Jeff226

Mine have worked fine the few times I have used them but I have only had them for a couple weeks. I only use factory ammo at the moment. I like the idea of getting 2+ magazines for the price of one taran baseplate. The lifetime warranty seemed like a nice +. I will update also.

Dude, I am not a noob and I can shoot better. I kind of liked the neckbeard slam a little better.

I agree it doesn't require 11 pages. I sold all of my 45 1911s and I wouldn't mind having one in 40 although I don't expect to go back to single stack. I have been casually looking for a reasonably priced ramped barrelled 1911...not ready to spend 2-3k on an STI single stack or the like though.

I am not trolling. Are you trying out the other side for a while?

That is something you can't prove. Clinging to a bad formula and propping up a declining caliber isn't likely to grow or help the sport either.

This is more interesting. First off, I joined a conversation already in progress and there are people in this thread and many others I have read here and other places over the past 15 years or more that agree. Second, the band of trolls that are clinging to this thread aren't exactly representative of a majority of USPSA shooters although I will concede that most go along and have a 40 caliber, myself included. For your last point, that makes sense providing the speed power accuracy formula is correct. If the scoring advantage can't be made up, the fact that it can't is generally accepted by many shooters (more knowledgeable and talented than the gang of local b class shooters), then why pretend there is still some illusion of DVC in limited?

If that makes you happy at your local match that is great. Some people care about larger matches and the sport overall.

Because of the scoring advantage for major...we covered that numerous times. A larger percentage of people shoot minor at level 1 matches. There would most likely be more shooting minor if the scoring wasn't broken. That was covered too.

The guy that types redundant acronyms is less boring than that.

Of course is fine for you. You shoot major and probably like having some people shooting minor below you in the results. That is understandable...some people need ego boosts like that. I am fine with you having that opinion.

Most already know, they don't need to be convinced. I get the people that don't care...that makes sense. I am mostly amused with the ones that play dumb. About 10 more posts and I can sell a clue.

Maybe read another topic if you don't like whining.

I didn't see that typed 100 times over either...thank you for the new info. The scoring advantage to balance DVC is broken. The arbitrary 1 point difference given to major back when everybody was shooting 1911s and hi powers because hi powers had almost double the capacity and major power factor was 175 or higher is now out of alignment with DVC. Why is that so hard to understand?

Any gun shot in production is scored the same. People can most definitely compete seriously with FNs, Glock 17s, M&Ps and others. This is completely different than having a 25% scoring penalty on Cs and a 50% scoring penalty on Ds simply because you shoot 9mm vs 40 in Limited. You don't gain that much speed and accuracy on the splits to overcome that scoring difference and the splits are the only time extra recoil should be affecting your shots. I mean yeah, if you flinch real bad because 40 hurts your tiny man hands it will affect you but that isn't something that should be built into the score.

Speer makes several 40s that are around 185 pf. The 180 gr lawman is close and the hotter 165 gr load exceeds 185. They make a lighter 165 that is somewhat hard to find that falls in the 165-170 range depending on barrel length. I perfectly understand the reason for power factor scoring. In theory, 165 pf ammo is harder to shoot than 125 pf ammo so you get a 1 pt advantage outside the A zone. In actuality, that point advantage is too generous. Because we all know that minor isn't competitive because of the scoring imbalance. Recoil is subjective, some people make more of an issue about it than others She most likely should have placed higher but the scoring disadvantage put her at 63. As fast and accurate as she is, even she can't overcome the scoring imbalance I'd rather fix limited division as it allows mods and full capacity magazines. Did you not see that suggestion typed about 30 times previously by the other people that missed the point?

I shoot factory 40 which chronos similar to yours or higher and I shoot factory 9mm which is in the 130 range. Even with factory ammo, there is a difference but hardly enough on the splits to justify the point advantage. 165 pf is not a lot of recoil.

Those are fool's arguments. I don't understand how people shooting watered down 40 think they are superior in some manner. Your position might more sense if we still had 175 pf.

Market = handguns sold overall (not what people bring to USPSA)...there are many times more full capacity 9mms being sold in the market than 40s. That gap is increasing and will continue to do so. Yes, there are currently more 40s shot in limited than 9mms at the higher level matches because of the scoring advantage. Most people realize you can't make up the scoring disadvantage with speed

Great points. Which is why I suggest that Limited minor be separate from Limited major. Then both major and minor can shoot modded guns with full capacity magazines without one being scored at an obvious disadvantage or have to use questionable reloads to make major. Not sure why people so strongly opposed a new/competitive division for high capacity modded 9mms...the largest handgun market by far at the moment, when we have all of these redundant limited magazine divisions, and PCC, carry optics which have been pointed out to be low participation many times over on this forum.

I will leave you with these facts alternative to your narrative. You were slightly entertaining but I have most certainly wasted enough time catering to the troll.

Has already been covered...reading helps.

This from the guy who said "bad at math", "sissies", "pansies", "noobs", "women and children", and the worst yet..."my ex-wife" in reaction to my proposed solution for the scoring imbalance? You were "tempted"? LOL! Bravo!

I am glad you have it figured out and I will hang on to that tidbit while I wait and see if any thinking people post to the thread.

I am very good at math. You are proving yourself to be a small picture/narrow focus kind of guy and that is typical for math prodigies/forum trolls. So once again, I question your comprehension skills if you think I am advocating divisions that favor calibers...quite the opposite.

I assume you majored in statistics and mathematics also?