Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

IVC

Classifieds
  • Posts

    1,163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IVC

  1. True, but it goes both ways - people who try to invent and enforce some sort of "spirit of the sport" are doubly annoying. The rule is "what's in the WSB is, what's not in the WSB isn't." If the WSB isn't clear, just let people try whatever they want. Who cares if the guy starts the COF in some "crouching tiger-flamingo-dragon" pose? At best, the guy will gain less than 0.1 second, and more than likely he will lose about 0.5 seconds due to the unfamiliar starting position and having to get into the standard shooting position anyways. Nobody who can beat me will suddenly not beat me because either of us tried something unusual at the start of a regular COF. And for classifiers, where it might matter, there is no ambiguity about the starting position. The same goes for those I can beat.
  2. IVC

    Ticks

    The purpose of "ticks" or "twitching" is NOT to increase performance, it's about routine that settles the mind. Any sport at the top level is more about mind and mental preparation than about physical execution. People train all their life to get to a certain performance level, then they need the mindset to be able to perform at that level on demand, when it really matters and in front of a lot of people. If you shoot with Brian a lot, chances are you have and have read his book. Notice how much it talks about the mental aspects of training and execution and how little it talks about the technique. There is a reason for that...
  3. ... and you must also read the OP - it doesn't say "standing."
  4. You MUST read the rules because they are authoritative, whether you feel like it or not. If you read the rules, at 3.2.1 you will find that WSB *must* include starting position, so whatever is in the WSB is controlling. If the start position in WSB doesn't prohibit both hands on one side, you're good to go. If it does, you have to comply with the WSB. There are no longer "defaults." Note that WSB doesn't "allow" things, it "specifies" things. Anything consistent with the WSB is an option. Now the obvious follow up question - WHY???
  5. Acceptable and normal. Brass and bullets both vary enough. Just measure the length of the bullet and you'll see how much variation is there. Now consider that the seating die pushes bullet off center and that the amount of coating at the tip, as well as the bullet shape vary quite a bit. There is slim to none chance to be within much less variance.
  6. This is also a very important point - adding a dot isn't difficult if one wants to play with the dot. But the question of one vs. two divisions and whether dot should kill irons remains... We'll see how the question is posed when it comes out.
  7. Yup, this is standard. Lighter bullet accelerates faster so the peak pressure is lower and the amount of time the pressure generates force on the slide is shorter. Less force and force acting over shorter period of time will make your slide not cycle. Look at any reloading manual and compare loads for different bullet weights, you'll see the pattern.
  8. Let me pose a question slightly differently. If there was no Revo division in USPSA at all, and we are discussing potentially adding it, what would your position be: Don't add it, we don't need revolvers in the game. Add "Revolver Open" division, where all revolvers can play. Add "Revolver Limited" division, restrictions on the gun, but no gear. Add "Revolver Production" division, legacy rules on gear position behind the hip bones, other restrictions. Add TWO divisions, Revolver Open and Limited. Something else? My vote would be definitely (5) - it's what Steel Challenge has and what makes the most sense in avoiding killing iron sights in a single division. My next choice would be (2), which seems to be what we are talking about. The reason is that between (2) and (3), the former is more in line with having a race division in a race sport. The next choice would be (3), which is what we have now.
  9. This is now getting uncomfortably close to the reasoning behind the IDPA spinoff. The dot goes against the essence of the division as much as all the custom gear goes against the essence of "practical" in USPSA. We don't shoot SAA revolvers, we don't reload one at a time, we don't reload loose rounds, we have extended releases, chamfered charge holes, actions tuned for very deeply seated softest primers out there, guns that won't fire factory ammo at all. We have race holsters and specialized moonclip holders. These all go against the "essence of traditional revolver." Reading this thread only made me question my position about whether the current Revo should change to R/O, or there should be an extra R/O division. Some very good points in this thread are about the competitive advantage of the optics and how having only R/O would make basic Revo obsolete. I'm on the fence now, because killing irons in favor of the dot is not a good idea, but it's also not a good idea to kill the dot in favor of the irons based on "tradition" argument.
  10. Just matching your gun and magazines for reliability in feeding. My default 1.200" for SVI won't even fit into the standard .40 magazines (Tanfoglio, CZ, Sig, etc.), even if some of them can chamber it without a problem. But 1.200" was recommended by the manufacturer and I never had an issue feeding. Also, longer OAL is more forgiving of small inconsistencies in powder load and bullet seating.
  11. A rule change in the past killed 625 in favor of 929. Now adding a dot might do the same for irons, but that's natural evolution, much like C/O killed production and L/O is likely to kill limited. Ideally, there would be two Revo divisions, much like there are in centerfire Steel Challenge. So what if it's low participation? And if it's a single division, without looking into history and legacy, allowing Revo Open would be the natural choice. I have two 929s, iron and dot, and I sometimes shoot 929/Optics/Comp against semi autos at outlaw matches. No biggie. Oh, and the comp doesn't do anything except making the two 929s not fit the same DAA muzzle support for my RaceMaster.
  12. The growth won't come from Revo no matter what. It's about offering options.
  13. Well, yeah... touche. Lol.
  14. What exactly happens if Revo Optics shooter shoots the same nationals as the PCC/Open? Somebody gets offended because they don't want to have "those kind of people" on their squad? It's just a match, it's just a division, there are scores that can be sliced and diced any way for anyone to feel good about themselves, but there is always the percentage of the high score of the top shooter in the top division, no matter what your own toy looks like. That top score is how fast that show could go, and that's about it.
  15. Again, what is a concern if Revo is in its own division, as it should be based on completely different type of handgun? And what problem would be solved by using categories or merging into other divisions? Having a division available to shooters doesn't take away from anyone in any other division. Local outlaw matches already treat divisions more like categories and let people shoot whatever they brought. At any level USPSA match, shooting along someone from whatever other division doesn't change anything for either shooter. The extra time Revo shooters spend on the COF is negligible compared even to the time some top shooters take to Make Ready. It seems that we are pretending someone is going to steal the glory by shooting a low participation division and it is somehow going to be a big deal... Winning against "the other guy" is as meaningful or meaningless as they make it, nobody has to participate in their celebration/pity party. Seems like this is similar to uproar when PCCs were introduced, so the Open shooters wouldn't be at the top of combined scores. Boohoo.
  16. Wait at least until the actual question comes out - it is highly unlikely the dot would be required the way it is in C/O (and even that was influenced by politics at the time, involving a well known feud, if I recall correctly). Optional dot allows for iron sights to play in the same division. I will only vote "no" if optics becomes mandatory, eliminating irons for Revo, but I cannot imagine that being the plan. Optional dot or even R/O division are good to go in my books.
  17. The stats from the last USPSA Magazine show PCC consistently at around 10%, which is close to Open and more than L10/Production/Revolver/Single Stack combined.
  18. Not sure why PCC would be dying, looks like participation has been booming. Maybe I haven't seen the latest trends, but it wouldn't be a division I'd consider on the way out. The only one I would agree is L10, but only when the magazine bans in commie states (like mine) are overturned at the national level. L10 was a "legal compliance" division from the beginning, not something that was dictated by the equipment alone. When the legal underpinning for L10 is gone, so should be the division. But the rest... let them be.
  19. Even if it brings just one new shooter it's a net-positive. As long as it doesn't detract shooters "growth" argument is moot. As for the cost, in today's automated world it would be a stretch to say it adds *any* cost, let alone any meaningful cost. Classifiers run on their own, Nationals are like any other match where it doesn't matter if there is a Revo shooter or three, and as for trophies, c'mon, they are what, "buy dozen get half a dozen free" type of a deal at the local Costco or equivalent. If anything, class recognition/trophies/prizes is what needs to go. Classes should be only for people to track their progress and know their standing on the journey to becoming good shooters. EDIT: originally typed "categories" where I obviously meant "classes." Corrected now.
  20. Not sure why "killing Revo" keeps popping up - there is no downside to low participation divisions. It's the same course of fire and nothing changes in a match if someone shoots [pick any division you hate]. Having more divisions just gives people more room to play. As long as we have the same power factors and scoring, who cares?
  21. You don't zero at the "distance you'll shoot at." You zero at the distance that gives you the maximum point-blank range. What you want to have is no holdovers at any practical distance, that's about it. For pistols, the most common mistake is to zero at close range, say 10 yards. Even 15 is pushing it. Because of the sights offset, particularly with optics, if you zero at 10 yards you'll be 4x the offset high at 50 yards. And there is no benefit - if you zero at 25 (or even 50), you have no holdover at 10/15 and you're set for *all* distances. You might be 1/2" low at 10, but in exchange you can shoot any distance by pointing and shooting. For rifles you have a bit more decision to make. This is because rifles are normally used for larger distances and you have to decide how you want to use it. In a typical *combat* match, you'll pick something that works for the types of matches you shoot. The usual 50/200 is great for anything within 300 yards, but you'll be high at 100 and that's the distance that is often used in matches because of the bay limitations. If you need to be closer at 100, you might want to pick a different zero. As pointed above, use a calculator and figure out which zero works for your rifle and your matches. For rifles, and outside 200-300 yards, you should have your DOPE table and either dial it in, or use the correct tick in the reticle. In fact, if you know your DOPE (and you should), you can dial in ANY zero combination at any time. My personal distances are: pistols 25 yards, PCC 50 yards, ARs 75/150 (for the load that I use and just one type of AR match that I shoot).
  22. If the PCC is left uncased it's either in the rack, on conveyance, or dropped ("on the ground"). Putting it on a bag or any other pile doesn't change the nature of the "storage condition" of the PCC. Same as handgun - if it's on a bag that is on the ground, it's still considered "dropped." I'm with Jonas, it's "kinda random." But either way, there are rules about how PCC can be stored, how it can be transported and how it can be picked up.
  23. Maybe I give it another try, especially since I do use Federals for Revo and have recently picked up a batch of small rifle CCI-s for 223. But with WSP I have a quick hack that enables me to load up tubes in less than a minute. The way they are packed is "shiny side up" so all I need to do is ensure I can do two flips onto the tray. The first one is easy, all primers end up on a square lattice, but upside down. The second one is the one that requires a trick - if I just flip the tray, primers will move and bunch up. But, I now use a paper towel cut to the size of the flip tray lid (folded twice) on the initial flip so primers end up on the paper towel. When I close the tray, the paper towel provides springy force that keeps primers in place, so when I do the second flip I end up with the perfect lattice of primers ready to pick up. I just lift the paper towel and pick them up. Very fast, no frustration, works every time. Load about 15 tubes and off I go to monkeying the handle on the 1050...
  24. Which primers? It couldn't fill a single tube of WSP for me, no matter how much I tried to adjust it...
  25. The only part from DAA that consistently didn't work was their "primer systems." Even this one seems to address the problems that don't exist and not address the problems that do - jamming around the drop chute. The collator version, which I own (it's on the shelf, not usable), jammed at the drop point. The problem wasn't upside down primers, not flipping them, or even primers getting stuck in some pickup sites, the problem was primers not dropping. If anyone is interested, I have Dillon primer filler and two versions of DAA primer systems for sale... cheap. Lol. I'm back to manual pickup for running a manual 1050 and not looking back. Until there is a proper collator system that works for automated presses I'm not switching.
×
×
  • Create New...