RickB

Actually, 99% the discussion was over pizza and beer, an hour after the match, as opposed to holding up the proceedings on the range. I am really surprised by the general, "Aw, come on!" tone to a lot of the replies; shooters really don't look critically at each and every WSB, to find something - a word, a loophole - that can be used to their advantage? Give it a once-over, and "Oh, I'm sure that's what was intended", before loading and making ready (or, after January 1, only making ready)? I shoot a lot of club matches, and consider every one as preparation for bigger matches, so I don't "turn it down" just because it's local.

Around here, we play that game every weekend, on almost every stage. The WSB is a word game! "From Box A engage only T1-T4" has a completely different meaning than "Engage T1-T4 from box A only". And, "from Box A only, engage T1-T4 only", has a different meaning still. If the stage designer gets it wrong, "intent" goes right out the window. I suspect the third quote is what the designer intended, but since we got the first one instead, is it a different stage than intended?

At a club match yesterday, we had a standards syle stage. Three shooting boxes, in line, at 40 yds, 25 yds, and 10 yds from the rear berm. There was no specified "shooting area", and no references in the stage briefing to shooting anything from anywhere but the boxes. I'm not going to reproduce the whole stage briefing, as it's really only the wording that interests me. Start position was standing in Box A. It said, "From box A (40) engage T1-T4 only, from Box B (25) engage T5-T8 only, and from Box C (10) engage T9-T12 only." There was a lot of discussion about make-up shots, and from where they could be taken, etc. By my reading, the shooter could shoot anything, from anywhere, as long as they were not in a Box. At the time, I think the wrong interpretation was made, allowing people to shoot any target they wanted from any box, as long as the specified targets were "engaged" from the appropriate box; with all shots to be fired from the boxes ("intent" rearing its ugly head?). In retrospect, I think that's wrong, and instead, the shooter should have been allowed to engage any target they wanted, as long as they weren't in a box; if in a box, they were limited to engaging only the four targets specified for that box. Shooters should have been allowed to charge the targets, shoot everything from the 40yd line, whatever, as long as they weren't in a box when they shot. What say you?

Any update on what's happened to gunracer?

I'm more concerned about scoring, than about equipment. Vickers scoring does not work well if the stages have much in the way of "down time" between hits. If you are shooting pistol stages with a rifle or shotgun, Vickers is fine, but if it something more like a traditional 3-gun rifle stage, with multiple targets at long range, from multiple shooting positions, you have too large a proportion of the stage time devoted to doing something other than shooting. Half a second per point down, on a stage that takes two or three minutes to shoot? We decided we'd do par time scoring, if we ever did rifle stages again; how many points can you get in two minutes. We ran rifle and shotgun stages in conjunction with a sanctioned match, last year, and we had three divisions; optics, no optics, and heavy metal. I could see a manually-operated division, but boy, that would sure be a long day in any kind of "CQB" type stage. Mag capacity should definitely be limited, but I'd "limit" it to 20 rounds. Or, no limit on capacity, but dictate a mandatory reload on each scenario stage.

I think the "shoot the low target first" theory mostly applies to situations where the higher target is actually over the lower one, with the gun obscuring the lower target; you want to be able to see the target to which you are transitioning.

I've been a SOI since '01, and have worked seven sanctioned matches. I've never given a FTDR, and never seen another SO "award" one. I won't give a FTDR for round-dumping, either. If a guy shoots one "extra" round, I certainly can't tell why he did so (every shooter gets the same benefit of the doubt). If a shooter intentionally fires two or three extra rounds, they're probably getting no advantage from doing so, so again, no FTDR. I'm fairly ambivalent about the existence of the FTDR rule, as it applies to round-dumping, but I just have never seen an appropriate time to apply it. However . . . experienced shooters know when, or where, to put the "extra" round, so making my job easier; they don't put me in a position to make such a call. New shooters get a warning to not do it again, if they do something obvious (like three-each on an array requiring two-each) and so become experienced shooters. If I saw five "buddies" all do the same thing, such as firing an "extra" round at the same target, I might say something like, "Gee, what a coincidence . . .", but since they hadn't done anything a bunch of other shooters hadn't already done, and other shooters would do in the future - putting a round on a target that didn't "need" it - I wouldn't penalize the guys who all were guilty only of doing it back-to-back-to-back. At the same time, I certainly won't say someone else, who's in a position to make such a call, couldn't or shouldn't do it. Maybe if I saw what they saw, I'd make the call too, but I just can't, or haven't, seen it. Actually, I lied. I did have it called on me one time, and I didn't argue it, so I could use it as an example of when it shouldn't be called. The stage included a plate rack. I cleaned the first five plates with five rounds, burned the rest of the mag on the last plate, and it was still standing. I reloaded, and frustratedly unleashed a hail of rounds, with perhaps the second or third of five or six rounds hitting the plate. Since it allowed a slidelock reload on the next array (a reload I wouldn't have had to do at all if I'd shot fewer rounds), the SO decided I deserved a FTDR for firing the extra shots at the plate.

Was this a "comic relief" line of thinking? I "think" a timer will answer your question, and that should put that thought to bed real quick, regardless of what the rules say. Are we talking about trying to eject the mag directly into the holster, or reaching across to the opposite side of the body to stow the already-ejected mag in the holster?

I think we can safely blame that one on the pink hat... mattk Dusty rose, Matt, dusty rose . . .

Close call:

TDean is a Master...I was there when he did it in CDP.... made it look like a walk in the park. Matt's a Master.... Emanuel is a BasT@r0 So, did anyone see an ejected case hit my thumb, on Friday????? To address the various side topics developing here. I think the home-grown Masters, who got their classifications shooting a Classifier Match, include EmanP, TV Dean, and Bobby, in addition to Duane. Eman definitely showed us the way around the state championship, on Saturday. He shaded everyone, including the other four Masters, by more than 20 seconds.

And then nothing matters. Let's get back to Rick's topic here. Rick, I have some ammo I can put into it. I'll shoot it left handed for a 100rds or so thumbs forward and then for another 100+ with my thumbs in the way to see if we can recreate the problem. You watch and see if you can find the problem. Wow, almost nothing for a couple of weeks, and BOOM, a really nice, somewhat-heated debate. Anyway, I'm going to put 150 rounds through it tomorrow, and we'll see if, A, I hit anything, and B, if the gun runs.

What negative effects do you mean? I ask because I've just gone over the 30K mark with my own 1911 .45 with 17-pound mainspring without a single problem. Actually, I went to the 17-pound mainspring specifically because I wanted to change how the gun unlocks and its slide velocity. I find that with the 17-pound mainspring I have less felt recoil, and less muzzle flip, because it requires less energy to recock the hammer. Also, I want the gun cycling faster. If the gun cycles slowly, in my experience, I'll get a lot of what I call "subsidiary muzzle bounce" or SMB. My theory is this occurs because the gun cycles so slowly it's already coming down out of recoil as the slide drives forward to close, therefore that forward energy gets added to the gun's downward energy - if that makes any sense - and the gun vibrates like a turning fork, up and down, when it should just be settling right back into the same spot. Ergo, SMB. By contrast, if the gun cycles fast enough the slide closes as the gun's still on its way up, there's no excess energy added to the gun as it comes down, and it'll just settle right back in where it was before it went off. At least that's my theory, and it seems to work. And the gun cycles every time I pull the trigger because it requires less energy to make the gun work. Everyone has a theory. My reasoning is more mechanical than sensory. The gun is held in battery mostly by the weight of the barrel and slide. Recocking the hammer also requires some energy, and using the standard mainspring, in conjunction with a firing pin stop of the original, pre-1916 shape, holds the gun longer in battery, theoretically improving accuracy - bullet has not left the barrel when the latter starts moving - and slowing the slide's rearward movement, allowing the use of a light(er) recoil spring, and so reducing muzzle flip. You think your muzzle flip is reduced because the slide is moving fast, and I think it's less because the slide is moving slowly. My theory is based mostly on experiments with a 10mm that left heavy firing pin drag marks on the primers. That gun had 23# main and 23# recoil springs. I changed the firing pin stop and installed a 25# main, and now, even with a 20# recoil spring, the firing pin strikes are nice and round. The army asked that the firing pin stop be altered, to "make the slide easier to rack". I looked at an original circa 1912 part, and saw that the radius on the heel was much smaller than what's used today. A light went on. I don't want the slide to be easy to rack, I want it to resist unlocking. A sort of cult of the small-radius firing pin stop has formed on one of the 1911 forums, and I'm a charter member.

I've found that adjusting the trigger pull weight at the sear spring is most effective, and doesn't have the same negative effect on unlocking and slide velocity that light mainsprings have. I'm pretty-well convinced, from the posts here, and a discussion at the range, that brass deflecting off the thumb would indeed go unnoticed by the shooter. I'm not necessarily convinced that my ejection problems are exclusively the result of such a problem, though. Let's see how things go this weekend. If someone wants to supply 500 rounds of ammo for a test, I'll loan the gun. ;^)

Thanks for the shared experiences. It sounds as if my problem is certainly not an isolated one. I'm going to try to consciously refine my grip when I draw, and see if the problem goes away. It may be that my shooting will also improve, as a result.

In the Pacific Northwet, L10 is a single stack .45 division, and Production is dominated by 9mm Glocks; conceptually, could hardly be more different. Seeing more SIGs, M&Ps, and XDs in Production, over time, and rarely see any hi-caps, except the occasional cross-over from Production, in L10. A guy with a 6-shot revolver beat me in L10 once, but I don't see an exodus of round guns to L10, any time soon.

I have found myself curling my right thumb down, and have tried to "correct" it; I think the high thumb thing is an unwanted result of trying to keep my thumbs pointing forward, and overcompensating. Holding the right thumb down on the index finger feels more natural to me, so I probably shouldn't fight it. Thanks for the suggestions.

5" 1911, .45ACP 23# main, 14# recoil; same spring rates since day one. 200gr @ 850 reloads; bullets and powder have varied, but always 200gr and 170pf No pattern, as to first, last, or other. The most recent was the first round after a slidelock reload. Changing mags has made no difference (I changed brands, nine months ago).

I have been chasing a failure-to-eject problem, for over a year. I had a few double-feeds and stovepipes, determined the extractor was limp, so replaced it. The gun had been all but trouble-free for about 5000-6000 rounds, prior. With the new extractor, I had no more failures to extract, but was still getting a stovepipe about every 100 rounds. I fiddled with the extractor tension, hook shape, hook travel, etc., and still the stovepipes. Another new extractor, and more tweaking, and the rate was down to about one in 300, but still driving me crazy. So, a friend lets me try his hat-cam, and I see a video of myself shooting an El Prez. On the first pass, it looks like the cases are coming out to 2:00, but after the reload, I see my strong (left) tumb is curved up, rather than resting down on my weak thumb. The video quality isn't very good, but it appears that the cases, on the second, thumb-up pass, are ejecting more vertically, and one even shoots out to 11:00; am I blocking the ejection port with my thumb, and the odd case is getting bounced back into the port? Any other lefties run into this? I have very long fingers, and in looking at some still photos from matches, I can see that thumb up where it would certainly get in the way. I am not aware of cases contacting my thumb when I'm shooting, but? I'm thinking all the extractor fiddling was just altering the ejection angle enough to vary how often a case got bounced back into the port, and that it isn't a mechanical problem at all.

There definitely has to be allowance for a "wall" that is not cover. If a scenario were to say, for instance, "After dealing with the first bad guy, you move to your car to leave the area, and are then confronted by two more bad guys." The course designer does not want the last two threats visible from the start position, since they don't appear on the scene until the "car" is reached; but the ground between the start position and the car is open, and the wall is not cover, it just blocks your view for the purpose of playing out the scenario. Some would argue, and be well-supported by the current rule book, that cover is any place from which you cannot see unengaged threats, but running across a "pretend" parking lot is not behind cover, even if you can't see any threats.

Boo, that's it in a nut shell. At the FL State match a few months back it was very stage specific; can reload once you've neutralized one this stage, but not on that one. Must stow mags first here, can stow mags on the run there. So long as I remember to ask the "mother may I" questions first I don't have any great heartburn, I'm just trying to find out if it's clearly spelled out in the rules. Your example of pieing and exposing yourself to T1 after shooting T2 is a perfect example. That's why I used steel in my example. What's the threat? I have nothing left to shoot at even to stack rounds or make up -1's. If you actually try to UNDERSTAND the rules, and apply them fairly it can make you dizzy. The itent or the letter. OK, here's one for you; since neutralization is a scoring, and not engagement issue, if you have three poppers downrange - at the end of a hall with more threats visible when you get to the end - fire three shots from cover and knock down only two of the poppers, can you advance and reload because you have engaged all the steel, or do you have to knock them all down before you leave cover and reload? If the targets were paper, you could miss with every shot, and still advance without penalty, but if you shoot AT a steel target and miss, is it treated differently because it's obviously unhit? If you miss the second popper, can you continue pieing out to get the third one, or must you drop the middle one before transitioning to the last? There's nothing in the rule book that says engagement of steel is any different than for paper; if there are three poppers and you fire three shots, you've engaged them all, whether you hit them or not. Right?

There is a somewhat broad consensus that says if no unengaged threat targets are visible, then the shooter is "behind cover", for the purposes of reloading. For the example of engaging T1 from cover, then having to move down a "hallway" to find T2; if no threat targets are visible while moving down the hall to the position from which T2 will be engaged, an on-the-move reload would be OK (legal). Even if the gun was emptied on T1, you would not be "leaving cover" with an empty gun, because there are no threat targets to be engaged. Personally, I find that interpretation ridiculous, but by the rules, it has considerable merit. At our club, we'll include, "reloads may be performed only at the start position, and at P(position)2" in the written stage procedure, if we don't want people moving down a hallway with an unloaded gun. My favorite illustration of the problem is the shooter standing in the middle of a four-sided room, with a doorway in the middle of each wall. If the shooter cannot see any targets from the middle of the room, then he is "behind cover", if the cover rule is strictly enforced, but, of course, the shooter is actually fully exposed through 360 degrees, and not behind cover of any kind. People talk about the difference between the rules and "the real world", but when you're shooting a match, the rules are the real world!

Rick Did those times that you quoted include the draw or was it the shot to shot times? They did not include a draw. The stage was intended to test reloading speed, and the shooter started with the gun on target, at five yards.

A two second RWR is very good. Much better than most people can do on demand. At a club match earlier this year, we set up a multi-string stage that consisted of shooting one shot, performing a reload, shooting another shot. One string was tac load, one string was RWR, and the third was slidelock. The times, average for fifty or more shooters, were a second or two slower than what people think they can do, and way slower than what would be considered "good". Like three seconds for slidelock, three-plus for RWR, four-plus for tac load.