andrewcolglazier

John, are you looking for an ESP gun? If so, I suggest a CZ75SA, which is the single-action-only version of the CZ75 classic. It can be had in 9mm or .40. I have the 9mm, and love it! It'll cost you half what a 1911 .40 or 9mm will cost you. Andy C.

If you can't reach the controls on a CZ, you won't be able to reach them on a single stack 1911 either. A double stack 1911 would be out of the question. A Steyr might work, if you can find one that runs - they're out there, just not in my gun cabinet. Chuck, you can't shoot a 1911 in Production. Andy C.

And never, ever (double-underscore this) change your plan at the last minute 'cause the hoser in front of you burned the stage down... Quadruple-gazillian dittos to that advice! Andy C.

Well sometimes during rapid fire, when you pull the trigger and you have a dummy round or a primer failure, your gun will actually move and it may look like your flinching if the gun moves with the dummy round, but if the shooter is shooting tight groups, rapid fire and the gun seems to move when he pulls the trigger and nothing happens. thats probably not a flinch its more of timing the gun and the guns recoil. Now if He/she has a shotgun pattern at 7yrds, than flinching could be the problem. Do Bill Drills, with carefull atention to the up and down movement of the front sight. I agree with this. I've been shooting handguns for a very long time, and I still drop the muzzle when my pistol "clicks" rather than "bangs". I took a class a few years ago from Jerry Miculek. During the class, one of the students asked him how he dealt with flinch. He said that he is a terrible flincher, and one of the reasons he shoots so fast is to "...outrun" his flinch. He was serious about this. Concentrate on your front sight, grip and stance. The flinch will take care of itself. Andy C.

Same as last year, please! Andy C.

I have seen it happen more than I can count. A shooter hears about the "thumbs forward" grip from a forum or an article or a DVD or a magazine, and using pictures provided, change their hand position, but perceive (and receive) no tangible benefit. The "thumbs forward" grip has a lot more going on than just where you put your hands in relation to the pistol or each other. There are a lot of anatomical dynamics going on there to help control recoil and trigger control. To really get the benefit of this grip, I would suggest workng together with someone who has been using the grip properly for some time and who can perform "hands-on" testing to see if you have got it right. Andy Colglazier

Bob, you probably meant to say "G24"? Thanks for the info! Andy C.

Steve, do you wear an underbelt? My CR is so "sticky" I don't think it could fall off! Good to see you this past weekend. Andy C.

I did a search on slide lightening and found this thread. I'm doing some research on the pros/cons of lightening the slide on my Glock 24, which I have been shooting in Lim. I really like the gun with its slide at its stock weight. I like the way the pistol cycles, and I am not able to outrun it as yet. However... I have had the virtues of a lightened slide extolled to me, so, I'm looking into it. I don't have any experience with a full length gun (6") which has been lightened. Ideally I would be able to shoot them side by side, but don't know anyone who has had the slide of their 24 lightened, and don't know who does this kind of work. I don't like a "snappy" gun, but can certainly see the merits of a lighter pistol in transitions. Has anybody specifically had a 24 lightened, and what (if any) benefit did you get form it? Thanks! Andy C.

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this thread..... I got all of my precision slide locks from TR. IMO, they are worth the money, which is substantially less than an aftermarket barrel. They are dimensionally exactly the same as the stock part, however, the little serrations that your fingers touch when taking down the pistol are much sharper, and easier to hold on to. Looking at the weapon, you can see no difference. As far as a difference in accuracy; it has been a while since I did side-by-side comparisons, but working from memory, I experienced at least a 2" shrinkage (ha! I said "shrinkage"!) in group size at 25 yards, independant of the aftermarket barrels, in both my 21 and my 17. You do not need an aftermarket barrel to make use of this part. Andy C

As an SO, I watch the gun very closely. On close targets it is possible to "know" the shooter hit the target by observing the orientation of the pistol to the target. I have given doubles to shooters when they fired twice but had one hole based on the fact that I KNEW from seeing the weapon/target orientation that they COULDN'T have missed the target based on what I saw. Andy C.

What is the intent of the rules pertaining to ammo management in IDPA? The intent is to prevent the loss of ammunition which may be needed later in the gunfight. Therefore, any ammo left behind that was not left behind as the result of a malfunction is a no-no, and will result in a PE. If the ammo is not on your person when you finish the COF, you get a PE. Ammo lying on the ground at your feet is not under your control regardless of where you show clear and holster. It must be stowed before the last shot fired in the COF, because it is the last shot fired which signals the end of an IDPA gunfight, not when you show clear and holster. Andy C.

I have Barsto barrels in My G21 and my G17. Both will shoot sub-2" groups at 25 yards with decent handloads off a rest. I also have a G24 with a stock barrel. It will also shoot sub-2" groups off a rest. Do I think the aftermarket barrels are worth the expense? Yes, as they allow me to shoot handloads using non-jacketed bullets without concern, and because they add a modicum of accuracy in over-all grouping, adding cutting 1-3" from all groups. However, the main thing all three pistols share, which I believe has contributed more to the accuracy of the pistols than the barrels, is that all three have precision slide locks installed. They greatly improve lockup, and they are much cheaper than new barrels. Andy C.

Here's what I would do: Bang bang jam, dumpmagclearjam, insert new mag, bang tacload, bang bang bang If the SO wants to give you a PE for doing tac rather than slidelock, so be it, but it wouldn't be right. If the course of fire REQUIRES a reload at three rounds, that's what I would do. At some matches they have given FTDR's for doing a different reload than mandated by the course description, and that really blows. On reflection, the better way to shoot this would be: Bang bangjam, dumpmagclearjam, insert new mag, bang bang bang bang. They might give you a procedural for not doing the reload where you were supposed to, but at least you wouldn't be penalizing yourself by doing two reloads in case they don't ding you for a tacload rather than a slidelock reload. Andy C.

+3! Love my 21. Andy C.

I have one of the Kramer holsters for my 625 4" MG. I like it a lot. Andy C.

A model 10 is a fine revolver. I prefer heavy barrel models in a K frame, helps soak up recoil. Power factor is 125 for SSR. 165 in ESR. S&B 158 grain .38 specials will make power factor from my 3" model 13, as a point of reference. Andy C.

If you want to shoot ESR, the 625 .45 ACP is IMO the only way to go. SSR provides tougher choices. I've been shooting a S&W Model 13-3, which is a fixed sighted, 3" K frame in .357. I've been having a lot of fun with it, and I picked it up used for $250 in great shape. It's easier to go with less expense if you shoot SSR. ESR usually requires more outlay, IMO. Andy C. Seems like the most popular gun these days is a 4 inch 625 (.45 ACP). First thing to do, send it to Randy Lee at Apex Tactical for a fantastic trigger job. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was thinking that too..but then I had thought..I should keep it inexpensive.. one of the revolver shooters in our club has a couple of guns done by Randy..and those are beautiful to pull the trigger on.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What you describe below, if actually applied to a match, is exactly the kind of expansive "freelancing" of the rules which leads to shooters being dinged for infractions not to be found within the rules. IMO, the rule against airgunning is quite clear: No Airgunning! To make the leap that "any act of going through the motions" is now considered airgunning has obviously expanded the rule with meaning not contained within the rule book! This is my biggest pet peeve with some IDPA officials; they see something they consider against the rules, but isn't, but decide to crowbar the act into the wording anyway. The purpose of not allowing airgunning has been well explained; it isn't in sync with a street DGU. The rule book says "No Airgunning!" If the powers that be want to expand that rule to include "No Choreographing either mental or physical is allowed!" then they should write that into the rule book. In the meanwhile, it ain't there. Andy C. The Green Book addressed airgunning with the "no sight pictures" in the beginning pages and our latest version of rules defines airgunning in a glossary! Taking all that into context , any "act of going through the motions" would be construed as airgunning and that is what conflicts with the Purpose of the sport "..to test the skill and ability of the individual , not equipment or gamesmanship" and Principles II. provide a level playing field for all competitors to test the skill and ability of each individual , not equipment and gamesmanship. IV.Provide shooters with practical and realistic courses of fire that simulate potentially life-threatening encounters , or that tests skills required to survive life-threateing encounters. my 2 cents , Mark <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's advertised as a single action on the SIG website, so if it were light enough to make the cut, it would be ESP only, evidently. Andy C.

I mentioned this elsewhere, but I think, in addition to what you have outlined below, procedures need to be ingrained in the rulebook to deal with situations just like we are talking about. That way both the shooter and the match officials have something concrete to work with and expect, no surprises and nothing that can be construed or mis-construed as a back-room deal. While IDPA may be a new sport compared to USPSA, there isn't any need to re-invent the wheel when anticipating potential problems which have already occurred in another shooting sport. It is completely foreseeable that, as IDPA grows in popularity and shooting numbers, big-namers will come in to take part. They have a lot on the line, and, along with us "also-rans" certainly would appreciate clarity. Andy C.

There must be congruence..... without rules, you have too much subjectivity and freelancing, which has been a problem in the past. Once you have rules, you can have the basis for less subjectivity, more stability, and more consistency. Then, it makes sense to have a more demanding SO training program to raise the level of competance in the so POOL. Andy C.

I agree. Andy C.

I have been giving some thought to some potential rule additions to the IDPA rule book and thought I'd float them here to see what some think. Some of the complaints from many quarters concerning the IDPA rule book have to do with its lack of clarity on some points, and the amount of discretion it leaves to the SO and MD. A lot of thought has been given to course of fire guidelines, equipment, etc., but perhaps it would be a good idea for some additions to the rule book concerning the finer points of penalties. As the most recent (and evidently very successful) Nationals illustrated, controversies WILL occur. Any rule book should have content to deal with such problems so no hint of abuse of power or bias can creep into the process. Just to start the discussion, here are some potential clarifications: 1. Just as a shooter has a finite time to contest problems with scoring or other issues, so should the match administration. For example, if a shooter has a problem with a stage, they have until they sign their scoresheet to make an issue of it. Once they sign their scoresheet, they waive the issue. At least, that is how it is done at the matches I have attended, but this is not contained anywhere in the rule book that I can find. 2. If cumulative infractions are to be held against a shooter, they must be documented. For example, current scoresheets have a place for SO comments and other areas to record warnings for things like equipment infractions, etc. If the infraction isn't documented, then it should not be considered. The cumulative infraction method, so far as I know, is not to be found in the rule book. 3. How many infractions can add up to a DQ? It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a formula, for example: 2 safety violations in any match = DQ. Or: 4 documented equipment infractions in any match = DQ. Or: 2 FTDR's in any match = DQ. There must be a requirement that the infractions be documented AT THE TIME THEY OCCUR, IMO. My opinion on shooter attendance at any organized shooting sport's events is, if you show up, you are assumed to know the rules. Therefore, you are subject to those rules, and ignorance is no defense. However, if a shooter takes the time to read the rule book and then is subjected to penalties or sanctions which were not outlined in the rule book, then change needs to be made. Can we have constructive debate on these and similar points? Andy C.

I began shooting IDPA in 1998, and have shot at the local, regional, state and national levels since that time. I'm a local club president and MD, I'm an SO and have SO'd at the regional level. I enjoy shooting IDPA quite a lot. I recently began shooting USPSA, and find that I enjoy that game very much also. Since I have had the opportunity to see crossover in both directions, I can say that there has been plenty of manure tossed over the fence in both directions. I suppose this will continue; much of it is mild and very much tongue-in-cheek, and none of it would lead to hard feelings if folks had a little thicker skins. All I can offer about the issue is the time-worn advice; "When in Rome......"