k80clay

Somewhat unrelated but I bought a Tisas Duty 9mm 1911 crazy cheap on GB and the thing runs 100% right out of the box.

SIG 320 Legion has no rear irons when you put an optic on and you know anything SIG does is a-ok with IDPA so…..no, you don’t need irons.

I always thought if you were in the open you had to go to slide lock. You could advance to cover with one chambered as long as you don’t expose yourself to targets. Rules may have changed. IDPA will tell you what’s added, but they don’t tell you what they took out. A simple rule change of “no bullets on the ground” would simplify things greatly while still keeping the spirit of the self defense ideals.

I don’t think there are many (any?) “standard” guns sans manual safeties that won’t fit in the SSP box.

You either wait for your CZ, or you can shoot one of the many CO ready guns out there. Canik makes good CO ready guns that you could buy used, shoot while you wait, and probably sell for what you have into it.

Until CO took over the planet, ESP was mostly CZ and 1911 types. Glock was the hotness in SSP. When the 320X optic ready came out, everybody showed up with them practically overnight. Now it’s split between the 320 and modded CZs. Pretty much anybody shooting a stock gun has a NV next to their name around here.

Ok, first off, I'm not advocating a rule change, any boycotts, letter writing campaigns, or burnings of the rule book while chanting "43oz". This is just for my curiosity. Who thinks the "no added weight" rule is somewhat outdated? Today you clearly have stock guns built to take advantage of the 43oz rule - the XFive Legion and the Q5 SF come right to mind. If one gun is allowed to weigh 43oz, why can't the others be made to weigh the same, as long as it's not over 43oz - even if just for, say, ESP? Right now the rules say you can't have a tungsten guide rod in your Glock, but the guy with the Sig can have his whole frame made of tungsten infused space shuttle stuff. You can have an add on magwell, but it can't be made of brass, etc. It just seems kind of - old - like when a 3oz Seattle Slug in your G17 was some sort of unfair advantage. I understand the logic -- IDPA is for "carry" guns and "nobody" carries 43oz guns (then why is the rule 43oz and not 30oz?). Oh, 43oz is the weight of your average 1911 (but they said 43oz is too heavy, so why even have a CDP class?). Adding weight isn't a real advantage in "small" stages (then why is it banned if it doesn't matter). Like I said, I'm not trying to kick the hornets nest. I enjoy shooting IDPA. Yes, I think of it as a game more than anything else. I understand the rules are what the rules are. I'm just curious what other people think about the subject. So, what's your opinion: Yea, as long as it's not over 43oz it should be okay. Nope, leave the rules as they are. I could kinda go for a 34oz SSP limit and a 45oz ESP limit......(hmmmm..). Everybody's going CO so who cares.

It would seem that IDPA has just the right weight selected to keep a lot of otherwise good guns out. Another 2-3oz would open the door to many other guns that would then be legal.

Sig is probably funneling some money into IDPA somehow. Of course, this is going to open the door to "what about.....".

38 or 45 magazines won't fit in small frames.

Man, there's entirely too much "showin' off" in this thread. Nice guns though.

You simply explain that it's somebody's birthday somewhere.....

When I shot in a winter trap league, we used to leave the boxes of shotgun shells on the dashboard of the car in the sun to keep them warm and grab them when it was time to shoot. Was only 2 boxes so it wasn't a big deal. People who left their stuff out in the cold waiting (couple hours sometimes) always seemed to have the occasional squib or noticeably weak shell. Now, everybody reloaded at the time and it could have been just a short powder charge, but we still tried to keep the shells warm to a point. I guess what I'm saying is don't shoot cold rounds over the chrono unless you just want to see what happens, and I sure wouldn't be giving any cold rounds to be tested before a match.

7500 mi a year? Man, you should let her out more.

You don't have any ejection issues? Between the thumb rest and the optic mount, it looks a little tight.

How good are your eyes? If you have a bit of astigmatism, the dots on the RDS will appear a bit fuzzy and larger. To me, the dots appear a bit fuzzy. I was told a few years back that I have a bit of astigmatism (not enough to be corrected at the time).

I think this is as true now as it was back then. I thought the position on the add on magwell vs. integral part of the grip thing - part was interesting. To me, "bull" just meant thick walled. Coned was, well, coned. As far as trying to thwart any forward weight shift bias, I would think they'd be similar but guess not. It's funny how the "simple" games always seem to have the most complicated rules in the name of being "simple".

Calling the thing the "street sweeper" probably didn't do it any favors. I think it was one of the new no-no's in the 94 AWB, but a lot of things got swept up in that fiasco. I had a Ruger P89 then (only gun) and I remember buying USA "hi cap" magazines a few days after the ban. Didn't work - at all. You could actually see the feed lips were not even parallel. Didn't matter. You could fix it later. What mattered was it was "pre ban". Magazine manufacturers must have had the machines turned up to 125% just to crank them out as fast as they could. Back then, the big question to the ATF was why was a magazine made on Sept 12 1994 ok and one built Sept 13 1994 was the creation of the devil himself. Of course, there was no answer.

I thought it was just my monitor. I read the part about the blue looking good on the gun and I'm saying to myself "what blue"?

Many times the degree of what must be hand fit depends on the number of other parts that were hand fit. Drop in this most likely is compatible with drop in that, but if that has been extensively modified or hand fit, this will most likely require some modification or fitting itself. I bought a last ditch Para when they were clearing them out a couple years ago. The trigger was just plain bad. By the time I cleaned up the trigger a bit, the grip safety wouldn't work. The original trigger had so much creep in it somebody at Para (or Remington) had filed the grip safety ear down to a nub to get the whole thing to work. Now that there wasn't the creep and the sear released sooner, there wasn't enough length on the grip ear to block the bow. Whole thing was a mess but it shows how individual pieces don't function in a vacuum.

There were rumors of Remington bringing back the Para frames - were some that that was why they bought them in the first place. I bought one of the last ditch Para Expert 1911's when Para was dumping them and it was.....bad....no other word for it. I hope Remington QC makes an effort to push the Para legacy back up to where it used to be.

I load on a Pro 1000. Yes, it's one of those things where if everything is working right, it's ok. When things start to go sideways, it's best to just walk away for a bit.

There has to be a purpose to the drill. Are you practicing seeing the front sight? Initial grip? Draw? As long as you're working on something the practice is ok. When I shot a lot of trap, I'd see people shoot a whole box on a station as "practice". I need to practice the straight aways, or hard left's or hard rights. Strangely enough, by shell #17 or so, they'd start hitting them with authority and they'll think their "practice" was paying off. What they were actually doing was just developing a rhythm at that one station. Unfortunately, they weren't practicing what happens in a round of trap. Once they moved to another station their rhythm got thrown off and they were back to where they started. Point is, if you practice draw, 1 shot, holster. draw, 1 shot, holster, you're training yourself to draw and fire only 1 shot - which is not what you do during a match.

Reading this thread has given me a better idea of why bunch of reloads I had with Aguila brass wouldn't shoot in anything but the Glock 19 I have. I knew the case was "bigger" than it should be at the base of the bullet but I couldn't figure out why. I thought the press was buggering it up. The thicker case walls (if the did have it) would explain it.