Fishbreath

That sounds like a hoot. Maybe I'll mention that as an option for the revolver-friendly match I put on toward the end of this year. I've had an eye out for a 10mm GP100 Match Champion for something like two years now, but it's been as hard to find as any of the specialized gamer wheelguns.

You can already combine arbitrary divisions with my result viewer, which I wrote in large part because I wanted to be able to compare myself to locap (when shooting revolver) or everyone-minus-PCC (when shooting hicap).

I don't think so. Drive-by participation in divisions ("hmm, maybe I'll shoot X this weekend") depends on people having suitable guns for it just lying around. Although I believe 8rd guns are the right choice for the USPSA Revolver rules, already we're talking guns almost nobody has sitting in the safe compared to 6rd revolvers. Add a dot to the required equipment list (and in competition, allowing a dot is essentially requiring a dot), and it gets even harder for people who aren't already dedicated participants to give it a try.

Contra the others, my PremEar plugs are much, much better than my Decibullz in terms of comfort and noise-blocking.

Here's the core of it. He likes the four-division idea, which is massively unfair to revolvers (as are any division consolidation proposals that lump them in with semi-autos) but otherwise fairly inoffensive, I think? Of course, once you pull out PCC and revolver into separate divisions, as they need to be for competitive equity (and I will fight you on this if you disagree, because frankly, I'm right), it's just the Prod/L10/SS 8maj/10min proposal. I don't have strong opinions about that, but it seems like a toss-up at best if the people who actually shoot Prod/SS want it.

Yes and amen. Happy New Year!

The L10 change would permit frame-mounted optics, actually. The proposal is 'change appendix D3, item 13 from "no" to "yes", and D3.13 at present says "Optical/electronic sights permitted: No". No mention of slide mount.

Dots are definitely advantaged. Look at the history of USPSA—the first division ever created was created to segregate dots from irons, because dots are a clear competitive edge. A dot will feel slower at first for people with a lot of experience with irons, because there is no throttle control with a dot, so to speak. With irons, you control the amount of information you get with how much attention you pay to the precise alignment of the sights. When you're going fast, you learn to need less—just see a flash of fiber on the close targets, wait to see the front sight in the notch for medium targets, full-on equal-height-equal-light for hard ones. Dots always tell you everything. An acceptable sight picture is subtly different between the two. With irons, I always look for the sight in the middle of the target; any inaccuracy comes from not letting the sights fully settle. With a dot (although I'm a very irregular dot shooter), an acceptable sight picture is the dot somewhere in the area I want to hit. (A zone, say, on a USPSA target.) Waiting to see the dot fully dead center on every target could conceivably be slower than irons, but it's also waiting for more information than you need to make an acceptable shot.

The revised L10 is basically only a box away, now.

Combining Revolver with locap is about as equitable as combining PCC with Carry Optics. Total nonstarter; the guns are just too different for fair competition, at least once you get past 8 rounds. I do like having more places than Revolver and Open to realistically play with them, though.

I'm anti-optics in Revolver for now too, since I still have young eyes. I will absolutely classify in Limited Revolver Optics 10, however, if it comes to pass.

This is a problem (IMO) with the application of 3.3.1, more than the idea of Production 15. The standard ought to be "legal to possess a magazine purchased today", rather than "legal to possess a magazine".

Yes. I hope that one goes through—classification in Limited Revolver 10 Optics sounds like a hoot. Really, the whole division sounds like a hoot. Frame-mounted sights on a .45 Glock? Compact 1911 with a slide ride dot? Why not! A home for all the bonkers guns that don't fit other divisions seems like a great thing to do with L10.

I always tell people who make that joke that the exchange rate is one intentionally trampled moon clip = one magazine with dust kicked over it.

Can we maybe keep the Limited Optics debate out of the one place it definitely doesn't affect in the slightest? I think it's more margin than demand. Lots of fiddly little parts, frequent need for hand-fitting... Much easier to crank out semiautos than to build a bunch of tricky revolvers, which take extra labor before they leave the factory, and many of which will likely come back for warranty claims when the picky competitors get their hands on them.

I've always found it a little easier to nail reloads on my 9mm gun, because (disregarding chamfering, which is similar on both) I'm aiming a .357-.358 bullet into a .390 hole instead of a .380 hole, but I'm not totally convinced there's a real difference there.

Theoretically, anyway. I don't have much interesting to trade, but send me a message when yours come in anyway.

I'm aware. I do want another of the .357s, since I'm set on mounting a dot and porting my .357 once my second 9mm comes in, but I don't think I want it $2500 bad. If you want to get that kind of money for it, you should probably move it soon, though. I've heard direct from some Ruger sources that fresh supply is coming over the winter.

If you're loading for your Super GP, 1.135 is about as long as you can go without sending the cylinder to Olhasso for reaming, at least with most bullet profiles. You might be able to get something like the Ibejiheads 160gr a little longer, since the ogive is so long.

You have, actually—the one I traded you at Nationals was $1380 or something. Every Ruger DA revolver that isn't a plain jane blued .357 GP100 or stainless SP101 is going for wildly inflated prices right now, though.

You've got that right. Almost all talk of winding down unpopular divisions (or adding new ones) is off the mark, though. "Is it popular" is the wrong metric to use. What matters is whether the division is distinct enough from existing ones to serve competitive equity. Rifles? Definitely need their own division. Revolvers? Same. Limited 10? Well, if we applied the rule about magazine capacity in ban states in a sensible way (i.e., what you can buy, not what you can possess if it happens to be grandfathered in), I don't think there's much reason to keep it, since it's just Limited with shorter magazines. Limited Optics? Ehhh, maybe? I've never run a 2011 myself. Ultimately, though, "We should eliminate division X" is an argument without a natural limiting principle until you're down to one division, which is what we had in the early 90s, and was a situation we collectively disliked enough to go from one to eight over the next 25 years.

Not on the whole. There were a few targets that went over the line, I think (mostly the fast over-the-top swingers on the balance beam, possibly the partial double swingers on stage 1), but nothing else was really out of bounds. There were some 25-30y mini-poppers, but I wouldn't call those unfair.

They're in the match info card you get when you click on an entry in the USPSA.org match list. That said, all three 2023 nationals are listed as 18 stages, 350 rounds, so they could be placeholder numbers.

I had a little lead at the end of day 1, as I understand, but McGinty got me fair and square on the field courses day 2. (I know what to work on for '23! I can definitely match his pace, just need to do it a) repeatably and b) while still shooting appropriate pace for a points-down game.) Here's my match video. It was a fun one, I thought—the steel-plate stages are a neat changeup from paper target pace, and the shoot-off was a blast. The major match calendar is filling up already, but I may try to make it down for the Free State Championship this year.

I heard from several Ruger-affiliated sources at the IRC that we should expect to see more Super GP100s this winter/next spring: they're in the process of spinning the line back up. Apparently, the bean counters didn't believe the demand would be there back during the first run.