Carmoney

Frank Glenn put .355 barrels on a couple of revolvers for Jay Tappe a few years ago, and the results were excellent.

The talent ran really deep in Production at this match. For Ben to win the division by 10% is extremely impressive.

Personally, I think the bar exam should be far more difficult and demanding. Right now, too many people are passing it. Congratulations on getting through it. The bar exam nightmares will stop in a few years.

Larry, what OAL are you using with the 142s?

mcb, that is an excellent post. To expand on it a bit further: Minor scoring sucks. Minor scoring is a very significant penalty. I shoot a lot of Production and SS-Minor, so I am fully familiar with the penalty imposed by minor scoring. A lot of die-hard revolver guys don't fully understand this and think the 8-minor shooters are just going to blaze through a stage at full speed and save a reload or two along the way--"making the 625 obsolete!" Yeah, right. When you need more of those A hits, you can't go as fast and you can't shoot as much on the move. So you might save a reload, but you're moving through the stage in general at a slower pace, if you are still planning to get the same number of points. It's closer to a wash than most people realize.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Forrest, but the facts do not support your position that only a certain few people want this change and it's being pushed on everybody else. I was the person who initiated the original "Should USPSA allow 8-shot minor in Revolver Division?" thread and poll back in January. That discussion thread now has over 600 replies and 20,000 views. The poll indicates that those favoring the 8-minor options far outnumber those against the change, to the tune of approximately 3 to 1. So I don't know what "great shooters" you've been talking to, but the reality is pretty much the exact opposite of your conspiracy theory. Most revolver people think the 8-minor option is a good idea. Many others don't really care either way. There are a few people who are very much opposed to the change--including several close friends of mine--and they can make a perfectly decent argument for their own position on the subject. Want to know how I personally feel?.........I feel like a doctor who is trying to convince the family of a dying cancer patient that they need to consider a new experimental form of chemotherapy. There is the distinct possibility that even with the new chemotherapy regimen, the patient will die anyway, and there is a risk the drugs will detract from his quality of life in the meantime. But if we do nothing, the long-term prognosis is grim.

According to the published minutes from the board meeting, the motion to approve the 8-minor option for discussion (i.e. member review and comment with a final vote in 90 days) was passed 6 to 3. The board members from Areas 5, 6, and 8 voted against it. With all due respect to our capable and hard-working leadership, I'm having a hard time imagining why any of our board members--especially those who regularly participate here on this forum--would not at least be in favor of allowing the discussion to move forward on this issue. I understand there are several valid points of view on the 8-minor issue, and 90 days from now I won't begrudge any of our board members for ultimately voting in a manner that they genuinely believe best represents the views of their respective Area constituencies. But seriously---why in the world would any of our board members want to quash this whole thing now, without even allowing a formal feedback phase to take place?

Listen, I don't want to sound critical and I have absolutely no dog in this fight personally, but anybody who is working on other people's guns in exchange for compensation needs to have an FFL in order to be in compliance with federal law. This is not something to mess around with.

Troy, thanks for taking the time to ask the question here. I personally would not support splitting the division. Participation in revolver is already far too thin as it is. I am in favor of changing the rules to allow 8-minor alongside 6-major. My distant second choice would be to leave it alone.

I suggest you find another forum to troll.

I fly with handguns fairly frequently. I always just put them in soft gun rugs and toss them in my lockable hard-sided Samsonite suitcase along with my clothes, toiletries, and up to 11 pounds of ammo in plastic snap-top boxes. There is no need for an inner hard gun case in this scenario because the entire suitcase is the hard gun case. I found this photo on the internet--my own Samsonite is larger and black.

Depends on whether somebody's paying him to shoot a ported barrel.

Sometimes I think squads at major matches should be mandatorily selected at random. I can think of a couple groups of shooters that will gang up on the ROs when one of their butt-buddies is unhappy about something. I'm not saying that is what happened here--I'm purely making a general observation.

Everybody should read this section of mcb's post several times, and let it sink in.

I could be wrong, but I don't think a floating hand would cause skipping problems. In fact, I have never seen any functioning problems caused by the floating hand--it just has a tendency to create problems with the feel of the DA trigger pull. Regardless, the late '80s was not a good time period for S&W in terms of design or QC. I try to avoid revolvers of that vintage.

Yeah, they should have gotten that problem fixed by now. Anybody else get the idea they are mostly focused on polymer pistols at the S&W factory these days?

Good catch. This was actually one of the design changes between the 625-2 and 625-3 series. But, as anyone with any history dealing with S&W knows, they never throw anything away at the factory, and it's not uncommon for them to discover a drawer full of old parts and use and/or sell them to the public. It sounds to me like you got a hold of one of those old circa-'88 cylinders. Let me ask...do the chambers seem tight?

Digging through my bookshelf for some morning reading material, I found an old copy of Guns magazine from 1979. Although I subscribed to at least one gun magazine that year (Guns & Ammo), I'm pretty sure this was something I picked up more recently because of an article covering a particular revolver I own. Anyway, there were three references to competition shooting that I thought were interesting. 1. Massad Ayoob reported the infamous incident at an IPSC match in New England where the stage began with the competitor seated at a card table, with the gun loaded in Condition 2 (hammer down on a loaded chamber!) on the table under a folded newspaper. On the start signal, Mas grabbed his 1911, cocked the hammer, and BLAM!--blasted a .45-caliber hole through the table and nearly shot himself in the foot. Mas indicated that while he had caught flak from a number of other gunwriters for admitting the safety violation, most of them acknowledged experiencing some sort of similar incident during their shooting careers. 2. In the same article, Massad Ayoob discussed a letter he had received from the NRA, which followed up a previous column where he had mentioned the possibility that a competitive NRA Bullseye or PPC shooter might consider having a loaded and holstered backup handgun on the belt, to draw and use (classic New York Reload!) during the match in the event of a malfunction of the main competition handgun. The letter from the NRA informed Mas that his idea would violate at least 17 different NRA Bullseye match rules. 3. Another writer reviewed a custom revolver--the one similar to mine--and mentioned in passing that he had recently been invited to compete at the first annual event that John Bianchi had organized at the Chapman Academy in Columbia, MO, and was looking forward to using the custom wheelgun in "this new Bianchi Cup shoot-out." Interesting insight into the state of competition handgun shooting 34 years ago.

That Dillon Border Shift bag works great--loaded moons go in one side, emptys/partials in the other.

You're lucky you were able to fix the problem by simply replacing batteries. I actually had to throw away an otherwise perfectly good Mercedes-Benz ML320 because it refused to recognize the transponder in the keyring following a dead battery. Fixing the problem was going to require a whole new ECM, etc., which would cost more than my high-mileage SUV was worth, so I donated the vehicle to a local charity. Talk about frustrating--that Benz was still running strong and was my primary shooting match vehicle. Now it's sitting in a junkyard somewhere for no reason other than one little frickin' electronic glitch--all supposedly to protect it from theft.

I understood the OP clearly, which is why I said the following: "I assume the original poster was using the word parasite to describe plaintiffs who file unmeritorious lawsuits--not the attorneys who are doing their job by representing them."

Nice metal work. In terms of losing half the original hammer's curb weight, the scale shows it's right on the money!

I assume the original poster was using the word parasite to describe plaintiffs who file unmeritorious lawsuits--not the attorneys who are doing their job by representing them. The reason for my assumption is that I have been repeatedly assured that the Brian Enos Forum does not tolerate insulting comments directed toward a particular occupation or profession. Right, Kyle?

Strange that you had to increase mainspring tension. Normally taking about half the weight off a stock hammer will enhance ignition reliability. I've seen a few other hammers cut this way--in the past it was a cosmetic thing, because the shooter didn't want to see down into the action of the gun. Looks like a good solution for the IDPA BS.

Spend the bucks and go Hearthco. Trust me.