esajz24

Throwing in options is always good, I just think it’s really hard. It’s easy to make a stage that technically has options, but it’s hard to make one where there are two (or more) comparably effective ways to shoot the stage. To my point though, the diversity in target difficulty is what tests multiple skills and the deft execution of those in sequence is what makes the stage fun. If there can be an option or two, all the better.

Problems arise when MDs or stage designers overly rely on impractical marksmanship challenges to make things “hard.” There are many skills to test in this game. I think any stage where the designer tries to capture several of these naturally becomes a challenging (and fun stage). The difficulty comes from testing more than one element of shooting and the shooter’s ability to place shots with an appropriate level of accuracy on targets of varying difficulty. For example, a stage that starts with a draw to a 20yd mini popper, followed by a hard run to a 3 target array with a no-shoot or two at 12yrds, followed by 4 open targets within 7yds to shoot on the move, finally ending with an array where you enter to a 15yd mini and a 25yd open paper (separated by an >90deg transition) sounds really fun and plenty challenging. You’ve gotta be good at lot to win that stage. I *think* this illustrates is CHA-LEE’s point. It certainly illustrates the stages I enjoy the most. There are a lot of skills to test. Honing each and then stringing them together is the main challenge of this game. Putting hardcover head box-only targets at 30yds ain’t the way.

I’m curious to compare results across divisions for this match, particularly CO and CO Light. Has anyone been able to find combined results? I only can find division results…

I have a feeling CO will change or there will be a new SAO slide-ride optics division pretty soon.

I found that the TTI CZ75 pads do not fit the gauge on Beretta MecGar tubes, so avoid those. Have Canik TP9 pads coming to test from Henning, Springer, and Taylor Freelance. It's been said that Canik mags have the same lower angle as the Beretta mags, so the fit is more natural. You can see the CZ75 pads tilt a little, which is probably why some have issues fitting the gauge with Beretta tubes. I have also heard that the CZ75 Grams spring and follower kit can add a round. So, on a 140mm people are getting 23+1. The Grams follower needs to be trimmed to avoid the magazine catch, which it can bind on.

The Canik Rival seems like the best budget option now. Even as a "budget" option, I don't think it's leaving much on the table. The trigger is excellent out of the box, better than any Walther I tried and probably the best factory striker trigger I've felt. In fact, it's one of the best striker triggers I've ever felt, without caveat. A few months ago I was really impressed with the PDP, but the Rival is better. You can make the M&P trigger excellent with the Apex, or especially Timney, options, but now you are spending more than a Rival. I have not yet felt a Glock trigger that is close, including the Timney. Even the fully worked over 320 triggers are not good (to my preferences). They can be made light, but the trigger pull is basically just creep until the very back of the pull. Weird feeling. The Rival also seems to have a much more generous opening for magazine insertions. The M&P magwell is small.