IVC

At the safe table - yes. At any other location, the moment one picks up such a gun it's "gun handling." For PCCs there is an explicit exemption that allows casing and uncasing (and nothing else). For other guns, it's a DQ. And leaving a PCC on a cart is not "casing/uncasing." It's "storing." Rule 5.2.1.6 applies.

Rule 5.2.1.6 is very specific about "storing in a mobile rack or carrier." If you leave your PCC on the side, it's "being stored," i.e., not carried. It must be vertical, as specified in the rule. While there is no DQ associated directly with this rule, it does call for the RM to determine what is acceptable. One can argue that the RM's jurisdiction applies only to "transport" ("In the event of disagreement on how the firearm is being transported, the Range Master shall be the final authority..."), but that would be trying to stretch it and could be counter-argued that the moment you pick it up, you're "transporting" it.

I ordered it years ago, when ordering directly from Australia was the only way. No problems, it all worked nicely, got stuck at some checkpoint or another along the way for a few days, cleared all the customs and arrived with only slightly bent mounting bracket, nothing that would be a problem. No hiccups or issues with it ever since. You're good to go ordering direct.

The amount of burrs will depend on how you press your handle. If you go firm and positive, then pause for a moment while the trimmer cuts, you usually end up with minimal to no burrs. And if you reload FMJBT-style bullets, you don't have to worry about what little burrs might remain, they'll get cleaned up as the bullet is seated. Over-tinkering with brass is something I try to avoid with passion.

A few months back I started reloading 223 (for some local matches, already had 1050, so it was a matter of both curiosity and the ability to have a load that matches my rifle). Rifle rounds are quite different from pistol and I went through the setup process slowly and systematically. Initially, I over-lubed and ended up with small dents on the neck - easily fixed. But I still had a lot of failures in the final gauge (it's not a hundo, it only takes 7 rounds at the time). Then I got the more precise rifle gauge with min/max case length and realized that my brass wasn't consistent. After looking into it, turns out the sizing die needs to be *over* cammed, that's just how the design works. It takes away any shellplate wiggle room, ensures full length sizing works correctly and, most importantly, gets the shoulder within the spec. Once adjusted like this, it's practically 0 rejection rate at the gauge (but I still gauge all the ammo). This not only opened my eyes to the issues with rifle rounds, but it also made me readjust the pistol sizing dies. And, voila, suddenly there are no more "barely" passing rounds, it all fits perfectly in a hundo. Unless the case is defective, or there is another obvious problem. Note that I have a Roll-sizer and size all my brass, and I also used the U-dies on some setups to try to minimize gauging issues, but it wasn't until I figured out that the sizing die needs to press the shell solidly that I got around the problem.

This is the only step I'm not sure about - other than aesthetics, what's the purpose? Do you think your rejection rate would go up if you didn't?

Case-gauging is just another QC step where you inspect the brass. No different than sorting out similar calibers or visual inspection of the random range pickup - unless you have a machine, it's a manual process where you look at each one and quickly classify into go/no-go. The real question is: what are your steps *prior* to running the press? Any preprocessing merely moves the QC steps from the backend to the front end. I would bet that at some point you have to remove an odd .38SC/.38 Super or 380 out of your 9mm stash, or an odd 357 Sig out of your .40. Not to mention the annoying .38 Super if you reload .38SC (Dillon to this day lists incorrect shellplate for 38SC). But apart from caliber sorting, you also have to cull brass that is at the end of its useful life, those with dented or pitted walls, any type of crack at the mouth, any other deformity from, e.g., stepping on it, etc. Then you have brass from all sorts of manufacturers with visibly different dimensions around the rim. All of this will create potential problems in the final round. Given that the mixed brass is by far the most variable part of any reloading setup, it must be addressed *somewhere*. The last step of case-gauging is a "catch all" test to ensure smooth operation. For example, case gauging will catch cases that cracked during mouth expansion or bullet seating, something you can't catch in preprocessing.

Interesting study and good to see someone collect and analyze the data. But the conclusion should be a bit more qualified, especially if they are going to submit it to an academic journal - the emphasis must be on the untrained shooters. The finding that people who don't know how to use a red dot will not do well with a red dot, or will do better with irons or lasers, is much less dramatic than any finding about how *trained* people perform with each sighting system. Also notice that his graphs show irons outperforming any other aiming system across the board, again confirming that this is about untrained shooters. Beside small factual inaccuracies (e.g., that "GMs are the top 5% in USPSA") and some technical inaccuracies (e.g., about comparing divisions where differences are more than just the sighting system; and more), the study shows what we intuitively know - a person who doesn't know how to type will be faster writing it down than pecking at the keyboard, or, a person who doesn't know how to ride a bike will get to the grocery store faster on foot. Yes, red dots have a learning curve before they start outperforming other sighting systems, something we all went through when first learning the dot. Searching for the dot it a telltale sign of someone new to the system, especially when doing SHO/WHO.

Probably the latter. Holster shouldn't change retention based on quite a bit of contact, let alone the incidental contact you imply. If the gun is getting stuck, look for what is catching and where. It shouldn't happen with a well-fitting holster, so a guess is that it's something related to the rest of your setup.

No I don't. If you have a 6" plate at 50 yards we are talking about angular size of 12 MOA, which is 1/5 of a degree. Let's make it a 12" plate, for 0.4 degrees and let's round it off to 1/2 a degree, so it's an even bigger plate. Given that the width of your pinky at arm's length is about 1 degree, we are talking about a target the size of half of the width of your pinky. Correct? Now, you have a laser and a target that is a quarter size of your pinky (half width, half height... squares and all that), you raise the gun and the dot is not on the target. Which way and how do you move your gun to get the dot on the target? I assume you're not claiming that you can close your eyes, index at the target and be within quarter of the pinky nail from the center of the plate, right? Instead, you'll have a small target, no visible dot anywhere, and... now what? Which way and how do you adjust your aim so the dot even gets on the target at all? I won't even get into the (in)ability to see the dot on a 50 yard plate, but if you insist it works, I'll actually take photos of a green laser (SureFire X400) at this distance and post it here, then you can post your own photo and we can compare our notes.

You can't, that's the problem. The dot is there regardless of the background or the light conditions, the laser is not. Laser needs background to reflect off of. Standalone targets (no good background), (semi)distant targets, outdoors targets in the sun, etc., are all examples of where not only you can't shoot laser like a dot, but you can barely shoot it at all. There is no laser dot until you're very close to being fully settled, there is no peripheral dot as you index the gun. I would compare it to shooting 4x+ pistol scope off-hand at, say, 50 yards. If/when you get the crosshairs on target you do get the benefit, but you can't get it there fast and for all practical applications it's not a good setup. Can you explain how you shoot laser at a single steel plate at 20 yards?

I gave you specific arguments, not some story about "my experience" or "trust me." If you discovered different results, you can state them and refute what I said. This is a discussion forum and the idea is to have a (gasp) discussion about what does and does not work. I would be more than happy to hear about your "experience" and "findings" and discuss them. I also own a laser and can state my own experiences, for what they are worth to the community. What are you, three year old or something? Yup, three year old.

To the extent you can shoot a laser the same as a dot, it's an advantage over iron sights - target focus, no alignment issues, visible on target. But the "awkward shooting position" benefit is dubious at best because you still have to see the target and have a direct line of sight, so if you cannot bring the gun to this line of sight, you're either shooting off of some other index at extremely close range (where sights don't matter), or it's something *really* awkward where you're going to have to "fish" for the laser dot anyways, which is very slow for a dynamic situation. On the other hand, the dot will be much better during target acquisition because it shows in your peripheral vision as the gun is brought to the target and because it will be "settling" on the target the same regardless of the size or location of the target. A laser won't show at all in your peripheral vision unless there is a very close background and not only it won't settle on a small target, but you won't be able to find it in the first place because you'll have to index it practically perfectly just so you can see the dot on the small target. Not to mention that lasers don't work in regular daylight past close distances. In these situation the laser is *much* worse than iron sights because you can't use it at all. I would say that laser as the only/primary system is the worst option for both self defense and competition. At best it's a useful add-on in *some* situations (I have a SureFire green laser and have tried finding a good use for it, but couldn't).

Lasers are explicitly allowed for PCC and they aren't forbidden for Open in Appendix D1.14 like they are in other divisions. Yet they are rarely used and mostly on PCCs to get the first shot without aiming. Not an advantage you claim.

But that's a different issue (and who even looks at the concepts such as "winning a class??"). People who start shooting a new division are not classified lower, they are simply not classified at all in that division. The flag "U" signifies the lack of classification. I'm not sure anyone could claim to have won "an unclassified class" no matter how pathetic the person...

The classification system requires a certain number of classifiers to get a more representative score and it's not directly connected to the auxiliary rules that limit how cross-division classes correlate. When one is starting out, they are not automatically classified as "D" either, even though that's the lowest one can start with. Just because we know what the lowest is doesn't mean we bypass the process, and having to shoot a few classifiers to get a classification is a good rule, not only because it provides a much better average, but also because it indicates that the person actually dabbled in that division. But "sandbagging," .... c'mon.

Doesn't make sense to connect classification in 2nd+ division to sandbagging - how would it even work to "sandbag" by having a "U" next to your name? The OP's question is about the timing of the change from "U" to an actual class, something one can "control" by simply not shooting classifiers. A person who wants to be a "U" can remain a "U" indefinitely. It's not a class and it doesn't provide any benefit, so sandbagging as a motive doesn't sound plausible.

Oops, you're quite right, I didn't notice I quoted the wrong command. The whole point was that one can still shoot after "...show clear." I'll correct the post, thanks. Edit: can't update the post, too old.

Dots are not practical on *all* carry guns. On my pocket-carry PM9 it's not an option. On my IWB setups I could have one, I just don't. These are not guns to run competition drills or to practice at speed where the dot makes a difference, these guns are for self-defense, likely at a very short range and possibly from an index without aiming at contact distances. But if you have a dot and it doesn't affect concealability or draw and you aren't worried about the battery or glare in the dark, definitely nothing wrong with having a dot. Who knows, I might have a setup in the future with the dot, but at the moment it seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Some posters don't complete their [this space intentionally left blank]

As much as keeping finger on the trigger while transitioning between targets in an array is a violation of rule 3, or keeping the gun at the eye level during wide transitions or when running is a violation of rule 2. It's not.

Staging and pull-through are two different techniques and are used in different scenarios. For most shooting, pull-through is the "correct way." Not because staging is inherently incorrect, but because pull-through is both faster and more universal. However, for bullseye shooting or when you need very high accuracy, staging is the way to go. In staging you stop at the wall and execute a trigger *press* instead of the traditional dynamic *pull*, which is the usual high precision technique. As for starting the trigger pull before the gun is on target, that's not staging. That's how you're supposed to work a long DA trigger, e.g., when shooting a revolver. The pull starts before the gun is ready and is synchronized with the gun getting on target. If you get to the wall only to pull the trigger fast through the wall, you should be using pull-through instead and not introduce the unnecessary and complicating delays of the staging. If you just feel like prepping the trigger before it's on target, just do the pull-through and learn to have the patience to wait until the shot fires. With DA triggers, the trick is not the front-end speed, where the gun gets on target, the trick is the back-end speed, where you wait for the shot to fire before moving on. If you're used to the cues such as "it's on target, fire now" as a way to call a shot, you'll have to correct it and simply say "it's on target, keep it there until it fires." Pulling a DA shot is rarely about the sights or the movement of the gun through the pull, it's almost always calling the shoot too soon and starting to move the gun out before it fired.

That's why I was trying to find more info, I found those in stock and wasn't sure whether they would fit. Ugh! Probably best to order one and see how it goes...

TL;DR - Where can I find a spare hammer (OEM or aftermarket, new or used) for the Super GP100 9mm? Long version. I've had GP100 9mm for a few years now, bought it for fun and played with tuning it, but ended up just not liking it enough compared to my 929s. I would like to get an original hammer to replace the modified one so it's closer to the stock configuration (less the upgraded springs). The problem is that they are discontinued (I believe) and I can't find reliable info for this particular model, specifically whether it's the same hammer as the other GP100-s. I contacted Ruger support for guidance and compatibility info, but they only told me it was "a fitted part and they don't sell it." Nothing about compatibility or where to get the part. So much for asking the manufacturer. Any Ruger aficionados here who would know more about the compatibility and places to get a hammer?

Glad you brought it up, that's how I felt too - should be precise mounting, but it should still allow some movement without pulling my shirt. Overall, it's similar to the handgun grip, a balance of roughness/stickiness and some small, personal preference amount of give.