SteveZ

Maybe you could introduce me to them sometime?

Yup....one of 'em. Glad you've enjoyed the program and got something out of it.

I shoot at Custer as often as I can. I was planning on it yesterday but "the producer" said we needed to shoot some episodes of powerfactorshow.com .... so thats what we did. Custer puts on great matches....however its a bit of a drive.

All systems Go....prepare for launch!

Custer is known for having slightly larger than normal matches..but typically a match there runs on the order of about 170 rounds. I think they've done a 300 round match in the past ... but its usually well publicised and I hadn'd heard anything mentioned that this was going to be a "big one". If you don't have a USPSA membership card with a classification in at least one division, you're going to have to be able to show a USPSA Safety Check card before you can compete in the NorthWest Section...and if you don't have on of those, I'd suggest talking with Matt or Rick at Custer to arrange one.

That was easy! Looking forward to shooting the match....please divert all tornados to some other part of the country during that weekend.

I suspect perhaps the problem may have already been solved for us by the stage designers and maybe we overlooked it. I'm guessing to facilitate resetting the trap door...they may have installed a handle on the backside of it to grab it and raise it....that same handle could be used by the competitor to raise the trapdoor and play "peek-a-boo" while blasting the targets strong hand or whatever. So there is a way for the competitor to "fix" their screwup.

One thing that I've learned, if you write John you get his opinion but his opinion isn't binding. If you want an official answer, you need to submit your question and get an official ruling by the NROI rules committee.

Yeah, I didn't word that very well. Level 2s don't allow you to engage any activated target before they are activated. So basically any moving target has to be hidden before they are activated/engaged at a level 2 which would prevent the COF/WSB from designating those targets in the trapdoor as DTs even if they got them to move somehow.

Hi Jake....you're right...I did miss that part...and your second point is correct also. Activated targets must be activated (and hidden) before they can be engaged for a Level II match....so you are right...it would nullify the idea.

under the current definition of a DT target...the TARGET needs to be activated...then it needs to move and then go away. Activating something that hides the target.....isn't activating the target.

I just went and read all of the discussion on the USPSA Forum thread regarding Stage 10 from the 2009 DTC...concensus was that it was an illegal stage. Two issues seemed to be made in that thread... first and foremost was that you can't completely cover a target with hardcover (doing so creates an illegal target). Some tried to argue that the target became "disappearing" and would have to be scored as a DT target (the WSB for Stage 10 said they would NOT be scored as DT targets)...but the rulebook clearly defines DT targets as those that are Activated+Moved+No Longer Available for reengagement. The issue of "control" was dismissed as in violation of 4.2.5 and Appendix B and not part of the definition of disappearing target. Some suggested that the definition of disappearing target needs to be changed to allow for COFs where something moves in front of a static target....and then to allow scoring of those targets as disappearing....but until then..those targets are illegal targets. The definition of a DT target hasn't changes...its still a target that is activated, moves and goes away. The thread also said that sometimes issues like these slip through the NROI stage review committiee cracks....the question is...do any MD's want to risk being the poster child for getting it tested at their match?

Follow up...I found the discussion...it wasn't here...it was on the USPSA Forums and it looks like I started it! :-) http://www.uspsa.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=941 I don't have time right now to read through the entire discussion (4 pages)....but looking at various posts....most people felt it was illegal....regardless of Johns initial opinion.

Like the rest of of, John is not infallible when it comes to making errors. If an arb panel had to make a decision regarding this stage...they may not have the same viewpoint that John does. I don't see anything in the rulebook that addresses "control" when it comes to 4.2.5 and Appendix B. I'll see if I can find a link to the past discussion...but today I've got a funeral to go to...so it may not be until later. Perhaps someone else can find the link and post it in the mean time.

If the upper A-zones were visible...thats all that would be necessary...and maybe they are....or maybe there is a way to manually re-open the trapdoor? Just a heads up for the course designers when they setup the stage. If the trap door was softcover (assuming some part of the target was visible)...problem solved. There are lots of ways to fix the COF...all that needs to be done..is to pick one.

Stages look like a lot of fun. Regarding Stage "Sirens Cove"...there was a discussion here a couple of years ago about a similar stage at an Area match...there was a popper that activated a window on a port....shoot the popper and the window dropped making it impossible to shoot the targets behind that window (they weren't visible from any other shooting location). Some tried to argue that the targets became "disappearing" targets...however the concept of disappear targets only applies to targets with movement...and they didn't move. The stage was deemed to be illegal per the rulebook. Seems you've got something similar happening with those targets under the trap door (unless those targets are visible from somewhere else). See Rule 4.2.5 and Appendix B. Best to be aware of it now...rather than later when someone tries to arb it.

And a wagon to pull it around.

Check out the latest episode of powerfactorshow tomorrow and all of your questions will be answered.

Regardless of how you'd like to interpret it....Chapter 11 discusses Arbitration & Interpretation of Rules. Parts 11.1 to 11.7 seem to talk about Aribration issues and proceedings...11.8 talks about Interpretation of rules. 11.7 -- Third Party Appeals seems to cover arbitration issues not "asking" RO's to check the scoring of a target....and then there's 9.6.4 which says that ANY challenge to a score or penalty must be appealed to the RO by THE competitor...not A competitor... or their delegate. Seems pretty clear that the shooter (or their delegate) are the only ones (per the rules) who can challenge a target...and the discussion in the rule book about Third Party Appeals apply to Arbitration issues only.

Spanky, this isn't about anyone hating, it's just a fact of the way things are right now. Things over time may or may not change.

Now part of the Gun Rights Radio Network http://gunrightsradio.com/2011/01/06/the-powerfactor-show-joins-grrn/

I've had two combinations that I typically build...both start with an STI tube and use the Dawson +1 base pad (I don't want to take chances with the SNL and find out I'm too long). Combo #1 uses an ISMI mag spring and a Dawson follower...thats good for 19 round in the mag. Combo #2 uses the Grams mag spring and follower...thats typically good for 20 rounds in the mag. Both are reloadable.

I'm not sayin' I'm right...I'm just sayin' thats what I read from Guy Neill...who I believe at one time worked for CCI. I seemed to recall he was saying that CCI's are no harder or easier to set off these days compared to their counterparts.

Duane...I've heard that mentioned about CCI primers well in the past...however about a year ago in Guy Neill's reloading column in Front Sight, he said that CCI primers a long time ago, had a primer compound that was more difficult to ignite and that the primer cups were the same hardness as other popular brands.....so following your other line of questioning...can you show the documentation that says CCI primers are harder than Winchester/Federal?

Thanks Ants...that was a fun stage. I don't think anyone in our squad (except TimB and myself who discussed a strategy before hand) shot it the same way. Looking back on it now, I would have shot it differently (more like Yong did).