cpty1

Some people are obviously just ignorant of gun handling procedures and are dangerous to be around even if their weapon is "supposedly" unloaded. But I've also seen competitive shooters who've become so "comfortable" handling a weapon that they forget or take the basics for granted also and are just as dangerous. As the saying goes, "familiarity breeds contempt". One can't go wrong in keeping that beginners mindset when it comes to gun safety.

I've gone back and forth on the IDPA tac load issue and have about come full circle on the matter. I view the tac load requirement as no different than when USPSA specifies a hands above shoulder start or a required reload on a classifier. It's a stipulation of the course of fire and applies to everyone. As far as whether it is or isn't tactically correct, I'll leave that to the martial artists to decide.

I've tried both Scherer and Glock connectors and stayed with the Glock. It just seemed to feel better to me, but you may feel differently. I can't remember where I got the Scherer but the Glock part I got from Glockmeister.

I see your point EricW, however I wouldn't write off your potential new shooters just yet. If they enjoyed themselves otherwise at the match and want to shoot, they'll shoot. They simply make the decision your other regular shooters have already made. Either play by the rules or cheat. I hold your match ROs as responsible as the cheaters themselves, especially if they know it's going on. The match officials and ROs could stop the cheating quickly and for good; in one match.

Those who cheat at local matches are hurting no one but themselves. If and when they go to a match larger than a local one, they'll be worse off for not gaining the experience they could have acquired by playing by the rules at their local matches. I'd much rather shoot the same PF ammo and follow the rules to the letter for the division I'm shooting in regardless of whether the match is local, state, area, national, or otherwise. IMO, the repetitive consistency will pay huge dividends in the long run.

I find IPDA more mentally challenging for me than IPSC. What I mean by that is you not only have to have your mental game in order from a shooting perspective, but you also have to remember a bunch of other stuff also on some courses of fire. Remember to shoot this target three times, this one four times, tactical priority, tactical sequence, shoot this target while retreating to the oblique, etc. I enjoy both disciplines. I feel I am a better IPSC shooter because I shoot IPDA, and I'm a better IDPA shooter because I shoot IPSC.

If I understand your question correctly, you will find points and time data in the first post of this thread.

SS, I'm going to have to talk to your "much better half" about keeping you out of the sauce.

Shot this last month in Lim-10 division with a Glock 35, but only got it posted this week at USPSA. Nothing special at the table, shot around the right side of the barricade on the middle string. Tried to have the gun up in front of my face and "on" the right side target at the last shooting position well before actually getting there. Lim-10, 88 points, 15.57 seconds, HF 5.6519 USPSA posted this in Lim-10 as 94.485%. With most of my classifiers being high A or borderline M, this one sticks out like a sore thumb. Run felt smooth and didn't seem that fast. Seems like thats the way it goes. The ones I think I blaze are about average for my class.

Thought I would post percentages now that they've been posted: Production HF 9.2913 USPSA listed as 81.738% Lim-10 HF 9.4370 USPSA lsited as 80.229% What I find interesting here is the lower Production hit factor has a higher overall classifier percentage than the Lim-10 run. Not much, but still higher. Also, I agree with Ron when he said, "I think a guy really has to haul a$$ to shoot this as a Master". (Edited by cpty1 at 3:52 pm on Nov. 16, 2001)

Patience Grasshopper.........ummmmm

I would think 9% is an unusually high percentage, assuming most of those weren't deliberately shooting minor limited. Did you chrono then load just enough ammo for this match?...; or chrono to determine your needed charge, then load several hundred rounds for several matches spread over a period of time?

Went to the range yesterday to continue the 9 vs 40 "experiment" that SS and I started Saturday. I set three targets at ten yards with each target half covered with hardcover at various angles, i.e. horizontal, vertical right, vertical left. I figured this setup would mandate a good focus on the front sight. Each drill was six rounds and any run less than one point down was thrown out. I did two drills: two rounds on each target, and six rounds on one target. I compared the Glock 35 with 145 PF and 168 PF loads and a 34 with 127 PF loads. On average the best splits with the two 40 cal loads were with the 145 PF. Splits were about 2 to 3 tenths longer with the major loads. Groups on the six round/1 target string were tighter with the 145 load also. (Note to self: Forget my idiot rambling earlier about shooting one load and sticking with it for both LIM 10 and production). The 145 load was just more controllable than the major load. As for the 9mm..the split times were averaging 1-2 tenths longer with the 9 than the 145 PF 40 load. This could be due to the faster cycle time of the 145 40 load as I did sense the 40 cycle time as being quicker than the 9. Note to self: I still need to load 145 PF 9mm load to compare with 145 PF 40 load.

I agree that a barrel change isn't necessary unless you're going to shoot lead. If that's the case, I would go with the Barsto.

All the stages at the nationals were designed in such a way where there was no capacity advantage when comparing ESP, SSP, or CDP. I can't say for sure the same holds true for wheel gunners but I would guess they had to reload more often. If a stage required a reload (again excepting wheelers) then everyone had to reload. The issue simply became between or on which targets in the array was the reload necessary.

SS...yeah, maybe....without having the luxury of video playback I'll just say it was close, hence the immediate warning. I was in position at a better angle to the 180 than the camera, so it might have looked worse on video than it was. As you know, had already had to DQ one guy a couple of stages previous. Had no choice at all there though. That was the first time I've seen a stage design like that at CGC. Not a good thing. I think you'll see some changes coming soon.

Aw shucks, SS. However, I must clarify, I haven't made master yet with the Glock, I just shoot one (or two) of them now. My M card was from a previous life with an open gun....once upon a time in a land far, far away.

I like the T.H.E. Accessories mag well in aluminum, however those who like the extra weight on the frame go with the brass model of the same make. I don't shoot limited, so I only use plus zero base pads. I like the aluminum ones available from Glockmeister, but be careful putting them on. It's real easy to break off part of the pad above the "slot" if you're not careful. If you're looking for plus two, three, or five extensions, I'm sure a cruise of the glock forum here will provide substantial information.

After Saturday's test session with SS, I am convinced of the following as it relates to my style(s) of shooting, when shooting Glock models 34 and 35. Disclaimer: I may be of a different opinion when performing the same comparisons shooting weapons other than Glocks..: I much prefer the 145 PF 40 loads over a 127 PF 9mm load. Sight lift for both is negligible (sp?) and cycle time on the 40 is much quicker. I am going to restrain from a final opinion until I compare a 145 9mm load with a 145 40 cal load. I will use both sensory perceptions and a timer to form this final opinion. I plan on adjusting my production, lim-10, and IDPA strategy based on the outcome. I could detect a difference in the cycle time of the 145 PF 40 cal load and a major PF load in 40, with the major load being quicker from a cycling perspective. Of course, felt recoil and sight movement was different also. I also plan to do some timer comparisons with 145 PF and 168 PF 40 cal loads. Methinks maybe it's all what you get used to...? Maybe a shooter is better off shooting the same major loads in production and LIM-10 to maintain consistency instead of adjusting back and forth to different loads and the associated effects on the shooter and the weapon itself..? I know my times on the same classifier are usually better with the 35 than the 34. Kinda shoots down the lighter is better theory. Basically, Saturday was a good test, but was the starting point for me with more to come. Like someone here says...."it's all good".

Joe D told me about it.

There will be three shotgun stages of 8 rounds each. Bring ammo (7.5 shot or smaller only due to club rules). I'm sure there will be plenty of shotguns around you can borrow.

Maybe I could check out your progress thus far at Cherokee on Saturday.

What comes around, goes around. It's funny how you get used to certain things. In the old days, I shot a comped 38 super open gun and had to wear both plugs and muffs at first until I got used to the muzzle blast and report. After a while, it was no big deal. Now years later, when I RO on occasion for some of our local club matches, especially the indoor ones, the blast and noise from those things is worse than ever. Time for plugs and muffs again. SS - you heard anything about Cherokee being a two gun affair this weekend? Heard something about it at GPSL Thursday night.

Popularity of Lim-10 is sure picking up in the Atlanta area. At the Cherokee match last month, the Lim-10 category was the largest. There were 12 open shooters, 13 limited, 20 Lim-10 and 10 production shooters. I agree the equipment needed and associated costs for open and limited shooters is an issue for many. I think we will see more Lim-10 and production shooters as we go forward. (Edited by cpty1 at 9:45 am on Nov. 6, 2001)

Come on Eric, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. Nicely put.