moverfive

Here is the crazy part about this phone as of today - when they release it, the phone will only be GSM (2G) and the 3G version will be a later edition. Why would such a potential hot, revolutionary phone come out on the older technology?????? Definitely not a forward thinking decision on Apple's part.

As has been said already - if a shooter "beats" the designer's intention, then it should be a learning experience for the designer. If you take a look at your better stage designers and their stages - how many are 'gamed' to the point that the basic intention of the stage is defeated? In my experience, that is a rare event. And how do these folks typically design "bullet proof" stages - they design stages with only a couple of simple 'intentions' and then bullet proof those intentions......and leave the rest to the shooter. While two shooters may shoot the stage in two TOTALLY different manners, they both had to do what the designer intended. Maybe that intention was some long shots, may be it was for them to run across the berm, or whatever. But the intentions were simple, bullet proofed, and then they just let the shooters figure the rest out. In fact, some of the better designers will put holes or other 'opportunities' in their stages to make people have to find them.....thus making them better IPSC shooters in the long run.

Heck, before they banned 9-major, when the power factor was 175, this was not an uncommon thing to see. And you also saw a lot of this in 9x21 once 9x19 was banned. In Hawaii using a Super, I could use small pistol primers shooting 115gr bullets at 182pf without any problems/signs of pressure. But shooting the exact same load in the exact same gun in California produced flattened and/or pierced primers....and the pf was still around 182. Go figure - both were at sea level. So just seeing a flattened/pierced primer doesn't mean that there were dangerous pressure problems in all cases.

having tested the original 3125 prior to its launch - this is a great phone that combines a phone and PDA. However, if you need a PDA to actually send messages as opposed to just reading them, then you will not like this phone from that perspective. The phone's OS is Windows Mobile and does a great job in syncing with Outlook. It also has Excel, Word, Powerpoint, and Adobe on it. But - unless someone sends you a file designed for tiny viewing......forget it. The phone shows websites just like you would see them on a regular computer, easily doubles as a modem, has a pretty good speakerphone, and comes with a lot of onboard memory. With stereo headphones, this makes for a decent MP3 player, however, if you are going to use this thing as a MP3 player, you would definitely want to get a memory chip as there is only about 70mb of onboard memory. As for durability - I am not a rough user. So I may not be the best source for that opinion. But from just handling the phone as long as I have - it is not a flimsy phone. But if you are just wanting a phone, and nothing really more, I would have to agree that the RAZR is a solid phone. But if you are wanting more robust features and capabilities, then I would take a second look at the 3125.

I no longer shoot "38 Super" bullets......primarily just 9mm bullets in my Super today. However, when I did shoot bullets labeled as "38 Super" - they were actually .3555, not exactly .356. Now those bullets were sold as CP Bullets, which I think were actually made by Zero at the time.

I totally disagree. Now don't get me wrong here - I am not saying ALL issues should be presented prior to any vote/debate or that there should be mob rule, I am only saying that it should be standard practice to attempt to solicit informed opinions on major issues. And while there is not a definitive line between what is a major issue and a 'minor' one, I don't think anyone would argue that eliminating a division would definitely be on the major side of the fence. Hence why I used L-10 as my example. And with the USPSA website, we have a medium to allow issues like this to easily be presented. As Gary has stated - some of these issues could have an effect on people's wallets, i.e. making current equipment obsolete. If that is a point of the discussion, then why can't they delay any potential vote on that issue until the membership could be informed and thus given time to voice their opinions? That is all I am saying. You can never make everyone happy and nor will everyone think they have 'enough' information. But when you don't make an attempt to inform the membership prior to doing things like eliminating a division, I just think that is bad policy.

Excellent post XRe. And you are highlighting the root cause of the concerns I had - our USPSA leadership isn't voting/leading our organization with the best feedback from its membership. And when you talk with these folks, it is clear that they have a good understanding of the issues at hand and the organization as a whole. So then why are we having discussions like the ones around L-10 and SS? I think that answer is this - there is more than one correct answer. The answer they chose doesn't seem to be the best correct answer. For example - from what I have gathered, L-10 was being considered for elimination because (1) there are too many divisions and thus dilutes competition, (2) it is too similar to Limited, and (3) creates a perceived competition problem because wide-bodies and single stacks compete against other. All of these issues are not real problems, while they may be perceived problems, we shouldn't be changing our rules because someone doesn't fully understand something. Here is why I don't think these issues are not a problem: (1) assuming too many divisions is a problem, matches can choose what divisions they want to recognize, therefore, match administration can be controlled up front....the customer base will determine what division should and should not recognized. As for competition dilution - if people are truly more concerned about competing against the best, they will shift to where the competition is. Otherwise, many folks compete against themselves and simply enjoy the shooting sport. (2) L-10 is not "too similar" to Limited. Try shooting a complicated stage with Limited AND then come back with a L-10 gun. Odds are, you are going to run it differently. While I don't shoot L-10 as a primary division - I enjoy having to game out stages with only 10 rounds as opposed to 20. It makes for a more technical stage analysis and plan. (3) We cannot solve perceived problems. And if I remember correctly, what were the top finishers of this year's L-10 Nationals shooting? Weren't most shooting single stack guns? What gun won the first two Limited Nationals? Were they also single stacks competing against wide-bodies? Single Stack guns in Limited and L-10 are just as competitive as a wide-body. Thinking otherwise and therefore trying to legislate otherwise is bad business. And when I read through the many posts from folks on this list, I get the feeling that my opinions here aren't unique. And while the number of people on this list is definitely a minority in the grand scheme of things, I don't think our opinions are in the minority. Therefore if the membership as a whole was made aware of these issues and given ample time to provide feedback to their AD and President - $100 says some of these decisions/thought processes would have been a little different. Hence why I am saying that I think the root cause for a lot of our problems is that the USPSA membership isn't fully informed of the issues at hand.

I think that is "old" pricing. Because Tim has been actively trying to get the software for our club - but the quotes he has been giving us is almost ridiculous.

Thank you Bruce! I wish all AD's and voting members of the BOD would clearly express the issues at hand and their opinions on all major items like this. And I wish they were expressed in advance of any vote.

Chris, let's be somewhat realistic here. To change anything the membership is unhappy with is going to take a small revolt in order to effect such a change. But maybe more to the point - what type of input are the AD's wanting? We have yet to be told WHY these changes are necessary. What problems are being caused by the existence of L-10? What problems does a DOH holster present in SS division? What problems does a 2.5# trigger in Production cause? Without understanding these issues, how can I offer an opinion that would have any relevance to the issues you guys are attempting to address with these changes?

This is just another example of where we have a major change where the membership wasn't able to offer informed opinions to their representatives prior to any vote. What problems are being caused by the existence of L-10? Why is requiring a 3# trigger necessary? And thus, what problems does a 2.5# trigger cause? My whole point here - are these the best solutions? I truly believe that our BOD is trying to do what is best for the organization and its membership; however, if they aren't actively soliciting informed opinions/recommendations from it membership on major changes (changes that will cost the membership real money), then I don't think we have the best processes in place.

This is for all of the area directors and USPSA management - What is the problem(s) that requires the elimination of L-10 and/or Revolver? What is the issue requiring overhaul of certain rules, divisions, and etc. The membership doesn't typically get this information prior to any vote and therefore don't get the opportunity to provide good feedback prior to a vote. Yes I can write my USPSA representatives and express my opinion.....but opine on on WHAT? I cannot comment on the elimination of L-10 or Revolver because I don't fully understand what problem or missed opportunity is being caused by their existence. And in my opinion - an AD taking a poll from shooters attending a single match and then using those results as the basis for their vote, that just shows very little initiative - especially on major topics like the elimination of a division. With the ability of the web and e-mail, an AD can solicit a wider selection of opinions without a lot of effort. And even if your number of responses doesn't grow - at least you presented the opportunity to get a more informed opinion. And none of this is to be critical. I just think that a lot of dissatisfaction within the membership is caused by lack of information. And no, you can never provide enough information for everyone and nothing you do (or not do) will make everyone happy. But I don't think it is unrealistic to request that each voting member of USPSA, individually or as a whole, explain the issues/problems and then some possible solutions WELL before any scheduled vote in order to give the membership an opportunity to express their opinions/solutions TO THE ACTUAL ISSUES as opposed to a solution to an guessed-at problem. And so you will still have unhappy folks - but hopefully they will know EXACTLY why they aren't happy.

Even with a standard sizing die - you shouldn't have any problem with those brands of brass. Once I received a sizing die from Lee that wasn't sizing properly. So it wouldn't be out of the question for you to receive one also. Luckily I had another sizer and was easily able to determine that this was a sizer issue. I just called Lee and they replaced it with basically no questions asked. But, if you do return it for another one - consider the "U" die as its replacement.

no problems, just a very bright day, had to squint a little. we were in grenada visiting our son. lynn Hey Lynn, is this when you back was TOASTED from the snorkeling? If so - THAT is why he doesn't look too happy.

I would be surprised to hear of a good shooter at a real match say that they take shots blindly, meaning they were not able to tell you where they were on the target when shooting. With that said - I am not necessarily talking about them always having a traditional sight picture as many shoot on timing.

Production is not a division for beginners. It is a division that was created to allow an easier avenue from which to begin competition and allow other disciplines to compete with their existing equipment. And this purpose is the same with Single Stack division - hence its stated purpose. If any division was intended to be a 'beginner' division(s), it wouldn't have classifications above D - much less GM. And it sure wouldn't have a place in the Nationals. Now if anyone thinks that improving the feel of the trigger, changing fixed sights to Bo-Mars, refitting the barrel presents an unfair advantage and is a deterrent to a new shooter.......those new shooters weren't going to remain in this sport in the first place. Assuming they even feel the need to spend that money to have a gun "like everyone else's gun," the amount for those upgrades is just a drop in the bucket for the dollars they are going to be spending in this sport. Bottom line: their off-the-shelf gun in their hands is just as competitive as any other gun out there. Heck, I could put an open gun in their hands and they would still finish dead last in production division. It isn't the gun.....but at the same we need to keep a separation between Production and Limited (or L-10). And I think the current rules do provide that distinction.

If the supposed problem with Production relates to the ultimate price tag of a gun, then nothing will ever solve that problem. You cannot change someone's first impression or easily change a formed opinion. And I think trying to mold a division's rules around a misguided perception is bad policy. Some of issues that I think people are insinuating as a problem seem to mirror very closely with the issue from several years ago when folks were claiming that if they didn't have hi-cap magazines, they were not competitive in limited or open. People are too quick to blame equipment. Many of those same people are also too quick to forget that the top two finishers of the first two limited nationals were using single-stacks. In fact, Barnhart used ball ammo to win the first one. And this was against those unfair hi-caps. As Benny Hill likes to say - it is the Indian and not the arrow. So again I ask - what is wrong with the current production rules that causes an unfair competitive advantage and thus is causing many to say the rules need to changed/severely modified?

Here is the question I have yet to figure out while reading through these posts - WHAT exactly is wrong with the current Production rules? And I guess with that question goes - what is wrong with Production division as a whole that we need to change the rules? Granted I am not stating that the rules are currently perfect - but I don't think they need changing, maybe just some better clarification. I think part of this discussion centers around the thinking that Production is a beginner's division and the reading of too much into the existing rules......as opposed to the reverse problem of saying, 'it wasn't very specifically denied in the rules, therefore it must be legal.' First, production is not a beginners division - it is just the easiest for new shooters to get started and for other sports to crossover. Hopefully that point doesn't need debated. Secondly, we need to be careful about reading too too much into the rules. Milling the slide to install commonly used and available sights is not what the prohibition of milling of the slide was intended. Milling of the slide was prohibited to stop having skeletonized slides. And besides, can anyone say what 'unfair' advantage a Bo-Mar has over some notched sight? Using either is a personal preference and does not offer an unfair advantage in any shape or form. Production division's rules just need to be better clarified - not changed, my opinion. If rule changes are needed - I would really like to hear what the exact problem is with the current rules and why they bad for competition.

That looks like what my brass used to look like a long time ago - in my old guns I had my chamber opened up a little in order to ensure ALL rounds would chamber. Unless you had your chamber opened up too and you didn't use a full length sizer.....you couldn't use my brass. If the crease around the brass was consistenly around the entire brass and not just one side - then pressure might be a factor. But if the crease is primarily on one side, that is more than likely due to an opened chamber.

The biggest killer of them all - complacency. As I had to learn twice - while practicing, shooting as many local matches as possible, and etc. is never bad......but if you are not constantly competing against better competition, or better yet, having to regularly fight head-to-head with stiff cometition and forcing yourself out of a comfort zone, you are usually going to suck at a real match with the top competitors. Think about it - how many people are happy winning their class at a local match? Who did they really beat and what did it really take to win? Nobody and not much in many cases. And they stay in that cruise control thinking things are going somewhat okay. Then when a real match comes along - they crash in most aspects. Solution - If you are in C class, why aren't you beating the top A shooters? If you are a M, why is that A shooter getting within 15% of your score. Make a competition within a competition - constantly push yourself, because I guarantee you that winner of future matches is doing that right now. Doing so will make the "tense" and "competitive situations" more familiar and thus you will be able to relax and KNOW you can do these things on demand.

Don't worry Lynn......you are in the "safe" part of Memphis.

Congratulations Johnny (assuming you read these things). Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy......

And they were a good sponsor to the Tennessee State match as well.....

This actually came as a potential issue in the nationals about 8 or 10 years ago. I didn't shoot that year so I am being a parrot here - evidently on the 'fence' stage there were targets where it was possible to shoot them from the back - not a lot of target mind you, but something available. When Lenny was doing his nationals videos back then, he actually made reference to this by supposedly quoting Barnhart as saying that he did engage the targets from the back. Later Barnhart denied making those comments. With Barnhart's possible engagement bouncing around the match, there evidently wasn't any talk of penalties or him not getting the actual scores. Hopefully someone who was there that year can clarify/correct what I was told second-hand. So while in 99% of the cases, this would indicate poor stage design. However, it also shows that it could happen. Would love to hear from someone who can provide an informed opinion as to how this would handled in a real match.

Definitely an awesome device. I use one powder funnel for all of my calibers. And so when switching calibers, or even the varying loads withing the same caliber, this thing is so nice and saves so much of that back-and-forth you have to do with that standard adjustment screw.