Sdlrodeo
-
Posts
253 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Sdlrodeo
-
-
Might be worth it. I have a Kadet kit for my CZs but since i switched to LTD I don’t shoot those much anymore. Following...
-
1 hour ago, rritchie82 said:
I’m also a big fan of the steel grip. I like the positive grip it gives and also the way it balances a front heavy gun. On drawback is the issue of mags jamming in the grip during a reload.
I too have been victim of the steel grip/mag jam. Those plastic 2011 grips are really forgiving with a plastic magwell. For what it’s worth, I was watching a video of someone with the Steel insert LimCat magwell solving the problem of the steel grip/mag jam. I might have to give it a try but I hear it doesn’t work with the Dawson Basepads if you’re using them.
-
I run an Atlas Titan with the PT Evo grip. I REALLY like that gun. After about 5K rounds, during practice, I needed to tweak the sear spring so I went to my backup STI Edge with plastic grip. I did add the steel magwell and steel MSH to ‘try’ to add weight.
It took me a few practice ‘stages’ to get the feel of the lighter gun again. I noticed the recoil with the same rounds was a tad more ‘top heavy’ as it didn’t have quite the same balance as the steel grip Titan. HOWEVER, I did notice that transitions felt like lightning with the lighter STI! Seriously, That STI just swung like a feather. So there’s an advantage to the plastic.
Either way, I think it is personal preference. Although I will say it is probably best to have both guns set up identical if financially possible.
-
Good looking guns. Have you had the opportunity to shoot an Atlas Nemesis? I ask because I’d be interested to hear your comparison.
-
8 hours ago, Malarky112 said:
Local club in RI did a 12 stage classifier and let you run thru a second time if you wanted to. I’m a glutton for punishment so I said why not. It was a long day!
Ah. At first I thought it might have been a typo. But I understand.
Its pretty common for clubs to run to run a special classifier match that might have 4,5 or maybe even 6 but 12 is a lot. Seems cool though. It would be cool if they set it up as like two 6 stage (or three 4 stage) matches. That way you can shoot multiple guns if you want and still have them count for score since you could change out your guns for each match.
-
1 hour ago, Malarky112 said:
Just getting into to USPSA (been doing IDPA for 3 years) I did a qualifier match with 24 stages last weekend. I was kind of bummed to only make D. (I’m a SS in IDPA) My local match this weekend had no D class shooters, all C and above. I was discouraged, I was wondering if everyone was a better shot than me. I guess this thread can make me feel a little better.
First, I’d like to know a little more about this 24 stage match you speak of. I think Uspsa Nationals is 18 stages.
Second,
I wouldn’t worry about the classification much. USPSA and IDPA are totally different games and IPSC is different still. A lot of people think they are pretty hot stuff (myself included) when they come over to USPSA from LE or other shooting sports. Only to find they are middle of the pack or worse.
Please dont give up. While IDPA has its place, I’m a firm believer that USPSA will challenge all of the shooting disciplines as well as your mental game. Good times for sure!! Stick with it a while. I’m sure you’ll feel the same.
-
How can you tell which size is on the mag? I measured the two different thicknesses and I got 5+ and 7+mm.
-
Just earned a match bump at Area 8 with my Titan.
-
It was nice to meet you Sir. Glad you had a good experience in my old stomping grounds. I’m now in A6 but I’ve been lucky enough to make it to the last two A8 championships up at Ontelaunee. Hopefully I’ll see your name on the GA state roster.
-
On 7/3/2018 at 11:39 AM, MikeBurgess said:
2.2.1.1 Shooting Boxes and Fault Lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material, must be fixed firmly in place, and provide both physical and visual references to competitors. For hard ground surfaces clear of debris, 0.75 inch material is the minimum allowable size. On other range surfaces, such as covered with turf, sand, gravel, wood chips or similar, thicker material which rises at least 1.5 inches above the surface is recommended.
sorry the belt can not be a shooting box
Mike,
What part of the ruling indicates it cannot be a shooting box? If you are applying the “fixed firmly in place” wording,
I immediately think of wobble bridges which are used quite frequently. If you are talking about the “.75 inch material” wording, that could be construed to only be necessary for “hard ground surfaces”. The 1.5” could be read as necessary for “other range surfaces such as covered with turf, sand, gravel...” which the belt of the treadmill does not qualify as any.
Therefore one could argue that non of those apply to the treadmill. One could also argue that the fact the belt is moving is providing “physical and visual reference” especially if painted.
I was then thinking that a tactile/visual ‘border’ was the intent of the rule. That brings another type of “shooting area” to mind: raised planks (think ballance beams). I’ve seen these a few times. They don’t have borders that are raised, the shooting area is itself basically a raised border that really doesn’t have a border, only an edge to fall off of.
Interesting discussion for sure. We haven’t even gotten into the safety aspect of it.
-
On 8/20/2018 at 7:14 PM, 3gunDQ said:
I have heard of it, I have never seen it myself but... I have heard of MDs completely covering the max trap target with a NS and making the hits legit mics IF* a rope or other mechanism can remove the NS and allow the target to be engaged. Many different ways to play that where it is a huge disadvantage to attempt to skip or game the max trap.
The rule is diffent in IPSC, in an interesting way... no A zone rule.
Interesting. So I think what you are saying is that a max trap can be set up so that the NS completely covers the target after activation. BUT it is not considered disappearing since you can manipulate the prop (via rope or other device) even after it has ‘closed’? I recently took the RO class but I don’t remember anything that would contradict that being legal. i’m Comparing it to a guillotine style sliding port that one would hold open with support hand.
-
A really cool dude with a Titan and another guy shooting a Nemesis took 1st and 2nd respectively at the BIG Monthly USPSA Match two weeks ago out of 38 LTD shooters. Just saying.
-
That’ll teach ‘em!
-
6 hours ago, teros135 said:
You can't? Really? So did lots of folks at the match have multiple M-M-FTSAs on that stage, with the "invisible" walls?
No, not a lot of people that I know of. There could be an argument that people may have shot through the non-port section of the wall and no one would be the wiser but that’s sort of another topic. My point with showing these pictures was that it is possible to have your ‘mind play tricks’ AND still be safe to shoot.
I didn’t have a problem because during the walk through (with plenty of time) I was able to discern where the port was and assign a shooting position in my stage plan. However, in this particular stage with the wall material used, I think it would not indicate unsafe shooting if a shooter shot through the wall because he/she thought it was a port. I’m not a pro, but I’d consider myself a seasoned shooter and I have darned good vision. I didn’t have much problem with this stage but I could see how someone might shoot through a port that’s not a port in that wall. Especially if one were ‘on the clock’ as BoyGlock indicated happened during his run. If that happened, i wouldn’t consider it unsafe at all.
-
On 7/27/2018 at 12:16 PM, teros135 said:
If you "can't see" the wall, perhaps your vision needs checking. If your mind is "playing tricks" on you, perhaps this might interfere with ability to shoot safely. If you just made a mistake, just take the penalty, learn from it, and move on.
Here is a stage from last weekend. These mesh walls are pretty darned transparent. In the below images I cannot ‘easily’ tell which picture has the target visible in the port and which does not? I have to look pretty hard but I CAN easily see the targets and shoot safely.
-
32 minutes ago, wgj3 said:
What if wall was only a foot wide with a target on either side and he put one through it...?
2 targets separated by a no shoot and shooter hits NS, you know he didnt mean to put the round in the NS, DQ since he must've AD'd into it?
This is sort of the gist of my whole argument. I think we all agree shooting a wall is is not automatically a DQ. We’ve all shot walls. More than likely we’ve shot walls within a few inches of a target/port. That doesn’t qualify as a DQ.
That was my initial question.
How far ‘into’ the wall (away from the edge/port) does it need to be?
I did take the NROI RO class.
I was told that transitioning to another shooting position was considered movement even though I didn’t move my feet.
My my situation was slightly different because I broke the sight picture and was pulling the gun back toward my torso (similar to low ready).
My question(s) is(are):
What if I wasn’t? What if I was transitioning around a barrel?
What about the ‘end’ of a wall (wall is perpendicular to 180 with targets on either side) that is only as wide as the 2x2 the mesh is staples to?
Is that movement?
-
9 minutes ago, HoMiE said:
Just because you shoot a wall or prop does not mean it’s an automatic AD. I have shot too soon coming into a position with gun up in direction of target, I have even shot low bringing gun up to a target. As long as it’s not 10’ or over the berm as previously stated your good, keep shooting target. Now as the OP has stated the gun fired as he pulled his arms in and transition to another port, I would say that was way too early and he know the shot was not intended or expected.
Correct. I agree that mine was an AD.
The whole point of the conversation was to discuss shooting walls and when it is too close to call an AD.
-
On 5/14/2018 at 12:52 AM, BoyGlock said:
Had a bit different experience. On the run approaching position, I aimed and shot a close target thru a mesh wall w/ one shot and instantly realized my error and re-engaged the target on the port w/ 2. In the heat of the run my vision disregarded the mesh! The front RO wanted to dq me but I appealed to the RM who ruled otherwise.
That seems reasonable. Since you were engaging a target. With Some of the “almost clear” wall material used with multiple ports configurations that I’ve seen I can totally understand your mind playing tricks.
-
Not arguing the source.
However wouldn’t that make walls irrelevant given the stage direction to “shoot targets as they become visible”? If you can see them through walls ‘per the rules’ and you are directed to engage when they are visible I would argue mesh walls wouldn’t matter or all walls would have to be opaque.
-
6 hours ago, Akkid17 said:
I shoot 3-gun, but when I started in 3-gun the rifle was the fastest for me to pick up and shoot well aside from long range that’s still kicking my butt. However, red dot plus a much more stable firearm I see as being the easiest way to move up, probably why so many people were able to bump their classifications in PCC so quickly. We have many PCC GM’s and still only 10 or so in carry optics I think that speaks volumes about how much easier it is to shoot a PCC than a pistol
I can see that. Good points all.
-
2 hours ago, Akkid17 said:
That’s backward of how I shot, I absolutely crushed PCC classifiers and most guys in our area finish much higher when shooting. PCC versus any of their handguns, PCC is different but just about any hoser stage will get dominated by PCC I would argue that you should get classified the same as your highest with PCC but 2 below with revolver. I was able to pull off several M classifiers and finished with 82% of the national champion at optics nationals with PCC and I just barely made A in single stack and limited.
Interesting. Did you have much experience with a carbine before? Military/LE? I really had no practice at all with my PCC (nor a dot for that matter) when I did my classifiers. Could just be that I really suck with a carbine. LOL
-
45 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:
They should really just totally unlink rifle and wheelgun from the bottomfeeder divisions.
They are entirely different manuals of arms. I lose about one classification’s worth of performance shooting someone’s limited gun instead of my production gun.
My first match in PCC? I shot a low C percentage, far below the A class finish I would have had with my Q5 in production. Going the other way is true as well: plenty of PCC badasses cannot shoot a handgun well.
They’re entirely different to move with, and to shoot. Earn your classification freshly.
Yep.
While I don’t have any Revolver data, my handgun classification percentages are as follows:
PROD Pre-update 83.9% (current calculation would net 81.03%) - While I was scratching at an M before the update, I’m still a solid A
LTD 74.8% (69.2%) - Solid B
CO 65.1% (66.1%) - Low B
However,
My PCC percentages are 60.3% (58.6%) placing me solidly in a high C under the new update.
I’d venture to predict my Revolver percentages would more closely mirror my PCC scores.
-
On 7/4/2018 at 7:03 AM, AmarokTactical said:
I used AZS Calc for the old HHF's, they haven't updated their info yet. The calculator on the USPSA site is pretty garbage and will lock you out after about 15-20 queries and you'll have to wait an hour. I wish they would just publish the information in an easy to read format. They don't even tell you HHF, just what 95% is so you have to do the math to figure out the new HHF's.
I really don’t understand why HHF is secret if its so easy to do the math. If the org did publish the HHFs, that doesn’t mean they would have do disclose how they came up with them. Kinda like draping a curtain over a house and saying we can’t tell you there’s a house under there.
-
On 7/3/2018 at 6:59 PM, AmarokTactical said:
Here are the changes made to the Carry Optics classifier HHF's - most of them have been balanced to be easier. I compiled these myself so there may be some errors, let me know if you see anything that needs changing.
This seems to make sense to me since (to my knowledge) CO[minor] was using the same scores as Open [major?].
Bullet weight for sti
in 1911-style Pistols
Posted
I like both 180s and 200s. I ran across a deal on 180 JHP Montana golds so I use those mostly. However, I really like the Syntech 205 factory ammo for Matches. For some reason, they really seem to be just right in my Titan. So, I just ordered 3K of the Precision Delta 200 grn FPs so we’ll see what I can work up with those this winter.