robport

I didn't do it, until I went click on a stage. Now I'm pretty religious about it. I'd rather have the funny looks than the extra seconds..

Just for info, the company that made that one was the one that said it would probably be loose, since it was made for a full dust cover gun. I've since found the Bladetech one on the Ben Stoeger pro shop too. I appreciate the help.

This should be an easy one for you guys. I've been searching on the internet looking for a holster for my Limited Pro. I thought I finally found one, but the vendor says it would be loose since it was actually built for the limited. What are my holster options for the limited pro? Is it close enough, dimensionally, that I can just search for it under another model name? I've found almost every Tanfo model but the limited pro. Thanks in advance.

I believe the issue is tensioning the tendons in the joints with the arm muscles, so the recoil is damped out by more body parts (not locking the joint). If you look at the arms of the good shooters, their arm/forearm muscles look to be fully involved and tight, but their elbows slightly bent.. Fully locking the joint to the point of hyperextension, might throw you off balance with large calibers. For me, with a couple of rotator cuff surgeries and arthritis in those joints, I wouldn't have a chance with surviving shooting long term. Anyway, maybe a medical person who works in sports medicine would know. I'm sure we have a few of those around. I haven't quite figured it out yet myself.

I haven't successfully done it like this yet, but Mr. Seeklander covers it at about the 6:00 minute mark. He talks about locking the tendons in the elbow, but not the elbow. I've had trouble isolating the elbow tendons so far, but I'm still trying.

I had been thinking that there might actually be a market niche for custom frames, especially with something like the Sig 320 selling fames so cheaply. I think you could actually model all the force from the geometry of each individual hand and mold all the contact points for finger length, finger thickness, hand thickness, hand length/height, wrist location etc. (It's all geometry, right?) You could also compare the measurements to every model in a database and choose the closest or actually make one using 3D machining or maybe even printing. The manufacturers wouldn't like it because it would be objective and probably end up with one doing the most business, but for the shooters, it could really might help. I don't have the energy to do it, but it's a thought anyways....I wouldn't be surprise if someone patents the idea soon...lol.

Thanks, I'll check into getting one and measure the thickness with the one installed..

I see several possibilities here, but I am now too in the position of having a limited pro with ambi-safeties on it and it definitely won't fit in width. The length is as close to 8.75" as I can measure. Weight was good at 42 ounces. Was there a consensus on the best course of action for the safety? The ones on it right now feel rather mushy, so I would probably want to go to a legal single side one with a more positive feel to it, if one exists.

I think that a lot of good thought went into the concepts, but there are some things you just can't simulate with static cardboard targets and may effect your tactics in real life. X X __________________ P1 What about slicing the pie around a wall with an attacker two feet on the other side, while you have the other one 15 yards away? In real life, I see the close one as the most dangerous threat. He's not just going to stand there. There was a Vicker's demo with a USPSA shooter and him separately clearing a room. The USPSA guy cleared the whole space in 8 seconds while Mr. Vickers did it slowly, and methodically. It took a while. It was shown as "proof" that his way was better. After seeing it, I don't know myself. Just thinking as the bad guy, I probably wouldn't have been able to react the right way in 8 seconds, but I surely wouldn't stand there with gunfire slowly coming my way. I don't know for sure which is better, but it's just more evidence to me that this is a game...as I see it. I see the defenders of the change throwing out two major arguments as evidence it "needs" to be done; "founders intent" and it won't change anything. Both of those arguments don't really make sense with "intent" taking this long to realize (why wait almost 2 decades to correct an error) and if it won't change anything why take an un-researched major risk. I'll adapt (I hope), but I just fear that in a year or so, there will no one left but us old geezers out there. It's already looking more like an AARP convention than a sporting event. ...but then, I'm risk adverse without data. I wouldn't walk over a tarp on the ground without knowing that there is no hole underneath. They either don't seem to have that problem (as evidenced by their last rule changes), or just aren't presenting their data on there being no hole there.

One other interesting consideration: You have a bad stage and you are basically out fo the match. Your competitors can cruise from there. Not much chance of a comeback.

I've been shooting for just a couple of years now and yes, I only shoot IDPA (we don't even have USPSA within 100 miles, so please don't turn this into a rant against it ) I currently have a 22TCM that I use as a 2011 (9mm barrel) in ESP, a Walther PPQ for SSP, and a 1911 (in .45). I've been shooting the 22TCM because of it's weight and have really been concentrating on improving my grip for follow-up shots. It suddenly hit me that the 1911 feels more natural right now and feels like it points the fastest. Even with my short thick hands, the Walther feels too small right now and the 22 TCM (think double-stack 1911) feels a little big. I'm beginning to question which one to work with. I've had a bunch of guns in a gun shop feel really good and when I've gotten out on the range...not so much. It's not that easy to try out different pistols and if I buy another one, it will most likely be sight unseen. Is there an actual objective way to measure the fit of a pistol against the hand? It's just a bunch of physical measurements to be compared against each other, so it looks like it could be done.in a reasonable manner. If it hasn't been done, it could be an interesting academic exercise in ergonomics with real life applications though.

It will be interesting to see how dynamic match planning changes. You won't be able to afford to screw up any stage, because you will rarely be able to come back from it, especially when your competitors see it and slow down, knowing you can't catch up on speed. It will definitely make everyone inspect their sights before a match. Sales of gripping compound should also go up. If the big guys screw up a stage, will they leave or hang around and finish anyway?

Personally its not a great test,25yds actual, bullet barrel combo makes a big difference. 5" whitebox ammo 25yds good group. I agree with this. I believe that first you might try the same thing with several types of ammo. Before you spend a lot of money on it, you may want to rule out the fact that your gun just doesn't like that ammo. On the other hand, you could have a bigger problem with other stuff if your gun does like it....either way, you might want to know.

I haven't seen that yet. I get more sympathy when I shoot, than aggression.. .​ What I have seen though, are the really "competitive" people arguing a point or a PE call. I sometimes act as backup SO on the club training matches and even on those I've had some people's head nearly blow up when I had to call a PE on them. I never noticed it before I started helping out, but how do you handle those people that get really angry...without a baseball bat that is and without letting the match drag on while they argue? I tried to push a local club rule that no one could argue a rule without the rulebook in their hands, but that didn't get adopted.

I'm cheap, but not quite as cheap as the guy that showed up with a High Point in bug class..he.had to clear a round twice per magazine. I can see the smirks already, but I would go with my Taurus Millenium G2 in 9mm. it shoots just fine, has worked better, out of the box than any other gun I've ever owned, has an adjustable rear sight and magazines available in local gun stores (and the trigger doesn't suck). I saw them for $189 after rebate on a web site several nights ago. You may laugh now.

Even though I'm no "tactical" expert or even an advanced shooter, I just have to toss my impressions into the mix. I enjoy IDPA as a very fun pastime and would hate to see my enjoyment of it reduced by the effects of the risks it looks to be taking. To be truthful, I don’t know whether this is a good change or not. I strongly suspect it isn’t due to the constant churn in rules over the last few years. I also strongly suspect it wasn’t well thought out, since no one can answer the questions about classifications and no one has come forward with any statistical analysis indicating a problem. I have several concerns and I am sensitive to them because I recognize the symptoms from where I have worked for the last 35 years. Where I work, we are in a state of constant organizational churn due to regularly scheduled leadership turnover and the need for them to make some change so they can go away with an award or medal at the end of their time here. I’ve seen huge reorganizations because of the simple reason that we didn’t have a recent phone book. IDPA appears to have pretty static leadership, but the cavalier attitudes to change (or simply not evaluating the effects and risks) are similar. Successful improvements are not done by announcing a solution and then seeing what problems it may help with. You may get lucky, but you usually cause more problems than you fix when working that way, (like with the flatfooted reload). This just happens to be a very big fix with many obvious long reaching implications, hence the many unanswered questions. For successful change, you start with a specific problem you identify, can really describe and verify (with an emphasis on verification, not a few bubba’s drinking some beers at a bar). You then come up with potential solutions (usually by something akin to brainstorming). You look at the potential effects, costs, implications and benefits of each potential solution and throw any out that don’t specifically address the problem you originally had. You weigh the costs and benefits, and make sure the implications don’t cause additional problems past what you can address. That’s all before you try it on a small scale and analyze what happens as a result…all before implementation. I don’t see any of that here so the risk of the unknown effect is apparently large. You don't announce a change of this magnitude without being able to answer questions about the obvious impacts. You just don't. I also see a huge push, in doing this, by people who could definitely benefit financially by creating more interest in their "tactical" training courses. I'm a little suspicious of the motive. I don't really believe the hyped inference that this is being done in an effort to make me a better shooter so I will survive "on the streets". Sorry, but I don't have enough cool-aid for that.

I agree with the MarkCO and superdude. The ideal gas law is does not take enough nonlinear factors into account to be of more than basic use. You just can't assume it is atmospheric pressure at the muzzle because it surely isn't . The one thing I would add is that I believe the pressure wave at the front of the barrel would be very difficult to model with anything other digital numerical methods.. I personally believe that the variation in pressure wave at the muzzle has a lot more to do with felt recoil than the simple conservation of momentum of the bullet and person/pistol combination model. That would explain why everyone says the heavier the bullet, the softer the recoil (I currently use 147 gr 9mm). The lower powder requirement and more of the combustion energy being turned into bullet momentum leaves less energy for a differential pressure wave that needs to be dissipated at the muzzle (another large part of recoil, thus the muzzle brake). ...but that's just my theory. I have never tried to calculate it. It would be interesting to see someone do some high speed footage of loads at the same power factor with different bullet weights and shapes leaving the muzzle and see what the pressure wave does.. As long as a pistol has been around, I'm sure someone must have that somewhere. It would be an interesting project for some one in academia interested in ballistics.

Do you get a PE for not doing the "tactical look-around" and loading your magazines fully after ULSC? Those will get you KOTS. LV said so!

I don't think the percentage of CHL's correlate to the number that carry for self defense. Most of the people that I know who have a permit don't carry. I'm not sure what that would say about this issue anyway. More interesting though, I just looked at one of our last classifiers data. At least half the MM's (both SSP and ESP) wouldn't have made it under the new rules. I didn't see any SS's that would have made it. I didn't look at anything above that.

I think this explains a lot. There had to be some money trail. I got it off the Facebook IDPA page.

Last week, I saw a used limited pro (reportedly 50 rounds through it) on there for $700. No one bid on it. I didn't get to it in time or I would have.

They can still carry, but yes, plastic tied and unloaded.

We apparently missed the boat on this optics division. We have had maybe one or two people in the concealed carry division. I was at a local gun show yesterday and I saw a bunch of people carrying with optics on them. Many of them were carrying concealed, but revealed them when checking for accessories and holsters. I was actually surprised that it was as common as it is. I don't know what they do though. Do they turn them on when drawing, or leave them on all the time?

Durn, thought I was the only one...lol I've been laying off dryfire for quite a bit because of that. At least now I have some options without quitting for a quile.

Well, now it gets more complicated. I ordered the +3, like the web sight indicated. When it got here, of course it didn't fit. After 4 emails back and forth with their sales department, I ended up having to send it back and order a whole +8 tube with coupler, endcap and spring. It seems the JM Pro uses the old "EXT" threads, rather than their new and improved MXT threads. I have no idea what the difference is other than they don't match. .....so now I'm waiting for the new package to arrive. I hope it fits. The $35 buck total shipping and having to upgrade to another kit made it much more expensive than I was expecting. They don't talk about the thread difference on the web sight. I guess they just expect you to pay +$20 bucks for shipping two ways if it doesn't fit your setup. If you don't have a JM pro, make sure you call them (actually pretty difficult to reach them) or email them to ask what you definitely need before you order it. Lesson learned.