mstamper
-
Posts
273 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by mstamper
-
-
The title says it all.
I recently changed over from the 24 3G to the 24C. I have shot with the shoe on at a recent outdoor match. I shot it again tonight at an indoor match.
I thought I would like the shoe, but it feels like I am forcing my trigger finger into an awkward spot.
I am just curious what those of you who shoot that trigger think about using the plastic shoe.
-
i know this is a few weeks old but feel I should put my 2 cents worth.
I started shooting around 1993. Back then we shot in boxes. no charge lines back then. As someone was moving between boxes it was often heard "finger" or "muzzle". IT was common and welcome as there were A LOT of new shooters because the sport was young. I belonged to GPSL (Gwinett Practical Shooting League) Look up the club number, we were the FIRST USPSA club in the state of Georgia. The club is still alive and well.
Fast forward to 9 months ago. I come back to practical shooting after being out from 95 to Nov of 2017. I see that there are now charge lines, boxes are rarely used except for classifiers. People are moving, shooting while moving, swinging the gun from right to left. All sorts of activities that make this guy who just came back very nervous. I have joined the same club I was a member of back in 93 - 95. I was an RO back then. I took the RO class again this year because SO MUCH had changed. In RO class it was told to us by the NROI instructor that at Level 1 matches, since this is where most new shooters cut their teeth, a basic level of coaching as far as competitive was allowed as these shooters are just now trying to figure out this sport. What was stressed was that SAFETY was and always will be paramount FIRST consideration. WE were told to make sure that each and every shooter we ran was doing so in a safe manner and to WARN people (Rookies and Experienced alike) about safety issues. Yes we could DQ a shooter, but at level 1 matches it is about learning.
ATLDave is the President of GPSL. I have gotten to know him in the last several months. When it comes to being safe on a COF and at the RANGE, I will always defer to his judgement. (the fact he is an attorney and knows very well how to read between the lines and interpret the intent of the language written in the rules).
All that being said, As a mid B class shooter moving towards A class and as a newly certified RO, I am overly cautious when I am on the line with shooters. I have been told that I play close to the shooter and could cause a reshoot if a shooter bumps me. I say I would rather be close and see what they are doing and make sure they are doing it SAFELY first than be out of position and miss a 180 break or another safety issue. Being more cautious is ALWAYS better than less. All it takes is one time letting your guard down and then someone is hurt or worse killed. Our sport is in its very nature, VERY DANGEROUS. We take every precaution to keep it safe. IF in the intent is keeping shooters safe, I will ALWAYS give safety warnings.
I read this entire thread. I was shocked to read that an RO would let a shooter do something UNSAFE, with full knowledge the act was unsafe and could cause harm to the shooter or himself or a spectator. That person should NOT be an RO. They are not helping the sport, they are hurting it. IF it is you I am talking about then please take a few moments to reflect on what you do as an RO and ask yourself if you would want another RO to do the same to you with all the possible repercussions. IF you can truly say you would feel safe with that RO, well, I don't know what to say to you.
SAFETY FIRST and LAST!
-
1 minute ago, ATLDave said:
Everyone including himself!
any chance of a write up on FB about that mess you made? or for my MD from week before?
-
On 7/24/2018 at 9:43 AM, ATLDave said:
Any MD who puts in tighter/harder shots to screw with PCC shooters is a real dumb@$$.
Remember when Tiger Woods first came out on tour and was blasting the ball 60 yards further than everyone else (excluding drunken John Daly)? And a bunch of old guys got bothered by that, and set out to "Tiger-proof" various courses, by making them much longer and tighter? Well, that's exactly when Tiger started to completely dominate the game. The longer holes were only marginally tougher for him, but were vastly more difficult for the "traditional" tour pros.
PCC-proofing courses of fire by adding harder/tighter shots is the same thing... of all the divisions, PCC is best-equipped to shrug that stuff off.
And this from the guy who setup a stage that F'd with everyone with those damn off angle port shots. LMAO.
-
I use a drago bag for my general carry bag. I use a scabbard for going from my Drago bag to the PCC staging table. I transport all that in a GUN CART (girlfriend calls it a baby jogging cart).That allows me to transport the gun and all my other gear in one bag and still stay within the carry rules of several of the ranges I shoot at.
-
On 6/22/2018 at 2:07 PM, Broncman said:
Decibullz! Remoldable, several different inserts, even Bluetooth headphone inserts.
Drop them in hot water to soften the outer core. Inner inserts are replaceable.
I have been using Decibullz for over 5 months and love them. I bought the percussive ones. They have a small plug in them that clips noise. they are designed specifically for shooting sports. Well worth the 75. They come with both cone shaped attachments and foam attachments. If you use the foam, be sure to order extras. That is the only part that wears out. other than that, I recommend them highly.
-
I was wondering if anyone was going to shoot the SIG pro-am in August ?
https://www.proamshooting.com/
it is August 17 - 19. 300 steel targets. PCC gets to load out fully. (YAY!)
I am thinking about it?
-
21 hours ago, ATLDave said:
Tons of them here in GA.
I am a dedicated PCC shooter in the GA area. I see about 10 - 15% or more per outdoor match are PCC. the indoor matches can have one (me) or half the squad. As ATLDave said, we have tons of them here in all classes from GM down to U
-
5 minutes ago, GeneBray said:
Don’t really know squat about IDPA except I don’t shoot it. Never wanted to after our club allow IDPA to use our state match stages for their state match. IDPA shot together on one or more stages. Had to find timers that would record stage time longer than 99.9 seconds if my memory is correct. May have been longer. Just know the that one or more timers could record stage times because of length it took IDPA to shoot stages. Watched one shooter take cover behind a card table, engage one target with one shot SLOWLY scan all other targets, SLOWLY decide which to engage, and fire one shoot and repeat until all targets were engaged with two rounds. I quit watching at 3 to 4 minutes and he was still shooting targets. It was a short course, speed shoot. ~15 seconds for average USPSA shooter.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThat is funny! LMAO.
-
Just now, ATLDave said:
It doesn't need to be completely changed. But the HHF's didn't need to be tweaked. Most people agreed the system, as a whole, broadly put people into roughly appropriate stacks for purposes of finding a competitive peer group.
We're clearly past doing only the things for which there is an absolute need. As long as we've moved into just improving things that can be improved, let's make a real improvement.
I agree
-
1 minute ago, ATLDave said:
No, we use percentages, not percentiles, in the match points system.
then please clarify for me how I can win a stage and shoot 94% and be awarded 100% of the available stage points even though I did not score 100% of the stage points. At that point, isn't the awarding of the majority of the points and being shown as getting 150 stage points now a percentile? IE, I am now the high curve percentile wise? Or am I too weak minded to wrap my brain around this?
-
21 hours ago, ATLDave said:
Since USPSA has opened the box of tinkering with classifier HHF's (a system that, at least for established divisions, was reasonably effective at dividing the shooting population into roughly appropriate boxes), I'd like to suggest that we re-think the way classifications are calculated.
First, we need to agree on what the purpose of a classifier system is. I would posit the purposes are as follows:
- To test, under uniform conditions, core shooting skills (as distinct from stage planning or movement skills);
- To sort competitors into groups of similar shooting skill (i.e., to function as a handicap system); and
- To allow shooters to gauge their overall progress and standing within the population in terms of skill.
If those are the goals, then a system based on percentiles, rather than percentages, seems more appropriate. (If you do not know the difference between percentile and percentage, the rest of this post won't make any sense.) It would also be easier to administer (automatic, really), remove subjectivity, make it possible to include new classifiers easily, make it easy (automatic) to develop appropriate classifications for any new or changed divisions, make it possible for every classifier shot to have an equal likelihood of being used in the system (avoiding the do-no-work classifiers that currently tend only generate "Below" scores in the system), avoid the problem of artificially low/easy HHF's on a few classifiers resulting in easy grandbagging, and help to more meaningfully separate the truly world-class shooters from the "mere" local GM's.
How would it work? As now, shooters would shoot classifiers as stages in matches. There would be no change to how the classifiers are scored or how they play into the match. No changes at the match/MD/local level would be required. The only difference is what happens when the scores are plugged into "the system" on Tuesday night (or whenever it rolls). When a shooter's score is uploaded, it will be compared to all the uploaded scores on record of all other shooters in the division. Instead of a percentage being calculated against a particular HHF (however that is chosen/calculated at present), the percentile of the score is used. I.e., if 50% of the scores are above a particular shooter's HF on a classifier, and 50% are below, then that is a 50% for classification purposes... regardless of what percentage it is of the highest HF on record or other arbitrary HHF. One's classification would simply be an averaging of some selection of these percentile scores (we could keep the 6-of-8-minus-exclusions methods if desired).
Why would it be better? For a whole bunch of reasons. Because the percentiles would reflect the actual performance of shooters, there would be no risk of a poorly-chosen HHF. Because it would update continuously, it would prevent HHF's from being outdated - if the population got better, then the percentile rank of a given HF would move down, and vice versa. It would automatically and swiftly set the proper levels for new divisions, or divisions after gear/rule changes. It would allow competitors to accurately know how they rank against the population of USPSA shooters, not just an imaginary HHF shooter.
At a deeper level, it would do a better job of capturing the real differences in performance among shooters at all skill levels. Let's make up a pair of hypothetical stages. One is similar to El Prez, but shot at 10 yards with relatively close spacing between the targets, all of which are open. The other has exactly the same targets and the same distances and spacing, but has no shoots in between the targets eliminating the sides of the D-zones. For a high-level shooter on a good day (maybe what HHF is supposed to capture?), the times and hits on those two stages will be very similar... they'll be able to rip all A's quickly... they wouldn't be likely to hit a D, so having no-shoots covering some D-zone makes no difference to their score. On the other hand, for a lower-skilled shooter, they may have to slow down by a measurable amount in order to be assured of staying penalty free. Or they will have a much higher chance of getting one or more penalties. A HHF selected to reflect what is appropriate for a strong shooter will either mean lots of "below" coded scores for less-skilled shooters on the harder stage or lots of outlier/grandbagging scores on the easier stage. Alternatively, a HHF selected to reflect this change in difficulty/set appropriately for lower-skilled shooters (which would require a lower HHF on the harder stage) would result in high-skill shooters smashing the HHF and posting scores well over 100%. Similar dynamics manifest with lots of the long-distance "standards" type classifiers, where lower-skilled shooters simply cannot make the shots reliably enough to get scores that even count in the current system.
It would also reflect the full range of approaches to a classifier stage. Both the "match mode" runs and the "hero or zero" (regardless of how they turn out) runs would factor into the score distributions.
This system would also do a much better job of measuring the differences between highly-skilled shooters. As skill level/performance level increases, real gains in skill/performance come in smaller and smaller increments. Each successive tenth of time shaved off a draw or reload is harder than the previous one. At the upper reaches of the sport, a repeatable 3% difference in HF on a set of classifiers may represent a far larger gap in skill - a gap that then shows up as bigger differences in overall match performance.
There are other reasons this would be a superior system, but these seem like more than enough to me. As long as USPSA is tinkering, let's go to a rational system. People and organizations whose livelihoods depend on predicting outcomes based on tests almost universally use percentiles, rather than percentages, for their systems. It's simply a better approach.
I am all for re-evaluating the process. Aren't we already using a percentile methodology now with stage point awarding? If so, then making a move to using the same for classifiers should not be such a difficult reach.
-
2 hours ago, jualdeaux said:
I ordered a TTI +10 extension for Glock mags and I'm assuming I am going to have to get a new spring when I put it on a Glock 33 round magazine. What springs are you all using on +10 extensions?
I did get some Wolff extra power springs when I put the +5/6 TTI extensions on a couple of magazines. Would those springs work in the +10s too?
I am not sure about TTI but I know that Taylor Freelance +10 for their extension sends a longer spring with the extender as part of the price. I would go back to the TTI sight and see if they already include a spring for the extension and mag tube you are adding it to.
-
1 minute ago, Whitefish said:
You could do that, but the resulting length of the mag is much too long for even open division, so not legal for any "pistol" division with the TF +10 on the 24 rd mag. The only division where that combination of a 24 rd mag and a TF +10 basepad would be legal is PCC (original question was about CO) and then, you would still be short of the 31 round Glock 18 mags with a TF +10 where shooters are getting 41 rounds. I just put a TTI +3 basepad on a 31 rd mag with the factory spring and am getting 34 rounds reloadable and do not have to worry about the sometimes troublesome transition to a TF +10. I could even use the TTI +6 on the 31 round mag and get at least 36 rounds with the stock mag spring. I doubt if the stock spring in the 24 rounder is long enough to even work with a TF +10, so you would have to swap out the stock mag spring to the 18 or 19 coil spring meant for the 31/33 rd mag anyway.
OOPPPS I guess I forgot about this being about CO and pistols. I am a PCC guy and we have all sorts of fun with mags and extensions. LOL
I looked at the glockmiester site and they want more for the 24 rounder than they want for a 33 rounder. I looked at other sites and no one has the 24 yet. I would be interested in having a 24 rounder but not at the price of a 33.
-
On 7/5/2018 at 5:28 PM, Whitefish said:
Saw that ad and wondered myself. Not having one in hand, I would guess it is the same length as the 22 rd 40 mag Glock has made for quite some time now. Seems about right for two more rounds in 9mm. The 22 round 40 mag is too long for 141.25, but it does make a decent open mag with the addition of the specific basepad Taylor Freelance made for that purpose. It does fit the gauge at 171.25 for open with the basepad installed and I can squeeze 25 rounds of 40 in it, 24 reloadable. Stands to reason the 24 round 9mm mag would make a decent big stick with the same basepad and probably get 28 rounds in it. So, you are out of luck for CO, but probably ok if you want to try open with the TF basepad.
IF you put the TF +10 on that 24 rounder you are now at 34. That would be a nice mid size mag for 20+ round stages.
-
Not sure if this has been asked here yet or not, (don't feel like reading through 5+ pages of posts). I was wondering if and or when Practiscore will be updated with the new HHF's? I shot a match Saturday (CM99-46) and Practiscore shows my score as a 71.03% and the USPSA site classifier calculator shows it with a 66.2229% that is more than a 5% point difference.
Also, is there a specific website or a page on USPSA that actually shows the classifiers with the old and new HHF's?
-
You get what your pay for. I started out with the mil spec trigger. It worked but Damn the pull was awful and I knew I would not be competitive with it. I shopped around and looked at the ads here. I found a sale at optics planet and got my 24 3g at around 180. Best money spent. Lots of reading went into the choice as well as seeing what every shooter around me was using.Whats wrong with the cheaper triggers besides pull weight? I just want the reliability of the 24c but I cant afford one right now.
Like someone just posted. Why spend lots of cash trying to find one you like when there is a proven product that you will read about in these forums over and over again. As soon as you put it in and dry fire it you will know the hiperfire was the right choice.
Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
-
Don't go cheap on the trigger. Spend the cash and get the 24 3g or the 24c. Both are the same trigger mechanism just a different trigger blade. The 3g is less expensive. Btw. They have renamed the triggers, why I don't know. The 3g is now called the reflexAt the smith today he noticed right above the firing pin a groove was formed by the hammer and he suspected that if the hammer missed that groove the hammer lost enough energy that I didnt get a strike. What hiperfire do you have im thinking about getting the under 100$ ones not sure of the model just the low end ones. This guns already cost me to much haha.
Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
-
I am curious what one does if you want to put a laser sight on the front of the carbon fiber tube or if you want to mount BUIS? There are no pic rails so how would you take care of that issue with the Taccom tube?
Are there other manufacturers who do make a carbon fiber tube that has pic rails?
-
11 hours ago, Aircooled6racer said:
Hello: I looked at the mag today and it has a metal piece sticking down in the mag where the two pieces join together like interlaced fingers. It was about 3/4" from the top. Looks like it would catch on the case to me. A little smoothing out should fix it. Thanks, Eric
Thanks again for taking a look at the tube for me. I had looked at the insides of that maybe a dozen or more times and never saw that burr. That is why it is good to get another set of eyes on it.
-
3 hours ago, ToddKS said:
I know this is acedemic now but has the mag ever been dropped? I sounds like the bottom of the tube could be slightly tweaked.
it has been dropped during mag changes. I guess that could do some tweaking. with as many people I know who use these mags and the TF base pads I would have thought there would have been other reports of this same sort of issue.
-
1 minute ago, Aircooled6racer said:
MarK; I will have a look at it for you. I have some spare mags you can borrow if you need some? Thanks, Eric
Thanks Eric,
My new mags should be here before the match Saturday. If not, I will take you up on your offer.
-
9 minutes ago, Aircooled6racer said:
Mark: I would look inside the magazine and see if there is any loose plastic in there. You could also measure the mag along the sides to see if you have any area that is alot wider than the rest. I don't think that will be the problem since I have some 33rd Glock factory mags that are over 10 years old and they still are going strong with the same spring and follower. Thanks, Eric
I will. I will bring the tube with me Saturday to RBGC and let you take a look at it. This is more of an academic discussion as I have replacement mags on the way. I was just really surprised that a relatively new magazine failed so early. I thoroughly cleaned the mag, looked for any debris or shaved metal or plastic, tried an unmodified follower, factory 33rnd spring and OEM pad, old spring and unmodified follower, new spring and old follower, new extended spring and both new and old follower. Every possible combination I could think to try. The end result was that any spring and any follower with the TF pad or the OEM +2 pad resulted in failure to feed the rounds up the tube.
I put the new spring with the TF pad onto the other 33rnd mag tube and it worked fine. 100% feed with great tension on the rising bullets up the tube. Just weird, just plain weird.
-
1 hour ago, HoMiE said:
Maybe the mag body got too wide and there is a section where the bullets are able to roll over just a bit too much. Do you use one of those loaders to load up mags?
not sure what sort of loader you are talking about but I use a Uplula loader on all my magzaines
How many stages is your local?
in USPSA/IPSC Shooting
Posted
here in the ATL we have several great clubs both indoor and outdoor.
Indoor matches - GPSL - usually 3 stages every tuesday
- NAAS - 2 to 4 stages depending on size of the turn out
there are other indoor USPSA matches just two far away for me to get to.
Outdoor matches -
- River Bend Gun Club; this club has one of the highest turn outs for a monthly match. Usually over 100 shooters and 8 stages with one being a classifier.
- South River Gun Club; this club runs two monthly USPSA matches (one as a temp match while another local club deals with some fussy neighbors) usually 6 to 7 stages each match with about 40 to 75 shooters
there are other outdoor matches but most are out side of my driving range.
We also have a lot of IDPA and GADPA matches locally both indoor and outdoor.