Loves2Shoot

A. NROI has not stated they will rule on this. B. You might be surprised to know I passed my RO class with a high nineties percentage score many moons ago. I do carry a rulebook (IDPA and USPSA) also and try to understand them. As a competitor with a tiny bit of experience, people will rely on your opinion, be it right or wrong, that is why I'm trying to understand the whole FA ruling instead of just giving them the score. I know how I would have scored it where the wall solid so he could not have seen it or hit it. 2.2.3.3 was supposed to make partial or transparent walls equal, or so I thought. If I would score them wrong, I want to be sure what NROI would do. If Troy decides to respond to the 2 questions I asked, then I should have all the info I need to make a proper call regardless of my opinion. It will also give me the info as a shooter that I need to know how my actions should score.

.143

The shooter could not have seen it in this example had the wall physically been solid, that is where I do not agree that they are comparable situations conceptually. It is my understanding the ONLY reason he could see the target is because it was a partial wall and not a full wall.

Troy, I used the argument that you presented to ASSUME that if the wall was solid you would not have issued the FA. That is where I do not think you were treating the types of the walls the same with targets behind them and not applying 2.2.3.3. to your perspective. If you are now saying that when anyone shoots through a wall that is open on the bottom it will be scored/ruled differently than a solid wall then that is not consistent with why 2.2.3.3. exists because you just issue a FA and say you cant do it there, that does open a huge door for people to, intentionally or not, insist a FA is made since you continue to say you would not have scored the stage. That was why I originally stated the FA would have to forbid shooting at a wall you shouldn't be shooting at in the first place and ONLY because the wall was a partial wall that by rule extends to the ground. Am I being square or do I have a valid point? If you say in one case it is a DQ because they shot through a solid the wall, and that is a no no, then why in this case would it not also be a DQ offense if they still (by rule) shot through the transparent part of the wall? Is that treating the walls the same for purpose of scoring/ruling? Schutzenmeister said perfectly what I was thinking and how I've viewed this call, since when I started walls were solid and I don't think if the wall in this case were solid people would argue that you could say there was no failure to engage per all the points he made, and DQ may be more obvious depending on how and where he shot it. There is an example in the rulebook where a target can be visible and it can not be engaged, by rule, and since the penalty is a failure to engage, that is important in my pea sized brain. I think that, along with reading how the rest of the rules use the word engage/engagement, are enough information for a semi-reasonable person to say that if you can't, and if you go back and read my original post about the RM must first declare no FA was needed, get a scoring hit on the the target from the location it has not been engaged for purposes of scoring, thus you could if you didn't get DQ'd first score a FTE. I'm not trying to give you gray hairs, but if you could explain in YOUR opinion (not NROI) 2 questions: You say, no FTE if you can see the target behind a legally constructed partial wall if there is no way to legally get a scoring hit on the target and rounds are fired in the general direction of the target. Is there a FTE if the wall is solid and the shooter is not DQed firing rounds in the general direction of the target? (not this thread example, just in general) Would you issue a FA if a (in general) if a shooter shoots through a solid wall (and it is not DQable) because a shooter knew where a static target was, but could not see it? I do hope you can answer these 2 questions, because your perspective is greatly respected.

We put in on all the pistols we work on and use the lite. One of the things I like about it is that it doesn't run out down the end of the pistol on a long day of hot shooting, it tends to stay put well.

Thank you for your opinion. I can do .12's and .13's with the XD/XDM, though that generally hurts me, so I don't have a problem with the splits from a 28 oz pistol. I've beat a heck of a lot of 1911's with plastic guns in IDPA, in fact I don't think I've lost to anyone shooting a 1911 yet in ESP. It isn't the gun, and in fact I can shoot a SSP legal Glock as fast, so I think the ESP division is to make people feel better, since I've never met a gun that has beat me, only shooters but that is another topic.

I drill the primer pockets out and you can buy brass black at your local sporting-goods store. Just toss them in a zip lock baggie and let them get black, take them out and dry them off and you are done. I chose black, because there is no mistaking the black bullet and case.

Since getting the XDM 5.25 9mm, it has supplanted my 1911 9mm. I can put a good trigger on it. It is easier to load, draw from tables and drawers, accurate and I'm drawing it faster through my cover garment because I can get over the slide and to the grip easier.

Proof positive that folks can post bad info faster than it can be corrected. He did try to correct it once he went back and realized it was a Springfield Custom Shop XDM 4.5" but it appear the mis-information was already out there. I'll sell you 2 XDM 5.25 9mm's for $1400

FWIW, We are classified the same as a lawnmower/small engine repair shop by the fire department.

I asked, he prefers to let the thread die... I'm sure he would, and when you said he was GM, I was 99.999999999% sure there is no way he would share what he said voluntarily.

Happy birthday!

Nik, I just spoke at you. Did you hear what I said? No. That is because the sound waves couldn't reach your ears from here. Did I just says words that I knew couldn't reach your ears or did I speak at you? I think there is a difference, but maybe that is where I can't keep track of changes over time, because I'm working from a different set of physics that do have some consequences associated with the application of them.

Good point, that is why I asked if there is a difference between to "aim" at and to "shoot at." In this example, I think people are confusing "he aimed at the target he could see under the transparent part of the the wall and shot at it" with "he fired rounds at the wall because he could see a target behind the transparent part of the wall and wanted to hit it even though rules 2.2.3.3, 9.1.6, and 9.1.6.1 say that is not possible to have a scoring hit on a target behind ANY non soft cover wall." 2.2.3.3 says the target is safe from the bullets scoring on it(even if Troy says we should treat partial walls differently that ones built fully to the ground and transparent) and the example he used to say we can't score it this way because of moving targets (which has it's own rule 9.9.2) is not how the rules read. I respect him and his work, but if we score walls built legally per rule that are partial, snow fence, mesh, ect, why would 2.2.3.3 not treat them like a traditional wall in regard to shooting at them? If NROI rules we score different walls differently, woo hoo for gamers and ut oh for RO's. It will force people to go back to the traditional walls to avoid these types of issues. Nik, GM's have super thick skin, but we can learn. If NROI makes a ruling that says you can "shoot at targets" that are not in a position to be hit because a hard cover wall does not give the shooter the opportunity to shoot through it, trust me, they will learn. A ruling that state that bullets don't need to BE ABLE to make it to the face of the target is not a minor thing.

If NROI says that "shoot at" does not require the shot to be able to reach the face of the target, walls that a target can be seen under are treated differently that walls built solidly and to the ground and rule 2.2.3.3 doesn't apply to the applications of DQ for imaginary parts of the wall, then I understand where you are coming from. I'm from Schutzenmeister's history, and that might explain my confusion. Walls were walls, so I've applied my thinking with that history.

I want to know if I can "shoot at" a target at any spot on a stage that is not behind me to avoid a FTE (not that I would do that) or get a reshoot. That is what a true gamer will want to know. You stated you know the intention of this particular shooter, but the intentions of strangers is not so easy. Many RO's have chimed in that they would 2 M 1 FTE, and I am simply stating the rules that seem to support that call. It seems the RMI are not all in agreement, so I presented rules. If you say that walls do not stop bullets (per 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1) and walls, per 1.1.5, do not compel you to shoot from one position without a penalty, those conclusions do change the options shooters have to shoot a stage. I've seen stage designers put "shoot my props or walls and you are DQ'd" in the wsb, so there are a lot of things stage designers could do, but do they need to? Troy said there is a consensus, but when another RMI was presented with questions here is the response: 1.1.5 states they may engage as when visible, 9.1.6.1 states that any round that passes wholly through hard cover will not score, 9.1.6 states vision screens, barriers, props, walls and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”, so anyone intentionally shooting a wall that they think may have a target behind it whether you see or not, would have a penalty of a miss at the least, (I added the bold) Since they added, "at the least," that does not make it so cut and dried and I set out to figure out how the rules support another penalty other than the 10.6. This is partly how I came my conclusion, since it seems RMI's want you to learn how to use the book, not be spoon fed. Good for them too.

I'm not insisting I'm correct, I am presenting rules to support a method of scoring targets legally presented, feel free to present your rules to dispute. Here you go, One, the definition of shot, two the definition of squib, three 2.2.3.3, 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1., 9.5.9 According to these rules, shots have a specific distance that is pertinent to scoring. Do you think aim at and shoot at have the same definition? 9.5.5 Why are you trying to say this will "fundamentally change scoring", because they are no where close to being the same example: Shoots fired where the targets are in a position to be hit (ie you can hit them with a scoring hit) are not the the same as shots fired that are not in the position to be engaged with a legal hit. Can you score stacked shots? They are all shots at targets that you can see. As you stated, the goal is to give every competitor has the same opportunities, and by not issuing a FTE on a target that IS NOT ENGAGE-ABLE for purposes of scoring, that is not the same opportunity for equal score as the person who does not fire those round.

they be released

Well, I've given this a little thought, and if I was RO'ing Nik (or any shooter) on the stage in this thread and they said "you can't give me the FTE, I shot at the target because I could see it 1.1.5 and if I can see it I can shoot at it and no FTE." I would walk over to the wall and wave my arms dramatically, this is a wall, here is the rulebook, please read 2.2.3.3, 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1. Impenetrable means the bullet stops here at the wall, then pointing at the target, it can not by the rules you just read, get there, thus it can not be engaged from here. 1.1.5 says that we can use walls to compel you to shoot from places, and you just can't engage any target from any position on the stage, that is unsportsmanlike, and we have rules on that we would rather not have to apply. If you do not like my ruling you can pay your money for arbitration.

DOH!!! My dyslexia is kicking in.

I agree...Only way to offset that factor is set a bunch of hidden targets at the end of a COF, make it too expensive to just fire downrange in their general area to not get the FTE. Losing 120 points might be a deterrent..... or 6.10

Will your bullets go through impenetrable "hard cover?" Doesn't really matter. If a competitor misses an open target twice, we don't penalize him with an FTE. If the target is partially covered in steel hard cover and he misses the available portion we don't penalize the shooter. Misses are not equivalent to a deliberate attempt to shoot through cover to avoid penalty. There is no definition that requires being able to see the target or that requires that the bullets are actually able to get to the target for "having shot at the target." What happened to 1.1.5? Absent such a definition, if the shooter fires rounds in the general vicinity of the target, I'm not calling the penalty. At least one RMI agrees with that. Again your 1.1.5 and 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1 Bottom line: I care that this gets addressed through an interpretation, one way or the other. (I'm perfectly o.k. with an interpretation that matches yours, as long as it's board approved and published.) That interpretation gives me something to hang a ruling on. At the moment I can't do that, without reading something into the rules that isn't included in the current verbiage.... I've addressed every point you have made, multiple times, by rule. I don't see you disputing ANY of the rules used to do so. Given, I cut and paste the "how to" procedures that were given to me by someone who knows more about rules and rulings than I'll ever know, but by rule you can give a FTE per the rules and outline given. You don't need to define anything, it is already there. You are flat out saying with your interpretation, YOU WILL give an advantage to a shooter who engages hard cover in the general vicinity of a target that is completely hidden from the shooter by use of a wall versus the shooter who does not shoot the wall for the sole purpose of avoiding a FTE (as it is not possible to engage a target behind a wall as defined in 9.1.6 if the bullets stop at the wall, and rule 9.1.6 says it does.) I know that there are those that would consider that unsportsmanlike conduct and unfair advantage. To be clear I DID NOT create the verbiage used to make the conclusion, I assembled it to applied to this situation. If the application is incorrect, I would like to know, but NO ONE has so far presented a challenge to the application that can not be addressed by rule already. It doesn't matter if we've done it wrong for 15+ years to me. I can take NROI saying you are wrong and here is why, so far all I've gotten since my tutorial is you are wrong, but I don't have a rule to back me up.

OK, I would have said 5.5.3, 5.5.5, and 10.4.1 apply. If the impenetrable "hard cover" won't stop your round, either will the berm, unsafe. Are we the only club/section/state who tapes walls and gives FTE if there are two hits on hardcover and one target? It has been that way since I've been shooting USPSA. I was fortunate and received some tutoring on the rules this weekend, thus all my posts in this thread contain rules.