matteekay

A literal stick designated as a "forward fault line" would have solved it. You took advantage of a poorly designed stage. Don't be ashamed - stand proud.

Nice! I think I'm gonna pull some wacky shenanigans with a CCP gun.

You're losing the context of my question. The gear requirement only specifies where everything has to be when the shooter starts the COF - it can't be extended to anything the shooter does after the start signal, which is how people were trying to cite 8.6.2.4. My argument is that it doesn't work in that context and ergo can't be used to award a PE for someone shooting with a mag in the hand (if withdrawn after the start signal). Please stop telling people to "move on". The reason this thread exists isn't to attempt to penalize people for shooting with a mag in the hand; it's to clarify what actually is and isn't a penalty as the IDPA rulebook is, unfortunately, very subjective. Most of the people replying are SO's and a lot of us are MD's so we need to know how to properly adjudicate shooter actions. IDPA is unwilling to provide black and white answers on these topics so here we are. Personally, I refuse to award a PE for "staging" when there's no hard rule about it. If IDPA wants to outlaw it, simply write a rule and it's handled.

Wouldn't surprise me, but just a rumor until confirmed/printed.

Oof. Ferrari prices, Fiero performance.

This conversation is making the rounds on Facebook again. It's wild to try to Google an answer only to find a thread that you started a year ago that still doesn't have a clear resolution (IMHO).

Yup. I've had them in the past and they're well-designed.

I'm sorry. At least you have Wawa...? I've had good luck with PMags in the past (other than sometimes hanging up on ejection). I think they work better because they're still double-stack and limit capacity by shortening the tube, whereas OEM mags try to keep the shape of a stock mag but force the rounds into a single-stack configuration. I'll add a few to the pile next time I see some.

Ah, I think I've got it. And the problem, as usual, is me. I'd put old Henning bases on these mags. I just took one off and it looks like they're +2 and not +0. I think it's giving the spring enough extra room to bind up, fold over, etc. I'll switch back to flat bases and see if that fixes it.

I'm running round nose coated lead and have plenty of clearance. I can even get the follower to bind with an empty mag.

Any tricks to getting 10-round Glock 17 mags to run? I have a set for when I shoot in enemy territory and they tend to bind up (even when unloading them, which is... alarming). I've ordered a set of Wolff +10% springs but any other tips are appreciated.

Ah! In that case, pass the butter and let's get this party started.

It was a joke, but boy, I bet you're a hoot at parties. Salad bar parties, evidently...?

It's glandular.

Sure, but that looks like a measurement taken from the inner edge of the belt and not necessarily from the shooter's body. Which is fine, but as always... if that's what they wanted then they could have just said that.

This is the 2024 update: 8.5.1.6 Outside the waist holsters must carry the firearm in a neutral (vertical) or muzzle rear cant and may not protrude more than 3" (7.62cm) out from the shooter's body as measured from the front of the holster. The rear or vertical cant angle be no more than 15 degrees. I haven't seen it put into practice at a major yet so I don't know if they're measuring at the beltline or whatever part of your body is closest. To phrase it differently - my tactical chub means I could probably run a drop offset but I'm not going to risk it. I actually had to take all of my holsters off of QLS forks as they all started to push the 3" limit.

Aaah, his reply makes a lot more sense now. Thank you!

Did they say that they were going to start the process?

Probably not since you didn't provide any information about the match.

So... Lots of chatter here. Forgive me for not reading all of it. Did USPSA actually change anything? Or even propose to?

The photo is wrong but this is the kit you're looking for: https://gun.deals/search/apachesolr_search/970.433

When it was in stock, the DA conversion kit cost about $15 and required zero fitting. It's literally a spring, a pin, and a sear that gets installed in the hammer. I imagine a caliber conversion would be more involved. The main thing is it's next to impossible to find a cylinder out in the wild.

Assuming you were replying to my DM... I bought three off GunBroker a while back so I wouldn't have to swap my sears when changing between the competition and regular hammers. There's a lot of other parts they'll only ship to FFL's but the conversion kits have always been GTG. Unless it's a Peoples Republic of Kalifornia thing...

I shot one at IDPA Nats a few years ago. Nice gun, but same sense from their reps: "Yes, this is absolutely... uh... a gun! That we sell!" I don't see a boutique manufacturer stepping into the 8-shot game when Ruger can't even be bothered to produce more of their version (that already exists (hypothetically)). There's just no market.

Did they laugh in your face, or wait until you'd walked away first?