Vince Pinto
-
Posts
3,771 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Vince Pinto
-
-
Hi folks,
I just wanted to be the first to wish our generous host Brian "The Guru" Enos, his Deputy Sheriff Kyle "The Enforcer" Farris, my fellow Moderators "The Magnificent Twenty Or So", and all Members of the BE Forums the very best of health and happiness for the coming holidays:
Happy Christmas
Maligayang Pasko
Buon Natale
Prettige Kerstdagen
Frohliche Weihnachten
Feliz Navidad
Boas Festas
Joyeux Noel
Glaedelig Jul
Boldog Karácsonyt
聖誕節同
เมอรี่คริสต์มาส และสวัสดีปีใหม่
It's been one hell of a year, and I expect things will only get bigger, brighter and better in the years to come at the BE Forums.
"Seek and ye shall find it here"
-
This thread has confused two different things:
1. Equipment sheets are used to check that competitors haven't moved the position of their holster and ammo pouches from stage to stage (see Rule 5.2.5.3), and the likely suspects are those in Open Division and Revolver Standard Division. For example, a competitor using a "crotch rocket" (or a revolver guy with speedloaders in front of his belly), would probably like to move those items rearwards (or remove them entirely), before attempting a stage where it will be necessary to shoot from prone. This is obviously less of an issue (a non-issue?) for competitors in Standard, Modified or Production Divisions, where all their equipment is already placed "behind the hip bone".
However note that Rule 5.2.5.3 deals with the holster and ammo pouches, not what's in them. In other words, there's nothing stopping you from going to the line with an empty ammo pouch, provided the pouch remains in the same position throughout the match.
2. Compliance checks are used to verify that a competitor's equipment is in compliance with his declared division, and the primary focus are competitors shooting Standard and Modified Divisions (e.g. does the gun fit the box? etc.), and those shooting in Production Division (e.g. multiple restrictions), but of course we can also check that Open Division magazines do not exceed 170mm in length.
Although this thread opened with the claim that at least one competitor at the EC2004 had his first ammo pouch too far forward, dealing with that issue will not be resolved by using (1) above, because it's unlikely to be a case of the offending pouch being moved or removed. It's probably a case of non-compliance with the declared division (or possibly inadvertent shifting during the match), and the best check is the RO, on the line, enforcing (2) above, before the competitor is given the LAMR command.
Remember that even if there's a general compliance check conducted of all competitors before they can commence shooting, that check is merely a "snapshot" of the competitor's equipment at that point in time. It still falls upon the RO actually running the stage to verify, say, that a competitor in Production Division is not using an extended magazine, or that a competitor in Standard Division does not have porting in his barrel.
This is why I don't have too much faith in general checks - the real test is when you come to the line, because that's when it really matters.
-
DB,
Frankly, I can't get too excited about them for Handgun matches. They certainly serve Shotgun well, because you can quickly and easily overlay another cheap piece of paper on the target instead of trying to patch a bunch of holes but, as far as I can determine, they're not that popular at Rifle matches.
What are your reasons for proposing them for Handgun?
-
So, Uncle Vinnie, who's the highest RD number? In what country?
Boy, I really have no idea, but I don't expect many Regions would've had more than, say, 5 RDs ever. I was RD2 for Hong Kong (1996-2002), and the current guy here is RD3.
As Mike Voigt "suggested" in his post, it's not exactly a position where there's a long line of applicants
-
"RO interpretation of the WSB" becomes even more of a problem when you have multiple RO's on a stage, such as happens all the time at local matches with squad ROs or work-one-day-shoot-one-day matches. In that case the limits must be those of the WSB only to ensure consistancy.
Agreed, and this is why it's mandatory at Level III and higher matches to have a dedicated CRO on each stage, for consistency.
-
I'm must confess to being a Nokia Road Warrior, and I have a whole bunch of ringtones I use, some of which are allocated to "Caller Groups" (e.g. I hear machine-gun fire when somebody in my IPSC group calls).
However I agree with Eric that there are way too many inconsiderate idiots out there who don't observe common courtesy cellular etiquette, and people taking calls in a cinema or while somebody is making a speech are at the apex of my doo-doo list.
-
The start position on these is "facing downrange, wrists above respective shoulders". Most shooters start out on T1 and sweep across. Many of them set up facing the first target for a quicker draw. But, many lefties set up on T4 and go the other way.
To me, "facing downrange" refers to the orientation of your body (hence my use of the shoulders as the reference), but you'd be free to stand along any part of the charge line (unless the WSB requires you to stand, say, in the middle of it with your toes touching a designated area).
This is why I continue to maintain that the RO has a right, for the benefit of maintaining equity for all competitors, to dictate and/or demonstrate the acceptable parameters of the Start Positon and the Gun Ready Position. Those who disagree with my view argue that the WSB must be observed literally, without RO qualification, but unless we start to write marathon, legal grade WSBs, we will have problems with literal interpretations.
Consider typical wording such as "toes touching the black mark on the charge line". As silly as it might sound at first view, if the WSB requires your toes to touch the black mark, then it could be argued that this literally means you must remove your shoes and socks, otherwise how can your toes touch the charge line? The front of your shoes is not your toes.
As I said, this is a silly example, but I use it to emphasise my point why ROs have the right to restrict the amount of wiggle-room permitted by the WSB.
-
Who was RD1???
Jake Jatras.
-
These are shooters giving feedback on something they noticed. Lets give them a listen.
I do listen, and I always appreciate constructive feedback on how we might have done things better, but this thread starts out solely as a damning criticism, and I know this because the opening (and sweeping) comment says "the equipment check at major matches is more a farse than serious business".
If it's not apparent after all these years, I just don't take kindly to people nit-picking the efforts of others who step up to the plate and put their hearts and souls into creating something of value, such as a huge and highly successful match like the EC2004. If there was a summary of the highlights of the match, with suggestions for improvements, that would be another thing entirely, but focusing solely on what one or two people thought is a shortcoming is nit-picking. And to suggest that 1 (or a handful) of 800 competitors managed to flaunt the rules despite 28 (29?) equipment checks because range officials didn't do their job properly, is incredibly harsh.
This reminds me of the "Why did the chicken cross the road" joke, where Colonel Sanders says "I missed one??".
In any case, and despite my support for them, there is no requirement to have an equipment sheet and/or a formal equipment checking regime at any level match and I, for one, am quite capable of checking competitor's compliance with the rules, and his declared division, without an equipment sheet. However I'm human so, if I happen to miss something and if you don't want to make a big fuss about it, you can bring the matter to my attention discreetly, and I will deal with the matter equally discreetly at the match, which is the only time I can deal with the matter - there's absolutely nothing I can do about it 3 months later.
Yoda makes a valid point about the (then) 2 week old rule interpretations, and I think the way the matter was handled at the EC2004 as a "temporary amnesty" was eminently reasonable. If a competitor was found not to be strictly in compliance with the new interpretations concerning (a relatively minor issue such as) grip tape, he was nicely asked to comply, and I have no doubt that competitors appreciated such an understanding attitude, instead of Range Officers taking a hard line.
However my bottom line remains unchanged. If you see something at a match which is not 100% kosher, speak to a range official at the match. They won't bite.
-
Anyways, it's not a rant in your direction Vince.
I understand, but Dalmas (and now you) have dismissed the equipment check at the subject Level IV competition as being ineffective, and that's a very serious charge, and I simply cannot take such charges lightly, especially when they appear in the public arena. I've therefore invited the Range Master and Assistant Range Master to consider the allegations, and to let me have their views on the matter.
However I also note that at least one of the people who officiated as a CRO at the subject match is a regular BE Forum contributor, and I hope he's willing to comment on your allegations.
Yoda, where are you?
-
Does that mean the shooter is required to begin directly facing the rear berm or can the shooter position himself facing the first target which would, for example, be at approximately the "2:30" position?
This brings us back to the topic of whether or not a Range Officer can demonstrate and/or dictate the acceptable parameters of the required start position where the written stage briefing is not 100% crystal clear and unambiguous - see this marathon thread for more information.
In any case, my answer remains the same, namely that the RO can indeed clarify exactly what's meant by "facing downrange", provided that he uses the same criteria and parameters for all competitors. If I were running the stage, "facing downrange" means "having the shoulders parallel to the rear berm".
(Note to self: Go to Defcon 2)
-
Omnia: A grip safety cannot be applied unless you're actually holding the gun, and this is already prevented by Rule 8.2.3.
Warpspeed: Surely it can't be the first time I've agreed with you? In any case, having a magazine inserted but the chamber empty does not present the same concerns.
John: When it comes to safety, I don't think we should be making exemptions for local matches. In fact, it would be far better for a competitor to get a match DQ at a local match, so that he can learn and avoid getting one at a more major match, where the competitive pressure (and the financial implications!) are greater.
-
H A P P Y B I R T H D A Y C U L L E N.
and may you have many more to come, you young whipper-snapper, you!
-
It's the duty of the competitor to comply with the rules and the duty of the RO's, guys at the equipment check and the RM to deal with the guys that do not comply.
Thanks for that useful information, but what exactly is the point of someone complaining here about an alleged incident at a match which concluded 3 months ago?
What pisses me off is that the picture was taken at the shoot-off. Little changes like that DO make a difference there. Plus that also makes it seem intentional. The intentional part pisses me off. Normally I would tell an unaware shooter that his equipment is not OK so he can change it before the RO sees it. But in this case, I might have gone to see the RO/RM etc.But apparently you didn't, and nor did any other of the 800 competitors, right? In any case, if 29 ROs did not find reason to ask the competitor to move his equipment during the match, then I must presume there wasn't a problem during the match, and that perhaps the magazine pouch was moved (inadvertently or otherwise) just prior to the Shoot Off.
If that was the case, anybody aggrieved still had a right to lodge an appeal at the Shoot-Off.
-
There can not be any "Gotcha" rules where the shooter is tricked into breaking a rule.
Agreed, and we've already discussed a solution - see the draft of a proposed Rule 8.2.6 in this thread.
-
I will always remember that lesson and will never again "tweak" my calls, how much I would like to "help" a nervous / new shooter. The thing is, when you really think about it, you're helping nobody with a call like that.
A profound statement, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I will bend over backwards and go the extra mile to help a competitor, particularly a newbie, but if a competitor breaks a safety rule, there is only one outcome possible, and that's a match DQ.
And I gain no pleasure from issuing a match DQ, but it's the best wake-up call I can give, which will ultimately assist the competitor and those around him.
-
In the past, I have jsut reminded them that they need to put their safety on.
Should we also just "remind" people not to break 90 degrees, or drop their gun, or fire a shot into the ground 12" from their feet during a COF? I don't think people won't return just because of a match DQ, however if they don't, perhaps it's because they don't have the right attitude or understand that safety is our primary goal?
I think we HAVE to be able to use our own judgment on issues like this. Some discretion is indicated and I would issue a warning for a first offense and maybe a match DQ for a second offense. Same thing applies to movement with a finger in the trigger guard when not engaging a target.Very interesting. Of the less than 5% rule variances which appear in the USPSA version of the IPSC rulebook, over 50% are a rejection of IPSC's preference to give a warning for the first occurence of a "lesser" offence. See Rule 8.3.1.1, Rule 8.7.5, Rule 9.1.1 and Rule 10.2.6 for examples.
-
Hi guys,
So many issues, so little beer - here goes:
1. Yes indeed, Rule 10.5.11 is clear, and it would be a match DQ, however we've been discussing the possibility of some improved wording to the rule in this thread.
2. As far as defining "which safety", IPSC issued an official rule interpretation on 6 August 2004, and this is quoted on Page 2 of the thread referenced above.
3. Yes, I agree that an RO is entitled to prevent a competitor from holstering a 1911 genre gun without the thumb safety applied, because it is indeed a safety issue but, if the gun is actually holstered, Rule 10.5.11 applies.
-
I suppose, if you had a long firing pin, with a standard spring, like some use in .40, you might have problems if you dropped it.
Patrick, old son, given your vastly superior knowledge of the mechanics of 1911 genre guns, and in view of your "might have problems" remark above, do you support the proposed rule changes as being a reasonable and necessary safety measure?
I need somebody who knows their ass from their elbow on the technical aspects to hold my hand and give me a cookie
-
The problem is that a goodly number of IPSC shooters seem to have shall we say eliminated the functionality of the grip safety.
Trivia time: This is why we changed the following rule (note that the actual rule number changed as part of the last reshuffle).:
(Old) 5.2.5 Handguns shall be serviceable and safe. Officiating Range Officers shall have the right to demand examination of a competitor’s handgun or related equipment at any time. Examinations may include the primary safety which in all instances must be completely functional in accordance with the original manufacturer’s design. The half cock notch, disconnector, and hammer block may also be inspected to ensure that they are functioning as originally designed. If a handgun is declared unserviceable or unsafe, it shall be withdrawn from the competition. The Range Master shall have the final authority in decisions relating to this action.
(New) 5.1.6 Handguns must be serviceable and safe. Range Officers may demand examination of a competitor’s handgun or related equipment, at any time, to check they are functioning safely. If any such item is declared unserviceable or unsafe by a Range Officer, it must be withdrawn from the match until the item is repaired to the satisfaction of the Range Master.
However the key issue is that we removed the expression in bold purple text above because that language effectively prohibited pinning grip safeties which, as Jim noted, is a very popular modification.
-
If you're going to rewrite the rules, you need to distinguish between the thumb safety, which is generally assumed to be the "Safety that counts" in a 1911, and any other safety.
Been there, done that. See the official IPSC Rule Interpretations which were published on the IPSC website on 6 August 2004 (and announced by me here and on the USPSA Member's Forum the same day), to wit:
8.1.2.3 “Selective action” – chamber loaded with hammer fully down, or chamber loaded and hammer cocked with external safety engaged (see Divisions in Appendix D). For both this Rule and Rule 8.1.2.1, the term “safety” means the primary visible safety lever on the handgun (e.g. the thumb safety on a "1911" genre handgun). In the event of doubt, the Range Master is the final authority on this matter.
Hope this helps.
-
Is there a new rule that won't allow the RO to tell a shooter he is in the wrong position to start, I was unaware of this rule and thought that the RO had to ensure that the shooter WAS in the correct position, Could someone clarify this for me.
Bill, let's keep this thread on track. See this other marathon thread about Start Positions.
-
Normally, a match geared towards the local law enforcements have empty starts and some of those empty starts are holstered 1911 guns with the mag inserted. I feel the need to tell somebody in PPSA about this thread...
Yes, I've been to quite a few PPSA matches myself, where the Gun Ready Condition is described as "Condition 2" ((hammer down, chamber loaded, magazine inserted) but they actually mean "Condition 3" (hammer down, chamber empty, magazine inserted).
In fact, I conducted a "Train The Trainers" seminar at the PPSA offices earlier this year, which was attended by all senior PPSA NROI personnel, and I once again emphasised the importance of clearly specifying the Gun Ready Condition (e.g. chamber empty, magazine inserted) instead of using one of Cooper's "conditions", which not only confuses many people, they only apply to "1911 genre" guns.
Of course old habits die hard, so I know the dreaded "conditions" are still used in some parts of the country, but there's definitely been progress!!
-
By the same arguement that the striker moves back, well the HK P7 should be let back in too. Besides the fact that you have to cock it before you can fire, you can see the striker move back before it is released.
The P7 was the other gun which was originally approved but subsequently withdrawn from the approved gun list, after IPSC arrived at our own definition of single action and double action.
Again, it really wouldn't bother me having the P7 approved but it would require us to modify our criteria. I'm not averse to doing so, but rewriting the criteria is easier said than done. In any case, I can't imagine there are many people who would want to shoot the P7 in IPSC competition. It's a fantastic gun for self defense, but it just doesn't cut it competitively (I know, because I used to own and shoot one).
The P7 is also unique in more ways than just being a squeeze-cocker. For starters, it wouldn't pass the minimum 5lb trigger pull, and we're certainly not going to drop the trigger pull test just because one relatively obscure gun can't satisfy our testing procedure.
The bottom line is that no matter how we cut it, some guns won't make the grade. Although the USPSA version of Production allows guns like the G34 to qualify, other Glocks such as the G17L and G24 are too long, hence it's just a matter of where you draw the line in the sand, and IPSC drew it a 5".
Facing Downrange
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
Apples and oranges - you cannot compare what a competitor does after the Start Signal, to the Start Position and/or Gun Ready Condition, which is the only time I maintain that the RO has the right to ensure consistency.
So if you read out "Fingers intertwined on top of your head", and Hugh Jarse from IPSC Tabasco asks you "What does that mean, Range Officer?", what do you do? Tell him it's up to him to understand what that means and accept whatever Start Position he adopts, or do you demonstrate what is acceptable to you?
If the latter, which rule gives you the authority to dictate your version of "Fingers intertwined on top of your head".