firing line while you stayed 10 feet away waiting for your turn to shoot. We put up with it anyway. Then, other club members (non pin shooters) decided to "run a safety test" - whereby they surrounded a pin table with garbage bag plastic, shot pins and looked for any holes in the plastic. You can see where this is headed. Pin shooting banned (by fellow gun owners no less!). Those same dumb a-holes who banned pin shooting probably still do some sort of shooting there (at least they had an archery field course) - but forget about any sort of shooting supported by this forum. There was also another club near there that used to host the Maryland Practical Shooters Association (MPSA) but they ran the USPSA club out of their facility years ago - I can't imagine that they are any more friendly towards any type of action shooting today. It just seems the whole central part of the state of MD is beyond hope. There are great programs in other parts of the state though: Thurmont is home to MPSA now; Easter Shore has a great club with nice folks; Waldorf hosted USPSA for a long time & still has 3 gun; just to their south is Sanners lake and they are reported to have great IDPA & rifle side shoots; and jsut over the border near York PA, Howard has one of the best USPSA matches in the area, along with occasioanl 3 gun and rifle shoots. Regards, "the other Doug"

Question is: what are your PERSONAL accuracy demands? The load/combo you have been testing should be MORE than accurate enough for IDPA. Please remember that IDPA has limits on the distance at whcih targets can be placed. For some reason though, your current load seems to be insufficient to meet your expectations? Can I ask what you expect from your load/gun at what distance? In any event, at the accuracy extremes of the 9mm handgun, some 50 yard Bullseye shooters are getting well under 3" groups at 50 yards (this is of course far more than anyone shooting IDPA would ever need or realize). The thread is HERE or try: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59057 There is a 147 load listed in a recent thread about their loads, though they use guns other than your G17. While the load listed there is no doubt accurate, I'd suggest to you the following: focus more on the other critical element of your IDPA shooting: time - and not expend any more effort on fidling or testing an alread adequate IDPA load (the 3.4 grn one in your first post). Regards, D. PS - I would avoid Unique at all costs; it is filthy, smokey, and temp sensitive PLUS it will kick harder than your TG load. If you explore V V brand (an excellent, though expensive powder), your needs might be best served by a 147 and either N330 or N320.

From SCOTUSblog.com: Oral arguments set for Tuesday, March 18 in Heller v. D.C. They have reserved an entire day to hear arguments. Here is the announcement: "The Supreme Court, releasing Tuesday its calendar of oral argument for the session beginning March 17, set Tuesday, March 18, as the day for oral argument in the Second Amendment case — a test of what the Constitution means when it guarantesd a “right to keep and bear arms.” The argument is the only one scheduled for that day; the case is District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The March calendar includes a total of 12 cases, with one day to include three cases — Monday, March 24. The morning arguments are at 10 and 11 a.m.; the afternoon argument will begin at 1 p.m." On another note, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial, titled: "Misfire at Justice" which criticizes the administration's brief in the Heller case; here is the LINK TO WALL STREET JOURNAL or try: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120096108857304967.html.html Here is part of the article, from the link above: "The amicus brief filed by Solicitor General Paul Clement agrees with this part of the D.C. Circuit ruling. But then it goes on a bender about violent felons wielding machine guns, urging the Supreme Court to reject the legal standard applied by Judge Silberman. Instead, the SG invites the Supremes to hand down an elaborate balancing test that would weigh "the strength of the government's interest in enforcement of the relevant restriction" against an individual's right to bear arms. This is supposedly necessary because of this single phrase in Judge Silberman's 58-page ruling: "Once it is determined -- as we have done -- that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them" (our emphasis). This has alarmed the lawyers at Justice, eliciting their dire warnings that somehow Judge Silberman's logic would bar the regulation of M-16s, felons with guns, or perhaps even Sherman tanks. This is bizarre. The key word in Judge Silberman's opinion is "ban." His opinion readily concedes that regulating guns and banning them are not the same. He explicitly notes that felons may be barred from owning guns without implicating the Second Amendment and points out that weapons of a strictly military nature are not encompassed by the right to bear arms. Nothing in Judge Silberman's opinion precludes reasonable restrictions on weaponry. More ominously, if Mr. Clement's balancing test were adopted by the High Court, it would be an open invitation to judges nationwide to essentially legislate what is or isn't proper regulation. The beauty of Judge Silberman's standard is that it carved out wide Constitutional protections for arms -- such as "most" hand guns and hunting rifles -- that Americans now own and that might reasonably have been anticipated by the Founders. The Bush Justice Department is instead inviting the Supreme Court to uphold an individual right to bear arms in principle but then allow politicians and judges to gut it in practice. The District of Columbia has argued that it has a strong governmental interest in a near-total handgun ban. To support its claims it has trotted out all manner of emotive appeals and dubious sociology to attenuate the right protected by the Second Amendment. Justice's balancing test would invite thousands of judges to allow fact-finding on the need for gun control and then issue what would essentially be their own policy judgments. This is precisely the kind of activist judicial nightmare that President Bush himself claims to oppose. So why would his own Solicitor General do this? The speculation in legal circles is that Mr. Clement is trying to offer an argument that might attract the support of Anthony Kennedy, the protean Justice who is often the Court's swing vote. But this is what we mean by "too clever by half." Justice Kennedy would be hard-pressed to deny that the Second Amendment is an individual right, given his support in so many other cases for the right to privacy and other rights that aren't even expressly mentioned in the Constitution. No less a left-wing scholar than Laurence Tribe has come around to the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right for this very reason. Mr. Clement is offering a needless fudge." (article continues - see link above).

"Suicide-by-cop" is real, and probably more common than is reported; it is VERY difficult to make such a call. VERY unfortunate situation for all the survivors.

Big +1 Reading through this thread, I was coming to the exact same conclusion - and you beat me to it! It is funny to me that set-back has been well understood for decades in the USPSA and also in the IDPA communities, yet it seems to be "news" among many "expert" LEO training officers. Considering that GAP is mearly a shortened .45 ACP with a slightly thicker web, it should come as no surprize that it is more sensitive to set back than other calibers.

They have 2 lines in Europe now: a short line for "EC Citizens" and a really LONG line for everyone else. Last time we went to visit the in-laws, I was stuck for 1/2 hour in line with all the other "furiners" while the Tuetonic Princess got through in 3 minutes with her EC ID and passport. As for biometrics & George Orwell (oops - meant to post in the OTHER "What I____" subforum).

'splains why the open shooters nick-named Longshot: "LoudShot" Seems way too slow and not very useful compared to better/faster/lower recoil powders.