theWacoKid

The problem with your train of thought is that the open platform is still dominant in steel challenge.

Actually they didn't. Reread my first post. USPSA isn't about accuracy per se. It's about points. You will shoot more accurate with minor but not by a margin large enough to shoot more points.

Peaked? No. Slowed. Yes. The real reason we blow so much gas is because of one reason only. Major scoring. If it wasn't for major scoring I'd be shooting 130 pf. So we don't shoot major because it shoots better, we shoot major because it scores higher. And thus we've figured out how to make the gun better while enjoying major scoring.

The open gun is also shooting minor. I think the issue is how much time these guys have been spending with their CO pistols. Not enough people train hard enough for this anymore to get the best picture of equipment. A few good/bad runs either way and this is how it turns out. Nevermind the real advantage in uspsa is the scoring not the other stuff you're talking about.

Aluminum and soft stuff don't work that well for me. I've gone to basic stainless, which dings up, but continues to work well. The hardened Limcat insert holds up great and does real correction on twisted mags.

First event sounds like used up case in an unsupported chamber or slightly out of battery firing. The out of battery thing is more often than not the catalyst for a nice base blowout. The second is a stepped piece of brass that breaks all too common exactly as you say. Geometry and stress concentration is the root cause and not pressure. Cull all FM, Ammoload, and IMT headstamps and make sure the gun gets into battery.

So I've been in discussions about this and my mind hasn't changed. "Safe angles of fire" does not mean within 180 degrees. Why? I'll try and explain. First, "safe angles of fire" is EXPLICITLY defined in the rule book in 2.1.2. It states: "Safe Angles of Fire – Courses of fire must always be constructed to ensure safe angles of fire. Consideration must be given to safe target and frame construction and the angle of any possible ricochets. Where appropriate the physical dimensions and suitability of backstops and side berms must be determined as part of the construction process." So safe angle of fire means what the rule book defines it to mean. Basically that shots that can be fired at targets will travel safely into a suitable backstop. It does NOT mean inside the 180 because it doesn't say that. 10.5.2 defines a 180 violation that will result in a DQ and it isn't relative to "safe angles of fire" just relative to "pointing uprange". So, safe angles of fire doesn't mean inside 180, it just means there's a suitable, safe backstop. Let's face it, 180 degrees is not a cut and dried real life "safety" line and I think sometimes we get too comfortable that it is. We can ALL come up with examples where a 180 degree shot is fairly unsafe and maybe risky and we can also come up with an example where a 200 degree shot may be completely safe. I think drawing the safety AND DQ line so tight at 180 is a slippery slope. If 180 is safe and 181 is dangerous, how are you not liable as match staff if you put ANY target near the 180? You're asking competitors to operate at speed onto a target that is only slightly away from "unsafe". IMO, safe angles of fire can be greater than 180, and if you put a target near the 180, the "safe angle of fire" better be about 225 degrees. Breaking the 180, however, is still and will always be a DQ. My opinion is to keep the large margin of error between where you're stopped and where "safe angle of fire" actually exists. I think the rules are written very clever in this regard and we're screwing it up with the mis-interpretation of 180 strictly meaning "safe angle of fire".

The chamber on a KKM has to be finish cut by you or your gunsmith, so that is going to vary barrel to barrel.

Ditto, and I rarely if every change them. Maybe when they get rusted. Check your feed lips are correct, rounds slide smoothly from the mag, and the alignment when inserted in the gun is correct. Sometimes a little work on the chamber entry area will allow for some extra margin of error.

I think this is pretty accurate. I am heavily invested in the RTS2. It was the best micro option when I decided to make the switch. Its shooting view is the best and it has the best dot options. Does it fail, yes. Is there one in its class that doesn't? No. Because of the high failure rate, it was worth it to me to invest the time to figure out how to fix the longevity issue and improve them myself. Having said that, this is the first alternate micro dot I have even considered. I really approve of the design and construction of the RMR's as well as the shooting view of the dot so I hope for the same from this new thing. I'll be testing one out and putting it through the paces to see if it is a true improvement.

Mmmm, main spring.

You're too late. Where you think I get all my springs?

Every time with a new barrel I think "nice, I can bump my load down a touch" and then before you know it, I'm bumping right back up to where I was. The new barrel cycle.

I always find my new kkm's to be very fast out of the box but slow down with use.

I don't consider it stable until about 2k.

The funny thing is I can argue the banners coming down and opening up the snow fence is a disadvantage. The ability to view through a snow fence and find a port has tripped me up more than I care to admit.

Both feet outside the shooting area, one procedural per shot. If the 4 targets were all that were available from that spot the max number of procedurals would be 8 for this infraction.

4. While stepped cases do have reduced case volume the issue is the sharp transition in the case wall. Basically a textbook stress concentration where the case is highly stressed from a sharp change in hoop stiffness. After a few cycles of expansion, contraction, resize, expansion the corner will start a crack and come apart right at the step. This happens when reloading this brass no matter how hot it's loaded. Overcharges won't fail this way, stepped cases always do. Avoid it.

I don't know who the guys are, but the basis of the argument is flawed. A 170 pf load does not shoot the same as a 130 pf load. In fact, myself and others stay as near as possible to the 165 floor because trial and error has shown even 168 vs 172 is noticeably better at 168. With a little time before an IPSC match, I'm shooting 163-165 pf. An open gun at the right sub-major load is awesome and so much better than major. The improvement is not quite enough, however, to offset the major scoring once you're going full-bore. So I think the net difference in scores would be less than people imagine.

Yes, but never to a new one unless I'm 'breaking it in'. I keep about 5 used springs in my bag at different levels of trim to change how the gun feels. A gun should not need a new or heavy spring to run. Having said that a strong spring will power through 'problems'.

Once it takes a set, that's when it's good. After it's broken in I never change it.

They 'can' be turned. You will be pushing the stop plate through the clamping from the lock screw. Not a good thing. The windage will go counterclockwise (poi left) and do nothing because there is no positive engagement that direction, just a return spring that normally won't overcome the lock screw.

Yes. I honestly don't think it'd be a real problem and have considered trying it. For me the RMR dot is visually the most crisp.

Height, angles, and twist. Ideally you want a mag that runs for a baseline. Feed lips that are the right dimension are great, but if they're not true to the centerline of the gun you'll have inconsistent, uncontrolled feeding.