IVC
-
Posts
1,170 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by IVC
-
-
Sighting in - at 25 yards, sight picture "2." It gives me the point blank range out to any distance that I'll shoot in competition.
-
On 1/18/2024 at 12:06 PM, barry said:
The bullet starts dropping the instant it leaves the barrel. The fact that the sights are above the barrel makes it appear to rise.
It doesn't, the barrel points "up" so the bullet doesn't start dropping until it reaches its apex.
The vertical component of velocity starts decreasing (velocity changes in the direction of gravity pull, so absolute value decreases), but until this velocity is zero the bullet raises.
-
17 hours ago, barry said:
The hammer will not fall when you pull the trigger on a flagged gun. The disconector de activates the trigger from the sear unless the bolt is fully in battery.
I'm pretty sure all my AR-pattern rifles "fire" with the flag in. By "fire" I mean that the hammer drops, even if it doesn't actuate the firing pin.
The design of the AR-15 is that the bolt must be fully forward (in battery, locked) before the angle of the hammer is such that it can reach the firing pin. But the hammer will drop when the trigger is pulled way before the bolt is in battery.
-
That's how it works - you pull the bolt back twice, once to show clear followed by closing it and pulling the trigger, then you pull it back to insert the flag.
You can pull the trigger on the flagged PCC if you want, but the question is whether it's a good idea or not. If you do, the hammer will be resting at an angle against the back of the bolt because the bolt won't be in battery due to the flag. The falling hammer will also hit the bolt at this angle instead of hitting the firing pin. If you just keep the hammer cocked, there is no harm whatsoever because the springs weaken from contracting and expanding, not from being either contracted or expanded. Compare to magazine springs and endless discussions about whether it's acceptable to keep magazines loaded...
-
The problem with "gaming" was when it did matter, such as when, e.g., the wording on activators was that they "must be activated during the COF to avoid a procedural penalty." Since the COF does NOT end with the last shot, there was a way to activate them AFTER the last shot and not get penalized. Combined with the support structures of walls being part of the shooting area, there were some serious "misuses" of the rules.
While it was legal at the time, it got changed by changing the rules, the way it should be handled (and not by denying the shooting plan that is by the rules). In fact, the rules have evolved to SIMPLIFY starting positions by removing default position and subjective terms such as "relaxed at sides." The idea is precisely to prevent these types of issues, where anyone can start however they think it will help them.
In the end, the guy who shoots the most points in the shortest time wins. As it's always been (well, except for those times that required rule changes, but that's neither here nor there) ...
-
5 hours ago, NoSteel said:
Purpose at this point of the start is to get a good proper grip after the beep. Getting a poor grip .1sec faster than anybody else won’t really help you much…..
^^^ This. Plus if the WSB doesn't specify it, it is allowed and up to the shooter to try whatever he wants.
-
6 hours ago, Matt1911 said:
People who try to “game” it always annoy me. It ends up being a big waste of time with going back over the rules and wsb and bickering amongst each other to find out what is legal and what’s not.
By the time it’s done, all the fun of the sport has been sucked away and then it feels more like a job.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.
-
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...
-
8 hours ago, Alleycatdad said:
..and, you must also read ALL of the rules.
Per the glossary, "Standing: The compeitior's body is fully erect with both feet planted firmly onthe ground or other designated position"
So, "Standing with wrists below belt"....
SA
... and you must also read the OP
- it doesn't say "standing."
-
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???
-
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Joe4d said:
5. Putting an Optic on vast majority of competing revolvers out there is even easier than on most auto loaders, Almost everyone is using an adjustable sight Smith and wesson.. Screw on mounts been around for years.. Sooo no shipping, milling, or special new Optic ready guns required.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
22 hours ago, Fishbreath said:
The short version is that I started shooting revolver because it was hard, not because it was fast. I suppose that's tradition, in a sense, or a twisted sort of fun. I agree with MWP—I think a dot goes against the essence of the division, which for me is "it's the most challenging way you can choose to shoot a USPSA match".
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
2 hours ago, shred said:
The counter-argument is those people already shoot Revo, so if you want more shooters in Revo, shouldn't you ask the people that aren't shooting it? This BoD loves growth. They need it.
The growth won't come from Revo no matter what. It's about offering options.
-
4 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:
Optional dot is a required dot. I'm sure @Fishbreath still wants to win.
Well, yeah... touche. Lol.
-
2 hours ago, MWP said:
Watered down competition.
...
I’m down for 30 uspsa divisions as long as they’re all at their own nationals. But that’s not the case.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.
-
4 hours ago, Makicjf said:
What if optic Revo was rolled into Lo/Co, scored minor only and recognized as a category?
4 hours ago, BadShot said:Maybe we could just redo L10 to allow optics. Then optic revos, optic single stacks, and optic production guns could play.
4 hours ago, Fishbreath said:A revolver category in LO/CO would be interesting. So also, I think, would a revo category in Production—just steal IDPA's gear rules. (Maybe ESR, maybe SSR, maybe some hybrid.) That gives people a place to dip their toes in with the six-gun that they already have in the safe.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Fishbreath said:
I'm not opposed to optics, but it seems wrong to have them in the division that controls access to IPSC (iron sight) Revolver.
I'll be voting 'no' this time, personally.
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.
-
2 hours ago, pskys2 said:
At the level 2 here revolver had more than pcc.
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.
-
1 hour ago, pskys2 said:
Production and Limited will be hangers on PCC and SS are dying and L10 has been on life support since 2004.
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.
Strong hand, weak hand transitions
in Handgun Techniques
Posted
Usually "out to in" but this is also a consequence of the slight natural cant when shooting one-handed, where the gun recoils towards the next target naturally.
Don't stress, if opposite makes more sense, e.g., shooting as you move in/out of position, there is nothing wrong with it either. When shooting one-handed you primarily lose the ability to control the recoil effectively, so you have to wait for the sights to get back on target no matter what.