bdpaz

And where in the rule book do we find that exception?

http://www.prgcpractical.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1517:icore-2017-championship&catid=79:icore-scores&Itemid=497 or if that doesn't work, go to http://www.prgcpractical.com and it is under ICORE tab and (so far) listed under "Latest Scores".

facedown was referring to the USPSA rule book. I don't have any firsthand IPSC experience but their rule book says: "4.2.4 Hard cover (and overlapping no-shoots) must not completely hide the A zone on a partially hidden paper target." So it looks like a little bit of the A zone is enough.

What your are reading as mandatory isn't. It is a suggested progression for new shooters: "Upon successful completion of the PSSC, you are ready to get some match experience under your “belt”. Below is a series of matches we suggest, in order of the overall level of challenge." I can't speak for the management but I suspect that if a new-to-Rio shooter could show that he or she had successfully shot USPSA matches elsewhere that they could skip the PSSC. In my opinion it isn't an attempt to keep people away but a method to encourage them by educating them and ensuring they have sufficient gun handling skills beforehand, rather than the pass/fail method of showing up to a match where a DQ is likely to see them never return. I have helped with a few of the classes and seen many of the "graduates" shoot their first match and feel that they all have benefited from the class.

How does the fact the a stage is cleaned by only a few make it bogus? As long as the best and worst shooters get a score I don't see where "cleanability" matters. But looking at the results for the stage in this thread I see a large number who zeroed the stage and that is what I see as the problem. Too many shooters of (probably) different skill levels all got the same score and that skews the results.

The match is finished and the results are posted here. We had 80 shooters with: Open - 13 Limited - 32 Limited 6 - 15 Classic - 20

For those that haven't registered yet, a pretty picture to get your attention! Register here

The official answer: ICORE classifications will be used. If you are not an ICORE member you will shoot as Unclassified. Non-members are welcome but if you want to be classified then join ICORE and come shoot the all-classifier match on Sunday 10/9. ICORE membership information is here and looks to be $30.00 for an individual joining for the first time.

ICORE membership is not required. I believe that your ICORE classification will be used so if you are new or not a member your will be Unclassified but I will confirm that on Monday 9/5. The monthly PRGC ICORE match on Sunday 10/9 (the weekend prior to the State Match) will be an all classifier match for new members or anyone wanting to get classified in a different division.

It sounds like you see engaging the safety as an arbitrary rule on par with holster position. There are real safety issues with holstering a short travel, light pull weight trigger without the safety on - a jacket zipper or an untucked shirt in the wrong place at the wrong time and you've just shot yourself in the leg. Instead of worrying about how far you can go towards the holster before engaging the safety without getting in trouble just don't do your make ready on auto pilot. Think about what gun you're using each time and proceed appropriately.Edited to fix iPad typos.

You can email Kippi at kip@robleatham.com to discuss this with her, but I think you'd be better off starting with Into to Steel and not the Practical Shooting Safety Course. The PSSC is more to tell you how to do things according to the rules, not to teach you how to do them initially (I hope that makes sense). I2S is not officially a class but there are plenty of people there that will answer your questions and help you through the match. You won't draw from a holster at first, and the stages are simple enough that you won't be overloaded trying to remember the competition part along with the shooting and safety parts.

Come shoot Intro to Steel at Rio Salado: http://www.rsscaz.com/divisions/practical-pistol/%EF%BB%BFintro-steel/ It's on the 4th Sunday of the month and is for people who know how to work their pistols but have no match experience. Although it is called Intro to Seel it is more like "Intro to Matches But With Steel Instead of Paper to Speed Things Up" but that's not nearly as easy to say. From your post it sounds like the perfect fit for you.

I don't think anyone cares about his choice to master SC. They (I) do care about being told that only lazy self-deluding quitters don't like it:

Why? No one so far has questioned whether or not the shooter missed a disclaimer. Many of you have just mocked him for not having the experience to know that the blanket statement of "making power factor" couldn't be true.

So you see nothing wrong with advertising that the ammo "makes power factor"?

Ha! Sounds about right Maybe I can send my TS out to CZC and have Agnus sign it. Then if I decide to sell, I can get an extra couple hundred for it, since it is signed. That's just silly. It will be much easier for you to sign Angus' name on it.

Apparently all you cool experienced guys entered this sport fully up to speed. That must have been awesome for you but it isn't like that for everyone. Yes, by the rules the shooter is responsible for his ammo but it is really beyond compression that a new shooter might take the statement that the ammo makes power factor at face value? I agree that it should be chalked up as a "lesson learned" for the shooter but I don't understand the free pass given to the manufacturer. If it is unreasonable to expect ammo to make power factor why does nobody care that the manufacturer is making false claims on his website to sell his product?

I don't have an opinion on this case of the use of the match videos, but "fair use" is widely misunderstood. It's not nearly that clear cut. Your linked article is specifically about fair use in the art world and even there it says: "Prince has managed to come out on top of his legal battles because of the complexity of fair use (and also because he's very rich). Fair use in the art world can be a relatively amorphous thing, because much of contemporary art is built on historical or popular imagery. Fair use requires consideration of the difficult-to-define "purpose" and "nature" of the work, the amount of copyrighted material used, and the effect the appropriation might have on the market value of the original work. Courts evaluate fair use on a case-by-case basis, and the boundaries aren't firmly planted. What Prince is doing with New Portraits, essentially, is testing the limits of copyright law. By divorcing recognizable images from their contexts, if only very slightly, Prince is arguing that he can create new, more valuable art. To be clear: not just anyone can get away with this. People are spending thousands of dollars on these images because they're paying for Prince's name, not because they sincerely want an enlarged Instagram photo." From a link http://copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html within that article: "Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances." I don't see that as blanket permission to use copyrighted work as long as it is modified.

So, how does the SDB compare to the 650 in reliability and ease of loading? I'm guessing from what you did, the PITA of a caliber conversion doesn't make it worth it It depends on your hand size and how many rounds you like to reload in a session. I have a SDB as the "large primer conversion" for my 1050 and use it to load .45s. I have medium size hands and the SDB is a little short on finger room but it doesn't bother me until I do more than 200 rounds at a sitting. I don't shoot .45 much so it works for me to walk up, add powder and primers, and load 100 or so. If you like to load in larger batches I'd go for the caliber conversion.

What made them truly 6 shot neutral? Were they presented in 6 shot arrays with time to reload between each (so they were shot similarly by both 6 and 8 shot guns) or was there an 8 shot plan and a 6 shot plan with just additional planned reload (or two) for the 6 shooters? My stage above wasn't ideal because the 8 shot guys could allow for make ups on the poppers in their plan but it was close to neutral as the planned reloads for both 6 and 8 were on the move with the 6 shot guys needing four and the 8 shot guys needing three. The stage winner was shooting Classic so it worked as intended. The targets were grouped (in number of hits) from left to right as 6-2-4-4-2(poppers)-4-2-6.

I don't believe any shooter thinks that 6 shot neutral means they can shoot a 625 in Limited and beat Josh or Jerry. That many of you don't understand the fuss over 6 shot neutral stages is a good sign as it means you aren't seeing the stilted, souless stages that can result when it is interpreted as removing any and all advantages of the 8 shot gun. Here is a video of what I consider to be a fun 6 shot neutral stage from yesterday's ICORE match at Phoenix Rod & Gun Club. 14 close up paper plus 2 mini poppers a bit farther out to mess up the shooter's rhythm. It was arranged so either capacity could shoot until empty before reloading, and there was more than one way to shoot it . (Don't judge me too harshly - it was the last stage of the day, it was hot, and I had a clicker that I thought I had just short stroked and I was running low on moon so I tried pulling the trigger until it came around again which didn't work! ) Edited to embed the video.

I missed that also. So I will say that stage 4 is different from the other 3. You didn't miss it ... I got it wrong ... I kept reading that thing and thinking we were shooting t1-t6 with 3 rounds each (18 rounds) leaving 6 on the clip stepping into box B ... but read again and it says put three in T1 "AND" T6 ... (only 6 rounds) ... I blew it. No, I think you are sorta right. Stage 4 is three strings (which is what I missed) but string 1 is T1 thru T6 with 3 rounds each. I think you are mixing in part of the stage 3 instructions.

I missed that also. So I will say that stage 4 is different from the other 3.

They are repetitive! The first 3 stages are not far removed from shooting the same stage 3 times. Stage 4 does throw in x-count plus strong hand and weak hand but still has similar distances and target presentations. Stages 1 and 2 are almost identical . Stage 1 is 6 shots from 5 fixed locations and stage 2 is 6 shots from 6 fixed locations. Stage 1 starts at 15m and works forward to 3m while stage 2 starts at 15m and works forward to 4m. Stage 1 shoots 2 targets 3 times at each location and stage 2 shoots 3 targets 2 times at each location. Stage 3 is essentially stage 1 with 2 fewer positions and moving only in a straight line but with the big change of shooting targets that are not next to each other. All stages have the same "look and feel": target heights are identical and are one target per stand, all stages shoot over the same distances, all are stand and shoot (15 positions with 6 shots each, 1 with 12 shots and 1 with 18 shots). I understand that these stage must work for ranges of varying capabilities but that doesn't rule out some variety. Change stage 2 to use only boxes E and F and run 3 strings, start stage 3 at the front box and move back, make it a fun match - not just an easy to set up match.

See post 27... So the president of the association doesn't know what he's talking about because he wasn't on the board at that time? But random people on an internet forum who also weren't on the board know enough to say he is wrong? That same statement could be rearranged as: Random people on an internet forum, including at least one who was around at the time, say they haven't found any evidence of "intent". But the current president of the association who was not involved 15 years ago says he knows the intent without offering any proof and you say he is right?