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

sc68cal

Classified
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About sc68cal

  • Rank
    Finally read the FAQs

Profile Information

  • Real Name
    Sean Collins

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Part of that was because I had a lot of reliability issues with the 140mm caspian mags - compared to the MBX 170mm's that just worked. I've worked on tuning the 140mms to fix the issues so I can start running them.
  2. Thanks!!! Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
  3. Great suggestion. I had previously removed some material from that pad before shooting today so that might explain the lack of issues. I'll shoot it a bit more and work slowly on tuning it.
  4. What slide racker is that? I have a similar cut on my slide and would love to switch to a left side racker
  5. +1 for the EGW u-dies. It'll knock out all case bulges. I've never had a case that didn't gauge in my Hundo due to a bulge, or if I did, it's happened so infrequently that I don't remember, out of probably 3000 rounds. I've had a lot more difficulty with crimped primer pockets from once fired 40 brass, since my 650 doesn't swage them and I don't swage them in my Super Swager. They're infrequent but still rather annoying, so I pull them out of the primer seating stage and throw them away instead of dealing with them.
  6. buy once, cry once. I have the MBF and it's very nice to have - although I waited until I had my toolhead all locked in and case gauging correctly before adding the bullet feeder, to cut down on the number of variables on the first pass of adjustments
  7. As a side note I did replace the extractor today with one from my spare kit and shot about 100 rounds through it at the indoor range. I didn't have any extraction issues - but when I take the slide off and do the extractor tension test like Adam from Atlas did on YouTube, it's not held nearly as securely.
  8. I actually had a gunsmith attempt to install an Aftec extractor, and he said that the breechface is too large for trying to run 38 super comp reliably since the breechface is too large for 38sc and really the only thing holding on to the case is the extractor itself. So he said not to bother, and that a new slide and barrel would be a better solution. I took the slide off my 9mm open gun and pushed a piece of 38 super comp brass up in, and yes it did hold onto it very nicely (aftec extractor). Same piece of 38SC brass is extremely loose in the breech face of my 38 super slide. I don't know exactly how old the 38 super gun is, I'm at least 3rd owner, but I believe it's an old style 38 super breech face that is significantly wider. Putting a piece of 38 super brass in the breech face, it holds it with the correct amount of tension. I went a step further and put my 9mm Aftec extractor in the 38 super slide - and while it's obviously not fitted exactly to the side, but I had the same amount of tension problems with a piece of 38 super comp brass, so I am fairly certain it's a fairly old slide with larger dimensions than what is currently being machined as both 9mm and 38 super compatible slides.
  9. Hi, I have a backup open gun that has a 38 super breechface, which causes issues when shooting 38 super comp, since the breech face doesn't securely hold the smaller diameter rim of 38sc, even with a tuned extractor. This makes the gun somewhat unreliable with 38sc when it comes to extraction. I was looking to replace the slide with a new 9mm/38 caspian slide that has the correct dimensions, so that it will hold onto the rim of the case and extract more reliably. My hope is that I can still utilize the existing barrel that was fitted to the old slide and shoot 38SC on occasion. I'll probably purchase a barrel and ream it to 9x19 dimensions, but I'd like to exhaust my supply of 38SC brass first. I know the lock-up wouldn't be absolutely perfect since it's a new slide and a barrel that was fitted to the older slide, but I'm wondering if it is possible at all, and what the downsides would be. Thoughts?
  10. Might be a proof mark. Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
  11. OK, I'll bite. Since I was quoted out of context - the point of my post was that the classification system itself and the methodology used is not transparent, and prone to outcomes that are not desired - and that the membership has no insight into how it is developed and maintained, despite our membership dollars funding it. So let's go through some of the things: As others have stated - Practiscore is not owned or operated by USPSA. It is owned and operated by someone who has volunteered an absolutely mind blowing amount of time and resources into improving the shooting sports, out of their own pocket. This was not done by USPSA. Our membership dollars did not pay for it, and we are getting it for free. I honestly think Practiscore was developed because there was a time in the past where USPSA was not doing a good job of having tools being developed. I will also highlight the following rule in the USPSA Rulebook: I have never seen EzWinScore be used. Ever. Since we're on the rulebook, there are rules in the USPSA Rulebook that have not aged well and probably should be re-examined and pruned. Rule 9.11.1 was a rule that was never going to be "evergreen" and subject to change as new scoring tools come along. It should never have been put in the rulebook. I'm sure there are other examples of rules that have not aged well and probably can be removed with absolutely no impact on the game. The USPSA hard copy rulebook is incredibly out of date - more than 4 years of rule clarifications, rulings on equipment, and tons of other things. It has gotten so bad that their solution now is an electronic "evergreen" rulebook that can be updated without having to print new rulebooks and mail them to people. That is certainly one way to solve the problem, but I have concerns that using an electronic way of delivering a rulebook can allow the velocity of rule changes to _increase_ and the complexity of rules to _increase_, rather than having the printing of dead-tree rulebooks and the monetary investment of that operation acting as a braking mechanism on the velocity of change. This is just my unfounded speculation however. We'll see in the coming years. The USPSA mobile app, the membership cards, and the USPSA website, are not "Free to members" - we paid for those with our dues. I will also note that the USPSA revamped website was many years in the works, has had functionality that was present at launch subsequently disabled, and also had at least one vendor get fired and replaced with another in order to finish the project. So, an information technology project that was delivered late, and most likely over budget. You can read through the BOD meetings and the IT parts of the presentations for more details. Those are not free - those are paid with money from membership dues, activity fees, and such, paid by USPSA members. In addition, these operations in my opinion are things that non-profit organization should be doing, and by the way in FY 2016 the sale of advertising earned USPSA money. Which is good! But it's not free..... https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/911325053_201612_990T_20171010_14819069.pdf 2018 Nationals was an outstanding success - and running and organizing nationals is a major job for the USPSA organization. However, I will note that while Nationals was attended heavily, the majority of USPSA membership does not attend nationals. USPSA needs to also support the growth and development of new local clubs, since in Area 8 (and I'm sure everywhere else) matches fill up within the first minutes of registration opening on Practiscore. We are a victim of our own success, in that we need more room to grow. A great problem to have, and I know that the Area 8 director is aware of this problem and has been working on solutions - but this going to be USPSA's bottleneck for more growth - having enough local clubs that have matches so that everyone who wants to play can play. At one of the banquets, the President of USPSA also noted that the staff is getting older and that more people are needed. This is going to be a generational challenge moving forward, where the folks who made the organization as it is today, needs to have a group of new young people that can take over once they start to slow down. That is happening, I believe, but it is something that we all need to be aware of and work towards. There simply aren't enough CROs for major matches, since all the major matches I went to this year pretty much had the same staff people at every match. That means a lot of work is falling on not a lot of shoulders. Same thing with local clubs. There's a lot of work that falls on not a lot of shoulders at local clubs to put on matches, and that's going to cause burnout and then the clubs will shut down, leaving the area with less clubs to shoot USPSA at. USPSA has challenges, like any organization. We as the members need to be aware of these challenges, be aware that we have a voice and a stake in how USPSA is run, and that we all make the sport that we all choose to make. I may not agree with every single decision that USPSA does, but if I didn't care I'd be doing something else with my time
  12. Absolutely this. I think that the assumption that "oh if a GM makes this score on this stage, that's what the HHF for a GM is now that we've turned this into a classifier" misses the important bit of context in which the stage is being run. The huge national match. The GMs ran these stages and had _strategy_ on these courses, which was to earn as many points as possible while not making mistakes and taking themselves out of the running. As you correctly identify, this is _not the same context_ as a club match where most people hero or zero them because they want to go higher in their classification, and if they ZERO the classifier stage it's not really a big deal. They don't win the monthly club match, if they were even in the race for it, in the first place. Compare that situation to what was going on at Nationals where the GMs would have lost 80 to 120 points on the leader and would have to consistently beat the leader every stage for the next 12 to 14 stages to win those points back, if they were trying to hero or zero the stage. In a match that happens only once a year. I am surprised this was not what was done at HQ. This appears to have happened in Carry Optics division with the new classifiers. I've seen two shooters who had above 95% scores on stages at nationals, subsequently used as classifier entries, that were flagged by the classification system as being 20% higher than their current classification, and not be used. I'm not so sure. People like getting validation that the work that they've put in is being rewarded. So, for many people they'll take these high classification scores, feel good about themselves, and hopefully realize that there is a big difference between having a GM next to their name and being in contention for a national championship. There's a big difference between shooting ONE stage as fast as JJ Racaza did at Nationals, while in the comfort of your local club match - and actually giving JJ a run for his money at a match with 24 stages with a championship title on the line. +1 - we get what we PAY and VOTE for.
  13. Lotta people getting match bumps from 2018 Nationals in Carry Optics. To be honest I think at least one the stages at nationals was too forgiving - especially what is now known as 18-08, which was Stage 20 - Condor. Lots of scores on that stage are getting `A`'d because they're 20% above people's classification. So we could have people fill out the paperwork to get it unflagged and have a weirder situation - where we have a stage at nationals that bumps people up to GM, was part of a huge match, and could contribute to people becoming a "paper" GM since their overall results for Nationals was not at a GM level.
×
×
  • Create New...