• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nuidad

  • Rank
    Looks for Range

Profile Information

  • Real Name
    Rick Johnson
  1. How about obstacles (other constructs?) as discussed in 2.2.2? Could a single barrel, which was clearly intended to be shot over, be considered an obstacle and therefore not subject to
  2. I think I get it. If it's less than 6 feet, one can shoot over it unless otherwise specified in the WSB. Sounds simple enough. Thanks
  3. Does this rule include barrel walls. What about a single barrel at the end of a wall of stacked barrels. I ask because last month when I was considering shooting over a stack of barrels, I asked about the legality of doing that. The MD said no and inserted the "infinity" clause into the WSB and removed the single barrel at the other end of the wall. BTW...a stack of 2 barrels is going to be very close to the 69" limit for this rule.
  4. Least Favorite: 9.6.2 The Range Official responsible for a course of fire may stipulate that the scoring process will begin while a competitor is actually completing a course of fire... I find this practice to be confusing, disruptive to the Assistant RO's primary duties, and unsafe...not worth the time saved.
  5. I got nothing.
  6. Couldn't a bogus time be grounds for an appeal under (9.10.2)? If you enter a time of zero, mathematically the result would be indeterminate, so, the RO could make a rational determination that the stage score would be 0. Or: Don't enter a time and rely on 9.7.6 & to provide a rational scoring outcome of zero.
  7. Thanks. I also found a reference in D4...Special Conditions (at the very end of D4), stating that "Handguns with external hammers must be fully decocked at the start signal."
  8. Is this correct? Could I not shoot a single stack 1911 style gun in production division?
  9. Got it! I got clarification from Kevin. There were more than the two shooting positions. Thank you all.
  10. By the way...this controversy comes from an article posted in the NROI tab on the USPSA website I'm not sure when the article was written...may have been before the February 2014 Rules update. In which case, the article may no longer be valid since the issue was addressed in the 2014 update Rules Changes.pdf. If the article information is still valid (written after the update), I will probably need to "update" my thinking on the Rounds Per View rule. I was hoping someone would mention that they were familiar with the update of this issue and be able to set me straight quickly. I tried posting this topic in this manner, but no one's pretty boring when you look at it from this perspective. I have a call out to Kevin Imel (the author) for clarification but he hasn't gotten back to me yet.
  11. Teros135: I agree this stage is not the greatest design and I would not design a stage like this, even if it is legal. It's just hypothetical, but understanding why it's legal or not legal could come into play during a match where the "Rounds Per View" issue raises it's ugly head.
  12. For the purpose of this discussion, and for clarification, there are only the two shooting ports/positions/views available on the COF. Also check 9.5.1 and see if it plays into the ruling.
  13. teros135: So is it a legal stage design?
  14. RJH: What info am I missing.
  15. Is this a legal stage? 16 classic paper targets. Best two per target. Targets T-1 to T-15 can be engaged from the first view/location. Targets T-2 to T-16 can be engaged from the second view/location. So, to complete the stage you must shoot from both locations.