austex

So nothing at BAPS anymore?

The screensaver images are png files that go in: /system/media/screensaver/authors/

Several of theUSPSA matches posted to Practiscore.com today will not display results, but others will. Anybody know what's wrong? Android vs. Apple systems doing the uploading, maybe?

Based on these hit factors: Ft. Bliss 12/14/13 which now show up on the USPSA member lookups, the HHF for limited is 10.1053135935024

What's the trick?

Really good stage setup with disappearing targets can be very cool. At the local match the guy gets it. He tends to give you a reason to shoot them. He uses them on low HF stages and gives you other stuff to shoot so you are not waiting on the target. I shoot at least 80% of his disappearing targets. If you set them up so the upper A or half the lower A is open when they are finished that can be an issue as well. Lots of us will just shoot it before it is activated. The best ones of those I see have the target available from a different shooting position at rest than where you activate it. Especially a shooting position you only have the partial target available from. I would probably give you a procedural at a level 1 match if you shot it before it was activated (assuming the wsb was specific). I like the idea of a different shooting position tho, perhaps one that is out ouf the way. A local club has a turner that holds the target facing one way before activation and facing the other way after activation. It has been used in several stages where the scoring face was available after it turned completely, but only from a point in the COF that was a non-trival distance from the point where the turner could be activated, and where the shooter had already been in the COF or had no reason to go other than to shoot the turner. Most people liked the stages, but a few complained about the turner not being disappearing.

Wallpaper is a png file called “wallpaper” with no extension that goes in the nook as: /data/data/com.android.settings/files/wallpaper

I shot and/or worked most of the Space City Challenges since 2008, and each was a great match. Even the one with the Saturday flood. The squadding format was unique and very accommodating. It's a shame the TSS will not be continuing the match.

I’m aware of the NCCB introduction, just don’t think it has any application here. It’s not the rulebook. The NCCB says that “[e]very possible effort has been made to ensure that all the stages in this book are ‘game proof.’” It also says that the “system is not able to measure the ability to ‘game’ a stage as those intangible skills are not quantifiable,” and for that reason the freestyle rule 1.1.5 doesn’t apply to classifiers. It doesn’t say a competitor must execute the COF exactly as written, or get a zero score—the true “no gaming” solution. It doesn’t even say a competitor can’t try to improve his score on a classifier after making a mistake, for example by making up a mike in one string by taking an extra shot on the next string and taking a penalty for the extra shot. More importantly, the NCCB gives absolute no specifics on how to actually score multi-string COFs. Instead, the NCCB at most expresses the underlying philosophy of the stage designs and their administration. In contrast, the “General Principles” of section 6.1 are much more specific, giving the precise procedure for multi-string standards in section 6.1.1. I can imagine what the arbitration request would look like: “Rule 6.1.1 states that scores and penalties are recorded following completion of the course of fire, unless the course of fire specifies otherwise. This COF does not specify otherwise. The RO, however insisted on scoring after the first string instead of after completion of the COF. When I asked why, the RO said 6.1.1 was only a definition and didn’t require him to do anything because it wasn’t in Chapter 9, but that the NCCB required him to score after the first string for fairness. So he ignored a clear, specific rule in the rule book because it isn’t in Chapter 9, and instead looked completely outside the rule book to a different document to come up with some vague, ambiguous language about fairness but no specifics on scoring multi-string stages. I want a reshoot and to be scored at completion of the COF.” If I were the shooter being buried by all of the procedurals you want to impose, I’d put up the arbitration fee without hesitation, at any match level. In our hypothetical, imposing 2 procedurals accurately reflects what happened under the current rules. Imposing 20 points in procedural penalties on a 90 point stage surely doesn’t disadvantage any other shooters in the division. For two competitors shooting this COF and getting the maximum 90 points, the one shooting the arrays wrong and getting 2 procedurals would have to shoot it 2/9 as fast to get the same hit factor. Another topic on this forum indicates that the HHF for CM 13-04 in limited may be about 12, giving a 100% time for 90 points of 7.5 seconds. At the 100% level, then, the screw-up shooter would have to shoot the COF 1.67 seconds faster to get the same percentage HF. The screw-up shooter only benefited by shortening the transition to T3 in string 2 (if there were any benefit), because the start-position-to-first-shot transition was merely transposed between the strings—certainly there’s no 1.67 second benefit, or anything even close to that. Switching the engagements of T1 and T2 between strings 1 and 2 hardly offers a winning gaming strategy.

What? I'm starting to think I've been baited, but I'm in too deep now to get out. In USPSA, the name of the game is gaming. In everything, even classifiers, as long as the sport's liberal rules are not violated. There's no conflict in the rulebook here. The rulebook has an express, unambiguous, internally consistent provision in rule 6.1.1. setting forth the procedure for scoring multi-string stages. The only conflict comes from choosing to ignore that provision. Absolutely agree that an accurate score as prescribed by the rulebook matters. And absolutely think the rulebook requires scoring the targets after the COF, not between strings. The rulebook can handle this situation equitably without ignoring 6.1.1. The shooter would have no extra hits, no extra shots, no mikes, and no failures to shoot at. Instead, the shooter would get a procedural for string 1 for not engaging the arrays as required, and a procedural for string 2 for not engaging the arrays as required. If you really think the shooter got a significant advantage, you could impose per-shot procedurals for string 1. To me, though, that seems excessive. All the shooter saved was an 6' in turn sweep from T1 to T2. A loss of 20 points on a 90 point stage seems enough to offset that 6'.

Turns out you are correct for a broken gun scenario, but not for any reason you have been able to articulate so far. I forgot part of Rule 5.7.4. When a gun malfunctions in an early string of a multi-string COF, the "course of fire (excluding any unattempted component strings in a Standard Exercise) will be scored as shot including all applicable misses and penalties." That's the only provision that allows between-string scoring in a multi-string COF when the COF does not expressly allow scoring between strings. I don't know about that about, considering that Chapter 6 does not deal with scoring, and considering that 6.1.1 is the first of a list of term definitions...... I'm not seeing it as a hard requirement (must, will, shall) since it's written as a definition of string..... If that language were in Chapter 9, I might see it differently, but it's in Chapter 6 Match Structure..... So because it’s not chapter 9, you can completely ignore it? If 6.1.1 were intended just to define the term “string,” then the first sentence is all that would be required: “String - A separately timed component of a Standard Exercise.” But 6.1.1 doesn’t just define what a string is, it set forth some requirements for handling a string. Sections 6.1.3 to 6.1.6 similarly do more than just “define” the terms “match,” “tournament,” “league,” and “shoot-off”—those sections add requirements for those items, too. And Section 6.1 is not just a “definitions” section – it’s also a “general principles” section. Your view ignores the general principles set forth for a string in 6.1.1. Section 6.1.1 states that “cores and penalties are recorded following completion of the course of fire, unless the course of fire specifies that they shall be recorded and the targets taped between strings.” If you are free to ignore that provision, it might as well not even be there. An interpretation of a regulatory document, like the USPSA rulebook, is rarely correct if it reads a provision out completely. Your view also could lead to inequitable results. For a shooter, scoring between strings undoubtedly is less advantageous than scoring at the end of the COF. Two shooters who execute the stage exactly the same could wind up with different scores, if one is scored between strings and the other at the end of the COF. Extra shot and miss penalties come immediately to mind as leading to different scores depending on the scoring procedure. An interpretation of the rulebook that has a significant risk of inequitable results hardly seems correct.

Turns out you are correct for a broken gun scenario, but not for any reason you have been able to articulate so far. I forgot part of Rule 5.7.4. When a gun malfunctions in an early string of a multi-string COF, the "course of fire (excluding any unattempted component strings in a Standard Exercise) will be scored as shot including all applicable misses and penalties." That's the only provision that allows between-string scoring in a multi-string COF when the COF does not expressly allow scoring between strings.

Assume its string 1, and there are only 5 hits on T2. You would "score" a Mike, I presume. Then the shooter gets the gun fixed, comes back for string 2, engages T1 with 6 rounds only, performs a mandatory reload, and engages T3 with six rounds only, and then turns to T2 and shoots an A. Whatever "scoring" was done after the first string would then need revision, it seems.

Maybe we mean different things when using the word "score." Certainly the hits and any other pertinent information should be recorded and the stage cleared for the match to proceed. But actual "scoring" of the stage still requires the rest of the strings to be done. After the 1st string, for example, you generally can't positively say "extra hit" or "mike" on a target. The "scoring" aspect of that type of circumstance is subject to what happens on the remaining strings.

CM 13-04 String 1: On signal, turn and engage ... String 2: On signal, turn and engage .... The enumeration seems to specify an order.

So in that instance I can't score between strings? Not unless the course of fire specifies that you can. Otherwise, the shooter attempts the remaining strings, and then the whole COF is scored.

What about 6.1.1? "Scores and penalties are recorded following completion of the course of fire, unless the course of fire specifies that they shall be recorded and the targets taped between strings."

Rumor is that Temple Gun Club will start having USPSA matches on the 3d Sunday, and that Fayette County Gun Club may start up a 2d Sunday USPSA match later in the spring. From Austin, that would give you 1st Saturday at ALSPPC at the Austin Rifle Club, 2d Sunday in La Grange, 3d Saturday in Waco, 3d Sunday in Temple. Alpha Mike has USPSA 3d Sunday in Bulverde at Cedar Ridge. River City puts on a good match 4th Sunday south of San Antonio, but it's a pretty long drive from Austin for a level I match. There's a good USPSA match 4th Sunday at Impact Zone in Hempstead, but that's even further. Copperas Cove has a fun all-falling-steel match 2d Saturday, IDPA on the 1st Saturday, and 3 gun on the 4th Saturday. Texas Tactical usually has 2 IDPA matches and a carbine match at ARC each month. Waco and Temple also have Steel challenge each month. There's an IDPA match 2d Sunday at Best of the West, and a 3 gun at BOTW on the 4th Saturday. Texas Tactical has 2 IDPA and a carbine each month at Cedar Ridge in Bulverde. There are a couple more 3 gun or precision rifle in the area, but I haven't been to any of them. I apologize if I've forgetten anybody.

So far, the rest of the batch has been fine. The primer was in the round when it was loaded into the mag. I stuck the loose primer back into the case after the match by hand, but had to whack it pretty good to jar it out again. I think the recoil probably knocked it out the first time.

No. Winchester small pistol primers. I shoot open a lot, too. After a while, the pockets get larger from the pressure. It's not a huge problem, and I usually feel it while loading.

Had a bizarre malfunction during a match today. Engaging a target, first shot OK, second shot "click." Racked the slide, round ejected, but then "click" again. Tap-rack, another "click." Dropped the mag, reloaded, and went on with the stage. Afterward, came back to the mag and found the ejected round. Apparently, a primer fell out of a round as it was chambering. It jammed the bullet below into the mag! Out of 40K or more reloads, I've had maybe 2 or 3 loaded rounds with loose primers make it into QCed boxes ready for a match. But after today, I may tumble loaded rounds a while to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Will there be beer and shrimp, and merry fellowship with the other shooters, on Saturday night?

The rule book refers to scoring targets and to no-shoots, but nothing appears to expressly ban non-scoring targets. For an example, look at classifier 06-07, which uses Pepper Poppers as hardcover. Pepper Poppers, of course, can be either scoring targets or no-shoots, but the black Pepper Poppers in 06-07 certainly appear to be non-scoring targets. At a minimum, that classifier demonstrates that a target can be something other than a scoring target or a no-shoot. Asking NROI would certainly resolve the question if it provided an official interpretation. To me, though, such an interpretation likely would supplement the rule book, instead of convincing me that the current rules actually require either view. Graham's hypothetical stage with a choice of a 50 yd wide open array or a 10 yd A zone array certainly sounds interesting and fun, but I can see some problems with such a stage. For example, which targets are scored if the shooter fires at all of 'em?

Seems to beg the question. Under Graham's scenario, why couldn't 5 of the targets be scoring targets, and the other 5 nonscoring targets? Rule 9.5.7 doesn't appear to preclude that.

Does anything say it's illegal?