Jollymon32

If that happened to me, and someone entered the incorrect time, I would ask for a reshoot. And as precedent, I would state what I witnessed firsthand as an RO in an area match; DNROI Issued the shooter a reshoot when the CRO entered .01 for the time instead of entering DNF. Shooter successfully argued that the wrong time had been entered.

I got tired of waiting and went with SRO's on my CZ platform. About 5K rounds down the pipe and all is good.

Submariners are so boorish… Ignored him quite a while ago….

About 6 months ago, or maybe more, I had a buddy sent his S2 to Cajun Gun Works. They milled the slide specifically for the SRO. When I decided to send in my SP01 to get milled, I reached out to CZC and the wait time was way too long. I ended up sending the slide to my backup SP01 to Cajun. Although cajun said that it would be about 10 week turnaround, I received it back in about five or six weeks. However, it was not directly attached to the slide. They milled the slide and used a plate system for the mounting. They seem to have changed their preference on how the optics are mounted to the slides since my buddy sent his in a while back. it was very well done and I was satisfied enough to send my primary gun”s slide to them to have that one milled and the SRO installed. The turnaround on this one has been about four weeks. I just received notification on Friday that it was on the armors’ bench and they would be contacting me for payment and shipping instructions.

If the WSB states ‘Outside the shooting area’ then if the shooter is ‘Inside the shooting area’ they should not be started. If ‘one foot out and one foot in’ is considered ‘outside the shooting area’, the conversely ‘one foot in and one foot out’ is considered ‘inside the shooting area’. (Note, we are not discussing faulting the line, just the definition of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’.) So, logically speaking, by the standards of NROI, a shooter straddling the fault line is both inside and outside the shooting area. This is very similar to another ruling of a wall being impenetrable to bullets, but not to fingers.

My formula for saving money is simple, I don’t spend it.

As to the higher growth, 17% of a low number means a lot less that 3% of a huge number. So there’s that. It should split off on its own. It is completely different sport and there is very little overlap in terms of shooters that practice both.

BINGO!!! This is what the original post states, "The case head is separated just enough so that the extractor cannot eject the case, however, the case head is still attached to the rest of the case." This is an obstructed barrel - easily removed with a pocket knife - as we have been doing since time immemorial..... But according to the definition it is a "Squib" and a DQ if you try to clear it.

Exactly my point. We have been clearing these jams forever. Heck, there is even a thread on Enos on how to do it on the clock… I opine that the definition of ‘squib’ needs to be revisited.

Except that for most firearms the barrel is inclusive of the chamber and the bore. But you are right in that it is not a "squib" as we all know a squib to be. It appears that in the process of making the clearing of a squib a DQ'able offense in the recent rules updates, the definition of a 'Squib' was not reviewed. Maybe it should say "solid obstructions in the BORE of the barrel"

Sorry to have been so obtuse in the original post, the question was not “what not to do in the event of a squib” but rather “what constitutes a squib”. For most, including the shooter, a case head separation is not a squib - the bullet has long left the barrel. However, the definition of a squib includes a stuck bullet and or anything “solid” stuck in the barrel. That is what I wanted other’s thoughts on. Thanks!

Level 1 match - user experiences a partial case head separation during the COF. The case head is separated just enough so that the extractor cannot eject the case, however, the case head is still attached to the rest of the case. Shooter proceeds to get an L shaped rod out of their pocket, and inserting it from the front of the muzzle, proceeds to clear the case. Shooter DOES NOT sweep themselves while clearing the spent case due to the shape of the rod. Shooter continues to complete the COF. Discussion then ensues as to a DQ based on 10.5.2 Shooter argues successfully that a spent case suffering from case head failure is not a squib. However, weeks later (as I take the NROI exam) I visit the definition of a Squib: "A bullet or solid obstruction lodged inside the barrel of a firearm." Being that the spent case with the partial head separation impedes access through the barrel, it meets the definition of a solid obstruction. As such a case head separation during a COF and ANY attempt to clear, be it with the L shaped squib rod or with a pocket knife would be a DQ'able offense under 10.5.2. Thoughts?

"Because "handling" comes from the latin term "Hand" which means.....blah blah blah blah blah......" Don't feed the troll dude...

AWESOME! I won't have to deal with the absurd pomposity of a self absorbed individual. The individual's perceived importance, however delusional, was good for a laugh. Until the pity kicked in....

Is there a way to block the posts or responses of a particular user? anyway, good stuff here. I am sure NROI will make an article out of this.