Skywalker

Rumours are just that ... rumours. You can have them saying whatever you like ... you can even invent them ...

This may as well be the tombstone to a democratic discussion: "you have non-democratic members, your organization is not democratic, thus freedom of speech is an invalid point here". Sorry, I ain't going down this path.

Bjorn, I will have to (respectfully ... ) take exception to some of the above. If you have followed the discussion (dating back to april) on this subject at the GV, you'll have noticed that the very initial proposal didn't came out of the blue, and it did came right from the beginning as aimed to all divisions. It was april when it was first announced it was going to be brought to the attention of the Assembly. Now, I agree that being IPSC president has some advantages that may be negated to IPSC members, i.e. being able to ask a motion to be added to the agenda without this having to be submitted to a RD, but I don't think this is really outrageous. Moreover, if anybody has a proposal, all he has to do is to have his regional Director to forward it for inclusion in the agenda.

Bjorn, you may be right, and this is why the whole issue will be discussed and voted by the General Assembly. To all those that think vehemently objecting a proposal (and maybe using inappropriate words) is the way to go: having the proposal brought to the attention of the assembly is the most democratic way to handle things. You might not like the idea, but you can't prevent somebody asking to discuss it: it's called freedom of speech in democracy. If you feel so strongly about a subject, have your delegate knowing your opinion and let him vote (after all he is your democratically elected delegate) and be ready to accept the majority vote, even if this is against your personal opinion. I think a discussion (at any level) shall be civil and respectful, among polite people.

I wonder why? I just stated that I have mixed feelings about this proposal, I'm not in favour nor against it. I did state, however, I don't buy the "it's not freestyle" objection, since there are several other rules (e.g. fault and charge lines) that could be deemed to be against this principle, and we all accept them, since they add to the shooting challenge while still leaving room to creativity. I also stated that in Open, Modified, Standard and (IPSC) Production, the reloading skill is perishing, since I (shooting PD and SD) only reload an average of 3 times in a 10 stages match, and I used myself as an example, being the above applicable to almost any IPSC competitor. BTW, we don't have Lim-10 and Singlestack in IPSC, and Prod is exactly in the same boat as Standard when it comes to mag capacity, we already have 19+1 guns...

Once a long ago, I had a LEO friend who showed up at the training range I was with a 6.35mm Starlite, and he was truly believing he could've knocked down a full size popper @ 15m ... He took careful aim to the steel, squeezed off a round that hit it dead centre, and the popper replied with a jingling laughter ...

I don't want to comment on the proposed change, as I have mixed feelings about this. What I want to point out is that (IMHO) a mandatory reload to be performed between the first and the last shot is no more against freestyle concept as Charge and Fault lines are. They're there to restrict unreasonable movements towards targets, or to add a shooting challenge (shooting from behind a barricade or wall), but you're free to shoot from wherever you like behind the lines, close, distant, leaning, standing upright, you just have to be behind them; if it's about freestyle, why should you be bounded to shoot from behind a wall, and not be allowed to step aside to get a better view of the targets? Similarly, having to reload adds to the shooting challenge, but you're free to do it whenever and wherever it suits you the most. Having said this, even though I would love the idea of bringing back the reloading skill in practical shooting (which is now perishing in almost any IPSC division except revolver), I'm not sure this new rule wouldn't create more problems thant it solves.

I guess no, since Margherita is not an actress. My take is that this was some sort of staged masquerade, a joke on her sporting career (foil that is).

Going back to beautiful ladies, here comes Margherita Granbassi, italian foil lady, bronze medalist in individual and lady teams at last Bejing Olympic Games.

What I pointed out as incorrect was the part of your statement where you said that "properly calibrated poppers serve the same purpose of A/C/D zones on a cardboard target". This, according to the rules, is not true: they serve different purposes. I have already said it, properly calibrated poppers recognize PF (they do not reward it, scoring 5 points ammo if dropped, PF notwithstanding), meaning they should not fall if hit in the calibration zone with sub-minor ammo, they should not fall if hit outside of the calibration zone with minor ammo, and they might fall if hit outside of the calibration zone with major ammo. This is recognizing PF, and this is what poppers are supposed to do in a stage, otherwise you might just use plates. Paper targets, on the contrary, do not recognize PF (they get perforated by a BB gun as well), but they reward PF, specifically for peripheral hits, with different scoring for major and minor PF: a C-hit with major PF ammo scores 4 points, same hit with minor PF ammo only scores 3 (but you already know this all). This is rewarding PF, and this is what paper targets scoring zones are supposed to do in a stage; incidentally, this is why a stage composed of all paper targets showing only the A-zone should not be allowed: no reward for shooting major over minor PF, thus no V part of the DVC equation equitably evaluated.

Nik, the reason for no plates-only stages had been given by the IPSC rules committee a long ago, and I reported it here in my initial post: a plate-only stage doesn't reward power, as a paper or mixed stage would (major/minor scoring), thus there would be no balance in DVC elements, since the V part would not be equally evaluated as the other ones, which is contrary to what rule 1.1.3 mandates.

JT, I'm just slightly disagreeing with you on that part of your statement where "poppers are there to determine power as well as a (paper?) target". They both deal with PF, but poppers deal with it to recognize it (fall faster/slower, but score the same when shot with Major or Minor PF), while paper deals with it to reward it (they score Major/Minor PF differently, but they don't care if the hole is punched with Major/Minor/sub-Minor ammo): they serve different functions, although they both use the same gauge (PF), thus I wouldn't really say they both determine power. I know it's just semantics here, but it makes the difference, at least for me.

Nope. According to the rulebook (IPSC one): So, while poppers are designed to recognize PF, i.e. they will fall faster when hit with higher PF, paper targets are designed to reward PF, i.e. Major - Minor scoring. Incorrect. According to the rulebook: you can't have a CoF composed of plates only, and this has nothing to do with recognizing PF, but rather with rewarding PF: there's no possible advantage to gain shooting Major PF in a plates-only CoF (only A hits), thus shooting minor has a definite advantage here, while the concept was to allow a trade-off between shooting higher PF (and get rewarded for this by a higher scoring for peripheral hits) at a slower peace, or shooting minor at a higher peace but being penalized (in terms of scoring) for C and D hits. A plates-only CoF won't reward PF (scoring wise), while a paper only does. Again, incorrect: see reply to JThompson. Poppers are designed to recognize PF, while Paper Targets are designed to reward PF.

There's not much to be translated ... all the time she was screaming "stop" ... "I want to step down" ... "I'm sick and I think I'll puke" ... "please stop this, you know I have kids waiting for me at home" ... "we're going to roll over" ... "AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH" ... plus a lot of dirty italian words ... BTW, shoud you ever get interested in what the "umbrella" gesture means (about 3 mins mark): I'm not sure it's a typical italian gesture only, but it is called like this because it closely resembles the one you make when you put your folded umbrella on your arm to carry it, and the meaning is NFW! when you're asked if you would do something (well, it also means something else, a lot ruder), and it is a reinforcement of her statement "... and I'll never, ever, board again a car with you as driver" ... which, being Riccardo a former Formula 1 driver (this explains why he he's so calm while driving), is quite funny. Info on Riccardo Patrese on wikipedia.

Too slow, IMHO. I once tried N340 (which is a tad faster), and it felt weird ... a very progressive but firm push on the gun. It was recoiling gentler, but too slow and too high, not the hard but quick kick I'm used to, and my timing on the gun was definitely off.

Heard it on the news this morning. I've been a Pink Floyd's fan for 31 years, saw them live in Turin in 1987 and have all their albums (mostly vinyl): his talent was extraordinary, and he'll be greatly missed. You can easily tell his magic touch even in Gilmour's solo album from 2006, "On an Island".

Correct until the last sentence. If memory serves me right, it was about 1998 when GMs were introduced. 1998 may be correct for IPSC, but 1993 is correct for USPSA. My really old MSS files (the old DOS version) had 3 GM's listed for the 1993 South Carolina State Championship: Joe Kessler, Frank Garcia and Merle Edington. I do not see any GM's in 1992 files. Linda Chico (L-2035) been at this stats thing for a very long time Columbia SC Now that you mention this, Linda, I seem to recall that when GMs were introduced I made the consideration that we were following suit from the USA. It was at the very beginning of my shooting career (which started late 1997), and I might have mixed flashbacks from that time.

Correct until the last sentence. If memory serves me right, it was about 1998 when GMs were introduced.

Tanfoglio barrel rifling is what they call semi-poligonal, which is (according to what the italian version of their website reports) basically a conventional rifling with smoothed land edges. I have been shooting at least 6K lead 9mm bullets in my Stock II this year, and had no problem whatsoever of leading or accuracy.

While it looks like Greek citizens and other living in Greece are prohibited from reloading their own ammo, every other nation's competitors would appear to be OK as far as bringing in their own ammo - correct? Yes, this is what I have experienced.

Flex, reloading is not allowed in Greece, but I have been attending a match there in 2003, and several teammates have been there later on: you are allowed to bring your own reloads there.

Carina, do you mean I'm the only woman in my house?

They are manufactured by a local (italian) manufacturer: Target Bullets. Sorry, their site is in italian only.

These are the ones I'm talking about. Our local manufacturer has been plating them since a few years with a tin alloy that gives them a shiny silver appearance. They list then as "Platinum" plated bullets on their website. I have used them in .40", and I can report they are incredibly slick and clean: you will need a couple tenths of a grain more powder than normal plated or jacketed bullets of the same weight to get same velocities, but they're a joy to shoot.

I have several teammates shooting Open Div. either in 9mm or .38" SA that use 123 grs. plated bullets, ant they are plenty satisfied with both accuracy and reliability. All of them shoot the above bullets in STI/SVI guns. The trick is to get bullets with a thick plating: the local manufacturer states at least 80/100 microns thickness for his bullets, and they work.