Loves2Shoot

The recoil is not different from what I can tell, the balance is the same, but it is superbly accurate.

We keep them until someone claims them. We did have a customer die while the gun was in the shop (it was only a week before we were ready to send it back) but it took 2 years before someone from his estate got in touch with us. I voted forever since you didn't have anything over a year.

I'm not sure that SA will ever sell top ends when they are selling as many complete guns as they are. It wouldn't be legal for Production division anyway. The frames XDM 9mm/40 are identical and the XDM 4.5 and XDM 5.25 use the same frame and they are not marked with a caliber or model. I think NROI might have to rule on it if you go from 9 to .40 or from .40 - 9.

LOL, Rob has never offered, but it would be cool but then I would have to actually care about how I finish instead of just having fun like I do now.The slide tilt would prevent a full length full diameter guide rod, and it might make it a bit nose heavy. The gun with our solid stainless guide rod balances very well.

I'm not sure that SA will ever sell top ends when they are selling as many complete guns as they are.

My understanding is they have enough of them actually made in Crotatia, so it just a waiting game it appears.

post 19 edited to add: that did not pass the Troy test. Leonard Didn't he just ask for more examples of rules that apply or did he say you were wrong.

Scott, it's really simple from a design/build perspective: Either put the target high enough to be behind the fence, or build something low enough to hide the target.... If it's visible -- well, there's a conflict with 1.1.5 -- and we should try hard to avoid that kind of gotcha..... The thing is if you drop to the ground with the type of walls in the video, you can see a lot, so though I agree, you should try to avoid the conflict, you still have to score it if it is a legal presentation. Since the rules say the walls go to the ground, many stage designers don't consider a shooter might try to engage targets through the rule book specified hard cover of a wall extending to the ground.

Shooter is firing the first round at the last target on a stage. Shooter has a squib. Stage is scored as shot -- do you assess an FTE penalty? That is easy, yes.

Bluenite, Can you answer one question? This is it: Can you "shoot at" a target if it is impossible for the bullet to score a hit(that's for you Nik) on the target from where you fired the shot according to the rule book?

On a serious note, many clubs don't have a lot of walls and I've shot I dare say hundreds if not more stages with mesh or snow fences walls with and without ports that had 4'x 8' panels 2'-3' off the ground, so I really don't get the "poor course design" since the rule book clearly states you can't shoot under walls unless they say you can. Why would they state in the rule book that the walls go to the ground? Was it a poor design, I don't know, as I don't know if they have better walls to use. I've been to many a match you could drop and shoot under almost all the walls, but the rule book says you can't so I've never seen anyone try to. Here is a clip illustrating a stage with such walls

People are actually arguing that you can shoot at China through the core of the earth, because China is on the other side? It wasn't a fixed time course and it wasn't a disappearing target, and since the wall by rule goes to the ground, it isn't possible to shoot at the target from the position the shooter shot at the wall. OK, I'll call it FTDR

Nope, because in the given instance, there was no way to shoot the target from the position the OP specified. Huh? Then how do you explain the missing 2 feet of wall surface and the bullet holes in the target..... Nik, I think you are playing for sure now, because I know you know that the rulebook says that wall extend to the ground even if the physical wall doesn't unless specified and the OP said there was not an exception on this stage. The bullet holes don't exist per the rule book, because they hit the part of the wall that extends to the ground per the rulebook and is impenetrable.

Nope, because in the given instance, there was no way to shoot the target from the position the OP specified.

Then you admit you get a FTE and not a FTDA, since you can't grab the bottle and attempt to pour the contents into you mouth, you can only imagine actually being able to engage the beverage and fill your belly. Sort of like how if you try to engage a target through hardcover when the target isn't available to be shot from that position, you only get credit for the imagining part and not the doing part, and it's the lack of actually doing that earns you the FTE.

You forget the rulebook says the cooler is impenetrable, AR500 plate steel

Unless someone can prove otherwise, I would not call an FTE regardless of the construction of the wall simply because I cannot find proof that there should be. Spanky, prove that you can drink a beer that is in a cooler with a closed lid and no other access to it without opening the lid to access it. If you can not possibly grab the beer, how can you open the top to "engage" your beer. If lack of access to the beer prevents you from engaging it, then you might say you have failed to engage the beer, even if you know there is one in the cooler.

Nik, You said none of the rules required the target to be visible, then quoted a rule that says targets must be engaged "as visible". This is too much. The rule book sates that it is ok to have wall that don't actually go to the ground and if they don't everything behind them is "not visible" for the sake of shooting/scoring the stage. Just because you can physically see a target doesn't mean that it is "visible" per the rule book's definition of how walls work.

Maybe I missed it, but this is a question that I would like to see answered by both sides. Are there holes in the target? The question was "did I engage the target". It makes no difference if it has holes in it or not. You can miss the target and still engage. Gary Gary, If you shoot 2 feet in front of you into the ground, can you argue that you are shooting at targets in China to avoid the DQ? Unless someone has redefined hard cover, you can no more "engage" that targets in China by shooting the ground as those behind a wall that is hardcover that can not be seen from the shooting position.

Yes, I'll never be on TV doing this, but I've had a few requests to show the pistol in detail a but more, so here is my shot at it. The gun has a nice balance to it. I adjusted my loads to 130 pf with 125 rn and VV320 and it still shoots very accurately, I'm going to try some 147 and see if it isn't too soft and is as accurate. I like some recoil between shoots so I pay attention. The adjustable sight is very nice, and there are .100 and .125 wide front sights in stock for it, so you can pick your preference. I was using a .100, but will be swapping to a .125 for some IDPA I have coming up, as I'm a little slower with the wide sight but I think I am a little more accurate. I was very surprised to see the video on the 50 yard offhand shots when we got back on the video, after missing the first shot, seeing the next two come in on the target together was pretty cool. I can't wait until I can buy some of these.

Even if it results in a stage that does not provide an equal challenge to all shooters, if for no other reason than a mistake for which we cannot assess a procedural error? Sorry, I just don't buy that. Stages should be designed to prevent these sorts of situations. If they're not, the penalty should be on the stage designer, not the competitor. If you want a wall to go to the ground or to obscure vision, it should (absent snow fence that we use for safety's sake). A competitor should not have to decide if a wall goes to the ground or if the missing section is a large, low port. The rule book says what it says: (from the OP) Rule 2.2.3.3 states “Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed.” There was no mention within the WSB or during the shooters meeting that it was allowed to shoot under the walls. YOU might want the walls to go to the ground, but the rulebook doesn't say they have to. Troy, I don't think you can engage a target intentionally through a hardcover wall, but I'm not a certified RO anymore, but if I was, FTE. I don't know if the intentional shooting under a wall is worthy of something harsher though. The last guy I saw who engaged a target through the center section of a solid wall where you couldn't see any targets got a DQ (area match CRO was ROing.)

By steel plate, I meant a steel plate wall, not a steel plate that you shoot and it falls over. I don't get why a shooter not following the rulebook by shooting under a wall is a stage design issue, it is a shooter not knowing/following the rules issue.

How can a bullet pass through hard cover? Isn't the definition of hard cover that a bullet can not pass through it? I know some folks have a problem with us not using steel walls and all, but the rules were written so that we don't have to, and as someone said, we can pretend the walls are impenetrable even if you can see through them, or shoot under them. If the scenario was presented keeping this fact in mind, I think there wouldn't be such a debate. The guy drops in the shooting area and shoots two round into a steel plate that is in front of a target he can't see. According to the book, isn't that what he did, since the rulebook doesn't require we use steel walls and allows us to use simulated walls and specifies they extend to the ground?

It will be a heck of a lot cheaper to shoot the XD9 Service. I shot one in IDPA for a bit and won a couple state level IPDA Championships with it.

Nic, When I started shooting, every stage description at our club (and I think section)had written in it something like "all walls extend from the ground to infinity" for any area that was not considered a shooting port or low wall.