vgdvc

LMFAO. I never checked out the Humor section before here on the forums. Need to start making it a routine for some comic relief in life. Haven't come across one yet that wasn't hilarious.

If you're really into the 9mm route I would absolutely contact the authority on magazines, Beven Gram at Grams Engineering. Super nice guy, ridiculously knowledgeable about magazines and very willing to help. He helped me get things squared away on my STI tubes. In my experience his components are the best.

Sure, that may give the content more exposure. Hopefully people comment with their experiences on PCSL.

To the OP. Would you like to see this thread continue where more people can share their experiences and opinions of PCSL in an attempt to help grow its popularity? Perhaps it would be best to start a new thread and title it accordingly.

I guess that's up to the match directors discretion. The one I was at had a tremendous amount of shooting with a reasonable amount of movement. Lots of flexibility to have it tailored for each clubs/ matches desires.

I've been competing in USPSA, IDPA 3-GUN, steel shoots, and various Run n Gun matches for over 24 years. I shot a PCSL 2 gun match in November. A lot of fun. Rules, including those for type of target engaging, are fairly straightforward and simple. There seems to be a reasonable amount of deviation from standard USPSA matches that should make this user friendly to all experience/skill levels and keep it challenging enough for top level status shooters. Like any new format I'm sure it will go through a few modifications as time goes on and match directors that embrace it give their feedback. I plan on running local club matches based on PCSL and it's flexible guidelines. All that being said I would like to see PCSL have its own forum here. There seems to be enough merit to warrant it. A forum would certainly help promote the sport and create an awareness of it.

Good luck with the conversion, keep updated with how it goes. I'll pick up the torch for the 40. Getting a EGW plate to put a not in use Delta point pro on my Tangfolio Limited with lightened 6 in upper. Been playing with minor loads around 138 pf. It's so silly soft and flat shooting.(accurate also) Looking forward to running it in LO.

Sounds like more good reason to breathe new life into those .40 limited pistols. Get em set up with an optic (while keeping the option of reverting back to irons if possible). Shoot minor pf for now and take advantage of smooth recoil/ bigger holes. IF LO becomes a minor/ major division you'll be gtg dominating in Major. Win-win for the .40 Limited guys who reload! For giggles I threw an EGW plate w/ optic on a Tanfo. Limited with 6" lightened upper. 155gr coated with Clays @138 pf. 15yds. 6 rounds at speed in center headbox was silly easy..... Didn't have my timer with me but speed,cadence,dot movement was similar to my Brazos open gun at 175 PF. Not as snappy quick but everything landed where it needed to fast. Going to work with a few of my other limited pistols to see which feels best. I hope more experiment with the .40 LO option.

I hear you but Limited Optics is still a provisional division correct? Is there no chance that it will have minor/major scoring?

This is a reasonable advantage for a 135ish pf .40 shooting minor scoring only. In my area there were some M and GM shooting .40 in production. Granted, the round count was limited to 10 for any caliber but a .40 round nose flat point ,especially with a coated bullet ,makes a large pronounced hole. Think how many of those "just outside the A zone 9mm Cs" would be easily called as an Alpha with a 13% bigger hole that a .40 makes. 180 grain .40 and Clays/Clay Dot is super soft shooting. Want some more snap? Load 155/165gr with Clays. Want it even snappier? Load 155/165gr and Tite group. Lots of options. I like the concept of taking a .40 gun, putting the advantages it has to offer to use, and whoop up on alot of the 9mms. I see it as some payback for trying to make .40 an obsolete cartridge and pushups ng out major scoring.

Good, and quite possible for some others. Safely making 9 major could cause issues with some blowback only pcc's relying on bolt weight and spring tension only instead of a lockup mechanism. If they were going to do major/minor scoring they could have minimum caliber requirements as they do in single stack and limited now. Doesn't seem that's going to be a concern however....

Yeah, bad things would happen. That's why I was very specific and said all pistol divisions have the ability to shoot safely with major and minor calibers. Then again ,PCC could certainly do it in 40 and 45. Ah, what's the point. Doesn't really matter. Everything's going to minor scoring anyway, right? Hey, maybe we could really get the power factor down low and have .22 rimfire pf. No, wait ,airsoft like they have in Japan! Oh no, he did not just go there! But I digress, just being silly now.... It's a game. I'll enjoy playing it and be competitive however they decide to land the rules. I definitely know how to distinguish between a game and practical.

While they're at it they should definitely drop the v out of DVC. Apparently Vis (power) is no longer a fundamental principal for the sport even though it precedes Celeritas (speed) when USPSA was originally formed. Make no mistake, red dots divisions will dominate . Accuracy/aiming requirements will demand it as MDs will continue to make stages more challenging based on Red Dot participation. Certainly not a bad thing as red dots on pistols will become more of a practical standard just as they have become on rifle platforms generally reserving irons for backup.

Perhaps that is it the direction they feel they should go, so be it. If the premise of minor/major scoring isn't going to be recognized I would propose at that point that they are consistent across the board and not have major/minor for ANY division. Every pistol division has the ability to be shot with major and minor power factor calibers safely so why only limit minor/ major scoring to a select few. Keep a meager low minor power factor for everything. Go out be safe, shoot and have fun. It's a game and , especially with minor only scoring, has very little purpose of being considered practical for anything else.

You could be correct. If that is the case they might as well be real and take the "P" out of USPSA. It defeats the purpose of power factor and any reality it is supposed to represent which was the purpose of minor/ major scoring. If it morphs into what you are saying things have a way of reverting back to the means at some point.

Ah yes, horrible idea. Because minor/major never had/has a place in USPSA.

Sure, there is plenty of demand for 9mm minor. Without the option of allowing major scoring how do you know what demand there would be for that How can it possibly be a detriment to allow both power factors to compete side by side? Again, that's the whole purpose of minor/ major scoring. Minor equals slightly more round capacity and less recoil to contend with but less power therefore more points down outside the A zone.. Major is more recoil/power to contend with but less penalization outside the a zone for a miss. Pick how you want to play the game and run with it. Put an adapter plate on a .40 limited gun and you have it inexpensive optics ready. Have someone like Battleworx cut your slide and have a more professional look to it.

Even a better idea to allow minor/ major in this provisional. If .40 is truly a dead caliber you'll see it by the lack of major pf participation. Single stack has .45, .40 major and 9mm minor. Advantages and disadvantages to both. Even though many shooters gravitated to 9mm with minor scoring, because it had better round capacity in the same length magazines, there were still advantages to shooting major. Similar comparison can be made to Limited although most stayed with .40 due to the advantages of Major PF while giving up some around capacity to a minor of caliber. Keep the overall weight limit and magazine lengths the same for both major & minor. Why would you change any of that? Let the shooter decide how they want to run the game.

I just came across this thread and addressing OP's question wouldn't logic dictate that limited optics follow the same minor/major scoring as limited? I mean in theory you're basically taking a limited gun and putting a slide mounted optic on it, correct? The "practical" idea behind minor/major scoring is that you got penalized less for outside and alpha shot with a higher power factor but you will lose mag capacity. Why penalize someone shooting a .40 major to follow the spirit of limited. You have carry optics which is scored minor only the same as production. CO is basically a takeoff of production with an optic on it and larger mag capacity. My two cents. May only be worth two cents LOL

Since I'm one of "you guys" your question is directed to me so I will answer it. I sometimes shoot carry optics division with my Glock 34. It does not weigh 5 lbs but it is optimized to be the most effective I can make it for the mission/task it will be used for. I carry a G19. It is also optimized for the mission/ task it may ,hopefully, never be needed for. Each has a different purpose but I give myself any advantage possible with my equipment. I earnestly train with both. Not knowing what internal modifications you may have made I see externally you have done some optimizing of your own equipment for a carry piece compared to stock. Good for you.

Hello. Thanks for the suggestion. Sorry for the confusion in the sentence of mine you were referencing. What I was trying to relay was regardless of how I had the magnifier adjusted the point of impact is still the same. In other words even though adjusting the magnifier changed the view of how the dot was centered it made no difference on point of impact. If I can't get these two units to jive with the same point of impact I resigned myself to understand that without the magnifier I will hit about 1" low at 100 yd from point of aim and with the magnifier I will be 2.5" high from point of aim which would give me approximately a 250yard zero with 55gr since my Chrono velocity @ 10' with that particular gun is 2785fps avg. (M193ball) I appreciate the input and if there's any other suggestions out there it would be great to hear them.

Hello. The Red dot/Chevron by itself is zeroed at 50 yards. When the magnifier is used the Chevron is still viewing the same point of aim. The point of impact when using the magnifier is approximately 2 in high at 50 yards and 4 in high at 100 yards compared to the non-magnifier groups. When the magnifier elevation adjustment is turned completely counterclockwise and fired or completely clockwise and fired, putting the point of aim viewed in different positions than the dot/chevron by itself, the point of impact still always hits in the same high grouping area. I am running the magnifier with the spacer that puts it in direct alignment with the site. Both units from Hollosun so should be designed to marry up well.

Hello. I benched it again yesterday. Clamped it into a rest. Followed everything in the guidelines seen in the Sage Dynamics video referenced above. Still had the point of impact difference. Then adjusted the magnifier elevation all the way clockwise until it bottomed out and fired two rounds, then adjusted it all the way way clockwise until it bottomed out and fired two rounds to see if there was going to be an impact difference. And while it dramatically changed the point of aim in relationship to the magnifiers point of aim versus the dot/Chevron alone it still put them in the same 1/2" hole higher than the dot by itself at 50 yards by about 2". What the Sage Dynamics video says makes perfect sense to me although it didn't show when I practiced it. I have seen other videos, confirming what's happening in my situation, that show there is absolutely no shift of impact when adjusting the magnifier so I am really at a loss with this.

+1. I purchased mine years ago also for close to that price. Fantastic glass and good build quality. Generous eye box and very simple and effective reticle with daylight bright dot. I'm still on the hunt for a true 1x that is as fast as this but gives me 6x or possibly 8x magnification.

Hello. An update with my magnifier/dot dilemma. I mounted a 503G ACSS in front of the Holosun HM3x magnifier with the proper spacer. The magnifier was adjusted to center the Chevron. Optical clarity was adjusted for crisp Chevron and target at 100yds. Results... - Chevron is crisp through magnifier unlike previous Romeo 5 dot - Point of impact,with same center target hold, is 3.5" higher with magnifier vs no magnifier. ( Same as before with Romeo 5 dot) - When gun is mounted on a rest, flipping magnifier over shifts Chevron visual point of aim lower than Chevron alone. Reverse sequence confirms this. - Shooting partner sees same point of aim change as described above BUT his groups hit same point of impact with and without magnifier at 100yds. (WHAT THE HECK !!!) So I gained a clear Chevron vs a blob for a dot with the magnifier but still have different point of impacts. Frustrating! Any feedback is still appreciated. On a good side note the Springfield St.Edge 10.5" "pistol" it is on consistently prints under 1 moa with all ammo tried at 100yds and under 2moa at 200yds.