boo radley

Don't make the mistake I did, and use LocTite on the post screws, or whatever those damn things are called. Bought a DOH a year ago, and used it for L10. Got sick of the screws coming loose, so I applied a liberal amount of red LocTite. Ha! Worked great. Then I decided I wanted to shoot an IDPA match. Nothing I tried worked, until I finally cut "slots" in the female of the post screw, so I could use a screw-driver on either side. After the IDPA match, put it back in the DOH configuration. Now I have to remove it for SS (though not L10)? It's not hassle, anymore, but there's definately a different feel to the draw.

Been a while since I've had a chance to revisit this issue, but I tried loading the same SWC's longer -- to like 1.265" -- and...no more problems. They feed and shoot flawlessly.

I don't have anything at station 3 -- in fact I don't even keep a locator button there. This makes it easy to pull a case out, and weigh the powder charge. With good lighting, it's easy to look into the case and make sure it has a powder charge, so I'm not too worried about not having a powder check.

Thx Shred and Mob...Primer punch is screwed in tight. I'm tending to agree with Mob and the threads linked, that the problem resides somehow with how I have the locator arm adjusted in station 2, though it seems there's a slight gap between the arm and shell....

I'm finding it extremely frustrating loading .45acp on my Dillon XL650. The primer is getting crushed sideways or inserted upside-down in 1 out of 5 rounds. This is NOT a problem when I convert to .40S&W. There I can load flawlessly, so something has to be changing when I switch calibers. I am using Lee dies, including the FCD, and the operation is very jerky, I will admit. However, there doesn't seem to be a correlation between rough operation of the handle (because of the FCD or sizing) and a sideways primer....As far as I can tell, the primers are not upside-down at station 2. I've done a search, but welcome any suggestions. Almost ready to dedicate the 650 exclusively to .40 and just buy an SDB for .45acp.

Why? You do realize Rap music was actually invented by white folks about 100 years earlier, in fact. They just called it...Square Dancing. When I feel like dry-firing, which hasn't happened in a couple months, I'll head to the garage, and turn the radio to some "hits from the 80's" station.

I have no illusions whatsoever about Indians and arrows -- just curious about the alternative for me, along with a small dose of "new toy" disease. A lot of the choice also comes down to one's individual temperment and personality, as well. Some -- maybe Flex? -- take a perverse pride in a deliberately pursuing a minimalist approach, and having the cheapest weapon, but best match result.

That really is the only advice. I've shot a G35 in LTD for not quite two years now, and have a short dustcover 2011 being built. If one or the other gun doesn't work out for you, sell it, lose a couple hundred here or there, but over what shooting competitively costs, in general, that's chicken-feed. I really don't believe I was being held back by the Glock, but I hope to improve with a new gun, or at least rekindle a desire to practice and shoot matches. That, and I became tired of wondering if a "real" Limited gun would make a difference.

What Fireant said. Last year was the first time I shot the match, and I had a flight Sunday evening out of Orlando, thinking I'd be fine.... Missed most of the shoot-offs, the final results, the awards, etc. Sucked, 'cause it was my first major, and I would have enjoyed receiving my plaque. Unless the flight is very late, I'd leave first thing Monday AM.

I have a different opinion. I am greatly encouraged that Americans can still rally and send a clear message when pushed hard enough. I don't necessarily expect everyone to agree with this message, but let things drift the other direction, and ANOTHER message will be sent. Checks and balances.

Leo -- I'm in kinda the same boat as Mark, and I have done a search, but still not certain... Anyway, my question to you (or anyone) is this: I have a 2011 being built that I can only assume some day I'll get. <grin> At any rate, in the meantime I bought 4 new STI 140mm mags, and then some +1 Dawson pads from the classifieds. I've read about people tumbling the tubes, and polishing the mags in and out with various things, and...well how much of that is necessary? If it's a "must-do" I don't mind using the time now, to knock out a mag here and there...If it's a "maybe-do" I guess I might as well just wait and see if I have problems? 19 reloadable would be just fine.

I'm taking a break from work, so I can't call up the rule book, but if you're shooting in ESP or SSP, you're required to load 10+1 or mag capacity +1 if your mag holds fewer than 10 rounds. Hey RevChuck -- yup...but the way I read Mayo's comment he meant some folks wanted to start with 11 rounds in a high-cap mag, but the SO's insisted that the shooter top-off, instead.

Why would some SO's force topping off? If it's not against the rules.... I think this rule should be cleaned up, too: "Competitors must use the same capacity magazines through out the competition (Example: if you start with a 9 round magazine, you must use that capacity magazine throughout the match). " Somehow that's interpreted to mean you can use *both* 7 and 8 round mags through out (sic) the competition, provided you don't load more than seven rounds in the 8-round mag. But...the rule doesn't say that -- it seems pretty unambiguous. 7 and 8-round magazines are not "same capacity magazines." <shrug>

I'd have to put my $ on Chris Tilley, considering he missed winning the *Limited* Nationals this year by a whisker, and now will be back behind an Open gun. Awesome job, Chris. Congratulations on an OUTSTANDING year!!

THIS thread was started talking about sub-maximal results being rewarded with sponsor dollars. I commented on sub-maximal results being lauded overall. And...WHY are there no female GM's? There are no special tees; everyone shoots heads up. There are hundreds of male GM's, so it can't be THAT hard so that NO woman can perform at that level. Is it because there is no interest because there is no need, as in the bear parable? I don't mind being attacked (you are not doing it with an AK or a IED, so I'm happy...nothing like a "secure" job, neh?), but lets make sure we are talking about the matter at hand and not getting personal Alex Alex -- I apologize if my response came across as a personal comment; I can see why you would think that, and it wasn't my intention! My only point, is I think it's wrong to presume that some people are complacent with a certain level of achievement. I understand your "Bear" analogy, but I think that first, you never know who you'll be running alongside, especially in the future, but more importantly: if you voluntarily choose to put yourself in front of bears -- you have a *love* of running. Steve

Wow! I think it's pretty dangerous to presume degrees of motivation and desire to achieve relative to what YOU think is or isn't important, or a sufficient achievement. That's like saying, "Gee, if I had a secure job with benefits, like Wakal...I wouldn't do a DAMN thing more than I had to!" And maybe you DON'T do more than the minimum to remain employed, but how can I possibly speculate? It sounds to me like what you're really opposed to, is the existence of a seperate category recognizing only women (and presumably those for military, LEO's, seniors, and juniors). Because otherwise, everything is level -- there isn't a lowered HF for classifiers submitted by women; they don't move the targets in closer for seniors, etc., and nothing exclusionary: HOA is still HOA, whether won by man, woman, child, or Martian (maybe). So I guess my question is, what does this category bother you? I'm genuinely curious. Man, I think it must be a terrific challenge to play this *game*, as a woman, simply from the standpoint of needing a thick skin to put up with the hassle of boorish comments (and worse), patronizing insults, etc. I'm sure, in the near future, there will be female GM's. I also suspect if this sport were significantly more popular, with, say, NCAA scholarships, etc., maybe the GM's we have now, would be...only A-cards, or something. Who knows?

Nice post, Jim -- imo, the "dilution of competition" argument for fewer Divisions (which I kinda agree with), becomes larger as matches get smaller, as opposed to being a concenr at the Nationals level. A sectional might only have 20 L10 shooters, period: if 4 of those go off, and shoot SS, you could end up with no one getting an accurate sense of match accomplishment vs. competition, or award, etc, right? As someone else said, imagine if a "plastic gun only" division were created, and how it would affect Production. All that said, I can't see how this will ever get resolved, without pissing some section of membership off, no matter what is decided, or not decided. It will be interesting to see how many shoot SS next year.

Funny you should mention that -- I mostly practice in an indoor range, and the last practice session I had some 230gr lrn's loaded on both powders. The TG loads were dramatically smokier, and I can't figure out why, since I thought smoke was a function of the lube burning (mostly).

I have some data for that exact combo, from a 5" Kimber Custom II. 200 Laser-Cast SWC n320 at ~1.256" 4.7 av. 813fps sd 11 (for 10 shots) 4.4 av. 768fps sd 23 (ugh) another run at a chrono on a later date... 4.7 av 803fps sd 9 With 200grain bullets, I pretty much decided on 5.0gr of n320 in a 1911, but have started shooting Titegroup, just because I have so much. The interesting thing is, so far, I've been able to substitute TG for n320 and use the exact same amount of powder. <shrug>

Yes. I don't entirely disagree with you. But -- USPSA is a very small sport, almost a fringe recreation, and that's both its charm and its problem. So even shooters at the highest possible level are shooting alongside the rank and file, in the same events, on the same scoresheet. If the sport were larger, this wouldn't happen; you don't get to self-squad your Sunday foursome to tee off just behind Tiger at the Masters. With that said, I can't imagine you and Ron being little enough to scorn -- or even care about -- someone's delight at a trophy because she's won "C-class" of the mixed, weekend bowling league, in Podunk, or being pleased with a coupon for a free pair of tennis shoes, because an individual singles tournament at some tiny country club, or whatever. There are millions of examples of minor, petty achievements and accomplishments that are relatively mediocre and absurdly small compared to the bar set by the best of the best, but deny them as your conscience dictatates. From my perspective, as I've said, a major tournament strikes me as many tournaments within one; a pool of C-class Limited shooters shooting against each other and so forth. Who cares if you divide up the trinkets and ribbons and shiny things, and give some to the winners of one pool, the more expensive ones to the winners of another pool, etc.? It's only because the sport is so small you have all the classes shooting together, anyway.

I agree. It seems to me rewarding mediocrity is a major problem in this country. I'll stop now. I'm curious -- can you be more explicit? I'd like to see how the two of you relate that sentiment to this particular thread. I wonder, too, how vastly different this conversation would be if IPSC/USPSA were 5x more popular.

Hi Rich -- Double-check all these answers, but.... You need a permit (or in-state CCW permit) to purchase a handgun. There is no waiting period, per se, but you have to visit the Sheriff's Dept. of your County (Cumberland?), and apply, and it takes about a week for them to run a background check and issue them. I usually get 5 at a time, and they're good for 3 years I believe. Or, you can present proof of having attended a valid CCW "class", and apply for a CCW permit, in which case you won't have to mess with individual handgun permits. Bottom line - any dealer and individual selling you a handgun is going to want a permit, or to see a valid NC CCW. AFAIK, there's no limit to the number of guns you can buy/sell, but your County's Sheriff's Office might have their own rules about number of permits they'll issue in a year. Dunno. For long guns, no permit needed -- just a valid NC license and you'll have to fill out that standard Federal form (forget the name) at time of purchase. No biggie. This is assuming you're buying from a dealer. Don't know any stores in the Fayetteville Area. Do visit "http://www.ncsection.org" for a list of area matches (IDPA/IPSC/3-gun). You're in a good spot, with a good match within an easy drive (< 2hr) almost every weekend. This weekend is the NC Sectional, in fact. And, the 2nd weekend of the month there's a match spitting distance from you on Ft. Bragg (Range 14).... HTH, Steve

It's an interesting puzzle. I guess I approach a match wanting to shoot my best performance, but having the competitive goal of placing as well as possible in my Class/Division. As a "B" shooter, it's unrealistically optomistic to go to a major match, and expect to challenge for HOA. However, it IS a realistic goal to consider the match a contest with 20?30?40? *other* shooters presumably at the same *general* level of skill, and shooting the best match out of everyone in one's pool is an accomplishment most matches recognize -- ie, "class win." It's a pretty equitable system, IMO, that ensures an attractive match for everyone at every skill level, but there are two issues. First there are those shooters that aren't really one's "peers." In most instances, I'd say, "tough," but there are legitimate cases of "sandbagging," either intentional or not -- this could be solved with some minor tweaks to the system, and some attentiveness on the part of the MD. But second, there is the case of shooting a good match relative to the rest of the field, but not good enough for a class win, or award. In this case, the paradigm has shifted from a match in which you need to beat out 10 other "equal" shooters, to wanting reward for beating the majority of the field, who certainly aren't the shooters peers. It's a shift from relative performance on the day(s) of the match to wanting match recognition of absolute skill level and ability. More sticky of an issue, but as long as the policy is announced up front...let the market decide as everyone points out. Personally, I still think both absolute and relative skill can be rewarded in the same match. If there is a prize table (and I wish the $ spent on this went to recruiting, instead, in general), bestow the bigger prizes on HOA and the GM/M/A class wins, as the prize quality and $ allow. 1st A gets a better prize than 1st D, who still gets something.

I'd have to put my $ on Chris Tilley, considering he missed winning the *Limited* Nationals this year by a whisker, and now will be back behind an Open gun.

I have played around with the sights, and for a while swore by FO, but ended up with a Heinie rear (non race-cut), and Sevigny front. I've used this all summer, and don't see a need to experiment further. It was fairly easy to drift the rear sight in, with a hard block of wood and a hammer, until it was even with the slide, and then tweak as needed with more beating. <grin> A rear sight tool would be nice, but isn't necessary, IMO.