IHAVEGAS

Specific gun requirements are getting to be sort of a common majors thing I think. Some clubs have iron sights only matches, CCP only or CCP and BUG seems to be a thing, one of the matches I'm thinking of attending next year was iron sights only this year and is going to an iron sights only day + an optics day format for 24, etc.

I don't know how they could have imagined that it would not be when they wrote the rule, things like "suitable for all-day continuous wear" seem to be completely subjective. Sometimes it seems like they don't even try. I was very surprised that it was. Pictures were sent to whoever decides this stuff via arbitration, possibly somebody has a copy.

When they introduced the Shadow 2 the initial promotions talked about developing the grip geometry to be more of a one size fits all and including input from their lady shooter with smaller hands. I've never seen "one size fits all" to work, the late model Glock choice of 3 backstraps seems the best attempt at accomplishing the goal. I'm 6'1" and I guess I have average sized hands for my height. The Shadow 2 grip doesn't allow the gun to point naturally for me and I have to correct downward, the Shadow 1 grip and Tanfoglio's near copy of it with their stock 2 and 3 guns does work much better for me personally.

A guy had what most would consider a race rig set up that you would not wear if concealment was a consideration , 1” spacer between holster and belt attachment to bring the gun out where it feels best, at a level three match in November. He was told it was not legal by match officials and then got that overturned on appeal. I think the organization realized that the rule as written was unenforceable. Could just be coincidence and the need for clarity might have already been recognized, but I have been wondering how and when they would address that issue. The concealment concept has gotten pretty weird in general since IDPA is now also a rifle sport.

+1. They might turn out to be useless but I would give it a try.

Shooting 9mm 125-135 power factor & with Bayou or SNS coated bullets outdoors I have never seen any smoke related issues that had any effect on my shooting IDPA/USPSA/Steel or just plinking. Titegroup is advertised as being more velocity consistent than most (I can't confirm or deny), I think that TG being a faster powder than some alternatives can be an advantage in reduced power loads as far as getting a good gas seal (leading) but haven't proven that yet.

I think you are on to something with the 929's , in the general case I think some find that 0.357 or 0.358 can be the best choice for other specific guns.

Maybe, the numbers seem strange to me because the clubs in my area get about 40% of the attendance they used to but I certainly can't prove whether the changes hurt or helped or didn't matter.

That is one theory. Personal opinion is that it was a better sport 10 years ago and the rule changes watering down the diversity of skills required (dots , rifles, fewer reloads, etc) have not done anything to grow the sport. I see it sort of like the old NBA versus the watered down NBA of today.

.356 coated except in my Smith and Wesson 929 revolver which leads the barrel really bad with .356 but doesn't lead at all with .358 . Why is just finding something that provides acceptable accuracy and doesn't cause leading or feeding problems, at a reasonable price.

An indoor range would be an interesting test. Shooting outdoors I have never seen a disadvantage to using titegroup with both Bayou and SNS. Loading 9mm to typical power factor for the shooting games (130 ish), it works well for me.

When I practice with friends we are anal about following the range commands and safety rules as if we were at a match, we also provide each other feedback on any action or technique that seems borderline. On the very rare occasion that I dry fire practice alone I respect the 180 and work on doing the sketchy things (reloading while moving to your weak side, moving backwards to address a target around a barrier, for example) safely. Ingraining the right habits seems to help

Personally the grip angle on the shadow 2 was a show stopper for me, I think it is a try it and see how it fits recommendation. It reminds me a great deal of the older generation Glocks without the ability to adjust back straps. Agree that they are both excellent guns in general.

Everybody loves the getting better phase, maintaining is less fun, and getting worse due to age or unwillingness to practice like you used to (or both) is less fun still. When you mentally get back to the reason most folks started shooting matches (having a good time with friends) and shift your focus to things like where your group is going to go eat and grab a beer after the match I think you can enjoy things for the long haul.

The benefits of running outlaw steel challenge matches versus paying money to SCSA are debated at some clubs. Many see steel matches as the way to get the wife or child or non shooting friend interested in shooting in a low pressure environment, others see it as practice for IDPA/USPSA and socialization opportunity, and others take the sport seriously in itself. You seem to be in the latter group, which is 100% fine. What I'm saying is that depending on the make up of your club a bit of grousing about the rules may not take things in the direction you desire.

Maybe I could just use what I want but tell the equipment check guy that my holster self identifies as being good for concealed carry?

I don’t know that it is a thing that would ever show up in my score, but I do like to get ocd and tweak things just so, and it would just be nice to have a clear understanding of what is legal.

Was at a major last week & the legality of a shooters holster was challenged because it had about a 1" spacer (by my scientifically calibrated eyeball) and is not what many would think of as 'suitable for concealed carry'. The shooter paid the $100 for arbitration and won, and got his $100 back. I am now entirely confused. If we can space the holsters away from the hip like we do for USPSA I want that advantage also. Does anyone understand the correct way to determine whether or not a holster fits IDPA regulations in regards to "suitable for all day concealed carry"? Ref: 8.5.1.1 Must be suitable for all day concealed carry or duty style holsters and worn on each stage regardless of the start position.

I got curious about the crimping issue only after I found that I was throwing curve balls that broke somewhere slightly past the 20 yard mark. I suspect, but don't know, that several factors are in play (bullet weight, rate of twist, type of rifling, bullet hardness, possibly whose coating, etc).

If I could find sport pistol I'd buy it but I can't say that there were any problems with Titegroup in my 929. You folks using Clays or Clay dot for 9mm loads pushing a heavy bullet are braver souls than I.

That is a more pronounced crimp ring than I see with my reloads, but I suspect that the others are correct and it is not enough to cause an issue.

I called one of the more popular coated bullet manufacturers a week or two ago. The guidance I got was to pull the bullet and insure that you are not crimping enough to leave a ring, i.e. that all you are doing is bringing the brass back far enough to meet the bullet. This is the way I have loaded thousands of rounds of bayou & sns bullets & (mostly 9mm) it has worked fine for me, just called him for a sanity check.

There were other factors (optics reliability for example) besides round count. Looking at numbers for the IDPA nationals this month suggests that people just want the dot, CO is 10 rounds in that sport.

Pretty much nailed it. Might as well officially change the name to Limited. Minor., which nobody ever wanted to shoot.

Going the way of the world I guess, forget about hitting the reloads and the more challenging stage planning & the greater need to avoid make up shots. If you can run fast the rest is more of a participation trophy. (Yes I know I'm old and crabby about it)