Steppenwolf
-
Posts
231 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Steppenwolf
-
-
Nice! A screaming eagle for a Screaming Eagle.
-
OP, IDPA does not equal real world, it equals a game, with lots and lots of rules, timed and scored. Of course a Tee shirt is slower to draw from, just like a Hawaiian. The vest is more of a bat wing garment for the game.
By the way, if IDPA was real, why not allow appendix IWB holsters? It is allowed in USPSA Open, Limited and Limited 10 division because holster position is not restricted. USPSA is not real either....
You are bringing way too much logic to the table. Agreed that the vest is easier to whack back for drawing and IDPA is a game with some different rules from USPSA. You can "game" the vest by choosing the appropriate vest and putting some thin shooting gloves in the pocket ("legally" adding some weight to help when whacking it back). Also agree about the IWB holster prohibition in IDPA. If you spend some time researching Bill Wilson, Ken H, LAV, et. al. you can learn a lot about why IDPA developed. It was "marketed" differently. Bill Wilson recently asserted in a Ballistic magazine article (can competitive match skills can help you survive?) that NRA Bullseye and Bianchi Cup, Steel Challenge, and 3-Gun events not so much. He also argued that IDPA was preferable to IPSC/USPSA for learning survival skills (". . . many of the skills needed to perform well at an IDPA match directly translate to the real world . . ."). He neglected to mention that he owns (owned?) IDPA. IDPA's market is different from USPSA and 3-Gun. Wilson's friends (Ken H. and LAV) offer classes that are quite different than those offered by top USPSA shooters. Frank Proctor (Army vet and USPSA GM) gave the better answer in the magazine article (and he did not give the same preference to IDPA that Wilson did). The vest is just an accoutrement for the game (does LAV make students wear a vest during training? Hmmm).
-
Nice! Do you intend to do quads? That port looks pretty conservative.
If the internal work is done correctly, you do not need to take off a bunch of material.
This ^ (plus my thumb/fingers are long and slender"ish") and gunsmith tweaked accordingly.
-
If I shoot Limited Minor it because I'm using my 3-gun 9mm pistola mostly for practice (and fun). I did not want to add another caliber (.40) for reloading. Sometimes it is fun to jump from Production to Limited just to break out of a rut.
-
Franchi Affinity back with port opened and larger bolt release milled.
-
I was going to also say you will likely not find a stock SP01 Shadow anywhere (unless you can get a used one). You can find SP01s and tune them and add sights. The SP01 will have the FPB, but I have not found that to be any disadvantage. I couldn't tell the difference between my SP01 with CGW goodies and an SP01 Shadow (friend's) when practice firing transitions at speed. I recently shot an IDPA match (28 shooters). My friend and I ran SP01s (non-Shadows). He got second place and I got third place (he beat me by only .5 second overall because I hit the perf on a no-shoot on one stage). The winner was shooting a tweaked STI 2011 and he only beat me by 4.5 seconds (the no-shoot perf hit cost me the win, but then again, either of them could have scored better also).
-
I noticed at 0:08 and 1:33 you started with your head down instead of looking at first target to shoot. Is that because of the rain?
-
Quite methodical approach. You are honestly evaluating and planning how to adjust.
Drop the sugary stuff and coffee. Switch to green tea or water. Eat a half ounce of wasabi five minutes before you shoot.
After your eyes stop watering and your nose stops running you will be alert! -
P-09 Mag fit
in CZ
Just checked mine. Does have some "give" front to back (but "springs" right back in place) and a bit sideways (tested three mags). Must be a "normal" tolerance.
-
Nice job. I like it.
-
"Wow. 9 whole matches, and a couple safety briefs. From a club that doesn't follow the rules either. You obviously know everything. Out"
Tarkeg:
Okay, on Stage Two of the logic match you bolo. Your persuasive skills need some brush up work. I did not say that I know everything, did I? Answer this question specifically--with a yes or a no (just helping you out here). Because I ask a few questions about justifying the classifier you reply with the standard appeal to authority argument. Now you are trying the intimidation tactic (with the old illogical "you obviously know everything" argument--which, of course, implies that you think that you know everything). I did not say that I know everything now did I? You see--when you question things you get a dog pile of opposition. "Fall in line son, or else."
Gooldylocks:
I am not being rude (if you perceive my replies as rude that is okay--but why are you doing so? Is it because you hope that will cause me to apologize and "fall in line" because of your perception)? I asked for a convincing reason to shoot the IDPA classifier and people reply with "you won't be allowed at a major match" and "read the rules--you have to be classified," "if they let you get away with it," and "If you want to be a big fish in a little pond." You guys should be paid ambassadors for IDPA.
Also, I wrote that I've shot ten IDPA matches. I noted that my local club dropped local IDPA affiliation. I can only shoot IDPA matches at a neighboring club. I've shot a lot more than ten matches (if you include the local non-IDPA matches, USPSA matches, GSSF matches, SASS matches, steel matches, 3-Gun matches, and shot various competitive shooting sports years ago and in the army). I am also lucky enough to get to shoot training matches and simulation situations at an indoor police training range because I help them out from time to time. That is much more than a single month's worth of matches (you and Tarkeg made a major assumptive leap about the level of my experience ("9 matches ever?")). Let's correct your ending assumption for the record shall we? Were you insinuating that because I'm some newbie that my questions or point of view are not valid? I'm not a newbie (but you will never admit your mistake will you? If you think that is rude then don't make such assumptions). So, the IDPA club that I shoot at occasionally (that I pay to be a member of, that I help setup at, help teardown at, help tape after scoring, and help with their fundraiser) should kick me out because I don't want to shoot the IDPA classifier?
The answer to my question (convincing reason to shoot the classifier) boils down to one simple thing. It is about money. IDPA is a private organization that requires money to operate. They require members to classify to justify joining IPDA. I would join IDPA (for the sake of the neighboring club), but I don't care to spend all day shooting the classifier. But, "it's in the rules--you have to shoot the classifier."
Would you like to contact IDPA HQ and get me ostracized from the affiliated club? I can still pay local club dues, show up and help setup and teardown, help score, and just watch instead of shoot. By the way, if the "gotta be a member" rule was enforced that club would close down and IDPA would shoot itself in the foot.
-
Tarkeg:
I understand the IDPA rules (I've shot nine IDPA matches without any procedurals and my first procedural was a "cover call" in my first match).
You assertion (unsubstantiated and unsupported opinion) that I do not understand "basic things like membership and Classifications" is just that--an assertion. You are cherry-picking comments from my reply and making a claim that you cannot prove. I played baseball (was a starter in HS and on the Army team). Actually--I learned baseball as a young lad by just getting out and doing it. Never did read any rules. If I read the rules I would have probably been a second-stringer watching from the dugout. I ran around the bases correctly because I watched older kids playing (and I'm a quick learner).
If our discussion was a logic "match"--you have scored a procedural (for an assertion based on out-of-context comment culling) and are down about 20 points. So riddle me this "if the IDPA rules are so value-worthy of reading and will teach you everything you need to know before shooting the sport, why are cover calls so arbitrary?" I listened to the MD at my first IDPA match (there was a 45 minute safety and match briefing). I know what "slicing the pie" is, I know what a cover garment is, I know how to score, I know what a no-shoot is, I know what hard cover is, I know the range commands, I know what a procedural is, I know what the 180 is, I know what a tactical reload and reload with retention are, etc. etc. I learned all that from the briefing and attending matches.
Stage Two awaits.
-
If you want to shoot anything above a Tier 1 club level match - and that run by a tolerant MD - you have to be classified.
If you are more interested in being the big fish in a small pond and they are letting you get away with it, go ahead, but you will not be welcome at a major match.
Well our local club dropped IDPA affiliation--so what's my motivation again? The neighboring club (IDPA affiliated) allows us to shoot matches without being an IDPA member (however, I do pay to be a member of their club in order to support the club and their range). The next closest clubs are USPSA only and 3-Gun.
I'd rather be a "big fish" in a little pond before swimming into the larger lake. If your "big fish" comment was pejorative you should clarify (it is difficult to intuit intended meaning over the Web). I'm not sure why you remarked "if they let you get away with it." Exactly what am I getting away with? I'm not trying to get away with anything--I'm just trying to improve and become a better shooter and I weigh my progress using actual match results (and comparisons to other good shooters).
"You will no be welcome at a major match"--that hurt my feelings. . . . Okay, I'm over it now.
In terms of "If you read the IDPA rulebook, you'll see that it's every IDPA member's responsibility to be classified." I'd rather re-read War and Peace. It appears that I am in some kind of "Twilight Zone" given my club/range choices.
I've been a "rebel" (or considered one by teachers all the way through school) because I always questioned things. Pat answers and citing higher authority never sat well with me. I attribute my success in life to that one trait. So, the answer to my needing a convincing reason to shoot the IDPA classifier appears to be "you will not be welcome at major matches and it is my responsibility to be classified (because IDPA HQ ordered it)." Solution--if I ever want to shoot a major match I sign up for a classifier because classifications trump actual match shooting ability apparently. I will compromise on reading the rulebook. If you promise that IDPA HQ will not change it for three years I'll read it (doesn't look like I'll be reading it does it?). I know why IDPA HQ ordered "thou shalt read the rulebook and get classified"--you have to pay your yearly dues to classify (requirement). I should conform and pay IDPA and classify. If we do not pay IDPA we would not be able to shoot in competitions. Free bottle of beer to the first respondent that replies "if you don't like it then don't shoot IDPA."
-
I understand #11 (probably an historical miniature wargamer). Harley riding costs more. I know people that golf a lot and spend more on equipment, fees, travel, etc. I started shooting a few SASS (Cowboy Action) matches as well (had the level-action rifle and some cowboy boots, just needed two six-guns, holsters, and a side-by-side coach gun). Need to reload 45 Colt, but only shoot 100 rounds per match. 3-gun definitely costs more.
-
I agree, something is wrong. A new Gen 4 should have a 5 - 5.5# trigger pull. I polish the trigger parts and put in a Vanek safety and 4.5# striker spring and get the trigger pull to under 4#. A Vanek Classic trigger kit on a Gen 4 17 and Gen 4 34 gets the trigger to 2.75# - 2.9#.
-
There is a classifier in May at a range about 30 minutes away. There is a USPSA match (1.5 hours away) on the same day. I cannot find a convincing reason to shoot the IDPA classifier. It appears so boring compared to regular matches. I find this thread interesting given the different expectations people have for shooting competition. I really don't care about my "classification." I just want to continuing scoring in the top 3 at local matches (and eventually win more regularly). I agree with an earlier poster that if you practice the classifier a lot and get classified Expert or Master, but get beat at matches by unclassified or people with lower classifications--it would be embarrassing. I want to be the underestimated unclassified guy.
-
The psychology involved with gun selection is not unique to gun selection. I've seen the same phenomenon in golf (I had a hand-me-down, mixed club set from a semi-pro uncle, but noticed how many people always bought the latest fad clubs/gear), in the gym (with various equipment), and in other activities. If someone wins with certain equipment then the equipment tends to get the focus (not the hard part--training).
Most people would probably agree that it is the "Indian not the arrow," but in competitive shooting (or even with range gun shooting) people still think that there is some "edge" to be gained with certain guns, especially if it is used by top shooters (the "emotional" side of the equation). I like to collect/shoot nice guns (if I can afford them), but have a strict limit. I have purchased five guns over the past two years because I want to shoot them and see how they work for myself (usually because no one I know owns one that I can try). I've sold or traded four of those guns (all polymer) and lost about $1000 total (counts changing sights, etc.). But I considered that "tuition" as part of my learning.
I picked up a Tangfolio at a recent gun show (no one in our area shoots one). It felt similar to my Wilson 92G Beretta Brigadier (bought that gun because I wanted a Beretta with de-cocker only and got a good deal on it). I did not buy the Beretta because Ben Stoeger used to shoot one. But no magic flowed out of the Tangfolio into my hand and I passed on it. I thought (needs sights, needs trigger work, needs springs, needs xxx). I am tired of tinkering, swapping out sights, fine-tuning. I may shoot my Beretta in a competition (it is accurate and I shoot it well).
I still shoot my Glock 34 in some competitions. If Bob Vogel scored one more A hit at the last nationals (and won) then Glocks would have become the rage once again. If someone wins with the new Shadow 2 then it will become the rage.
I've watched some of Ben's videos and I give him credit that he never pimps his gun--he is upfront about the hard work and dedication required to win upper level matches.
-
I've shot a P320 (I owned and shot a P226 a lot). The trigger shape and size make it "feel" similar to a PPQ trigger pull, but it had a 7# pull on a gage. The gun has a street price of about $499, but trigger work to get it functioning better costs a lot more than trigger work for a Glock or M&P. In our entire area (three ranges/clubs) there is only one guy shooting a Sig P320 in competition that I know about and he is an average shooter. My Glock 17 and 34 were more accurate than the P320, but I have Vanek Classic trigger kits in them, Dawson FO sight sets, and have shot them a lot more. The stock sights and trigger on the P320 were different enough (as well as the gun being newer) to account for most of the accuracy difference. I would not shoot a P320 in competition without trigger work, upgraded sights, and other tweaking. The new target model may be the answer if you want to shoot a Sig.
-
Racknrider:
South Carolina has the right idea! I've read several forum discussions ("arguments") about the change and I've read what Larry Vickers (and some other IDPA "founders") have rambled on about. In a nutshell, if IDPA does not attract and keep new shooters then it will dwindle. The first match or two will determine if people (newbies) will return to shoot. I've noticed a similar phenomenon in other "competitive-related" groups over the years. If a newbie (referring to new at competition shooting--not just newbie with a new pistol) feels intimidated or overwhelmed then they will not return (we've all probably witnessed a LE, military, or experienced bulls-eye shooter show up once and never return). The members that claim people should "toughen up" tend to forget what it was like to experience/learn something new. A group that is supportive of newbies (people that make others feel comfortable) and that does not intimidate newbies (large score discrepancies) will fare better. Every club probably has experienced shooters that enjoy demolishing the egos of newbies (I've seen this behavior in past years at groups as diverse as Chess, table games, and misc. sporting-related clubs).
Why exactly is HQ making the rule change? Specifically what will the change improve (measurable benefit, not speculative/imaginary)? If HQ wants to further differentiate itself from "run and gun"(such as USPSA) it is naive to believe that changing scoring will directly result in overall improved accuracy. You become more accurate via learning (reflecting on experience over time and practicing), getting training (and practicing), or a combination of the two. Your "mental" game is vital to the process (re-read Benos' book). You will never build confidence unless you stick with it and learn, but you will not stick with it if you are intimidated or have a bad initial experience. Changing the scoring is a superficial solution.
And that and $1 will buy you a cup of not very good coffee.
-
I've been shooting a Glock 34 in production. I picked up an SP 01 (non Shadow) and added some CGW sights, springs, and G10 grips. Nice shooting gun and accurate pistol. Even though it has a firing pin block, the trigger (SA and DA) are excellent now. You can stay within budget following that route (except perhaps the G10 grips). I will still shoot the G34 occasionally (and in 3-Gun). I like 1911s and the SP 01 handles/feels like a "double-stack" 1911 to me. I don't think you will regret getting one.
-
I'd love to get one, but this thread is starting to remind me of similar threads over the past couple of years. When I decided to start shooting again (as well as shoot competitively) I remember reading about certain pistols before making up my mind and reading about recently introduced pistols after I started shooting.
I remember when the HK VP9 was introduced, the SIG P320 was introduced, and other pistols. Hype or hyperbole tends to obscure reason. It is human nature to hope the new arrow will make the Indian a better shooter (or in my case--I need a rationale reason to add another gun to my collection). Do the new improved features make it "that much better" than an SP01 Shadow? Perhaps for some people.
Was that self-convincing enough to justify getting one?? Perhaps. But, if someone wins a major match with it--yes!
-
IronArcher:
I thought along the same lines prior to actually experiencing a match with the new scoring system. We don't know how some of the top shooters will react until they actually shoot a match with the new scoring (they may take a bit more time to ensure down-zero hits). In our first match using the new scoring system the top five shooters (using old scoring) will remain the top five in the match. The top shooter (served in the Marine Corps) has a secondary job training people to shoot. He practices three to five days (500 - 750 rounds) per week on an outdoor range. He draws from an inside the waistband holster. He was on my squad. I observed him quickly assessing and taking a make-up shot (quickly) if he thought it was needed (Vickers count stages). On the backward moving head shots requirement he quickly made up a head shot (little hesitation) because he was "calling his shots." He said afterwards that he "wasn't sure if his second head shot hit" and thus decided to quickly shoot another while his gun was still on target. He ran the stage clean in about .5 seconds less raw time than I ran the stage (but I was 9 points down with one procedural for "stopping" to shoot). The second place shooter (federal LE with a lot of experience and an STI 2011 finely tuned) also quickly made up a couple of shots that must have been perceived as not down-zero (his time as about as fast as the winner, but he was five points down). If those experiences can be extrapolated then the better shooters will likely adjust (and probably still do so better than the mediocre shooters).
I'm not attempting to argue, just relating actual match experience. I'm not at the level yet where I can successfully call every shot (especially when faced with something I'm not well-practiced at such as moving and shooting). I did not attempt to make up a missed head shot when backing up because I did not call the shot and didn't know that I missed it until the run was scored.
-
Chosumnida!
I enjoyed reading about and viewing your progress.
Your nickname should be "Balli Balli" Hwan Sik!
-
Well, I now have firsthand experience with the new scoring system. Our local club dropped IDPA affiliation (last December). We are "action shooting" sports (more USPSA style). However, the club MDs/ROs had a ton of IDPA targets left. So, the scoring system in a recent four-stage match was 1 point down = 1 second (new IDPA scoring rules). About 36 shooters showed up.
Quick overview (that will help make more sense of my reflection about the new scoring). The match had a lot of moving and shooting (one stage required moving in a "square" pattern (up, right, back, left), shooting two to the body (there were four paper targets) as moved in each direction followed by moving around the square a second time shooting two head shots each (two each target), followed by two steel poppers at 15+ yards at the end)), more rounds per stage required than typical IDPA maximum, variation in required number of shots on paper targets per stage (for example, two shots each on three targets, but two on body and one on head for another target). There was steel mixed in on every stage. On two stages there were paper targets at about 20 yards (one required two to body and a head shot). Did not have to wear a vest (unless wanted to). One stage had a seated table start followed by shooting while moving at paper and steel, followed by some farther shots. One stage had a wire spool table that you had to run up to after shooting two paper targets, that required shooting from a kneeling position (under the table top) at targets on the left and then the right (both paper and steel). Also, you could load to 18 rounds if you had the magazine capacity (1911 guys had to reload more).
So, the stages were more USPSA style, but the paper targets were IDPA. These were tough stages because of all the moving and shooting. On the "move around the square" twice stage I missed one head shot while moving backwards. I was down 12 points on that stage--had one procedural (-3) because I backed into a corner barrel and "stopped" according to RO (9 seconds = 9 points down+ procedural instead of 4.5 seconds + procedural under old scoring). Many shooters had procedurals for stopping to shoot, for shooting at the next target before changing direction, etc. Scores are not posted yet, but I expect a lot of bad results on that stage. My time on that stage was among the top three fastest (in my squad). On the "shoot under the spool table" stage I was only down one point. On the table start stage--shoot seated, then get up and move (shooting paper and steel at varying distances while moving--having to finish before reaching a wall, including one target with a no-shoot partial cover) I was 8 points down (there were seven paper targets and two arrays of steel poppers).
I was not happy with my "moving and shooting" (something we rarely did when an IDPA club), but I did better than 75-80% of the shooters on the "lots of movement" stages.
I know that the match was not a pure IDPA match, but what I think will happen is that many of the shooters will become discouraged relative to the better shooters (i.e. the "gap" will widen between the newbies and less experienced and the more experienced). At least ten of the shooters were new or only shooting their second match (November was last match given weather). The "less experienced" shooters are going to feel even more intimidated. Just my reflections. I really have not reached a final conclusion about the new scoring (but if it was USPSA style targets I would have scored better because of more A-zone hits and not penalized as much for "Charlies"). Using IDPA targets with USPSA style shooting is probably not to be recommended. However, I think that the gap between the top shooters and the lower 40% of shooters will widen even in IDPA. That could result in more shooters dropping out or more top shooters migrating to USPSA.
After your eyes stop watering and your nose stops running you will be alert!
CZ TS Orange
in CZ
Posted
That is a nice-looking holster! You, sir, are an artist. Do your holsters work with Tek Lok and BOSS mount (as in an STI 2011 Eagle or Marauder)?