mreed911

Looks like exactly the same rail - and the C-More would be a nice fit. I actually found a great deal on the grey Holosun 510C, so I may mix a little new and a little old and give it a run before it goes to the safe.

Wow, those are classic.

I'm hoping it's not the C-More Railway, but that might be close to it. Will do some more digging later. The PDP would be era correct.

It does not. Looks like it’s for the tube style optics.

Yeah, definitely going to have to see what fits it. Appreciate the pointer to start.

Picked this up as part of a three gun deal tonight - I collect these generation S&W guns. Came across this 3566 frame completed by Briley as a .40 open gun, a 9mm Target Champion and a Lew Horton Shorty Forty Five. Going to go by Briley and see how much more I can find out about this one - already have an email thread with them. This one has the Briley barrel. Anyone know what a 90's-correct optic would be for this mount? Something suitable today?

Ben and friends had a video over the weekend analyzing the meetings. The personalities and politics of that/them aside, I didn't realize just how many seats were currently available and/or up for regular election this year. I also didn't realize that USPSA IT had suggested some sweeping changes to the classification system to include match results in classifications. Seems like Ben Barry is wanting to look at the data vs. just jump into a change, and I support that. If you're not active in your local area, now seems like a good time to at least find out who your AD is/was, who might be running and their backgrounds. A lot could change in the sport with a majority of board seats turning over.

You would not want to play poker near me next weekend, then: https://thelodgepokerclub.com/wacky-weekend-of-poker/

My individual mind thinks so. I think Donna mentioned reduced revenues on one of the meetings but I haven't searched for it. You know they're seeing the discussion. I know the new board members are concerned about it, but not in a competitive way. They're concerned that if they can't get to a more transparent place for everything - rules, competitions, matches, staffing - that USPSA will be at risk of decline vs. another discipline that offers the same competitive shooting experience and personal skills tests that USPSA does, just easier. By and large at a local level, though, most people just want to shoot with their friends and get better at it regardless of which alphabet sponsored the match that day.

That's at least some of the "hit factor" matches clubs are running when/if they're not doing "USPSA without a classifier, outlaw" stuff.

They did. At the individual, club and org level. https://www.pcsleague.com/

I can't say I'm surprised about either of these. There's a major match coming up in Area 4 in February. Hope they find someone willing to step up and do right by then.

That's an interesting switch and quick turnaround. Anyone know what led to this happening so fast? I'm in Area 4, so I'm interested in who/what/where next.

Exactly my point.

Let us know how it goes. I was just surprised - I hadn't realized minimum caliber included .357 sig but not 9mm yet.

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Not considering it (don't have anything chambered for it) and agree about losing capacity for a larger case vs. still a 9mm bullet. Also likely easier/softer to download 40 to 165-170 vs. upload 9mm to 9 major.

Anyone know when that rule changed to include .357 SIG (but not 9mm Luger/Para)? Was it at the same time Open removed the minimum caliber requirement (instead moving to a minimum grain weight of 112)?

I see the rules discussed all the time, and the rules are approved by the board. Same with new divisions, changes to existing divisions, etc. If the board has the power to decide that and the members aren't getting what they voted for, that seems to be as relevant as any other discussion about rule changes. Not having a mechanism to effectively have a way to "control" rule changes seems, in and of itself, as important as the actual rule changes. We agree completely that it shouldn't get political, it shouldn't devolve into name calling and accusations, etc. But haven't we seen just that in the rules discussions, especially all the Limited Optics division discussions about gamers who can't shoot, weak wrists, etc.? That seemed well-moderated in the sense of warnings, getting things back on track, etc. without having to shut down every thread. It's unpalatable, for sure. So are some of the rules.

I'm particularly proud of how our local club handled it: they put it to a vote. End result is there are a decent number of club members that care about/want classifiers, and non-classifier matches would be less interesting to them... but a similar number who don't care and just want to shoot. We ended up splitting the matches - alternating between including a classifier and shooting hit-factor style matches. That might change now with the latest shenanigans and we end up going hit-factor only... but in any case our local club membership will get to decide.

That's a fair answer and I can respect that. Also a fair answer. I appreciate the light hand here.

I don't have Facebook.

Are the Brian Enos forums somehow connected to USPSA? What's the fear hear that causes threads to get shut down. USPSA, as a political organization whose members are elected, is... political. So threads will be political. Is there not a place to discuss these (even if a "sporting politics" sub were created)? Asking sincerely - there MUST be a place to discuss among the membership the goings on of the elected leaders in the organization. Any word on WHY the Area 7 AD was removed?

It can go either way. We can use this or we can create new threads here with PCSL: in the title so there's visibility to the mods.

More of the other end of the spectrum but if you haven't watched the GOA interview with the CEO of Palmetto State Armory, it's well worth an hour of your time (and this comes from someone who would never spend an hour on most other interview videos). There's an outside rumor they might have a double-stack something-or-other coming this year. I personally doubt it unless they're working something with RIA, who is the the supplier for their in-house 1911 line, but anything is possible. I also never connected that they were the folks that bought the AAC suppressor line and haven't moved it in-house (yet)... hence them finally having the AAC name for ammo, too.

It'll be my fourth, so I'll be more than happy. And I'm not planning on replacing any parts considering the only potential MIM part is the recoil plug. My last two Tisas came sub 3.5# and crisp out of the box. One other was about 4.75, easily tunable with the existing sear spring. Could care less about being dismissed as a fanboy for simply not agreeing to crap on new things. And my comnments re: Girsan should have clued you into that, but bias can be a bitch to overcome... so I get it.