Skywalker

Hey guys, thanks a lot for your answers, I appreciate them, but I think that the whole discussion drifted a bit from my original post. Vince, I can agree with you that there may be ROs "specialized" in certain brand and models of guns, but I started the thread because the mere fact that I cannot be able to tell if a sear or disconnector in an approved Sig Sauer (just to make an example) is an original or aftermarket part makes me feel uncomfortable when ROing. On the range, I am the RO in charge to verify adherence to the rules, and I feel that with this kind of rules for Prod I cannot always be able to do this. As a competitor, I wouldn't accept the fact that an "unfair" shooter won't get caught because the RO is not able to verify all admissible and forbidden modifications to the handgun.

It has been bouncing into my mind for quite a while since Production division was first introduced, but it was just a feeling about the approved firearms list. Now that we have specific, mandatory rules for firearms to compete in this divison, my feelings have well defined and clear borders that I wish to share with more exeprienced and competent people. Unlike all other divisions, where admissible modifications to firearms are easily verifiable (just a glance or quick dry-fire inspection, maybe a box), in Production division compliance with the rules can be verified only with an ecyclopedical knowledge and a full disassemblement of the gun. Let's be honest: how many of you R.O. really know all the different variations or, worse, the complete accessory list for each specific Tanfoglio pistol, or any other approved handgun brand or model? Would you really be able to tell if a customized Production handgun still complies with division rules or not? Or, better, would you be able to do this on the range, without the help of books, magazines, catalogs and/or a fast Internet access? Moreover, upon disassembling a firearm, would you be able to tell an aftermarket custom component from a factory one? My feeling is sometimes I will, moreoften I won't. This poses me a serious question: does it make any sense to enforce rules (I don't wanna question if they are rightful or not) that cannot be reasonably checked and verified? How do you usually check if Production division equipment of each competitor complies with division requirements? At first I thought a possible solution could have been for the shooter himself to produce evidence (in forms of factory catalogs or other documentation) of compliance, but I soon discarded this idea because this is a shooting sport that already deals with too much burocracy. Besides, I felt it was not fair to revert onto the shooter the burden of proof because the R.O. might not be able to judge properly. Wouldn't it be better to enforce rules that could be easily checked like the existing ones for other divisions? Suggestions and proposals, as well as your own ROing experience would be greatly appreciated.

I think that, provided what we read from the two parts is what happened in reality, this should be a clear case of unsafe gun handling, under 10.3. As Vince pointed out, rule 10.3.12 "Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during movement in accordance with section 8.5." applies, as well as 10.3.2.2 "Any discharge during movement except while engaging targets". The exception to this latter rule cannot be invoked, because according to section 8.5, "All movement must be accomplished with the finger outside the trigger guard except if targets are visible to the shooter and the shooter maintains a sight picture on the targets with the intent of engaging them.The firearm must be pointed in a safe direction and the safety should be engaged. "Movement" is defined as any of the actions below: 8.5.1... 8.5.2 Changing positions (i.e. from standing to kneeling). and this seems to be the situation described: the key element is the shooter was not engaging targets since he didn't have a sight picture; the whole situation could be summarized as following: a shot was fired during movement without a sight picture on targets, then the shooter was not engaging targets and the shot must be considered as unsafe gun handling. Regarding the policy of reversing a RO call, I think normal procedure among people serving togheter in a match would have mandated the RM calling both shooter and RO to discuss the matter, before taking any decision. BTW, since I am a shooter before being a RO, if I had the feeling that I was right, I wouldn't have moved from the firing line until the RM was summoned and had arrived to solve the dispute.

Vince, I agree with you that physics is boring (there was a nice brunette during those classes that drew my best attention ) and difficult to understand (I still don't understand all that "mass" stuff, especially when I'm standing on a weighting scale), but in defining 9x19 mm as the "calibration caliber" IPSC forgot that there are (silly) countries like Italy where this caliber is forbidden by law to civilian shooters. What should we do if we strictly adhere to the Rules? Not calibrate poppers at all? My point was (supported by a physics point of view) that every recognized caliber making the correct PF should be accepted for poppers calibration. This should make life easier for all match organizers.

I agree on the point that the situation I described is an ideal one. In fact I stated that the total momentum would have been preserved in a friction-free environment: the reality is that the entire system is a non-conservative one, for this reason some "leakage" will always happen for the reasons you stated (I would also add energy lost due to deformation work of the popper surface and heating consequent to collision). Furthermore, since I hope we could agree on the fact that all collisions should happen with the same 90° angle (i.e. bullet perpendicular to popper face, otherwise some ricochet problems can arise, and the popper position could be questioned), the bullet shape is of little importance in momentum transfer. My honest feeling is that all these "leakages" will be a very small part of the total momentum, and, when speaking about poppers calibration, there is no significative difference in knocking down poppers with different combinations of calibers/bullets/velocities, provided they all score the same PF. In any case, I too questioned the calibration procedure in another thread, and I am sure improvements can be reached on this point.

Sorry to disagree with omnia1911, but when talking about poppers calibration we shall always remember that we are talking about a specific physics event called "collision". The physics law to investigate collisions is ruled by "momentum", defined as mass x velocity, not by energy (specifically kynematic energy) defined as 0.5 times square velocity times mass. In a collision, the only thing that is beeing trasferred is momentum: there is a phisical principle that says when two objects are colliding (in a friction-free environment), the total momentum of the system is being preserved. This means that the popper will gain velocity according to its mass, and the bullet will loose part or all of its original speed: in any case, the sum of bullet and popper momentum after collision shall equal the bullet momentum before collision. With respect to this, physically speaking, there is absolutely no difference between a 151 grs bullet @126 pf and a 122 grs @126: the momentum is absolutely the same. No disadvantaged shooters . This should also solve the problem of the proper handgun caliber for poppers calibration: every caliber making the correct pf should be allowed, since (provided the correct pf is reached) the ground should be equal for everybody. BTW, talking about momentum, the IPSC Power Factor is a down-scaled momentum, since it is reduced by a 1'000 scale factor: it appears Col. Cooper and his friends did know about physics, and chose the right parameter.

Vince, But you stated that: What am I missing? In your n. 6), did you mean that new rule 8.1 overcomes the action you were required to perform as a RO (stop and re-start)? Old behaviour reported just for comparison with new rule, no more enforced? Sometimes I wish I was born english mothertongue : I have difficulties in understanding each single sentence (my doctor says this is something IQ related...)

Flex, I too tried the "What women really mean" test and scored 94% at first try , no dubt it was an easy guess for the scorers to find out I'm with the same woman from almost 18 years...

Sorry to stir the pot over the edge Vince, but I really don't understand . It seems to me there is a conflict in rules, or at least some clarification needed. Rule 8.1 (proposed change) adds the sentence "However, in the event that a competitor fails to load the chamber prior to commencement of the stage, whether inadvertently or intentionally, the Official shall not take any action", thus I could argue a competitor could actually start a COF without complying with a written stage briefing stating loaded handgun (round in chamber) or with rule 8.1.2.1 regarding Self-Loading pistols ("“Single action” - chamber loaded, hammer cocked, and the safety engaged." ). But I thought a competitor wasn't allowed to start a COF if he wasn't compliant with ready conditions. Furthermore, you state that: "6) If, on the beep, the competitor draws his gun and goes "click" and when he racks his slide nothing comes out, then I know he didn't have a loaded chamber and I would be required to stop him because he did not comply with 8.1 as presently stated (since modifed by IPSC)." Does it make any sense to allow a shooter to start a COF even if he doesn't comply with ready condition, and then stopping him after start signal because he didn't comply? Wouldn't it be better to remove the added sentence to rule 8.1, leaving the RO the possibility to correct the improper ready condition of the competitor, without wasting any time for starting, stopping, and re-starting under the proper conditions?

I would agree with all of you on giving the shooter an advice he didn't finish to make ready, for all the reasons you already explained. I have only one major concern in doing this: maybe that, due to lots of things I am trying to concentrate onto, as a R.O., I will notice this "fault" in a competitor and won't notice it at all in another one (it might happen, even if you are the best trained R.O.). The second shooter could reasonably ask me why did I give assistance to the previous and not to him. Just to make sure I will behave the same way with every shooter, I will refrain from giving such advices to shooters. I think this should be fair and equal to every competitor.

Hi Vince, I think I can post two comments on the last edition of Handgun rulebook I already sent to IROA (Iroa@ipsc.org). 1. in Appendix C - Calibration of poppers, the definition for calibration zones doesn't match with the shaded calibration zones in the previous page accompanying figure. In facts, the shaded zones painted on poppers are full circles, while the descriptions clearly state "a circle with flat sides at top and bottom" and "a circle with flat side at bottom". Which one is to be considered correct? 2. Rule 8.6.4 (new rule) states:"In the event that a competitor begins shooting prematurely ("false start" ) the Range Officer will, as soon as possible, stop the competitor and restart the competitor, as soon as the course of fire has been restored." I think that, if not properly addressed, an unfair competitor could try to turn this at this advantage. Here is the possible situation: I'm a competitor trying to start "on" the start signal, and I begin moving when I suppose the timer will beep (I have seen shooters check with wristwatches the delay between Standby and start signal...). If I realize I am moving before the beep, to avoid the procedural penalty I will start shooting irrespective of start signal, just to get the clean re-start. I think that rule 8.6.4 for should make provision for R.O. decision, or refer to rule 10.1.4.7, to discourage such kind of shooters.

Spook, I think here in Italy you may find a lower price (about 10/15 €), but I'm not sure about shipping charge. If you wish, you can contact Armeria Brixia shooting Store (You can browse http://www.brixiashooting.com/ for contacts), they are the Italian resaler for Hoeppner & Schuemann Speedsec5 holster, and they will surely provide prices and shipping fees. DVC.

Spook, I too have been using this holster for a year, and I find it great: even when it is not locked, there is no way to have the gun fall out except for lifting it (BTW this will require almost no pull at all); you can bump forward the frame from the butt whenever you like, the gun rests still in place. When locked, to pull your gun without unlocking it, you will need someone shooting in your holster... Julien, looks like you just made what I have been trying to for a long time . I previously used a Ghost holster, and I liked its reassuring click sound when locking or unlocking it. Could you share some pictures of your customization? I couldn't figure how to do it from the description. Thanks.

Sorry guys, maybe I didn't express myself in the correct way, but looks like the idea I shared has been misinterpreted. I never meant to propose a "Calibration" procedure, i.e. reset the chrono to its factory tolerances of functioning: this is something only the factory itself can perform. Nor did I intend to check those tolerances with the proposed procedure. My proposal was aimed at verifying that the chrono is functioning the same way throughout each day of the match, that BTW is what rule 5.6.5.1 was made for (I suppose). In doing this, may be that (depending on ammunition choice) a fixed interval of 25 fps may be not appropriate. Vince, I mean that, if chosen ammunition is not that good, the recordings of the chrono might be out of the -25/+25 fps interval, even if the chrono is correctly functioning, forcing match organizers to deem the chrono as not suitable. For this reason I proposed a statistical approach to the chrono verification (not calibration) test. ErikW, I don't think the option of having two or three chronos on the range would solve the problem, because with two chronos, it might be difficult to identify the one that is malfunctioning if the different readings are not so distant; besides, having three different chronos on the range could be quite expensive for match organization. DVC.

Shred, Erik, looks like we are debating deterministic vs. statistical verification method. I too am thinking of a deterministic verification method (even if it will take me a while to figure something useful out), like throwing something that has a well known and established velocity through the chrono screens, but at the moment the only thing I can come up with is a sort of statistical method, which is BTW the most useful and widely accepted method to evaluate and speculate on a population of samples with slightly different behaviour. I think Rich made a point stating that the verification method should take into account the greatly different velocities the chrono will be measuring (i.e. from a Minor .40" load that would score 625 fps with a 200 grs. bullet, up to a Major .38" super that would score 1350 fps with a 122 grs. bullet!). We must remember that the chrono deviation from reality will vary along with registered velocities: I mean if we know that something has travelled through the chrono screens at say 800 fps, and the chrono reads 816 fps. (which is 2% more), it will be very unlikely that the same 2% more will be read on the chrono display when measuring anything crossing the screens at a known velocity of 1400 fps. I would rather expect that, the higher the velocity to be recorded, the higher will be the deviation displayed, i.e. for 1400 fps. I'd suppose the deviation could reach 4,5% of the real velocity: its almost the same with car tachimeters. Any other suggestion?

I use 202 grs. Flat Point-Beveled Base bullets, loaded to an O.A.L. of 1.200" in my SVI Competition (same magazines from the very beginning, no spring replacement up to now). After about 22'000 rounds shot, I had only 4 jams, due to old brass (i.e. coke-bottle shaped brass) that I didn't bother to run through the Factory Crimp Die for training sessions. I don't think this particular profile might be the cause. I'd rather check magazines, mag springs, or even recoil spring: all these factors may alter the correct cycling of the slide (have a look at the Shock-Buff debate thread if you are using one; BTW I have always used them and can report no problems). DVC

Ok guys, this took me a while to write it down, so I hope you will give it a glance, because the topic is (I think) quite important. I wonder if in other regions the Match Chronograph is daily verified according to rule 5.6.5.1 of IPSC XIV Edition Rulebook. Here in Italy, most Match organizers won’t run the verification procedure because they are afraid they may be compelled to deem the Chrono outside tolerances and thus remove Chrono tests from the whole match. What I am proposing here to debate is a slightly different verification procedure, to be confident the Chrono readings are reliable. According to rule 5.6.5.1, “…the the daily Chrono averages shall vary no more than 25 feet per second from the first day’s readings…” to deem the Chrono as thrustworthy. But, from a technical standpoint, by this method we are not verifying the Chrono is correctly functioning, we are just measuring how good the test reloads are! We are conducting a test on our measuring equipment: for this reason, to be sure the Chrono is really thrustworthy, we should get rid of all those interfering factors that may influence our test, such as poor ammunition (the primary cause), but also ambiental lighting, temperature, pressure and humidity etc. that might influence Chrono light sensors as well as powder burning (these factors may be of secondary importance). Unfortunately, to eliminate all these factors from our test there is no deterministic procedure: we can only rely on a statistical analysis. If we accept a statistical method, we must agree that three (3) rounds for testing is not a significative sample, furthermore, a fixed interval of 25 fps is irrespective of poorly assembled factory/reloaded ammunitions. Enters Standard Deviation (SD): this is a statistical quantity, that should not be unfamiliar with relaoders (at least the more experienced ones) that today chronos will easily calculate; for all other people that are not at their ease with math, let’s say that, given a sufficiently large population of samples (i.e. measured shots) from a batch of ammunitions, the interval defined by the average velocity of the samples minus two times SD, and average velocity of the samples plus two times SD [AV-2*SD , AV+2*SD], is the interval which 95.4% of all possible measures from that batch will fall into (being all other factors above mentioned equal). If we consider the [AV-3*SD , AV+3*SD] interval, the confidence level arises to 99.6%. My proposal, based on the statistical approach above explained, is the following: 1. On the first day of the match, the designated Range Officer will shoot ten (10) rounds from the selected combination handgun/ammunition through the Chrono, to get a minimum sample of measurements, recording Average (AV) and Standard Deviation (SD). 2. The tolerance interval to deem the Crono as reliable will be calculated as Average minus two times Standard Deviation, Average plus two times Standard Deviation [AV-2*SD ; AV+2*SD]. 3. Each following day, paying attention to perform the measurements in similar conditions of weather (daylight conditions as well as temperature, pressure and umidity) if possible, the designated Range Officer will shoot five (5) rounds from the selected combination handgun/ammunition through the Chrono: if the Average is inside the tolerance interval as above defined, the Chrono is thrustworthy. I know that, for a statistician, the samples I am suggesting (10 and 5 round), is still not a significative population, but a certain kind of settlement has to be found between theory and practicality: shooting 100 rounds or more through the chrono would require too much time; besides, I have experimented this procedure to get confident my match reloads are reliably scoring Major PF (test once 10 rounds of the selected load, then periodically test 5 to verify PF and measured average velocity with previously recorded one), and I am confident it will work. On this basis, at least the most influent factor (ammunition quality), should be eliminated from the possible factors interfering with Chrono verification test. Let me know if you think this is a valid proposal to submit to IPSC. DVC.

Ok, I know this is a long debated topic, but I am a bit confused about it, because in this forum I found two different answers (or at least it looks like this to me). Hope Vince Pinto can throw some light on this. For Disappearing Targets, once the shooter has started the activator, if he fails to engage the target (shoot at least one round in its direction), are "failure to engage penalties" applicable? In this post Mario quotes an answer from Vince that says: "3. If a competitor fails to engage the moving shoot targets once activated, then Rules 9.5.9 & 10.1.4.8 are also applicable (penalty for failure to engage); -: the competitor should therefore incur one procedural penalty for *each disappearing target* he fails to engage, but there would be no penalties for misses. " But, on the contrary, Vince himself, in another post (http://www.brianenos.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard//topic.cgi?forum=27&topic=67), states: "For DTs, you do not get penalties unless you fail to activate the activator (see Rule 9.9.2), in which case you get a procedural and the appropriate misses on the DT as well. Harsh but true. " Now, in World Shoot XIII, "failure to engage penalties" haven't been applied (for example in stage 26), so which is the truth? And what will happen if the shooter doesn't start the initiating mechanism of a single DT? How many penalties will be applicable?

ErikW, try with Nitrokemia Rex 3 (the green can) powder. It's a fairly slow burning powder, and it is quite bulky too. It's not as clean as Vihtavuori, but it's cheap (at least here in Italy). My training load is the following: - Fiocchi Brass - CCI 500 small pistol primers - 4.8 grs Rex 3 powder - 200 grs lead FP-BB bullet - 1.200" O.A.L. - 175 P.F. this should give you the visual help you're looking for. For more info on reloading with Rex 3 powder, visit my web site (www.teamoffire.it), in the english section, reloading page, Infinity file.

Thanks Flexmoney, GM3 is a shotgun powder, relatively fast burning, only slightly faster than WW231, produced by NobelSPORT, Vectan or SNPE (I'm not sure, here in Italy it is sold by an Italian manufacturer), which is quite cheap and easy to find.

Hi Lumpy, try browsing my website (www.teamoffire.it), in the english section, at the reloading page: I have experimented a lot with 180grs and 200grs FPBB lead bullets and Vihtavuori N320. DVC

Hey guys, hope you will enjoy this. Had a hard time translating this joke from Italian. A pregnant woman, during a bank holdup was shot three times in her abdomen. The surgeon, after treatment, cheers her up: "Don't worry about the three twins: they still have a bullet each in their groin, I couldn't remove them, but they will live with it, and someday they'll naturally expel the bullet". Twelve years later, one of the twins cries with his mother: "Mummy, mummy, somethin' terrible happened. I was there on the WC and I passed a bullet!!!" Mother gently explains what happened when she was pregnant, and the child forgets the whole incident. A couple of days later, the second twin shyly reports to her mother: "Mummy, I was sitting on the WC when I passed a bullet...". Mother gently tells him the story and the baby feels reassured. A week after, the third twin goes to his mother, but he's so embarassed he can hardly speak: "mummy, er..I...was...". This time, knowing what could have happened, mother asks her child "What could have happed dear...I bet you were in the bathroom and you too passed a bullet..." "Er... no..., you see... mummy, I was in my room jerking off...and I shot the cat...".

Hi everybody! I'm just a newcomer from Italy to this forum and, besides great compliments to BE for his site and forum, I'd like to share some comments. I was really puzzled when I first read about USPSA and new IPSC classification method based on Classifiers. Do you mean you can shoot classifiers (that, in the end, are repetitive) for better classification whenever you are "in the mood" for it, or am I missing something? Here in Italy the story is quite different, but I think that is more adherent to reality. We have about 12/14 matches per year in the Italian Championship (I mean matches included in the Championship calendar, all fulfilling Level III match requirements) and you have to shoot at least 4 of them to get classified from FITDS (same as your USPSA). Your classification will be based on the average of your 4 best matches in a year. Following this, your rank will be updated every year. You can dispute about the match minimum number to calculate average, and I could agree with you, but I think that the basic idea of classifying a shooter on the basis of its performance in matches better represent the shooter's ability. I could be the best shooter in (my) world during training sessions, but I could not be able to stand Match pressure and screw it up easily (a fellow of mine behaves like this): I think that match results are the real mirror for somebody's skills. Hope to hear your comments soon. DVC Skywalker