Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

B585

Classifieds
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    399

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by B585

    New Carry Optics weight in USPSA 59 ozs.

    in Sig

    Posted

    4 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

     

    Have you reached out to USPSA with your displeasure about the recent rule changes or ideas for doing polls for future rule changes? Take this up with USPSA directly and hopefully they will have the time to explain why these changes have been deployed. Whining about it on a forum isn't going to do anything about changing their minds.

     

    I also want to point out that USPSA has always deployed rule changes in a dictator fashion. If you don't like how that is done you can always choose to not shoot USPSA matches and switch to a different type of practical shooting match that doesn't use USPSA rules or polices.

    Thank you for informing me that I can shoot some other sport if I don’t like this rule change, but since my complaint was about how this affects others and not myself, I plan to stay put.  
     

     I was hoping we could he could have a productive conversation (although that doesn’t appear to be the case) so that perhaps enough pressure would be put on the USPSA admins that they might consider the membership before changes are made.
     

     I will end this by noting that I am pretty sure the bylaws were relatively recently changed to allow the admin to make their own changes sooner.  Didn’t it used to take 2 years?  If that is the case, at least in the past, the “dictatorship “ had to wait 2 years before enacting a change.

     

    New Carry Optics weight in USPSA 59 ozs.

    in Sig

    Posted

    5 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:


    Are you a match director? Are you involved in every single new shooter situation for your local club? If not then you don’t really know what the real road blocks are when trying to bring new shooters into the game. 
     

    I am a match director and the primary roadblock from a gun/gear perspective for new shooters comes down to modifications they have already made which makes their gun illegal for either PRD or CO. The recent rule changes in both PRD & CO relax these gun config restrictions that would make these new shooters guns illegal. 
     

    The whole point of these weight limit increases and relaxation of modifications is being done to minimize equipment roadblocks that would keep new shooters from using their existing stuff. If you can’t understand the purpose of that I don’t know what else to tell you. 
     

    You are fixated on thinking that the purpose of the weight limit change being associate with a competitive advantage, which it is not. The purpose is to promote equipment inclusion vs restriction. 

     

    I am not an MD.  I am not an excellent shooter.  I am a normal USPSA member.  I do squad with plenty of newbies who shoot CO who discuss matters with me regarding our division.  Somebody new to the sport is not very likely to tell the MD that they don’t like this or that about our sport.  This isn’t the point so I won’t discuss this any further.

    Here’s what is important:

    We have covered whether weight affects the shooting plenty.  We are going to have to agree to disagree on how weight affects the average USPSA member.  That is not what I am fixated on.  I am fixated on the fact that people spent money to lighten their slides to make weight in a division and suddenly the rules on weight change making that a waste of money.  I am fixated on the fact that CO is the fastest growing division and an unnecessary change was made.  I am fixated on constantly changing rules that don’t affect safety or competitive equity are not good for the sport.  As I said in an earlier post, I agree with your point on changing the other rules because it affects competitive equity.  

    New Carry Optics weight in USPSA 59 ozs.

    in Sig

    Posted

    23 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:


    News flash, new shooters to the practical shooting game will be at the bottom of the match results list regardless of what weight blaster they use. I also want to point out that I am yet to see a new shooter come into the game with a totally optimized blaster that they keep using their whole tenure in the game. There will always be an evolution of gear/gun as they figure out the game. 
     

    I also don’t understand the claim that a light weight gun is at a significant disadvantage compared to a heavy gun. Especially in a minor power factor division. Many light weight guns have won matches all over the world. 
     

    Sure a heavy gun “feels” softer shooting. But is that really a significant performance advantage on the clock? I would suggest you put in the effort and testing to prove your claim is valid instead of just assuming it’s valid. I know that I have. 

    Here’s another news flash.  Someone that is new to the game probably doesn’t have the recoil control that you do.  Yes, a skilled shooter can shoot a Glock as fast as a DA/SA, but that’s not what I am referring to.  I have seen people come from EDC/tactical and see this as not realistic guns and get turned off.  There should be a division or two that new shooters can shoot against similar guns.  They are more likely to stick with the sport. Yes, eventually they will get an optimized gun but they should get a chance to use their home defense gun and have a shot at doing well at locals.  
     

    Regardless, how can you agree changing rules in a whim that don’t involve a safety issue be good for the sport?  I am willing to bet you when every other limited major shooter would not be happy if we got rid of major power factor in  limited just one day.  Yes raising the weight is not the same as changing power factors but it’s still messing with the rules that were already in place for no obvious reason.  Ask IDPA how that’s worked out for them.

     

    Comparing a newbie to Ben is not legit...apples to oranges.

    New Carry Optics weight in USPSA 59 ozs.

    in Sig

    Posted

    7 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

    If you step back and look at this whole situation from an overall gun manufacturing/market vs competition legal perspective these rule changes make total sense. First, all of the new gun designs with modular setups where receiver chassis can be swapped into a wide array of grips or the whole grip can be swapped makes validating "Approved" gun types very difficult. The way the old rules were defined, you had to first determine the exact gun type so that the base weight could be identified and 2 oz added to that so the gun could be accurately weighed in order to see if its legal weight or not. Then you had the complex listing of approved or prohibited modifications to verify on top of that. With this endless churn of interchangeable grips, slides, frames and whatever else it makes the old weight and modification verification process very difficult to enforce at major matches and impossible at local matches. If you have rules that are unenforceable due to the complexity of it then what is the point of having the rules?

     

    USPSA realized that their old rules were restricting new shooter participation by making it too confusing or difficult for new shooters to determine if their existing gun was legal or not. They also realized that the old rules were unenforceable at all levels of matches which in itself is a really bad thing. The vast majority of sanctioned USPSA matches are local Level 1 club matches. It makes ZERO sense to have a super complex or restrictive rule set that can't be enforced at level 1 matches. The final thing that USPSA has to come to terms with is that as much as they think Competition drives gun design and manufacturing, it actually doesn't. Gun and after market parts companies are in business to make money by producing products that sell to the masses regardless of it being legal within USPSA or not. USPSA changing the division rules in a manner that minimize restrictions and reduce complexity of the enforcement process promotes a scenario that makes most of what manufactures want to produce legal. That is a win/win scenario that scales as products evolve.

     

    For all of the PRD & CO shooters who now think that their existing gun is no longer competitive because USPSA upped the maximum gun weight to boat anchor levels, I call bulls#!t. It has always been the "Indian" getting the job done not the "Arrow". This rule change isn't going to invalidate that reality. If people put as much effort into practicing with what they currently have as they did whining about things that don't matter then they would be much better off in the long run. Man up and master the gun and gear you currently have. 

    Your points on trying to determine if guns are “stock” enough is valid.  This has been an issue for years.  Measuring weight is not hard to enforce and I fail to see how raising the weight 14 ounces fixes that issue.

     

    In terms of participation (and I am only referring to weight), I disagree.   Glocks are very common guns for people getting a start in competitive shooting.  A G19 weighs about 1/2 the new legal limit.  Even in Minor, that is a significant disadvantage.  Seeing this, I would bet a lot of new competitive shooter will turn elsewhere.  Competitive shooters tend to be a significant factor in making their voices heard when it comes to politics/gun rights.  We need as many voices as possible to be heard when legislators start talking about gun rights.  A group of USPSA guys went to the recent VA gun rally which was 5+ hours away.  Again, Making common guns such as Glocks having a significant disadvantage is not good for the sport.
    For the record, I am shooting a Legion and I don’t feel a need to find a heavier gun so this doesn’t affect me personally.  If I was less experienced I do think the Legion might now be a little light.

    New Carry Optics weight in USPSA 59 ozs.

    in Sig

    Posted

    I’m sorry, but I don’t like this change.  I had considered lightning the slide on my Stock II, but found a way to avoid. If you had a Shadow II, it was basically a must.  Now all of the people who did lighten their slides to make weight did it for nothing.  Since CO is no longer a provisional division, I would like to see the USPSA admin quit changing the rules whenever they please unless it is for safety or some competitive equity issue.  I chose to shoot this division because I like dots and it is relatively cheap, relatively stock guns.  Glocks, M&P, etc will be at an even greater disadvantage without some serious grip work.  I shoot a Sig so I dont have a dog in that fight so it doesn’t affect me personally, but I don’t want to see that for this division.  There are plenty of divisions available for any who wants to shoot more expensive or modified guns (not a basically stock, mass produced gun).  Except for maybe Dan Wesson CZ or Alien, there aren’t any stock guns I am aware of weighing this much.

    As far as a MD goes...first, thank you for volunteering your time Charlie (and all the other MDs out there).  I can’t imagine anyone in this game for a while doesn’t realize cheating can occur at a level I.   All of the Level I matches I have ever shot have not chronoed ammo so if someone wants to cheat, they can.  If they want to cheat by weighing too much, most people in the division know they are over the weight limit based on the setup.  Since we are not winning money at a level I, if someone wants to cheat, we all know it and that is good enough.  I would never expect or want a MD to check weights, chrono, check mags at a level I.  At every level II I have been to (which is admittedly not many) they have a chronoed, weighed the guns, and checked mags.  The cheater isn’t going to get away with that at a level II or III.

    Sig P320 X-Five Alpha

    in Sig

    Posted · Edited by B585
    Left something out

    Anybody have any idea why this changed?  Unless I am missing something, it seems like a fix to a problem that didn’t exist.

     

    When I shooting a Tanfo, I considered lightening the slide to make weight.  I am glad I didn’t, but feel for the guys with Shadow 2/Stock II who did.  Am I the only person who thinks making all of these constant changes is not good for the sport?

    When will they eliminate the LCI barrels?

    in Sig

    Posted · Edited by B585

    I’m not sure what changed. They didn’t used to be like that. It’s sad to see cause I am becoming a Sig fan.  I guarantee I won’t buy another one that has an LCI barrel.

     

     If you really like the Sig you could fit an aftermarket barrel.

    Inward Shoulder Pressure vs. All Grip + Wrist

    in Handgun Techniques

    Posted · Edited by B585

    I like the detailed question.  You have obviously put a lot of thought into this topic.  I think it’s a great first post.

    i am not a great shooter so I will let the others chime in.  I will say that I think to some degree all of this stuff depends on how you are wired/built.

    Jake DiVeto (hope I spelled it right) has posted a lot of info on this topic in the not distant past so you might want to try to look up his posts.

     

    Edit:  Welcome to the forum and don’t let Cha Lee’s post discourage you from asking questions.

    Front Sight Removal

    in Sig

    Posted

    I only had one that was really, really difficult.  Eventually with heat and a mini sledge I got it.  The sight was trashed, but otherwise no issues. I was like you and that I was not going to be putting in another sight.

    Low

    in Tips for Improvement

    Posted

    Do the doubles drill and Kim’s measurement drill and then correct accordingly would be my suggestion in my non-expert opinion.  Maybe you are actively pushing the gun down because you used to have to do that with a non-compensated gun?

    Redding Competition Bullet Seating Die

    in 10mm/40 Caliber

    Posted

    10 hours ago, rooster said:

    Here’s one other thing I learned about the micrometer seat die. Check the overall length of your bullets. If that dimension varies greatly your oal’s will also because the die seats off the ogive. So the amount of bullet inside the case will remain consistent but the oal will vary. What I do is measure a handful of bullets use the one with the shortest oal and set your die to the oal you want. Then any bullets greater than that will be off.  I was also told that some manufacturers ogive’s are off and that affects oal also. Sharpie your bullet and take your die apart, put your bullet in the seat stem and twist it around and you’ll see it remove sharpie on the shoulder. 


    Isn’t seated depth being consistent rather the OAL being consistent what we really want.  That will give the most accurate ammo and the least variation in velocity, correct?  I don’t reload for precession rifle, but that’s always the impression I got from guys who do.  It seems they go to great lengths to figure out the seated depth.
    In any case,  I love the Redding Comp seating die.  I tried a few different ones and this has worked the best for me.  I have reloaded about 10k rounds of .40 and about 15k rounds of 9mm, all of which were coated bullets and never had an issue.  I recently have been changing my OAL as I have switched guns and found it to be very consistent.  I won’t use any other seating die.  Just my 2 cents.

    Reloading question

    in Sig

    Posted

    My Legion with the LCI had 2 malfunctions and they were with my shorter 1.125.  I had made loads of 0.005 increments from 1.125 to 1.145.  I had no other malfunctions.  This was the first 100 rounds through the gun so this may have been a coincidence.  Like you, I sent mine back for a new barrel after the first 100 rounds.

×
×
  • Create New...