Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IHAVEGAS

  1. A lot of folks might like limited minor (might as well call it what it is), I'm not sure what advantage to the sport there would be in moving iron sight pistol shooters from limited to production though. If low entry numbers is really a problem combining 10 round production with single stack is an option.
  2. For what it is worth, when I looked at what I wanted long term (at the time it was 650 vs 1000 not 750 vs 1100 + bullet feeder + case feeder) the 1000 option made more sense to me than the 650. Given that primers aren't available at a fair price the used reloader market might be getting good. Oh, if you plan on shooting something that needs deep seated primers for reliable ignition (competition tuned revolver for example) the seating depth adjustment on the 1000 is a very nice thing.
  3. Weight & length & the big one is grip geometry.
  4. We have a very schizophrenic sport when you get right down to it, predictable I guess with competitors goals ranging from just looking to enjoy shooting together - to deadly serious amateurs - to people who rely on this 'volunteer' sport for their living. For me personally I've shot enough matches to understand my level of suck, I don't care what Stoeger likes and would not expect him to care what shooters like me enjoy, and I like to shoot a lot of rounds.
  5. Seems like the natural way of things is that: 1. Somebody makes a good gun. 2. After a while that same somebody makes a different good gun. 3. While the new gun is still in short supply it is much more desirable than the old gun. 4. When supply catches up and the hot newness is gone people make decisions on which they like based based upon which suits them the best. A long way of saying that it does not seem silly to me.
  6. Good info. If the pcc folks want to buy the clubs a bunch of new timers I'm good with that.
  7. If I can make the club match this weekend I will try to see how things have been going this year with the .22 squad, haven't heard of any problems after you decide how you want to handle steel. In my opinion, timer sensitivity is a problem with the most quiet pcc 9mm guns/loads and 22 rifles would be that much worse, I miss the days where you didn't have to share the shooters underwear in order to be sure your timer will be close enough to pick up the last shot - not a problem on most pccs but some are just crazy quiet. A good friend was complaining about getting 3 pcc reshoots at his last major, I just gave him a sympathetic look and bit my tongue.
  8. Maybe. I shoot steel matches once a month + - and most folks are shooting that with 22's, if you paint the steel I don't know why it wouldn't be just as easy to score .22 hits in USPSA side matches. As you noted, you have to decide what you want to do about activators. My back would be ok with it if there was less steel to pick up.
  9. You have to decide what to do about steel that won't fall - local club runs a 22 squad and those folks I think are painting steel, scoring steel hits like you would at a steel match and leaving activated targets isn their activated positions. So, same match except swingers do not swing.
  10. I think this is pretty much what I bought many years ago, except that a tackle box was supplied instead of a cloth pouch, well chosen bunch of tools that has been added to over the years (starter punches - spare fiber optic rods - cigarette lighter - etc). https://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-tools-supplies/general-gunsmith-tools/gunsmithing-tool-kits/basic-field-tool-kit-prod30922.aspx
  11. More challenging stage planning, more risk (steels), additional effort (reloads). Adding something back so you don't feel like it was a long drive for a short movie.
  12. One of the local clubs has been running a .22 squad at their USPSA matches this year. You have to figure out how you want to handle steel and the score at the end of the day is zero, but I get the impression that some folks have been having fun with it. With ammo pricey enough that it hurts to shoot it and some folks cutting back on match round counts I wonder if that will drive people toward low capacity divisions?
  13. Shooting 40 in a 10mm (or 10mm dowloaded if you have the brass and large pistol primers) is another option. Gun choice might be limited to Ruger.
  14. If a REF is identified due to incorrect target placement isn't it mandatory for everyone to reshoot according to the rules? Else, if the target placement distorted my perception of an edge hit why would it not also distort my perception and aiming resulting in a D that was almost a C or a C that was almost and A?
  15. And so it begins . . . . . . Was everyone who had shot the stage in the same condition required to re-shoot as well?
  16. Ok. In your reasonable persons opinion how much better would the overlap need to be in the picture in order to call a Mike instead of a reshoot (50% better?)? Not being snarky, honest question.
  17. I'm not. I just wish there was a way for a range official to consistently call it (or not call it) and justify both decisions to the shooters. Re-reading the initial write up, only one person got the reshoot because only one person was effected, the write up implies that the stage would have needed to be thrown out or reshot if many had shot it before someone decided there was a REF. For me personally I would be content with calling a Mike unless/until the written rules make it clear that it is not a Mike. The shooter can pursue the call with higher powers if they wish and they can figure out whether 1/4" error means REF or if it takes 3/8" or whatever.
  18. Yes indeed. The point I was laboring at is that if it is a REF there needs to be something in the rules that allows an r.o. to justify the call - if a target with only xx% of the misalignment pictured means there is no longer a REF and I need to deny a persons request for reshoot the rules also need to justify why the second person gets the Mike instead of the bail out. The full photo does make things more interesting - was the front target placed correctly after all? Major match - say 130 targets - replace once on staff day Friday - once before the main match Sat.Sun - once at noon Sat.Sun. - hopefully no unplanned replacements of soggy stages. So that is 650 targets replaced (maybe only 520-staff always gets hosed), maybe on a nice sunny day or maybe a miserable wet and windy day. Staff is typically fighting against brain death by Sunday morning. Agree that replacing targets is not rocket surgery, but things happen. Perforations showing could be used as a rules criteria I suppose.
  19. SNS website. Something that gets lost I think is that many of us are not loading close to maximum charge weight for competition shooting.
  20. Seems like it would be handy to define target displacement in the glossary (more than 3/8" horizontally or vertically - more than 10 degrees rotation of the target or the stand - something doable and practical and obvious). As it is it seems like you are correct, Pandora's box. The other thing, if this is a special case where discovering REF only requires/allows the one person to reshoot rather than everyone who has shot the stage while the target was displaced, it would be good if the written rules spelled that out somehow. As is it seems like we are saying that the displacement could effect aiming by distorting target presentation, and in the name of equity we are giving only 1 of the effected persons an opportunity to shoot the stage with all targets in the right place.
  21. Sold my shadow 2 and forget which bullet I was using when I had it. For an SP01 , an 85, a CZ compact and a couple 75's - SNS 147 TC loaded to 1.15 works well for me. Apparently that bullet does not have a 'fat shoulder'. At shorter lengths I was getting 1 or 2 ftf's per match. I've never seen the need to touch any of the barrels for any of the bullets I've tried, but I am sure that folks who report that some bullets cause problems in CZ's are not just making that up.
  22. That popped up on my Facebook account. Just sharing.
  23. A more careful reading on my part (I got hung up on In this case, the target was not displaced from its original position per se) says you are correct. Thank you. Looking at it again ("the replacement target that was displaced") it seems like the question is 'what do you do when you find that a stage was not set up correctly'.
  24. I'm definitely among the 2/3 that got it differently . Not important but I still can't draw any correlation between the written rules and the ruling. Which raises another question, can this be considered an official ruling or should I call it according to a best effort to follow the current written rules as I see them? If you are going to stretch 4.6.1 to include target backgrounds (even though typical strong guidance is never to stretch the rules) and add this under the heading of 'range equipment failure' then it seems like everyone who shot the stage while the target was not deemed to be correct (range was not set up properly) would be required to reshoot it, or the stage would need to be thrown out. I also don't see how backer alignment being 'right or wrong' could be consistently determined for the purpose of requiring reshoots without a written tolerance. Trying to learn, not wad undies.
  • Create New...