Carmoney

Where? I don't see the top Iowa shooters on that list....yet!

The other thing you might consider is moving away from plated bullets. These days, they are almost expensive as true jacketed. I have seen several otherwise very reliable pistols that choked on plated bullets. Might be something to try before doing anything drastic.

First off, if your gun has a buffer installed, take it out and throw it away. If that doesn't solve the problem, and the gun was working fine for all those rounds, and you haven't changed your ammo that was working fine before, it's obviously something to do with that fresh new nicely-fit barrel. Sure sounds to me like it could use a good throating job. This used to be in the repertoire of every 1911 gunsmith, but it seems to be something of a dying art lately.

Here are two additional angles we haven't discussed: 1. Trade your 4" 625 for a 25-2. 2. Be happy with your 5" 625, and just shoot. Either of these angles probably makes more sense in the long run, and will cost you a whole lot less money!

Depending on how your machine is set up, you may not be able to seat the primers to full depth, no matter how hard you heave on it. Sometimes you can shim the seating stem to get deeper seating, but it doesn't always work. If you can avoid the extra step of hand-seating--great. But when in doubt, hand-seating the primers is the answer. If you go this route, I recommend acquiring one of the specialty brand tools rather than the pot-metal crap. I have used a K&M tool like this one for years, with excellent results: http://www.kmshooting.com/catalog/primer-seater-tools/primer-deluxe.html My only complaint about the K&M tool is that the handle is not all that comfortable after awhile, but you can fix that with athletic tape.

I used to think that, too, but more recently I have decided that reliability between the two options is about equal--when they are set up properly. I have 1911s in 9mm and .40 with ramped barrels that feed perfectly with HPs, and I have 1911s in 9mm and .40 with non-ramped barrels that feed perfectly with HPs. The key to great feed reliability with unramped barrels is a good throating job. Even most of the ramped barrels on the market will benefit from some additional throating work.

Cool. I've been planning to get one as soon as the distributors have them available for the "little" dealers. My only real concern is the finish--the black XD finish has never been known for being all that great--wonder if it would be worth the wait for a two-tone.

Most of the country has access to discount non-stop service in and out of Las Vegas, on carriers like Allegiant Airlines, etc. Travel to St. George is going to take most of those discount airlines out of play, so most of us would be looking at going from no stops to two stops in order to fly into SGU--which increases the price significantly, more than doubles the travel time, and increases the odds of having a luggage problem with the guns. Realistically, very few competitors are going to fly into SGU. The vast majority will fly into Vegas and drive to St. George. If the match is going to be held within a couple hours of Las Vegas, I think it would be better to just leave it at Desert Sportsmans. If it's time to move it, fine--but move it to another part of the country completely.

I've seen some custom revo barrels done by Frank Glenn. Nice stuff. Most of the established shops should be able to set you up. I wouldn't necessarily recommend going to whomever has the fanciest website, though--some of the better revo guys aren't all that internet savvy.

We're going to need to ship some ammo down. Does anybody know if there's an arrangement for receiving ammo shipments?

You guys do realize that discussions like this are the reason the whole rest of the competition shooting world thinks we're insane, right? (Well, that and the thong deal.)

I hope it works out. I think it would be fun to analyze each stage using both the major and minor options, and see how it all shakes out in the end!

Mike, my comment was in response to your post stating that you have never seen a stage where 10+1 minor was an advantage over 8+1 major. You don't really mean that, right? You were exaggerating a little to make your point? I generally agree that shooting major in SS is the way to go (particularly at the club level.) But there are exceptions, and as I mentioned earlier, I think Area 5 was one of them. For whatever reason, there were a number of stages where I was able to shave significant time by having ten rounds in the mag. Tom Nichols and Dave Schroeder were shooting SS major on my squad, and I'm pretty sure they would agree that minor worked out better. I think if you had shot the match, you would understand what I mean. If Ted Puente hadn't blown us all out, I would have finished around 97% or thereabouts--which isn't bad for me, considering that I am primarily a revolver guy. Anyway, I think Area 3 will be the same deal. Tell you what--just for kicks--sign up for Area 3 and squad on Sat/SunPM with Dave Williams and me. I'll shoot SS minor, you shoot SS major, and we'll see how it comes out! From the looks of recent match results, it looks like you and I are pretty evenly matched in SS--(actually, you beat me at the SS Nationals this year and your classifier percentage is a little higher). Maybe even a little friendly wager perhaps?

Sam and I will be shooting SSs with 10 round mags.

I understand what you're saying--I really do. But certainly we should not be making DQ decisions based on subjective interpretations of a competitor's facial expression or other physical reaction. Once we start down the road of guessing as to the shooter's intention, we might as well throw the whole rulebook out the window. This thread is a great reminder of how important it is that major match organizers recruit ROs who are seasoned and well-trained. It appears there are a lot of well-intentioned people out there prepared to ignore the rule book and issue DQs based on their seat-of-the-pants feelings.

Let's get something straight--this recent use of the catch-all language in Rule 10.5 ("examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to...") as a justification for all kinds of theoretical DQs is nothing more than an internet phenomenon that recently began here on the Brian Enos Forum. It is not reality. I don't want to come across as rude here, but it's completely and utterly absurd to suggest that forgetting to wear eye protection should be grounds for a DQ! That situation is clearly addressed elsewhere in the rules. It has absolutely nothing to do with unsafe gun handling! We have really good rules in this game--rules that aren't perfect, but nevertheless are admirably clear and objective. Let's not undermine them.

Appendix A3 defines the word MOVEMENT as follows: "Taking more than one step in any direction, or changing body position (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.)" So while your opinion may be a perfectly valid personal point of view, it would not be supported by the current rule book. Under the current USPSA rules, retrieval of the gun is not--in and of itself--movement.

Find Matt Griffin on here and talk with him about it. He's been through the whole deal recently, and should be able to give you some good info.

Your opinion might be a perfectly valid point of view, Jim, but it is definitely not reflected in the current USPSA rule book. The rule book clearly defines what is, and what is not, a DQable accidental discharge. There are many times that action competition shooters pop off a round when they are not quite ready for it to happen, but as long as the shot is fired in a safe direction, it is not necessarily unsafe, and it is not necessarily a DQable offense. This is why the rulebook explicitly describes what constitutes an "accidental discharge" that results in a DQ. A gun that is pointed in a safe direction when it goes off, whether as a result of a fully aimed and intentional shot, or a trigger that is prepped a little too early by an adrenalized competitor, is NEVER GOING TO CAUSE HARM TO ANYONE, and is not cause for a DQ under our current rule book, assuming the situation doesn't meet any of the delineated scenarios listed in 10.4. Seriously, it's that simple. There are many valid reasons why we have a rulebook that relies on objective criteria. Our rulebook is the product of 30+ years of practical experience in this particular game. For those who wish to attempt to look inside the hearts and souls of fellow competitors and figure out their subjective mindset on a close call.....well, there are other games with different sets of rules that may be more in keeping with your position. This is a USPSA rules question. With regard to a questionable shot fired by a competitor during the competition, the proper rule to consult is 10.4. The question is not difficult to resolve when that rule is objectively applied.

Obviously, ADs are going to occasionally happen in this sport. They've happened to me, and if you're reading this post and you're honest about it, you'll probably have to admit they've happened to you! This is why controlling muzzle direction is so critically important. I'd much rather see a shooter trip off a shot on a reload, fire one over the berm, pull out a magazine at a safe area, or run with his finger on the trigger--than break the 180. Those are all infractions that result in a DQ, all for good reasons, but they don't generally cause a firearm to be pointed at another person. If we are serious about human safety, the two main things to tighten up on are (1) 180 violations, and (2) holstering hot guns. Those two areas are where the real problems can happen. Or so it seems to me.

Ro writes Match DQ, Section 10.5, Unsafe Gunhandling on the scoresheet -- because the shooter came up with a new unsafe action, which the RO can articulate. You're going to overturn that because you don't like rule 10.5? I'd vote to overturn any DQ that is not specifically required by the rules. I don't believe in subjective safety DQs. Unless the RO can produce a rule requiring the DQ and assert that s/he observed specific prohibited conduct, the default goes to the shooter. Anyone who votes otherwise ought not even be a Range Officer at all. Requiring that every single DQ is specifically required by the rules goes to one of the most basic purposes of being a Range Officer, specifically, to assist the competitor safely through the course of fire and to be fair and impartial in one's rulings. I don't have any opinions about any of the rules. That's the beauty in refusing to read into the rules and interpreting them by their plain meaning. It doesn't matter what I think personally about the rules. If the competitor hasn't committed a prohibited action, I lack the authority to issue a match disqualification and so I won't do it. Nothing screams "rogue RO" like reading into the rules and DQing a shooter without a specific rule citation of a rule that requires the shooter's disqualification. Our rules have enough DQable offenses. I have no inclination or interest in expanding the list to fit my personal preferences. Tim, what's not plain about "10.5 Match Disqualification -- Unsafe Gun Handling. Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:?" I'm not reading into it at all -- 10.5 is clear in meaning in five simple words..... Nowhere in the rules is there a requirement to limit a 10.5 DQ to only those 17 examples listed as subsections. I didn't go to law school, but I did attend RO classes in 2002, 2006, and 2010/11..... Well Nik, I've been to both RO class and law school, and a whole bunch of major USPSA matches, and in my opinion a DQ under 10.5 under these circumstances would not (and should not) be upheld at a USPSA major event. Rule 10.5 may apply to other situations beyond those specifically listed, but the described scenario is clearly an accidental discharge and should therefore be evaluated under 10.4, which provides specific and exclusive description of when a discharge is grounds for a DQ. The fact that there is a rules section specifically dealing with ADs strongly implies that the other sections of the rules were not intended to deal with ADs. From a practical perspective, there is nothing particularly more or less unsafe with this scenario than a gun that is drawn and partially extended toward the target, resulting in a shot that goes off downrange and strikes the ground 11 feet away from the shooter. While that is a "discharge" that is clearly "accidental," it is most definitely not an "accidental discharge" as defined by 10.4, unless some other part of 10.4 makes it one.

Rainers are not bad. I used them quite a bit. I did have one experience at the Summer Blast match a few years ago where one of my Rainier bullets came apart in the barrel and splattered a close target with thousands of tiny shrapnel pieces. That was the end of using plated bullets for me. Plus, for the price of plated bullets you can get true jacketed bullets today.

I shot the Single Stack Nationals this year with 8+1 major. But I shot Area 5 with 10+1 minor, and was very glad that I did. As I have always said, it's all dependent on stage design.

Banking in Kentucky is tough....very difficult to find employees who can count beyond 10 (with their shoes on, anyway).

Would that be Jeff Matsche from MO?