Thomas H

9.10.3: "A competitor who reacts to a start signal but, for any reason, does not fire a shot or continue the attempt at the course of fire and fails to have an official time recorded on the timing device operated by the Range Officer will be given a zero time and zero score for that course of fire." So---if they drew on the start signal, that's it. For USPSA, at least, it should be a zero score. (I AM curious what EZWinScore will do if you put in a zero time, though---explode? Have a conniption? Dividing by zero often is a problem for computers...)

If they meant "mag in pockets" they would have said "mag in pockets". They didn't. You can carry it in your hands. You may NOT store it "anywhere on your body" -- storage of magazines in pockets, pouches, or whatnot other than hands must be according to division requirements. There is one specific exemption given---magazines held in hands. That's it. As to magazines that were dropped during the course of fire---as you aren't holding or storing them on your person in any way, that has no relevance to this situation.

Right up until the post was about the differences between USPSA and IPSC, and the later towel example given occurred in an IPSC match.

Is that where you are going to be? Because I have a LOT of questions for you then...

That is a LOT of running. [goes to find his track shoes....]

Other than Eric Grauffel? (Don't know if anyone else has.) I must admit---I think it would be cool to have USPSA do something like Steel Challenge does with its "Steel Master" title. Participants add the points from the percentages of two from the Open/Limited/L-10/Production nationals, and one from either SingleStack or Revolver nationals, with the top total winning. Max score = 300.

Not the Nationals, but Bob Vogel against good competition ( Dave Sevigny, Shannon Smith, Max Michel, BJ Norris, David Olhasso, Manny Bragg, Angus Hobdell) won Open at the 2009 ProAm using his iron sight Limited Glock (which is essentially a modified Production gun)! And that is quite a feat! However, I think that one example doesn't quite equate to "always." Among other things, I think we can easily see it doesn't work that way---because if it did, we wouldn't have people using dots in Open, would we?

That is an interesting succession of strong statements---not necessarily supported by data. Nils is very very good, no doubt---but saying he can win Production without any comparison data is a little unlikely. Similarly for Revolver division. (Meaning, no comparison data versus prior national-level competitors in that division. Nils probably rocks at local matches against very good shooters. However, what are his scores like compared to Griffin and Miculek? What are his scores like compared to Sevigny and Stoeger?) And saying that _anyone_ could win Open using an iron-sighted gun and a big stick is----an interesting statement. Of course, the statement "a great iron sight shooter can always bet [sic] a great open shooter" hasn't actually been proven in any way in any large match that I know of... Any examples of that last? I'm not saying that Nils couldn't do it. (Thought I will say that personally, I doubt it could be done this year by anyone outside of Grauffel, and that is ONLY if he suddenly practiced a ton with revolver, and even then would still be highly unlikely.)

(I'm betting he is saying the opposite---that to get to that point and to stay at that point takes so much work that you wouldn't be impressed---that you'd more likely think "well, with THAT much work anyone could do it.") Did you use google translate on my post? That is exactly what I was talking about and you translated Benspeak into English. Oh man, I'm starting to understand how Ben thinks. That's not a good sign. Electroshock therapy, stat!

(I'm betting he is saying the opposite---that to get to that point and to stay at that point takes so much work that you wouldn't be impressed---that you'd more likely think "well, with THAT much work anyone could do it.")

2013 Provisional Rules are available at: http://uspsa.org/SCSARules%202013.pdf ...interestingly enough, it seems that time will now be recorded as audible only---no impact timers, and no flight times.

Even more, there had to have been at least 5 people in your class when you won it. Anybody who won (for example) 1st M at A3 last year doesn't get a slot, because there were only 4 Ms in that division. Bleh.

I take it then that you think that the part of the rule in bold, below, doesn't mean exactly what it says? 10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a Fault Line, or who gains support or stability through contact with an object which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box or Fault Line, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor may instead be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting. Your example had an object that was not wholly beyond, and was certainly attached to, a fault line. (Because it is the same stick.) It doesn't have to meet "the definition of a fault line". We don't care what it is called---the rule clearly states that it IS legal to gain "support or stability through contact" with it. No penalty.

Since my holster uses a loop around the entire belt, that means that the nearest body-side surface of the handgun occurs at the bottom of my belt, as that is "at the point of attachment to the belt" where the gun is the closest. The fact that the gun is in the holster at that point doesn't change the fact that it is still closer there than anywhere else. ....that all being said, the illustration shows the top of the point of attachment, and that is where the measurement should be taken---according to the illustration.

Depends on where you touch the wall..... And foot faults are not the same thing as touching an object for support, i.e. with your hands...... And a lot would depend on how it was actually constructed, and how flagrant the violation is. So I'd definitely call it for a competitor who stepped all the way out, and might not call it if I had a who was standing on the corner, and a portion of their foot was creeping over on the outside portion of the front fault line in the drawing, especially if the front fault line was on top of the side pieces..... I'd still prefer to fix it before the match started.... 10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a Fault Line, or who gains support or stability through contact with an object which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box or Fault Line, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor may instead be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting. So---if a fault line extends out and someone stands on it, how are you applying procedural penalties? The above rule gives NO basis for any penalties---after all, the shooter is standing on the fault line. In a similar fashion---if the wall IS the front fault line, the shooter can use any part of it for support. ANY part. The rule does not allow procedural penalties for anything else. If you don't want people standing on it or using it, you'd better fix it in the stage design. There are no ground for procedural penalties in the rule, otherwise. Where are people getting penalties? What part of the above rule says you can say "well, this part is the fault line, but this part that is still the same piece of wood ISN'T the fault line?" Or "you can lean on the wall right HERE, but not OVER HERE?" That's not the rule.

Absolutely. Tula (or Wolf) ammo is not in any way "metal-piercing" ammunition.

Just as a comment---if you start her in Open, you are teaching her to have a solid target focus for everything she does. And one of the hardest things to do with someone is to get them to focus on the front sight when shooting irons. If you are planning on having her do anything other than shoot Open for the rest of her life, I'd suggest getting her started on irons instead. Just my personal opinion. I know plenty of people start their kids in Open and such---but I'd suggest 1) see if the local club will let her shoot (for no score) with a .22 conversion gun, and then change it to a 9mm later when she is used to the safety aspects of USPSA. I do agree with folks that starting with a Ruger 22/45 or something similar (with iron sights) in Steel Challenge is by far the best way to go. However, if SC isn't available, see if anyone would allow the .22 conversion for awhile---then try a soft-loaded 9mm.

Loser. I shot (well, will shoot since there are still 3 matches left) about 19 club matches this year----10 USPSA, 3 Steel Challenge, and 6 Multigun. (Plus a couple of fun matches here and there.) I practice to get better. I shoot local club matches to have fun. You guys who shoot 40+ matches a year---where do you get the time?! Especially during major match season? Two local matches a month keeps me busy enough, match-wise. I don't know how (unless I suddenly win the lottery and can quit my day job) I would have the time to shoot weekly matches. I certainly wouldn't have any time to practice!

I would rule that you should not be RO'ing, since in my poor humble opinion you do not understand the term "freestyle". Don't even go there. The reason that I stated that the forbidden action ruling should be used is because when I took the ro class alittle over a year ago a situation like this was brought up and this was the instuctors ruling. So either he was wrong or the entire nroi is wrong if this ruling is wrong. And yet, the MD does not make the call. RMs do. Reference: 2.3.1.1 If you are going to argue together about who should/should not be a Range Officer, it would help to have your facts straight. I note that 2.3.1.1a specifically includes as a reason to proclaim a Forbidden Action: "...or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loop-hole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage." Whether or not I agree that it should be done in this case, it is certainly true that the rules allow it. I'll note that for this case, I personally think that the WSB is worded badly, and that people should be allowed to shoot it as stated. Next time, the writer of the WSB will know better. That, however, is mere personal opinion, and doesn't have anything to do with what the rules specifically allow with respect to action by the RM. It was not a safety issue, so the RM doesn't have to change anything. If, however, the RM decides to do so, the rules do allow it.

Thanks to the 102 people who showed up to shoot---we donated over $1100 dollars and three huge boxes of toys to the Marine Toys-For-Tots Foundation! Results Here: http://precisionresponse.4t.com/Zombie1/ZResults.html

Just giving this one last bump to remind people! Remember---this is a charity match---all proceeds (toys and all money donated) go directly to the Marine Toys-For-Tots Foundation. C'mon out and shoot with us!

Hm. Considering that 9.6.7. says: "During a scoring challenge, the subject target(s) must not be patched, taped or otherwise interfered with until the matter has been settled. The Range Officer may remove a disputed paper target from the course of fire for further examination to prevent any delay in the match. Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge." ....since the target is signed, I wouldn't think it would be too much of a problem to tell the difference. Though I do agree that once the challenge is finished, I'd just throw the target away, because it isn't like it would be useful for anything else. Yes, I need to do better on this in the future. Don't we all.

Hm. Considering that 9.6.7. says: "During a scoring challenge, the subject target(s) must not be patched, taped or otherwise interfered with until the matter has been settled. The Range Officer may remove a disputed paper target from the course of fire for further examination to prevent any delay in the match. Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge." ....since the target is signed, I wouldn't think it would be too much of a problem to tell the difference. Though I do agree that once the challenge is finished, I'd just throw the target away, because it isn't like it would be useful for anything else.

[emphasis added by me] Good lord. 40% don't make minor? My gun won't cycle if I drop it that low! At our club, we don't chrono for local matches. At least, I've never seen it in 7-8 years shooting there.

Actually, it was "procedural for touching the ground, even if you stepped back onto the plank at the very same spot you left it." (That wasn't actually all of it, either. If I recall correctly, it was a procedural per step. But at the least, if you fell off, caught your balance with one foot on the ground, then stepped back onto the plank at the same spot, it was still a procedural penalty. Apparently, we were walking over lava. )