schoonie

Troy, I totally agree and would like to see the determination included in the stage briefings. This would eliminate any animosity felt between the shooter and the RO if the call was made, ie no surprises!

Good job Charles! I new there where good reasons for voting for you as Area 6 Director. With the reduced number of matches I'll be entering the series for sure! See you at the Open.

Pasa needs a shootoff setup like the Frank Garcia's, it only takes one man to set all the steel. Each popper has an air cylinder hooked up in network to a compressor and surge tank, open a valve and presto, the steel sets itself! The only need then is to paint the steel.

I found the Dita shoes at www.cleanrun.com under the turf shoe menu.

Flex, I think the large pot of $$$ gets all kind of attention, it may give us more national exposure. Heck they show pool tournaments that pay $5,000 to $10,000 on television. There probably is a threshold of money that will draw more participants and media and ultimately sponsors which could lead to a self funded event!

Skywalker/Vince I'm still not thrilled with the idea of allowing extra interpretations or restrictions by an RO after the stage has been documented. The RO can and certainly should answer questions and demonstrate acceptable positions. I believe that the real issue here is to have a well written stage briefing. It seems that there are some key issues that each WSB needs to address such as every point of contact that shooter will have with the range at the start (feet, butt, hands, etc.) and the orientation of the head. Being sure to address these will go a long way toward avoiding endless definitions of terms and word games.

Skywalker, If we are going to restrict the shooter to a more highly refined but not specified position then the commonly used words will definately need defining. If the use of "Facing downrange" without any other modifiers or restrictions does not allow shooter to use his discretion within the 180 degree sweep then a change is needed. The same can be said about "Facing uprange". How many times has a shooter asked about the positioning of the feet, or asked if the head could be turned a certain direction? Let's make it easy for the RO, define the words we use so that interpretation is not required and write better stage procedures. The RO should not feel the need or be obligated to put the "finishing" touches on the stage. The course designer may have wanted the ambiguity! It may be my imagination but I'm getting the impression that some people want all the shooters to start exactly the same way from the same position and that the 'freestyle interpretations' start ofter the buzzer. This would certainly simplify things by not requiring an extensive and highly refined glossary of terms. There seems to be a question here as to how we want proceed.

This discussion reminds me of Dante's inferno, each level of detail getting us closer to the fires of Hell! The RO should be aware of the level of detail to which he can offer information, for instance, "gun on table" in the WSB in my opinion states Where the gun is to be placed not How or What condition it is to be in once it is placed there. "Start in box"(desiginated area surrounded by charge lines ) again states Where but not How. The RO should provide clarification or compliance only as to the first part and not to the second or any other implied conditions not stated. All competitors shoud not be required to start in the same identical position/stance/posture unless it is specifically designated in the written stage briefing. If the WSB is so poorly written and the RO feels compelled to he should ask the RM to make changes prior to any shots being fired, not after a creative shooter comes up with a solution that the RO didn't consider.

Vince, Add a humidifier and you win the Grand Prize! My Dominican Coronas would have a very nice new home.

Steve, That's pure Lanny, don't enforce the negative, embrace the positive!!! How do you ignore the desire to figure out the errors in a blown stage in order to learn from them? I can't get away from that examination. If I don't re-run the stage in my mind and figure out what didn't go as planned I am less able to get back into the groove. It's like a subconscious chalderon of thought boiling away that will not calm down until it gets it's due attention.

FO The latest information I got comes from a local gun builder who suggested that the thinning and reashaping of the plastic grip can weaken it to the extent that a strong grip will flex it. What finally sunk into my head was that the direction of the flex was fore and aft rather than port and starboard (in the direction of the barrel vs perpendicular). With this in mind I can now readily accept that the trigger bow is being repositioned or disturbed by the shooter's actions. Three suggestions where laid out: 1. Reinforce the grip with fiberglass prior to shapping it. 2. Increase the weak hand grip while decreasing the strong hand tension. 3. Slap the trigger versus riding it.

Before you do, sell it to me at the POS discount price and I'll save you the effort, but not the satisfaction, of throwing it!

Are you kidding??? I have to pick myself off the floor from laughing so hard when he goes into one of his "I gonna through this POS gun over the berm" rants.

Fo, I'm real intrigued by this problem since I've seen it for the last two years with another shooter. Question. Can you make it double with a light grip on the gun?, and if so what happens with the trigger 'riding'? Can you isolate the two actions to see which contributes to the problem, (ie. hard grip, riding)? When my Gold Cup used to double we had to take out the verticle(up & down) movement slop in the trigger bow and also use a four leaf sear spring to control the trigger bounce or movement. I've seen a lot of verticle play in the trigger bows in standard S*I guns and I'm curious if this might be a factor?

Thanks guys, I was afraid that was the intention of the new rules and I wanted to be sure. Today's lunch discussion revealed that if a competitor had a malfunction immediately after the slider/mover was activated he or she would be penalized with mikes and FTE's and that's a little too severe! So I think that the change is for the best.

Nik, I fixed that by putting four targets on the frame!

9.9.1 Moving targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.5). Please clarify the word continuously as it is used in this rule. The previous rules required a minimum of 2 (two) target exposures to ensure that it was not to be scored as a no penalty disappearing target. I infer that what we have now is the moving target must stop in view for it to be a required to shoot target. I recently built a sliding target that passed two openings before it came to a stop behind a hard cover vision barrier, is this target setup now to be scored as a disappearing target?

I'd go if I could just to get my gun blessed , or maybe exercised to remove the curse of bay 5 at Garcia's range.

I'm with you Bill, I'm just surprised that the acknowledgement wasn't included in the new rule book.

Rule 9.11.1 states that the scoring program is to be Match Scoring System (MSS) and Windows Match Scoring Sytstem (WinMSS). What about EzWinScore????

After reading TGO's observations about this topic, it's my opinion that you can't let the hit factor affect the way in which you shoot any given stage, you should use the information to aide in the decision making process if it becomes necessary to make up a shot. All stages are to be shot with the goal of maximizing the HF, fast run and gun or slow and delibrate, you have got to get the maximum points in the least amount of time. But, if you you screw up a shot , and you've done the math, you will have a clear idea about what to do about making it up, ie. points gained versus time spent doing it.

Vince, I favor the "Make Ready" command only. The split commands have merit by addressing a start position with a loaded or an unloaded gun but, as demonstrated by the previous posts, can lead to confusion, interpretation, etc... A single, all encompassing command that needs no interpretation or translation is the ticket, IMHO.

Nipplehead, I shoot the same setup for L-10. I tried the Universal Extreme from Frank Garcia but it was loose in the holster, however, when locked it would not come out. I have a ghost for my limited gun and it too would be loose since they both were made for the square trigger guard guns. I saw at this years Nationals a new speed holster by Gubas Ribas that is supposed to accomodate the round trigger guard guns. Once I save up the dead presidents necessary I'll get one!!!!

GM wanna' be, I'm with you, that stage was an excellent test. Being off balance for the tight target required enhanced situational awarness! I think the shooter needs to be challenged in every way possible, it keeps things interesting! Cudos to Flex and Vince for straightening out the procedural situation.

The prize table is really just an attendance award parcelled out by the shooter's skill. After it's all said and done, nobody will remember, or care who got what at the prize table. The match and class winners should be the only ones recoginized with awards and prizes for their accomplishments. The rest of us just need to practice!