alma

This is almost the exact response is wasted going to give. First, you should consider the M&P which has a nice looking dedicated .22 pistol. Second, consider that if you want a good .22 then you should get a pistol designed from the ground up to be a .22 instead of the conversions. One on my clubs started weekly Indoor 22 matched and since I shot Production with a Glock at the time I thought it would be a no brainer to get an advantage arms conversion. Even with good ammo I found it somewhat unreliable and the feel of the trigger and the weight were significantly different than what I was used to with my Glock upper. I sold it and bought a Browning Buckmark and couldn't be happier with it. Great trigger pull, accurate, and runs great with cheap ammo. If do see myself getting another 22 like the M&P because I like how they look but since it's so hard to find 22 ammo and since the prices have risen significantly I just plan on practicing with my match gun and standard 9mm load.

My favorite is tite group. Some where between 3.1 and 3.3 grs but I did know OAL off the top of my head. Shoots very soft.

also, in the event that the RO was in your way such that you had to change what you were doing to avoid sweeping him with the gun then I believe under 8.6.4 you should be offered a reshoot sense this would be external influence.

I agree

Edited-looking again at 10.5 it does say that they are examples and unsafe gun handling isn't limited to them. I find that pretty strange as other areas in the rule book are more much more objective . I didn't even realize there was room for addition as the items under that category seem fairly comprehensive. So it comes down to a subjective call on whether the it was the shooters fault or the ROs.

I took a peek at the results looks like he finished 26/39 in Production with 50%. Excellent first match. I would give the most credit to having quality prematch instructions.

So, how did it go?

Second thought -- if you muzzle anyone, for any reason, yep, that's a match DQ. You're responsible for the gun -- bottom line. Last sentence of 8.6.4 covers it: What rule in 10.3 are you going to use? I won't use any portion of 10.3...... :DWe clearly -- and fortunately -- don't plan for this in our rules. I'd issue the DQ under 10.5 You point a gun at someone else, you go home. (notice that it's that specific for me -- it's not the simple "the RO was downrange of the shooter" ergo match DQ) It's that simple -- you may only have a split second to react but you'll need to react correctly..... So you are making ready and the RO sticks his hand in front of your gun. DQ? You had that split second.So give me the rule in 10.5 you are going to use. Let's have that situation occur for real at a match -- it's highly unlikely that it would ever occur. And I've already given you the rule -- read 10.5 again....It's also pretty unlikely that an RO would ever have a gun pointed at them -- but it's far more likely that an RO could wind up downrange of a competitor. That last possibility won't always result in a DQ, but it could if a gun is actually pointed at the RO..... Tell me something: Are you making the argument that it's safe to point a loaded gun at another human being? Sorry but 10.5 doesn't apply to sweeping an RO. As long as the shooter didn't break the rules it's not his fault. Not saying he shouldn't stop if he overtakes the RO but as far as I read the rules it isn't a DQ. Per 7.1.1 the RO is responsible to monitor for safe competitor actions. If a safety issue were about to occur such as sweeping another person who was in the wrong place and inside the 90 degree line I believe it would be first and foremost up to the RO to call Stop. The only place in the rule book where remember a mention of the shooter stopping themselves was for losing eye or ear protection.

When ROing a stage which will require retreating I generally start close to the shooter but start backing up to give him plenty of room before he starts coming my way. In this scenario it's best to have the score keeper or another RO watching from another angle for gun handling issues as the primary RO might not have a good view from behind, especially when trying to clear out of the shooters path. If it's a fast in and out I just hold my ground further back and wait for the shooter to emerge.

Is there any significant difference in the ergonomics or width of the respective grips? Any difference at all on where your left hand is sitting or how much it is engaged during recoil? I longer barrel might reduce the flip but I am with you, something else is at play here. Based on your description I think it would be not having enough support hand engaged during recoil.

I am betting chest rigs and thigh carriers would be ruled as the belt for the purpose of the Classifier.

Can you explain what you mean when you talk about calling shots? Having the gun track and sights to one side during recoil should have nothing to do with calling shots. The important skill for calling shots is knowing where the sights were when the gun fired. The secondary task is allowing the gun to recoil is such a way that it naturally returns with sights aligned. It doesn't matter whether it recoils to one side or the other so long as the sights return.

It has never been a secret that I believe there are unethical players in this game just like there are in any other. Practical shooters are. as a rule, great people who will help others at the drop of a hat. But, on the flip side there are many who only want one thing, to win at all costs. I know it. I have seen it. It's ugly. Let's say a shooter has a bad run and his "buddy" knows it. What better way to get him a reshoot than to walk up and interfere with his run? What if the shooter and RO are buddies? Shooter runs out of ammo and another guy walks up and hands him ammo. RO does not intervene for this shooter but does for another shooter. Would this be common? Of course not. But keeping people off of the COF closes all doors. Good points but I think that is why the RO is given some discretion to hand out penalties for interference or even a DQ if it was intentional cheating. I prefer to give folks the benefit of the doubt that actions are not malicious nut I have certainly seen it.

The colored Czechmate style mag wells for the TS along with matching triggers and grips.

Not throwing stones at OP BUT: Is it NOT the responsibility of the RO to prevent the helper from contacting the shooter? It is an unsafe action by the helper . 7.1.1 I don't move as fast as most shooters due to knee and ankle problems but I still keep myself between the shooter and the rest of the squad. For penalties: I would look real close at 10.3.1 for the "Helper" He has created a possible (Not definite since I was not there) safety issue by contacting the shooter. I would look at 10.6.2 for the interference in the course of fire for the helper Ultimately, it is poor match administration for scoring ans resetting prior to the finish of the course of fire. There needs to be a better way or limit the size of the course. I respectfully disagree. I this example the RO is also filling the role of the CRO for the COF. 7.1.2 Chief Range Officer (CRO) is the primary authority over all persons and activities in the courses of fire under his control, and oversees the fair, correct and consistent application of these rules (under the authority of the Range Master). Thanks for pointing out 10.6.2. I didn't realize DQ was a possible ruling but in my opinion what the helper did would not fall into the Unsportsmanlike Conduct category under which this rule falls. He seemed to be honestly trying to help but wasn't thinking about the rules or possible impact of his actions.

Gee Mark, thought you were just another pretty face. I was wrong, your ugly, but dam smart. I think you said it all. I think the trick is two try and only let her see the results of your work, not how you get it done. Just because you can't stomach watching it being made doesn't mean you don't like sausage.

They had slugs? That and 147 gr low PF 9mm would be welcome. Seems like the 223 should weigh more.

I can't say how many times I have made slight modifications to my procedure for filling up my car with gas. Door, swipe card, unscrew cap, enter zip, insert hose, No receipt, select grade, No wash, wait for zeros, and pump. I used to make and deliver pizza in college and it was the same thing. What I tuned myself for at the range carried over into the rest of my life. I also keep my trigger finger up on the side of the frame and safely off of the trigger until I am ready to drill.

I know its a different design that makes it much better for long tubes but I don't know the details. I say give it a try and if you end up with problems then cut a few coils. I really want to get one of these but my Gold seems to be running great and I have done a lot of work on it so I am dragging my feet.

But the great and powerful Amidon has spoken. So let it be written; so let it be done.

It comes with the extension tube set. You might have to call them to see whether they could sell them separately. http://www.briley.com/browninggold10shotmagazineextension.aspx "Note: The Browning Gold has a unique self loading system which requires the use of an increased power recoil spring and a reduced power latch spring. The gun will not function reliably without exchanging these springs. Replacing the extension, follower and magazine spring can easily be done but the recoil spring and latch spring may require the services of a qualified gunsmith. Also fitting this extension system may prevent reliable ejection of light 1oz loads. This can usually be corrected by a qualified gunsmith." Briley's A5 extension kits don't seem to come with them by default which I see as a good sign since it makes me think that Briley doesn't see that part as a requirement for the gun to be functional.

Does it come with a helicopter? It really looks like it should come with a helicopter.

Does it come with the laser and night vision goggles too? I know most high-end tactical operators like to run cutting-edge race components in their duty weapons.

https://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-NROI-ruling-details.php?indx=34 Plastic Plug for Glock's in Production division Created: 4/28/08 Updated: 1/05/13 Effective: 0/00/00 Rule Number: Appendix D4 Applies to: Pistol Ruling Authority: John Amidon Status: Archived Question: Can I now insert the plastic plug in my Glock and will it be legal for Production division? Answer: The plastic plug that fits flush with the heel of the grip is allowed, like the Jentra plug. Plugs that extend below the heel like the Scherer polymer slug plug or other similar models are not allowed. Metal, brass or the Seattle Slug plugs are not allowed either.

Seattle Slug is not legal but an internal plug which does not extend past the bottom of the grip would be legal. "22.3 External plugs (such as Remains in effect – external plugs which alter the Seattle Slug) grip profile or extend past the bottom of the grip are PROHIBITED."