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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About GJM

  • Rank
    Finally read the FAQs

Profile Information

  • Real Name
    George Mandes

Recent Profile Visitors

701 profile views
  1. GJM

    G19 for Carry Optics?

    Between my wife, me and two friends who seriously shoot CO, we have broken 27 Delta Point Pros in the last 18 months. Still, there is no better alternative, although we are messing with a RMS Shield, Holosun 507 and eagerly awaiting the Acro.
  2. So, as I understand it, reading appendix A1, level 1 matches must follow USPSA rules. Spinners are not permitted steel targets since they require more than one hit to score. The problem is the match director and other club officer both shoot PCC, and one of them designed the stage, so they are unlikely to be sympathetic.
  3. Sorry for being so dense, but looking here, I am not seeing this at https://uspsa.org/documents/rules/2019_USPSA_Competition_Rules.pdf
  4. It would be greatly appreciated if you could point me to that section of the rules?
  5. Is that true for a USPSA Level one club match?
  6. A PCC guy set up a stage at our local USPSA match today, that included: At 35 yards, two steel and three paper at 35 yards, with two of the paper targets stacked making a partial with no delineation between the two paper targets. An identical array on the other side of the bay at 35 yards. Two spinners at 15 yards with a 30 second penalty for failing to spin each, later reduced to three procedurals each for failing to spin, since they couldn’t figure out how to do penalty seconds on the pad. Shooting CO, I spun both and made basically A hits on the 35 yard targets, although at a lot slower pace than the PCC shooters, but it was a bloodbath for most of the pistol shooters, especially the less skilled ones. I heard extreme frustration expressed by numerous experienced pistol shooters, and I can’t imagine what the newer pistol shooters were thinking. Comments from some of the PCC shooters were along the lines of “how great to be able to challenge PCC shooters.” This kind of stuff can drive a big wedge between PCC and the rest of the pistol divisions.
  7. Currently, most of us get results from local matches by going to PractiScore. The default presentation is combined overall results with all divisions. You can select just a single division, but to my knowledge, can not deselect PCC so you have, for example, just the pistol divisions combined. Since the different divisions can be thin at a local match, folks often look at combined results. I would like it if PractiScore gave the option of seeing just the pistol divisions combined, with PCC separate. Ideally, they would also provide the ability to combine whatever divisions you wanted and see overall placement. A PCC shooter, for example, could then see just PCC since they often say they only compete with other PCC shooters. If they wanted to, they could also combine PCC and Open. A CO shooter might want to combine CO and Limited. Not sure why this flexibility would harm anyone. It would also reduce the incentive for pistol shooters to mess with PCC shooters or PCC shooters to mess with pistol shooters in stage design, since high overall on PractiScore would no longer only be all divisions combined.
  8. Just to be clear, I like PCC. I still shoot it as one of my two divisions in Steel Challenge, and I have a bunch of friends who are PCC. What I am interested in discussing, is how PCC interacts with the rest of our sport, and what incentives we may be providing to shoot PCC over pistol divisions, by how we present the results. I believe that shooting pistols is the core of USPSA, but others may disagree. I don’t believe that USPSA is intentionally encouraging people to pick PCC over the pistol divisions, but that may be an unintended consequence of how we now show results.
  9. I am starting to believe that reporting PCC results out as a separate USPSA match may be the best long term approach for allowing PCC and the other USPSA pistol divisions to coexist. i shot PCC back in 2017 when it first started, really enjoyed it and learned a lot. It was a time when CO was ten rounds, and PCC helped me see faster, move faster, and learn a different approach to the game than Production. I stopped when I was that “proverbial” one classifier from GM, as I didn’t want a PCC classification to affect my pistol classifications. Fast forward a few years, and PCC has been around long enough that you can see how it is impacting our sport. For some shooters, besides the seeing and moving faster part, a large appeal is that PCC allows them to finish higher overall in local matches. I get that at major matches, high overall is irrelevant, but at local matches there isn’t enough competition in each division, so most are duking it out for high overall or as high as you can be in overall match. This is where the problem starts. Shooters that ordinarily would shoot a pistol, get pulled into PCC to finish higher, and stage designers can create stages that help or penalize PCC as a way of increasing or reducing the gap between PCC and pistol. This sets up conflict over stage design. But, the bigger problem for the long term health of our sport, is that many shooters are losing their pistol skills. Then when they try to start shooting a pistol again, they do so horribly they run back to their PCC. It is almost like them having to go through withdrawal from a drug addiction. Now, if we reported PCC as a completely separate match, it would take away conflicts over PCC friendly/unfriendly stages, and eliminate the incentive of higher overall placement which causes our members to abandon the core of our sport — which is pistol skills. Long term, this seems like a way of allowing PCC to coexist with the other divisions, and preserve the core of our sport, which is shooting pistols.
  10. I have a G45 with a DP Pro, as well as G17 and 34 Glocks with the DP Pro, both MOS and direct milled by Primary. While I like how the dot tracks on the short 19 length slide, overall I consistently shoot better with the 34. Same thing has been reported to me by two other friends that tried a shorter slide, then returned to a 34 for CO.
  11. I have always found the Q5 grip a bit short, dimensionally closer to a G19 then the G17/34 length I prefer. I realize that would require new magazines, but for a dedicated gaming gun, I think that would have been worthwhile. Very interested in the new beaver tail design, as the rear corner of the Q5/PPQ frame whacks the base of my dominant thumb.
  12. I got the new MPX Competition model a few days ago. Timney trigger is heavier than the Timney trigger in my existing MPX. Lighter weight is noticeable, although I have the Lancer handguard on my current MPX. First range session today, and I easily got a 510C zeroed. Used a 30 round OEM mag, 30 plus Taran and 30 plus the TF 20, and experienced no stoppages using American Eagle 115 factory. This was good, as previous MPX rifles have required a break in period. No idea about whether the gas system was modified, and I didn’t take it apart further than replacing the charging handle.
  13. GJM

    Mbx base pads

    I bought two 140mm MBX base pads and they only hold 20 rounds.
  14. GJM

    Mini boom

    I would run an OEM RSA. In my Gen 4 34 CO pistols, I started having problems with failures to ignite. After a lot of messing with things, I figured out the 13 pound after market spring I was using was allowing my thumb to occasionally retatrd the slide slightly. In my case this could result in a FTF, but I could see how it could also allow what you are experiencing. Since the change back to OEM, zero problems.
  15. https://www.osagecountyguns.com/sig-sauer-rmpx-16b-9.html
  • Create New...